I was reading through the new 2025 Monster Manual and when I got to the Lich, I saw that there was no mention of a Phylactery, but instead a SpiritJar.
Was there any discussion, or a reason from old lore/source-books that this would have been changed?
It's not a problem for me, nor does it cause any heartache, I'm more curious than anything.
'Phylactery' is a fun word to say for me and sounds mysterious, and 'Jar' just sounds kind of boring, so I might stick with the old term when I am DM'ing :)
Thoughts?
Cheers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty. Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers; Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas. Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
I don't know. The only thing I can think of is that phylacteries are a real thing in Judaism. That caused confusion for me when I first read about liches. Possibly they've been changed to avoid that confusion? Or maybe it's been raised as being uncomfortable by some in the community, associating them with something so evil. Perhaps it's to create a stronger association with Magic Jar I don't know. I think it would have been better if they'd given it a term with a more archaic connotation. Then again, they seem to be moving away from such an aesthetic and making things more modern feeling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty sure it's primarily because of not wanting to use a term from an active religion.
But also, it's just a wrong term if you know what it means. Even in the most general sense (which is likely how it was meant when entered D&D usage, back in 1e), it's some kind of amulet or talisman, and a lich can use anything.
They should have just rolled back its entomology to phylakterion which is just greek for amulet. Spirit jar just sounds lame and its not always a jar. amulets, are more vague in that amulets are just protective devices, usually worn in d&d but definitionally they do not have to be, warding statues, a amish hex signs etc would all qualify as a amulet.
Pathfinder had made a similar change a few years ago, citing it as a term used in Judaism. It could be that. From what I know WotC has not made a public statement about their reasoning.
FWIW, I am Jewish, and the term never bothered me even a little. And though I’ve not spoken to every Jewish gamer, I’ve also not heard of anyone complaining. Largely because we don’t actually ever call them phylacteries. We use the Hebrew word teffilin. Actually, the change kind of bothered me because few of us tend to find it offensive, and to me it felt like it feeds into the whole “Jews control the media” narrative. (Even though there’s still things like golems and dyybuk and Gehenna that come from Jewish folklore, and those are still around and not nice things.) But overall, if that is the reason, I also understand it’s coming from a good place of trying to be sensitive and considerate. Or it could also be as jl8e says and it’s recognizing that they can be other things now. Or some combination.
( Edit: Someone posted many of these points while i was still composing this message and they did a better job of it ) Ok, i know where this is coming from, i get it, but i don't agree with it.
During the Hellenistic period, the term 'Phylactery' that refered to Amulets, Reliquaries, and charms, was also used to refer to a Jewish tradition of keeping scripture in little boxes, because the Greeks thought of them as being analogous to other charms or Reliquaries practiced at the time. The change was meant to be more culturally sensitive to Jewish tradition.
The reason I don't really agree with it is this. All of my Jewish friends, even the really orthodox ones, never call them 'Phylactery', they use the specific Hebrew term" תְּפִלִּין " or "Tefillin." And yes, they would play D&D with me, so they were aware of Lich's soul containing amulets being called Phylacteries. They didn't have a problem with it, and as far as i know, no one ever really did, it was just a proactive attempt at sensitivity. I don't think anyone had a problem with this, but i have seen some antisemitism expressed in resentment for the change, assuming that someone had complained. Rage bait hate merchants will leap on any excuse to peddle unrest and it being a culture war rallying cry that thankfully went nowhere.
Conversely, they could have named it something else, like "spiritus arca" ( Spirit box ) "Anima nervo" ( Soul tether ) "hydria exspiravit" ( 'Jar of spirit' or 'Breath from the jar' ) " or something else from someone who has a better grasp on the Latin language.
I should also point out, that "Golem" and "Leviathan" is also from Judaism, and no one had issues with that. And, well, D&D is full of Judeo-christian concepts, because one of its creators, Gary Gygax, was christian.
As far as i can tell, it is less a case of not using a term used by an active religion, and it was more, "This one thing that might be offensive."
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Pathfinder had made a similar change a few years ago, citing it as a term used in Judaism. It could be that. From what I know WotC has not made a public statement about their reasoning.
