Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[TheSword]

Matthew 23:5

πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· πλατύνουσιν γὰρ τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσιν τὰ κράσπεδα,

Do you understand that the Levant was Hellenized from 332BCE?
Do you understand the impact of Middle Platonism on Second Temple Judaism?

Has it ever occurred to you that you have no idea what you're talking about?

What an exceedingly snotty response.

 

[Aldarc]

What an exceedingly snotty response.

It doesn't make him wrong though.

 

[Bohandas]

I wish there was a better name than “soul cage”

There is, but I think "horcrux" is trademarked, so they can't use it

EDIT:
Personally, if I was in their situation I would have lifted some russian word from the legend of Koschei the Undead.

EDIT:
On a seperate note I support this decision by Paizo. Not because of people taking offense to the old wording however, but because they were using the word incorrectly. (edit: maybe next these games can all stop using the word "race" incorrectly)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thanks for your contribution to this thread, @Sepulchrave II. Your posts here and elsewhere on ENWorld lead me to believe you're an academic specialising in the history of religion so your expertise is much appreciated.

If I understand you, you're saying that it's very difficult to distinguish between phylactery in the sense of the Jewish tefillin and phylactery in the sense of a protective amulet in the Greek speaking world because Greek language and culture had a major influence on Judaism during and after the Hellenistic Period (323 to 31 BCE).

I think I can support this position with three quotations.

The first describes the encounter between the two cultures in general. Preface to WD Davies and L Finkelstein, The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume Two (1989):

The evidence for the mutual interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism inside Palestine and in the Diaspora… is evidence for an almost ubiquitous interpenetration which is now increasingly cogent. The traditional neat distinction made between Jerusalem and Athens, between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, has had to be radically modified even if it cannot be wholly abandoned. Hellenistic culture encroached intrusively and effectively on Judaism.​

The second describes Jews living in Hellenistic Egypt. J Mélèze-Modrzejewski "Judaism in Egypt" in The Cambridge History of Religions in the Ancient World Volume II (2013):

In assimilating themselves to the conquering Greco-Macedonians – the "Hellenes" – the Jews of Hellenistic Egypt practiced their Judaism according to the terms of Greek language and culture, even while remaining faithful to the monotheistic tenets of their ancestral law… On the whole, Hellenistic Judaism in Alexandria and Egypt successfully negotiated the difficult feat of being simultaneously both Jewish and Greek.​

The third argues that tefillin were created out of the interaction between the two cultures. Y Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (2008):

[Tefillin] originated in all likelihood after the Jewish encounter with Hellenism, when some rather obscure verses in Deuteronomy, which seem to mention amulets (if only as a metaphor), began to be read in a new light. The prevalence of inscribed amulets in the Hellenistic world, and particularly perhaps of the widespread and formulaic ephesia grammata (which we know to have been carried around in little stitched hides), and of Homeric verses as amulet contents, led to a change in the horizon of expectations with which Jews approached this biblical text. Henceforth, many understood it both as calling for, and as demonstrating the effectiveness of, a length-of-days amulet… Although taken to be a scripturally endorsed amulet, tefillin can be seen as an invented tradition, an adaptation to Greek life whose form was enabled by the centrality of Torah to Jewish life, and an example of how (in Erich Gruen's general formulation) the Jews' "adjustment to the Hellenistic world expressed itself not as accommodation but as reaffirmation of their own lustrous legacy."​

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A container for something necessary to life, with a strong evocation of resurrection magic? They should call it a Grail, obviously.

 

[Irlo]

Oh, don't think for one second that Pazio isn't trying to influence the culture around their games through their editorial choices.

That's a baffling response. I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Are you equating trying to influence culture with making words off limits?

Gaming supplements and other entertainments influence culture and are influenced by culture. That Paizo recognizes that is a good thing. Writers, editors, and publishers should make informed decisions. Paizo can influence culture by calling the liches' soul receptacles phylacteries, or they can influence culture by calling them soul cages. It's an editorial choice. And that choice has an influence.

If you characterize that editorial choice as some sort of suppression of speech, well, that just seems strange. I'm inclined to interpret that as an attempt to dismiss and de-legitimize efforts to be thoughtful and deliberate about the way we use words.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If you characterize that editorial choice as some sort of suppression of speech, well, that just seems strange. I'm inclined to interpret that as an attempt to dismiss and de-legitimize efforts to be thoughtful and deliberate about the way we use words.

I agree that Paizo just stated that they felt ill at ease with their own use of the word, given that it didn't reflect what they envisionned for a soul thingie, never implying that anyone is forced tofollow suit. I also concur that publishers dropping the word, over time, will make this obscure usage become organically forgotten (it never entered the dictionnaries in the first place). But I feel that people (not you, I am just replying because you mention suppression of speech) are sometimes adding a moral judgment that was absent in Paizo's original communication, saying "they are doing it because it's right/moral or because using the word was offensive".

When one adds that, it can be construed as meaning that those who keep using the word are themselves morally wrong or offensive. To make an analogy, it's like posting "I stopped minmaxing because that was childish, but you can keep doing so if you want": someone who would do this would only saying something about themselves, but it can be seen as an attack on others, who enjoy minmaxing, as if they were childish themselves. It's sure to create bad blood.

It is established that Paizo didn't pass a moral argument on their customers (just that they didn't feel the word was accurate neither in the lich context nor in the real world context of the word, so they wanted to change it), and there seem to be a consensus on this board that nobody is preventing other people from using phylactery at their table. Mentionning a "moral superiority" of dropping the word might only prompt negativity and imply that "you can keep using it" is not true (because it would be "you can keep using it if you're offensive", which is in effect similar to saying "you shouldn't use it"). At the other end of the spectrum, implying that it's a fault of character to change a word you feel inaccurate and that stasis is somehow morally superior results in the same result of being potentially offending to the other readers. Once both sides drop the "moral argument" I think the discussion might continue appeased. I hope so anyway, because the thread contained interesting posts about the adoption of tefillin into Jewish practice and it would be sad if the thread degenerated.

 

[Bohandas]

Oh, don't think for one second that Pazio isn't trying to influence the culture around their games through their editorial choices.

Usually I'd be on your side, but the fact of the matter is that they weren;t using the word correctly. To fit the definition it needs to either be a worn item or to contain a physical relic, and the lich's "phylactery" generally checks neither box.

Now I just wish they would stop using the word "race" incorrectly. Tgat's the big onenthat's causing problems, and the only criticism I can legitimately give this decision is to raise the possibility that they may have deferred that important change to deal with this minor one.

 

[Hussar]

You’re not replying to me.

No, I meant that I was not trying to make light of or belittle the fantastic work you guys have put in on Level Up. I can only imagine the unbelievable amounts of hours you've poured into that. So, saying it was small seemed like a shot, and it was totally not what I meant and I wanted to make that very clear.

 

[Hussar]

If a "crucifix" were included as an item in an adventure, my default assumption of what the item did -absent any other information- would not be that it stored a spirit.

Cultural depictions of how a crucifix is used to ward away spirits would (to me) imply that it is some sort of item used to drive a spirit away, not to contain one.

With a backstory to explain why the use were different (and to introduce a magic item to the game) I would find it easier to explain the usage of the word/concept that had been previously presented.

Without that, my default guess at why an author chose that particular word would be to think that it was some shorthand way to explain the concept of a holy symbol used to drive creatures away.

As with the other words brought up during this conversation, context would matter. In a setting like Banestorm, I imagine I would have some different thoughts about what else were implied.

So, why would you presume that a phylactery would be something to store a spirit in? After all, that's very much not what a phylactery is.