Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

No they souldn't. D&D druid resmbles a shaman more than it resembles historical druid. Creating a separate shaman class would produce a massive overlap or alternatively avoiding it would mean the shaman lacks elements it should have (like shapeshifing.) It would make more sense to just rename the druid to shaman or just acknowledge that it is an alteranate name for the class that some cultures use. Besides, this game doesn't need more caster classes and generally by demanding that a whole new class would be created just to fix this representation issue over-complicates the matter needlessly. The issue can be fixed far more easily by just altering the flavour text.

I'm going to disagree with this. Shamans deal primarily with spirits, with nature coming in a fairly distant second place. Druids on the other hand are entirely nature. They don't really resemble Shamans other than the nature aspect, which is a minority of what Shamans are.

 

[Cadence]

I'm going to disagree with this. Shamans deal primarily with spirits, with nature coming in a fairly distant second place.

Is the Shaman somewhere in between a 5e Druid and 5e Warlock thematically? (I'm wondering how different the PF one would be if it had been a hybrid Druid and Witch instead of Oracle and Witch).

In any case, stumbled across this in a google search and thought it had a nice summary of the Shaman's across the various versions: Shaman - 1d4chan

 

[Maxperson]

Is the Shaman somewhere in between a 5e Druid and 5e Warlock thematically? (I'm wondering how different the PF one would be if it had been a hybrid Druid and Witch instead of Oracle and Witch).

In any case, stumbled across this in a google search and thought it had a nice summary of the Shaman's across the various versions: Shaman - 1d4chan

I don't see Shamans primarily as making pacts with and serving spirits or having them as a patron, so much as just being a liaison between humans and the spirit world. I think a closer combination would be Druid and Path of the Ancestral Guardian(Barbarian).

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure how balanced this is, but what if you combined Druid and Path of the Ancestral Guardian. Start with Druid and remove wild shape and any abilities that come later and deal with it. Reduce the spell casting ability to that of a Ranger. Then add in the Path of Ancestral Guardian abilities as a new "Circle." You can convert Primal Champion to add Wisdom and Charisma, instead of Strength and Con, since the Shaman would be losing Archdruid.

It probably needs a bit of tweaking, but it seems like a good start.

 

[MGibster]

I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.

This is true. However, during Howard's life time, more than 3,000 African Americans were lynched in the United States and rarely was anyone indicted let alone convicted for these crimes. So some of Howard's contemporaries actually murdered black people and many more of those contemporaries approved of or at least tolerated those murders.

 

[Aldarc]

This is true. However, during Howard's life time, more than 3,000 African Americans were lynched in the United States and rarely was anyone indicted let alone convicted for these crimes. So some of Howard's contemporaries actually murdered black people and many more of those contemporaries approved of or at least tolerated those murders.

You mean the lynchings that he explicitly has defended? As one article says,

Spoiler

Regarding the domestic terrorism of white minorities in the predominantly black Alabama and Mississippi, he excused them for “resorting to extra-legal measures such as lynching and intimidation [because] the legal machinery does not sufficiently protect them.” He lamented these sullen tensions as unfortunate, but nevertheless says that “anything is better than the mongrelisation which would mean the hopeless deterioration of a great nation.”

Yikes. But I'm not sure "at least he didn't kill anyone" is a particularly compelling defense of his beyond the norm racism.

 

[Hussar]

"Stone giants view the world outside their underground homes as realms of dreams [...] Killing prey or sentient beings is no cause for guilt in the dreaming world beneath the sky."

Hey, we have another winner for what to do with prisoners.

Any time we're outside of town, we believe that we are entering the "dream land" and nothing we do is evil. Burn down that orphanage? No problem, they're not real.

Granted, that means that we're insane, but, hey, we're not evil right? And, well, there's nothing negative about depicting an entire race as insane is there?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Hey, we have another winner for what to do with prisoners.

The last time, you misssed that the ethical problem with prisonners is "killing them or not?", not "what do we do with the bodies?" when considering the ethics of cannibalism.

Any time we're outside of town, we believe that we are entering the "dream land" and nothing we do is evil. Burn down that orphanage? No problem, they're not real.

Granted, that means that we're insane, but, hey, we're not evil right? And, well, there's nothing negative about depicting an entire race as insane is there?

1. If an adventurer is saying that he thinks he's only in a dream to avoid the blame when killing people right and left, then it would be Evil in D&D and morally wrong in the real life. He's not escaping out of the prisonner problem this easily.

2. If he is, as you state in the second part of your argument, insane and really think your excursions outside of town are just dreams, of course he's not Evil in D&D (he'd be unaligned, as he's unable to make a moral choice on his actions) and of course he wouldn't be guilty of anything in real life. Being truely insane on the scope you describe prevents penal prosecution (insert usual bike theft disclaimer).

3. Never in the description it is claimed that they believe they are in a dream. They consider what happens on the surface to be guilt-free, as if it was a dreamworld. It's not the same (no mental illness, just a societal view that what happens in Vegas surface stays in Vegas surface). Does this cultural approach change anything with regard to their alignment? No, because D&D alignement isn't subjective. So they can't escape being evil-aligned if they are behaving contrary to the objective moral laws, which apply equally whether one considers the surface world to matter or not. And yet, they are neutral, not evil. Despite considering that what happens on the surface doesn't matter, they are not murderous psychopath, they are, as described, peaceful and serene as long as they are left alone. They only rage against trespassers, which is OK in D&D morality system.

4. A point could be made that many (most?) adventurers, who don't have a dilemma with prisonners (I am glad your group has this dilemma as part of their game but I think the solutions you put forward wouldn't fly with my group) and will kill evil bandits who attack a caravan without problem, are effectively acting as you describe: they consider that what happens outside town doesn't really matter and have no guilt when killing other sentient being. It doesn't mean they will suddently slaughter the traders and feast on their entrails, but in most adventuring groups, there is no real sense of guilt accrued when killing bandits.

 

[MGibster]

Yikes. But I'm not sure "at least he didn't kill anyone" is a particularly compelling defense of his beyond the norm racism.

I have no interest in defending Lovecraft's racism I'm just putting it within the context of the era. Millions of Americans would have agreed with or sympathized with his position.

 

[Aldarc]

I have no interest in defending Lovecraft's racism I'm just putting it within the context of the era. Millions of Americans would have agreed with or sympathized with his position.

If you were trying to put it within the context of his era, then you would not be downplaying his racism as you are, as he was a conspiracy theorist loon, white supremacist, and Nazi sympathizer even by the standards of his day.