# Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms



## Aldarc

So here is a short 10 minute video from an educational YouTube series called Religion for Breakfast that discusses how the term "mana" entered into the lexicon of fantasy novels, tabletop roleplaying, and video games to mean "magic".  


Long story short is that it came from a white English anthropologist in the 1800s misunderstanding a common word that exists in various Austronesian language families and then misapplying his misunderstanding of 'mana' to other cultures outside of Austronesian cultures. However, despite some scholarly opposition to his ideas even then, this misunderstanding nevertheless became relatively pervasive in cultural anthropology, whose books eventually made their way to the hands of fantasy authors who read those anthropologists, and the rest was mostly history. 

Similarly, the word "shaman" is a culturally specific term for the spiritual leaders of Tunguska in Siberia that Euro-American anthropologists would use to apply to basically the spiritual leaders for every non-Western culture they encountered, regardless of whether it was appropriate. And often its use comes with the implicit judgment of Western superiority wherein "shaman" is applied to the spiritual leaders of "primitive" cultures. (I suspect that most fantasy depictions of "shamans" will probably have them as "primitives" wearing bones, feathers, fur, and other trappings, no?) The ubiquity of the term "shaman" for basically all indigenous spiritual leaders has even led to coining of the term "plastic shaman," a pejorative for people who pass themselves off as "shamans" and basically prey on ignorance while perpetuating nonsense cultural practices. Because when there are so many "plastic shamans" out there, how can one take the real spiritual leaders seriously? Therein is the harm. As a result, there are a number of various indigenous cultures that are fighting to get Westerners to stop using the term "shaman" in a generic sense or applying the term "shaman" to their spiritual leaders. Likewise, cultural anthropologists are also having the discussion about how appropriate using these terms are. 

Why does this matter? Terms like "mana" and "shaman" almost feel like an inseparable part of the fantasy lexicon, almost to the point of feeling generic. The word "shaman" readily evokes an archetype of one who works with spirits, typically through magic, so it serves as an easy shorthand for a fantasy concept, similarly in the same way that "paladin" has become a shorthand term that evokes the image of a "holy knight."* But as noted above, using these terms are not without their problems, as these terms (and a number others) entered our lexicon through Euro-American cultural misappropriation. It's worth noting that paladins no longer exist; however, Tungusic shamans and Austronesian-speaking peoples still do. These were terms that Euro-Americans divorced from their original indigenous contexts to apply to "other" non-Western cultures that are still around. 

I am not necessarily suggesting that we replace or ban these terms, but it is important for us to understand how a lot of "generic" fantasy terms that we have inherited as gamers sometimes have a dirty, problematic history of Western misappropriation that are less generic and more culturally specific than we imagine. Moreover, our ignorance of the history behind the "generic term" perpetuates ignorance of those terms in their native contexts. I am advocating caution with their use, that we reflect on how our generic terms perpetuate cultural ignorance about real peoples, and that we consider how we label certain fantasy tropes going forward, especially if there are more apt or less harmful descriptors we could use. 

* I'm sure we could likewise cite 'druids' and 'bards' where the original cultural context of a term was transformed into a generic fantasy term.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

When I hear the word mana, or manna, this is what I remember learning in my youth from Sunday School classes and such:









						Manna - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I have never heard of the Polynesian version of the word before now.

Oh, and I find shamans less problematic than witch doctors. There is also some crossover in their descriptions.


----------



## Talltomwright

Thank you for this - I’d never considered the specificity of the term before and will use it with the more care moving forward.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> When I hear the word mana, or manna, this is what I remember learning in my youth from Sunday School classes and such:




I thought for decades that the substance of magic meaning "what is it?" and referring to something magically created was as good a word as any to measure magic with and thematically resonant. Finding it was another case of English pursuing another language down a dark alley to mug it for spare vocabulary and then misusing it was disappointing.


----------



## aramis erak

Mana has another false cognate that explains its ease of adoption: the old Hebrew "Manna" - miraculous food from heaven. (Modern Hebrew is Mann, as is the Bedouin and Arabic.)

The term is well past its Austronesian origins, to a hybrid conflation of both that and the semitic Manna.

At some point, the etymology ceases to really matter. I think both have crossed that point, at least in English.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> Why does this matter? Terms like "mana" and "shaman" almost feel like an inseparable part of the fantasy lexicon,]almost to the point of feeling generic. The word "shaman" readily evokes an archetype of one who works with spirits, typically through magic, so it serves as an easy shorthand for a fantasy concept, similarly in the same way that "paladin" has become a shorthand term that evokes the image of a "holy knight."* But as noted above, using these terms are not without their problems, as these terms (and a number others) entered our lexicon through Euro-American cultural misappropriation. It's worth noting that paladins no longer exist;




Current members of the holy Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and Malta would certainly disagree on your last point.


----------



## Aldarc

Galandris said:


> Current members of the holy Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and Malta would certainly disagree on your last point.



Would they? To the best of my knowledge, they do not identify as “paladins” or use the title “paladin” as part of their order’s offices.


----------



## Retreater

And I believe the modern word "thug" (which has its own negative baggage these days) came from the Thuggee Cult in India.


----------



## AmerginLiath

Not to step on any toes, but I’m guessing there’s not much much actual study of Anthropology or Comparative Religion here beyond “lets watch a cartoon on YouTube“? Because your assumptions are both historically inaccurate and totally incorrect in modern intellectual usage.

The term shaman or shamanic has no reference to primitive cultures. Yes, it’s origin is Siberian, but that the same way that the term priest/presbyter is Greek but used as a term in comparative religion and social anthropology. Shamanism is a referent to direct communication to the divine, often by the attuning or alteration of the mind to match the divinized environment. In addition to the sort of cultures you name, the oracles of Greece, Rome, and the Hellenic Near East are considered to been shamanic. Likewise, various clerists with Sufi Islam and Charismatic Christianity are studied as shamanic practicioners (a comparison can be made to the term ”priest,” which refers to clerical practice of communicating with the divine via sacrifice — hence why Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican ministers of the Mass are denoted as such à la ancient Jewish or other Near Eastern priesthoods while other denominations’ ministers aren’t).

Everyone is so busy looking for monsters to slay that they don’t consider doing the actual research before pontificating (a term itself born from the knowledge a priest learns of his sacrifice) on the ultimate truth of language.

If you’re concerned about racial overtones with such a term, then make certain that there are varied depictions of shamans. Show a shaman looking like a Delphic Oracle or a medievalized “Southern Snake Handler” rather than a Siberian Wise Man. Add, don’t subtract.


----------



## Aldarc

AmerginLiath said:


> Not to step on any toes, but I’m guessing there’s not much much actual study of Anthropology or Comparative Religion here beyond *“lets watch a cartoon on YouTube“?*



I suppose that’s one way to announce to the thread that you haven’t watched the video.


----------



## Umbran

Aldarc said:


> So here is a short 10 minute video from an educational YouTube series called Religion for Breakfast that discusses how the term "mana" entered into the lexicon of fantasy novels, tabletop roleplaying, and video games to mean "magic".




As others have noted, the existence of "manna" in the Old Testament makes this suggestion of single-source for the term... questionable.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> As others have noted, the existence of "manna" in the Old Testament makes this suggestion of single-source for the term... questionable.



Old Testament “manna” doesn’t really have any conceptional links to fantasy concepts of “mana.” It’s more of a misattribution due to two similar sounding words.

Much as the video also points out, there is a direct lineage between the the anthropological usage of “mana” from Austronesian languages to Larry Niven to the earliest video games using mana listing Niven as a source.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> Old Testament “manna” doesn’t really have any conceptional links to fantasy concepts of “mana".
> It’s more of a misattribution due to two similar sounding words.




If people use a word for a specific meaning thinking it's related to an Hebrew concept and word, how can they be appropriating an Austronesian concept? They are appropriating and deforming a Hebrew concept (a daily gift from god of which you can't stockpile much => ok let's say it a fancy explanation for magic energy that replenishes over time and has a fixed maximum) and not the Austronesian concept of mana (which is not very close to the (J)RPG use of mana either). Would you be satisfied if they wrote it manna?


Since you're speaking of Euro-American misappropriation, it would be interesting to check if it's really European. I don't think the use of mana for "magical exhaustible force" has a lot of use outside US inspired computer games (there may be tabletop RPGs using mana, but I think the term is more widely used in computer/console games). The word entered the American lexicon with Larry Niven, but I am not sure it has entered non-English speaking european countries as well. For example, in French, mana (the original force) is a masculine word, while "mana" used in the pop culture term is a feminine word and is probably just lifted from the American usage. Though you might postulate that gamers are not educated enough to even know the existence of the masculine mana word, but in this case, they could'nt appropriate a concept they haven't heard of?



> Would they? To the best of my knowledge, they do not identify as “paladins” or use the title “paladin” as part of their order’s offices.




Crusading orders are one of the main source of inspiration for the paladins, including the emphasis of religious dedication. The iconic representation are either Roland or the Crusading knights, as soon as it started (and the emphasis on "working in the palace" diminished in favor or "religious knights"). They may not title themselves as paladins, but are refered as such in litterature, from the 15th century up until the 20th century.


----------



## Aldarc

Galandris said:


> If people use a word for a specific meaning thinking it's related to an Hebrew concept and word, how can they be appropriating an Austronesian concept? They are appropriating and deforming a Hebrew concept (a daily gift from god of which you can't stockpile much => ok let's say it a fancy explanation for magic energy that replenishes over time and has a fixed maximum) and not the Austronesian concept of mana (which is not very close to the (J)RPG use of mana either). Would you be satisfied if they wrote it manna?



So you are asking me how a bunch of people who are largely ignorant of Austronesian languages and cultures when encountering the word 'mana' for the first time may have thought that a word that sounds and looks similar in spelling and pronunciation to a word from the hegemonic religious cultural context they are more familiar with was the likely source for a concept of magic that started appearing in their childhood fantasy novels and video games? It seems like the explanation largely writes itself. If you believe that there is a strong case for the conceptual history of "mana" as found in fantasy games has stronger or comparable links to "manna" in the Hebrew Bible, then I am all ears for your arguments and citations. 

That said, I'm fairly certain that if you think you are borrowing your roommate's bike, but it actually belongs to your neighbor, it's still your neighbor's bike and it's still theft.   



> Since you're speaking of Euro-American misappropriation, it would be interesting to check if it's really European.



Robert Henry Codrington who first described "mana" was a 19th century English missionary and anthropologist. Ethnologist and cultural anthropologist Robert Marrett who further applied the sense of "mana" to other cultures was also English. Larry Niven reportedly learned of "mana" while reading _The Trumpet Shall Sound_ by British social anthropologist Peter Worsley. Despite what either the French or English may believe, England is part of Europe. These are European scholars. 

Or are you trying to suggest that it's not really European if the French aren't involved in misappropriating it too? Don't worry then, because I got you covered: French cultural sociologist and anthropologist (as well as Émile Durkheim's nephew) Marcel Mauss wrote about mana as a universal magical force in _Esquisse d'une théorie générale de la magie. _But could this be in reference to Biblical manna? Mauss cites Codrington, and he also references 'mana' in relation to Polynesian practices in _Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques. _His French Wikipedia page even says: 


> Il s'intéresse à la signification sociale du don dans les sociétés tribales, ainsi qu'au phénomène religieux *: la magie est considérée comme un phénomène social qui peut notamment s'expliquer par la notion de mana.*



Crappy translation: 


> He is interested in the social meaning of the gift in tribal societies, as well as in religious phenomenon: magic is considered as a social phenomenon which can be explained in particular by the notion of mana.



And if you click on the "mana" link in that quote: 


Spoiler



It links to Polynesian notions of mana.





> I don't think the use of mana for "magical exhaustible force" has a lot of use outside US inspired computer games (there may be tabletop RPGs using mana, but I think the term is more widely used in computer/console games). The word entered the American lexicon with Larry Niven, but I am not sure it has entered non-English speaking european countries as well.



I think that your sense of "mana" here and above demonstrates a fundamental lack of awareness about the conceptual history of the term. For the record, have you actually watched the linked video yet?  



> Crusading orders are one of the main source of inspiration for the paladins, including the emphasis of religious dedication. The iconic representation are either Roland or the Crusading knights, as soon as it started (and the emphasis on "working in the palace" diminished in favor or "religious knights"). They may not title themselves as paladins, but are refered as such in litterature, from the 15th century up until the 20th century.



Okay? If you want to argue that monastic orders of knights still exist or that paladins were influenced by crusaders, Knights of the Round Table, and La Chanson de Roland, then congratulations on winning a point in an argument that was never up for debate. But they are not paladins. There are no knightly orders to my knowledge, whether they are the Order of St John or Teutonic Order, that use the term "paladin" or label themselves as "paladins" whereas there are Tungustic peoples who still use the native term "shaman" for their spiritual leaders.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> So you are asking me how a bunch of people who are largely ignorant of Austronesian languages and cultures when encountering the word 'mana' for the first time may have thought that a word that sounds and looks similar in spelling and pronunciation to a word from the hegemonic religious cultural context they are more familiar with was the likely source for a concept of magic that started appearing in their childhood fantasy novels and video games? It seems like the explanation largely writes itself. If you believe that there is a strong case for the conceptual history of "mana" as found in fantasy games has stronger or comparable links to "manna" in the Hebrew Bible, then I am all ears for your arguments and citations.




Well, wrong/folk etymology abound. People couldn't appropriate a cultural content they don't even know exist. They just use a word to designate another reality, with no link with the Austronesian meaning. That Niven borrowed the word and was aware of the cultural link proves that he may be appropriating something, but after that, most people appropriated Niven's creative work and used mana in the sense he described, without any link to the polynesian word. They would have used xyzzy if Niven had called his magic like that.



> That said, I'm fairly certain that if you think you are borrowing your roommate's bike, but it actually belongs to your neighbor, it's still your neighbor's bike and it's still theft.




Actually it's not (though you might want to check with your lawyer in your juridiction). Criminal offenses requires criminal intent.



> Or are you trying to suggest that it's not really European if the French aren't involved in misappropriating it too? Don't worry then, because I got you covered: French cultural sociologist and anthropologist (as well as Émile Durkheim's nephew) Marcel Mauss wrote about mana as a universal magical force in _Esquisse d'une théorie générale de la magie. _But could this be in reference to Biblical manna? Mauss cites Codrington, and he also references 'mana' in relation to Polynesian practices in _Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques. _His French Wikipedia page even says:




These anthropologists were speaking of the masculine form of mana and trying to describe polynesian practices. As I pointed out, many games using mana in the pop culture sense use the feminine word mana. Despite being pop culture, it found its way into reference newspaper if you don't trust my word. The word is no longer the same, is it still appropriation despite being another word and describing another reality?

