Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[TheSword]

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.

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.

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.

Your exoticism argument relies entirely on the fact that you claim there is no apparent other reason for choosing the word.

What is the point of asking for the explanation when it has been given to several times over, myself and other people.

That’s not the reason at all. It’s not just because the word sounds cool. It’s because it’s meaning both ancient and contemporary fits the item in game. A container for ritual words, that is a magic charm, that is also a protection. Plus it sounds cool. Naming conventions where something sounds good AND is relevant to the thing described. Its good.

It isn’t that there isn’t an explanation, it just doesn’t fit into your world view, or the extremely strident (dare I say hectoring) position you’ve taken in this thread.

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

 

[Justice and Rule]

Your exoticism argument relies entirely on the fact that you claim there is no apparent other reason for choosing the word.

What is the point of asking for the explanation when it has been given to several times over, myself and other people.

It isn’t that there isn’t an explanation, it just doesn’t fit into your world view, or the extremely strident (dare I say hectoring) position you’ve taken in this thread.

No, my argument relies on the primary definition of the word and the fact that any other time the word is used, it refers to the specific religious object. It is not my fault that arguing for the archaic usage of the term is not particularly convincing. In fact, it'd be a lot easier to just concede that the term was a reference rather than constructing fanciful scenarios trying to decouple it from the primary definition as it tells me people know that the term is somewhat problematic.

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

People drop in and out of threads. Given the responses to my posts, I suspect that more people would be posting in this thread if I weren't already saying what they think.

 

[Umbran]

I always find it fascinating when a poster in a thirty page thread posts more than the next two posters combined. It’s not a good sign

Mod Note:
Don't. Make. It. Personal.

When you get to the point where you cannot resist claiming the issue is a character flaw in the poster, that's the time to just walk away.

 

[Umbran]

It’s just a new performative moral panic today.

Mod Note:
Using different words does not mean we cannot understand you are trying to dismiss a position as virtue signaling.

And that, folks, is not acceptable - please review our inclusivity policy. So, you're done in this thread.

 

[Aldarc]

@TheSword, I have posted in this thread before. I think that @Justice and Rule is doing a great job arguing Paizo's position, so I am content to let them continue. Would you prefer if everyone else who agrees with Justice engage in more dog-pile tactics against those who disagree with Paizo? But yes, it's a sign that Justice is being more patient than I am in engaging those who disagree.

 

[Justice and Rule]

@TheSword, I have posted in this thread before. I think that @Justice and Rule is doing a great job arguing Paizo's position, so I am content to let them continue. Would you prefer if everyone else who agrees with Justice engage in more dog-pile tactics against those who disagree with Paizo?

Yeah, it's nice to be able to just sign on to someone's opinion rather than feeling like you need to rewrite it to show support for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, it's nice to be able to just sign on to someone's opinion rather than feeling like you need to rewrite it to show support for it.

This is one of the things I appreciate about fora with a Like system; I don't have to reinvent the wheel in discussion just to show I concur.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Some issues with this post. First, Paizo's use was never appropriated. The term stopped being appropriated at least 21 years ago, possibly more. Paizo took over an unappropriated version. Second, Liches haven't been universally evil since at least 1988, when Baelnorn's(good elven liches) entered the scene.

Edit: Archliches are also not evil and entered the scene in 1990.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Some issues with this post. First, Paizo's use was never appropriated. The term stopped being appropriated at least 21 years ago, possibly more. Paizo took over an unappropriated version.

That's not how "unappropriated" works. If you "unappropriate" something, you stop using it. While continue to use it, you are still appropriating it. And again, your timeline is wrong; even Paizo concedes that the 3E box was clearly referencing the religious item. Acting like it doesn't misses that the people using it clearly thought otherwise.

Second, Liches haven't been universally evil since at least 1988, when Baelnorn's(good elven liches) entered the scene.

This is a weak argument. That's only for one setting and isn't even mentioned in the 5E MM, where it's expressly said that they have to feed souls into their phylacteries to continue to live.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Edit: Archliches are also not evil and entered the scene in 1990.

Archliches don't use phylacteries.

Edit: Neither do Baelnorns, now that I look it up.

