Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

 

[CleverNickName]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

I don't disagree, @Justice and Rule , but...could we maybe not bait the trolls?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't disagree, @Justice and Rule , but...could we maybe not bait the trolls?

It's not really meant as bait, but at this juncture I'll just say my point has been made and leave it at that.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

I mean, it's not. In fact, it's really the reverse; tradition is inevitably a bad reason to not change things because it only refers to habit.

But more than that, Paizo didn't talk about "offending people": they felt the word didn't actually reflect or properly reference the item, thus they went with a name that conceptually matched what was being talked about. The whole "offending people" thing is a strawman.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

No, it really, really isn't. Like, this argument is so ridiculous that there's nothing I can compare it too. Trying to avoid offense or remove appropriated words from a hobby is not at all on the same level as keeping around a sacred cow just because it's a sacred cow.

Useless sacred cows have next to no chance of improving the world, while removing problematic terms does.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, it's not. In fact, it's really the reverse; tradition is inevitably a bad reason to not change things because it only refers to habit.

Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.

But more than that, Paizo didn't talk about "offending people": they felt the word didn't actually reflect or properly reference the item, thus they went with a name that conceptually matched what was being talked about. The whole "offending people" thing is a strawman.

Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it really, really isn't. Like, this argument is so ridiculous that there's nothing I can compare it too. Trying to avoid offense or remove appropriated words from a hobby is not at all on the same level as keeping around a sacred cow just because it's a sacred cow.

Useless sacred cows have next to no chance of improving the world, while removing problematic terms does.

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, the word is neither appropriated, nor offensive to the people who it hasn't been appropriated from.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I'll point out that there are Jewish people who do feel the change in term was appropriate.

However, there are other Jewish people who don't mind the term or don't feel it needed to be change.

I'm not Jewish / I am Gentile so I can't comment on it's appropriateness or not. But it is clear that it's not a simple situation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.

...

No, when you use tradition as a reason, it no longer just "is". It becomes... a reason. Because you're using it as a reason.

Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.

Their reasoning is sound, so I don't see the reason to doubt them. I don't see the point in being paranoid about this.

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, the word is neither appropriated, nor offensive to the people who it hasn't been appropriated from.

I mean, it's totally appropriated. That's not even arguable, given that it's regular usage doesn't involve undead superwizards. I'm not sure how to take this other than an extremely bad-faith argument.

 

[Maxperson]

No, when you use tradition as a reason, it no longer just "is". It becomes... a reason. Because you're using it as a reason.

My point was that both were non-reasons for removal.

I mean, it's totally appropriated. That's not even arguable, given that it's regular usage doesn't involve undead superwizards. I'm not sure how to take this other than an extremely bad-faith argument.

Appropriated from who? Not my people who 1) don't use the word, and 2) even those who attribute the word to us don't use the definition that D&D and Paizo have been using.

 

[Justice and Rule]

My point was that both were non-reasons for removal.

I mean, I'd say that you didn't actually make that point, but rather a complete non-sequitur.

Appropriated from who? Not my people who 1) don't use the word,

Are you going to tell me that Jews don't use their English equivalents of Hebrew words? That they don't use words like "synagogue"? Because I know for a fact that isn't true.

and 2) even those who attribute the word to us don't use the definition that D&D and Paizo have been using.

Uh, that depends on the version of D&D, since different versions have adhered more closely to the Tefillin imagery than others. But that's just a better reason to remove it: there's no actual consistency in how much of an appropriation or reference it wants to be. At that point, the name itself has lost meaning. You're better off changing it.

 

[Cadence]

Appropriated from who? Not my people who 1) don't use the word, and 2) even those who attribute the word to us don't use the definition that D&D and Paizo have been using.

The primary definition of the word since it was introduced into English 500 or so years ago seems to have been tefillin according to the OED and various other dictionaries. It doesn't seem unreasonable that folks looking it up on first seeing it in the DMG would find that as the definition of the word.

But sure, whether that matters to anyone is a different question.

Anyway, 45 or whatever of use as a game term for single monster, a monster probably a big portion of all players have never fought is a lot of tradition to buck.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you going to tell me that Jews don't use their English equivalents of Hebrew words? That they don't use words like "synagogue"? Because I know for a fact that isn't true.

I have never heard it called a phylactery when I have been at temple. Not once.

Uh, that depends on the version of D&D, since different versions have adhered more closely to the Tefillin imagery than others. But that's just a better reason to remove it: there's no actual consistency in how much of an appropriation or reference it wants to be. At that point, the name itself has lost meaning. You're better off changing it.

It hasn't been used to mean Tefillin since 2e. It has been 21 years since then. Consistency is not an issue.

 

[CleverNickName]

Seriously?
"I don't see the problem; therefore, there is no problem."
That's the angle?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I have never heard it called a phylactery when I have been at temple. Not once.