At what point does it stops being appropriation to you and starts simply being the natural evolution of the language? We're here speaking of people who don't use the exact same word and who don't know the original sense, but are simply taking it from English-speaking RPGs. It's starting to be very removed from the original term...



> I think that your sense of "mana" here and above demonstrates a fundamental lack of awareness about the conceptual history of the term. For the record, have you actually watched the linked video yet?




I don't think you understand my point. But since the tone is no longer one of conversation, there is no point in me trying to express myslef more clearly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Galandris said:


> Criminal offenses requires criminal intent.



Nope. Carelessness is enough, in most cases. If you do a thing without taking reasonable precautions to ensure it isn’t criminal, in a situation where a reasonable person could suspect that it’s criminal, and it ends in fact being criminal, you’ve committed a criminal act. 

Like taking the bike in the side yard shared with your neighbor, that you assume is your room mates, without checking to make sure it is theirs. If it is your neighbors, and the report it stolen, and you’re caught with it, you’ve stolen their bike.


----------



## Aldarc

Galandris said:


> Well, wrong/folk etymology abound. *People couldn't appropriate a cultural content they don't even know exist.* They just use a word to designate another reality, with no link with the Austronesian meaning. That Niven borrowed the word and was aware of the cultural link proves that he may be appropriating something, but after that, most people appropriated Niven's creative work and used mana in the sense he described, without any link to the polynesian word. They would have used xyzzy if Niven had called his magic like that.



Yeah, they can. Niven knew the original context, but would his readers? Would the people making video games and Magic: The Gathering know the original cultural context if they just liked "mana" in Larry Niven's work? That's often how cultural appropriation happens. It's often a cultural concept/thing that gets stripped of its original cultural context and disseminated into vogue by the hegemonic culture, albeit not as understood in the original context. 



> These anthropologists were speaking of the masculine form of mana and trying to describe polynesian practices. As I pointed out, many games using mana in the pop culture sense use the feminine word mana. Despite being pop culture, it found its way into reference newspaper if you don't trust my word. The word is no longer the same, is it still appropriation despite being another word and describing another reality?



Is this really the argument that you wanna go with? The fact that despite mana having a clear link of transmission between Oceanic cultures to European anthropologists to Larry Niven to video games and Magic: The Gathering that the term "mana" as per pop culture could not have been appropriated from Oceanic cultures because French has a feminine and masculine use for "mana"?



> At what point does it stops being appropriation to you and starts simply being the natural evolution of the language? We're here speaking of people who don't use the exact same word and who don't know the original sense, but are simply taking it from English-speaking RPGs. It's starting to be very removed from the original term...



This is a discussion point for the thread that would be nice to discuss if I wasn't having to argue about the origins and conceptual history of the term "mana."



> I don't think you understand my point. But since the tone is no longer one of conversation, there is no point in me trying to express myslef more clearly.



So what you are saying is that you didn't watch the link and can't really provide any contrary evidence other than gender?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Aldarc said:


> And often its use comes with the implicit judgment of Western superiority wherein "shaman" is applied to the spiritual leaders of "primitive" cultures. (I suspect that most fantasy depictions of "shamans" will probably have them as "primitives" wearing bones, feathers, fur, and other trappings, no?)




This is true of its usage in D&D.

In 5e, stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths have shamans. The stone giant in the MM wears animal skins and wields a club. They also fight with thrown rocks. Lizardfolk are "primitive reptilian humanoids" with INT 7. They use simple weapons such as clubs. "Though they aren't skilled artisans, lizardfolk craft tools and ornamental jewelry out of the bones of their kills, and they use the hides and shells of dead monsters to create shields." "[T]hey have a taste for humanoid flesh", devouring their victims in "great feasts" if they’re not "sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god." Quaggoths, INT 6, are "brutal and savage", were "never an enlightened species", and practise cannibalism. They do not use weapons but attack with their claws.

In 1e AD&D shamans are one type of "tribal caster", the other being the witch doctor. Shamans are like clerics but have a much more limited spell selection. They are never human but are found among bugbears, ettins, giants (hill, fire, frost, stone), gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizard men, ogres, orcs, troglodytes, and trolls. Only two of these, stone giants and hobgoblins, have average intelligence (8-10). The rest are lower, and many - ettins, hill giants, 90% of lizard men, ogres, trolls, and troglodytes - are of low intelligence (5-7). For comparison, gorillas and whales also have low intelligence.

Ettins wear "animal skin dress". Hill giants "typically dress in rough hides or skins". Gnoll "armor is of horn, metal plates, and leather". Goblins "dress in dark leather gear". "All kobold shields are of wood or wickerwork." The lizard man is depicted wearing only a skull and tooth necklace. "Ogres wear any sort of skins or furs." Trolls wear no clothing. The troglodyte is depicted in only a harness.


----------



## Aldarc

Here is a book that talks about the history of Western scholarly discourse of the Oceanic concept of "mana" and how it was disseminated into pop culture: Mana: A History of a Western Category by Nicolas Meylan. 

Here is a more detailed article that discusses the history of the Oceanic concept "mana" as it transmitted into fantasy lexicon via cultural anthropologists and fantasy writers. If you are worried that it will just bash the use of "mana" in pop culture, be rest assured because this is its concluding paragraph:


> For Pacific Islanders, the history of mana is important because it is about them: their lives and their heritage. To video game players it is important, and for pretty much the same reasons. Once an import, mana has now become part of our culture. Some might be tempted to read the story of mana as a tale of cultural appropriation in which Westerners ransack the culture of the colonized. They may be right. Missionaries, anthropologists, and historians put mana between the pages of their books and stored it in libraries all over the world. But gamers did something else with it: They cared for it. They made fantasy games and imaginary worlds, and came to love what they had created. They put mana into play, making it part of their lives, dragging it into their histories and self-understandings. They spent hours optimizing their healing spells and living the lives of draenei shamans. Gaming became part of who they were, and mana became part of their heritage. Did they borrow it? Yes. Did they exoticize it? Perhaps. But by playing with it, they honored it. The world is full of stories like the story of mana, stories whose paths across cultures and through time are rarely fully recorded. But these stories matter to us, because their histories are part of our lives. Like mana, they lay in the background until—_*click*_—someone shines a light on them and we see the power they truly possess.



The author, Alex Golub, also writes in his acknowledgments: 


> Many people helped with this article. I’d like to thank* Jon Peterson, my coauthor on the academic version of this paper, *for his scrupulous reading of this paper. I’d also like to thanks Steve Perrin and Larry Niven for answering my questions about their work and career. Professor Robert Blust, the Reverend Terry Brown, and Michael Craddock reviewed the manuscript to make sure I got all my facts straight. Any errors are my own.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> So what you are saying is that you didn't watch the link and can't really provide any contrary evidence other than gender?




If I hadn't seen the video (which didn't teach anything new, except it confirmed that Niven was aware of the Polynesian meaning of the term and didn't coin it from scratch), I wouldn't know that the youtube-generated subtitle use "manna" and "mana" both  which is hilarious given the context of this "discussion". AI still has some way to transliterate human speech.


----------



## billd91

Aldarc said:


> * I'm sure we could likewise cite 'druids' and 'bards' where the original cultural context of a term was transformed into a generic fantasy term.




I'm sure we could but... the current socio-political conventions of appropriation claims would say that they're fair game to use/reuse/mutilate since they're European in origin.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nope. Carelessness is enough, in most cases. If you do a thing without taking reasonable precautions to ensure it isn’t criminal, in a situation where a reasonable person could suspect that it’s criminal, and it ends in fact being criminal, you’ve committed a criminal act.




What part of borrowing your roommate's bike would a reasonable person suspect is criminal?

The level of carelessness required to be a crime is great.  Not checking whether the bike you just borrowed from your roommate is stolen doesn't even begin to come close.



> Like taking the bike in the side yard shared with your neighbor, that you assume is your room mates, without checking to make sure it is theirs. If it is your neighbors, and the report it stolen, and you’re caught with it, you’ve stolen their bike.



Nope.  Even that level of carelessness isn't sufficient to rise to the level of crime.  You might get arrested for theft, but once the DA learns that it was a shared yard and you thought it was your roommates, no charges will be filed.


----------



## Aldarc

billd91 said:


> I'm sure we could but... the current socio-political conventions of appropriation claims would say that they're fair game to use/reuse/mutilate since they're European in origin.



Maybe, but I wanted to cut "but what about..." ahead at the curve when it came to other a few other cultural specific terms that became generic fantasy terms.


----------



## dragoner

Aldarc said:


> It's worth noting that paladins no longer exist ...




The west with it's Germanic roots still honors the Holy Warrior, Beserker, etc. with it's veterans days, thanking a soldier, guard at the tomb of the unknown soldier, and all that.

Yes, Shamans still do exist, here is a picture of a Buryat one:















						Photographer Spends 6 Months Traveling Alone to Photograph Siberia's Indigenous People
					

Alexander Khimunshin continues his portrait project 'The World in Faces' by spending 6 months photographing indigenous people in Siberia.




					mymodernmet.com


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

I should have added to my original post that, being in the US, when I hear the term Shaman referring to the present and not the past, the first thing I think about is the Native American Medicine Man/Shaman, of both North America and Central/South America.


----------



## Eltab

4e's _Primal Power_ did a good job taking the class name "Shaman" and offering a variety of images of how the abilities might work in the world.

As said above: add, don't subtract.


----------



## aramis erak

My first encounter with ‹Mana› outside a biblical context that I can recall was in GURPS Magic, circa 1987.

My brain immediately made an association between the two.  

I'd not encountered the austronesian term labeled as such in the 2010's...
... so its austronesian origin is irrelevant to me. On the other hand, the SJG use as the amount of magic energy able to be drawn from the local environment, and thus a limiter on spell casting, never mentions the austronesian context. But since Mana can produce Manna in GURPS, the biblical meaning ties nicely.

Except that the semitic Mann is a real food, made to this day... and IS the cognate of the old Hebrew Manna/Mannah... from the honeydew crystalized on plant stems in desert plants, collected, then worked to a nougat-like consistency.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Well, much of the english language is taking terms from other languages. So do we stop using "sugar" because it has Arabic roots?

At this point, we either need to make up thousands of new words to replace English words with, or acknowledge were speaking English and if a definition of a word fits what you're describing, you go with it. Might as well replace the numeric system while we're at it so we don't culturally appropriate Arabic culture.  

Cultural appropriation is a very real thing. But because a word had it's origins from another culture, doesn't mean the current definition is cultural appropriation itself.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, much of the english language is taking terms from other languages. So do we stop using "sugar" because it has Arabic roots?
> 
> At this point, we either need to make up thousands of new words to replace English words with, or acknowledge were speaking English and if a definition of a word fits what you're describing, you go with it. Might as well replace the numeric system while we're at it so we don't culturally appropriate Arabic culture.
> 
> Cultural appropriation is a very real thing. But because a word had it's origins from another culture, doesn't mean the current definition is cultural appropriation itself.



This is a very kneejerky reaction that I wouldn’t normally expect from you.

The OP doesn’t claim that it’s appropriation because it’s from another language.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Maxperson said:


> Nope.  Even that level of carelessness isn't sufficient to rise to the level of crime.  You might get arrested for theft, but once the DA learns that it was a shared yard and you thought it was your roommates, no charges will be filed.




Thirty plus years as a police officer, and I've seen countless convictions on similar circumstances.

Taking material property without the express permission of the owner is a crime. The only exceptions are if you are an agent of the owner, or married to the owner.

There's a guy here in the USA, to use just a single example, who did prison time for borrowing a set of tools from his uncle's garage without express permission.


----------



## Jd Smith1

As a GM I will appropriate anything that feels like it will work. To date, not a single Polynesian has complained.


----------



## Maxperson

Jd Smith1 said:


> Thirty plus years as a police officer, and I've seen countless convictions on similar circumstances.
> 
> Taking material property without the express permission of the owner is a crime. The only exceptions are if you are an agent of the owner, or married to the owner.
> 
> There's a guy here in the USA, to use just a single example, who did prison time for borrowing a set of tools from his uncle's garage without express permission.



Those are different circumstances.  That guy didn't mistakenly take his uncles tools.  The guy in the example was allowed to borrow his roommate's bike and grabbed the wrong one by mistake.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Maxperson said:


> Those are different circumstances.  That guy didn't mistakenly take his uncles tools.  The guy in the example was allowed to borrow his roommate's bike and grabbed the wrong one by mistake.




Still a criminal act. Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal neglect. Either of the latter elements apply.

Taking another's property without permission is a crime. That defense (I thought it was my buddy's bike,car, stereo, house) has been tried to death, and is very simply defeated by a single question: did you check? 

Before you assume control of real property that does not belong to you, ensure you have a legal right to do so. It is very simple. The vast majority of people live their entire lives and never violate this.


----------



## ccs

Aldarc said:


> * I'm sure we could likewise cite 'druids' and 'bards' where the original cultural context of a term was transformed into a generic fantasy term.




Oh, that's OK.  Go back far enough in my family trees & both of those terms come from my heritage.  
Since they belong to me?  
I hereby grant everyone - past/present/future - permission to use these terms as they please in any & all forms of communication imaginable with no compensation expected {however, should you feel inclined I do take PayPal....}.

There.  Now you can all rest easy knowing that you've not misappropriated anything from me.


----------



## Aldarc

Eltab said:


> 4e's _Primal Power_ did a good job taking the class name "Shaman" and offering a variety of images of how the abilities might work in the world.
> 
> As said above: add, don't subtract.



However, this does get to the earlier point made about how shamanism is typically framed as primitive in comparison to priest or cleric. The fact that shaman class is associated with the "primal" source kinda hints at how we generally think of it. 



Sacrosanct said:


> Well, much of the english language is taking terms from other languages. So do we stop using "sugar" because it has Arabic roots?
> 
> At this point, we either need to make up thousands of new words to replace English words with, or acknowledge were speaking English and if a definition of a word fits what you're describing, you go with it. Might as well replace the numeric system while we're at it so we don't culturally appropriate Arabic culture.
> 
> Cultural appropriation is a very real thing. But because a word had it's origins from another culture, doesn't mean the current definition is cultural appropriation itself.



