Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[billd91]

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.

In a perfect world, maybe. But in our present world, the line of acceptability depends on the beholder and whether they accept the execution as taking sufficient care.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Of all the things wrong with Conan, being crucified is so far down on the list that it barely registers.

Note, there is a significant difference between being crucified and a crucifix. They are most certainly not the the same thing. That and why would you presume that a crucifix is used to drive something away? I mean, there's at least one hanging in every single Christian church and many, many Christian homes, never minding being worn on the person. Crucifixes and vampires, I guess?

The point being, if you take something like the crucifix, repurpose it as an 100% evil, unholy item, there's going to be some eyebrows raised.

I did mention before that crucifixes were actually mentioned in the game previously (and shown in the art), as an example of a holy symbol

There's a reason we don't do that any more.

 

[Hussar]

In a perfect world, maybe. But in our present world, the line of acceptability depends on the beholder and whether they accept the execution as taking sufficient care.

That's hardly the "present" world. That's always been true. What is acceptable will always depend on the beholder.

 

[BigZebra]

I definitely think it's sad that to borrow words from different cultures and histories is seen as a bad thing. It makes for a culturally poor world IMO. Some years ago when I read about phylactery I googled it and ended up reading many interesting things about greek and jewish history.
If it has been "Soul Cage"? I would have learned nothing. Pretty bland word.

All of our experiences are built on our past, and to ignore it is not very wise I think. And to start make judgements about that to "touch" some word you have to be of some certain culture seems extremely wrong.

Of course it's wise editorially to make sure you treat cultures respectfully, and perhaps phylactery could end up as a term for something positive as well. Perhaps it could be transformed magically into being a soul healer instead or whatever.

My point is basically: lets use all of our history and past to tell these stories, but obviously do it respectfully.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I definitely think it's sad that to borrow words from different cultures and histories is seen as a bad thing. It makes for a culturally poor world IMO. Some years ago when I read about phylactery I googled it and ended up reading many interesting things about greek and jewish history.
If it has been "Soul Cage"? I would have learned nothing. Pretty bland word.

D&D/Pathfinder's job isn't to educate you on stuff like this. If you want to learn cool stuff about different religions and cultures, just go look it up online. Furthermore, you know about that stuff already so . . . what's the harm to you in removing it?

 

[BigZebra]

D&D/Pathfinder's job isn't to educate you on stuff like this. If you want to learn cool stuff about different religions and cultures, just go look it up online. Furthermore, you know about that stuff already so . . . what's the harm to you in removing it?

There is no harm at all. I am merely stating my opinion. They can absolutely (obviously) do what they want. I just find it editorially lazy. I mean Soul Cage? What a boring word. And why shouldn't D&D/Pathfinder educate? Is that a bad thing? What a peculiar stance.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There is no harm at all. I am merely stating my opinion. They can absolutely (obviously) do what they want. I just find it editorially lazy. I mean Soul Cage? What a boring word. And why shouldn't D&D/Pathfinder educate? Is that a bad thing? What a peculiar stance.

It's not the job or goal of the platform, was my point. I don't play Skyrim to learn about real world Viking culture, or read Cosmere books to learn about real world religions, anymore than I play D&D to learn about Tefillin. I just don't see "they shouldn't remove the name 'phylactery' because it made me learn about Jewish culture" as a convincing argument.

 

[BigZebra]

It's not the job or goal of the platform, was my point. I don't play Skyrim to learn about real world Viking culture, or read Cosmere books to learn about real world religions, anymore than I play D&D to learn about Tefillin. I just don't see "they shouldn't remove the name 'phylactery' because it made me learn about Jewish culture" as a convincing argument.

It might not be a goal. But that a game about swords, dragons, and monsters from folklore, also teach the gamers about said folklore topics seems to be (in my book anyway) an added benefit. Just like a game about stock trading might teach and pique a gamer's interest in finance.
D&D/PF is steeped in folklore with a huge amount of monster from Norse, Celtic, German, and Slavic folklore. Why not embrace that as a positive aspect of said cultures.
I personally would like more of that. For example more monsters from all the various African cultures would be awesome, as they are underrepresented. Let's work on representing more cultures, not less. Our Earth is full of so many different cultures, with so many interesting tales and stories. Lets get inspired from that, instead of being afraid of it.
Paizo definitely took the easy way out here.

 

[Staffan]

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.

And as far as I know, they haven't touched the phylactery of faithfulness which is a closer approximation of real-world phylacteries (with magic added, of course).

 

[reelo]

That's hardly the "present" world. That's always been true. What is acceptable will always depend on the beholder.

"When, for fear of offending, shocking, or displeasing, a society constrains itself to silence, it is a deadly poison for democracy."
-Robert Badinter (French socialist politician)

What I find funny about the whole discussion is that the word, "phylactery" is just Greek for "amulet". It's not even a Hebraic word. Jews themselves, it appears, call it "Teffilin". I could understand the criticism if a lich's phylactery was called "Teffilin", but that isn't the case.