Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[aramis erak]

"Too often" is a pretty wild stretch when describing an incredibly rare thing that basically never happens.

I encounter it on a weekly basis in Oregon.

 

[pemerton]

There have been several cases from the 20th century of the discovery of primitive, almost stone-age tribes living in remote parts of jungles or on remote islands, yet they have been living contemporaneously with all of us in the modern world.

And calling these people "stone age" raises the same problem! As does the notion of "discovery" - it's not as if they were lost or missing.

The native human tribes in Chult prove this wrong.

Racist depictions of "darkest Africa" don't refute my points about the perspective inherent in the word "primitive". They reinforce it!

 

[Guest 85555]

So why are humans not "primitive", then, given that they don't have technology that is adavanced as the more advanced (Dwarvish) cultures around them in the setting?

If there is a group of humans that are not advanced, then yes, they should be described as primitive (if other types of races are being described that way). In most settings human culture spans a huge spectrum, from primitive to civilized. But if they are inconsistently applying the term in a given RPG book, that is different than if something ought to or can be described as primitive.

 

[Guest 85555]

Why "still"? Is there some inevitable trajectory of technological change?

Because it is still more advanced. Yes a group could remain in the stone age or stay in the stone age and maybe bypass other developments, but it is still clearly different in terms of where they are technologically.

And given that "stone age" is generally taken to refer to a period (an age, even) how can two people be living contemperaneously yet one be in the stone age and one in the >whatever? age?

It is both. It is a model based on how humans, overall, developed technology. And it serves as a handy descriptor (because if a given group is still using stone tools and not engaged in metallurgy, they are the level of the stone age in terms of technology). Granted you could have a culture that didn't advance to the copper age or iron age, but still develops other cultural advancements in a setting that make that kind descriptor not very useful. For instance, maybe they never develop metal tools but engineer some kind of advanced bureaucracy and social structure that makes the Medieval Europe analogues in the setting seem less advanced by comparison. But those are individual instances where you would need to elaborate anyways in the text, and would probably avoid a descriptor like stone age or neolithic, because it would be potentially confusing. But for the examples given, primitive, neolithic, etc all seemed pretty appropriate and helpful for understanding the concept of the group in question.

 

[Guest 85555]

And calling these people "stone age" raises the same problem! As does the notion of "discovery" - it's not as if they were lost or missing.

Racist depictions of "darkest Africa" don't refute my points about the perspective inherent in the word "primitive". They reinforce it!

But that is a failure to recognize peoples humanity. You can recognize the humanity of people and draw distinctions about how advanced different groups are. Obviously, obviously in the real world that is more fraught because things like a culture's subjective sense of its own greatness might interfere with their ability to objectively evaluate how advanced it is in comparison to other societies. But I think as a general thing, there is a clear difference between a group that operates in small bands and uses stone tools and an empire that has mastered steel and engineering. You need to be able to distinguish those two things. And especially in a gaming setting, where you are not even talking about real people, the ability to clearly distinguish levels of advancement are kind of important.

 

[Hussar]

I've never encountered that trope taken to the extreme of all neighboring cultures being uncivilized and primitive because they don't make katanas (though I could certainly people in a setting thinking that their culture is supreme and holding up the katana as an example maybe----but that seems pretty harmless too, since it is a fake setting and it would just be evoking how groups of people often think highly of themselves).

Never read the Oriental Adventures huh?

 

[Hussar]

I notice no one took up my challenge. Find 5 good, peaceful primitive races described in the monster manual. I mean, if it's a totally neutral term, it should be easy to find.

And, for some reason, no one has been able to tell me why elves don't have shaman.

 

[Maxperson]

I notice no one took up my challenge. Find 5 good, peaceful primitive races described in the monster manual. I mean, if it's a totally neutral term, it should be easy to find.

Find 5 monsters in the monster manual that specifically eat babies. See, I can pick a category that's not likely to be in the monster manual just like you can. For my part, it's distasteful so they wouldn't include it. In your case it's a MONSTER manual, and you aren't likely to be able to find that many peaceful humanoid races, because not a good antagonist for parties.

And, for some reason, no one has been able to tell me why elves don't have shaman.

