Your exoticism argument relies entirely on the fact that you claim there is no apparent other reason for choosing the word.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.
What is the point of asking for the explanation when it has been given to several times over, myself and other people.
TheSword said: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