I never said anything about that.
You didn't need to. It was a logical extension of your argument.
No it doesn't disagree. It agrees completely with me and thanks for linking it. So a Tefillin is two leather boxes connected to a leather strap, not one iron box without a strap as the Lich description says. It's also only one form of the phylactery. So while the Tefillin was likely the inspiration behind that one form, the form shown in the MM is NOT a Tefillin. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you completely ignored the last portion, which isn't too surprising as it destroys your argument. That last portion says, "Other forms of phylacteries can exist, such as rings, amulets, or similar items."
I believe a
tefillin gassot uses metal for the box sides, even if it is wrapped in leather, or at least it's common enough that they make them that way.
And while you can try and run from it, it's absolutely still referential to what a tefillin is with the pages. Small differences don't change the reference being made.
Edit: I'm going to call you out further, because I have looked it up and I can't find any sort of reference that makes a 2E phylactery resemble a tefillin. In fact, most articles I see in reference to this subject point to 3E as the edition where it starts to resemble a proper tefillin. So I'm going to ask you where you get your reference from because I think you're just making it up.
That means quite literally that a lich's phylactery is any object it wants. A ring, my son's right sock with a hole in it, a rock. So by 3.5 SRD RAW, literally any can be used as a protective device, which is the other definition of phylactery. A protective amulet.
lmao, this is an argument against using the term, not for it: that it can be anything doesn't negate original reference. In fact, it makes the name less useful and a worse application. Trying to spin the third definition is worthless given that we can outright
see what is being referenced in their primary example.
Again, none of these arguments are affirmative towards keeping it. There's no reason this thing has to be called "phylactery", and you're just proving my point when you attack the reasoning behind the change rather than giving me a reason that it
needs to be called a phylactery.