Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[VelvetViolet]

There are several benefits to calling it “horcrux”:

• “Horcrux”, as a single word, cannot be copyrighted
• Horcrux is not trademarked either, and that wouldn’t prevent you from mentioning it. Kleenex never sued anyone for mentioning characters blew their noses on Kleenex
• Horcrux already has the intended meaning
• As a recent neologism, Horcrux doesn’t have any confusing linguistic baggage
• Horcrux has the benefit of being well known through the popularity of Harry Potter
• Horcrux is flexible enough to use for any kinds of objects that contain souls
• Horcrux just sounds cool
• Horcrux is easy to spell and pronounce
• Using “horcrux” would fit neatly into the fantasy gaming scene’s long history of lifting names and concepts from fantasy fiction
• It’s an update for modern times where the lingo is shifting
• Did I mention it sounds cool?

 

[ReshiIRE]

It must be somewhat exasperating for Paizo that the most online buzz they've managed to generate since the release of PF2 is from this change in terminology. Nobody ever wants to discuss their recent Adventure Paths in such depth. Or at all, it seems.

I'm fairly sure what has genearted the most online buzz has been the whole massive issue with how Paizo has been treating staff and the unionisation effort.

Outside of that, while the community isn't active here, the subreddit for Pathfinder 2e is hugely active, as is their own forums; I can imagine several Foundry-oriented communities would be quite active too, since Pathfinder 2e is considered to be the best way to run Pathfinder 2e, and there's no doubt that the Pathfinder 2e integration into Foundry is one of the best integrations in Foundry.

Really the only place this has caused the most buzz has been here...

Which raises a number of "interesting" questions about the community here.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It must be somewhat exasperating for Paizo that the most online buzz they've managed to generate since the release of PF2 is from this change in terminology. Nobody ever wants to discuss their recent Adventure Paths in such depth. Or at all, it seems.

Nah, the Mwangi Expanse book got a lot of solid buzz. And so was Strength of Thousands until the work scandals landed in the middle of it.

 

[Greg K]

I mean, none of these point to a common usage. In fact, the article on Native Americans makes the point that people don't commonly use it for exactly the reasons we've outlined. They are arguing to use it more generally and that people don't seem to be comfortable with that.

First, Hussar said nobody uses it and nothing about common usage.

Second, are you referring to the article, "Native American Genocide or Holocaust?" Yes, he makes the point that the Jewish Holocaust museum limits the term holocaust to one event rather than acknowledging that there has been multiple holocausts.

"The historical records demonstrate that Wounded Knee was not an isolated event. If we add forced sterilization of Indian women and the transfer of Indian children to non-Indian families by state agencies, we must conclude not only that the American holocaust happened, but that parts of it are still going on".
(note: emphasis mine)

Popular usage should not necessarily be a limiting factor. Just over forty years ago, scholar Irving Horrowitz, wrote an essay that he presented to a confernce on Jewish and Armenian genocides. In the opening, he lamented about Post Holocaust studies at the time being dominated by a few waging a "linguistic battle" on whether the term "holocaust" should be applied to other genocides. He, despite being Jewish, also stated in his opening that he did not wish to dismiss the uniquness of the experience of Jewish victims of the Nazi experience, but ,with regards to others using the term "holocaust", he quoted Elie Wiesel that we Jews are often too close to the subject to be objective. Linguisitic battles ver usage of the term "holocaust", he noted, serve only to divide rather than unite genocide victims. In other words, Armenians (and other groups (e.g. Native Americans) should be able to refer to the genocides that they experienced as holocausts should they choose (and many of them do as I had shown in a few links and even evident in Horowitz's opening). It does not take away from the Jewish experience, whereas trying to hold on to the term as our own divides us.

 

[Cadence]

First, Hussar said nobody uses it and nothing about common usage.

Second, are you referring to the article, "Native American Genocide or Holocaust?" Yes, he makes the point that the Jewish Holocaust museum limits the term holocaust to one event rather than acknowledging that there has been multiple holocausts.

"The historical records demonstrate that Wounded Knee was not an isolated event. If we add forced sterilization of Indian women and the transfer of Indian children to non-Indian families by state agencies, we must conclude not only that the American holocaust happened, but that parts of it are still going on".
(note: emphasis mine)

Popular usage should not necessarily be a limiting factor. Just over forty years ago, scholar Irving Horrowitz, wrote an essay that he presented to a confernce on Jewish and Armenian genocides. In the opening, he lamented about Post Holocaust studies at the time being dominated by a few waging a "linguistic battle" on whether the term "holocaust" should be applied to other genocides. He, despite being Jewish, also stated in his opening that he did not wish to dismiss the uniquness of the experience of Jewish victims of the Nazi experience, but ,with regards to others using the term "holocaust", he quoted Elie Wiesel that we Jews are often too close to the subject to be objective. Linguisitic battles ver usage of the term "holocaust", he noted, serve only to divide rather than unite genocide victims. In other words, Armenians (and other groups (e.g. Native Americans) should be able to refer to the genocides that they experienced as holocausts should they choose (and many of them do as I had shown in a few links and even evident in Horowitz's opening). It does not take away from the Jewish experience, whereas trying to hold on to the term as our own divides us.

