Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[ReshiIRE]

"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.

Do note that for a lot of trans people however, Harryy Potter does remain popular to them despite JK Rowling's utterly naughty word views and actions.

Taking her world and IP and away from her and making it the community's, much like taking away the Cthulhu mythos from Lovecraft, is the best revenge.

 

[VelvetViolet]

"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.

And Gygax posted that disturbing dragonsfoot post claiming that it’s lawful good to kill people after converting them to prevent them from lapsing. And Hitler ate sugar. Every author ever born is going to be problematic if you comb their works and biography to find something problematic. Some just get more coverage than others.

(Btw I am trans and I don’t find anything objectionable about Rowling’s statements. Which I have actually read, and have read in good faith.)

Do you want me to invent another word? Fine. I call it Animarium. From Latin anima meaning “soul” plus -arium suffix meaning “container”. Thus, soul container. Happy now? It was so easy to do that. I’m astonished nobody did it before now.

 

[ReshiIRE]

(Btw I am trans and I don’t find anything objectionable about Rowling’s statements. Which I have actually read, and have read in good faith.)

Perhaps you may want to reconsider that statement if you haven't kept up with it lately.

Coming from a fellow (not out, trying to maintain one's sanity) trans person, I really can't see how what's she said and done isn't objectionable. She actively hates us.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Heh. I think the larger risk would be for any RPG publisher to get sued into oblivion if they tried to appropriate something that is so clearly J. K. Rowlings IP.

Funny how WotC got pilloried for their portmanteau's in 4e as a money grab to bolster their IP, but, apparently, it's okay to do so if you really like the word?

I'm not familiar with the 4E issue you've mentioned, so I don't have a comment pertaining to that.

You have a good point about the Rowling IP and legal issues.

Again, you can’t copyright a word. Consult a lawyer if you don’t believe me.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes. That may have been ill-advised, given what a hot potato the word is. My broader point is that the cultural spheres have a long, overlapping history which persists to this day and it's not always easy to disentangle them. Words have been appropriated, rejected, and reappropriated; myths have been interwoven and philosophies intermixed.

These syncretisms go back a long way, prior to Alexander's conquests. Biblical stories such as Og of Bashan show Mycenaean influence; Samson shares many features with Hercules and suggests a common Mesopotamian precursor, if not outright appropriation of the Greek myth; the figure of Japheth (one of Noah's sons) may be an incorporation of Iapetus, and Noah's nakedness before his sons may be a retelling of an older myth which involves a Uranian castration. It's no coincidence that the biblical tribe of Dan is implicated geographically in many of these stories and it seems entirely likely that they, like the Philistines, were a Mycenaean culture but one which was admitted into a growing Samarian polity; biblically, the Danites are cast as descendants of Bilhah - one of Jacob's "handmaidens" - suggesting a diminished status; one of adoption.

The incorporation of Sophia (wisdom) literature demonstrates deep Platonic influence on nascent Judaism, and it's quite impossible to disentangle "pagan" "Christian" "Jewish" and "Gnostic" traditions until quite late; emergent strands of thought can be isolated, but really, each of these terms are retrojections. Each of these traditions, in a sense, helped define the others as they emerged, as certain ideas and practices were adopted or held in contradistinction in order to establish various cultic or ethnic identities.

Going back to your earlier point, the fact that "phylactery" is Greek rather than Hebrew is something of a moot point, particularly when talking about Second Temple Judaism. Shortly before Jesus of Nazareth, there were more Jews using the Greek-translation Septuagint (LXX)- particularly around the Mediterranean - than there were Jews using the Hebrew texts. In fact, Judaism really only dropped using the Greek LXX largely as a result of how the LXX was adopted by predominately Greek-speaking (gentile) Christian communities. So using Hebrew rather than Greek/Latin eventually became a cultural marker separating them from Christians, though this was not an overnight process.

 

[Argyle King]

Again, you can’t copyright a word. Consult a lawyer if you don’t believe me.

Trademark may be more-correct, but you can [have legal rights to a word or phrase] if it is used in a specific way associated with "goods and services."

 

[Argyle King]

And Gygax posted that disturbing dragonsfoot post claiming that it’s lawful good to kill people after converting them to prevent them from lapsing. And Hitler ate sugar. Every author ever born is going to be problematic if you comb their works and biography to find something problematic. Some just get more coverage than others.

(Btw I am trans and I don’t find anything objectionable about Rowling’s statements. Which I have actually read, and have read in good faith.)

Do you want me to invent another word? Fine. I call it Animarium. From Latin anima meaning “soul” plus -arium suffix meaning “container”. Thus, soul container. Happy now? It was so easy to do that. I’m astonished nobody did it before now.

I did not request that you invent anything.

I commented on something against which members of a contemporary audience have expressed negative feelings.

As similar feelings were presented for being the basis of why particular pieces of D&D (and Pathfinder) were said to be offensive to portions of the same contemporary audience, I feel it would be a valid PR concern to discuss before a company were to invest in bringing that potentially "offensive" element into a product.

I cannot comment on whether or not Hitler enjoyed sugar. It's not a subject which I've devoted time to studying.

