Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

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.

That's a faulty assumption. Archmage and mage are just alternative names for Wizard, as Acolyte and Priest are alternate names for Cleric. A much stronger assumption is that those NPCs are Wizards and Clerics. Just as an Assassin is a Rogue and a Berserker is a Barbarian.

It's not hard to see that NPCs can have alternative subclasses that are not allowed to players.

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?

No. The Druid can be a tribal Shaman, and therefore a PC Druid can also be a tribal Shaman. I mean, would you say no if a player wanted to call his druid a tribal Shaman? I certainly wouldn't. Hell, I wouldn't even say no to a player calling his Cleric a Shaman.

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".

Europe isn't known for it's Treants, Aboleths and much more, either. You're stretching things beyond credulity in order to try and divorce Shamans from Druids and it doesn't work.

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

No. They're not. And neither are any other races, classes or monsters..............unless you homebrew a fantasy D&D Europe campaign, in which case Lizard Folk are European.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.

This makes no sense. Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.

So, "presumably they should be removed from other games" doesn't make any sense. How do those other games treat shaman? I don't know, I haven't read those other games, so, I make zero judgement for or against those other games. You can't judge unrelated works just because they use the same terminology. How that terminology is used is the important part.

You say that Pathfinder has a rich culture attached to shaman. Ok, fantastic. Sounds like it's job done. It's a respectful use of the concept. Great. Does Pathfinder only have shaman in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies? No? Then why would you remove it from Pathfinder?

OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies- see druid".

Meh, this is just going around in circles and it's not getting anywhere. I've been pretty clear how and why I would fix this issue - remove the whole seven instances where shaman appears in the Monster Manual from subsequent printings and replace it with the more accurate "druid". Then, begin the design process to add shaman back into the game through Unearthed Arcana and either design it as a new class or as a subclass of druid.

You folks have a good time endlessly chasing your tails as folks who have a vested interest in making sure that you never come to anything approximating a consensus will continue to troll these types of threads just to stir the pot.

Fortunately, in about three to five years from now, we'll be able to look back at this sort of stuff and shake our heads.

 

[Maxperson]

This makes no sense. Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.

D&D is a culture of its own and the culture of D&D includes all editions and games. Just because 5e doesn't have a Shaman class yet, doesn't mean that Shamans are no longer part of the D&D culture.

OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies- see druid".

At this point you know this to be an untruth. It's quite frankly offensive that you would continue to spread it when we know the truth. 5e D&D clearly uses Shaman to mean any race of humanoid of any alignment.

 

[TheSword]

This makes no sense. Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.

So, "presumably they should be removed from other games" doesn't make any sense. How do those other games treat shaman? I don't know, I haven't read those other games, so, I make zero judgement for or against those other games. You can't judge unrelated works just because they use the same terminology. How that terminology is used is the important part.

You say that Pathfinder has a rich culture attached to shaman. Ok, fantastic. Sounds like it's job done. It's a respectful use of the concept. Great. Does Pathfinder only have shaman in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies? No? Then why would you remove it from Pathfinder?

OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies- see druid".

Meh, this is just going around in circles and it's not getting anywhere. I've been pretty clear how and why I would fix this issue - remove the whole seven instances where shaman appears in the Monster Manual from subsequent printings and replace it with the more accurate "druid". Then, begin the design process to add shaman back into the game through Unearthed Arcana and either design it as a new class or as a subclass of druid.

You folks have a good time endlessly chasing your tails as folks who have a vested interest in making sure that you never come to anything approximating a consensus will continue to troll these types of threads just to stir the pot.

Fortunately, in about three to five years from now, we'll be able to look back at this sort of stuff and shake our heads.

For the record the word shaman is pretty ubiquitous in the fantasy genre. I will be highly surprised if it goes anywhere.

With the release of all old content in pdf format, Shaman are effectively part of d&d in their current form until superseded. Much of this is fluff rather than crunch so will continue to exist in fluff based wikis and sources for existing 5e campaigns.

 

[Hussar]

@Maxperson - I'm sorry, but, I didn't realize you were posting in this thread until my feed told me. I've had you on ignore for a while now. If you are responding to points I've made, go ahead, but, know that I will not engage you directly. None of our interactions are ever fruitful. So, feel free to springboard from points that I've made to other people, but, if you are trying to respond directly to me, it will be in vain.