Was "holocaust" widely used for great slaughters or massacres or genocides before it began to be used for "the Holocaust" in reference to what occurred in WWII? I don't think I've read it used for other such atrocities before 1945, but if it was regularly used in that way it would definitely seem reasonable to me to use it for a variety of similar tragedies. If not, using it for all those killed in the Nazi death camps seems reasonable to me (I was surprised at first that the OED views that as an expanded use), but I can completely see why a lot of folks would be offended by the use of the term to other incidences of genocide in history and it would feel intentionally disrespectful to me.

 

[Greg K]

Was "holocaust" widely used for great slaughters or massacres or genocides before it began to be used for "the Holocaust" in reference to what occurred in WWII? I don't think I've read it used for other such atrocities before 1945, but if it was regularly used in that way it would definitely seem reasonable to me to use it for a variety of similar tragedies. If not, using it for all those killed in the Nazi death camps seems reasonable to me (I was surprised at first that the OED views that as an expanded use), but I can completely see why a lot of folks would be offended by the use of the term to other incidences of genocide in history and it would feel intentionally disrespectful to me

Someone else linked an article on usages of "holocaust" and when the Sho'ah became known as the Holocaust. I do know that, in the initial years following, the term Holocaust was not used (or, at the least was not common usage). Yiddish speaking Jews originally called it Hurban ("Destruction") in reference to the destruction of the First Temple and in both Israel and France(?) it was called Sho'ah meaning "Catastrophe" to refer to the Jews. The other common word that was first introduced at the time to describe what happened was "genocide".

An example of earlier usage, but not common usage,is in 1920 in reference to the Armenians. Churchill described Turks "massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust…beyond human redress.” (note: emphais mine). The victims of the genocide and their descendants have often referred to the genocide as a holocaust in reference (whether they did so after the Holocaust, I do not know).

 

[Justice and Rule]

First, Hussar said nobody uses it and nothing about common usage.

Second, are you referring to the article, "Native American Genocide or Holocaust?" Yes, he makes the point that the Jewish Holocaust museum limits the term holocaust to one event rather than acknowledging that there has been multiple holocausts.

"The historical records demonstrate that Wounded Knee was not an isolated event. If we add forced sterilization of Indian women and the transfer of Indian children to non-Indian families by state agencies, we must conclude not only that the American holocaust happened, but that parts of it are still going on".
(note: emphasis mine)

Popular usage should not necessarily be a limiting factor. Just over forty years ago, scholar Irving Horrowitz, wrote an essay that he presented to a confernce on Jewish and Armenian genocides. In the opening, he lamented about Post Holocaust studies at the time being dominated by a few waging a "linguistic battle" on whether the term "holocaust" should be applied to other genocides. He, despite being Jewish, also stated in his opening that he did not wish to dismiss the uniquness of the experience of Jewish victims of the Nazi experience, but ,with regards to others using the term "holocaust", he quoted Elie Wiesel that we Jews are often too close to the subject to be objective. Linguisitic battles ver usage of the term "holocaust", he noted, serve only to divide rather than unite genocide victims. In other words, Armenians (and other groups (e.g. Native Americans) should be able to refer to the genocides that they experienced as holocausts should they choose (and many of them do as I had shown in a few links and even evident in Horowitz's opening). It does not take away from the Jewish experience, whereas trying to hold on to the term as our own divides us.

I think that whole argument is just not a great one: there's no added benefit to calling something else a Holocaust anymore than calling another genocide a Sho'ah as well. The whole "linguistic battle" doesn't need to be fought because we don't need to expand these terms out, any more than we should start going around and calling forced relocations a "_______ Trail of Tears". To me, I think it's fine to leave those specific terms specific. Trying to coopt them doesn't help what is actually needed, which is education on the subject. I also think it's fairly reasonable for people to be uncomfortable with trying to press that linguistic evolution, which is why I don't see the point in trying to argue it; again, there's little to actually gain, and not nearly enough for the discomfort it seems to cause some.

An example of earlier usage, but not common usage,is in 1920 in reference to the Armenians. Churchill described Turks "massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust…beyond human redress.” (note: emphais mine). The victims of the genocide and their descendants have often referred to the genocide as a holocaust in reference (whether they did so after the Holocaust, I do not know).

