Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[MGibster]

I can still use the 5E UA Rune Knight as a Nordic/Vikingesque type deal or is that gonna be an issue?

It shouldn't be. Scandinavians are one of those groups from whom it is okay to culturally appropriate from.

 

[Umbran]

It shouldn't be. Scandinavians are one of those groups from whom it is okay to culturally appropriate from.

Mod Note:

This is a strawman that's been addressed multiple times in several other threads recently, to the point where continuing to spout this sure looks like a deliberate attempt to be to be divisive. Time to put it away, please.

 

[Lychee of the Exch.]

This is old, but there's a point to be made - tradition is not in and of itself a reason to do things.

I mean, mankind has had bloody invasions and slavery since the dawn of time, too. We have been dying of malaria, smallpox, and various other communicable diseases since the dawn of time. But I think you'll have a hard time arguing that means we should keep on doing those things.

You'll not be able to convince me that the exchange between cultures has had such horrid consequences as deadly diseases, invasions and slavery.

In other words, "like mankind has done since the dawn of time" is to be understood in the context as "various cultures have contributed to each other since the dawn of time... and have immensely benefited from this".

"Cultural (mis)appropriation" is a reality of our human way of thinking. And it is a good thing, because the exchange of ideas is a good thing.

One other thing : in its best aspect, tradition is the way of the proven things. If you've got a tradition which has brought you good things in the past, without bad consequences, why not follow it ?

But the intermingling of ideas and culture - culture being the collective concatenation of ideas, - between groups of humans is not a tradition. It is merely a recurring thing which happens by itself, because of the way our human minds operate.

 

[Hussar]

It is a wildly used term in fantasy gaming though. You are expect D&D to exercise an academic standard of rigor that the industry as a whole doesn’t subscribe to.

You keep repeating seven times, as if it isnt referenced over and over again in dozens of products and settings. D&D 5e is set in a context of 30 years worth of PDFs still available.

But, I don't care about those other games. They aren't owned by WotC, and thus WotC has zero say over what goes into those books. Earlier edition books are less of an issue by virtue of already coming with disclaimer warnings. I care about the books that are most being used right now.

And, again, I'm not saying going back and editing some thirty year old Dragon magazine. I'm talking about editing what we are using right now.

This is no different than what is done in textbooks all the time.

 

[Hussar]

Where, specifically, does it actually say this? Shaman, as far as I recall from 2nd edition on, is sort of like a spirit druid. In fact, 2nd edition had a supplement devoted specifically to that. Is it possible that you are using hyperbole here?



You mean like you're doing?

@Doug McCrae has answered this more fully than I can, so, I won't repeat what he has said.

Funny thing is, that's probably the third time, at least, in this thread, he's had to repeat himself because people, purporting to be knowledgeable in the issue keep coming in, obviously not having done any basic research, demanding to see proof. And, funnily enough, when that proof is presented, we come to a pretty clear consensus that it's probably a good idea to change what's in the books. I mean, everyone's agreeing here that adding a broader "shaman" class/lore to the game would be a very good thing. I admit to taking it slightly further in removing references to shaman (all 7 of them) from the 5e books until such time as the broader shaman is presented. But, that's not a hill I would die on. I think it's a good idea simply because adding a new class is a very long process with no guarantee of success. Removing the seven instances of Shaman from the Monster Manual would have very little impact on the book, most people wouldn't even notice and those that would notice would be happy about it.

But, like I said, it's not something that must be done. Just what I would do.

But, hey, @Raunalyn, I know for a fact that you hold some pretty strong opinions on these issues. Opinions you've been freely sharing elsewhere. So, would you care to freely share your views here? Perhaps you could present where you are coming from and what opinions you hold on the issue?

 

[Maxperson]

This is old, but there's a point to be made - tradition is not in and of itself a reason to do things.

I mean, mankind has had bloody invasions and slavery since the dawn of time, too. We have been dying of malaria, smallpox, and various other communicable diseases since the dawn of time. But I think you'll have a hard time arguing that means we should keep on doing those things.

Progress is also not a reason in and of itself to do things. A lot of the recent "progress" being discussed involves damage that might possibly be happening to a group. Changing things based on something that we don't even know for sure is happening is progress for the sake of progress.

 

[Maxperson]

This post compares the lizard man/lizardfolk entries in AD&D/D&D across editions from 1e to 5e. It finds a correlation between shamans/witch doctors and evil actions, in particular eating sentient beings. Likewise there is a correlation between druids/mystics and a lower incidence of 'cannibalism'.

