Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Argyle King]

Yeah, the "what about golems!" argument falls flat for me for a few main reasons:
1. It's a "whataboutism" fallacy meant to make people scared of an imaginary slippery slope.
2. Golems aren't evil in D&D/Pathfinder, they're mindless constructs that serve their master.
3. They're fairly close to the source material (at least the Clay Golem is).
4. Golems aren't a major part of the modern Jewish religion. Tefillin are. At least, in the sense that people today do wear tefillin, but golems aren't a thing that people make. It's the same reason why I'm fine with including Satyrs, Centaurs, Minotaurs, Angels, and Demons in D&D and Pathfinder, but not so comfortable with Lich Phylacteries, gods that are still being worshipped today, and other parts of real world cultures/religions.

I'm of the impression that "angels" are part of a real-world religion being practiced today.

I think it's fair to say that it's part of the same faith which features "phylacteries."

Either way doesn't particularly bother me. Pathfinder 2 is barely on my radar as a game.

Was there outcry from members of the Jewish community concerning the term?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm of the impression that "angels" are part of a real-world religion being practiced today.

I think it's fair to say that it's part of the same faith which features "phylacteries."

I mean, are angels being used in an explicitly evil context in the same way "phylacteries" are being used?

Either way doesn't particularly bother me. Pathfinder 2 is barely on my radar as a game.

Was there outcry from members of the Jewish community concerning the term?

I mean, you can read their own statement on the matter.

 

[Argyle King]

I mean, are angels being used in an explicitly evil context in the same way "phylacteries" are being used?



I mean, you can read their own statement on the matter.

To the first part: that depends on how you look at it. "Evil?" Not usually, but possibly if you're playing D&D 4th Edition. My personal view would be "no." However, I also lived through a period of time during which D&D was viewed as sacrilegious and profane due to including certain elements. So, while I personally think it's odd, I could see someone finding the use of angels (as portrayed in D&D or Pathfindet) as offensive to their faith.

To the second part: I could, but I likely won't.

 

[Hex08]

Either way doesn't particularly bother me. Pathfinder 2 is barely on my radar as a game.

Was there outcry from members of the Jewish community concerning the term?

I'm with you on this one. I find I don't care since I only play 1st edition and will likely never play Pathfinder 2

 

[Justice and Rule]

To the first part: that depends on how you look at it. "Evil?" Not usually, but possibly if you're playing D&D 4th Edition. My personal view would be "no." However, I also lived through a period of time during which D&D was viewed as sacrilegious and profane due to including certain elements. So, while I personally think it's odd, I could see someone finding the use of angels (as portrayed in D&D or Pathfindet) as offensive to their faith.

I don't really see the similarities between being self-conscious of the sources you draw upon and a moral panic where people think your game is causing people to turn to Satan.

But again, we get another slippery slope argument and no affirmative argument for the word.

To the second part: I could, but I likely won't.

Hey, then it's on you and not them.

 

[Hussar]

To the first part: that depends on how you look at it. "Evil?" Not usually, but possibly if you're playing D&D 4th Edition. My personal view would be "no." However, I also lived through a period of time during which D&D was viewed as sacrilegious and profane due to including certain elements. So, while I personally think it's odd, I could see someone finding the use of angels (as portrayed in D&D or Pathfindet) as offensive to their faith.

To the second part: I could, but I likely won't.

But angels aren't actually specific to any one faith. There are angels in many faiths, other than Christian. It's not like the notion of angel is all that specific. And, again, with a couple of notable exceptions, angels are depicted as they generally appear in most religions - emissaries of gods and mostly emissaries of gods of good, fighting the good fight against the forces of evil.

Again, it's not ONLY using elements from someone's culture that is a problem. It's using that element, and then spinning it around 180 degrees.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Their statement is certainly causing more harm than good. They had a problem with phylacteries and decided to drop the word. Their goal would have been achieved if they just wrote "soul cage" in their upcoming Book of the Dead, without tweeting about it. The controversy stemmed not from the change (that will happen in a few months) but from the tweet. I don't see the point of communicating, since it's akin of tweeting "we've decided to wash our hands before taking popcorn from a communal bowl", certainly a good idea but not something you claim proudly to do... And since the goal wasn't to react to outside pressure or create outside pressure, but just an editorial and creative decision from them, so not something that important that couldn't wait for the book release, I don't see the point of the putting their decision in the spotlight, sparking the controversy we see here.

