Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[Maxperson]

After all, if I want to have a lizard folk religious leader, the books tell me that I need a shaman. Unless I actually read the druid entry, I have no idea what a 5e shaman is. This is not referenced in an index or anywhere else in the book.

Or, you know, you could actually look at the Lizard Folk Shaman entry. Where it says that they get Druid spells and the first cantrip is Druidcraft.

 

[Hussar]

This seems an unnecessary process. How would you even remove it? By updating the errata page?
Why not just include the Shaman class in the next book (along with the Psionic class) without the removal?

You simply edit subsequent printings, same as any change between printings. At the rate that 5e is selling, I have no idea how many print runs they're into now, but, I'm pretty sure that they're burning through core print runs in a pretty short period.

And, no, you can't just "include a Shaman class" in the next book. I mean, you're already dreaming if you think you're going to see a psionic class in a book in the next year, probably two. It's going to be about three years before you see psionics get out of development hell. A shaman class has to go through the same process and it's starting from zero. You're talking about 3-5 years before we see a print Shaman class for 5e.

In the meantime, we simply edit Monster Manuals now, and, 3-5 years from now, when the Shaman class is introduced, it takes into account the new verbiage.

Again, this is pretty basic editorial stuff. There are differences between printings already. This isn't anything new or different.

 

[Maxperson]

And, no, you can't just "include a Shaman class" in the next book. I mean, you're already dreaming if you think you're going to see a psionic class in a book in the next year, probably two. It's going to be about three years before you see psionics get out of development hell. A shaman class has to go through the same process and it's starting from zero. You're talking about 3-5 years before we see a print Shaman class for 5e.

Yes they absolutely can add it to the next book. If they ditch the arbitrary design by committee method that they use, they could have a Shaman class within months. The reason it takes so long is that they make something, have people vote on it(dumb dumb dumb) and then toss it away if it doesn't meet their arbitrary threshold for keeping.

 

[TheSword]

Or don’t do any of those things because it’s a stunning overreaction to a minor problem. That deals no demonstrable harm and could easily be resolved if a native Tungan Shaman or one of their relatives was part of my group.

 

[Fenris-77]

Shamans as a 'religious figures' historically are very much linked to a specific set of cultural organizations, generally in the range of clans and tribes to tribal nations. It makes perfect sense that in D&D they should be associated with the same set. It's really not that hard to manage that fact with respect either. Connecting those two things isn't appropriating anything from those cultures by necessity either. None of those cultures use the word 'Shaman', they have their own word, and each case in each culture is different. Unless you're borrowing from specific Shamanic traditions, there's no need for hand wringing.

Negative portrayals of those same cultures as 'primitive' is also an issue, of course. That doesn't mean you can't have a fantasy people with a low tech culture that have 'Shamans' of some sort as their primary interface with religion though. That's not appropriating anything from anyone, and there doesn't have to be any value judgement involved. Now, if I base that same fantasy folk specifically on the Inuit traditions, say, that's something else. Still not necessarily bad, but certainly more fraught with potential problems. If I describe those fantasy Inuit as backward and ignorant, or somehow 'less' than a more technological culture, then I've gone to plaid. This is neither new nor should it be controversial.

 

[Raunalyn]

Please, can you quote anyone actually stating this? Or is this just yet another red herring bugaboo that folks need to invent in order to have something to argue against?

Since you're an expert and all...

 

[pemerton]

Or don’t do any of those things because it’s a stunning overreaction to a minor problem. That deals no demonstrable harm and could easily be resolved if a native Tungan Shaman or one of their relatives was part of my group.

Shamans as a 'religious figures' historically are very much linked to a specific set of cultural organizations, generally in the range of clans and tribes to tribal nations. It makes perfect sense that in D&D they should be associated with the same set. It's really not that hard to manage that fact with respect either.

So anyone who likes the idea of lizardfolk shamanism is free to include that in his/her game, develop the ideas, etc.