 

[Hussar]

For the record the word shaman is pretty ubiquitous in the fantasy genre. I will be highly surprised if it goes anywhere.

To be frankly honest, I probably agree with you. Not because it's "ubiquitous" because, in 5e, it certainly isn't, but because there is a significant number of gamers who have a vested interest in the status quo and refuse to accept that change isn't about taking away anything from them, but, rather, about doing something nice for other people.

But, like I said, unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who claim not to be able to "see color" or other garbage like that who will stand in the way of progress. Fortunately, in a few years, we'll be able to look back at these kinds of discussions, shake hands over a job well done, and the true bigots and trolls will have to go back to whatever hole they inhabit, to wait for a new day where they can try to force their privilege on others.

I mean, we, as in you and me @TheSword, agree that changes should be made. We might disagree about what changes, but, we agree that leaving it the way it is isn't viable. Whether we simply broaden Shaman or cut shaman then broaden it, the end result is the same.

There are those here who would deny that any change is necessary at all. And that's just sad.

 

[TheSword]

To be frankly honest, I probably agree with you. Not because it's "ubiquitous" because, in 5e, it certainly isn't, but because there is a significant number of gamers who have a vested interest in the status quo and refuse to accept that change isn't about taking away anything from them, but, rather, about doing something nice for other people.

But, like I said, unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who claim not to be able to "see color" or other garbage like that who will stand in the way of progress. Fortunately, in a few years, we'll be able to look back at these kinds of discussions, shake hands over a job well done, and the true bigots and trolls will have to go back to whatever hole they inhabit, to wait for a new day where they can try to force their privilege on others.

I mean, we, as in you and me @TheSword, agree that changes should be made. We might disagree about what changes, but, we agree that leaving it the way it is isn't viable. Whether we simply broaden Shaman or cut shaman then broaden it, the end result is the same.

There are those here who would deny that any change is necessary at all. And that's just sad.

Yes I agree there will always be reactionaries. Some changes are long overdue.

However in the case of cultural appropriation I think it’s really tricky ground. Yes we have Native American Indian imagery and names being exploited by multi-million dollar organizations, or rpg games called Fortune Cookie Kung-fu. Then on the other hand we have Mexican restaurants in small English towns and amazing computer games set in other countries... like Ghost of Tsushima.

There’s more debate to be and I think somethings will be revealed to be causing people harm. Until something is though, I think we owe it to ourselves to be pragmatic about what we try and cut. If it goes to deep, it just fuels arguments that it’s a slippery slope and causes people to dig their heels in.

 

[Hussar]

Was thinking about this a little more, so I thought I'd add a final thought since it looks like this thread is winding up.

Realistically, if you go back to the orc discussions or the drow or the alignment or whatever, there is far, far more agreement than disagreement. Yeah, I push for stripping the word "shaman" out of the Monster Manual but, that's because I worry that the expanded shaman might get tied up in development for a long time in the Unearthed Arcana (see psionics for an example of this) and it's a change we can make now. But, realistically, at the end of the day, we all get to the same place- an expanded shaman added to the game complete with traditions, that isn't tied to such a negative depiction.

In the orc thread, we all had pretty much agreed that a bit of snipping here and there (you need to remove about three sentences) is all that's needed.

IOW, nearly everyone agrees that changes aren't a bad thing and that a light touch will solve most of the problems.

What truly baffles me, through all of this though, is the camp that has lobbied so hard that either, 1. These problems don't exist at all or 2. Any change will be so widespread as to completely change the game.

The reason this baffles me is that we play 5e D&D. 5e has already rewritten so much of the game. Take alignment for example. 5e alignment fills less than a page of explanation and has zero mechanical impact (or very close to zero). Have any of you actually read the alignment section in the PHB outside of an alignment argument on the Internet? If they took out those pages from the PHB, would anyone actually notice? The writing is already on the wall - 4e reduced alignment, 5e gutted it to a shell and now, it's going to go away. It just is.

Same as these things that have been talked about. Orcs, drow, shaman, whatever. These things are all going the way of the chainmail bikini and gender based stat modifiers. I just have such a hard time understanding why anyone wants to preserve these things. They are holdovers from a bigoted past and are best left in the past. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[TheSword]

Was thinking about this a little more, so I thought I'd add a final thought since it looks like this thread is winding up.

