Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[Justice and Rule]

No it wasn't. It was a fabrication on your part if you are attributing it to me or anything I said.

That's not what I said or meant, but I'll drop it because I have no interest in allowing you to draw it further off-topic.

One box(instead of two) of the wrong material and no leather wrap are major differences. There are important reasons for those things to be present. Trying to minimize something like this in order to be right on the internet is not a good look for you.

Uh, you can't talk about "one box (instead of two)" when you excuse Gygax of the mistake in the next paragraph. And while there are absolutely differences, that doesn't make it any less reference to a phylactery, not the least of which the fact that it is called a phylactery. It's similarities are much more important because of this.

I'll show you then.

1e DMG: "Phylactery- An arm wrapping with a container holding religious writings, thus a form of amulet or charm." It's an arm wrapping with a container that holds religious writings, rather than arcane writing like 3e has. Gygax only has 1 box, not two, but that's likely an oversight on his part, because he wasn't Jewish.

2e DMG: The 2e DMG doesn't have the glossary with the phylactery like the 1e DMG above, but all the magical phylacteries are word for word the same as the 1e DMG and the phylactery of monstrous attention says, "While this arm wrapping appears to be a beneficial device, it actually draws the attention of supernatural creatures of exactly the opposite alignment of the priest wearing it."

2e didn't change what a phylactery was. 3e was where the change happened.

There is no need if to be called a phylactery, and there is no need for it to change. No good reason has been given for such a change.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong: in both 1E and 2E, a lich's phylactery are never described as such. You are describing a regular phylactery, which is indeed in the DMG (and also present in 3E).

However, when describing a Lich's Phylactery, it has always been more variable. From Dragon Magazine #26, the first article on liches:

"Preparation for Lichdom occurs while the figure is still alive and must be completed before his first “death.” If he dies somewhere along the line and is resurrected, then he must start all over again. The lich needs these spells. Magic Jar, Trap the Soul, and Enchant an Item, plus a special potion and something to “jar” into.

The item into which the lich will “jar” is prepared by having Enchant an Item cast upon it. The item cannot be of the common variety, but must be of high quality, solid, and of at least 2,000 g.p. in value. The item must make a saving throw as if it were the person casting the spell. (A cleric would have to have the spell Enchant an Item and Magic Jar thrown for him and it is the contracted magic user’s level that would be used for the saving throw.) The item can contain prior magics, but wooden items are not acceptable"

There's very little reference to a tefillin in that, which makes sense given that they don't even reference the word "phylactery". For 2E, Van Richten's Guide to the Lich describes it as such:

"The phylactery usually is a small boxlike amulet made of common materials, highly crafted. Lead or any other black or dark-gray colored material is frequently used. Inspection of the amulet may reveal various arcane symbols carved into the interior walls of the box, and those grooves are filled with silver as pure as the mage can find. These amulets are never made of wood, and rarely of steel. Brightly colored metals, such as gold, are infrequently used."

That's starting to take a similar vibe to a tefillin, but lacks the parchment. The 3E one becomes even more direct, given that it actually talks about putting strips of parchment inside it. Again, those are very direct references given that the item itself is called a phylactery.

 

[Greg K]

I mean, the 3.5E SRD would disagree.

That just makes me think that it is using the alternate definition. Not only does it mention amulets and other items, the box description is closer to the metal boxes used in medieval Islam around the Mediterranean. Tefillin are always made of animal hide.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong: in both 1E and 2E, a lich's phylactery are never described as such. You are describing a regular phylactery, which is indeed in the DMG (and also present in 3E).

So your argument is that a phylactery is a phylactery, unless it's a lich's phylactery, and then Gygax arbitrarily made it different, despite not saying that it's different. Never mind that 1e had a glossary that defined what a phylactery was and that would apply to the lich.

That's starting to take a similar vibe to a tefillin, but lacks the parchment. The 3E one becomes even more direct, given that it actually talks about putting strips of parchment inside it. Again, those are very direct references given that the item itself is called a phylactery.

Because a paper with arcane runes is the same as a paper with writing from the Torah(divine).

 

[Justice and Rule]

That just makes me think that it is using the alternate definition. Not only does it mention amulets and other items, the box description is closer to the metal boxes used in medieval Islam around the Mediterranean. Tefillin are always made of animal hide.

Or maybe it was written by a non-Jew who didn't know the significance of the animal hide, but knew that the parchment part had to be included because that is definitely important. This happens when you appropriate something but know little of why it is the way it is, and is a good reason why to avoid such things.

So your argument is that a phylactery is a phylactery, unless it's a lich's phylactery, and then Gygax arbitrarily made it different, despite not saying that it's different.

Because they literally say it's different in multiple different places, including Dragon Magazine #26 (which Gygax edited). So yeah, it's almost like D&D is a hodpodge of things that can be somewhat contradictory but became more firm over time.

Because a paper with arcane runes is the same as writing from the Torah(divine).

I mean, given that it's called a phylactery, it seems rather clear that's a comparison point. Why, does that comparison offend you?

 

[Maxperson]

Or maybe it was written by a non-Jew who didn't know the significance of the animal hide, but knew that the parchment part had to be included because that is definitely important. This happens when you appropriate something but know little of why it is the way it is, and is a good reason why to avoid such things.

You know you're arguing with two Jews about this, right?

Because they literally say it's different in multiple different places, including Dragon Magazine #26 (which Gygax edited). So yeah, it's almost like D&D is a hodpodge of things that can be somewhat contradictory but became more firm over time.

Dragon wasn't an official source of 1e material. It was a collection of ideas that DMs could adopt if they wanted to.

I mean, given that it's called a phylactery, it seems rather clear that's a comparison point. Why, does that comparison offend you?