Much as @doctorbadwolf says, the fact that these words come from another language isn't really my point. Appropriation of new vocabulary from other languages happens. However, I discussed, for example, about how various indigenous cultures have pushed back against having the term "shaman" applied to their spiritual leaders as an inappropriate moniker and the cultural harm of "plastic shamans" that stems from Western misconceptions. In the case of "mana," its history in Western usage amounts to 130 years or so of Western misconceptions of Micronesian and Polynesian culture and language. 

Like with a lot of D&D and fantasy's tropes, these terms come with a lot of transmitted cultural baggage that we are sometimes not aware we are transmitting or propagating. Sometimes it's helpful to understand where these concepts come from so that we can either (1) consider whether we want to continue using the terms for whatever reason or (2) re-imagine how we use those terms so they are more inline with their original cultural contexts and do so in new imaginative ways that actually bring greater vivacity to the concepts in fantasy.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Mana would be way cooler if it was the inner power of a person, and was affected by their family, environment, friends, etc, and wasn’t really so much an individualistic resource.
Also a decent alternative to Ki, though again the spiritual and _social_ aspects of mana are lost.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also a decent alternative to Ki, though again the spiritual and _social_ aspects of mana are lost.




This is another one. I am not Asian, nor have I ever trained in any real martial arts or eastern religious practices, but if I believe ki/chi is real and I have it and can learn to use it, nobody better try to tell me I am appropriating anything just because I was not born into that culture.


----------



## prabe

Jd Smith1 said:


> As a GM I will appropriate anything that feels like it will work. To date, not a single Polynesian has complained.




I think there's a difference between grabbing (or appropriating) something for your home campaign, and doing the same for something you intend to publish. I think I can rely on the players around my table to give me some benefit of the doubt if I screw something up out of ignorance; I don't think I would expect or deserve the benefit of the doubt from the larger public, if I published it.


----------



## Dire Bare

Aldarc said:


> Would they? To the best of my knowledge, they do not identify as “paladins” or use the title “paladin” as part of their order’s offices.



That would be revealing the secrets of the order . . . . .


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> This is another one. I am not Asian, nor have I ever trained in any real martial arts or eastern religious practices, but if I believe ki/chi is real and I have it and can learn to use it, nobody better try to tell me I am appropriating anything just because I was not born into that culture.



This comes across as very “I can wear a bindi if I want to!” style entitled.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

doctorbadwolf said:


> This comes across as very “I can wear a bindi if I want to!” style entitled.




I do not believe something as minor as hair or clothing are cultural appropriation. Unless it is something very specific with important meaning, like a Native American War Bonnet, but just some general hair style or clothing style? No.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

double post because of lag


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I do not believe something as minor as hair or clothing are cultural appropriation. Unless it is something very specific with important meaning, like a Native American War Bonnet, but just some general hair style or clothing style? No.



Bindi isn’t a minor affectation. 

If your guidepost isn’t the community that the object comes from, then you’re going to end up in the wrong, eventually.


----------



## aramis erak

doctorbadwolf said:


> Bindi isn’t a minor affectation.
> 
> If your guidepost isn’t the community that the object comes from, then you’re going to end up in the wrong, eventually.




It only matters if the source community interacts with the appropriating community and finds it a problem. 

Too often these days people take offense on behalf of others, often in cases where it's not aligned with what the "protected group" wants.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

aramis erak said:


> It only matters if the source community interacts with the appropriating community and finds it a problem.
> 
> Too often these days people take offense on behalf of others, often in cases where it's not aligned with what the "protected group" wants.



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


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

doctorbadwolf said:


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




That is all Twitter, and other social media, seems to be most of the time. Just a bunch of people being offended on the behalf of other people. They post a bunch of words, but never actually follow up any of it with real actions to make real changes.


----------



## Bedrockgames

You can't steal words


----------



## Tallifer

<shrugs>


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That is all Twitter, and other social media, seems to be most of the time. Just a bunch of people being offended on the behalf of other people. They post a bunch of words, but never actually follow up any of it with real actions to make real changes.



I mean, no, that simply isn't true on any level. 

In any of the cases of twitter backlash against something, there are a mix of people directly involved/affected, and their allies, for one thing. 

For another, you literally have no access to these peoples' lives, so the last line is 100% your assumption, based on nothing at all.


----------



## Jd Smith1

prabe said:


> I think there's a difference between grabbing (or appropriating) something for your home campaign, and doing the same for something you intend to publish. I think I can rely on the players around my table to give me some benefit of the doubt if I screw something up out of ignorance; I don't think I would expect or deserve the benefit of the doubt from the larger public, if I published it.




I doubt that. WOW certainly demonstrates that the Polynesian lobby isn't all that militant.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I do not believe something as minor as hair or clothing are cultural appropriation. Unless it is something very specific with important meaning, like a Native American War Bonnet, but just some general hair style or clothing style? No.




That would actually be a Plains Indian war bonnet, and even then it had different meanings to the different tribes. Native Americans had nothing resembling a unified culture.


----------



## Jd Smith1

aramis erak said:


> It only matters if the source community interacts with the appropriating community and finds it a problem.
> 
> Too often these days people take offense on behalf of others, often in cases where it's not aligned with what the "protected group" wants.




To me, that sort of action is inherently racist. It suggests that the people whom the word/item/concept in question are too child-like or inferior to fight their own struggles, or even to realize they have been offended.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Jd Smith1 said:


> That would actually be a Plains Indian war bonnet, and even then it had different meanings to the different tribes. Native Americans had nothing resembling a unified culture.




True, but like I said, I would never dare wear something of that importance without being given the bonnet and the blessing of the tribe it came from, unlike certain reality tv stars who have rightly been called out on that.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Jd Smith1 said:


> I doubt that. WOW certainly demonstrates that the Polynesian lobby isn't all that militant.



Or, maybe, that WoW isn't particularly disrespectful to polynesians. 

Or simply that you aren't aware of the pushback they've gotten. 

Or any number of things.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> True, but like I said, I would never dare wear something of that importance without being given the bonnet and the blessing of the tribe it came from, unlike certain reality tv stars who have rightly been called out on that.




I've never been in a social situation where wearing a feathered bonnet was an option, but if it did, I wouldn't hesitate.

There hasn't been a person entitled to wear such a bonnet since the 1930s (when the last one died), so the significance is no longer applicable.

You don't have to be a cowboy to wear a Stetson. You don't have to own a Ford to wear a gimme cap that has Ford on it. 
I wear tee shirts with radio station logos on them I've never tuned in to. 

This exaggerated delicacy about hats is IMO, dumb. A continent was taken from them by force; pretending that you care about a headgear that about three per cent of them occasionally wore is just silly. If you really care about the situation, pay them rent for the rest of your life.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> You can't steal words



You can misrepresent a culture with misunderstood and misapplied cultural loanwords.


----------



## pemerton

@Aldarc @Doug McCrae

This thread seems like it might derail soon, but to try to stay somewhat on topic:

I think there is an interesting aspect of history - I'm most familiar with it in the context of European and East Aftrican history - when largely rural cultures (agrarian, pastoralist, hunter-gather) come into contact with urban/cosmopolitan cultures. This can be the result of colonisation/imperialism  - certainly this is a significant part of the story for East Africa, but I would say less straightforwardly so for at least norther and western Europe.

This can make suitable material for FRPGIng, I think, and religion/"magical" practices can be a part of that. D&D's traditional vehicles for this are the cleric (urban/cosmopolitan) and the druid (rural). These sit in an uneasy overlap with eg human vs orcs which is another way of trying to capture the same cultural interaction (Romans vs Goths or Huns).

How do do this without essentially taking the urban/cosmopolitan perspective is tricky. I don't think 4e does a first-rate job of this, though it's better than AD&D I think. Rolemaster is actually not terrible. What about RQ?


----------



## TheSword

For the record, the game doesn’t suggest shamans are less than clerics. Shaman classes are balanced to be equal. If anything the game redressed the balance that these things aren’t seen as equal in the real world.


----------



## Aldarc

pemerton said:


> How do do this without essentially taking the urban/cosmopolitan perspective is tricky. I don't think 4e does a first-rate job of this, though it's better than AD&D I think. Rolemaster is actually not terrible. What about RQ?



One thing that I appreciate about RQ is that traditions of magic are not entirely presented in opposition, but in a more syncretic way. A warrior or even priest will be part of a temple cult, but also draw upon animistic practices that call upon spirits to bless their armaments and for other boons.


----------



## Raduin711

Umbran said:


> As others have noted, the existence of "manna" in the Old Testament makes this suggestion of single-source for the term... questionable.




I would just like to point out in case it wasn't already that the person who made the video is Andrew Henry who is a PHD candidate in early Christianty at Boston U. 

sauce

He runs a great channel, very informative and scholarly.


----------



## Raduin711

Bedrockgames said:


> You can't steal words




I said this.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Raduin711 said:


> I said this.




Well, now you're being oppressed.


----------



## Hussar

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, much of the english language is taking terms from other languages. So do we stop using "sugar" because it has Arabic roots?
> 
> At this point, we either need to make up thousands of new words to replace English words with, or acknowledge were speaking English and if a definition of a word fits what you're describing, you go with it. Might as well replace the numeric system while we're at it so we don't culturally appropriate Arabic culture.
> 
> Cultural appropriation is a very real thing. But because a word had it's origins from another culture, doesn't mean the current definition is cultural appropriation itself.




That's not the issue though.

The issue is that the words are being appropriated and then applied to pretty negative elements.  @Doug McCrae in this post (adding link so people can see for themselves) Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms illustrates nicely that the only Monsters with Shaman's are primitives, savage and evil.  I mean, why shouldn't elves have shaman?  Wouldn't a shamanistic tradition fit best with elves?  But, elves have clerics.  And they certainly aren't depicted as primitive.  So, obviously they can't have shamans because shamans only belong to evil, savage, primitives. 

See how it becomes a problem?



Jd Smith1 said:


> To me, that sort of action is inherently racist. It suggests that the people whom the word/item/concept in question are too child-like or inferior to fight their own struggles, or even to realize they have been offended.




Or, instead, people are capable of recognizing bigotry and racism, even if it's not specifically directed at them and have realized that the bigots and racists of the world depend on the silence of the majority in order to spread their brand of hatred.  That regardless of who you are, what color you are, where you come from, when you see racism and bigotry, you call it out and bring it into the light where it squirms and dies.

OTOH, aren't you judging people by the color of their skin by claiming that they aren't allowed to call out bigotry that isn't directed at them?  You don't know.  Maybe their mother or father is a BIPOC, but, you can't tell by looking at them.  Or their wives/husbands, children, friends, neighbours, are all people who ARE affected by racism and they're rather tired of being told that they have to sit off to the side and aren't allowed to have an opinion just because of the color of their skin.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Raduin711 said:


> I said this.




Touche


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You can misrepresent a culture with misunderstood and misapplied cultural loanwords.




But this isn't even really that. This is just a case of the word being used, with pretty much all of the cultural context removed (so even if you think cultural appropriation is something to be concerned about, this isn't taking any of the culture, it is just taking a word that helps encapsulate a concept about magic), then accidentally takes off and gets confused with manna. I think you can argue this has become a very useful term on its own, and people weren't even trying to take something from another culture (or even aware at all that was what was happening). The fact that you need a whole video like this to make an argument for that etymology, because no one associates the term with the culture in question really.

Words and language evolve and people borrow terms all the time. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, especially if you are using long established language like mana and shamans, which help people communicate concepts in fantasy settings, to go after that as some kind of transgression against another person's culture. It has become part of English. Just feels like you are needlessly taking useful words from people. You go around the world and you see loan words all the time. It is fine to trace the origins of those loan words, but I think it is very strange to see the act of one language borrowing words from another, as harmful or bad. My wife is from another country, and her language uses a lot of English, and a lot of that English is used in a new way, sometimes a humorous way or even a negative way, when it didn't originally have a negative connotation. It would be pretty aggressive for me to start questioning her use of words from my language or vice versa.


----------



## Olrox17

I feel like we're delving deep into manufactured outrage territory here. 
I mean, I disagreed with a lot of what was recently said about orcs, drow, and oriental adventures, but I could at least see the other side's position and a potential compromise that could be reached. 

Offense by proxy doesn't interest me.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Hussar said:


> Or, instead, people are capable of recognizing bigotry and racism, even if it's not specifically directed at them and have realized that the bigots and racists of the world depend on the silence of the majority in order to spread their brand of hatred.  That regardless of who you are, what color you are, where you come from, when you see racism and bigotry, you call it out and bring it into the light where it squirms and dies.




Not really, Firstly, use of common terms within a language isn't bigotry or racism. Secondly, accusing others of bigotry or racism on thin to no pretext is in fact bigotry itself. Thirdly, you don't change peoples' heart-felt opinions by 'bringing it into the light'. That's just silly.

Here's what is likely the reason for our disparity in viewpoints: you're probably white. I'm  definitely not. 

So from the PoV of a non-white, I would much rather deal with people who use 'mana' or 'shaman' than self-appointed enforcers of racial purity.

It's going to sound like I've put you on ignore, because I am.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Olrox17 said:


> I feel like we're delving deep into manufactured outrage territory here.
> I mean, I disagreed with a lot of what was recently said about orcs, drow, and oriental adventures, but I could at least see the other side's position and a potential compromise that could be reached.
> 
> Offense by proxy doesn't interest me.




Very well said.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> But this isn't even really that.



You seem to think that I am arguing that cultural loanwords are theft and ignoring everything else, and now you are doubling down on that point. It would be nice if you could engage more with strawmen of your own manufacture. It's frustrating talking with you, Bedrock, because I sometimes feel that you talk past me rather than engage what I write.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> You seem to think that I am arguing that cultural loanwords are theft and ignoring everything else, and now you are doubling down on that point. It would be nice if you could engage more with strawmen of your own manufacture. It's frustrating talking with you, Bedrock, because I sometimes feel that you talk past me rather than engage what I write.




I am just trying to honestly respond to what you are saying. Maybe I am misreading you. But my post wasn't just about loan words in general, I tried to address what you seem to be talking about.


----------



## Tallifer

There is no way in hell I can accept that loanwords are a bad thing. English wouldn't even have 1/10 of its vocabulary without loanwords from French, Greek, Latin, Danish, Celtic, Chinese, Korean, German, etc etc ad nauseum. Neither would any other language. Heck, here in Korea, I have heard many times that about 50% of the more literary or technical nouns come from Chinese. And Koreans use all kinds of English loanwords these days (and often alter the original meaning).


