Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Dannyalcatraz]

its a slippery slope . If something offends one person then eventually other things will be removed from the game to appease or not to offend

Mod Note:

Offending ”one person” isn’t the standard by which such things are judged. Please avoId asserting or arguing such fallacies.

 

[Greg K]

So?

So? So is that they did not call it Tefellin which would be offensive. They used a Greek word for amulet and Jews are not the only culture to have amulets with religous texts or protective prayers inside. It was actually a fairly common practice in Western and Central Asia.

 

[Hussar]

So? So is that they did not call it Tefellin which would be offensive. They used a Greek word for amulet and Jews are not the only culture to have amulets with religous texts or protective prayers inside. It was actually a fairly common practice in Western and Central Asia.

Again, missing the point. While the issue obviously relates to antisemitism, of course, the larger issue is borrowing real world religious practices, and then tying them to undead, evil, and horrible things.

That they didn't tie it using the proper noun, while still obviously tying it directly to it, is the issue.

See, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument if the phylactery didn't look exactly like a Tefellin. If it was just an amulet, well fine. There's all sorts of amulets used in all sorts of practices. This is why Horcrux isn't an issue. A Horcrux could be anything, specifically could be anything. A book, or any other every day object.

 

[darjr]

For me it’s simple really. Some part of Paizo wasn’t comfortable using the term in such a way. That part won the day and convinced the company as a whole to excise its use. I applaud that.

 

[d24454_modern]

Wonder if they could've just made some fantasy jargon from random letters, explaining "this is how the liches themselves say it in their Necril language." That would be more evocative than putting together two common words that don't sound mysterious when used together. In fact, "Soul Cages" is the name of a Sting solo album.
This just feels like bland, generic stuff. Which I guess is what happens when design is made by committee.
My liches will create their own name.

Rather than them making up their own word, I’d rather it just be called a “soul jar” or something along those lines.

 

[Greg K]

Again, missing the point. While the issue obviously relates to antisemitism, of course, the larger issue is borrowing real world religious practices, and then tying them to undead, evil, and horrible things.

That they didn't tie it using the proper noun, while still obviously tying it directly to it, is the issue.

See, I'd be more sympathetic to the argument if the phylactery didn't look exactly like a Tefellin. If it was just an amulet, well fine. There's all sorts of amulets used in all sorts of practices. This is why Horcrux isn't an issue. A Horcrux could be anything, specifically could be anything. A book, or any other every day object.

My issue is more with getting rid of the term phylactery. I don't see the necessity. The term phylactery applies to more than Tefellin. Paizo could just as easily kept the term and alter the description. Make it a metal amulet, a folded piece of paper housing a folded inscription of protection, a wearable box worn around the neck, or whatever. It is not like these are not forms of protective amulets found in various cultures and, therefore, falling under the Greek term phylactery.

 

[Cadence]

My issue is more with getting rid of the term phylactery. I don't see the necessity. The term phylactery applies to more than Tefellin. Paizo could just as easily kept the term and alter the description. Make it a metal amulet, a folded piece of paper housing a folded inscription of protection, a wearable box worn around the neck, or whatever. It is not like these are not forms of protective amulets found in various cultures and, therefore, falling under the Greek term phylactery.

It feels like a lot of words that are problematic because of a top definition have other ones that aren't if you go down the definition list far enough.

In English the OED has phylactery being a teffelin as the first definition, and has it occurring by 60 years before the more generic definition.

Wasn't the Greek term phulaktérion and not with the ry? (Both a guarded outpost and an amulet?)

 

[John R Davis]

Phylactery: late Middle English: via late Latin from Greek phulaktērion ‘amulet’, from phulassein ‘to guard

So so far from the original material.
It is hilarious given that the Pathfinder Society is built upon the plunder of the objects of other cultures and hide them away in their own vaults/displays, after they have slaughtered anything that stands in their way

 

[glass]

The whole sensitivity to language and the offence it can cause sits very strangely with games where the central conceit is killing others.

It is not about offence, it is about harm.

_
glass.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because that's the easiest aspect of the game to quantify using a set of rules derived from wargaming roots?

I sincerely doubt that most people play the game -- or have ever played the game-- for the specific purpose of "killing others." If that were the case, there'd be no interest in, for example, mechanics to flesh out "Exploration Pillar," or questions about handling romance in the game, and so forth.

People play D&D for the same reason they play other RPGs: to engage in some higher-order story involving characters in an imaginary world, of which "killing others" could be major component, but probably is not "the central conceit."

Combat is, by far, the "central conceit". The hint is the page count devoted to combat.

Had the game been chiefly about exploration, that would have taken up the big part of the book. Same with handling romance.

Just because you can handle romance with D&D does not mean the game is geared toward it. (All I can say is that D&D is not actively suppressing romance, but that's hardly great rules support, is it?)

D&D is about combat. If your games don't revolve to a significant degree around combat, cool. You're just not using the full potential of the product you just purchased, and you might want to look into other games if that's a concern. (For many of you, it is not. Which, cool. Just don't say the game isn't about combat just because you chose to skip maybe 2/3rds of the page count...)

I sometimes hear this sentiment: "D&D is not just about combat". And for the person saying it, it might well be true. But just because that is true in your game does not mean it is objectively true for the published product. I would say few games are MORE intensely focused on using combat to resolve challenges, so this sentiment has never made much sense to me. (Of course it is true in a literal sense. I mean, even a game 99% about something, is technically not just about that something, since it is also 1% about something else)

Maybe the person speaking is genuinely unaware of other games, but there are many ttrpgs that are indifferent to, or actively uninterested in, combat (the physical/magical kind), or perhaps offers a general conflict resolution mechanism where combat is only given equal treatment to, I dunno, intrigue, subterfuge, seduction or something. However, they are nowhere near as popular as D&D, and many people use D&D for those purposes.

Even though D&D is about combat.

I remember when 5th Edition came out and WotC tried to sell the spiel that there were three equal pillars. My comment: just because you say it does not make it true The game still devoted the main chunk towards combat, and the three-equal-pillars talk? I consider it just marketing.