Justice and Rule
Hero
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?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?
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.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.
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.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.
Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.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.
Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.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.
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.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.
Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.
Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.
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.
My point was that both were non-reasons for removal.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.
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.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.
My point was that both were non-reasons for removal.
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.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.
I have never heard it called a phylactery when I have been at temple. Not once.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.
It hasn't been used to mean Tefillin since 2e. It has been 21 years since then. Consistency is not an issue.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.
I have never heard it called a phylactery when I have been at temple. Not once.
It hasn't been used to mean Tefillin since 2e. It has been 21 years since then. Consistency is not an issue.
I never said anything about that.Again, you don't hear people use the term "synagogue"?
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."I mean, the 3.5E SRD would disagree.
I never said anything about that.
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."
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.
No it wasn't. It was a fabrication on your part if you are attributing it to me or anything I said.You didn't need to. It was a logical extension of your argument.
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.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.
I'll show you then.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.
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.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.
I'm actually curious here.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.