1e MM: "[L]izard men are likely to prefer human flesh to other foods. In this regard they have been known to ambush humans, gather up the corpses and survivors as captives, and take the lot back to their lair for a rude and horrid feast."

As per the 1e DMG rules for tribal casters, lizard men have shamans and witch doctors. Intelligence is "[l]ow (average)". My interpretation of this is that the 10% of lizard men that "evolved to a higher state" have average intelligence (8-10) while the remaining 90% are of low intelligence (5-7).

2e lizard men are very similar to those in 1e - the quoted text above is repeated in the Monstrous Manual. They have shamans but not witch doctors, the latter having been almost entirely removed from 2e. War leaders and potentially lizard kings are their leaders.

3e MM: "[P]opular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes)... Shamans offer advice but rarely become leaders themselves… Most lizardfolk leaders are barbarians or druids. Lizardfolk clerics (shamans) worship Semuanya."

Druid is their favoured class. They have intelligence 9, due to an intelligence penalty of -2.

4e MM: "Some especially cruel and savage lizardfolk capture and eat other humanoid creatures, boldly launching raids against the lands of nearby humanoids to capture victims for their feasts... Shamans and mystics commonly advise the chieftain."

The lizardfolk controller is a "Greenscale Marsh Mystic". Intelligence scores range from 5 to 10, with 8 being most common.

5e MM:

Lizard folk… have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god... Lizardfolk shamans lead their tribes, overseeing rites and ceremonies performed to honor Semuanya.​

Those quotes I guess show a correlation between shamans and evil actions like eating people, but it's crystal clear from those quotes that there is no causation there. Every last one of them is Lizard Men/Lizardfolk doing those actions and wouldn't change if you removed Shamans from the equation. The true correlation/causation is the race(Lizard Men), not the class(Shaman).

 

[Maxperson]

Which is why cultural relativism, applied only to stone giants and lizardfolk, makes no sense. I discuss it in more detail in this post.

Then the answer is that eating sentient beings is not inherently evil in D&D. Eating your neighbor who you just murdered? Probably evil cannibalism. Eating a human prisoner who just wandered into Lizard Man territory for sustenance? Clearly not evil in D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

"Cultural (mis)appropriation" is a reality of our human way of thinking. And it is a good thing, because the exchange of ideas is a good thing.

It's worth reminding you and the people who liked your inaccurate post that Cultural (Mis)appropriation =! Trans-Cultural Diffusion. Most of the time when people are asking "What's wrong with cultural appropriation?" and then describe this as a natural process of human history that amounts to a harmless exchanging of ideas, they are often describing the process of 'trans-cultural diffusion' rather than 'cultural appropriation.' They are not the same and pretending that they are the same is fallacious.

 

[Hussar]

One other thing : in its best aspect, tradition is the way of the proven things. If you've got a tradition which has brought you good things in the past, without bad consequences, why not follow it ?

And that's perfectly fair. However, if one can show bad consequences, does that change your mind that traditions should be followed?

Elvis yoinked black blues music and made billions of dollars on it while black artists couldn't even get played on the radio. Is that a bad consequence or not?

Early Fantasy genre fiction is replete with bigotry and misogyny. This isn't an opinion, this is a demonstrable fact. Howard, Lovecraft and lots of others all benefited from the fact that minorities were excluded from the business. And, again, this isn't ancient history either. There's a reason we say J. K. Rowling but also say Stephen King or Robert Howard. It's a lot easier to be top of the business model when you exclude over 50% of the potential competition after all.

So, when we perpetuate those stereotypes and tropes in our hobby, are we not continuing a bad consequence? No one is saying that Gygax was some closet bigot. I am absolutely sure that he wasn't. But, in the 70's, when D&D was hitting it's stride, and it was being written and edited by ... talented amateurs I guess would be the best way to phrase it ... social awareness and cultural respect weren't even a blip on their radar. They were simply yoinking ideas from every fantasy story and fairy tale they could get their hands on.

And, in doing so, continued the same bigoted themes and tropes that inhabit those early works.

So, sure, we're a couple steps removed from H. P. Lovecraft. Fair enough. But, shouldn't we fix things that we know are wrong? Using a real world religious figures to describe the religious leaders of an evil, violent, primitive groups is wrong. It is just wrong. We know better. And you fix it, not because you're winning points or trying to change minds. You fix it because it's the right thing to do.