Of all the changes I thought Paizo would make to Pathfinder.....


Paizo General Discussion

151 to 200 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

meh.

Soul Alembic.

Soul Decanter.

Soul Phial.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Soul Bunsen Burner
Soul Beaker

Sovereign Court Director of Community

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Leg o' Lamb wrote:

Soul Bunsen Burner

Soul Beaker

There is a "me me me meeee" joke in here somewhere!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
The object has always been a phylactery for me and I don't feel a need to stop using it.

So, you’re saying you are fine to offend people at your tables rather than change?

A mere moment of research shows how many folks outside the hobby are just learning that one of their faith’s sacred items has been co-opted in this way, and they are *pissed* that it ever happened. The change is the only good part of the story for a lot of people.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Honestly I am for getting rid of most real-world religious words in Pathfinder in general, so I would say that this is a great change.

Though I am wondering what a good name for the Phylactery of Faithfulness would be. Honestly I was sorta surprised this item was still around.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MurderHobo#6226 wrote:

TLDR: Wait, liches are always evil?

News to me... :)

Yes, you might be new to Pathfinder so it's understandable if you didn't know since D&D has some neutral and good ones, in the PF lore all undead are generally evil due to methods of creation, diet, ties to the negative energy plane, etc. with a few rare exceptions, usually unique creatures with exceptional histories or circumstances of creation. Given the requirements for the ritual to turn oneself into a lich it's even more understandable for them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It amazes me the amount of people who when given a choice between "make a minor change to language that doesn't affect them" and "continue causing harm to people" choose the latter.

What further amazes me is when people put in colossal amounts of effort to rail against a company making said change - like, what are you defending? Are you so invested in a word in a game that you are offended when a game company decides to change it to avoid causing actual harm to an entire culture/religion?

And like, the change actually makes things easier - soul cage is more accurately descriptive, and is easier to pronounce.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It's even literally a part of the company's history!

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
So, you’re saying you are fine to offend people at your tables rather than change?

Certainly appears that way

Quote:
It amazes me the amount of people who when given a choice between "make a minor change to language that doesn't affect them" and "continue causing harm to people" choose the latter.

Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words can never hurt me

Quote:
Are you so invested in a word in a game that you are offended when a game company decides to change it...

I can only speak for myself. No, I am not offended. They can do whatever they want with the text in the books. I really don't care. I happened to think that phylactery is a perfectly reasonable description of the object in question so I will use it when necessary. And life goes on

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
Noam Chomsky wrote:
If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
George Orwell wrote:
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

A more recent one and perhaps my favorite...

Stephen Fry wrote:
It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so [bleep]ing what?'

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

“Certainly appears that way”

Why?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:


So, you’re saying you are fine to offend people at your tables rather than change?

Just took a poll in my discord. Nobody felt it was inappropriate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Demicube wrote:

Honestly I am for getting rid of most real-world religious words in Pathfinder in general, so I would say that this is a great change.

Start with Anastasia Romanov then, who is an Orthodox saint, and definitely was not the product of an illicit affair between the Tsarina and Rasputin.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Just took a poll in my discord.

Very representative, that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zo! wrote:

"Liches always want musical numbers!'

MurderHobo#6226 wrote:
TLDR: Wait, liches are always evil?

"I'm not evil... I'm just filmed that way!"

The camera adds 10 infamy?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:

It amazes me the amount of people who when given a choice between "make a minor change to language that doesn't affect them" and "continue causing harm to people" choose the latter.

If you try to impose your own paradigm on people who are operating under a different paradigm other people aren't going to make sense. Having a different paradigm than yours isn't internally contradictory it's just a contradiction between what you believe and what they believe.

There are a large number of reasons your logic above might not follow.

-the idea of harm doesn't include something so minor
-there needs to be ___ist or anti___ist intent for it to be ___ist or anti ___ist and the intent isn't there
- something really really needs to be crossing a socially agreed upon line and this isn't it
- unless it leads to physical harm its not really harm. The link between this item and any sort of real world action is non existant.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No one religion holds claim to holy water.

