Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Bedrockgames]

One part of the problem here is that historically 'primitive tribal societies' have been so vilified and derided that there is sort of vicious association circle here. Most of the language we have to describe non-city-based low-tech civilisations comes across as at least somewhat offensive. Which is just messed up as such cultures have existed, still exist and are perfectly fine and valid. Granted, in many instance D&D doesn't even try.

I think we are getting very far afield of the topic. But I think it is a lot more complicated than this. Also, I think there are different perspectives on this expressed in a lot of fantasy. That is one of the reasons it is interesting Conan is so foundational. That is very much written as a critique of city based society. A lot of how this plays out is going to depend on what historical perspective you are looking through when you draw inspiration. You see this in movies all the time. If you are watching a movie about Romans, with more of a Roman point of view, the Germans are going to be more 'barbaric'. If you are watching a movie from the point of view of the tribes in Brittania, then the Romans might look more like cruel occupiers. Most fantasy settings have cities that fit into both types, and have non-city people who fit into both types. And evil is always more interesting, and more gameable, so you are often going to see more of the evil type than the good. Just look at cities that are good for adventuring. If everything is perfect and peaceful, there is less opportunity for adventure. Places with corruption, secret societies, criminal underworlds, etc (all the negative stereotypes of cities) are more gameable. Same thing with tribes of orcs. You can have peaceful orcs and do a deep dive into the complexities of their society if you want (and I have done that, it is fine and can serve a useful function in a campaign), but I think for what most people are looking for, in terms of gameabilty, evil orc tribes serve a functional utility for adventure and excitement.

 

[Maxperson]

Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.

Not on human history. If I'm describing a fantasy people as primitive, savage and barbaric, then yes, I'm providing a value judgment on a fantasy people.

 

[reelo]

The OSR game "Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea" has an interesting Shaman class.
Granted, the descriptive language is also quite retro (meaning: words like "savage" and "primitive" are used liberally) but the actual class mechanics are neat.

Prime attributes Int and Wis
d6 HD
Light armour
Class abilities:
Draw poison (heals poisonous bites)
Magic Item use
Medicine Man: kind of a "Lay on hands"
Read magic
Read/scribe scrolls
Sorcery: casting ability, gains spells from 2 spell lists, chosen at lvl 1: Cleric OR Druid as well as Magician OR Necromancer
Totem: weekly "contact otherworldly being" spell
Turn Undead
Longevity: reduced aging speed after a certain level

So, in summary, here the Shaman is a hybrid divine/arcane caster with focus on 2 of either healing or nature, and divination or necromancy.

 

[Aldarc]

Not on human history. If I'm describing a fantasy people as primitive, savage and barbaric, then yes, I'm providing a value judgment on a fantasy people.

If you had an off-brand Africa (e.g. Chult in FR or Garund in Golarion) in your setting that described its dark-skinned inhabitants as “primitive, savage, and barbaric,” then while the people in the fantasy setting are fictitious, it would most definitely seem like you were making a (morally dubious) value judgement about Africa and its people in all but name. At the very least, it would raise all sorts of red flags. This is a shortcoming of the “but it’s fiction” line of argumentation.

 

[Voadam]

Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.

I looked up the Pathfinder 1e Shaman as I had not remembered them at all. From their hybrid classes book (Advanced Class Guide) they are a mix of oracles and witches pretty much full divine casters with witch hexes and some spirit powers and a little bit of a dip into druid spells. Their flavor text is connection to generic spirits of the world the way witches are connected to unspecified generic themed entities.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my current setting druids are called shamans as that fits the vibe of the setting better. They're also fluffed as shamanistic, in the sense that they deal with various nature spirits as opposed to clerics who dedicate themselves to one greater god. The mechanics are vague enough that it makes sense to me.

 

[Maxperson]

If you had an off-brand Africa (e.g. Chult in FR or Garund in Golarion) in your setting that described its dark-skinned inhabitants as “primitive, savage, and barbaric,” then while the people in the fantasy setting are fictitious, it would most definitely seem like you were making a (morally dubious) value judgement about Africa and its people in all but name. At the very least, it would raise all sorts of red flags. This is a shortcoming of the “but it’s fiction” line of argumentation.

Is that from 1e or 2e, because the information on Chult that I have from 3e is that they are tribal and dark skinned, and distrust too much arcane magic. Nothing is said about savage and barbaric. You might be able to eek out primitive from the comment about using mostly non-metal weapons, but...

 

[Aldarc]

Is that from 1e or 2e, because the information on Chult that I have from 3e is that they are tribal and dark skinned, and distrust too much arcane magic. Nothing is said about savage and barbaric. You might be able to eek out primitive from the comment about using mostly non-metal weapons, but...

They were listed as examples of off-brand Africa in prominent settings. However, both the depiction of Chult in ToA and Garund in PF1 were criticized for how they depicted peoples in their off-brand Africas. Supposedly Paizo sought to improve how they depicted the peoples of Garund in PF2, though I can’t say that I have read through the new setting books closely. believe that @Campbell listed a bit of that as it applied to the native lizard folk. (Can’t remember how they call themselves.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.

Yes, and what's particularly awful is that, historically, it's often been an extremely inaccurate value judgement, even by the standards of the people making it. Incredibly complex cultures with elaborate traditions, highly-developed moral ideas and philosophies, and centuries or thousands of years of history were frequently dismissed as "primitive" or "savage" because they didn't wear pants or value gold highly. And god help you if you're "too civilized", we got a whole other set of vague condemnations for you then ("effete", "decadent", etc.).

RPGs often have a problem in that you have stuff that's written exactly like the subjective, agenda-bearing, inaccurate waffle that is most of human history (soz everyone, but that's how it is), which will throw around terms like "primitive" and "barbaric" willy-nilly, but instead of being from the perspective of some fallible idiot, it's often from a sort of "this is a fact" perspective (ugh can't remember how to say that). Occasionally books will try to correct this a bit, and put in an unreliable narrator like Volo, but then it'll go outside the text by him, and be using equally dubious terminology, and using it in this totally slapdash way. What does "barbaric" even mean? Or "savage"? They're so broadly used as to be meaningless, at this point. Barbaric could be anything from simply referring to appearance, to utterly bloodthirsty-ness. Savage could merely mean "Doesn't live in a city", or it could mean "incredibly brutal and vicious".

This sort of language, which both vague, relative, highly judgemental, and highly subjective, should probably be confined to actual in-character writing in the setting (or fiction bits, rather than the core information about stuff). I'm not saying "CENSOR THEM!!!" before some unreasonable person freaks out and starts barricading his door before the Word Police break it down and fill him full of gerunds, I'm saying like, it's just kinda inept and thoughtless to use words like that (including a ton of words which have nothing to do with "social consciousness" or whatever note) in "factual" text because you basically have to define what you mean by them, as they're so misused and vague. And don't tell me context will reveal the meaning, because that's the whole problem, it typically doesn't!

So even leaving social stuff aside, vague words with multiple potential meanings in the same context like this are not great for factual stuff. They're fine for in-character stuff, because the reason they're so vague and misused is that actual people extend how words are used.

 

[Voadam]

If Shaman=Druid, then there is no need to use the term shaman is there? It's included under druid. So, all those races that list having shamans, can instead have druids and that is actually bringing it in line with the contradictory rules.

So, where's the problem?

This can work as an artistic choice.

It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.