Good God man! It doesn't. That's the entire point. A word that has not been used in the context of the Tefillin for at least 21 years(and didn't offend before that) doesn't offend me at all. Nor has it offended any Jewish person(lots) that I have ever played the game with.

Why do you insist on trying to tie a lich's phylactery to a religious object that it is no longer tied to(and if you want to use dragon magazine 26, never has been)?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

@Maxperson

Again, do you have any argument against replacing the term "phylactery" other than traditionalism or slippery slope arguments? And "I'm not offended by the term 'phylactery'" isn't an argument against this change. Because the side of people that are in support of this change have multiple reasons why it is a bad term to use. Here are just a few arguments for why:

1. The term, by the dictionary definition, does mean "tefillin", so the use of the word is an inappropriate appropriation of that term.
2. The term "phylactery", in the original Greek meaning of the word, is not a proper representation of what a D&D/Pathfinder Lich's Phylactery actually is. Lich Phylacteries aren't amulets, so the term is a misuse of the word.
3. Misusing a term from another language that has come to an entirely separate meaning for a religious object is potentially problematic/offensive.
4. Tradition is a bad excuse for justifying any status quo, and if a term is potentially problematic, it's just better to replace the term, especially if the term isn't accurate in the first place.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You know you're arguing with two Jews about this, right?

Yeah, but given that I was referencing a non-Jew appropriating something, I feel like I'd have a better idea of what they'd screw up without knowing.

Plus you've basically already conceded that it's an appropriation given your argument regarding 1E and 2E, as well as the fact that they got stuff wrong about it. So I'm not really arguing with you as much as directing your own argument back at you.

Dragon wasn't an official source of 1e material. It was a collection of ideas that DMs could adopt if they wanted to.

Given what we know about other editions, it's fairly indicative of how phylacteries were thought of.

Good God man! It doesn't. That's the entire point. A word that has not been used in the context of the Tefillin for at least 21 years(and didn't offend before that) doesn't offend me at all. Nor has it offended any Jewish person(lots) that I have ever played the game with.

I mean, no, it seems clear to me that 3E is clearly referencing a tefillin and is, in fact, the most direct reference to a tefillin we've had with a lich phylactery in any edition.

Why do you insist on trying to tie a lich's phylactery to a religious object that it is no longer tied to(and if you want to use dragon magazine 26, never has been)?

I'm arguing that it was always a mixed bit of appropriation and that the appropriation doesn't just go away because you say it did. At the end of the day, the enduring legacy is that it's clearly a reference to a tefillin, and if you want to actually move away from that the easiest way is to change the name.

The more confusing part is your grab-bag of arguments. You say it's not appropriation, but then say that its form for two editions was a direct reference to the item from Gygax. You tell me that 3E can't be referencing a tefillin because they get things wrong, but then excuse Gygax getting details wrong because he wasn't Jewish. These arguments are in direct conflict with each other and completely undermine any sort of cohesive defense you are trying to make.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson

Again, do you have any argument against replacing the term "phylactery" other than traditionalism or slippery slope arguments? And "I'm not offended by the term 'phylactery'" isn't an argument against this change. Because the side of people that are in support of this change have multiple reasons why it is a bad term to use. Here are just a few arguments for why:

Since there are no good arguments for changing it(see below), it simply doesn't warrant a change. The confusion caused by such a change is plenty good enough reason to stop a change that has no good reason to happen.

1. The term, by the dictionary definition, does mean "tefillin", so the use of the word is an inappropriate appropriation of that term.

This is objectively wrong. It uses the second definition that does not mean Tefillin. This is a non-argument.

1. The term "phylactery", in the original Greek meaning of the word, is not a proper representation of what a D&D/Pathfinder Lich's Phylactery actually is. Lich Phylacteries aren't amulets, so the term is a misuse of the word.

D&D(and Pathfinder) have altered definitions to match the game since day 1. At this point it would cause more confusion in long term players to change the term than it would in new players who very probably aren't aware of the original Greek meaning. So this argument is as meaningless as tradition.

1. Misusing a term from another language that has come to an entirely separate meaning for a religious object is potentially problematic/offensive.

Then it's probably a good thing that it doesn't mean a religious object and instead simply refers to an amulet, charm or safeguard against danger. Since it's wrong, this is also as meaningless as tradition.

 

[Maxperson]

Plus you've basically already conceded that it's an appropriation given your argument regarding 1E and 2E, as well as the fact that they got stuff wrong about it. So I'm not really arguing with you as much as directing your own argument back at you.

For 1e and 2e, yes. It changed 21 years ago and hasn't been an appropriated term since then.

I mean, no, it seems clear to me that 3E is clearly referencing a tefillin and is, in fact, the most direct reference to a tefillin we've had with a lich phylactery in any edition.

So it seems clear to the non-Jew that it's talking about a Tefillin, and the two Jews telling you that it isn't are wrong?

 

[Greg K]

@Maxperson

Again, do you have any argument against replacing the term "phylactery" other than traditionalism or slippery slope arguments? And "I'm not offended by the term 'phylactery'" isn't an argument against this change. Because the side of people that are in support of this change have multiple reasons why it is a bad term to use. Here are just a few arguments for why:

1. The term, by the dictionary definition, does mean "tefillin", so the use of the word is an inappropriate appropriation of that term.

there is one more than dictionary definition. Tefillin just comes up first.

1. The term "phylactery", in the original Greek meaning of the word, is not a proper representation of what a D&D/Pathfinder Lich's Phylactery actually is. Lich Phylacteries aren't amulets, so the term is a misuse of the word.

Wrong. The 3.5 definition provided different types of phylacteries. This keeps with a) Merriam-Webster tracing back to the Greek definition included amulets, teflllin, safeguards and guarded places and b) some dictionaries include these additional definitions as a second or third meaning