----------



## Aldarc

Tallifer said:


> There is no way in hell I cannot accept that *loanwords are a bad thing.* English wouldn't even have 1/10 of its vocabulary without loanwords from French, Greek, Latin, Danish, Celtic, Chinese, Korean, German, etc etc ad nauseum. Neither would any other language. Heck, here in Korea, I have heard many times that about 50% of the more literary or technical nouns come from Chinese. And Koreans use all kinds of English loanwords these days (and often alter the original meaning).



It would be nice if people could stop arguing against this particular strawman.


----------



## Tallifer

Aldarc said:


> It would be nice if people could stop arguing against this particular strawman.



Shaman is a loanword, mana is a loanword. Loanwords are normal in every language. Not a straw man: it is my argument.


----------



## Aldarc

Tallifer said:


> Shaman is a loanword, mana is a loanword. Loanwords are normal in every language. Not a straw man: it is my argument.



Okay? But we are not arguing about whether these are loanwords or whether loanwords are bad. The issue is the misapplication and misunderstanding of those terms in how they come into our understanding and how we think about other cultures. The issue pertains to the classism and hierarchies that tinge our use of those loanwords. Are we clearer now? Or would you like another go at tilting at the fake argument that loanwords are bad?


----------



## Doug McCrae

pemerton said:


> What about RQ?



I'd say it's the most important theme of Gloranthan RuneQuest. The game's first two editions were centred on the conflict between the pseudo-Celtic Orlanthi barbarians and the pseudo-Roman Lunar Empire. RQ's sympathies were with the Orlanthis - Greg Stafford considered himself to be a shaman - but it doesn’t present one as Good and the other Evil.

D&D, at its most basic, is a story about the PCs travelling from a settlement into a dungeon. In the settlement equipment can be bought, hirelings recruited, information gathered, spells and hit points regained. Interactions are mostly transactional, non-violent and bounded by law. The dungeon is a place of danger and evil, but also great opportunity. Gaining information, treasure and magic items is achieved by stealth, theft, and violence. The law of the dungeon is like the "law of the jungle" – there is none.

The minimum required to run a game of D&D is, per the 1e DMG "giving them [players/PCs] a brief background, placing them in a settlement, and stating that they should prepare themselves to find and explore the dungeon/ruin they know is nearby." 1e PHB:

When you go on an _adventure_, you… will go to explore some _underground _labyrinth or area of land _outdoors…_ Your DM will give you certain information prior to the _adventure _— you might have to ask questions of the local populace, or you might have heard rumors or know of legends — so your party can properly equip itself for the expedition, hire men-at-arms, and obtain mounts​
In 5e the world is divided between the "civilized" PC races and the "savage and brutal... almost uniformly evil… races of goblinoids (goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears), orcs, gnolls, lizardfolk, and kobolds."

Goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs live in "tribes". Bugbears, INT 8, survive by "raiding and hunting". "[A] goblin king or queen... is nothing more than a glorified goblin boss”. Gnolls, INT 6, are "nomadic". They "attack settlements along the frontiers and borderlands of civilization". "Gnolls rarely build permanent structures or craft anything of lasting value. They don't make weapons or armor, but scavenge such items from the corpses of their fallen victims". Lizardfolk were considered upthread. Orcs, INT 7, are "savage raiders and pillagers" who "seldom settle permanently". Kobolds, INT 8, "worship evil dragons as demigods".

The 5e barbarian provides a counter-narrative.

People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animaIs, as if denying one's own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature - keen instincts, primaI physicality, and ferocious rage.​
The association between the tribal barbarian and both "animal nature" and "ferocious rage" can be criticised but the barbarian is portrayed positively, as a defender of their people. "Life in the wild places of the world is fraught with peril: rival tribes, deadly weather, and terrifying monsters. Barbarians charge headlong into that danger so that their people don't have to."

The ranger is different. This class represents not a member of a tribe but someone who lives on the frontier defending civilisation against the "savage" races and other monsters. "Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization… a ranger's true calling is to defend the outskirts of civilization from the ravages of monsters and humanoid hordes that press in from the wild."

The druid’s position is uncertain. Some are priests of societies that still believe in the "Old Faith" but others seem to live as hermits, existing outside society altogether. "Perhaps your character lives in a society where the Old Faith still thrives, or was raised by a druid after being abandoned in the depths of a forest."

A further counter-narrative is provided by the evil urbanised monsters - drow, efreeti, mind flayers, yuan-ti - and the lich, an undead wizard that must be the product of a literate society.

5e’s counter-narrative is imo not strong enough to overcome the default game structure, as presented in 1e, and the default world structure of 5e. Therefore I conclude that D&D’s portrayal of settlements and state societies is largely positive, while its portrayal of tribes, nomads and other non-state societies is mostly negative.

Why the difference between RQ and D&D? RQ derives from the study of religion and history. D&D is based on 20th century adventure fiction.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Aldarc said:


> Okay? But we are not arguing about whether these are loanwords or whether loanwords are bad. The issue is the misapplication and misunderstanding of those terms in how they come into our understanding and how we think about other cultures. The issue pertains to the classism and hierarchies that tinge our use of those loanwords. Are we clearer now? Or would you like another go at tilting at the fake argument that loanwords are bad?




The thing is, so far as I can tell we have no one from the relevant cultures complaining, only self-appointed guardians of language purity.

And how do these self-appointed guardians know how 'we' think about other cultures?

The strawman is the idea that common-usage words in this case are wrongthought.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TheSword said:


> For the record, the game doesn’t suggest shamans are less than clerics. Shaman classes are balanced to be equal. If anything the game redressed the balance that these things aren’t seen as equal in the real world.



That is only true in terms of power level, which isn’t remotely what anyone is suggesting the problem is. 
The savages have shamans, the good guys have clerics. It’s colonialist and classist, not to mention the misuse of the term in the first place. 


Jd Smith1 said:


> Secondly, accusing others of bigotry or racism on thin to no pretext is in fact bigotry itself.



This is absolutely false, on the level of claims of “reverse racism”, if not even more egregiously nonsensical. 


Jd Smith1 said:


> so far as I can tell we have no one from the relevant cultures complaining, only self-appointed guardians of language purity.



This issue has been raised quite a bit by people of “the relevant culture”.
Trying to attack people on the basis of...caring about things that affect others more than them...is really weird, though, in addition to being some blatant anti-inclusion rhetoric.


----------



## Umbran

Olrox17 said:


> I feel like we're delving deep into manufactured outrage territory here.




Then you probably want to consider what you hope to get out of the conversation before you continue.


----------



## dragoner

Jd Smith1 said:


> self-appointed guardians




It's called civilization, it has rules. A good day is when I don't have 20 notifications from the fb group, and have to wade in deleting posts and banning people. I don't like being forced into being a cop, it's rude. Racism is ugly, and violates the first rule of people being civil to each other.

"People fighting their own battles ..."

This leaves a forum a wasteland ruled by Humongus Amongus like in the Road Warrior. Human nature is to flee, not fight, and people will self select away rather than fight. Society is based around soldiers and police fighting other peoples battles for them.


----------



## Jd Smith1

dragoner said:


> Human nature is to flee, not fight, and people will self select away rather than fight.




Not in my experience. 

Admittedly, it may be more common in certain circles.


----------



## dragoner

Jd Smith1 said:


> Not in my experience.
> 
> Admittedly, it may be more common in certain circles.




It's science, in fact there are physiological changes as people become less violent: Nova even has a good documentary about it called "The Violence Paradox".

Though it is simple to see that societies, forums, are based around cooperation vs conflict.


----------



## Jd Smith1

dragoner said:


> It's science, in fact there are physiological changes as people become less violent: Nova even has a good documentary about it called "The Violence Paradox".
> 
> Though it is simple to see that societies, forums, are based around cooperation vs conflict.




It's a theory. I've never seen any real support for it, and there is a vast amount of history and current events that disproves it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Jd Smith1 said:


> It's a theory. I've never seen any real support for it, and there is a vast amount of history and current events that disproves it.



Then you haven’t looked. 

People can be trained out of their instincts, but most people don’t want to engage in any sort of real conflict.


----------



## dragoner

Jd Smith1 said:


> It's a theory. I've never seen any real support for it, and there is a vast amount of history and current events that disproves it.




It is a fact, and well supported, history and current events included. Even a simple glimpse at the other forum Morrus has, Circus Maximus, shows a much less active place.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Then you haven’t looked.
> 
> People can be trained out of their instincts, but most people don’t want to engage in any sort of real conflict.




Agreed. Conflict is more likely to lead to injury, thus less chance of survival. Plus there is greater safety in numbers; fighting only makes very limited sense. Even fundamental biology such as disease immunity supports the larger group vs isolates.


----------



## Jd Smith1

dragoner said:


> It is a fact, and well supported, history and current events included. Even a simple glimpse at the other forum Morrus has, Circus Maximus, shows a much less active place.




You're using a _Net forum_ as a reference to violence?


----------



## dragoner

Jd Smith1 said:


> You're using a _Net forum_ as a reference to violence?



So? It has perfect relevance.


----------



## Jd Smith1

dragoner said:


> So? It has perfect relevance.




You have lost all credibility with me. Lets go back to using traditional RPG/fantasy fiction being  thoughtcrimes.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Hussar said:


> That's not the issue though.
> 
> The issue is that the words are being appropriated and then applied to pretty negative elements.  @Doug McCrae in this post (adding link so people can see for themselves) Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms illustrates nicely that the only Monsters with Shaman's are primitives, savage and evil.  I mean, why shouldn't elves have shaman?  Wouldn't a shamanistic tradition fit best with elves?  But, elves have clerics.  And they certainly aren't depicted as primitive.  So, obviously they can't have shamans because shamans only belong to evil, savage, primitives.
> 
> See how it becomes a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Or, instead, people are capable of recognizing bigotry and racism, even if it's not specifically directed at them and have realized that the bigots and racists of the world depend on the silence of the majority in order to spread their brand of hatred.  That regardless of who you are, what color you are, where you come from, when you see racism and bigotry, you call it out and bring it into the light where it squirms and dies.
> 
> OTOH, aren't you judging people by the color of their skin by claiming that they aren't allowed to call out bigotry that isn't directed at them?  You don't know.  Maybe their mother or father is a BIPOC, but, you can't tell by looking at them.  Or their wives/husbands, children, friends, neighbours, are all people who ARE affected by racism and they're rather tired of being told that they have to sit off to the side and aren't allowed to have an opinion just because of the color of their skin.




Only, since at least 1990 (possibly earlier) in DnD, shamans are not all what you claim. They had good shamans now for 30 years in the game. So that argument falls completely flat.

Also, as someone whose hobby is bushcrafting, if you automatically assume and use primitive to = bad, that’s on you, and illustrates your bigotry. My older half brother, who has Nez Perce ancestry and engages in many old traditions, would probably call you a bigot to automatically associate his traditions as a bad thing simply because they are “primitive”. It’s you who is perpetuating negative stereotypes when you make those associations.

so yeah, we should call out bigotry when we see it. Like I just did to you. But if a white person calls out bigotry and the people who are the topic of it don’t see it, it’s a good bet it’s manufactured outrage. Stop trying to be such a white knight and look at how your own assumptions are making it worse and how they are the attitudes that spread stereotypes.

*edit. I am NOT saying there haven’t been racist depictions of shamans (and witch doctors especially) In frequency. I am saying the mere term and usage of the word shaman is not cultural appropriation or racist because unlike the argument you’re making, there have been plenty of positive depictions as well, and that word has an actual definition that is not racist or culturally appropriation. And people shouldn’t automatically feel bad like they are bigots for using it. It’s how it’s used that’s important.


----------



## dragoner

Jd Smith1 said:


> You have lost all credibility with me. Lets go back to using traditional RPG/fantasy fiction being  thoughtcrimes.




I am afraid the science will still be true whether or not you believe in it.


----------



## Olrox17

Umbran said:


> Then you probably want to consider what you hope to get out of the conversation before you continue.



Tbh, I don't think I'll stick around this thread much. I've said my piece, I explained why I disagree with the OP, I really don't have much to add beyond that. Unless people start responding to me directly, of course.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Jd Smith1 said:


> You have lost all credibility with me. Lets go back to using traditional RPG/fantasy fiction being  thoughtcrimes.



There are other books. 

This “thoughtcrimes” crap is melodramatic nonsense.


----------



## Umbran

Jd Smith1 said:


> It's a theory. I've never seen any real support for it, and there is a vast amount of history and current events that disproves it.




Broadly speaking, lower levels of violence worldwide, with a growing population, suggests less violence per capita.  Current events, in a relative sense, are small numbers of incidents.

History texts talk about how much violence there is in absolute terms, but often miss the fact that the world population has increased dramatically.  In WWII, the world population was something like 2.3 billion.  Today, it is more like 7 billion.


----------



## Jd Smith1

dragoner said:


> I am afraid the science will still be true whether or not you believe in it.




I don't believe you understand the difference between 'science' and 'theory'. 

You're making a statistical-based claim. As as Disraeli noted, there are three types of falsehood: lies, damned lies, and statistics. 

And using a Net forum as an example of a statistic-based claim? Wow. Just plain wow. 

Anyway, time to cut the silliness level a tad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> My older half brother, who has Nez Perce ancestry and engages in many old traditions, would probably call you a bigot to automatically associate his traditions as a bad thing simply because they are “primitive”. It’s you who is perpetuating negative stereotypes when you make those associations.



You have got to be joking.

This is as bad as people calling anyone who sees the racism in the Volos Orc description “the real racist”. You’re using literally the same logic.

The fact that you also keep attacking the strawman that “shaman as a word is bad because it comes from another culture”, which isn’t an argument literally anyone has made, is really confusing me.

This is the sort of behavior I normally see you opposing in threads, not engaging in yourself.

Edit to be crystal clear: Pointing out that a racist association has been made in the books previously is not the same thing as making that association. If I say, “the Volos guide description of orcs uses the same rhetoric as racist descriptions of Black and Indigenous peoples used to dehumanize them and justify genocide”, I _have not made an association where orcs = Black and Indigenous people_.

Likewise, stating that the books tend to only use “shaman” to refer to the spiritual leaders of savage people’s who tend to be antagonists in the game’s stories is objectively and explicitly not “associating [those] traditions as bad simply because they’re primitive”.


----------



## Sacrosanct

doctorbadwolf said:


> You have got to be joking.
> 
> This is as bad as people calling anyone who sees the racism in the Volos Orc description “the real racist”. You’re using literally the same logic.




no, no I’m not. Orcs are pretend. If you as a white person keep getting offended on behalf of a group and they are like, “nah, we’re good”, then maybe you need to reflect on yourself. Cuz guess what? Telling groups that they should be offended is just as bad, because you’re still a white person telling a minority how to act.



