Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

If it were only the box and couldn't be anything else, I'd probably agree with you. The fact that they changed it so that a phylactery can be literally anything is what makes you wrong about this. A ring(or shoe, or pitchfork, or glass bottle, or...) that has no paper, no box and no arm wrap cannot have been intended to be a Tefillin and was simply a mistake on their part.

It's always been like that, though. The Dragon article is just the easiest thing to point to in that regard. 3E is the one that made the reference more obvious, even with its mistakes. Just because it can be other things doesn't suddenly negate the what they said was the most common version of it.

I don't think it's deliberate, and I'm not going to report it, but you do come off in a way that I don't think you intend.

No, if you feel that way, report me. I've been quite clear with what I've said, and if you are honestly offended by it you should report it.

 

[Greg K]

Edit: Misread the quote. One moment, please.

Okay, no, I think you are completely off-base here. Yes, there are other practices similar to that of a tefillin. However, I think that argument falls apart given that the item is called a phylactery, a direct reference to the religious item. I think the assumption is well-founded, and relies less on using second and third definitions as well as having it be a reference to other religious practices without any contextual evidence to support it.

Whereas, I might agree with you if the 3.5 writers had not mentioned other items which keeps with the other definitions. Given that, I have no reason to believe that they would not have known similar items being used in the Mediterranean- a quick look at a wikipedia entry on amulets discusses them

 

[Justice and Rule]

Whereas, I might agree with you if the 3.5 writers had not mentioned other items which keeps with the other definitions.

But they also say that the most common version is something that clearly resembles a phylactery while calling the item a "phylactery". The reference is made, even if they let you make it other things.

Given that, I have no reason to believe that they would not have known similar items being used in the Mediterranean- a quick look at a wikipedia entry on amulets discusses them

I mean, Wikipedia wasn't around in 2000 and the primary definition fits with what they were going for. It's just easier to believe that they looked up what the word meant and instead of creating a hidden reference to something tangential, they referenced the first thing they found under definitions.

 

[Greg K]

But they also say that the most common version is something that clearly resembles a phylactery while calling the item a "phylactery". The reference is made, even if they let you make it other things.

First see the rest of my post which I was editing when you responded. Second, if you are talking about the Jewish person that took offense on the Paizo board, I read their post after you pointed it out. It does not sound as if they were aware that similar items to tefillin existed in other cultures or that phylactery has additional definition. It appears to me that they saw the word and jumped to a conclusion

 

[Justice and Rule]

First see the rest of my post which I was editing when you responded.

I did. I edited in my response.

Second, if you are talking about the Jewish person that took offense on the Paizo board, I read their post after you pointed it out. It does not sound as if they were aware that similar items to tefillin existed in other cultures or that phylactery has additional definition. It sounds like they saw the word and jumped to a conclusion

I feel like that's just a lot of motivated reasoning, because their version has a lot more obvious evidence while yours requires a lot of parsing while avoiding the obvious answer. Like, I don't see why it would be more likely to be a previously-unreferenced prayer box rather than the word specifically being used, in the same way that it seems weird to use the archaic definition while ignoring the primary definition.

 

[Greg K]

But they also say that the most common version is something that clearly resembles a phylactery while calling the item a "phylactery". The reference is made, even if they let you make it other things.



I mean, Wikipedia wasn't around in 2000 and the primary definition fits with what they were going for. It's just easier to believe that they looked up what the word meant and instead of creating a hidden reference to something tangential, they referenced the first thing they found under definitions.

Aaargh. Sorry, my computer screen is flickering and going out as I type (been going on for almost a week if not more) in addition to some visual issues. Screwed up my editing. By wikipedia, I meant people now can easily look it up and see if they took the time. As for WOTC, it is not unreasonalble to think that those people did research. many of those people had interest in other cultures and history

 

[Justice and Rule]

Aaargh. Sorry, my computer screen is flickering and going out as I type in addition to some visual issues. Screwed up my editing.

Dude, I edit my posts relentlessly. I'm the last guy you need to say sorry to.

By wikipedia, I meant people now can look it up. As for WOTC, it is not unreasonalble to think that those people did research. many of those people had interest in other cultures and history

Okay, but I feel like when they do that they are more deliberate and obvious with it: when they reference a cultural item, they often use the proper word for it. In the case of D&D, when "phylactery" is used outside of lich, it isn't in a general fashion but basically always as the religious artifact. What screws up the lich's phylactery in that regard is that Dragon article: even if people say Dragon Magazine isn't canon, it's definitely influential, and that definitely seems to be the place where "it can be anything" comes from. Like, the idea that the lich's soul is hidden/trapped obviously comes from there, as a reference to Koschei, because there's no reference to it in the original material.

What I suspect happened is that, like you say, WOTC has people that are interested in cultures and they like to add flavor. They knew that phylacteries could be a lot of things, but also that Gygax was using a term for a Jewish religious item. So they split the baby: you can still have a phylactery that is anything, but the "most common" kind is basically a version of a tefillin adapted for a lich's needs. That's how I see it because it's definitely how I would have done it when I was in my 20's, and I would have patted myself on the back for it.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, @Greg K , I think my question got lost in the scrum. So, I'll repeat it here.

@Greg K wrote: I agree that is aggravating. Ultimately, it is Paizo's decision. However, they could have also as easily used examples to be clear that they were using the less frequent, but still legitimate uses of the word.

Hussar wrote: I'm actually curious here.

How? How do you use a word so that only the definition that you want to apply will be applied by everyone who reads what you write? So, in this case, how do you get people to only use the definition of the word that you want them to use and ignore every other connotative and denotative meaning of that word?

And, thinking about it later, I have a second question.

Is it worth it? What is the benefit here of keeping a word where you need to have a disclaimer (please use This definition and not That definition for this word) every time you use it? Because, remember, we're not just writing for right now, but, also for some years down the line as well. If they keep phylactery, and somehow include these examples, they need to include these examples every single time they use the word or they are going to run into problems again with people reading phylactery without the examples in some later publication, presuming that it means the first dictionary definition and coming back and questioning the use.

So, what's the upside here? What is the benefit of keeping phylactery?

 

[Tormai]

Out of curiosity, where's the line between an "unhealthy level of empathy" and an unhealthy level of lack of empathy?

For me, an unhealthy level of empathy is what is running rampant these days. Inability to have a different opinion because somehow having a different opinion is offensive or the inability to express why you dislike something because someone will get triggered and be offended. Being upset that anything said by someone else somehow has any bearing on who you are as a person. The US Government wanting to use law enforcement against the parents who question and challenge School Boards and what is being taught to their kids, whether it’s Common Core garbage or the bigotry separating people in the US as either the oppressed or the oppressor.

An unhealthy lack of empathy is being comfortable using racial slurs and thinking it’s acceptable. Being unwilling to listen to those who have different views from your own. Believing horrific tragedies, such as what was perpetrated against George Floyd, was somehow warranted.

But, that’s me and by no means indicative of anyone else.

 

[Tormai]

This is so far from the topic it's dizzying.

Please let's not turn this into a debate about the definition of empathy.

I imagine with @Tormai is trying to get at is the mythical idea (that's been floated in this thread before) about being "offended on behalf" of someone. As if one shouldn't be disturbed by unkind behavior towards others.

Tormai, is that where you are heading with your "too much empathy?" If not, please do correct me.

To a lessor extent yes. Though I did respond to another post about what I mean. I apologize for my comment derailing the thread.