FWIW, I am Jewish, and the term never bothered me even a little. And though I’ve not spoken to every Jewish gamer, I’ve also not heard of anyone complaining. Largely because we don’t actually ever call them phylacteries. We use the Hebrew word teffilin. Actually, the change kind of bothered me because few of us tend to find it offensive, and to me it felt like it feeds into the whole “Jews control the media” narrative. (Even though there’s still things like golems and dyybuk and Gehenna that come from Jewish folklore, and those are still around and not nice things.) But overall, if that is the reason, I also understand it’s coming from a good place of trying to be sensitive and considerate. Or it could also be as jl8e says and it’s recognizing that they can be other things now. Or some combination.
There was a thread on here a few months ago complaining about it from someone citing anti-semetism so there's at least one person out there
One important thing to note, no one is stopping players from using the term Phylactery if they still wish. That should go without saying, but, to a certain segment of this player base, they see Wizards changing Wizards’ own language as somehow an imposition on their own games.
Wizards is choosing to use a different term presumably out of their current policy of removing references to modern, active religions - I do not think they have outright said that in reference to Phylacteries, but they have in other contexts in Magic and D&D, so it is not hard to extrapolate the reasoning.
That does not mean they are saying “this term is antisemitic to use” or “you should not use this term” - there word both holds non-modern-religious meanings (even if those tend to be archaic usages) and holds a particular meaning within fantasy. All of those are acceptable usages, even if Wizards is avoiding using them due to their current policies.
Completely anecdotally, I've never heard of this coming up in a game as an issue, but I agree with a few others that it's not a big deal to me (and wouldn't be unless it was upsetting to one or more of my players, which is my rule of thumb on such things anyway). I definitely don't love spirit jar: Id Jug, Essence Carafe, Anima Decanter, Life Force Tupperware all sound better to me, but joking aside I'll probably just keep using phylactery out of habit more than anything else.
I find it kind of confusing that they changed phylacteries and not Gehenna, which is basically the Hebrew word for hell, despite it not being even close the source.
Pretty sure it's primarily because of not wanting to use a term from an active religion.
But also, it's just a wrong term if you know what it means. Even in the most general sense (which is likely how it was meant when entered D&D usage, back in 1e), it's some kind of amulet or talisman, and a lich can use anything.
This. It would be like saying "All mummies maintain their unlife through use of a crucifix." Also a phylactery is specifically a box, not a ring or amulet or decorative planter or collectable figurine that D&D liches use.
Heya folk, just popping in to give a gentle reminder on our rules regarding discussing real life religions. We understand that this is a discussion related to the game and it's history, so just ask that the discussion stay respectful and avoid going into debates or discussions that focus more on Judaism or any other religion, and stay focused on how it relates to D&D.
What might be interesting as well is to go over some of the D&D history and origins here.
While Liches appeared in 1e D&D, their phylacteries were never well explained. Sometimes you'd get Liches in some modules that never even describe their phylacteries or mention them at all (Such as Asberdies in D1-2 Descent into the Depths of the Earth):
The lich passes from a state of humanity to a non-human, nonliving existence through force of will. It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery. - 1st Edition Monster Manual (1977)
In 1979 Dragon Magazine #26, 'Th Making of a Lich'/ 'Blueprint for a Lich' by Len Lakofka, what we now know as a phylactery gets expanded on, although never referred to as a phylactery, and in fact is referred to as a 'jar':
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 can contain prior magics, but wooden items are not acceptable. (...) If the item is then soul receptive, the prepared candidate for Lichdom will cast Magic Jar on it and enter the item. As soon as he enters the jar he will lose a level at once and the corresponding hit points. The hit points and his soul are now stored in the jar
2e keeps some of this lore but refers to it as a phylactery, blending the two concepts:
In order to become a lich, the wizard must prepare its phylactery by the use of the enchant an item, magic jar, permanency and reincarnation spells. The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gold pieces per level of the wizard. -2nd Edition Monsterous Manual (1995)
As you can see here, it could be any object, but is still tied to the 'Magic Jar' spell, and must be expensive.
So far none of these are connected to Teffilin, but in 3.5 we get this:
"The most common form of phylactery is a sealed metal box containing strips of parchment on which magical phrases have been transcribed." - 3.5 Monster Manual, pg 168 (2003)
This is a far more explicit connection, conflating the two more, perhaps because people looked up 'phylactery' and found teffilin.
