Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

Conversely, with shaman, you could expand the use of the term to encompass non-evil, non-primitive people in the game and thus remove the stigmatization. I'd suggest elves have shaman instead of clerics and possibly some of the other races like Firbolg and other fae related races. Thus, Shamanism becomes tied to fae which I don't think anyone would particularly object to.

We already have non-primitive Shamans in 5e in any humanoid race you want with any alignment you want. MM page 346. Druids are sometimes tribal shamans. Tribes don't have to be primitive and the alignment given for the druid-Shaman on page 346 is any. Your "problem" has already been "fixed."

 

[Maxperson]

Shaman and Druid aren't interchangeable.

Except that in 5e those terms literally are interchangeable.

 

[Mercurius]

And, realistically, this is the issue no? Shaman are not even divine? Shaman are always less powerful than clerics? Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races? Does anyone actually not see the issue here?

As far as 5e goes, the problem is solved in 10 seconds. Find and replace the seven instances of "shaman" with "druid" and you're done. It's more fitting, it works with the mechanics and it solves the problem.

Ten (or so) pages after I originally posted this solution and no one was able to tell me about any real, actual criticisms or issues with using "druid". So, how is this not solving the problem.

Because it reduces shamans to druids, when there are distinct differences, which is its own form of "misappropriation." Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.

While the origins of both are unclear and highly speculative, it does seem that shamans--of whatever cultural origin--arose in paleolithic times, perhaps with the dawn of religious practices that is generally believed to have occured sometime around or before 50,000 years ago and the "Great Leap Forward." Druids are almost certainly a development from shamans in Celtic culture, possibly during the mesolithic or neolithic periods, or much later.

 

[Voadam]

And, realistically, this is the issue no? Shaman are not even divine? Shaman are always less powerful than clerics? Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races? Does anyone actually not see the issue here?

I think you are focusing on what you consider negative and letting that color how you are perceiving the rest.

Shamans were less than clerics and only for humanoid races (including stone and frost and fire giants, not just evil primitive races) in 1e.

In the other editions from Basic to 4e they are full caster PC classes. Even in 3e the lower powered NPC one is genericized and not called shamans while the spirit shaman class is a full caster PC class.

4e shamans being primal was not a dig that shamans were lesser than druids. Both were primal and neither were divine, tapping energy from spirits and the world instead of gods and the planes.

In the 5e MM index on page 352 it says: "Tribal Shaman. See Druid."

In the 5e MM on page 346 in the NPC section it says:

"DRUID
Medium humanoid (any race), any alignment
* * *
Druids dwell in forests and other secluded wilderness locations, where they protect the natural world from monsters and the encroachment of civilization. Some are tribal shamans who heal the sick, pray to animal spirits, and provide spiritual guidance."

At least some shamans already are druids in 5e.

The statblock for the 5e lizardfolk shaman is on MM page 205, they are neutral and cast druid spells and shapechange into crocodiles.

In the MM monster entries the word shaman only shows up for default Neutral Stone Giants, default Neutral Lizardfolk, and default Chaotic Neutral Quaggoth. Shamans are not explicitly associated with any default evil race, not Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Troglodytes, Gnolls, Grimlocks, Bugbears, Ogres, or Hill Giants. They are associated with druids who can be any race and any alignment so evil orcs just as much as good elves.

 

[Hussar]

Shaman and Druid aren't interchangeable. I don't have any issues with the word Shaman if it's used accurately either. I certainly don't think it comes pre-loaded with a whole ton of negative baggage. Not in general usage anyway. I also don't think this is a 14 page problem, but that's just me. Use the idea with respect and everything is fine.

Fair enough. Like I said, that's option 2. Reclaim the word so that it doesn't only apply to certain races and whatnot and use it more broadly. That's certainly an option.

Because it reduces shamans to druids, when there are distinct differences, which is its own form of "misappropriation." Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.

While the origins of both are unclear and highly speculative, it does seem that shamans--of whatever cultural origin--arose in paleolithic times, perhaps with the dawn of religious practices that is generally believed to have occured sometime around or before 50,000 years ago and the "Great Leap Forward." Druids are almost certainly a development from shamans in Celtic culture, possibly during the mesolithic or neolithic periods, or much later.

Not really. I'm removing shaman entirely. There's no reduction at all. If you want to add shaman back into the game, that's entirely possible to. Again, worrying too much about historical accuracy isn't really the issue here. It's the fact that shaman, as @Doug McCrae very rightly pointed out, only apply to violent, dangerous, and, frankly pretty darn evil, primitive races. And, since 5e already defines shaman as druids as a class, then what's really the problem with dropping the shaman title and just calling them druids?

In the other editions from Basic to 4e they are full caster PC classes. Even in 3e the lower powered NPC one is genericized and not called shamans while the spirit shaman class is a full caster PC class.

Yes, but, we're not talking about other editions are we? In 5e, a shaman is just a druid. Full stop. It's a druid that's linked to violent, savage, primitive enemy races. Since it's perfectly fine to have druids for everyone else, why not just call them druids here? Seems the simplest solution.

Otherwise, let's have an actual shaman class and go from there.

Quoting @Doug McCrae who says this better than I do:

This is true of its usage in D&D.

In 5e, stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths have shamans. The stone giant in the MM wears animal skins and wields a club. They also fight with thrown rocks. Lizardfolk are "primitive reptilian humanoids" with INT 7. They use simple weapons such as clubs. "Though they aren't skilled artisans, lizardfolk craft tools and ornamental jewelry out of the bones of their kills, and they use the hides and shells of dead monsters to create shields." "[T]hey have a taste for humanoid flesh", devouring their victims in "great feasts" if they’re not "sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god." Quaggoths, INT 6, are "brutal and savage", were "never an enlightened species", and practise cannibalism. They do not use weapons but attack with their claws.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. I'm removing shaman entirely. There's no reduction at all. If you want to add shaman back into the game, that's entirely possible to. Again, worrying too much about historical accuracy isn't really the issue here. It's the fact that shaman, as @Doug McCrae very rightly pointed out, only apply to violent, dangerous, and, frankly pretty darn evil, primitive races. And, since 5e already defines shaman as druids as a class, then what's really the problem with dropping the shaman title and just calling them druids?

The bold part is objectively false as has been proven to you over and over in this thread. Shamans in 5e are literally any humanoid race and of any alignment, without the need for violence, evil or primitive.

It's a druid that's linked to violent, savage, primitive enemy races.

Factually false.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.

Why do you say that? What makes you think that the druids were animists?

Which "shamanic" or "quasi-shamanic" practices did the druids employ?

 

[Mercurius]

Why do you say that? What makes you think that the druids were animists?

Here's something:

Are all Druids animistic? - The Druid Network

Are all Druids animistic? Druidry is essentially an animistic tradition in that Druids consider all aspects of nature to be inspirited or have soul; in other words, every aspect of nature has its own inherent value and purpose. Some would go further and say that at every …

druidnetwork.org

As for historical druids, many/most ancient traditions had some degree of animism, so it makes sense.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

So why do you think the historical druids were animists?

 

[Aldarc]

Incidentally, the YouTube channel I linked in the OP also has a video overview on the Druids: