D&D General Rethinking the class name "Druid".

[AtomicPope]

How about just "witch," then?

It fits with the theme of the subclasses: Circle of the Land, Circle of the Moon, etc., etc. You could even change "circle" to "coven."

OK, I really like this idea. TBH, I'm surprised this is the first time I'm seeing it. It's genius, both elegant and genre appropriate.

 

[AtomicPope]

A few thoughts.
Neither druid nor shaman are terms used in specific real world religions..
A Phylactery specifically refers to a small leather box containing Hebrew texts on vellum, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law in the real world.

Except it's not. Phylactery is Greek, phylaktḗrion meaning safeguard or amulet. The Hebrew word is tefillin.

 

[Greg K]

Except it's not. Phylactery is Greek, phylaktḗrion meaning safeguard or amulet. The Hebrew word is tefillin.

The Greek term, according to Merriam-Websters, also included charms, tefillin and guarded places. However, as you note the Hebrew word is tefellin not phylactery which is derived (ultimately) from Greek .

 

[AtomicPope]

So I'm trying to think of alternatives. So far I've come up with "greenpriest" and "wildpriest".

You're tying "priest" to each of the names which gives us an idea as to what you see the class is about. Can you help us out a little bit more?

What are the core aspects of the Druid class that you thing are important?

How would a new name highlight these aspects?

The problem I have with saying priest is it ties it to the Cleric class. Then I see it being another Domain. So a Wild Priest would have the Beast Domain, while a Green Priest would have the Nature Domain. I always felt the the Druid class acts as a warden for an aspect of nature. I like the edition of "circles" as it allows them to focus on protecting a narrow aspect. The Circle of Land serves as wardens for various terrains found throughout the Prime Material, each growing in knowledge and power to protect a region. And so forth.

In a lot of ways I'm a little miffed that 5e didn't include a Warden subclass.

 

[Charlaquin]

The following sentence sounds frequent enough in the context of D&D:


But conversely, in the context of cultural sensitivities, the same sentence can mean:

Reallife tribal ethnicities and reallife indigenous shamanic traditions, are subhumans with lizard brains who are "primitive".

One can see how these D&D traditions can go wrong, yeah?

That’s not how critical analysis works. Yes, labeling some fictional cultures as “primitive” and others as “civilized” and calling the spiritual/religious leaders of the former culture “shamans” and the those of the latter culture “priests” is problematic, because it echoes real-world colonialist language that has been used to demean and marginalize indigenous peoples of colonized territory. That doesn’t mean sentence A directly translates to sentence B “in the context of cultural sensitivities.”

 

[AtomicPope]

The Greek term, according to Merriam-Websters, also included charms, tefillin and guarded places. However, as you note the Hebrew word is tefellin not phylactery which is derived (ultimately) from Greek .

Precisely. I just find it strange that a generic Greek word is catching flak while other synonymous words used in D&D and Pathfinder like amulet or talisman are not.

 

[Yaarel]

That’s not how critical analysis works. Yes, judging some cultures as “primitive” and others as “civilized” and giving the former “shamans” and the latter “priests” is problematic, because it echoes real-world colonialist language that has been used to demean and marginalize indigenous peoples of colonized territory. That doesn’t mean sentence A directly translates to sentence B “in the context of cultural sensitivities.”

I understand the premise of the logic.

However, an unquestioned assumption that "primitives" therefor have "tribes" and "shamans", to some degree evidences and propagates the colonialist paradigm.

 

[Charlaquin]

I understand the premise of the logic.

However, an unquestioned assumption that "primitives" therefor have "tribes" and "shamans", to some degree evidences and propagates the colonialist paradigm.

Oh, absolutely! Don’t get me wrong, I agree that calling “primitive” groups “tribes” and their religious leaders “shamans” while calling “advanced” groups “cultures” and their religious leaders “priests” is a long-running problem with the fantasy genre in general and D&D in particular. But saying “this sentence actually means this totally different sentence in the context of cultural sensitivities” is inaccurate, and makes our position look weaker than it actually is. It’s like earnestly presenting the strawman version of your own argument.

 

[Yaarel]

Oh, absolutely! Don’t get me wrong, I agree that calling “primitive” groups “tribes” and their religious leaders “shamans” while calling “advanced” groups “cultures” and their religious leaders “priests” is a long-running problem with the fantasy genre in general and D&D in particular.

Yeah.

But saying “this sentence actually means this totally different sentence in the context of cultural sensitivities” is inaccurate, and makes our position look weaker than it actually is. It’s like earnestly presenting the strawman version of your own argument.

In the past, D&D often misrepresented a "shaman" as if a "primitive priest". (Even full-on subhuman, monstrous, and Evil. Albeit lizardfolk are Neutral and presumably "any alignment" now.)

These connotations didnt come out come out of nowhere. Each generation trains the next generation to think like this, by reenforcing the paradigm that links these associations together, by means of tropes. The meanings of words are the way that they are used. And if terms relating to ethnicities get misrepresented or used in insulting ways, it can become offensive or harmful.

 

[Greg K]

Beyond the use of the terms primative and advanced being just terrible and perjorative it ignores that many "shamans" in the general anthropological sense still exist in several industralized societies in addition to several indigenous peoples upon European contact had what are classified by anthropologists as Gods and priests. So, it is not an either or situation based upon technology.