Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Filthy Lucre]

Been there, done that. Many of us here can remember the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s, and the damage it did to the hobby.

If you support the renaming of this component of a Lich on the basis that it intersects with a real world religion, how do you justify not doing the same thing here? Are these not relevantly similar situations?

If you don't support the renaming of this component of a Lich then you're not being contradictory.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Good point there.

I'm not that attached to the lich's phylactery, FWIW. It doesn't really bug me but it was a pretty small part of the game and if Paizo wants to change the name, whatevs.

I wonder if the announcement of it is linked to to the tweets where a former employee accused a staffmember of displaying a nazi symbol in his office. It might be a simple coincidence in calendar, but it was happening a month ago, and we get an announcement like that (for something that is very secondary, just changing the name of a very minor magic item in the future, an announcement seem... out of proportion, especially when they mention that the change was "long overdue" as if there was a large public outcry against it, even if the change was made for benevolent reasons).

 

[Cadence]

If you support the renaming of this component of a Lich on the basis that it intersects with a real world religion, how do you justify not doing the same thing here? Are these not relevantly similar situations?

If you don't support the renaming of this component of a Lich then you're not being contradictory.

It's a different criteria than the poster you are responding to had, but to me it feels like the Lich Philactry takes something positive in a real world religion and associating it with something negative is a big difference. There's probably also something about who decided to use it that way and the relative rl power dynamic between the group membership of the chooser and the culturally used that could be brought up - but I'd want more time to phrase it right.

 

[billd91]

I wonder if the announcement of it is linked to to the tweets where a former employee accused a staffmember of displaying a nazi symbol in his office. It might be a simple coincidence in calendar, but it was happening a month ago, and we get an announcement like that (for something that is very secondary, just changing the name of a very minor magic item in the future, an announcement seem... out of proportion, especially when they mention that the change was "long overdue" as if there was a large public outcry against it, even if the change was made for benevolent reasons).

I doubt it. There's been a bit of a stir up on the internets about use of the term phylactery for a lich's soul repository lately that seems to be independent of the workplace controversy. I think it's more related to the broader criticism of cultural appropriation currently making its way about the blogosphere/twitterverse/tictokopia.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

It's a different criteria than the OP had, but to me it feels like the Lich Philactry takes something positive in a real world religion and associating it with something negative is a big difference. There's probably also something about who decided to use it that way and the relative rl power dynamic between the group membership of the chooser and the culturally used that could be brought up - but I'd want more time to phrase it right.

I'm pretty firmly deontological so the "who" and the "relative power dynamic" are completely irrelevant to my analysis. A moral rule either holds in all cases, or none. So if phylactery = bad because religious reason then -> religious-adjacent-thing = bad because religion reason no matter what we fill the formula terms in with.

The fact that as you put it "the Lich Phylactery takes something positive in a real world religion and associating it with something negative" doesn't seem relevant. Suppose they created a Moses analog who was very nice and amiable but a comical bafoon. That would still be insulting. As per my example in the post you responded to, the christian would just say that the representation of devils and demons trivializes a part of their religion - something that some might take incredibly seriously.

A concrete example is: a racist belief is still racist even if the person who holds it has no power or infinite power.

 

[CleverNickName]

If you support the renaming of this component of a Lich on the basis that it intersects with a real world religion, how do you justify not doing the same thing here? Are these not relevantly similar situations?

If you really don't understand the difference, I'm not the right person to help you. And if you do understand the difference and are just looking for an argument, I'm still not the right person.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I'm pretty firmly deontological so the "who" and the "relative power dynamic" are completely irrelevant to my analysis. A moral rule either holds in all cases, or none. So if phylactery = bad because religious reason then -> religious-adjacent-thing = bad because religion reason no matter what we fill the formula terms in with.

A concrete example is: a racist belief is still racist even if the person who holds it has no power or infinite power.

I feel like you are setting limitations for yourself that will prevent you from fully empathizing or understanding this situation.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I feel like you are setting limitations for yourself that will prevent you from fully empathizing or understanding this situation.

I'm really only concerned with truth values. Either the things I say are true or false. What role does empathy play in determining the truth of a proposition?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

If you really don't understand the difference, I'm not the right person to help you. And if you do understand the difference and are just looking for an argument, I'm still not the right person.

I'm skeptical that you can derive a non-trivial or non-question begging difference. If you're not willing to justify your claims, don't make them.

The point of my post was to present a similarly formed situation and see if you would conform to the logic/rationale you'd already put forth or if you were just going to try and make a case of special pleading.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The use of the word phylactery isn't bad in isolation, since it's just a synonym for amulet. The real issue is when that is conflated with the form factor of tefillin.

Going beyond the lich example, using that form factor for magic charms has issues. Tefillin are just a ritual item used to fulfill a particular interpretation of a commandment in the Torah, any apotropaic qualities ascribed to them blur the lines between religion and folklore.