This has been bothering me a fair bit lately. Disclaimer: I do not claim to speak for anyone other than myself, and do not encourage that anyone conflate loud, opinionated people (such as myself) with nuanced representation of larger population.
To be very clear, I'm not referring to the magic box that liches put their souls in, which have already renamed to soul cages. Neither liches nor phylacteries/soul cages are part of a real, currently practicing religion, so whatever made up thing they're called is irrelevant.
No, I'm referring to the items that include the term "phlactery", such as the Phylactery of Faithfulness:
This tiny box holds a fragment of religious scripture sacred to a particular deity. The box is worn by affixing it to a leather cord and tying it around your head just above your brow.
This is pretty clearly a description of Tefillin, which have long been and are still (incorrectly) referred to as phylacteries (a Latin word via Greek that refers to an amulet or charm, often used as a ward for protection). The actual history of the term phylactery and how it became a substitute for Tefillin is more complex and muddy than I have the the time or inclination to detail here. And presumably some people who are part of the Judaism do refer to Tefillin as phylacteries, and obviously I don't claim to speak for anyone's opinion on the matter than my own.
Suffice to say, I don't think the items should be renamed to Tefillin, which are religion specific. Nor should the items be removed. Instead, the term phylactery should be removed entirely and the description modified so it doesn't almost exactly describe a Tefillin.
And while you're at it, probably don't start cherry-picking more things out of Jewish religious history or mythology...
It already got kinda redesigned, since its remaster equivalent (in terms of being an item that gives a bonus on Religion checks) is the Shining Symbol.
Oh, then Paizo must have psychically sensed my post and solved the issue before I ever posted.
It couldn't be that I forgot to hit the Remaster toggle on AoN.
Now I wonder if the same trick will work with Nephilim and Golems...
Golems got renamed for similar reasons.
Oh, then Paizo must have psychically sensed my post and solved the issue before I ever posted.
It couldn't be that I forgot to hit the Remaster toggle on AoN.
Now I wonder if the same trick will work with Nephilim and Golems...
Golems are no longer golems. Clay golem is now Clay effigy and Iron golem is now Iron Warden. Fozzil golem is now Paleohemoth. I guess such will be the case for others as the remaster goes on.
I understood they consulted an expert regarding Nephilim when they settled on the name, but I'd have to dig deeper / roll well on paizo forum lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Golems were already changed and I do recall them hiring a sensitivity reader/consultant for things such as Nephelllim. Now it's ok to disagree with them making the choice but the choice wasn't done haphazardly or without consideration, and as you said no group is a monolith so it makes sense that there are people like yourself who will disagree with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Golems were already changed and I do recall them hiring a sensitivity reader/consultant for things such as Nephelllim. Now it's ok to disagree with them making the choice but the choice wasn't done haphazardly or without consideration, and as you said no group is a monolith so it makes sense that there are people like yourself who will disagree with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that any of this was haphazard. I do think the changes may have been more motivated by liability and copyright visa OGL than anything else, but the outcome is positive regardless.
I'm really happy to see that they changed Golems too. I looked on AoN but apparently the family page for Golems was still showing me the Legacy versions? Go figure. I guess the Paizo Golem is... the Paizo Beefcake or something now?
I'm glad they brought in a sensitivity consultant at least. I'd have preferred they not use something from an religious mythology to represent something at best tangentially related and have Nephilim reflect the actual mythology or just not use them. And use a made up word for the made up concept.
To be clear, I'm not saying Paizo should change anything because one internet person had an opinion about it. The Tefillin/Phylactery was really what bothered me, the rest is closer to nitpicking.
That said, I think all of my concerns have been answered, honestly. Good on Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Golems were already changed and I do recall them hiring a sensitivity reader/consultant for things such as Nephelllim. Now it's ok to disagree with them making the choice but the choice wasn't done haphazardly or without consideration, and as you said no group is a monolith so it makes sense that there are people like yourself who will disagree with it.
This one surprised me, as it is a pretty common thing in almost all forms of fantasy media and never once have I seen or heard any Jewish person upset by the term; in fact even googling it there isn't much beyond people also asking the question and getting replies of 'no it isn't problematic or appropriative'.
I'm obviously not the right person to speak on it, but it did confuse me quite a bit. Is it a more recent push to remove the use of the term? If it's offensive, I'm glad it's gone, mind you, just not sure where the claims that it -is- come from.
I also haven't seen people complain about the use being offensive, but I sorta understand the logic, in jewish folklore, the golem have the figure of a sacred guardian/protector, which kinda clash with the popculture vision of it as basically just a magical clay robot. And if it was just magical clay robot, it might have been fine, but the original pathfinder version of "golemkind" as "various obedient magical robots defined by the material that compose them" is also very close to the DND definition, and thus too close to OGL to comfort.
So I can understand why Paizo split up the magic robots into separate entity that aren't all under the "golem" umbrella in a move to get away from OGL, and as they did so, decided to also ditch the maybe kinda insensitive term while they were at it. It does however have the annoying side effect of making it harder to find the variations of the magic robots (and learning new name for things you were used to is always a pain I guess, but that's just how it is).
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The baisc gist is this: "Golem" is a specific term for a specific type of thing, and using it as a generic word for "magic robot" is something that D&D created. When we remasatered the game, we chose to abandon that term as a generic "magic robot" word, both to distance ourselves from the OGL and to respect the real world history behind the word (which is arguably a better reason).
See below for my personal take (and not necessarily Paizo's official stance) on golems as historical D&D creatures:
I much prefer how these constructs are presented in the remastered rules, as individual and unique and self-contained creatures.
This also opens up the possibility of us producing an actual golem creature that's more respectful to the source material from real-world Jewish culture... and of course, if we DID do this, we'd make sure to do so in a respectful way that engages with cultural experts.
The baisc gist is this: "Golem" is a specific term for a specific type of thing, and using it as a generic word for "magic robot" is something that D&D created. When we remasatered the game, we chose to abandon that term as a generic "magic robot" word, both to distance ourselves from the OGL and to respect the real world history behind the word (which is arguably a better reason).
See below for my personal take (and not necessarily Paizo's official stance) on golems as historical D&D creatures:
** spoiler omitted **
Not an expert on the topic, but the later versions of the Ars Magica rules did a pretty decent job of taking real-world history and culture and adding fantasy/magic in a respectful way, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Paizo Golem still a Golem or not?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the Paizo Golem still a Golem or not?
That's a good question, and not one I know the answer to. Regardless, it remains the company logo.