I mean, are angels being used in an explicitly evil context in the same way "phylacteries" are being used?

Angels serving polytheistic, non-true gods is quite a subversion. The bible mentions other gods being worshipped (though, for obvious reasons, it's not central) but they don't have angels. While angels exist in several religions, all of them refer to the same god ; it's not like angel is a generic term for messengers of any god, as we usually don't call Iris the angel of Zeus, for example. Whether it is more or less a subversion is left as an exercise for the reader and depends certainly heavily on the individual appreciation.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Their statement is certainly causing more harm than good.

Wait- who is being harmed by this statement???

 

[Argyle King]

But angels aren't actually specific to any one faith. There are angels in many faiths, other than Christian. It's not like the notion of angel is all that specific. And, again, with a couple of notable exceptions, angels are depicted as they generally appear in most religions - emissaries of gods and mostly emissaries of gods of good, fighting the good fight against the forces of evil.

Again, it's not ONLY using elements from someone's culture that is a problem. It's using that element, and then spinning it around 180 degrees.

The concept of trapping a soul isn't unique to one faith either. The words used to describe the concept are just different -just like the words used to describe the concept of an angel change in other faiths.

I'm not opposed to the change. I can understand how it could cause offense.

But I'm not someone who was opposed to the use of the word as a shorthand way to describe a concept using real-world references either.

 

[Morrus]

Their statement is certainly causing more harm than good.

Harm to… you? Who? That’s a genuinely odd statement. I’m curious who you feel is being harmed?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Wait- who is being harmed by this statement???

Their goal (which was to just change a word in their products). Sparking a debate about it doesn't help, and made a few people react here as if the statement was pressuring them into changing their own behaviour to match the new terminology (which is obviously not Paizo's intent). In my opinion, silently dropping phylactery would have achieved the same thing without pushing a few people or even anyone toward defending phylactery.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Their goal (which was to just change a word in their products). Sparking a debate about it doesn't help, and made a few people react here as if the statement was pressuring them into changing their own behaviour to match the new terminology (which is obviously not Paizo's intent). In my opinion, silently dropping phylactery would have achieved the same thing without pushing people toward defending phylactery.

Interesting! I think debates like this are important from an educational and empathetic standpoint. Being exposed to different viewpoints can be uncomfortable, but I guess I don't see it as harm-inducing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm of the impression that "angels" are part of a real-world religion being practiced today.

That's not the point. The point is that D&D angels aren't being used in a way that is offensive to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Merely including some aspect of some other person's culture/religion isn't enough for it to be offensive, that's where the Satanic Panic was wrong, including the aspect in a manner that is problematic is the offensive part. The execution is what matters, not the mere inclusion.

Was there outcry from members of the Jewish community concerning the term?

I have seen posts by Jews saying that they dislike the usage of the term phylactery for D&D-style liches.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Their statement is certainly causing more harm than good. They had a problem with phylacteries and decided to drop the word. Their goal would have been achieved if they just wrote "soul cage" in their upcoming Book of the Dead, without tweeting about it. The controversy stemmed not from the change (that will happen in a few months) but from the tweet. I don't see the point of communicating, since it's akin of tweeting "we've decided to wash our hands before taking popcorn from a communal bowl", certainly a good idea but not something you claim proudly to do... And since the goal wasn't to react to outside pressure or create outside pressure, but just an editorial and creative decision from them, so not something that important that couldn't wait for the book release, I don't see the point of the putting their decision in the spotlight, sparking the controversy we see here.

It'd cause it regardless because D&D is inherently pretty conservative when it comes to change. Not (necessarily) politically, but it has a very vocal group of long-time hobbyists who will oppose changes because, well, it's not how it was.

Angels serving polytheistic, non-true gods is quite a subversion. The bible mentions other gods being worshipped (though, for obvious reasons, it's not central) but they don't have angels.

Eh, kind of but not quite? I wish I could find a shrug gif that wasn't dismissive but was kind of weighing both sides of things to properly describe my opinion of this.

The concept of trapping a soul isn't unique to one faith either. The words used to describe the concept are just different -just like the words used to describe the concept of an angel change in other faiths.

I'm not opposed to the change. I can understand how it could cause offense.