If that's your only argument, then allow me to inform you that the world exists beyond you and that people do indeed use that term to refer to Tefillin. Again, you don't hear people use the term "synagogue"?

It hasn't been used to mean Tefillin since 2e. It has been 21 years since then. Consistency is not an issue.

I mean, the 3.5E SRD would disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, you don't hear people use the term "synagogue"?

I never said anything about that.

I mean, the 3.5E SRD would disagree.

No it doesn't disagree. It agrees completely with me and thanks for linking it. So a Tefillin is two leather boxes connected to a leather strap, not one iron box without a strap as the Lich description says. It's also only one form of the phylactery. So while the Tefillin was likely the inspiration behind that one form of phylactery, it is NOT a Tefillin. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you completely ignored the last portion, which isn't too surprising as it destroys your argument. That last portion says, "Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items."

That means quite literally that a lich's phylactery is any object it wants. A ring, my son's right sock with a hole in it, a rock or whatever else. So by 3.5 SRD RAW, literally any object can be used as a protective device, which is the other definition of phylactery. A protective amulet.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I never said anything about that.

You didn't need to. It was a logical extension of your argument.

No it doesn't disagree. It agrees completely with me and thanks for linking it. So a Tefillin is two leather boxes connected to a leather strap, not one iron box without a strap as the Lich description says. It's also only one form of the phylactery. So while the Tefillin was likely the inspiration behind that one form, the form shown in the MM is NOT a Tefillin. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you completely ignored the last portion, which isn't too surprising as it destroys your argument. That last portion says, "Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items."

I believe a tefillin gassot uses metal for the box sides, even if it is wrapped in leather, or at least it's common enough that they make them that way.

And while you can try and run from it, it's absolutely still referential to what a tefillin is with the pages. Small differences don't change the reference being made.

Edit: I'm going to call you out further, because I have looked it up and I can't find any sort of reference that makes a 2E phylactery resemble a tefillin. In fact, most articles I see in reference to this subject point to 3E as the edition where it starts to resemble a proper tefillin. So I'm going to ask you where you get your reference from because I think you're just making it up.

That means quite literally that a lich's phylactery is any object it wants. A ring, my son's right sock with a hole in it, a rock. So by 3.5 SRD RAW, literally any can be used as a protective device, which is the other definition of phylactery. A protective amulet.

lmao, this is an argument against using the term, not for it: that it can be anything doesn't negate original reference. In fact, it makes the name less useful and a worse application. Trying to spin the third definition is worthless given that we can outright see what is being referenced in their primary example.

Again, none of these arguments are affirmative towards keeping it. There's no reason this thing has to be called "phylactery", and you're just proving my point when you attack the reasoning behind the change rather than giving me a reason that it needs to be called a phylactery.

 

[Maxperson]

You didn't need to. It was a logical extension of your argument.

No it wasn't. It was a fabrication on your part if you are attributing it to me or anything I said.

And while you can try and run from it, it's absolutely still referential to what a tefillin is with the pages. Small differences don't change the reference being made.

One box(instead of two) of the wrong material and no leather wrap are major differences. There are important reasons for those things to be present. Trying to minimize something like this in order to be right on the internet is not a good look for you.

Edit: I'm going to call you out further, because I have looked it up and I can't find any sort of reference that makes a 2E phylactery resemble a tefillin. In fact, most articles I see in reference to this subject point to 3E as the edition where it starts to resemble a proper tefillin. So I'm going to ask you where you get your reference from because I think you're just making it up.

I'll show you then.

1e DMG: "Phylactery- An arm wrapping with a container holding religious writings, thus a form of amulet or charm." It's an arm wrapping with a container that holds religious writings, rather than arcane writing like 3e has. Gygax only has 1 box, not two, but that's likely an oversight on his part, because he wasn't Jewish.

2e DMG: The 2e DMG doesn't have the glossary with the phylactery like the 1e DMG above, but all the magical phylacteries are word for word the same as the 1e DMG and the phylactery of monstrous attention says, "While this arm wrapping appears to be a beneficial device, it actually draws the attention of supernatural creatures of exactly the opposite alignment of the priest wearing it."

2e didn't change what a phylactery was. 3e was where the change happened.

Again, none of these arguments are affirmative towards keeping it. There's no reason this thing has to be called "phylactery", and you're just proving my point when you attack the reasoning behind the change rather than giving me a reason that it needs to be called a phylactery.

There is no need if to be called a phylactery, and there is no need for it to change. No good reason has been given for such a change.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that is aggravating. Ultimately, it is Paizo's decision. However, they could have also as easily used examples to be clear that they were using the less frequent, but still legitimate uses of the word.

I'm actually curious here.

How? How do you use a word so that only the definition that you want to apply will be applied by everyone who reads what you write? So, in this case, how do you get people to only use the definition of the word that you want them to use and ignore every other connotative and denotative meaning of that word?