Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Bohandas]

Hey, you're in PF2 land here. We use "Ancestry".

I wonder how long it took them to find a word that was technically applicable but still had all of the word "race"'s other problems

 

[Greg K]

From my copy of the 1E Monster Manual, it totally does not. This link would further confirm it.

Okay, I checked my copy and it just mentions that the status is maintained by conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery. I always took it that you can destroy the lich by destroying the phylcactery.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Okay, I checked my copy and it just mentions that the status is maintained by conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery. I always took it that you can destroy the lich by destroying the phylcactery.

That comes from a Dragon article that uses the term "soul jar", I believe.

 

[Greg K]

It's become synonymous, in the same way I wouldn't use Holodomor to describe a genocide even if it happened to be similar. Language evolves, after all.

You might not. I would not as legitimate scholars don't even agree whether it it was genocide, or if the famine was the affects of industrialization or some other cause.
However, with regards to the term holocaust, some groups have described clear genocides of their own as a holocaust and some Jewish groups have become defensive

 

[Greg K]

That comes from a Dragon article that uses the term "soul jar", I believe.

Except the i assumed it long before I ever owned an issue of Dragon

 

[Hussar]

Did Pathfinder change the phylactery? I never paid it attention when looking at PF 1e. From AD&D to 3e, the phylactery was where the lich stored its own soul for protection. If that is no longer what it does in Pathfinder, then, yes, I see why phylactery would not be appropriate.

That's not quite true.

In the 1e Monster Manual, there is nothing in there that says anything about storing its soul in the phylactery, just that the phylactery is needed to become a lich:

The lich passes from a state of humanity to a non-human, non- living existence through force of will. It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery.

Note that you do not need to destroy the phylactery in 1e to kill a lich.

2e is where a lich stores it soul in a phylactery- which can be any object, thus, making it actually NOT a phylactery. Might as well call it a sofa, because it's certainly not an amulet.

3e makes a phylactery most directly related to the real world one. However, it does state:

The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil

So, by 3e, we're directly linking someone's religious cultural artifacts with evil. Not a great look.

 

[Greg K]

2e is where a lich stores it soul in a phylactery- which can be any object, thus, making it actually NOT a phylactery. Might as well call it a sofa, because it's certainly not an amulet.

It does not need to be an amulet to be a phylactery. A phylactery can be a safeguard which is defined as "a measure taken to protect someone or something or to prevent something undesirable". So any object containing the lich's soul as protective measure can, technically, be a phylactery.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You might not. However, other groups have described their own genocides as a holocaust and some Jewish groups have become defensive

You're ignoring my point: people get touchy about it because it didn't really mean "genocide" until it became the proper name for a specific genocide. It's the same with the Holodomor. Honestly I find it pretty understandable.

Except the i assumed it long before I ever owned an issue of Dragon

I mean, maybe you did? I find memory to be a funny, weirdly mutable thing at times. Just look at the Mandela Effect.

 

[Greg K]

I mean, maybe you did? I find memory to be a funny, weirdly mutable thing at times. Just look at the Mandela Effect.

Possibly. My brain and memory are still a bit faulty from long COVID. However, I do recall back in 1e we assumed that the lich could be destroyed by destroying the phylactery. Perhaps we did read it somewhere.

 

[Greg K]

You're ignoring my point: people get touchy about it because it didn't really mean "genocide" until it became the proper name for a specific genocide. It's the same with the Holodomor. Honestly I find it pretty understandable.

Yes, technically, the Holodormor is a holocaust. I thought you were referring to the debate as to whether it was genocide or the result of some other cause
That it (the Holocaust) has become associated with genocide through a specific genocide, it (imo) should not prevent other groups from refering to similar events of genocide as a holocaust provided they refer it as a specific holocaust for clarity