 

[Ixal]

That's not how "unappropriated" works. If you "unappropriate" something, you stop using it. While continue to use it, you are still appropriating it. And again, your timeline is wrong; even Paizo concedes that the 3E box was clearly referencing the religious item. Acting like it doesn't misses that the people using it clearly thought otherwise.



This is a weak argument. That's only for one setting and isn't even mentioned in the 5E MM, where it's expressly said that they have to feed souls into their phylacteries to continue to live.

Thats again a huge double standard, claiming on one side that language shifts and that needs to be accepted and on the other that even after 2 decades the meaning is still the same and has not changed. (But on the other (third?) hand the original meaning of protective amulet doesn't apply because, surprise, the language changes...)

 

[Maxperson]

Archliches don't use phylacteries.

Edit: Neither do Baelnorns, now that I look it up.

Right. They created a magic item to hold their souls, just like normal liches. If only there was a word for that. This item was mysteriously NOT a phylactery, despite normal liches being able to create an identical item as a phylactery.

You also ignored Baelnorn's there. Probably because that good lich does have an explicit phylactery and didn't try to weasel a phylactery by another name.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Thats again a huge double standard, claiming on one side that language shifts and that needs to be accepted and on the other that even after 2 decades the meaning is still the same and has not changed. (But on the other hand neither the original meaning applies because, surprise, the language changes...)

What's the double standard? Language changes, but history does not. While words evolve, they still carry the momentum of what came before. In this case, specific meaning overrode general over hundreds and hundreds of years, and Gygax's usage is still meant as a reference to that specific meaning.

Right. They created a magic item to hold their souls, just like normal liches. If only there was a word for that. This item was mysteriously NOT a phylactery, despite normal liches being able to create an identical item as a phylactery.

Man, if they don't call if a phylactery, what does that say about phylacteries?

You also ignored Baelnorn's there. Probably because that good lich does have an explicit phylactery and didn't try to weasel a phylactery by another name.

It explicitly doesn't. Monsters of Faerun, page 90:

"Baelnorns are tall, impressive-looking undead elves with shriveled skin and glowing white eyes. They do not radiate an aura of fear, nor do they have phylacteries (though some do make use of the clone spell), but they otherwise share the standard powers and abilities of liches."

You should look these things up before you post them.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not how "unappropriated" works. If you "unappropriate" something, you stop using it. While continue to use it, you are still appropriating it. And again, your timeline is wrong; even Paizo concedes that the 3E box was clearly referencing the religious item. Acting like it doesn't misses that the people using it clearly thought otherwise.

No. You can also change to a different meaning of a word and alter the item so that it is no longer representative of the appropriated term. No matter how you try, you can never make a single metal box with arcane runed parchment inside equate to two leather boxes with a leather arm wrap and verses from the Torah inside. They aren't the same, or even all that similar. And that would be if the box was the only type of phylactery. But you want to equate rings, gems, bracelets, books, marbles, daggers, balls, candles, and literally every other object(all types of phylacteries) with an arm wrap attached to two leather boxes containing a verse from the Torah. It just doesn't work.

The word hasn't been an appropriation since at least the year 2000.

This is a weak argument. That's only for one setting and isn't even mentioned in the 5E MM, where it's expressly said that they have to feed souls into their phylacteries to continue to live.

Either D&D history is important, or it isn't. Which is it? You keep going on and on about how what happened in 1e matters now(it doesn't), but now you don't want to go back even 2 editions.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No. You can also change to a different meaning of a word and alter the item so that it is no longer representative of the appropriated term. No matter how you try, you can never make a single metal box with arcane runed parchment inside equate to two leather boxes with a leather arm wrap and verses from the Torah inside. They aren't the same, or even all that similar. And that would be if the box was the only type of phylactery. But you want to equate rings, gems, bracelets, books, marbles, daggers, balls, candles, and literally every other object(all types of phylacteries) with an arm wrap attached to two leather boxes containing a verse from the Torah. It just doesn't work.

To appropriate is to use. If you are still using the word, you are appropriating it. That's how appropriation works. I'm not sure how else to make that simpler.

The word hasn't been an appropriation since at least the year 2000.

