Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Hussar]

The same benefit as keeping Demon and Devil instead of Tanar'ri.

Umm, we still have Tanar'ri and Baatezu referenced in the game. Or did they do away with that in 5e? I wasn't paying that close of attention to be honest.

 

[Hussar]

A new definition disconnected from the old one IS alright. That’s how words work. Hence why we have multiple definitions for words in dictionaries.

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

 

[Cadence]

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

Although sometimes the connections leave me nonplussed :-/

 

[Hussar]

Just another point about demon and devils and why it doesn't really apply here.

The meaning of demon or devil in D&D isn't (much) different than the commonly understood meaning. Big, bad, nasty evil thing that eats souls is pretty much the definition of demon or devil. Additionally, demons and devils in D&D are the antagonists. They are the stuff you fight against - again, very much in keeping with the intent of demons and devils in real world beliefs.

In other words, instead of substituting a new meaning, imposed by the authors of D&D, as is the case in phylactery, demons and devils are not culturally appropriating anything. The meaning is largely unchanged and the intent of the concepts is kept.

Unless you believe that a phylactery is created through a thoroughly evil act (3e definition), or that it needs to regularly fed souls (Paizo definition) the definition of phylactery is definitely being changed quite a lot.

 

[transmission89]

No, it really doesn't. You will find that almost no words with multiple definitions are disconnected from each other.

Really? I’m nonplussed by that. I’ll have to mark the date I learnt that whilst I eat my date on my date with my partner. Since I’ve been sat here, I’ve had to crane my neck to see a crane flying overhead passing a crane at a building site. Earlier, I found my dog likes to bark at tree bark and when he leaves the house, likes to chase leaves. I left one of my glove at home and my left hand was cold.

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Good job I’m typing rather than blunting the point of a pencil writing by hand.

Even if a word is only slightly related such as crane being named for the long neck of the bird, it still tracks. Phylactery being an amulet, amulet being a synonym of charm or fetish to protect, evil lich uses it to protect their soul: liche‘s phylactery.

 

[transmission89]

It's not necessarily bad. Yes, language evolves. But when you take cultural ideas and practices from other cultures, it depends on how you frame and execute on them. If you do it right, it adds to people's understanding and knowledge, while if you don't it creates shallow and offensive disconnects.

The process is neutral. How you do it matters.



But it's not. Again, South Park tried to argue this with a homophobic slur, saying that it had evolved beyond that to a more general curse. Just because you create a new definition doesn't eliminate the history of the word itself: it's a continuation and evolution, not a completely new thing.

Being a different definition of something, it doesn’t need to add to understanding or definition of something else. There’s no requirement to. Huh, what’s a liche’s phylactery? Huh, a place where they keep their soul. Awesome, I’m good.

It doesn’t eliminate the history of the word true. Good job a word can have more than one meaning then isnt it so the history of the word can be preserved! Thankfully, people are able to differentiate based on the context of that word‘s use, so I think we are good without others needing to take it upon themselves wagging a finger saying “actually that word means this in this specific context…” Eventually, some meanings are obscured, forgotten, others take prominence. Such is the ebb and tide of language.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but, that's what you folks are doing - wagging your fingers and insisting that we use this definition and not that definition.

 

[transmission89]

Yes, but, that's what you folks are doing - wagging your fingers and insisting that we use this definition and not that definition.

Far from it. I’m not changing anything in published books or endlessly hand wringing if a word is appropriate or not, or trying to come up with a new word as the proposed change feels a little flat.

As I said, do what you wish for your table, it’s of no consequence to mine, phylactery it was and shall remain. My table is always open to those that wish to play, as it always has been across hundreds and thousands of tables since D&D‘s inception.

 

[Maxperson]

This basically the South Park defense we were referencing earlier: the idea that there is a new definition completely disconnected from the old one, thus it's alright.

It's not new. The non-Jewish version has been in use(no matter what you might think) for at least 21 years. Much more than that if the Dragon Magazine issue counts.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

D&D has been appropriating and misapplying terms and concepts for its entire - now rather long - history. It has shamelessly plundered pretty much every culture and belief system, past and present, in order to fuel an esoteric vocabulary of stuff for no other reason than it looks or sounds cool. This is primarily due to the positioning of its creators who - although no doubt well-read in a certain sense - were steeped in ideas and understandings which were already painfully outdated at the time of the game's inception in the 1970s, and were intent on including "exotic" terms within the game in order to create a certain literary feel. I am sympathetic to this aesthetic urge, but today is 2021, and times have changed.

