Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

No matter the context I find it strange to at one point say that that changing language needs to be accepted but on the other saying that one word which has been in use for decades and most people do not even connect it to (one of) its original meanings should not be used anymore.
Isn't that a textbook example of changing language?

I mean, you can't say "no matter the context" because that's why some changes are accepted and some are not. If you remove context, of course it looks arbitrary: you're removing the reasoning behind it happening.

 

[Argyle King]

Language drift and change, in and of itself, isn't good or bad. It's just the way language works. Words change meanings, fall out of usage, new words are created.

Borrowing a word from another language isn't inherently wrong . . . . but as several folks have pointed out, context matters. Linguistic context, and cultural context.

Phylactery was originally a Greek word, that overtime, became associated with a Jewish religious practice, which is now the primary meaning of the term. Gygax borrowed it, likely ignorant of it's context, or perhaps not fully understanding the context.

To continue using the word in D&D to describe a soul vessel for an evil undead abomination is disrespectful and insensitive to those of the Jewish faith for whom the word has a sacred and important cultural meaning.

Not all those of Jewish descent and/or Jewish faith use the word, or care about the word, or are offended by D&D's use of the word . . . . but enough are, and that's enough to make it an inappropriate usage.

By removing the word phylactery from D&D (and similar games, like Pathfinder), we aren't really losing much of anything other than a cool sounding word. And we're making progress on making the game more inclusive. It's a good trade, IMO.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but a question that I think a different user was asking upthread is akin to asking: "why is the cultural/contextual shift accepted when going from Greek to Jewish but the cultural/contextual shift not accepted when going from Abraham to Gygax?"

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but a question that I think a different user was asking upthread is akin to asking: "why is the cultural/contextual shift accepted when going from Greek to Jewish but the cultural/contextual shift not accepted when going from Abraham to Gygax?"

Good question!

For starters, I think specific definitions are generally more durable than generalized ones, which makes the evolution of language more difficult in this case: for example, it's easy to see the word "phylactery" as a generalized word falling out of usage while the specific usage eventually supersedes it. I'd argue this is what happened over the centuries. It's hard for Gygax's definition to start to do the same given that it refers to the English word for a specific religious item which has yet to fall out of usage. That's already a problem.

More than that, though, it's stuck in a weird no man's land where it both refers to the religious item but also kind of doesn't. To me, it seems pretty clear that Gygax was referencing the actual religious item when he put it in there, but when someone actually went to explain what it was they didn't use the term/reference at all, leading to a very broad idea of what it is. Neither of these is helpful to the usage of the word:

• If you think it's meant to be a reference (and I think Gygax definitely meant it to be as such), it's a poor cultural appropriation of the word and item given that it's something that is exclusively used by evil ultra-powerful necromancers.
• If it's not (which you might take away from the original Dragon article where it's called a Soul Jar), then the word is only really being used to sound cool, at which point I'm not sure the necessity given that it doesn't immediately evoke what the object is. A bunch of the suggested alternatives here are way more evocative of what the item is while also being way more clear.

So to me, it feels like there's just not much reason to hold onto it. Either it's a reference and a bad one, or it's not and you'd probably be better giving it a more evocative name.

 

[Cadence]

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but a question that I think a different user was asking upthread is akin to asking: "why is the cultural/contextual shift accepted when going from Greek to Jewish but the cultural/contextual shift not accepted when going from Abraham to Gygax?"

"Why is 'having a Greek word for amulet introduced into middle English 500+ years ago as a term for the Jewish tefillin when translating a book into English back then' different from 'a game designer picking the word that had tefillin as the primary definition in English for 500+ years from a thesaurus In the 1970s and using it as the name in English of the thing that holds an evil undead wizards soul in a game''"? is certainly a question...

 

[Dire Bare]

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but a question that I think a different user was asking upthread is akin to asking: "why is the cultural/contextual shift accepted when going from Greek to Jewish but the cultural/contextual shift not accepted when going from Abraham to Gygax?"

Because one shift regards a people's sacred and cultural expression. The other is a game.

 

[Argyle King]

"Why is 'having a Greek word for amulet introduced into middle English 500+ years ago as a term for the Jewish tefillin when translating a book into English back then' different from 'a game designer picking the word that had tefillin as the primary definition in English for 500+ years from a thesaurus In the 1970s and using it as the name in English of the thing that holds an evil undead wizards soul in a game''"? is certainly a question...

Am I to understand that tradition and time are, for you, a factor in measuring appropriateness?

If no, can you elaborate on this response and clarify?

If yes, can you elaborate on how you feel that works when applied to words more-recently used differently by contemporary groups of people?

 

[Argyle King]

Because one shift regards a people's sacred and cultural expression. The other is a game.

I can understand that as a point of view.

In some cases, I may agree with that.

As a blanket statement, I imagine that it may create some challenges when attempting to discuss fantasy (or sci-fi) without building a new lexicon.

I'm okay with creating new terminology, but being successful in that endeavor requires it to be communicated well and take some amount of auditory aesthetics into consideration.

Does Paizo index Pathfinder 2 well?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Am I to understand that tradition and time are, for you, a factor in measuring appropriateness?

If no, can you elaborate on this response and clarify?

I feel like a lot of text has been written about this already, and at some point you just have to do the work yourself.

If yes, can you elaborate on how you feel that works when applied to words more-recently used differently by contemporary groups of people?

Do you want to call out some examples? Keep in mind no one in this thread is an expert or arbiter of what "can" and "can't" be said.

 

[Argyle King]

I feel like a lot of text has been written about this already, and at some point you just have to do the work yourself.

Do you want to call out some examples? Keep in mind no one in this thread is an expert or arbiter of what "can" and "can't" be said.

For the former, I'm requesting that you elaborate on your own view.

For the latter, there are both positive and negative examples.

One such example involves a word (which I prefer not to use) which once referred to a bundle of sticks but is currently accepted (and used derisively) as a way to belittle members of the LGBTQ+ community.

A different example would be that saying "that s//t* is fire" would likely be understood to mean something very negative in the past, but it currently means that something is of exceptionally good quality.

*censored so as to avoid exposing people to language which may be harmful to their emotional or psychological health

 

[Justice and Rule]

For the former, I'm requesting that you elaborate on your own view.

For the latter, there are both positive and negative examples.

One such example involves a word (which I prefer not to use) which once referred to a bundle of sticks but is currently accepted (and used derisively) as a way to belittle members of the LGBTQ+ community.

A different example would be that saying "that s//t* is fire" would likely be understood to mean something very negative in the past, but it currently means that something is of exceptionally good quality.

*censored so as to avoid exposing people to language which may be harmful to their emotional or psychological health

I feel like this is just hitting the difference between descriptive expressions versus proper nouns. The latter is meant to be descriptive, and can vary based on delivery and intent, so that your emotion will change the meaning within the group.

This is... less so with the former example. I'm reminded of the South Park episode where they tried to defend a more "neutral" usage of the word, without really addressing the fact the power it has as a general curse is derived from the homophobic power of the original. The slur is specific, and trying to generalize it is hard, especially when its power is derived from the original.

(Man, that episode has aged horribly in retrospect.)

And that's part of the problem: "phylactery" is a specific noun. There is a generalized form, but it has been almost completely superseded by the specific form. It's hard not to reference the specific, especially when you can see the (admittedly muddled) intent to make that reference. While it may not have been intended as offensive, I think it's hard to argue it wasn't used carelessly. This is why making up words (like the example brought up earlier of "Horcrux") is a safer and generally smarter option.