Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Doug McCrae]

Druids started off as "monsters" in D&D, in OD&D Book IV Greyhawk (1975). They became a PC class in Book VI Eldritch Wizardry (1976).

Whether a cultural component is a PC class or a monster, whether it's in the PHB or the MM, is, I think, the most important factor. Alignment is the second most important.

The big problem with D&D is that, with some exceptions like the monk, the PHB = Europe and the MM = not Europe.

Stuff like frost giants are consistent with this. Frost giants aren't vikings, they were mostly the enemies of the Norse gods in the myths of the vikings. To present them as monsters is to agree with the vikings. A number of the MM monsters are connected with real world peoples, not their myths*.

EDIT: *Or we could say, the myths Europeans told about those peoples.

 

[Maxperson]

We have been told countless times that the problem with Orcs would go away if there were examples of Orcs that were different than the ones in the PHB, and that if there were such exampled, it would be okay to also have the PHB Orcs. Yet here we have Shamans who are portrayed as both good AND bad, yet the problem didn't go away. Which is it? Is it okay if you have both or not?

 

[Doug McCrae]

The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.

Again, this is pretty contested. A lot of people in these threads have pushed back against this nation and there have been a lot of arguments as to why

 

[MGibster]

So a culture that loses something of itself can't go back and regain it? Once it's gone it's up for grabs by anyone who comes along?

The important thing to realize is that the Celts and most of their descendants are white Europeans. It's okay to appropriate their heritage, to distort it, and to include their unique cultural identifiers in hodgepodge ahistorical settings, but it is wrong to "borrow" from other cultures for very important sociohistorical and political reasons. Sometimes it's tough to figure out where it's acceptable to take influence from but so long as it's Europe you're probably safe.

 

[Maxperson]

The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.

What are the non-European properties of Pixies, Vampires, Banshees, Cyclops, Chimera, Dryads, Pegasus, Gargoyle, etc.?

 

[Aldarc]

The funny thing is, no one is really proposing that we get rid of shamans in D&D or our hobby, only that we think about how we frame and contexualize them, particularly in relation to other spiritual classes and various in-game cultures. It amazes me that such a mild suggestion has received as much of an adverse reaction as it has. It’s on a similar level of suggestions from old that maybe stories should involve more than rescuing helpless damsels in distress.

The important thing to realize is that the Celts and most of their descendants are white Europeans. It's okay to appropriate their heritage, to distort it, and to include their unique cultural identifiers in hodgepodge ahistorical settings, but it is wrong to "borrow" from other cultures for very important sociohistorical and political reasons. Sometimes it's tough to figure out where it's acceptable to take influence from but so long as it's Europe you're probably safe.

This is hardly a good faith reading of the arguments. No one has argued cultural appropriation is okay “because they are white.” The issue pertains cultural continuity. As I said before, Evenki people and their shamans still exist. Druids don’t, apart from Neo-Pagan reconstructionism. We probably know more about Evenki spiritual practices than we do about the Gaulic druids and theirs. One reason why is because we can ask the Evenki shamans. The project of Romanizing (and then Christianizing) the Gauls and many other Celtic peoples was pretty darn systematic and successful. We are left mostly with the “myths” about the druids.

 

[Campbell]

The way we view any peoples with Shamans and Samurai is also not shaped in any meaningful way by D&D. Rational people don't take a fantasy game and then try to apply it to the real world.

We are influenced by the media we partake in, usually in small subtle ways. Games are art and like all other art forms they can move us. Fiction is not real, but it says stuff about real stuff even when it is not trying to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I am not claiming to be a victim. I am telling you how these things impact people trying to be creative. And I am just giving my honest reaction to the state of things in the hobby. I reached a point where I simply had to tune out these conversations because I found it stifling. I don't see how that is painting myself as a victim. And I don't see how it is an unreasonable reaction when you see constant threads on social media (in forums, on twitter, etc) around the topic of the way we use language in gaming.
...
You can declare it a fiction if you want to. If you think there isn't a lot of pablum out there, and if you think this kind of development isn't contributing to more pablum content, more power to you. All I can say is that is not how I see things.

When I see pablum in any creative medium it is because the "creative" person has been half-arsing it. That they've used a mix of half formed and badly researched stereotypes instead of nuance, research, and attention to detail. Which is exactly the problem with using terms like Shaman - that they are words which have been taken so far out from any reasonable root meaning and any sensible set of overlaps that they just mean "strange religious-like thing with primitive overtones".

People with a desire and drive to be creative will, in my experience, take these critiques and realise that a big problem of what they have produced is that it is pablum and they will use it to spur them on to do better next time. Meanwhile people who more want to have written a novel than actually want to write a novel in my experience will be the ones who are discouraged because they dislike that writing a novel is hard, and they dislike that people don't fall down at their feet for having done so irrespective of the quality.

So yes there is a lot of pablum out there. And this kind of development is in my experience contributing to both easy ways to spot the pablum while you are only a few pages in and to ways to push it back.

 

[MGibster]

This is hardly a good faith reading of the arguments. No one has argued cultural appropriation is okay “because they are white.”

I understand nobody's put forth such an argument, but between this thread and others, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and who it's okay to appropriate from. And let's face it, if you want to appropriate from Europe you're pretty safe from criticism.

The issue pertains cultural continuity. As I said before, Evenki people and their shamans still exist. Druids don’t, apart from Neo-Pagan reconstructionism.

I get the argument. And people are complex. When I took my anthropology courses most of them revolved around Middle Eastern cultures. I was very, very surprised to learn that modern Egyptians have some strong opinions regarding how Ancient Egypt is viewed. After all, they don't have any more continuity with that past than Spain does with the Celts.

We probably know more about Evenki spiritual practices than we do about the Gaulic druids and theirs. One reason why is because we can ask the Evenki shamans. The project of Romanizing (and then Christianizing) the Gauls and many other Celtic peoples was pretty darn systematic and successful. We are left mostly with the “myths” about the druids.

We know remarkably little about the druids aside from what the Romans wrote about them and they're not exactly an unbiased source. So what's the answer here? Should we just drop shaman entirely from D&D and make them all druids? I admit I don't have very strong feelings about this. I did just use a lizardman shaman just last week but that's the first time I can remember using one in many years. So it's not like I'm going to miss the shaman.