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

[Yaarel]

It's also something that started out as a very minor feature and grew over the editions - as you say, for the sake of uniqueness.

Taking on the form of beasts really belongs in shamanism. How shamanic the original druid belief system was we really don't know, since most of what we have comes from Roman historians, who wrote what they did (only one person in that wicker man, Lord Summerisle?!), rather than what they believed.

Merlin does quite a lot of shapeshifting in T.H. White's books, and the movie version probably had an influence on D&D.

In Celtic lore, shapeshifting is actually a Bard thing (thus Merlin). Happily the 5e Bard has spells to shapeshift.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this. But what you’re stating here is also dramatically more nuanced (and accurate) than the statement you made that I disagreed with.

 

[Yaarel]

I don’t disagree with any of this. But what you’re stating here is also dramatically more nuanced (and accurate) than the statement you made that I disagreed with.

I still stand by critiquing the problematic equation:

If

primitive = shaman

then

shaman = primitive



In any case, it is a deep problem.

 

[Aldarc]

I still stand by critiquing the problematic equation:

If

primitive = shaman

then

shaman = primitive



In any case, it is a deep problem.

When you have a posting history of equating theism with the institution of slavery, you hardly have a leg to stand on about problematic characterizations of religion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The real issue is that due the long history of tribal, low-tech societies being derided and vilified, we don’t even have natural language to describe them in a way that could not be seen as insulting.

 

[Yaarel]

When you have a posting history of equating theism with the institution of slavery, you hardly have a leg to stand on about problematic characterizations of religion.

It is a reallife Bronze Age phenomenon, when cultures emerged, where humans became the "slaves" and "servants" of their god, their "master" and "lord".

The slavery is right there in the words.

Even today, some religious traditions talk about being "slaves" for their god.

Theism signifies a culture of hierarchy and violence, relating to urbanization, including its founding of the institution of slavery.

Cultures generally use reallife experiences as analogies to describe spiritual experiences.

People today can conceive of theism in ways that are more egalitarian and that avoid the language of slavery, but it is part of history.

 

[Yaarel]

The real issue is that due the long history of tribal, low-tech societies being derided and vilified, we don’t even have natural language to describe them in a way that could not be seen as insulting.

That is kinda true. For example, it would be nice if there was an other word that academics could use for a "shaman", but we English speakers lack a native term. In the past, terms like "priest" or "witch" were used, but neither is accurate. Maybe some witches are shamans, but other witches arent.

In Viking Period culture, the Vǫlva is accurately a shaman and is the only formal religious leader. There are no priests and no temples. In the past, others have described the Vǫlva as a "witch", or seer, or prophet, or sorcerer, or sybil. Seer is ok, as that was the main duty: "see" the problem, often in a state of trance, and find a way to resolve it. But shaman is spot-on.

 

[Umbran]

Theism signifies a culture of hierarchy and violence, relating to urbanization, including its founding of the institution of slavery.

Mod Note:

That is far more than enough of your personal commentary on religion. You're done in this thread now.

Everyone else - take note, please that we have rules against discussion of real-world religion. You may feel that makes certain topics difficult to discuss. Consider the possibility that that is, in fact, the point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nevermind, hadn’t seen the red text when I started this post.

 

[Tonguez]

Really, the class with the "wrong" name is wizard. Even without the etymology, it carries the connotations of "wise person" - here comes the wizard, Gandalf the Wise. Originally, this class was called Magic User and wasn't renamed Wizard until 2nd edition. It was inspired by renascence figures like Doctor John Dee, who applied the developing modern scientific method to the study of magic, before people discovered magic wasn't real. Hence the dependence on intelligence (book smarts) rather than wisdom (insight). If these people where known as anything, it was Cunning Men or Sorcerers, never Wizards.

So, if you really want to be pedantic about class names, I suggest renaming wizards to sorcerers, druids to wizards, and sorcerers to mutants.

Of course, there would be a lot less confusion if you leave the names as they are, but remember that they are just labels for a set of mechanics. How they are known within your fantasy world can be whatever best fits your setting.

you seems to have a misaligned understanding of the word Wise - the IndoEuropean origin Wittos means "to know" or "be aware" of the "manner of things" (eg clockwise), its the same origin as Wit. SO a Wizard is someone who Knows things and thus Intelligence is a good fit.

If anything celtic Druids are best represented by the DnD Bard