I mean, it's still being appropriated today. If you want to argue how close it is to the source, then the break starts at 4E at the latest.

Either D&D history is important, or it isn't. Which is it? You keep going on and on about how what happened in 1e matters now(it doesn't), but now you don't want to go back even 2 editions.

History is important, but trying to act like a few edge cases (Which don't actually apply) suddenly change things comes off as desperate. I've used the term "momentum" a bunch, and this is why: a few cases don't change the overwhelming flood on materials on the other side describing liches as terrible, evil beings.

 

[Maxperson]

It explicitly doesn't. Monsters of Faerun, page 90:

"Baelnorns are tall, impressive-looking undead elves with shriveled skin and glowing white eyes. They do not radiate an aura of fear, nor do they have phylacteries (though some do make use of the clone spell), but they otherwise share the standard powers and abilities of liches."

You should look these things up before you post them.

Lore changes. This is the 4e Baelnorn.

"Lich Lore
A character knows the following information with a
successful Religion check.

DC 27: Eladrin become baelnorn liches for a variety of reasons. Many choose this path so they can act as guardians of ancestral vaults and tombs. Unlike most liches, baelnorns are not necessarily evil. The creatures are less power-hungry and covetous than other liches, and they often keep their phylacteries in close proximity to the places they guard. A few baelnorn have no phylacteries at all; rather, their prolonged existence is achieved through a powerful ritual or the blessing of a deity."

 

[Maxperson]

To appropriate is to use. If you are still using the word, you are appropriating it. That's how appropriation works. I'm not sure how else to make that simpler.

If a word has multiple meaning and you switch meanings, you are no longer using the word associated with Tefillin. You are using the word associated with protective devices.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Lore changes. This is the 4e Baelnorn.

"Lich Lore
A character knows the following information with a
successful Religion check.

DC 27: Eladrin become baelnorn liches for a variety of reasons. Many choose this path so they can act as guardians of ancestral vaults and tombs. Unlike most liches, baelnorns are not necessarily evil. The creatures are less power-hungry and covetous than other liches, and they often keep their phylacteries in close proximity to the places they guard. A few baelnorn have no phylacteries at all; rather, their prolonged existence is achieved through a powerful ritual or the blessing of a deity."

And lore has changed so that liches have to feed souls to their phylacteries, which wasn't the old way but way more explicitly evil. Searching for edge cases doesn't negate the common and overwhelming D&D usage.

If a word has multiple meaning and you switch meanings, you are no longer using the word associated with Tefillin. You are using the word associated with protective devices.

Except that the new definition was made as an explicit reference to the previous definition. Again, this is evolution. There is no "clean break" from the past. It's being appropriated, regardless of how you feel about it.

You do realize that appropriation is just an act and inherently neutral, right? It's how it's executed that matters.

 

[Maxperson]

And lore has changed so that liches have to feed souls to their phylacteries, which wasn't the old way but way more explicitly evil. Searching for edge cases doesn't negate the common and overwhelming D&D usage.

I didn't search for edge cases. You made the claim that liches are universally evil. They aren't and haven't been for at least 33 years.

Except that the new definition was made as an explicit reference to the previous definition. Again, this is evolution. There is no "clean break" from the past. It's being appropriated, regardless of how you feel about it.

The "new"(21 years old) definition doesn't refer to leather arm wraps with a box containing religious writings at all. Not even a little bit.

You do realize that appropriation is just an act and inherently neutral, right? It's how it's executed that matters.

And the switch to making phylacteries be literally any object is a rather good execution. It sidesteps the Tefillin completely.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I didn't search for edge cases. You made the claim that liches are universally evil. They aren't and haven't been for at least 33 years.

I said that once, while previously in the thread I've said "almost universally". Being pedantic is just ignoring the argument, not addressing it.

The "new"(21 years old) definition doesn't refer to leather arm wraps with a box containing religious writings at all. Not even a little bit.

It's a little box that contains important writings to the lich. Getting everything correct is not a requirement of appropriation. In fact, it misses that bad appropriation makes such mistakes all the time.

And the switch to making phylacteries be literally any object is a rather good execution. It sidesteps the Tefillin completely.

Except that the most commonly-used version is still referencing the Tefillin.