They do. Wild elves have shamans. I don't recall 5e lore having wild elves, but in past editions they existed and had shamans.

 

[Hussar]

Find 5 monsters in the monster manual that specifically eat babies. See, I can pick a category that's not likely to be in the monster manual just like you can. For my part, it's distasteful so they wouldn't include it. In your case it's a MONSTER manual, and you aren't likely to be able to find that many peaceful humanoid races, because not a good antagonist for parties.


They do. Wild elves have shamans. I don't recall 5e lore having wild elves, but in past editions they existed and had shamans.

Huh. I can find all sorts of good aligned humanoids in the Monster Manual. Elves, Dwarves, Dragonborn, half of the dragons, some giants, and that's just off the top of my head. And yet, none of them are described as primitive.

And, even in 4e, Wild Elves, while possibly being shaman (because 4e had a shaman class) they are still described as (rarely) having clerics an frequently having druids.

But, again, we have the most "primitive" elves being given shaman. IOW, even in elves, the notion of primitive and shaman are connected.

But, we were talking about 5e.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In the 5e D&D core rules "shaman" and its derivatives don’t appear in the PHB. It’s used in the MM to refer to stone giants, lizardfolk, quaggoths, and NPC druids. In the DMG it refers to lizardfolk shamans.

The PHB PC druid is a "priest of the Old Faith" whereas the MM NPC druid is a "tribal shaman". "Old Faith" refers to pre-Christian European magico-religious beliefs and practices. "Shaman" in popular culture is associated with non-European, particularly Native American, magico-religious beliefs and practices.

All four MM shamans provide services to their people. Stone giant shamans "draw shapes out of raw stone, which they believe reveal meaning inspired by their god, Skoraeus Stonebones." "Lizardfolk shamans lead their tribes, overseeing rites and ceremonies performed to honor Semuanya." Quaggoth tribal shamans are also known as thonots. "A thonot keep [sic] a tribe's lore and ensures its superiority against enemies." NPC druids "heal the sick, pray to animal spirits, and provide spiritual guidance".

Lizardfolk and quaggoth religion involves evil acts. Humanoid prisoners "are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god". "A thonot that fails the tribe is slain and devoured in a cannibalistic ritual, in the hope that its power passes to another more worthy quaggoth". There is a suggestion of superstition about stone giant and quaggoth religion – "believe", "hope".

Stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths, despite their alignments (neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral) are likely to have a hostile relationship with PCs, based on other parts of their entries in the MM:

"When trespassers stray too far into the mountain territory of a stone giant clan, those guardians greet them with hurled rocks and showers of splintered stone."

Lizardfolk are "territorial xenophobes". "When unwelcome visitors are detected, a tribe sends a hunting band to harass or drive the trespassers off, or tricks them into blundering into the lairs of crocodiles and other dangerous creatures." "Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters."

"Savage and territorial, quaggoths climb the chasms of the Underdark. They maul their foes in a frenzy, becoming even more murderous in the face of death."

All three, imo, ought to be of evil alignment by the PHB definition. "Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms." There is some strange text in the stone giant and lizardfolk entries that uses, respectively, false beliefs and cultural relativism to justify their neutral alignments:

Stone giants view the world outside their underground homes as a realm of dreams where nothing is entirely true or real. They behave in the surface world the way humanoids might behave in their own dreams, making little account for their actions and never fully trusting what they see or hear. A promise made above ground need not be kept. Insults can be made without apology. Killing prey or sentient beings is no cause for guilt in the dreaming world beneath the sky.​

"Lizardfolk have no notion of traditional morality, and they find the concepts of good and evil utterly alien. Truly neutral creatures, they kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive."

Sacrifice of sentient beings is going beyond "whatever it takes to survive". If cultural relativism applies to lizardfolk then why not to other monsters in the MM? Don’t behir (NE), ettercaps (NE), grell (NE), kobolds (LE), perytons (CE), and yeti (CE) also "kill when it is expedient and do whatever it takes to survive"?

The stated alignments for stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths may explain why the writers felt they could give them shamans.

Even if we accept the MM alignments, shamanism is being associated with cultural beliefs - the surface world is a dream, rejection of the "concepts of good and evil" - that permit actions most of us would consider to be immoral.