Going back to 'Jar' then is going back to it's 1979 roots in the game, and avoiding the association with teffilin.
Pretty sure it's primarily because of not wanting to use a term from an active religion.
But also, it's just a wrong term if you know what it means. Even in the most general sense (which is likely how it was meant when entered D&D usage, back in 1e), it's some kind of amulet or talisman, and a lich can use anything.
This. It would be like saying "All mummies maintain their unlife through use of a crucifix." Also a phylactery is specifically a box, not a ring or amulet or decorative planter or collectable figurine that D&D liches use.
Jars are jars not amulets, decorative planters or collectible figurines. The term comes from phylakterion which means amulet and amulets are object neutral it is just a protection warding object which in a sense the item does, it protects the soul of the lich. Phylactery is orders of magnitude closer to being object neutral than a jar is. If they want to change it fine, but spirit jar is so much worse its kind of sad. And I'm not sure this dodges any cultural sensitivity as a spirit jar translates pretty closely to hunping which is a Chinese funerary urn.
invent a mystical sounding word that only someone fluent in gygaxian could pronounce. But no, we got spirit jar. Is it a massive issue, no not really but its another one of the little indicators the game is sprinkled with that shows they rushed the product to get out by a anniversary date when the game really needed another year in playtesting/refinement.
Pretty sure it's primarily because of not wanting to use a term from an active religion.
But also, it's just a wrong term if you know what it means. Even in the most general sense (which is likely how it was meant when entered D&D usage, back in 1e), it's some kind of amulet or talisman, and a lich can use anything.
This. It would be like saying "All mummies maintain their unlife through use of a crucifix." Also a phylactery is specifically a box, not a ring or amulet or decorative planter or collectable figurine that D&D liches use.
While this is true in Jewish faith, one of the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions for phylactery is: "An amulet. Also figurative: a charm, a safeguard. Now rare." This definition dates back to the 1400s and, in its wide-reaching figurative usage, would cover any number of objects a lich uses to safeguard its life. I presume this is the definition the original writers intended to use. Continuing to use this definition is certainly acceptable if that is what your playgroup would prefer.
And? A Genie's Vessel isn't always a "vessel" either, it can be e.g. a ring or lantern. Not everything in the game has to be 100% literal.
That was the argument people have repeatedly been using against phylactery, pointing out that spirit jar is even worse in that regard makes that argument moot.
And you can disagree but I suspect the vast majority of people who hear the terms will think spirit jar just sounds incurably bland, generic and boring.
Whoah now, you can have differing opinions on if you like 'Spirit Jar' or not, with out getting too brisk with each other. That's very much personal taste and folk will have their reasons, whether they want to keep using phylactery, use spirit jar, spirit vessel, or some other cool (or silly) term. Soul egg. Evercasket. Save-point.
I also personally really like the new table for what form a phylactery can take. Old school Koschtschei egg. That to me helps break away from the previous, unfortunate association even more than just a name change and really opens up for more flavour (I've honestly not seen anyone in my game keep to the strict description in 3e-5e, but no doubt some would because it was the 'official' version).
I think folk have given out some well reasoned points above for pros and cons of either, and taken a sensitive and thoughtful tone to the topic and each other overall. Hopefully as well these replies have answered the OP's question, having given the etymology of phylactery, it's association with tefillin, and it's history in the game.
Going forward with the discussion then, consider what the goal is- answering the OP's question with a detail you think folk have missed, wanting clarification on something, or offering constructive ideas?
Whoah now, you can have differing opinions on if you like 'Spirit Jar' or not, with out getting too brisk with each other. That's very much personal taste and folk will have their reasons, whether they want to keep using phylactery, use spirit jar, spirit vessel, or some other cool (or silly) term. Soul egg. Evercasket. Save-point.
I also personally really like the new table for what form a phylactery can take. Old school Koschtschei egg. That to me helps break away from the previous, unfortunate association even more than just a name change and really opens up for more flavour (I've honestly not seen anyone in my game keep to the strict description in 3e-5e, but no doubt some would because it was the 'official' version).