Realistically, if you go back to the orc discussions or the drow or the alignment or whatever, there is far, far more agreement than disagreement. Yeah, I push for stripping the word "shaman" out of the Monster Manual but, that's because I worry that the expanded shaman might get tied up in development for a long time in the Unearthed Arcana (see psionics for an example of this) and it's a change we can make now. But, realistically, at the end of the day, we all get to the same place- an expanded shaman added to the game complete with traditions, that isn't tied to such a negative depiction.

In the orc thread, we all had pretty much agreed that a bit of snipping here and there (you need to remove about three sentences) is all that's needed.

IOW, nearly everyone agrees that changes aren't a bad thing and that a light touch will solve most of the problems.

What truly baffles me, through all of this though, is the camp that has lobbied so hard that either, 1. These problems don't exist at all or 2. Any change will be so widespread as to completely change the game.

The reason this baffles me is that we play 5e D&D. 5e has already rewritten so much of the game. Take alignment for example. 5e alignment fills less than a page of explanation and has zero mechanical impact (or very close to zero). Have any of you actually read the alignment section in the PHB outside of an alignment argument on the Internet? If they took out those pages from the PHB, would anyone actually notice? The writing is already on the wall - 4e reduced alignment, 5e gutted it to a shell and now, it's going to go away. It just is.

Same as these things that have been talked about. Orcs, drow, shaman, whatever. These things are all going the way of the chainmail bikini and gender based stat modifiers. I just have such a hard time understanding why anyone wants to preserve these things. They are holdovers from a bigoted past and are best left in the past. Why is that a bad thing?

I dont really want to bring the alignment thread hear but unlike a lot of other things, you’ve mentioned like evil orcs or gender differences. Alignment is a pretty impactful part of the game, has value to a lot of people and is hugely important in the Planescape setting that forms a big chunk of the cosmology of the game. I don’t really want an argument It’s just my viewpoint and we’ve all gone back and forth over this a huge amount elsewhere.

The problem is, when you take genuine issues like the Tolkien based orcs reminding people of racism. Then lump in more frivolous issues like use of the word shaman or mana or expecting the removal of the whole alignment system, it undermines the first. I can be against big cat sanctuaries without being against scientific based zoos. Not all issues are created equal.

I also think some of these frivolous issues make great settings like Planescape, Darksun, Birthright etc a lot less likely to be updated because of the noise. Which makes me sad.

(For the reference: i’d like to see Birthright updated to be well consulted and respectful, with big changes in some areas to be more inclusive, while keeping the great kingdom building and diplomacy elements and the cool world building)

 

[pemerton]

Whilst I agree that the context and manner how shamanism is mentioned in D&D has some issues, I'd be really wary of starting to purge references in real life cultural practices.

No one has sugested this.

What I have suggested - and I'm followng @Hussar's lead here, and drawing on @Doug McCrae's careful textual analyses - is reducing the reliance on pulp tropes.

Queen of the Black Coast is widely regarded as one of the best of REH's Conan stories. Maybe it is, But it's not an account of "real lie cutural practices" unless the cultural practice you have in mind is the racism of many of the pulp authors, and their use of racist tropes which have spread throughout the fantasy genre.

If someone wants to present a sympathetic account of lizardfolk religon, family life and so on, and include shamnic religous leaders as an element of that, that could be pretty interesting. But this is not what I understand the 5e MM to offer.

As basically everyone agrees that Europoean cultures are fair game this in practice will lead to even more increased euro-centrism in depiction of a fantasy worlds. I kinda had similar misgivings regarding the Oriental Adventures debacle, as justified as a lot of the criticism was.

I don't really want to reopen the whole OA debate in this thread. But as @Aldard is certainly aware of, my opinion of OA is that it is a sincere and relatively respectful (not completely respectful and not completely successful even when respect is attempted) presentation of elements of East Asian folk stories and pseudo-historical tropes for FRPGing purposes.

The difference, for me, between OA and the discussion in this thread is that the former presents the non-European history and culture largely on its own terms, Whereas in this thread I am responding to aspecs of D&D and FRPGing more broadly that present non-European history and culture as "primitive" and "different" and objects of curiosity for an essentially European/contemporary North American perspecive.

Just as I don't think OA is all one-way traffic, nor is contemporary D&D - eg there's the monk PC sitting there in the core of the game. But I'm nevertheless satsfied that there is a meaningful difference between the two cases.