And it’s the easiest thing to claim “don’t be offended” when something doesn’t affect you, you’re not cool or enlightened for being actively apathetic. You’re not even apathetic at that point. You’re enabling the offense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking further on the topic, I think it is actually good they changed the name. If it offends people, why not change it? What does it harm anyone that the books now call it a soul cage?

Now I also understand that for many people it is not a real issue (either because no association of the term with the original background, or having progressed beyond religion as something needing special protection), and the change might not be as necessary in your group. But if helps even a few people to not have the term in the books, why not?

Things change, and if making these changes can help make the hobby and world a bit more inclusive place, so much the better.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, issue wasn't just that phylactery's modern actual use is regarding Judaism, its also that early descriptions of what phylactery were like are pretty clearly Gygax taking inspiration from Judaism directly :p


10 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


-the idea of harm doesn't include something so minor

You. Don't. Get. To. Decide. What. Harm. Is. Minor. For. Other. People.

A significant amount of jewish people have at this point stated that no, the phylactery thing isn't minor. Trying to externally tell them that it is minor is minimizing their experience.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Paizo changed all future printings of 'golem' to 'automaton' or something, I wouldn't complain.

There's also the issue of the w*ndigo, which is part of a closed practice and even writing the word itself in full is often considered disrespectful. The depiction of it as an antlered, deer/moose-skulled humanoid is disrespectful.

I was once asked to remove it from my own work,

So I did.

I just removed it.

I was asked never to write it in full.

So I don't.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I use Promethean instead of Golem.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ooh, I like that one.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole holy water thing is irrelevant to this discussion - the removal of phylactery from being associated with liches isn't about "its bad to have any religious terminology" (hence why other uses of the word are remaining) its about how its bad to associate a holy object from one of the most oppressed religions in history with an incarnation of pure evil.

Holy water in game is something that is used by the forces of good to defeat evil. Heck, holy water damaging undead or fiends or whatever is actually in line with what medieval christians believed about holy water. Holy water is being reasonably accurately and positively portrayed.

Phylacteries as they have been used as a liche-related item is a negative portrayal and inaccurate.

Anyone who is making the argument that if phylactery shouldn't be used to refer to soul cages then holy water should be removed from the game is either completely misunderstanding what this is all about, or deliberately misrepresenting what this is all about.

Grand Lodge

Umbral Reaver wrote:
w*ndigo

That is interesting considering two well-respected Hollywood developers, Scott Cooper (director) and Guillermo Del Toro (producer) just released a movie called Antlers based on the Wendigo mythology that includes some well-known and also respected actors, most notably Graham Greene, and was generally well-received both by the public and critics.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And?

There’s been plenty of movies and media made with the monster. Not sure what’s the gushing about the “well”s is gonna do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
w*ndigo
That is interesting considering two well-respected Hollywood developers, Scott Cooper (director) and Guillermo Del Toro (producer) just released a movie called Antlers based on the Wendigo mythology that includes some well-known and also respected actors, most notably Graham Greene, and was generally well-received both by the public and critics.

Oh yes, because being well-respected in hollywood has anything to do with being respectful to minorities.

Also, the wikipedia page mostly just lists all of the 2/5 star reviews it has - metacritic gives it an average score of 57 out of 100, and contains this quote from a critic "It's really egregious, I think, how it just pulls out First Nations mythologies, like the mythology of the W*ndigo, and the only First Nations actor that they cast in the film, Graham Greene, basically just delivers a bunch of spooky exposition and then disappears." So I think it is a reach to say that it was well-received by critics.

(I added the asterisk to W*ndigo in the quote).
(Note that a metacritic score of 75 is the minimum to be considered as having "generally favourable reviews" which is equivalent to "well received").


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:


You. Don't. Get. To. Decide. What. Harm. Is. Minor. For. Other. People.

So when you decide that the change from phylactery to a soul cage is minor to a non issue for everyone else you're not doing that? I don't think you're wrong, but you do have to make that decision.