I think folk have given out some well reasoned points above for pros and cons of either, and taken a sensitive and thoughtful tone to the topic and each other overall. Hopefully as well these replies have answered the OP's question, having given the etymology of phylactery, it's association with tefillin, and it's history in the game.
Going forward with the discussion then, consider what the goal is- answering the OP's question with a detail you think folk have missed, wanting clarification on something, or offering constructive ideas?
Sorry if my tone came across as brisk, that was not the intent, how things sound in writing is not always inline with what I am thinking. Honestly if they were going to have a generic term for it like jar I'd rather they just call the thing its effect. immortality, then explain how the immortality works and the way it is countered(destroying the object that holds the soul) sort of like how they handled it with Endelyn Moongrave in the adventure wild beyond the witchlight(side note, really fun adventure that can easily be handled with almost no combat), with the language like what the container is called varies by setting.
Which is how I will be handling it for the most part with even in a setting it being called different things based on the background of the people involved, elves calling it one things, the plains people another etc.
Which is how I will be handling it for the most part with even in a setting it being called different things based on the background of the people involved, elves calling it one things, the plains people another etc.
Ohhhh, I really like the idea of different cultures having different words for it. Really opens some adventure possibilities with the PCs finding they need to destroy the macguffin, but not knowing that it’s just a different word soul jar, so first having to find some translator of ancient languages.
Which is how I will be handling it for the most part with even in a setting it being called different things based on the background of the people involved, elves calling it one things, the plains people another etc.
Ohhhh, I really like the idea of different cultures having different words for it. Really opens some adventure possibilities with the PCs finding they need to destroy the macguffin, but not knowing that it’s just a different word soul jar, so first having to find some translator of ancient languages.
That would work especially well if no one knows the target is a lich, they use illusions or shape changing to maintain a disguise. Use seeming and have a loyal retainer speak in their place when they are concerned with true sight style effects. So everyone who you speak with just knows they are some immortal wizard king or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Greetings D&D Beyond and Community,
I was reading through the new 2025 Monster Manual and when I got to the Lich, I saw that there was no mention of a Phylactery, but instead a Spirit Jar.
Source Links:
Was there any discussion, or a reason from old lore/source-books that this would have been changed?
It's not a problem for me, nor does it cause any heartache, I'm more curious than anything.
'Phylactery' is a fun word to say for me and sounds mysterious, and 'Jar' just sounds kind of boring, so I might stick with the old term when I am DM'ing :)
Thoughts?
Cheers!
Breathe, dragons; sing of the First World, forged out of chaos and painted with beauty.
Sing of Bahamut, the Platinum, molding the shape of the mountains and rivers;
Sing too of Chromatic Tiamat, painting all over the infinite canvas.
Partnered, they woke in the darkness; partnered, they labored in acts of creation.
I didn't even realise there was a change.
I don't know. The only thing I can think of is that phylacteries are a real thing in Judaism. That caused confusion for me when I first read about liches. Possibly they've been changed to avoid that confusion? Or maybe it's been raised as being uncomfortable by some in the community, associating them with something so evil. Perhaps it's to create a stronger association with Magic Jar I don't know. I think it would have been better if they'd given it a term with a more archaic connotation. Then again, they seem to be moving away from such an aesthetic and making things more modern feeling.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty sure it's primarily because of not wanting to use a term from an active religion.
But also, it's just a wrong term if you know what it means. Even in the most general sense (which is likely how it was meant when entered D&D usage, back in 1e), it's some kind of amulet or talisman, and a lich can use anything.
They should have just rolled back its entomology to phylakterion which is just greek for amulet. Spirit jar just sounds lame and its not always a jar. amulets, are more vague in that amulets are just protective devices, usually worn in d&d but definitionally they do not have to be, warding statues, a amish hex signs etc would all qualify as a amulet.
Pathfinder had made a similar change a few years ago, citing it as a term used in Judaism. It could be that. From what I know WotC has not made a public statement about their reasoning.
