Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[TheSword]

This is worth quoting in full, for two reasons:

(1) Humour value. Especially the last line.

(2) I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.

I think with these descriptions so called Mens Rea is as important as Actus Reus.

I think most people would agree that the rugby players and their families crashing in the Andes who were forced to eat the dead to survive were not evil.

The residents of Terminus (walking dead) probably are.

The ‘why’ is almost as important as the act.

 

[Hussar]

They know how to deal with intruders. That's a flavourful subclass!

That just makes me giggle so much. ROTFLMAO

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What the tangent about Lovecraftian influences in D&D had to do with anything? I feel that I kinda missed the point of that...

 

[Doug McCrae]

We can EAT them. That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil. Apparently. So, we solve so many in game problems at once. Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week. No more needing to carry around rations.

And if the PCs are too full to eat any more monsters or they've captured monsters that don't taste good then they can be sacrificed to the gods.

The downside is that when the PCs interrupt a group of 'evil' cultists performing a human sacrifice, they can't do anything about it because that's no longer an evil act.

'Evil' High Priest: "Like our scaly friends the lizardfolk, I have no concept of good and evil so that means I can do whatever I want. Cast Know Alignment on me and you'll see I'm neutral. This is a neutral cult. We're sacrificing the princess to Obad-Hai."

 

[Olrox17]

We can EAT them. That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil. Apparently. So, we solve so many in game problems at once. Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week. No more needing to carry around rations.

It's the Swiftest solution to a problem.

That would absolutely work for a lizardfolk party. For a human/dwarven/elven party? Probably not so much. Unless those characters hailed from a culture in which cannibalism is ok, of course.

Good aligned cannibal: only eats enemies who died in battle.
Neutral aligned cannibal: can eat enemy prisoners when food is lacking, but makes their death quick and painless, taking no pleasure in causing suffering.
Evil aligned cannibal: eats whoever, slowly, painfully and torturously, and enjoys every minute of it.

I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.

A possible counter-argument: cannibalism has been practiced in the past by several RL cultures (and they were sometimes wiped out by foreign "civilized" peoples for it). By calling lizardfolk evil because of their cannibalistic practices, we would, by extent, be calling those human cultures evil, as well.
That sounds very colonialistic to me.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A possible counter-argument: cannibalism has been practiced in the past by several RL cultures (and they were sometimes wiped out by foreign "civilized" peoples for it). By calling lizardfolk evil because of their cannibalistic practices, we would, by extent, be calling those human cultures evil, as well.
That sounds very colonialistic to me.

Because that is. The lizardfolk are practicing human sacrifice (like the Mayans), sometimes perform cannibalism (like the Aztecs to a debatable extent), don't use advanced tools like the wheel and advanced ironworking like the Incas. The conquistadors arrived and said "hew, they are barbarians". While they were an advanced, if misunderstood, culture. Lacking cultural relativism, conquistadors painted them as evil because they judged them according to their worldview.

In D&D, the objective morality system makes them Neutral, because apparently, it's much sympathetic to the Mayan worldview than the Conquistador's. Of course, if you're a CG adventurer who just wanted to cross their land to seek the McGuffin (a fountain of youth?), you'll probably have a very dim view on their practices and if you escape, you'll probably perpetuate the myth that they are evil nonetheless. But you'll be objectively wrong in the setting. While you would be objectively right if the objective morality happened to align with your own, Western, views on these matters.

 

[TheSword]

This thread is so off topic it feels like it’s lost in the Maztican jungle!

 

[jasper]

........

Good aligned cannibal: only eats enemies who died in battle.
Neutral aligned cannibal: can eat enemy prisoners when food is lacking, but makes their death quick and painless, taking no pleasure in causing suffering.
Evil aligned cannibal: eats whoever, slowly, painfully and torturously, and enjoys every minute of it.
......

Lies Lies and more lies.
Good Aligned. Eats whomever Medium Rare
Neutral Aligned. Eats whomever Medium.
Evil Aligned. Eats whomever WELL DONE!

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, it comes from the Tungusic/Evenki word šaman. It was brought into European vocabularies essentially after Russia conquered Siberia and other Europeans began traveling these new Russian territories. As to how it was applied to other cultural examples, the answer is typically from European sociologists, ethnolinguists, anthropologists, comparative religion scholars, etc.

So you're familiar with the definition of shaman from anthropology and the history of religion then. Excellent. That means you know that the term was coined by anthropologists, and is used to describe a variety of religious practices the world over. Would you say that that definition is used by anthropology generally in a negative or judgemental fashion?

 

[Maxperson]

This is worth quoting in full, for two reasons:

(1) Humour value. Especially the last line.

I'm really not sure what's so funny about, "It's the Swiftest solution to a problem." Just kidding, I know which line you meant and it was pretty darn funny.

(2) I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.

This however is untrue. There's a big difference between eating sentient beings that are truly nothing but food to you(neutral in D&D,) and eating sentient beings just as a convenient way to kill them and not get in trouble, which could be and in my opinion is an evil act.