Some of these terms are innocuous ahistorical inventions which have entered the wider game-playing consciousness (e.g. longsword); some are based on 19th-century ethnological or anthropological ideas (race, savage, primitive, tribe); some reflect Victorian Romanticism (druid); and so on; and so forth. The misappropriation continued well into the 3E era where we added chausubles and dorjes and Spirit Shamans and heaven-knows-what else. In many cases, the appropriation has not been intelligent or considered - although I'm not sure that makes much of a difference, in terms of whether it is entirely suitable or proper.

I love the 1E Deities and Demigods, both for the nostalgia it evokes in me and in recognition that - had I not encountered it - my own, lifelong, obsession with religion and mythology might never have been sparked. But when I open the book and look at the Indian Mythos section, I need to squint and consider its context and all of its Orientalist glory: at best, I can afford it a kind of charming naivete. And I sometimes wonder how much damage it has done, in terms of how it has shaped countless, plastic, pre-adolescent minds in their understanding of myth, religion and religiosity; just a few days ago, a poster casually mentioned Kali in the same breath as Tharizdun and I cringed inwardly. This confusion is due to the Indian Mythos section in the 1E DDG, and to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - because what else could it be?

With New Religious Movements we are presented with another ethical question: terms like witch, druid, shaman are self-identifying names for people who profess a particular spirituality. There are various forms of ethnic religiosity which have crystallized in recent decades around Norse, Slavic and pre-Abrahamic Hellenistic thought. We might dismiss these ideas as reimaginings, misappropriations and inauthentic, but we are then left with the problem what are the criteria for authenticity, and who gets to decide this? The reasons why we don't use terms like Rabbi or Imam in the game are the same reasons we should be cautious about using any term with religious overtones. At the end of the day, all religion is invented by people, somewhere, at some time, for the same purpose - to forge an ethnic and/or cultic identity and foster a sense of inclusion.

There are no simple answers to these questions, which I guess is my point.

 

[Ixal]

Just another point about demon and devils and why it doesn't really apply here.

The meaning of demon or devil in D&D isn't (much) different than the commonly understood meaning. Big, bad, nasty evil thing that eats souls is pretty much the definition of demon or devil. Additionally, demons and devils in D&D are the antagonists. They are the stuff you fight against - again, very much in keeping with the intent of demons and devils in real world beliefs.

In other words, instead of substituting a new meaning, imposed by the authors of D&D, as is the case in phylactery, demons and devils are not culturally appropriating anything. The meaning is largely unchanged and the intent of the concepts is kept.

Unless you believe that a phylactery is created through a thoroughly evil act (3e definition), or that it needs to regularly fed souls (Paizo definition) the definition of phylactery is definitely being changed quite a lot.

That doesn't matter.
Some believers were obviously upset about the use of Christian terms in D&D and when the point is to be respectful towards religious groups it doesn't matter if you think that the terms where used correctly or not.

 

[TheSword]

At the end of the day, all religion is invented by people, somewhere, at some time, for the same purpose - to forge an ethnic and/or cultic identity and foster a sense of inclusion.

This whole topic dances and skips along the ‘no religion’ prohibition. But for the record a lot of people don’t think that was the reason religions were created. I say that as a gay man excluded from most of the worlds religions for the majority of their existence. We can’t get into it here though.

[Edited to recognize some very recent reforms]

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This whole topic dances and skips along the ‘no religion’ prohibition. But for the record a lot of people don’t think that was the reason religions were created. I say that as a gay man excluded from most of the worlds religions. We can’t get into it here though.

Yes, often that inclusion is selective, and many of my own views are also inappropriate to this forum.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Umm, we still have Tanar'ri and Baatezu referenced in the game. Or did they do away with that in 5e? I wasn't paying that close of attention to be honest.

They did away with it in at least 4e and 5e continued that. Not sure what 3e did

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yes, often that inclusion is selective, and many of my own views are also inappropriate to this forum.

I think @TheSword is talking about the restriction on the forum about discussing religion, not their personal views, but I could be wrong

 

[Justice and Rule]

Being a different definition of something, it doesn’t need to add to understanding or definition of something else. There’s no requirement to. Huh, what’s a liche’s phylactery? Huh, a place where they keep their soul. Awesome, I’m good.

Nah, that's not how language works. It's a word that was co-opted and affects the context of the word.

It doesn’t eliminate the history of the word true. Good job a word can have more than one meaning then isnt it so the history of the word can be preserved! Thankfully, people are able to differentiate based on the context of that word‘s use, so I think we are good without others needing to take it upon themselves wagging a finger saying “actually that word means this in this specific context…” Eventually, some meanings are obscured, forgotten, others take prominence. Such is the ebb and tide of language.

