• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Max, don’t try to start making trouble between TheSword and me now that the conversation is becoming more amicable and fruitful.
I'm not trying to make trouble between anyone, but thanks for misrepresenting what I've said for like the 1000th time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FWIW, would love to play proper shamans in this game. A number of my homebrew settings in D&D and elsewhere have a Spirit World. 4e made the Spirits a power comparable to the gods and the primordials and an actual part of the presumed setting.

I also love the Goetic in Invisible Sun that is all about making pacts and bargains with intermediary powers (angels, demons, spirits). It’s far more active than the D&D warlock. It’s the John Constantine sort of warlock and not the eldritch blaster warlock of D&D.

If only there were options for a Shaman in 5e. :)
 




If only people realized that Shaman wasn't started in 4e...it was also in previous editions. :unsure:
It’s less about which edition it started but which did it well (or better). In 4e users of the Primal power source drew upon the Spirits who collectively were responsible for ending the Dawn War by telling gods and primordials to “Sit on it, Potsie.” Shamans had a legitimate place in the fabric of 4e’s worldview. It was less ancillary to it or presented as a primitive version of a cleric (hello, 1e).
 

Not even 5e does that. 5e explicitly uses shaman in non-evil, non-cannibalistic and non-primitive ways.
It also uses it in an explicitly neutral alignment cannibalistic primitive context (the Lizardfolk Shaman in the MM).

The 5e MM refers to shamans with neutral Stone Giants, neutral Lizardfolk, and CN Quaggoth, plus the Tribal Shaman/Druid NPC which is for any race and any alignment. Some have looked in these neutral monsters descriptions in the MM and said they consider them mislabeled as neutral and not evil (and then some have gone on to just call them evil).

Volo's Guide to Monsters mentions Stone Giant Shamans, rare Kobold Shamans, Quaggoth shamans, and Orc Shamans. Bugbears are noted for having no use for shamans.

In Volo's the Orc Hands of Yurtrus are a CE statblock who are called priests and not shamans but use necromancy. The Volo's reference to orc shamans in the lore was to shamans who heard Yurtrus's whispers who are specifically called White Hands and learn necromancy, so it is probable these are meant to be the same, but arguable that they are distinct.

So 5e has two shaman statblocks in the MM, one neutral, one an NPC of any race and alignment. Volo's arguably has one evil shaman statblock.
 

Where, specifically, does it actually say this?

This post covers shamans in the 5e core rules. The term is associated only with NPCs and monsters, not PCs. Shamanic religious practices involve the sacrifice of sentient beings (lizardfolk) and the ritual slaying and devouring of leaders (quaggoth). Cultures with shamans have very strange belief systems that justify actions we would consider immoral (stone giants and lizardfolk).

This post covers shamans in the 5e Volo’s Guide. Orcish shamans, devotees of Yurtrus, are grotesquely evil.
 

This post covers shamans in the 5e core rules. The term is associated only with NPCs and monsters, not PCs. Shamanic religious practices involve the sacrifice of sentient beings (lizardfolk) and the ritual slaying and devouring of leaders (quaggoth). Cultures with shamans have very strange belief systems that justify actions we would consider immoral (stone giants and lizardfolk).

This post covers shamans in the 5e Volo’s Guide. Orcish shamans, devotees of Yurtrus, are grotesquely evil.
Thanks for the reference. I will look them over.
 

I'm not trying to make trouble between anyone, but thanks for misrepresenting what I've said for like the 1000th time.

Mod Note:
Max,

If you find yourself repeating yourself that often, there are two possibilities - 1) that maybe it is time to find a more constructive conversation, or 2) that maybe your own delivery is not serving you well.

In general, you are constantly in discussions like this. It is past time you find a way to manage your engagement better.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top