But I'm not someone who was opposed to the use of the word as a shorthand way to describe a concept using real-world references either.

Sure, but it's not really being used to represent its real-world concept here. It's just sort of attached to something that is kind of similar but not really.

 

[BookTenTiger]

A different way to look at this might be:

Let's imagine liches didn't already exist as an RPG concept, and Paizo was creating one for their game. They come up with an artifact that a lich keeps their soul in. They start brainstorming names. Do you think they would really use Phylactery, a word currently used by a practicing religion and culture? And if they did, would you think that a respectful choice?

 

[Argyle King]

Sure, but it's not really being used to represent its real-world concept here. It's just sort of attached to something that is kind of similar but not really.

That's why it is, I think, an effective shorthand way to describe a concept.

It's similar to this real-world thing, but...

If it's bothersome to a group, I understand changing it.

In general, I find that I'm living in an odd time in terms (no pun intended) of the culture around me sometimes saying that changing meanings of words to fit new concepts is okay and sometimes saying that changing meanings of words to fit new concepts isn't okay.

In neither case do I feel personally bothered. As a member of a broader community, there are occasionally times when I feel a bit lost when it comes to understanding what the logic is behind determining which instances of offense matter and which instances don't matter. The rules rarely seems consistent.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Interesting! I think debates like this are important from an educational and empathetic standpoint. Being exposed to different viewpoints can be uncomfortable, but I guess I don't see it as harm-inducing.

It's possible that someone would have noticed the use of soul cage in the printed product, but would they have started to post about it negatively? A post like that would be met with "err, soul cage is an apt description, what's the problem? They are not mandated to use a specific word..." I think it's less likely that someone would make the effort to spot a change and criticize it than just being told "there is a change", prompting conservative reflexes, and reacting to it. I see your point about debating it but in this case it might also cristallize some opposition.

A different way to look at this might be:

Let's imagine liches didn't already exist as an RPG concept, and Paizo was creating one for their game. They come up with an artifact that a lich keeps their soul in. They start brainstorming names. Do you think they would really use Phylactery, a word currently used by a practicing religion and culture? And if they did, would you think that a respectful choice?

Rowling used horcrux in this exact situation and it sparked no controversy and if an author used it in a gaming product, it would be readily accepted (besides copyright infringement) by an average fantasy amateur. Paizo could do the same with their own word and probably nobody would bat an eye, either. Saying "we're changing X" prompt resistance, silently changing, much less. It's not like people are using phylactery all the time.

@Morrus said in the first page that they used soul vessel in LU. So basically they did the same creative decision that Paizo did, and I guess there will be less criticism on the move in LU than in this thread. In fact, I expect the use of soul vessel to be remarked upon by... nobody. If on the other hand you put the change into spotlight, some people will resist a change, even if they don't particularly liked phylactery before.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's why it is, I think, an effective shorthand way to describe a concept.

It's similar to this real-world thing, but...

Yeah, but it's not. Like, that's the thing; it's not really resembling the object at hand any more than calling it a "tabernacle". The similarities start and end at "being an important container", and given the word used it's not a reference that will be immediately picked up on by many. To me, it screams exoticism than anything else. It's like the habit of calling any temple in a desert a "mosque".

 

[Argyle King]

Yeah, but it's not. Like, that's the thing; it's not really resembling the object at hand any more than calling it a "tabernacle". The similarities start and end at "being an important container", and given the word used it's not a reference that will be immediately picked up on by many. To me, it screams exoticism than anything else. It's like the habit of calling any temple in a desert a "mosque".

to me, tabernacle implies something very different than phylactery.

If someone were to use the word "mosque," I would likely assume a very different visual (and architectural construction) than "temple," "cathedral," or "pagoda."

 

[Justice and Rule]

to me, tabernacle implies something very different than phylactery.

I mean, agree to disagree there.

If someone were to use the word "mosque," I would likely assume a very different visual (and architectural construction) than "temple," "cathedral," or "pagoda."

I might reference it in the construction, but I wouldn't use "mosque" as a word to describe something because that's a term that refers to a place of worship for a specific religion, which suddenly means that I'm drawing reference to a real religion. I think it's the City of Brass setting that has the "Cult of the Burning One" which is an evil, slave-taking cult that happens to call their places of worship mosques which is... uh...