Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

 

[CleverNickName]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

I don't disagree, @Justice and Rule , but...could we maybe not bait the trolls?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don't disagree, @Justice and Rule , but...could we maybe not bait the trolls?

It's not really meant as bait, but at this juncture I'll just say my point has been made and leave it at that.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, still forever waiting for that affirmative argument as to why it has to be named "phylactery" that doesn't boil down to traditionalism or the slippery slope.

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

I mean, it's not. In fact, it's really the reverse; tradition is inevitably a bad reason to not change things because it only refers to habit.

But more than that, Paizo didn't talk about "offending people": they felt the word didn't actually reflect or properly reference the item, thus they went with a name that conceptually matched what was being talked about. The whole "offending people" thing is a strawman.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Tradition is as good a reason to keep it as "we don't want to offend a people that aren't offended" is for changing it.

No, it really, really isn't. Like, this argument is so ridiculous that there's nothing I can compare it too. Trying to avoid offense or remove appropriated words from a hobby is not at all on the same level as keeping around a sacred cow just because it's a sacred cow.

Useless sacred cows have next to no chance of improving the world, while removing problematic terms does.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, it's not. In fact, it's really the reverse; tradition is inevitably a bad reason to not change things because it only refers to habit.

Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.

But more than that, Paizo didn't talk about "offending people": they felt the word didn't actually reflect or properly reference the item, thus they went with a name that conceptually matched what was being talked about. The whole "offending people" thing is a strawman.

Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it really, really isn't. Like, this argument is so ridiculous that there's nothing I can compare it too. Trying to avoid offense or remove appropriated words from a hobby is not at all on the same level as keeping around a sacred cow just because it's a sacred cow.

Useless sacred cows have next to no chance of improving the world, while removing problematic terms does.

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, the word is neither appropriated, nor offensive to the people who it hasn't been appropriated from.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I'll point out that there are Jewish people who do feel the change in term was appropriate.

However, there are other Jewish people who don't mind the term or don't feel it needed to be change.

I'm not Jewish / I am Gentile so I can't comment on it's appropriateness or not. But it is clear that it's not a simple situation.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Tradition is neither a good reason to keep/change something, nor a bad reason to keep/change something. Tradition just is.

...

No, when you use tradition as a reason, it no longer just "is". It becomes... a reason. Because you're using it as a reason.

Except that it does match and reflect it, so their stated reason is highly suspect.

Their reasoning is sound, so I don't see the reason to doubt them. I don't see the point in being paranoid about this.

As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, the word is neither appropriated, nor offensive to the people who it hasn't been appropriated from.

I mean, it's totally appropriated. That's not even arguable, given that it's regular usage doesn't involve undead superwizards. I'm not sure how to take this other than an extremely bad-faith argument.