> The fact that you also keep attacking the strawman that “shaman as a word is bad because it comes from another culture”, which isn’t an argument literally anyone has made, is really confusing me.
> 
> This is the sort of behavior I normally see you opposing in threads, not engaging in yourself.




Dude, literally the first post in the thread is making that argument. How is it a strawman when literally the entire basis of this thread is built around that argument.

“I’m not saying we should ban shaman, but you should know how bad it is and how it was appropriated.”


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> The fact that you also keep attacking the strawman that “shaman as a word is bad because it comes from another culture”, which isn’t an argument literally anyone has made, is really confusing me.




On the internet, folks often argue against what they want to argue against, whether you said it or not.  



> This is the sort of behavior I normally see you opposing in threads, not engaging in yourself.




Can we avoid making this personal?  'Cause doing so will not help with the point above.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> no, no I’m not. Orcs are pretend. If you as a white person keep getting offended on behalf of a group and they are like, “nah, we’re good”, then maybe you need to reflect on yourself. Cuz guess what? Telling groups that they should be offended is just as bad, because you’re still a white person telling a minority how to act.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, literally the first post in the thread is making that argument. How is it a strawman when literally the entire basis of this thread is built around that argument.
> 
> “I’m not saying we should ban shaman, but you should know how bad it is and how it was appropriated.”



Good grief. No, that isn’t the argument in the OP.

And if you think that people with actual Shamanic traditions aren’t unhappy with fantasy media “shamans”, well, you’re wrong. 

“Orcs are pretend” is perhaps the weakest argument anyone ever makes in these threads. You damn well know better than to think that fictional things don’t matter.

“Making it personal” or not, I can’t help but be severely disappointed that you are making these arguments. You might as well be yelling about “snowflakes” and acronyms banned from use on these forums.


----------



## Umbran

Sacrosanct said:


> so yeah, we should call out bigotry when we see it. Like I just did to you. But if a white person calls out bigotry and the people who are the topic of it don’t see it, it’s a good bet it’s manufactured outrage. Stop trying to be such a white knight and look at how your own assumptions are making it worse and how they are the attitudes that spread stereotypes.




*Mod Note:*

Making it waaaay too personal there. It is time for you to take a break from this thread.


----------



## Umbran

Jd Smith1 said:


> You have lost all credibility with me. Lets go back to using traditional RPG/fantasy fiction being  thoughtcrimes.




*Mod Note:*

So, if you respect folks in the thread this little, it is time for you to take a break too.  Please treat folks with respect, or just leave them be in the future.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, as someone whose hobby is bushcrafting, if you automatically assume and use primitive to = bad, that’s on you, and illustrates your bigotry. My older half brother, who has Nez Perce ancestry and engages in many old traditions, would probably call you a bigot to automatically associate his traditions as a bad thing simply because they are “primitive”. It’s you who is perpetuating negative stereotypes when you make those associations.



5e uses the word "primitive" six times in the core rules. Five usages are negative, one is neutral. Emphasis mine.

PHB:
"In these yellowed pages were tales of bold heroes, strange and fierce animals, mighty *primitive *gods, and a magic that was part and fabric of that distant land."* (This is the neutral one.)
"[T]he Dark Six are the *primitive*, bloody, and cruel gods who offer a dissenting voice."

MM:
"*Primitive*. Hill giants" congregate in "steadings built of rough timber or in clusters of well-defended mud-and-wattle huts... Their weapons are uprooted trees and rocks pulled from the earth". They wear "crude animal skins... poorly stitched together with hair and leather thongs."
"Whether these tall, gaunt creatures [the ancestors of githyanki and githzerai] were peaceful or savage, cultured or *primitive *before the mind flayers enslaved and changed them, none can say."
"Lizardfolk are *primitive *reptilian humanoids that lurk in the swamps and jungles of the world."
"*Primitive *Wanderers. Ogres clothe themselves in animal pelts and uproot trees for use as crude tools and weapons."

Hill giants have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They are "raging bullies", "selfish, dimwitted brutes" whose "laziness and dullness would long ago have spelled their end if not for their formidable size and strength".
Lizardfolk have INT 7. They eat other humanoids and also sacrifice them to their god.
Ogres have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They possess "Legendary Stupidity. Few ogres can count to ten, even with their fingers in front of them." They are "lazy of mind", "greedy" (in the sense of avaricious), "gluttons", and have "furious tempers".

EDIT: *This is a quotation from Elaine Cunningham's Forgotten Realms novel, Daughter of the Drow, which may explain the different usage.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> 5e uses the word "primitive" six times in the core rules. Five usages are negative, one is neutral. Emphasis mine.
> 
> PHB:
> "In these yellowed pages were tales of bold heroes, strange and fierce animals, mighty *primitive *gods, and a magic that was part and fabric of that distant land." (This is the neutral one.)
> "[T]he Dark Six are the *primitive*, bloody, and cruel gods who offer a dissenting voice."
> 
> MM:
> "*Primitive*. Hill giants" congregate in "steadings built of rough timber or in clusters of well-defended mud-and-wattle huts... Their weapons are uprooted trees and rocks pulled from the earth". They wear "crude animal skins... poorly stitched together with hair and leather thongs."
> "Whether these tall, gaunt creatures [the ancestors of githyanki and githzerai] were peaceful or savage, cultured or *primitive *before the mind flayers enslaved and changed them, none can say."
> "Lizardfolk are *primitive *reptilian humanoids that lurk in the swamps and jungles of the world."
> "*Primitive *Wanderers. Ogres clothe themselves in animal pelts and uproot trees for use as crude tools and weapons."
> 
> Hill giants have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They are "raging bullies", "selfish, dimwitted brutes" whose "laziness and dullness would long ago have spelled their end if not for their formidable size and strength".
> Lizardfolk have INT 7. They eat other humanoids and also sacrifice them to their god.
> Ogres have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They possess "Legendary Stupidity. Few ogres can count to ten, even with their fingers in front of them." They are "lazy of mind", "greedy" (in the sense of avaricious), "gluttons", and have "furious tempers".




Whether it is being used negatively or positively, it seems useful here. I understand instantly what is meant by lizard folks being primitive or hill giants being primitive.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> “Making it personal” or not....




*Mod Note:*

_sigh_.  Dude.  You explicitly note that it is against what was asked, and you do it anyway?  You kind of force me to block you from the thread.


----------



## Blue

Languages are living.  These words mean now what they mean now.  It is on etymological interest where they came from, but the meaning has shifted since then.  It is self-deception at best to try to claim that a word that has entered the modern lexicon can only mean what it once did and that it is inappropriate to have it's current usage.


----------



## pemerton

@Doug McCrae 

Your textual analyses are thorough.

Thinking about system and gameplay, in my view one of the problems D&D faces is ambiguity over the relationship between clerics, druids and MUs.

This post isn't going to unpack every aspect of the issue, but will try and set out what I see as the basic problem.

Clerics are, at their core, heavily armed and armoured religious warriors who work channel the power of the divine to work miracles of healing, divining, turning sticks into snakes, dispelling evil spirits, and sometimes calling down doom upon their enemies. They are not allowed to be true neutral: they are proselytising and they establish fortresses from which they rule the land, extracting taxes and tithes. We know from the paladin class entry in the AD&D PHB (p 24) that clerics can be nobles.

In summary, clerics are a mix of Biblical trope with the mediaeval military orders and warrior bishops. In terms of the divide/contrast I posited upthread, they are urban/cosmopolitan.

Druids use lighter armour (leather, wooden shields) and spears and knives and "exotic" weapons like scimitars and (in UA) the khopesh. According to the AD&D PHB (p 21) "They hold trees (particularly oak and ash), the sun, and the moon as deities." They must be true neutral, which is (per the DMG p 23) is a "naturalistic ethos" that sees each element of the world as part of the whole, provided that (per the PHB p 33) things do not" become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be." There magic deals extensively with plants, animals, weather and the elements. They can change shape and pass without trace through the woodlands.

Druids are clearly on the rural side of my contrast. Their outlook and abilities are identifiable as broadly animistic/shamanic. They do not build great temples. They are not proselytisers.

This cleric/druid relationship starts to break down as soon as clerics - beginning in the PBH but moreso with DDG - are shoved into the polytheistic context without any mechanical or flavour change. In 5e this comes up in the question of the relationship between nature clerics and druids. In 4e it is the problem of the relationship of clerics of Melora to druids.

In AD&D, if there are clerics of Ehlonna - who are, in virtue of that, presumably bearers of truth about nature - then what is the role of druids and the "old faith"? They must be wrong!

MUs only further complicate the matter, because while their core tropes (robes, books, alembics) suggest late mediaveal/early modern alchemist types, their magic also overlaps heavily with druids, because they also play the "witch"/pagan role in the gameworld which, in part, is a way of looking at the rural aspects of religion and spirituality through the urban/cosmopolitan lens. Subsequent developments in the game take this further - eg in OA wu jen are a MU subclass but many of their spells and their focus on elements overlaps with druids; in 4e we have witch as a subclass of wizard; etc.

I think if druids had been treated as a version of MU rather than as a deviant or less form of cleric; if lizardmen and gnolls had druidic religious/cultural leaders rather than the second-tier "shamans" and "witchdoctors"; if 4e had not drawn a sharp distinction between primal and arcane power sources (eg wizards could be "primal" + literacty); then at least this aspect of D&D might have fewer problems.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Whether it is being used negatively or positively, it seems useful here. I understand instantly what is meant by lizard folks being primitive or hill giants being primitive.




But, do you not see the issue?

When the term is being borrowed (which is fine) and ONLY applied in negative light, then it becomes a problem.

Do people really not understand this?   There is nothing wrong with borrowing a word into a language.  Cognates happen all the time.  Heck, Katana is a cognate and there's nothing wrong with using the word Katana to describe a type of sword.  However, if you present a Katana as the ultimate in swordcraft, produced by the epitome of human culture to which all other cultures, particularly neighboring cultures, fall far behind in place in terms of culture and civilization and only a proper, civilized culture could produce a katana and a samurai, then, well, there's some problems here.

In the same way, D&D presents shaman as only coming from EVIL, SAVAGE, primitive cultures filled with BELOW INTELLIGENCE beings that ravage and pillage, then there is a problem.  The "primitive" part isn't the problem.  The fact that @Sacrosanct had to misquote me and cut off the important bits in order to try to show that I was being racist kinda proves my point.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Hussar said:


> When the term is being borrowed (which is fine) and ONLY applied in negative light, then it becomes a problem.




I have been thinking about saying something like that too. You have language A and language B. The speakers of language B take word or phrase and add it to their language in a way that the addition enriches it. That is a good thing. But the opposite, where a word or phrase is taken by speakers of language B and then used as a caricature or stereotype or slur of the speakers of language A, is very bad. English has done both for hundreds of years and American English is even more of a melting pot language.


----------



## ccs

Doug McCrae said:


> 5e uses the word "primitive" six times in the core rules. Five usages are negative, one is neutral. Emphasis mine.
> 
> PHB:
> "In these yellowed pages were tales of bold heroes, strange and fierce animals, mighty *primitive *gods, and a magic that was part and fabric of that distant land."* (This is the neutral one.)
> "[T]he Dark Six are the *primitive*, bloody, and cruel gods who offer a dissenting voice."
> 
> MM:
> "*Primitive*. Hill giants" congregate in "steadings built of rough timber or in clusters of well-defended mud-and-wattle huts... Their weapons are uprooted trees and rocks pulled from the earth". They wear "crude animal skins... poorly stitched together with hair and leather thongs."
> "Whether these tall, gaunt creatures [the ancestors of githyanki and githzerai] were peaceful or savage, cultured or *primitive *before the mind flayers enslaved and changed them, none can say."
> "Lizardfolk are *primitive *reptilian humanoids that lurk in the swamps and jungles of the world."
> "*Primitive *Wanderers. Ogres clothe themselves in animal pelts and uproot trees for use as crude tools and weapons."
> 
> Hill giants have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They are "raging bullies", "selfish, dimwitted brutes" whose "laziness and dullness would long ago have spelled their end if not for their formidable size and strength".
> Lizardfolk have INT 7. They eat other humanoids and also sacrifice them to their god.
> Ogres have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They possess "Legendary Stupidity. Few ogres can count to ten, even with their fingers in front of them." They are "lazy of mind", "greedy" (in the sense of avaricious), "gluttons", and have "furious tempers".
> 
> EDIT: *This is a quotation from Elaine Cunningham's Forgotten Realms novel, Daughter of the Drow, which may explain the different usage.




So you're arguing that I shouldn't describe some fictional thing/being as being primitive?  Because???


----------



## Hussar

ccs said:


> So you're arguing that I shouldn't describe some fictional thing/being as being primitive?  Because???





NO.

You shouldn't describe only evil, savage, stupid things as primitive.

See the difference? 

Why do people insist on cherry picking and not seeing the whole?

For S&G, show me three races in the Monster Manual that are Good, peaceful, and highly intelligent that are described as primitive.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> Why do people insist on cherry picking and not seeing the whole?



It’s easier to score a rhetorical slam dunk on a weaker, faked position than it is to critically engage the real one.


----------



## Hussar

I mean, sheesh, someone in this thread has already blocked me apparently, for a position I never even remotely took, and even after several other people pointed out that I never took that position, I've yet to see any back pedaling or retraction.  

As I said, there's nothing wrong with the word shaman.  There's nothing wrong with the word primitive.  You can't pull things out of context and then pretend that there is no issue.


----------



## pemerton

ccs said:


> So you're arguing that I shouldn't describe some fictional thing/being as being primitive?  Because???





Hussar said:


> There's nothing wrong with the word primitive.



For the record, I think describing human cultures as "primitive" is not very desirable. Given that not many people think of themselves as primitive, the terms is strongly suggestive of the perspective of some other culture that is looking down on the "primitives".

I don't want to say there is no need ever to use this sort of terminology. I teach a theoretical sociology course and use the language of "moderntiy" and "pre-modernity" because something is needed to label and explain eg what happened to East Africa between c the first half of the 20th century and c the second. I think _modernity_ is a more useful because more explanatorily powerful lable than _primitive_.

But in the context of D&D I don't think the word "primitive" - or similar language - is needed. D&D doesn't need explanatory anthropological/sociological terms. Orcs and gnolls are as technogoligically sophisticated as the typical human or elvish village. (Dwarves are more sophisticated, but they do not provide a benchmark against which humans or elves are described as "primitive".)