Just because there are different definitions doesn't mean there is an instant and completely clean break from previous definitions, especially when the new definition is created in reference to an older one. Even with different context, the history of the word still exists and just because you've created a new definition doesn't remove the baggage from the old one, particularly the new definition is a careless appropriation of the old word and definition.

That doesn't matter.
Some believers were obviously upset about the use of Christian terms in D&D and when the point is to be respectful towards religious groups it doesn't matter if you think that the terms where used correctly or not.

Okay, let's get this straight: they weren't upset that "Christian terms" were being used as much as the idea that D&D was converting kids to Satanism.

Which does bring up a good point, and it's something you always have to deal with when talking about these subjects: good-faith. One of the things I find people have problems with is separating good-faith critiques and bad-faith critiques. In the case of the Satanic Panic backlash, the critiques were inane and without merit: they weren't based around the usage of the word in the game, but around made-up fears. Now, are there actual possible critiques of the use of devils and demons? Maybe. But these were not it.

This contrasts with Paizo's analysis of phylactery: it's something that was clearly appropriated and in this specific instance it's usage is connected with something that is universally evil. While it might not be outright offensive, they see it as problematic and want to get ahead of that. That's pretty reasonable, all in all.

 

[transmission89]

Nah, that's not how language works. It's a word that was co-opted and affects the context of the word.



Just because there are different definitions doesn't mean there is an instant and completely clean break from previous definitions, especially when the new definition is created in reference to an older one. Even with different context, the history of the word still exists and just because you've created a new definition doesn't remove the baggage from the old one, particularly the new definition is a careless appropriation of the old word and definition.



Okay, let's get this straight: they weren't upset that "Christian terms" were being used as much as the idea that D&D was converting kids to Satanism.

Which does bring up a good point, and it's something you always have to deal with when talking about these subjects: good-faith. One of the things I find people have problems with is separating good-faith critiques and bad-faith critiques. In the case of the Satanic Panic backlash, the critiques were inane and without merit: they weren't based around the usage of the word in the game, but around made-up fears. Now, are there actual possible critiques of the use of devils and demons? Maybe. But these were not it.

This contrasts with Paizo's analysis of phylactery: it's something that was clearly appropriated and in this specific instance it's usage is connected with something that is universally evil. While it might not be outright offensive, they see it as problematic and want to get ahead of that. That's pretty reasonable, all in all.

There can be new definitions, hence lich’s phylactery. You are defining it as “careless appropriation”, it is not in fact, it just is, that’s a value you and some others ascribe to its use. The “baggage” also just known as history of the word is irrelevant to it in this context.

The critiques of this word are just as inane made up as the satanic panic was in the day. It’s just a new performative moral panic today. Same story, same tune. No more right today than it was then. It is what it is. If paizo feel uncomfortable with it, that’s on them, they are welcome to do what they want, as are you at your table. My table will be unaffected.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There can be new definitions, hence lich’s phylactery.

No, because those definitions don't spring from thin air. Gygax's usage was a clear reference to a religious object he clearly knew about. That "new definition" is linked rather directly to the old one in that regard.

You are defining it as “careless appropriation”, it is not in fact, it just is, that’s a value you and some others ascribe to its use. The “baggage” also just known as history of the word is irrelevant to it in this context.

I mean, I define it as "careless appropriation" because there's nothing in a lich's description in the original MM that actually explains the phylactery's purpose and how it functions with the lich, only that it need be destroyed to kill the lich. Given the confusion as to what it was and how it worked afterwards, I think "careless" is pretty generous in how it was used. If you want to dispute that, show me any more care beyond Gygax choosing the word or object because it's exotic.

The critiques of this word are just as inane made up as the satanic panic was in the day. It’s just a new performative moral panic today. Same story, same tune. No more right today than it was then. It is what it is. If paizo feel uncomfortable with it, that’s on them, they are welcome to do what they want, as are you at your table. My table will be unaffected.

I mean, it's not: they're changing something because it references a religious item in a careless manner and in a way that doesn't really reflect either the religious item or the game item. Whether you still want to use it is your choice, but don't act like their reasoning is the same as the a Chick Tract. You're just comfortable with that appropriation, while they are not.

 

[Cadence]

If you want to dispute that, show me any more care beyond Gygax choosing a word or object because it's exotic.

I would have guessed for this, and for lots of things in 1e from level titles to class names, that Gygax had simply grabbed a thesaurus.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I would have guessed for this, and for lots of things in 1e from level titles to class names, that Gygax had simply grabbed a thesaurus.

Nah, given that there is a fairly close definition in the DMG it's probably that he had a cursory knowledge of what one was. He was a wargamer and fan of history, it makes sense that he knew at least an idea of what it was. But having a little more knowledge doesn't make the usage any better.