Personally, I honestly can't even say much about Harry Potter. I've never read the books. I've picked up what little I know through cultural osmosis.

What I can say is that I am aware that there are people who would be upset about doing something which may be construed as giving more prominence to Rowling's work.

My recognition that a group of people feel a certain way is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of the validity of their feelings.

Personally, I would not be offended. Personally, I'm not offended by "phylactery" or "horcrux." But, in the context of a conversation discussing why "phylactery" is offensive, I believe it to be relevant to acknowledge why a change to "horcrux" may be seen as worse by an audience wanting more offense-neutral language.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Related to the discussion re: horcrux and JK Rowling, Lindsay Ellis posted a followup to her Death of the Author video that I think summarises the situation well - and I would think show why the comparison between offense for the use of the word horcrux and phylactery is, in my opinion, faulty; especially if one beleives in the reclaimation and different ownership of words (such as how words like queer got reclaimed, etc.)

 

[Argyle King]

Related to the discussion re: horcrux and JK Rowling, Lindsay Ellis posted a followup to her Death of the Author video that I think summarises the situation well - and I would think show why the comparison between offense for the use of the word horcrux and phylactery is, in my opinion, faulty; especially if one beleives in the reclaimation and different ownership of words (such as how words like queer got reclaimed, etc.)

Thank you for sharing.

I'll check that out.

I'm not sure exactly how to feel about "reclaiming" words. I get the idea. At the same time, I think it also touches on an idea that I mentioned earlier: culturally, it appears to sometimes be okay for language to be said to evolve and sometimes not okay. Occasionally, I think there are points at which modern culture's rules (especially in the US) for determining okay versus not okay become so convoluted that the average person mentally tunes out.

For me personally, I generally have a thick skin, but also attempt to have empathy in order to understand others. I'm someone who acknowledges how marginalized people are mistreated, while also being someone who enjoy the recent Chappelle performance. I think context matters.

In the context of fantasy roleplaying, I am not someone who finds the use of "phylactery" offensive. Maybe other people do.

After participating in this thread, I've come to realize that I'm intrigued by the idea of the "Lich's Tabernacle" (as an adventure) featuring "Paul, Lord of Hell" and "Jake from Devil Farm."

At the end of the day, Paizo can choose what works for their product. To me, "soul cage" sounds like an alt-rock band from the 90s.

I think "horcrux" is a neat word. I'm not sure that a company (and said company's audience) which found "phylactery" an issue would find comfort in "horcrux."

 

[ReshiIRE]

'm not sure exactly how to feel about "reclaiming" words. I get the idea. At the same time, I think it also touches on an idea that I mentioned earlier: culturally, it appears to sometimes be okay for language to be said to evolve and sometimes not okay. Occasionally, I think there are points at which modern culture's rules (especially in the US) for determining okay versus not okay become so convoluted that the average person mentally tunes out.

The reclaimation of 'queer' has mostly been driven less by modern culture and more so by modern LGBTQIA+ culture (which are pretty different), and I will note it is not 'universal'; it obviously doesn't cover other languages, and it's not a term I would use to refer to myself personally.

Reclaimation is a complicated thing; like all culture is. I'm not sure I would call it evolution or rejection of reclaimation as not evolution however. It's more so a process with undeterminable result, and certainly involves 'generational' changes.

For me personally, I generally have a thick skin, but also attempt to have empathy in order to understand others. I'm someone who acknowledges how marginalized people are mistreated, while also being someone who enjoy the recent Chappelle performance. I think context matters.

This is off-topic and we're going a bit away from the point, but I do feel the need to address it.

Not to dwell on it too much there were a ton of problems around Chappelle's pretty heavily transphobic 'jokes' and bits in his latest performance:

a) he blamed a trans comedian's suicide on some apparent bad reactions and harassment from 'the trans community' - something which the family heavily disputes.
b) he did not respect her identity during said program.
c) he called himself a TERF (trans exclusionary radical feminist); since TERFs are against trans rights by default, he can't exactly claim to support trans people like he did during his performance.
d) several of the statements he said seemed to imply as if (at-least from an American perspective?) that the rights and struggles of black people and LGBTQIA+ people in the US are at odds with each other; in general, some of what he said seems to ignore the lives of black LGBTQIA+ people and in fact that, horrifically, trans black people (particularly trans black women) are heavily at risk of being murdered or to suffer violence.
e) he made some... pretty horrific references and comparisons between the results of sex reassignment surgery for trans women and fake goods.

I'm pointing this out more for awareness and why in particular that performance has (rightly) been called out as transphobic; I know for many Chappelle's comedic, especially in the past, meant something to them, but I think in the last while he's gone down a hateful path

In the context of fantasy roleplaying, I am not someone who finds the use of "phylactery" offensive. Maybe other people do.

Which is fair. I don't doubt that with the people I am likely to GM with, the use of phylactery wouldn't turn heads, and since I myself am not Jewish, I would necessarily be offended by it either.

But I do think the name change is positive, especially since it allows for more GM customisation of their world, and allows an easy way to get across the concept in one sentance.