FWIW, I am Jewish, and the term never bothered me even a little. And though I’ve not spoken to every Jewish gamer, I’ve also not heard of anyone complaining. Largely because we don’t actually ever call them phylacteries. We use the Hebrew word teffilin. Actually, the change kind of bothered me because few of us tend to find it offensive, and to me it felt like it feeds into the whole “Jews control the media” narrative. (Even though there’s still things like golems and dyybuk and Gehenna that come from Jewish folklore, and those are still around and not nice things.) But overall, if that is the reason, I also understand it’s coming from a good place of trying to be sensitive and considerate. Or it could also be as jl8e says and it’s recognizing that they can be other things now. Or some combination.
( Edit: Someone posted many of these points while i was still composing this message and they did a better job of it )
Ok, i know where this is coming from, i get it, but i don't agree with it.
During the Hellenistic period, the term 'Phylactery' that refered to Amulets, Reliquaries, and charms, was also used to refer to a Jewish tradition of keeping scripture in little boxes, because the Greeks thought of them as being analogous to other charms or Reliquaries practiced at the time. The change was meant to be more culturally sensitive to Jewish tradition.
The reason I don't really agree with it is this. All of my Jewish friends, even the really orthodox ones, never call them 'Phylactery', they use the specific Hebrew term" תְּפִלִּין " or "Tefillin." And yes, they would play D&D with me, so they were aware of Lich's soul containing amulets being called Phylacteries. They didn't have a problem with it, and as far as i know, no one ever really did, it was just a proactive attempt at sensitivity. I don't think anyone had a problem with this, but i have seen some antisemitism expressed in resentment for the change, assuming that someone had complained.
Rage bait hate merchants will leap on any excuse to peddle unrest and it being a culture war rallying cry that thankfully went nowhere.
Conversely, they could have named it something else, like "spiritus arca" ( Spirit box ) "Anima nervo" ( Soul tether ) "hydria exspiravit" ( 'Jar of spirit' or 'Breath from the jar' ) " or something else from someone who has a better grasp on the Latin language.
I should also point out, that "Golem" and "Leviathan" is also from Judaism, and no one had issues with that.
And, well, D&D is full of Judeo-christian concepts, because one of its creators, Gary Gygax, was christian.
As far as i can tell, it is less a case of not using a term used by an active religion, and it was more, "This one thing that might be offensive."
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
There was a thread on here a few months ago complaining about it from someone citing anti-semetism so there's at least one person out there
One important thing to note, no one is stopping players from using the term Phylactery if they still wish. That should go without saying, but, to a certain segment of this player base, they see Wizards changing Wizards’ own language as somehow an imposition on their own games.
Wizards is choosing to use a different term presumably out of their current policy of removing references to modern, active religions - I do not think they have outright said that in reference to Phylacteries, but they have in other contexts in Magic and D&D, so it is not hard to extrapolate the reasoning.
That does not mean they are saying “this term is antisemitic to use” or “you should not use this term” - there word both holds non-modern-religious meanings (even if those tend to be archaic usages) and holds a particular meaning within fantasy. All of those are acceptable usages, even if Wizards is avoiding using them due to their current policies.
Completely anecdotally, I've never heard of this coming up in a game as an issue, but I agree with a few others that it's not a big deal to me (and wouldn't be unless it was upsetting to one or more of my players, which is my rule of thumb on such things anyway). I definitely don't love spirit jar: Id Jug, Essence Carafe, Anima Decanter, Life Force Tupperware all sound better to me, but joking aside I'll probably just keep using phylactery out of habit more than anything else.
I find it kind of confusing that they changed phylacteries and not Gehenna, which is basically the Hebrew word for hell, despite it not being even close the source.
This. It would be like saying "All mummies maintain their unlife through use of a crucifix." Also a phylactery is specifically a box, not a ring or amulet or decorative planter or collectable figurine that D&D liches use.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorHeya folk, just popping in to give a gentle reminder on our rules regarding discussing real life religions. We understand that this is a discussion related to the game and it's history, so just ask that the discussion stay respectful and avoid going into debates or discussions that focus more on Judaism or any other religion, and stay focused on how it relates to D&D.
What might be interesting as well is to go over some of the D&D history and origins here.