For lizardfolk, rather than describing them as primitive it would make more sense to say that they don't practice metallurgy.

The term _primitive_ seems to be deliberately intended to establish a pejorative perspective.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, do you not see the issue?
> 
> When the term is being borrowed (which is fine) and ONLY applied in negative light, then it becomes a problem.
> 
> Do people really not understand this?   There is nothing wrong with borrowing a word into a language.  Cognates happen all the time.  Heck, Katana is a cognate and there's nothing wrong with using the word Katana to describe a type of sword.  However, if you present a Katana as the ultimate in swordcraft, produced by the epitome of human culture to which all other cultures, particularly neighboring cultures, fall far behind in place in terms of culture and civilization and only a proper, civilized culture could produce a katana and a samurai, then, well, there's some problems here.
> 
> In the same way, D&D presents shaman as only coming from EVIL, SAVAGE, primitive cultures filled with BELOW INTELLIGENCE beings that ravage and pillage, then there is a problem.  The "primitive" part isn't the problem.  The fact that @Sacrosanct had to misquote me and cut off the important bits in order to try to show that I was being racist kinda proves my point.




My point in that post was that primitive, as a negative for something like a tribe of hill giants, seemed perfectly fine because it immediately tells me what I am dealing with. Can a word be used in a bad way? Sure, but that is true whether something is a loan word or not. And I think something fairly harmless like the katana being the ultimate weapon, is fine. 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). I can't really speak to WOTC Shaman, because I stopped playing WOTC D&D in 2008. I will say I am not particularly troubled by how people decide to use shamans in their settings. If having all shamans be evil, would make the setting useful, or if a lot of primitive cultures have them (and obviously a lot of what the players might be fighting could be primitive tribes of monsters with shamans), it doesn't particularly trouble me (I don't see it as commentary on real world shamans, anymore than if there are an inordinate number of evil primitive priests in a setting performing human sacrifice). A lot of this stuff just makes for an interesting and fun place to adventure. But here we are getting very far from the issue of loan words, and borrowing concepts like mana


----------



## Galandris

Doug McCrae said:


> 5e uses the word "primitive" six times in the core rules. Five usages are negative, one is neutral. Emphasis mine.
> 
> PHB:
> "In these yellowed pages were tales of bold heroes, strange and fierce animals, mighty *primitive *gods, and a magic that was part and fabric of that distant land."* (This is the neutral one.)




OK. In this case, primitive I think means primeval, so I agree it's neutral. But I will have a small nitpick on two cases.



> MM:
> "*Primitive*. Hill giants" congregate in "steadings built of rough timber or in clusters of well-defended mud-and-wattle huts... Their weapons are uprooted trees and rocks pulled from the earth". They wear "crude animal skins... poorly stitched together with hair and leather thongs." [...] Hill giants have INT 5 and are chaotic evil. They are "raging bullies", "selfish, dimwitted brutes" whose "laziness and dullness would long ago have spelled their end if not for their formidable size and strength".




Granted, they are not embodying the Noble Savage trope here. Same with Ogre.



> "Whether these tall, gaunt creatures [the ancestors of githyanki and githzerai] were peaceful or savage, cultured or *primitive *before the mind flayers enslaved and changed them, none can say."




I don't see it used negatively. It's just contrasting primitive and cultured. It doesn't imply any moral flaw in being primitive.



> "Lizardfolk are *primitive *reptilian humanoids that lurk in the swamps and jungles of the world." [...]
> Lizardfolk have INT 7. They eat other humanoids and also sacrifice them to their god.




Lizardfolk are also described in the same fluff as "truly neutral creatures" with an alien morality. There is no canonical evil in their eating habit and in their human sacrifices, as they are still neutral. They just see humans as animal, edible and sacrificable, much like we might look at a lizard.  They are only evil according to the MM when enslaved by an evil dragon or when their leaders are corrupted by the evil demon Sessinek. I don't see how the primitive label is used derogatorily there. It's just used as a synonym for "neolithic".


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> For lizardfolk, rather than describing them as primitive it would make more sense to say that they don't practice metallurgy.




This seems a strange way to describe such things. With primitive you basically understand this is a culture that doesn't have technology that is advances as the more advanced cultures around them in the setting. Saying they don't practice metallurgy, isn't terribly clear (is this a moral choice, is this because they are behind technologically, is it because they have a better alternative to metal?). If the point you are trying to make about a group in a setting, is they are still in the stone age, then describing them as primitive, neolithic, etc is a lot more effective than "they don't practice metallurgy". The latter sounds strained to me and is more confusing. That isn't to say you couldn't have a more nuanced take on such a culture in a setting book or monster manual. But it definitely conveys quickly to the GM what they are dealing with, and how they should run them, when you use language like primitive.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> As I said, there's nothing wrong with the word shaman.  There's nothing wrong with the word primitive.  You can't pull things out of context and then pretend that there is no issue.




I understand you are saying the problem isn't the borrowing but the way that the borrowed word gets used (in this case what proportion of primitive cultures and shamans in the game are portrayed as bad). But I think here people are mistaking content for message. I have had tons of games with extremely evil civilized empires, that are much more advanced than many of the other cultures in the setting. That isn't a commentary on civilization. It isn't me saying civilization is evil. It is me finding an advanced and oppressive civilization interesting for gaming purposes. Just like it is possible there are lots of evil primitive monsters and shamans, because that proved interesting to the designers for gaming purposes. Evil is more fun when you are world building. Most of what I invest my energy in are the bad guys. It would be very surprising to me, if we are looking at a monster manual, that most of the entries are not portrayed in some kind of negative light. Primitive evil ogres are a common trope, but so are insufferably arrogant and snobbish elves. Just because something is in the setting, it doesn't mean there is a message about some corresponding idea in the real world.


----------



## Galandris

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand you are saying the problem isn't the borrowing but the way that the borrowed word gets used (in this case what proportion of primitive cultures and shamans in the game are portrayed as bad).




Not all primitive cultures in the MM are labelled as primitive. But we can make the survey with shamans: it occurs 7 times in the MM:


1. Stone giants have shaman. They are "reclusive, quiet and peaceful as long as they are left alone [...] artistry is the greatest value [...] graceful..." They are neutral and as intelligent as humans are. It seems a positive representation.
2 and 3. Lizardfolk have shaman. I see them portrayed as neutral. Alien, but not evil.
4. Quaggoth have shaman. They are evil and warped.
5. Druids in the NPC section are said to act as tribal shaman who heal the sick, pray to animal spirits and provide spiritual guidance. Sounds positive.
6 and 7. Twice in the index, without context.

That's 4 groups having canonical shaman, two described positively (humans NPC druids and stone giants), one neutrally (lizardfolk) and one badly (quaggoth).


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Let's see if I can make a comparison for primitive without crossing some forum line. Primitive vs cultured. Primitive people are violent, savage, and unintelligent and when they don't like something, they scream and shout and destroy things that do not belong to them. Cultured people do not lose their temper and sit down and have reasonable non-violent dialogue and find a peaceful solution to the problem. Neither one of those is true all the time for primitive or cultured. Primitive people can be peaceful and cultured people can get very violent. But primitive has that negative stereotype when applied to a people or society.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

My sense is that 1E's original vision of "shaman" is firmly rooted in early 20th c. ideas of cultural evolution propounded by social anthropologists like James Frazer. In this milieu, it makes sense that terms such as "uncivilized" or "primitive" or "rudimentary" were associated with the word, especially in the context of "savage humanoids." This is the same environment which produced the equally difficult notions of "race" which D&D is still trying to unpack.

_Shaman_ and _shamanism_ are massively problematic terms for anthropologists and ethnologists, as there is no clear consensus regarding either the particular practices which comprise shamanism, or its geographical extent. Is it a Tungusic phenomenon? Tungusic-Altaic? Is the Sami picture a kind of Siberian hinterland? Is shamanism a circumpolar phenomenon? Circumpacific? Can we see "shamanic" ideas underpinning Odin? In Tibetan Buddhism? Can "shamanic" practices be linked to ancestral haplogroups A, C, D and X?

With the 60s, and the conflation of other ideas (e.g. Castaneda's _brujo_ with "shaman;" other medicine traditions), and the further popularization of "Shamanism" as part of the New Age movement, the term became even more muddied. At this point, the idea "shaman" has become so divorced from its original context, that I'm not sure that D&D can commit any more violence against the word than has already been made.

Can't speak to _mana_ as Pacific/Austronesian/Papuan stuff is something I have no experience of.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> With primitive you basically understand this is a culture that doesn't have technology that is advances as the more advanced cultures around them in the setting.



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?

The answer is because _primitive _is a perspective term. It centres a certain group as the norm.



Bedrockgames said:


> If the point you are trying to make about a group in a setting, is they are still in the stone age



And this also reproduces all the problems.

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

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?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

pemerton said:


> 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?
> 
> The answer is because _primitive _is a perspective term. It centres a certain group as the norm.




The native human tribes in Chult prove this wrong.



> And this also reproduces all the problems.
> 
> Why "still"? Is there some inevitable trajectory of technological change?
> 
> 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?




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.


----------



## aramis erak

doctorbadwolf said:


> "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

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> 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.



Enevhar Aldarion said:


> 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!


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> 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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> 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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Hussar said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Never read the Oriental Adventures huh?




I have. I didn't recall katanas being the reason for cultural arrogance in the game, but if it was, fair enough. It is more over-the-top ridiculous than morally bad if that is the case though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> 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.




I don't pay 5E and haven't been especially interested in D&D in recent years. But, like I said before, the issue on whether D&D books are consistently using terms, and whether these terms are useful for game books are two separate issues. If they are not including peaceful primitive races in their monster manual, then that is a problem to me, only in that it is a missed opportunity for interesting entries. Both civilized and primitive can come in shades of good and evil in a setting. Sometimes a given designer is just less interested in a particular shade, and so you won't see it. People don't usually sit down and map these things out in advance (i.e. "I need 2 evil civilized entries, 2 good civilized entries, 2 evil primitive entries, 2 good primitive entires, etc----the result would probably be a little dull if you did it that way). Again, content doesn't equal message.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> 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.




None of the dragons are humanoids.  They're..............dragons.  The ability to change shapes doesn't change the type of creature.  Giants are also not humanoids.  They are humanoid shaped, but not humanoids.  If you were asking for anything with 2 arms, 2 legs and a head, you should have been more clear.



> 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.




Okay, but that's not what you asked about.  You asked why elves don't have them.  They do.  Moving the goal posts!  10 yard penalty!



> But, we were talking about 5e.



Oh, well then the OA and Shamans aren't an issue.  5e doesn't have either one for players to use.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


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




I don't know enough about Chult and forgotten realms to really weigh in on this specific case. I'd be interested if those familiar could say whether this is meant as a racist depiction of Africa (or if it is just loosely drawing off real world cultures to get a particular flavor). 

Personally I have always found it interesting in settings to see ethnicity as incidental to culture. I see settings as thought experiments more than anything else. And the spread of people and ethnicities in a setting is a fun thought experiment (just like the spread of language is a fun thought experiment). Obviously it is inherited so there will be a pattern (unless ethnicity functions totally different in your game world, which it could!). I was very into Ravenloft Growing up and there was a Domain there called Valachan  where all the inhabitants were black (but the culture was clearly intended to be something like German). I believe the reasoning was because the Domain lords was a Panther-Vampire (a very longwinded backstory). When I put out my setting, I didn't have the ethnicities key to real world cultures. I think that works great. One thing I have encountered though is people like short hand to real world cultures and some players do find this a little confusing (I don't think out of racism, but just out of a sense of, they imagine vikings a certain way, and if your vikings in your setting aren't 6', light skinned and fair haired, it throws them off). Personally I prefer settings where the spread of peoples is imagined differently (there is no inherent reason why the white people of a setting ought to become your Europeans, for example; and there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to make new ethnicities and races). But I can see how some people basically want their fantasy world to be pretty analogous to the real world.


----------



## jasper

To me shamans meant a spell caster which was not in PHB so I could wing it as casting what cleric and wizard spells I wanted to. AKA what the party needed or the plot needed. Other than Mana from Heaven I thought Mana was just another way to avoid D&D Magic slots. But I was only an Army Cook and have BS in programming so I not educated in these matters.


----------



## Bedrockgames

jasper said:


> To me shamans meant a spell caster which was not in PHB so I could wing it as casting what cleric and wizard spells I wanted to. AKA what the party needed or the plot needed. Other than Mana from Heaven I thought Mana was just another way to avoid D&D Magic slots. But I was only an Army Cook and have BS in programming so I not educated in these matters.




One of my issues with how these arguments play out, is the bar being set, is only people with certain kinds of advanced degrees, or people who have spent an inordinate amount of time boning up on complex specialties, can handle this kind of material creatively without transgressing.


----------



## SkidAce

Hussar said:


> 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.



The elves in my world have shaman as their divine casters.  Treespeaker etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames

SkidAce said:


> The elves in my world have shaman as their divine casters.  Treespeaker etc.




My elves are the Mongolians of my setting (at least, one group is). They are also truly immortal, only dying from serious illness or physical violence, not from old age (which allowed me to have a bunch of ancient, maimed and grizzled elves in the setting).


----------



## Bacon Bits

Hussar said:


> 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.




There are only 3 good humanoids described in the MM at all: Aarakocra, Sverfneblin, and Werebears. And the last of those is cheating.

It's called the Monster Manual for a reason. In D&D, the game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, the book called the Monster Manual is primarily a book of creatures to fight and kill. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive anthropological anthology of all cultures in a campaign setting. That's what the campaign setting book is for.


----------



## Neonchameleon

One thing worth bringing up here is the moral value of civilisation, whether it is positive or neutral. OD&D had a very much Morcock take with law and civilization inexorably clashing with chaos and the wild and it's up to the people caught in the middle to survive the clash. 4e had Erathis, the explicitly neutral Goddess of Civilisation, in its pantheon (and from memory explicitly worrying some of the other Gods with her experiments) making it clear that civilization was in and of itself neutral rather than good. But most other editions seem to have civilisation as being a positive force which makes uncivilised inherently negative.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

In one of the other  'threads that shall not be named', I asked people how they thought the changes going on with WotC would affect other aspects of the game.  I'd mentioned religion and the words like druid and shaman and how religion is portrayed and the potential of offense in that regard.

I was told to stop making exaggerated comments and focusing on 'what ifs'. 

And here we are.  Funny, huh?


