Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Honestly, I'd be up for discussing golems and their usage. I just don't see the problem with having these sorts of conversations. It doesn't mean we're suddenly going to eliminate golems, but it's worth it to actually confront these issues head-on rather than getting into arguments about how it's always been.

 

[Morrus]

Right. Actually not all of them are evil at all (in dungeons and dragons anyway). Some are blessings and quite helpful.

you can invert holy water and holy symbols but not this device. You can even have evil clerics perform miracles that are part of other religions. But this is super harmful?

this one item is not what gets me. It’s the whole how many degrees of Kevin bacon we play with increasing amounts of stuff in game.

whatever. I guess they think they are really helping the folks offended by phylacteries. Good intentions count for something.

If a roleplaying game used the American flag as an evil magical artifact, how would you feel?

 

[BookTenTiger]

whatever. I guess they think they are really helping the folks offended by phylacteries. Good intentions count for something.

Hey, you don't actually have to guess. They have a pull-quote in the article:

In the table of contents to Doorway to the Red Star, Paizo explains their reasoning: "Starting with the lich Dwandek in this adventure, we're making a long‑overdue terminology change. The use of the word "phylactery" as the item in which a lich stores their soul is both inaccurate and inappropriate given the evil nature of liches and the word's connotation with real‑world religious practices. Instead, liches in Pathfinder Second Edition store their souls in objects called soul cages—an act that liches see as an ultimate act of defiance against the cycle of life and death. Liches consider their souls not as things to cherish, but as weaknesses that, once locked away in a cage, allow for eternal undeath. Apart from this change in name, the mechanics for how liches function remain unaltered."

Notice how they don't mention anyone being offended as a reason for not using the term phylactery!

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If a roleplaying game used the American flag as an evil magical artifact, how would you feel?

Isn't the whole Evil in the East from Dogs in the Vineyard a straight reference to the nascent United States? Much more niche than Pathfinder, though. That's the closest thing I can think of for a RPG using the US as en embodiment of evil. Maybe there are exemple in parodic games?

 

[Justice and Rule]

So I did look up (reddit) discussions on golems and I do find it hilarious that a lot of the comments are "Well if you want something that might be questionable, look at phylactery first".

 

[Hussar]

I'd say that some understand, but don't follow your point. They agree with the idea that some degree of cultural appropriation is OK, with varying criteria of acceptability. Some that have been explained here are :

a) you do it respectfully (no ascribing of bad qualities to something that is sacred in a culture and vice versa)
b) you can somehow claim this culture as your own (broadly, US writers claim Medieval European folklore)
c) the culture is extinct (which is also problematic when some current culture considers to be heirs of the extinct culture...)
d) the culture is not prejudiced against or is doing well enough.

There are also those who have no problem with cultural appropriation, claiming that cultures are humanity's shared heritage, and those that would say that absolutely no reference are tolerable. It's a spectrum of opinions, none of which is intrinsicly true or false. "I feel that using this word is wrong" is much like "I feel that pinapple pizza is wrong": you can't "prove" it or rationalize it.

I'd say that this is pretty accurate. The examples of Christian demons, for example, like Moloch or whatnot fall pretty clearly under (A) above.

Imagine for a second that the 9 Lords of Hell were named for the Apostles. Luke rules the 9th layer and Mathew the 8th and so on down. With a couple of spares that are spoiling for a fight to take the job from someone else. Now, I imagine that most Christians would be pretty unhappy about this. It's neither respectful nor even remotely accurate. It's a complete cultural appropriation and a rewriting of someone's beliefs. Which is not cool.

The phylactery thing is just like that. They've taken a real world thing that people do believe is a good thing, and applied it to something that is wholely evil and should be destroyed. In fact, the only way to defeat one of the most powerful baddies in the game is to DESTROY the phylactery.

This is sending, perhaps, the wrong message.

There is a considerable amount of context here that seems to be getting ignored. It's not simply "don't use something from someone's culture". That's not the core issue. The core issue is, "Don't take something from someone's culture, completely rewrite it to make it pretty much the opposite of what that thing is, then put it in the game as something that should be destroyed."

 

[Morrus]

Isn't the whole Evil in the East from Dogs in the Vineyard a straight reference to the nascent United States? Much more niche than pathfinder, though.

I have no idea. Sorry!

 

[Justice and Rule]

Isn't the whole Evil in the East from Dogs in the Vineyard a straight reference to the nascent United States? Much more niche than pathfinder, though.

Yeah, though that makes a lot of sense in the context of the game: since you're playing as members of the fictional-but-also-historical Mormon state of Deseret, it reflects very much how they would have actually felt about the US Government.

 

[Hussar]

So I did look up (reddit) discussions on golems and I do find it hilarious that a lot of the comments are "Well if you want something that might be questionable, look at phylactery first".

Well, yes, let's bring golem into this.

Golems aren't evil. In fact, golems are used as saviors in a number of products - Waterdeep for example.

So, how is golem problematic? And, note, obviously, golem in D&D is a somewhat expanded thing basically meaning any sort of humanoid shaped magical construct.

Now, if golems were undead monsters that savagely destroy everything in their path, then, well sure. That's a problem. But, even the Flesh Golem, which frankly is the closest we could get to undead without actually being undead, isn't evil, nor is it depicted or described as evil.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, yes, let's bring golem into this.

Golems aren't evil. In fact, golems are used as saviors in a number of products - Waterdeep for example.

So, how is golem problematic? And, note, obviously, golem in D&D is a somewhat expanded thing basically meaning any sort of humanoid shaped magical construct.

Now, if golems were undead monsters that savagely destroy everything in their path, then, well sure. That's a problem. But, even the Flesh Golem, which frankly is the closest we could get to undead without actually being undead, isn't evil, nor is it depicted or described as evil.

Yeah, I'd just actually be interested in seeing a discussion from a community I'm clearly not part of. Again, this isn't saying it needs to change, but actually charting boundaries so you know where they lie. <shrug>