Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Hussar]

The concept of trapping a soul isn't unique to one faith either. The words used to describe the concept are just different -just like the words used to describe the concept of an angel change in other faiths.

I'm not opposed to the change. I can understand how it could cause offense.

But I'm not someone who was opposed to the use of the word as a shorthand way to describe a concept using real-world references either.

True.

But trapping a soul in a phylactery is the problem. Note the whole trapping the soul thing is still there. That’s not the issue.

It would be like if they called a soul cage a crucifix. Bit of an issue no?

 

[Hussar]

Their goal (which was to just change a word in their products). Sparking a debate about it doesn't help, and made a few people react here as if the statement was pressuring them into changing their own behaviour to match the new terminology (which is obviously not Paizo's intent). In my opinion, silently dropping phylactery would have achieved the same thing without pushing a few people or even anyone toward defending phylactery.

Nope.

See WotC if you think people don’t flip out over unannounced name changes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Nope.

See WotC if you think people don’t flip out over unannounced name changes.

I mean, there were people who got defensive about the Vistani and changing them. The problem is that in admitting something is problematic, people feel like they are admitting they are racist. And (generally speaking, at least), they aren't. It's okay to like problematic media, but it's paramount to recognize that it's also problematic.

 

[Argyle King]

True.

But trapping a soul in a phylactery is the problem. Note the whole trapping the soul thing is still there. That’s not the issue.

It would be like if they called a soul cage a crucifix. Bit of an issue no?

For me?

My issue would be that crucifix implies some sort of item used to drive something away rather than something used to trap a spirit.

For other people?

Maybe they'd be offended.

Random observation:

Conan was crucified. I don't remember there being many complaints about it.

It's possible there were, but I'm not aware of them.

 

[Argyle King]

I mean, agree to disagree there.



I might reference it in the construction, but I wouldn't use "mosque" as a word to describe something because that's a term that refers to a place of worship for a specific religion, which suddenly means that I'm drawing reference to a real religion. I think it's the City of Brass setting that has the "Cult of the Burning One" which is an evil, slave-taking cult that happens to call their places of worship mosques which is... uh...

View attachment 146057

Fair enough.

For me, "mosque" implies certain aesthetics.

My views may be different due to growing up near a building called the Jaffa Mosque -which has Masonic origins rather than Islamic connections.

"Mosque" isn't a word which I associate with a particular religion moreso than I associate it with a particular look.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Fair enough.

For me, "mosque" implies certain aesthetics.

My views may be different due to growing up near a building called the Jaffa Mosque -which has Masonic origins rather than Islamic connections.

Hm. Never heard of that. Lemme look that up...

... Oh, lol. Shriners? Yeah, there are definitely Islamic connections to that. It's worth noting that the full name of the Shriners is "Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine". So the look there is definitely meant as a deliberate reference to Islam.

"Mosque" isn't a word which I associate with a particular religion moreso than I associate it with a particular look.

I mean, it's a look specific to a religion. <shrug>

 

[Argyle King]

Hm. Never heard of that. Lemme look that up...

... Oh, lol. Shriners? Yeah, there are definitely Islamic connections to that. It's worth noting that the full name of the Shriners is "Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine". So the look there is definitely meant as a deliberate reference to Islam.



I mean, it's a look specific to a religion. <shrug>

Masonic is also a reference to this: Freemasonry - Wikipedia

I think it's fair to say that the look does tend to be associated with a certain religion, but I think it would also be fair to say that that look is a product of architectural concepts from a particular area.

The mosques I encountered while in Iraq looked different than the ones I encountered while in Serbia. There were enough similarities that they were recognizable as mosques, but also differences. Likewise, both have differences from the Jaffa Mosque, located in Pennsylvania.

Additionally, there are architectural similarities found when looking at St. Joseph's Cathedral in Iraq and mosques found there.

I can't speak for others. For myself, "mosque" implies a certain look. In the real world, I may even agree that my first assumption would be a particular religion.

In a fantasy world which doesn't contain the Islamic faith, I wouldn't feel it was logical to assume features of a faith more than features of architecture.

If I were playing GURPS Banestorm (which does include versions of real-world faiths,) I would need more context before having a solid mental image.

 

[billd91]

That's not the point. The point is that D&D angels aren't being used in a way that is offensive to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Merely including some aspect of some other person's culture/religion isn't enough for it to be offensive, that's where the Satanic Panic was wrong, including the aspect in a manner that is problematic is the offensive part. The execution is what matters, not the mere inclusion.

The execution may matter… depending on how far critics want to push things and how many people listen to them. There’s a spectrum of people who will be critical, from those willing to accept virtually any reference to those offended by even the presence of a reference. There’s no agreed upon line of acceptability - only what an author or publisher feels ready to defend.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The execution may matter… depending on how far critics want to push things and how many people listen to them. There’s a spectrum of people who will be critical, from those willing to accept virtually any reference to those offended by even the presence of a reference. There’s no agreed upon line of acceptability - only what an author or publisher feels ready to defend.

No. In the end, the execution really is all that matters. Jojo Rabbit is a comedy movie about the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and the Good Place is a comedy TV show about moral philosophy. Both work because of their execution. No matter how iffy the subject is, the proper execution can make it work.

D&D/Pathfinder could absolutely include a Tefillin/Phylactery magic item useable by Clerics without it being problematic. Or just list a Tefillin as an option for a holy symbol. That would almost definitely be way less problematic than appropriating the item to be used by a Lich for evil purposes.

The line of acceptability is dependent on the execution, not the content itself.

 

[d24454_modern]

If you desire exotic words, then make them up. If you take them from somewhere else, then it feels like it's totally right to critique you on the subject.

No one said you couldn't, but rather you should think about when you do rather than flippantly adding something in because it sounds cool. Because really, that's what "phylactery" is.

I actually prefer that they take terms from lore rather than just making stuff up. It’s naturally more symbolic that way.

That’s also the problem sadly as it can still end up being disrespectful to one culture.