Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

The harm of "Plastic Shamans" have been discussed before. Again, if one were to bother reading the OP.

The assumed harm. Real harm has not been proven.

If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?

They have shamans with druid spellcasting.

 

[Fenris-77]

If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?

From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.

If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.

 

[Maxperson]

From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.

If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.

Yep. Druid was just the closest fit to a Shaman from the highly limited number of 5e classes. Would a dedicated Shaman class be better? Sure. Does it really matter that they went with Druid? Nope.

 

[TheSword]

The harm of "Plastic Shamans" have been discussed before. Again, if one were to bother reading the OP.

If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?

I have read your post. You’ve not demonstrated at all that use of the term shaman in D&D increases negative opinions of shamans, or causes them to experience any real racism, or that there is any notable group of shamans playing the game that would be reminded of real world racism in the game. Or that removing it would reduce these issues if they even existed before.

You’ve assumed that because real shamans exist that they are being harmed. I’m saying there’s no evidence of this at all.

This is quite different to the example of Orcs where a not insignificant number of people see the way monstrous humanoids are described and treated as reminding them of real world racism they experience. They have come forward and told us this.

Your example is a case of jumping on the bandwagon.

Do you have any evidence that the people understandably concerned about con artists using their cultural traditions to defraud people are also bothered by their use in rpg board and computer games?

 

[Doug McCrae]

From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.

If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.

There is a druid in the 5e Monster Manual Appendix B: Nonplayer Characters. None of the other NPC names are class names. For example there is an "archmage" and "mage" (both with wizard spells), but not a "wizard"; an "acolyte" and a "priest" (both with cleric spells), but not a "cleric". This suggests that the NPC names in Appendix B are terms used in the game world. We can therefore conclude that "druid" is both a rules term for a class and a term used in the game world. The lizardfolk shaman casts druid spells. There would therefore be no difficulty in calling the lizardfolk caster a druid.

Why then is the lizardfolk caster a shaman? Because "shaman" is only used in D&D to refer to NPCs and monsters, not PCs. It does not appear in the PHB. But why should the word be used in this way?

The PC druid in the PHB is described as a "priest of the Old Faith, wielding the powers of nature". The "Old Faith" usually refers to pre-Christian European religion. The historical druid was a pre-Christian Celtic magico-religious specialist. "Old Faith" does not appear in the MM. The NPC druid is, instead, a "tribal shaman". In popular culture "shaman" is associated with non-European (particularly Native American) magico-religious specialists who communicate with nature spirits. This is how it is used in Robert E Howard’s Conan stories, which are cited in Appendix N of the 1e DMG and Appendix E of the 5e PHB.

Lizardfolk live in "swamps and jungles". Europe is not known for its jungles. They lure trespassers "into the lairs of crocodiles". Crocodiles live only in hot climates - the tropics and subtropics. Lizardfolk eat and sacrifice sentient beings, tropes which have, over the last 300 years been attached largely to non-Europeans, especially sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. According to TVTropes the Cannibal Tribe trope refers to "dark-skinned, non-Christian native tribes".

Lizardfolk have shamans instead of druids because they’re not European.

 

[TheSword]

Incidentally there are many tribal societies in D&D that are not seen as less or monstrous... the Uthgardt of FR, The dragons tribes of Eberron, the Elves of Athas. Each are nuanced, powerful and cool.

Incidentally none of the actual human tribes in d&d are primitive... as they are not early examples of their species. It isn’t a word that is appropriate for the tribes I described above.

 

[Fenris-77]

A druid character could easily be a Shaman. Just because the word shaman isnt a character class doesnt mean it is thus pejorative. Lots of titles arent character classes. That doesnt make any of them bad or good. The Lizardfolk have Shamans instead of Druids because that's the the word that was closest to what the designer was trying to convey. Calling that same thing a Druid is different, as you this have all the baggage and expectations of the class, which the Shaman does not have in the entry, inluding different cultural baggage. Trying to deny that difference is silly, bit that doesnt seem to stop people from trying.

Where, for example, is the guardian of the natural world bit, what is probably the defining thing for a Druid? Missing, absent, not there. Probably a key reason why they used the word Shaman, not Druid, because Druid would have been incorrect.

 

[Hussar]

Since you're an expert and all...

Yeah, color me surprised. Guess that's told me.

 

[TheSword]

There is a druid in the 5e Monster Manual Appendix B: Nonplayer Characters. None of the other NPC names are class names. For example there is an "archmage" and "mage" (both with wizard spells), but not a "wizard"; an "acolyte" and a "priest" (both with cleric spells), but not a "cleric". This suggests that the NPC names in Appendix B are terms used in the game world. We can therefore conclude that "druid" is both a rules term for a class and a term used in the game world. The lizardfolk shaman casts druid spells. There would therefore be no difficulty in calling the lizardfolk caster a druid.

Why then is the lizardfolk caster a shaman? Because "shaman" is only used in D&D to refer to NPCs and monsters, not PCs. It does not appear in the PHB. But why should the word be used in this way?

The PC druid in the PHB is described as a "priest of the Old Faith, wielding the powers of nature". The "Old Faith" usually refers to pre-Christian European religion. The historical druid was a pre-Christian Celtic magico-religious specialist. In popular culture "shaman" is associated with non-European (particularly Native American) magico-religious specialists who communicate with nature spirits. This is how it is used in Robert E Howard’s Conan stories, which are cited in Appendix N of the 1e DMG and Appendix E of the 5e PHB.

Lizardfolk live in "swamps and jungles". Europe is not known for its jungles. Lizardfolk lure trespassers "into the lairs of crocodiles". Crocodiles live only in hot climates - the tropics and subtropics. They eat and sacrifice sentient beings, tropes which have, over the last 300 years been attached largely to non-Europeans, especially sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. According to TVTropes the Cannibal Tribe trope refers to "dark-skinned, non-Christian native tribes".

Lizardfolk have shamans instead of druids because they’re not European.

You say that Shaman don’t exisit in d&d however there are lots of classes that don’t exist yet. In pathfinder and previous editions they do definitely exist and there is no reason why they couldn’t exist in the future.

IIRC they were represented across all sorts of player races and certainly not limited to Monstrous creatures.The Pathfinder shaman iconic is a dwarf I believe.

If we’re saying they should be removed from D&D, presumably they should also be removed from other games that do have the name as player class.That shaman don’t exist in the game yet as playable characters is not a reason to remove them from the d&d lexicon. Its a good reason to get them added to the game.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

The Lizardfolk have Shamans instead of Druids because that's the the word that was closest to what the designer was trying to convey.

The last religious leader of the lizardfolk who styled himself as a Druid was ceremonially eaten when the rest of his tribe got the invoice for delivering fresh mistletoe to their jungle. It was especially pricey since it was brought to them by an amazon, or something like that.