Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

A) add a shaman class to define shaman - a very long process that is not guaranteed to succeed as issues with class design run into the vetting process - see psionics for a perfect example of a class hung up in development hell.

Great example of why development by committee is stupid.

B) replace the seven instances in the MM where the word shaman is used with the word druid, which is what they actually mean.

They didn't mean druid or they would have said druid. They said shaman because they meant shaman.

C) Add a Shaman to the Monster Manual in the NPC section, same as we have Noble and Druid. Since it's a "monster", it doesn't have to follow class construction rules, and can have a unique spell list and abilities.

This is probably the least acceptable option of the three. Players are going to want to play shamans.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not sure why this is complicated, but I okay I guess some people have difficulty with this. Obviously yes, there's the unfairness you describe.

But culture is like an IP. Particularly cultures that are somewhat obscure and have some broadly interesting myth/stories/ideas. That IP has value, and that IP can be damaged.

If I write, say, Choctaw Adventures, or whatever (I swear to god if anyone tries to argue specifics on this entirely theoretical example I WILL block them and never think about them again), and I use Choctaw myth and so on, may misunderstood in some kinda crummy ways, but let's focus on the economic, because it's what you want to know about. I don't share the profit with anyone from the community or whatever, so you've already identified a harm in that they don't profit, but I do.

But there's more than that - if someone from that community had wanted to do a Choctaw sourcebook, well, too late, there's already one written a white guy. Any one they put out is going to struggle to get out of the shadow of that. Because it's not the first, it's probably going to have to be twice as good to attract half the notice. And even if it's more authentic, or even just cooler, because there's going to be a ton of overlap, some people are just not going to be interested.

And it could be worse - the person who wrote Choctaw Adventures could have really mucked it up, and make the IP toxic or crummy-seeming in some way, like maybe he told the myths very poor, or made them seem boring or dumb, so he's damages the IP as well, so then if an actual member of the marginalized group wanted to write his Choctaw sourcebook, it's even harder for them to succeed, and it may be that the idiot who took your myths has managed to convince a bunch of people that they're dumb and boring (or even just that they know them already when they don't), which might even damage projects in other media.

Then on another level, there's the issue of "official" books. Say WotC put out Choctaw Adventures (remember this is theoretical people, don't make me Block you!), then that's going to massively boost the sales of that book. But say you come along and say to WotC, guys, this is the bad kind of cultural appropriation, and misrepresents our myths in a really crummy way, let us do a better version, chances are, they won't want to, because they already did a Choctaw Adventures, and it sucked (or succeeded, it doesn't actually matter), but they're not going to put out another book on the same subject in the same edition, so your community double misses out.

So do you see how that's harmful to artists and creators from that community on a level beyond the unfairness you already identified?

Now, note, this isn't always bad, particularly if you work with the community in question, and particularly if you just take one story or one myth, and you do a really good job - because then you can actually increase interest in that marginalized culture. But historically that's been rare, and typically requires a fair bit of luck or exceptional judgement.

I hope no members of the Choctaw nation come into this thread and as they’re reading start thinking to themselves “oh man, do I know the perfect example to post”......and then they find your post and are left exampleless.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?

There are indeed too many arcane casters.

Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.

But do they really? In a way that would matter for D&D mechanics? The thing is druids already do certain things that are in real life associated with shamans but not really with druids (shapeshifting.)

 

[Aldarc]

And it does require a sensitivity reader as well, because most/all of the religions which involved practices deemed "Shamanism" belong to marginalized groups, some extremely marginalized. Just waving your hand and dismissing that is, frankly, exactly the attitude that leads really unfortunate stuff happening.

One of the points of my OP as well was that there are a number of marginalized indigenous groups that are resisting the labeling of their spiritual leaders or medicine men as "shamans," and that the term "plastic shamans" was coined due to the exploitation and commercialization of American Indian spiritual practices. This is part of the harm as well. But this gets back to how the point is that we stop using the term, but that we consider how we use it. (Maybe less American Indian-inspired art with our fantasy shamans for starters.)

A lot of anthropologists and sociologists basically viewed a lot of non-Western religious practices as the same, and threw them under the label of "shamanism" and placed them on a religious evolutionary model "lower" in a ladder that leads to polytheism and then monotheism. I believe that @pemerton also talked about this as well earlier in the thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.

Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.

For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?

Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.

There is another possibility. I have been inspired by how Pathfinder 2 reduced all spell lists to four sources: Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal/Nature. So classes could be designed primarily around method (e.g., scholar with a tome, makes pacts with intermediary forces, innate, battle-caster, etc.) and then pick a spell list that determines your "label." So to take "scholar with a tome," for example, we may end up with a Wizard (Arcane Scholar), a Cleric (Divine Scholar), or Druid (Primal Scholar). But if one were a battle-caster, you may end up with a Swordmage (Arcane Battle-Caster), a Templar/War Priest (Divine Battle-Caster), or a Warden/Shapeshifter (Primal Battle-Caster).

 

[Olrox17]

Like someone claiming to be culturally ancient Roman simply because they happen to live in Rome.

Oh, hey, that's me! I mean, kind of. I cannot claim to be an ancient roman, but I certainly am a modern roman, and as such I absolutely claim all of roman culture, including ancient roman culture, as part of my cultural heritage.

 

[Lychee of the Exch.]

Culture belongs to none. Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.

I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and make them my own.

You know, like mankind has done since the dawn of time.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Culture belongs to none. Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.

I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and make them my own.

So, you're refusing to culturally misappropriate the capitalist culture?

 

[Aldarc]

Culture belongs to none. Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.

I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and make them my own.

You know, like mankind has done since the dawn of time.

There may be some neo-liberal double-speak at work here.

 

[Hussar]

I don't play 5E but based on the text people posted on shamans and druids here, it seems they are a subcategory of Druid (some Druids are Shamans but not all druids are Shamans), and it is just meant to be a thing where you reskin your druid as a shaman (perhaps explaining the flavor of how they get their powers slightly differently, and carefully selecting spells to best reflect a shaman character). If you just change all those instances into Druid, you do lose a potential distinction they were going for (and possibly a bit of flavor)

@Bedrockgames - I mean this with all respect, but, since you flat out admit you don't know what you're talking about, that your ideas are only based on what you've read from other people's posts, I'm going to say that it would be far, far more useful to actually read the 5e material before venturing an opinion?

These conversations are difficult enough without having to explain things to people who cannot even be bothered to actually read the works in question. And not even the entire works. Just 7 entries.