I mean, the term "Armenian Genocide" is so common that when I try actually googling "Armenian Holocaust" it simply comes up with the former.

 

[Argyle King]

There are several benefits to calling it “horcrux”:

• “Horcrux”, as a single word, cannot be copyrighted
• Horcrux is not trademarked either, and that wouldn’t prevent you from mentioning it. Kleenex never sued anyone for mentioning characters blew their noses on Kleenex
• Horcrux already has the intended meaning
• As a recent neologism, Horcrux doesn’t have any confusing linguistic baggage
• Horcrux has the benefit of being well known through the popularity of Harry Potter
• Horcrux is flexible enough to use for any kinds of objects that contain souls
• Horcrux just sounds cool
• Horcrux is easy to spell and pronounce
• Using “horcrux” would fit neatly into the fantasy gaming scene’s long history of lifting names and concepts from fantasy fiction
• It’s an update for modern times where the lingo is shifting
• Did I mention it sounds cool?

"Horcrux" would risk being more offensive to contemporary audiences, as it is now associated with an author who has negative views toward the trans-community.


Edit: Regarding Apostle names as demon/devil lords-

Maybe it's just me, but "Paul, Lord of Hell" and "James the Defiler" conjure a very different image.

Currently, many of the devil/demon lords are named after fallen angels: Dagon, Moloch, Belial, and etc.

 

[Greg K]

I think that whole argument is just not a great one: there's no added benefit to calling something else a Holocaust anymore than calling another genocide a Sho'ah as well.

There are some big differences. First, calling the genocide of non-Jews a Sho'ah would be wrong as they are not Jewish. Sho'ah is a Hebrew world. That would be an example of appropriation.

Holocaust as a term for genocide is not different. The term holocaust had been used to describe the pogroms against Russian Jews, but was used by Churchill to describe the Armenian genoicide more than a decade before it was ever applied towards the genocide of Jews, Romany, certain Slavs and others at the hands of the Nazis..The original Jewish terms used by Jews were Ola and and Sho'ah. Holocaust was introduced later by a few writers, but most Jews continued ot use Sho'ah, because a) most Jews did not like the religious connotation of the term Holocaust; and b) Sho'ah focused upon the Jewish people involved. (Encyclopedia Britanica).
According to the website for the Museum of Tolerance. After WWII, the word "holocaust" became a more specific-used term in English speaking countries and, not until the 1970s did become the standardized English word for "systemized annhilation of European Jews". (emphasis mine).

I mean, the term "Armenian Genocide" is so common that when I try actually googling "Armenian Holocaust" it simply comes up with the former.

I can think of a few reasons why that might be such as resistance to officialy recognize the genocide of the Armenians and resistance by some against others using the term holocaust despite prior uses.
Btw, type it in as "Armenian Holocaust" with quotes, although as soon as typed it in without quotes, the first two things that appeared in my nav bar listing were the Armenian Holocaust (movie) and Armenian Holocaust.

 

[Hussar]

There are some big differences. First, calling the genocide of non-Jews a Sho'ah would be wrong as they are not Jewish. Sho'ah is a Hebrew world. That would be an example of appropriation.

Holocaust as a term for genocide is not different. The term holocaust had been used to describe the pogroms against Russian Jews, but was used by Churchill to describe the Armenian genoicide more than a decade before it was ever applied towards the genocide of Jews, Romany, certain Slavs and others at the hands of the Nazis..The original Jewish terms used by Jews were Ola and and Sho'ah. Holocaust was introduced later by a few writers, but most Jews continued ot use Sho'ah, because a) most Jews did not like the religious connotation of the term Holocaust; and b) Sho'ah focused upon the Jewish people involved. (Encyclopedia Britanica).
According to the website for the Museum of Tolerance. After WWII, the word "holocaust" became a more specific-used term in English speaking countries and, not until the 1970s did become the standardized English word for "systemized annhilation of European Jews". (emphasis mine).

I can think of a few reasons why that might be such as resistance to officialy recognize the genocide of the Armenians and resistance by some against others using the term holocaust despite prior uses.
Btw, type it in as "Armenian Holocaust" with quotes, although as soon as typed it in without quotes, the first two things that appeared in my nav bar listing were the Armenian Holocaust (movie) and Armenian Holocaust.

Again, I have to ask.

Your arguement is that it is ok to appropriate Jewish cultural language because other groups are appropriating the word Holocaust? That if we allow one word to be appropriated, regardless of any meaning changes - after all, a phylactery, even in any dictionary definition, isn't a sofa - which a Lich's Phylactery certainly can be - it doesn't have to be an amulet at all - we must allow all words to be appropriated?