Everyone does in fact get to decide how valid they find everyone elses point of view. It's simply not avoidable whenever there are two opposing viewpoints.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think that this is about removing anything that references a religion from the game (which it isn't, once again, it is just about not inaccurately using a word for a sacred object from judaism to refer to an object of pure evil) I will now provide a list of the things (just off the top of my head - if I had all day I could make this list be 10 pages long) to add to the list of things you want removed along with holy water;

Angels (Christianity, Islam, Judaism)
Archons (Orthodox Christianity)
Asuras (Hinduism)
Champions/Paladins (Christianity, Judaism)
Clerics (Christianity, Islam)
Crusades (Christianity)
Demons (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and too many other religions to list of the top of my head)
Devils (As above)
Ghosts
Giants (Christianity, Judaism)
Magic
Magi (Zoroastrianism)
Miracles
Holy Symbols
Knights (Christianity)
Undead (Christianity, Judaism)
Witches (Christianity, Wicca, Witchcraft)

The thing is though, this isn't about removing anything that comes from a religion. It is about removing one usage of the word phylactery (note that paizo is keeping the word for other items that accurately and positively portray the item) that is inaccurate and a negative* portrayal of a holy object.

Holy water is not the same thing - it isn't being negatively portrayed, and it's portrayal is mostly accurate to the beliefs it stems from (while most modern christians don't believe it drives away the undead, this is probably because most modern people don't believe that the undead exist - medieval christians definitely did in many cases believe that holy water had the power to drive away evil, and even if modern christians don't believe in the undead, giving holy water an extra positive power isn't the same as associating phylacteries with evil).

*Note that there are some things that are appropriate to portray negatively - things such as demons and devils and the undead for example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:


You. Don't. Get. To. Decide. What. Harm. Is. Minor. For. Other. People.

So when you decide that the change from phylactery to a soul cage is minor to a non issue for everyone else you're not doing that? I don't think you're wrong, but you do have to make that decision.

Everyone does in fact get to decide how valid they find everyone elses point of view. It's simply not avoidable whenever there are two opposing viewpoints.

The word phylactery belongs to jewish people, they get priority in decisions about how it gets used.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

“Everyone does in fact get to decide how valid they find everyone elses point of view.”

Of course, it’s called empathy. You should try it.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay this derail is actually something I find interesting concept wise:

Like religion wise, ALL forms of magic and occultism would be offensive technically speaking depending on how overly serious religious person is being about it. Like in general, it would be heresy only if you claim magic and werewolves are real, like historically speaking at one point accusing someone of witchcraft was heresy because by accusing someone you are claiming witchcraft is real :p But church goers didn't have problem with medieval werewolf fanfics in general, it just was official church stance that werewolves don't exist ("though they could if god wanted, but that would be stupid")

Tender Tendrils wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:


You. Don't. Get. To. Decide. What. Harm. Is. Minor. For. Other. People.

So when you decide that the change from phylactery to a soul cage is minor to a non issue for everyone else you're not doing that? I don't think you're wrong, but you do have to make that decision.

Everyone does in fact get to decide how valid they find everyone elses point of view. It's simply not avoidable whenever there are two opposing viewpoints.

The word phylactery belongs to jewish people, they get priority in decisions about how it gets used.

Anyway, uh... I hate to point this out, but I think I have to point this out before somebody else points it out:

What about word qlippoth?

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
The word phylactery belongs to jewish people, they get priority in decisions about how it gets used.

You are certainly welcome to believe that, but I don't and I doubt I am alone. Words don't belong to any one group or person. Words are in the public domain. You don't get to tell me what I can/not say anymore than I can do the same to you, unless of course one of us wants to embrace Fascist ideology which is something I think we can all agree is undesirable (at least I hope so).

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Of course, it’s called empathy. You should try it.

I listened to your point of view. I understood it. I thought about it. I considered it. I rejected it. Empathy does not automatically demand that you embrace every possible position and opinion.

But, I do agree that we are just talking in circles

151 to 200 of 353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Of all the changes I thought Paizo would make to Pathfinder..... All Messageboards