But @Hussar is talking about the published works. Which, as best I understand it, don't present any sort of sophisticated imagined religouis beliefs of lizardfolk, but rather present a fairly simple picture of a "primitive" cannibilistic society whose religous leaders are labelled shamans. What is lost from this actual published work (as opposed to some conjectured ideal which anyone is free to develop in his/her game as s/he sees fit, and which @Hussar has expressly suggested bringing back into the published works once it has been written up) by relabelling the leaders druids so as to achieve both terminological and mechanical consistency with the basic class structure and NPC mechanics of 5e D&D?

 

[Raunalyn]

Shamans as a 'religious figures' historically are very much linked to a specific set of cultural organizations, generally in the range of clans and tribes to tribal nations. It makes perfect sense that in D&D they should be associated with the same set. It's really not that hard to manage that fact with respect either. Connecting those two things isn't appropriating anything from those cultures by necessity either. None of those cultures use the word 'Shaman', they have their own word, and each case in each culture is different. Unless you're borrowing from specific Shamanic traditions, there's no need for hand wringing.

And honestly, "Shaman" is more preferable to "Witch Doctor," a term that is often and erroneously equated with it. "Witch Doctor" does, indeed, have negative cultural connotations.

 

[Fenris-77]

So anyone who likes the idea of lizardfolk shamanism is free to include that in his/her game, develop the ideas, etc.

But @Hussar is talking about the published works. Which, as best I understand it, don't present any sort of sophisticated imagined religouis beliefs of lizardfolk, but rather present a fairly simple picture of a "primitive" cannibilistic society whose religous leaders are labelled shamans. What is lost from this actual published work (as opposed to some conjectured ideal which anyone is free to develop in his/her game as s/he sees fit, and which @Hussar has expressly suggested bringing back into the published works once it has been written up) by relabelling the leaders druids so as to achieve both terminological and mechanical consistency with the basic class structure and NPC mechanics of 5e D&D?

What kind of religious practice would you have the Lizardfolk practice? Shamanism isn't by default a good thing, it's just a description of an enormously broad range of religious practices, and the lizardfolk fit the bill anthropologically speaking, as far as cultures that might have shamans rather than some other kind of figure. Actual tribes that practice(d) cannibalism historically have religious intermediaries that are probably best described as Shamans. Who, exactly, is supposed to be the victim here?

There are no 'shamans' in real life btw. Each culture has it's own word for that person, and they're all different. Shaman has a well established meaning in English, and in anthropology, so you can't even point to the Tungus or Evenki 'saman' looking for issues. The definition is quite broad, and doesn't index any particular culture. The definition points to interactions with the spirit world, and the use of altered states and trances to do so, and covers both boon and bane as possible results.

Rapacious, warlike, and cannabalistic cultures have religion too. The fact that one example might have shamans instead of priests, or Hougans, or whatever, isn't a value judgement on other cultures that have figures that could be described using that same word anymore than having priests of a evil cult means anything whatsoever about priests of a different religion, or priests in real life.

 

[TheSword]

So anyone who likes the idea of lizardfolk shamanism is free to include that in his/her game, develop the ideas, etc.

But @Hussar is talking about the published works. Which, as best I understand it, don't present any sort of sophisticated imagined religouis beliefs of lizardfolk, but rather present a fairly simple picture of a "primitive" cannibilistic society whose religous leaders are labelled shamans. What is lost from this actual published work (as opposed to some conjectured ideal which anyone is free to develop in his/her game as s/he sees fit, and which @Hussar has expressly suggested bringing back into the published works once it has been written up) by relabelling the leaders druids so as to achieve both terminological and mechanical consistency with the basic class structure and NPC mechanics of 5e D&D?

The word shaman has fully entered the rpg/fantasy lexicon in a very established way. It’s not just used in d&d, but dozens of games, films, computer games, books. Removing it from d&d and not the general industry at large is a drop in the ocean. More importantly the cure is worse than the disease as no actual harm has been justified... just the hypothetical idea of it.