While Liches appeared in 1e D&D, their phylacteries were never well explained. Sometimes you'd get Liches in some modules that never even describe their phylacteries or mention them at all (Such as Asberdies in D1-2 Descent into the Depths of the Earth):
In 1979 Dragon Magazine #26, 'Th Making of a Lich'/ 'Blueprint for a Lich' by Len Lakofka, what we now know as a phylactery gets expanded on, although never referred to as a phylactery, and in fact is referred to as a 'jar':
2e keeps some of this lore but refers to it as a phylactery, blending the two concepts:
As you can see here, it could be any object, but is still tied to the 'Magic Jar' spell, and must be expensive.
So far none of these are connected to Teffilin, but in 3.5 we get this:
This is a far more explicit connection, conflating the two more, perhaps because people looked up 'phylactery' and found teffilin.
Going back to 'Jar' then is going back to it's 1979 roots in the game, and avoiding the association with teffilin.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Jars are jars not amulets, decorative planters or collectible figurines. The term comes from phylakterion which means amulet and amulets are object neutral it is just a protection warding object which in a sense the item does, it protects the soul of the lich. Phylactery is orders of magnitude closer to being object neutral than a jar is. If they want to change it fine, but spirit jar is so much worse its kind of sad. And I'm not sure this dodges any cultural sensitivity as a spirit jar translates pretty closely to hunping which is a Chinese funerary urn.
invent a mystical sounding word that only someone fluent in gygaxian could pronounce. But no, we got spirit jar. Is it a massive issue, no not really but its another one of the little indicators the game is sprinkled with that shows they rushed the product to get out by a anniversary date when the game really needed another year in playtesting/refinement.
While this is true in Jewish faith, one of the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions for phylactery is: "An amulet. Also figurative: a charm, a safeguard. Now rare." This definition dates back to the 1400s and, in its wide-reaching figurative usage, would cover any number of objects a lich uses to safeguard its life. I presume this is the definition the original writers intended to use. Continuing to use this definition is certainly acceptable if that is what your playgroup would prefer.
Disagree
And? A Genie's Vessel isn't always a "vessel" either, it can be e.g. a ring or lantern. Not everything in the game has to be 100% literal.
That was the argument people have repeatedly been using against phylactery, pointing out that spirit jar is even worse in that regard makes that argument moot.
And you can disagree but I suspect the vast majority of people who hear the terms will think spirit jar just sounds incurably bland, generic and boring.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWhoah now, you can have differing opinions on if you like 'Spirit Jar' or not, with out getting too brisk with each other. That's very much personal taste and folk will have their reasons, whether they want to keep using phylactery, use spirit jar, spirit vessel, or some other cool (or silly) term. Soul egg. Evercasket. Save-point.
I also personally really like the new table for what form a phylactery can take. Old school Koschtschei egg. That to me helps break away from the previous, unfortunate association even more than just a name change and really opens up for more flavour (I've honestly not seen anyone in my game keep to the strict description in 3e-5e, but no doubt some would because it was the 'official' version).
I think folk have given out some well reasoned points above for pros and cons of either, and taken a sensitive and thoughtful tone to the topic and each other overall. Hopefully as well these replies have answered the OP's question, having given the etymology of phylactery, it's association with tefillin, and it's history in the game.
Going forward with the discussion then, consider what the goal is- answering the OP's question with a detail you think folk have missed, wanting clarification on something, or offering constructive ideas?
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Sorry if my tone came across as brisk, that was not the intent, how things sound in writing is not always inline with what I am thinking. Honestly if they were going to have a generic term for it like jar I'd rather they just call the thing its effect. immortality, then explain how the immortality works and the way it is countered(destroying the object that holds the soul) sort of like how they handled it with Endelyn Moongrave in the adventure wild beyond the witchlight(side note, really fun adventure that can easily be handled with almost no combat), with the language like what the container is called varies by setting.
Which is how I will be handling it for the most part with even in a setting it being called different things based on the background of the people involved, elves calling it one things, the plains people another etc.
Ohhhh, I really like the idea of different cultures having different words for it. Really opens some adventure possibilities with the PCs finding they need to destroy the macguffin, but not knowing that it’s just a different word soul jar, so first having to find some translator of ancient languages.
That would work especially well if no one knows the target is a lich, they use illusions or shape changing to maintain a disguise. Use seeming and have a loyal retainer speak in their place when they are concerned with true sight style effects. So everyone who you speak with just knows they are some immortal wizard king or something.