----------



## Olrox17

TaranTheWanderer said:


> In one of the other  'threads that shall not be named', I asked people how they thought the changes going on with WotC would affect other aspects of the game.  I'd mentioned religion and the words like druid and shaman and how religion is portrayed and the potential of offense in that regard.
> 
> I was told to stop making exaggerated comments and focusing on 'what ifs'.
> 
> And here we are.  Funny, huh?



People often ignore (or disagree with) the fact that not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious by default.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Neonchameleon said:


> One thing worth bringing up here is the moral value of civilisation, whether it is positive or neutral. OD&D had a very much Morcock take with law and civilization inexorably clashing with chaos and the wild and it's up to the people caught in the middle to survive the clash.




There is also the Conan approach, where civilization is viewed with a degree of suspicion. One of the themes that keeps coming up is Conan's distrust of cities for examples (despite his attraction to them for the purposes of adventure). Which could be viewed both as wild versus civilized and city versus rural. I've certainly run games with that kind of feel in mind.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Neonchameleon said:


> One thing worth bringing up here is the moral value of civilisation, whether it is positive or neutral. OD&D had a very much Morcock take with law and civilization inexorably clashing with chaos and the wild and it's up to the people caught in the middle to survive the clash. 4e had Erathis, the explicitly neutral Goddess of Civilisation, in its pantheon (and from memory explicitly worrying some of the other Gods with her experiments) making it clear that civilization was in and of itself neutral rather than good. But most other editions seem to have civilisation as being a positive force which makes uncivilised inherently negative.




I think another thing that is interesting about this is people often don't appreciate how different D&D fantasy in general is today than it was early on. By 3rd edition or so, the fantasy aesthetic had really moved away from stuff that I found interesting. I think there has been more of a mainstream fantasy influence, alongside video game fantasy influence over the years. But I think a lot of the fantasy we see in D&D today is descended from that fantasy homogenization we saw in the 80s with fantasy novels. While core 2e fantasy was quite vanilla, I think the thing that still made it appealing for me was you had all these different kinds of worlds, as well as historical campaign books.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

doctorbadwolf said:


> If it is your neighbors, and the report it stolen, and you’re caught with it, you’ve stolen their bike.




Buddy do we really want to have the discussion where we point out that this may be true in the US under various state laws, but in the UK, and in much of the world, this absolutely would not be true and that the real problem here is that the US legal system is hopelessly legalistic (in the bad sense) and obsessed with the letter of the law rather than intent or justice?

Because why muck things up with such a culturally specific example?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> But I think a lot of the fantasy we see in D&D today is descended from that fantasy homogenization we saw in the 80s with fantasy novels.




I feel like a claim like this needs some serious cites, because this is a subject I'm familiar with, and I'm not really seeing it. I'd argue that what you're talking about has little to do with that (there's not much fantasy more homogenized than Dragonlance - it might as well be semi-skimmed milk, and that was 1E era), and an awful lot to do with 3E effectively "inbreeding" D&D, by ignoring most of the cooler stuff that happened in 2E, and trying to "take D&D back to its roots", so instead of mixing D&D and contemporary fantasy or the like, it tried to mix D&D with more D&D and then threw in some D&D for spice. Then chopped up some D&D and put it on top as a garnish.

So 3E is this totally generically D&D-flavoured mess, rather than being influenced by, say, I dunno, Shannara, which you seem to be implying (indeed the only direct 3E literary ref I can immediately recall of is to totally non-homogeneous Book of the New Sun series). 4E moved away from generic D&D a bit by trying to take a bit more of an attitude (which gave us the Feywild and er Garth Marenghi's Darkplace or whatever the other one is called, among other things), but then 5E's momma got scared and sent it to leave with it's aunt and uncle in, errr, Wisconsin and they were D&D through and through, and no-nonsense types who weren't going to tolerate any bad influences like contemporary fantasy. I guess Magic the Gathering is Carlton in this scenario? If the shoe fits...


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don’t know whether what I said was the case, I was just speculating based on what I remember seeing over time. But whatever the actual cause I just know that it was sometime during 3rd edition that I realized the style of fantasy WOTC was interested in, just wasn’t my cup of tea (and that earlier iterations of D&D had a whole other approach to fantasy that people today might find interesting if they are not aware of it).


----------



## Doug McCrae

pemerton said:


> Thinking about system and gameplay, in my view one of the problems D&D faces is ambiguity over the relationship between clerics, druids and MUs.




The default world of 1e is much more humanocentric than 5e. But the creatures the PCs interact with in 1e are not representative. They’ll mostly encounter monsters, including the evil tribal humanoids with their inferior shamans/witch doctors. In the wider, mostly human, world there are MM nomads and tribespeople, druids and later on the Unearthed Arcana barbarian. They’re not quite as subpar as the tribal humanoids – the leader of a band of nomads can be a 10th level fighter, an encounter with tribesmen can include an 8th level cleric – but they are still subpar compared to the urban/cosmopolitan sphere.

You’re right that the cleric is weird because it’s become a synthesis of elements from Christianity and an imagined polytheism.

The magic-user/wizard wields natural magic, in the sense of control over the impersonal occult properties of the natural world. ("Natural" is here used in a much broader sense than D&D uses it to include magical forces.) Though the 4e witch subclass, which I didn’t know about, seems to be an exception to this. The MU/wizard is like a medieval scientist. Jack Vance’s The Dying Earth suggests that magic is now largely performed by rote, the underlying theory having been lost:

"In ages gone... a thousand spells were known to sorcery and the wizards effected their wills. Today, as Earth dies, a hundred spells remain to man's knowledge, and these have come to us through the ancient books"
"I am dissatisfied with the mindless accomplishments of the magicians, who have all their lore by rote."

But the 1e MU isn’t Vancian in this respect. Spell research (DMG pg 115) assumes both a library and a laboratory which implies not merely recovery of lost information but experimentation to discover new knowledge. MU training costs (DMG pg 86) include "equipment, books, experiments, etc."

This passage from James Frazer’s The Golden Bough could almost be describing the magic of the D&D MU/wizard (except that their faith is probably explicit):

Thus its fundamental conception is identical with that of modern science; underlying the whole system is a faith, implicit but real and firm, in the order and uniformity of nature. The magician does not doubt that the same causes will always produce the same effects, that the performance of the proper ceremony, accompanied by the appropriate spell, will inevitably be attended by the desired result, unless, indeed, his incantations should chance to be thwarted and foiled by the more potent charms of another sorcerer. He supplicates no higher power: he sues the favour of no fickle and wayward being: he abases himself before no awful deity.​​Unlike the Frazer-ian magician, the D&D wizard's magic works and their understanding of theory is correct.

I agree that in terms of what the MU/wizard actually does there’s quite a bit of overlap with the druid. D&D has a lot of class overlap problems because of the way it was built up by accretion, drawing on many different sources along the way. This wasn’t an issue in 1974 OD&D because there were only three classes – fighting man, magic-user, cleric.



pemerton said:


> the "witch"/pagan role in the gameworld which, in part, is a way of looking at the rural aspects of religion and spirituality through the urban/cosmopolitan lens.




The Satanic witch is imo the rural service magician viewed through the early modern urban/cosmopolitan lens, while the current neo-pagan witch is the rural service magician viewed thru the modern urban/cosmopolitan lens.

The 5e warlock class represents the former. It’s a bit weird having a class that represents a group as viewed from the perspective of its enemies, albeit altered to be no longer evil. The OD&D Chaotic (evil) cleric – a sort of Satanist, anti-Christian, or Conan-esque Evil High Priest – is in one way less weird, because it was written by those enemies, but in another it's weirder because they're allowing it as a PC.

In a fantastic magical world like that of D&D there’s no reason for the rural to be inferior to the urban/cosmopolitan. Everyone could have access to equally potent magic and other powers. But there’s been a persistent association of “tribe”, “primitive”, low intelligence, evil alignment, superstition, idolatry, and inferior magic. This has gotten worse in 5e compared with 3e and 4e.

Strangely two of the most important sources for D&D – Conan and Tolkien (The Hobbit/LotR) – don’t present the rural world as inferior to the urban/cosmopolitan. Howard considers it superior. Tolkien is a bit more equivocal – Gondor is a positive example of the urban/cosmopolitan – but I think he’s opposed to modernity, particularly industrialisation. The Two Towers: "Saruman… set some of his precious machinery to work… up came fires and foul fumes: the vents and shafts all over the plain began to spout and belch. Several of the Ents got scorched and blistered. One of them… got caught in a spray of some liquid fire and burned like a torch: a horrible sight." Letter #75:

There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare... it attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. So we come inevitably from Daedalus and Icarus to the Giant Bomber. It is not an advance in wisdom!​
Tolkien seems to be set against all human power, no matter its source. Industrialisation is a bad thing because it has produced the greatest amount of power in human hands. He wouldn’t like the high level D&D MU/wizard!


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> Buddy do we really want to have the discussion where we point out that this may be true in the US under various state laws, but in the UK, and in much of the world, this absolutely would not be true and that the real problem here is that the US legal system is hopelessly legalistic (in the bad sense) and obsessed with the letter of the law rather than intent or justice?




I am pretty sure they are fond of their legal traditions, that's why Iet it drop (though it was fun, as a public prosecutor, to have people explain me what constitute theft... I specifically mentionned that it might be the case in their juridiction but it was not enough obviously). However, I feel it might explain some of the disconnect in this thread...



> Because why muck things up with such a culturally specific example?




I feel that some people consider that acts can be judged with no consideration for intent or contex, and therefore ascribe the same level of guilt to someone who takes a word from a culture, butcher its meaning and use it as a way to demean said culture, and people who just takes that word, disconnected from its root, and use it without ill intent, even aknowledging its polysemy in some case. If one considers that "stealing the word mana and using it to describe anything that isn't how the original users of the word did" is wrong, it doesn't matter if you're doing it with ill-intent (to simplify or insult said culture), with no ill intent but just misunderstanding the word in the first place, or with no ill intent and disconnecting it completely from its original meaning.

I am seeing different behaviour, not all morally equal, between these examples:
a) using ayatollah as a derogatory term from an intransigent authority with no link to great knowledge of Islam
b) using czar as a term for an authority who have the last word on a policy
c) using mana to say that polynesian belief was something it is not
d) using mana to mean "magic bar" without linking it to any original meaning
e) using hamburger to designate something that doesn't come from Hamburg
f) using PJs to designate a night clothing and not the Indian original meaning of pyjama.

But maybe people coming from a "legalistic" culture, to borrow your term, will consider some (all?) of these behaviours to be equal as they all can be reduced to "taking a word from another language and assign it another meaning" if you don't consider the intent of the speaker.I may be reading too much into that but I feel debaters in this thread have a hard time even understanding each other's position.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> I am pretty sure they are fond of their legal traditions, that's why Iet it drop (though it was fun, as a public prosecutor, to have people explain me what constitute theft... I specifically mentionned that it might be the case in their juridiction but it was not enough obviously). However, I feel it might explain some of the disconnect in this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that some people consider that acts can be judged with no consideration for intent or contex, and therefore ascribe the same level of guilt to someone who takes a word from a culture, butcher its meaning and use it as a way to demean said culture, and people who just takes that word, disconnected from its root, and use it without ill intent, even aknowledging its polysemy in some case. If one considers that "stealing the word mana and using it to describe anything that isn't how the original users of the word did" is wrong, it doesn't matter if you're doing it with ill-intent (to simplify or insult said culture), with no ill intent but just misunderstanding the word in the first place, or with no ill intent and disconnecting it completely from its original meaning.
> 
> I am seeing different behaviour, not all morally equal, between these examples:
> a) using ayatollah as a derogatory term from an intransigent authority with no link to great knowledge of Islam
> b) using czar as a term for an authority who have the last word on a policy
> c) using mana to say that polynesian belief was something it is not
> d) using mana to mean "magic bar" without linking it to any original meaning
> e) using hamburger to designate something that doesn't come from Hamburg
> f) using PJs to designate a night clothing and not the Indian original meaning of pyjama.
> 
> But maybe people coming from a "legalistic" culture, to borrow your term, will consider some (all?) of these behaviours to be equal as they all can be reduced to "taking a word from another language and assign it another meaning" if you don't consider the intent of the speaker.I may be reading too much into that but I feel debaters in this thread have a hard time even understanding each other's position.




Interesting. I do think though that all the stuff Aldarc has linked/quote showed a far more nuanced opinion than a legalistic one devoid of context and intent, and asked people to think about the usage, rather than suggesting they were "offenders" for using (indeed the last quote was very positive about it).

But it does explain to some extent, some of the very defensive reactions from people to certain things - things which aren't accusations, in that they're not intended to carry moral judgment or the like, merely to inform, but which people take as pretty serious allegations. And generally I note there are a lot of people who get disproportionately upset (just in the world generally) when cultural appropriation is discussed, which is a neutral term describing an act with no inherent moral characteristics (hence appropriation, rather than a weighted word like theft), which is a natural part of humanity, but can become problematic when it takes on certain forms (particularly a powerful culture taking a lot from a weak one, especially if they weaken the value of the "IP" as it were, or misinterpret, misunderstand, or cheaply use sacred stuff).

Oddly with mana I feel like it's a slightly passe term. It's still used a lot, but much less in TT RPGs than CRPGs/MMOs.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> One of my issues with how these arguments play out, is the bar being set, is only people with certain kinds of advanced degrees, or people who have spent an inordinate amount of time boning up on complex specialties, can handle this kind of material creatively without transgressing.




You mean, doing things like looking up words in a dictionary?


----------



## Hussar

TaranTheWanderer said:


> In one of the other  'threads that shall not be named', I asked people how they thought the changes going on with WotC would affect other aspects of the game.  I'd mentioned religion and the words like druid and shaman and how religion is portrayed and the potential of offense in that regard.
> 
> I was told to stop making exaggerated comments and focusing on 'what ifs'.
> 
> And here we are.  Funny, huh?




You are also ignoring the fact that you were told that if something else came up with specific issues, then we could deal with that too.  See, you'll note that beholders and dragons and demons are still not being talked about, because there are no specific issues that can be pointed to, along with supporting evidence as to why they are a problem.

That's why you were told to stop making exaggerated comments.  Not that your comments were impossible, but, because you were just shooting in the dark.  Throw out enough stuff and sure, some of it is possibly true.  But, since you weren't actually pointing to the specific problems, but, rather, just endlessly throwing out "what ifs", that was the problem.

Here we have a specific problem, complete with supporting evidence as to why it's a problem.  Again, if we deal with the ACTUAL issues instead of inventing problems where none exist, maybe it's easier to move forward.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> You mean, doing things like looking up words in a dictionary?




No


----------



## Eltab

Bedrockgames said:


> 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.



The Inca Empire and the Aztecs come to mind immediately.

The Native tribes of the future USA did not develop ironworking at all.

The Yanomamo villages (Brazil / Venezuela border) still did not do metalworking of their own in the 1980's; they traded for steel-bladed knives &c.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Hussar said:


> You are also ignoring the fact that you were told...



Yup, that's pretty much what it was.  I was being told.



Hussar said:


> That's why *you were told *to stop making exaggerated comments. Not that your comments were impossible, but, because you were just shooting in the dark.




Shooting in the dark?  Making exaggerated comments about religion and how people might be offended?  The thing you are vehemently arguing about in this thread?  Too bad we couldn't have had a civil discussion about it in the last thread.


----------



## Hussar

Yes Exactly that. Shooting in the dark. 

Religious people might be offended is so broad and vague that it’s pretty much guaranteed to turn out true. 

People with shamanic traditions are having their culture appropriated is somewhat more specific and can be talked about.


----------



## Mercurius

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> This is another one. I am not Asian, nor have I ever trained in any real martial arts or eastern religious practices, but if I believe ki/chi is real and I have it and can learn to use it, nobody better try to tell me I am appropriating anything just because I was not born into that culture.





doctorbadwolf said:


> This comes across as very “I can wear a bindi if I want to!” style entitled.




Except its not. ki/chi (or prana) are Asian words used to refer to vital energy; no culture owns the vital energy--it is (to those who believe in or experience it) part of the human make-up.


----------



## Mercurius

I thought this quote from Michael Harner might help clarify the shaman and shamanism:



> The word "shaman" in the original Tungus language refers to a person who makes journeys to nonordinary reality in an altered state of consciousness. Adopting the term in the West was useful because people didn't know what it meant. Terms like "wizard," "witch," "sorcerer," and "witch doctor" have their own connotations, ambiguities, and preconceptions associated with them. Although the term is from Siberia, the practice of shamanism existed on all inhabited continents.
> 
> After years of extensive research, Mircea Eliade, in his book, _Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy_, concluded that shamanism underlays all the other spiritual traditions on the planet, and that the most distinctive feature of shamanism—but by no means the only one—was the journey to other worlds in an altered state of consciousness.
> 
> "...in our culture many consider it avant-garde if a person talks about the mind-body connection, but the fact that the brain is connected to the rest of the body is not the most exciting news. It's been known for hundreds and thousands of years. What's really important about shamanism, in my opinion, is that the shaman knows that we are not alone. By that I mean, when one human being compassionately works to relieve the suffering of another, the helping spirits are interested and become involved."​
> Shamans are often called "see-ers" (seers), or "people who know" in their tribal languages, because they are involved in a system of knowledge based on firsthand experience. Shamanism is not a belief system. It's based on personal experiments conducted to heal, to get information, or do other things. In fact, if shamans don't get results, they will no longer be used by people in their tribe. People ask me, "How do you know if somebody's a shaman?" I say, "It's simple. Do they journey to other worlds? And do they perform miracles?"




Harner goes on to say that shamanism is a "method, not a religion." Thus a shaman is a person who engages in shamanism, or shamanic practices.

I think the key here is that a shaman utilizes altered or trance states--whether through meditative practices or psychedelic substances. There is no ownership of this idea, despite it--like all words--having a specific etymological root. Just as any human being can theoretically harness ki/chi energy, so too can anyone practice shamanism. Altered states of consciousness are universal.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Hussar said:


> Religious people might be offended is so broad and vague that it’s pretty much guaranteed to turn out true.
> 
> People with shamanic traditions are having their culture appropriated is somewhat more specific and can be talked about.




You mean this vague conversation some of us had about shamans?  Which is (also) relevant to this thread.



Spoiler: Conversation about Shamans in the other thread






Doug McCrae said:


> You're right. Lizardfolk alignment in 5e is very peculiar imo and doesn't make much sense given their behaviour and the fact they are sentient. They almost seem to be permitted to escape the normal good/evil judgement. 5e Monster Manual:
> 
> 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...
> 
> Any creature that enters their territory is fair game to be stalked, killed, and devoured. They make no distinction between humanoids, beasts, and monsters...
> 
> Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.
> 
> I'd say they are definitely evil. They also of course fit a colonialist narrative of "primitive" races practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. They have shamans, which are often associated with non-white people.
> 
> EDIT: The entry doesn't seem to understand that D&D alignment is supposed to be objective, not subjective. It doesn't matter if lizardfolk have "no notion of traditional morality".






Cadence said:


> With that portrayal (which feels more lizard than human) what is the downside to just reclassifying them as monstrous instead of humanoid, and not using the word shaman for their casters?






Dire Bare said:


> We do have to be careful not to diminish the concepts of tribal and shaman. We still have tribal societies in the real world, often with shamans being an important part of the cultural and religious practices.
> 
> I don't think it's a problem to have tribal societies in D&D, and I don't think it's a problem to have shamans. The problem lies when a specific race is locked in as a shamanistic, tribal group . . . also with descriptors like barbaric, savage, bestial, chaotic, etc.
> 
> In fact, I've long felt D&D needs a shaman class as one of the core classes alongside the cleric and druid. We got that in 4E, but that was a brief moment.
> 
> I don't think we need to give up on any of these themes. Well, I'd dump "advanced" vs "primal".
> 
> We should just avoid assigning these themes as defining characteristics of D&D's races. Orcs shouldn't always fall on the wilderness, primal, warlike, and expansionist ends of these spectra, especially all at once.






Cadence said:


> Definitely. I was thinking that if it was decided something was monstrous (instead of humanoid) then describing them with the language we use for real world groups of humans seemed problematic.
> 
> I didn't play 4e much, but liked the way PF presented Shaman's as a divine caster type that just had a different source of power (in this case nature spirits).   In that context, it feels like the divine casters of various creature types should just be referred to by their power source.  If the lizard folk caster gets their power from a god, they're just a cleric like any other.






TaranTheWanderer said:


> Why do we need Cleric/Druid/Shaman anyways?  Are these not just references to a culture's holy people?
> 
> Why not just 'Holy Person'?
> 
> Break them into subclasses, like Nature/Structured (or whatever, I'm at a loss for a good adjective) that include druids and clerics.  Then you don't have the druid and the redundant nature cleric.






Dire Bare said:


> Why do we need the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock? And really, outside of metagame mumbo-jumbo, what's the real difference between an "arcane" caster and a "divine" caster?
> 
> Why have the fighter, paladin, barbarian, and ranger as separate classes? How different really is the rogue from the fighter? What the heck is a bard anyway?
> 
> Which character archetypes get full classes, or subclasses, or some other game construct (prestige class, kit, feat, etc) is subjective and there is no single right way to do it.
> 
> But considering the class list we have in D&D now, the concept of a shaman is different enough from that of a cleric or druid that it warrants it's own class. IMO, of course.






TaranTheWanderer said:


> My point with the Shaman was, rather than add a new 'similar' class, why not just fold it into an existing one and make the existing ones a bit more flexible?  I mean, it was just a suggestion.  I'm not sure WotC is going to make any changes to the existing classes other than some descriptive wording.  Holy Person is a lot more generic.


----------



## Campbell

When you use terms like primitive and advanced to describe cultures and societies to me it indicates buying into the flawed notion of social progress or cultural evolution. For the longest time we treated the development of societies on a scholarly level like a straight line as if the move from hunter gatherer to agrarian to feudalism to nation state were some sort of natural evolutionary process instead of just an accident of history. The idea is that indigenous or tribal societies are somehow lesser than societies where people build cities, plant flags, and keep standing armies - that centralized power structures are better than decentralized ones.

That's a notion that sociology is for the most part leaving behind. \

The indigenous cultures that are often referred to as primitive have knowledge and techniques that we lack. They have sophisticated social relationships, cultural touchstones, and systems of belief.

Here's the thing - we do not lose anything when we embrace the rich cultures of the indigenous.  We can still feature indigenous antagonists as long as we do it with care. We do not have to be perfect, but we should always try to be better,

The following quotes come from Pathfinder Second Edition's rendition of the Lizardfolk. I think it maintains their place as a possible antagonist while hinting a deeper, sophisticated culture.



			
				Lost Omens Character God p. 47 said:
			
		

> *Lizardfolk*
> 
> Known as iruxi in their native tongue, these primordial reptiles have held themselves apart from the mammalianmasses for eons, secure in their customs as self-sufficient hunters, naturalists, and warriors. But as younger civilizations have encroached ever deeper upon the lizardfolk’s ancestral lands, isolation has ceased to be an option for this pragmatic society. Now, for the first time in centuries, a younger generation of lizardfolk is venturing outward to trade, study, adventure, and do what their people do best: endure.






			
				 Lost Omens Character Guide p. 56 said:
			
		

> *Society*
> 
> Known among themselves as iruxi, lizardfolk are raised communally from the moment they break from their shells. They have an oral tradition stretching back thousands of years, brought to life through epic poems, evocative carvings, and ancestral rites performed among fields of fossilized bone. Lizardfolk are passionate astrologers with one eye on the future. If they seem slow to act, it is because their long history has taught them the value of patience.
> 
> The simple villages most outsiders associate with iruxi are the homes of migrants in outlying regions. True iruxi settlements are often overlooked, as they are partially or mostly submerged in water. These glass and stone complexes bear the mark of every generation of lizardfolk that lived within them, and lizardfolk bones often adorn the walls, as many lizardfolk believe these remains can be animated by ancestral spirits when the residents are in danger.






			
				Pathfinder 2 Bestiary p. 230 said:
			
		

> *Lizardfolk Relations*
> 
> Though most are neutral in alignment, the typical iruxi’s pride in their traditions, suspicion of others, and need to protect their kin can make them seem standoffish or even aggressive when encountered. However, most are eager to learn from visitors, trade stories and equipment, and forge alliances.


----------



## Hussar

TaranTheWanderer said:


> You mean this vague conversation some of us had about shamans?  Which is (also) relevant to this thread.




Even a stopped clock is right twice a day?  Even a blind squirrel finds nuts once in a while?  Take your pick.

The point is, fixing this problem is relatively simple.  Shaman is not defined in 5e.  It's not a class.  It's not anything.  So, wouldn't the simplest solution be to get out your word processing program of choice, click on find/replace and replace "shaman" with "druid"?  It would change exactly 7 words in the Monster Manual and would solve the problem.  Druids are not an issue (as far as I know) and since druids belong to both good and evil races, there's no issue there either.

Poof.  Problem solved. 

Why does this take eight pages of discussion to resolve?  Oh, that's right.  It's gets resolved on the second page, and then we have 6 more pages of sidebars, pedantic handwringing, and the occassional shot about how none of us are actually qualified to have an opinion and how this is all just people fabricating an issue to get attention.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Hussar said:


> The point is, fixing this problem is relatively simple.  Shaman is not defined in 5e.  It's not a class.  It's not anything.  So, wouldn't the simplest solution be to get out your word processing program of choice, click on find/replace and replace "shaman" with "druid"?  It would change exactly 7 words in the Monster Manual and would solve the problem.  Druids are not an issue (as far as I know) and since druids belong to both good and evil races, there's no issue there either.
> 
> Poof.  Problem solved.




Except if you are going to go by any historical version of Shaman, you have to do the same for Druid, and Druids are Celtic in origin. So don't insult the Celts if you don't want to insult the real world peoples who had Shamans. Same thing with Witch Doctors or Medicine Men. They all come from specific real cultures. If people don't like the use of Shaman, then they need to come up with a word that is generic as possible for that role. Or we could drag the whole OA argument over here and use one of the Japanese names for a Shaman, like Fusha or Miko.


----------



## Derren

Another case of someone playing the white knight again by insisting that somewhere, someone on the planet is offended and that everyone must cater to this unknown person.
And of course it doesn't matter if there really is someone who is offended or how silly the supposed reason for that is.

News flash: There is no problem. So no need to "solve" it.


----------



## Maxperson

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Except if you are going to go by any historical version of Shaman, you have to do the same for Druid, and Druids are Celtic in origin. So don't insult the Celts if you don't want to insult the real world peoples who had Shamans. Same thing with Witch Doctors or Medicine Men. They all come from specific real cultures. If people don't like the use of Shaman, then they need to come up with a word that is generic as possible for that role. Or we could drag the whole OA argument over here and use one of the Japanese names for a Shaman, like Fusha or Miko.



And you have to get rid of Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Elves, Dwarves, Wizards and Warlocks(and even more) which all have real world correlations.  We wouldn't want the wrong cultures appropriating them.


----------



## Derren

Maxperson said:


> And you have to get rid of Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Elves, Dwarves, Wizards and Warlocks(and even more) which all have real world correlations.  We wouldn't want the wrong cultures appropriating them.




As usual in such "discussions", appropriating white cultures is totally fine because "they got the power!".


----------



## Aldarc

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Except if you are going to go by any historical version of Shaman, you have to do the same for Druid, and Druids are Celtic in origin. So don't insult the Celts if you don't want to insult the real world peoples who had Shamans. Same thing with Witch Doctors or Medicine Men. They all come from specific real cultures. If people don't like the use of Shaman, then they need to come up with a word that is generic as possible for that role. Or we could drag the whole OA argument over here and use one of the Japanese names for a Shaman, like Fusha or Miko.



I would honestly almost prefer going the Starfinder route: the equivalents of the cleric, druid, shaman, psion, etc. were all put under the umbrella class of “mystic.” To the best of my knowledge, the term “mystic” does not have its root in a particular culture. It equalizes conceptions of spirituality without the usual stratifications.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I would honestly almost prefer going the Starfinder route: the equivalents of the cleric, druid, shaman, psion, etc. were all put under the umbrella class of “mystic.” To the best of my knowledge, the term “mystic” does not have its root in a particular culture. It equalizes conceptions of spirituality without the usual stratifications.




The term mystic is fine for a Sci-Fi setting but TBH it does not evoke much of an image in my mind as do the words - cleric, druid, shaman or psion. For D&D cleric to me - is synonymous with war-priest, belonging to an order, the mystic to me is not that.


----------



## Hussar

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Except if you are going to go by any historical version of Shaman, you have to do the same for Druid, and Druids are Celtic in origin. So don't insult the Celts if you don't want to insult the real world peoples who had Shamans. Same thing with Witch Doctors or Medicine Men. They all come from specific real cultures. If people don't like the use of Shaman, then they need to come up with a word that is generic as possible for that role. Or we could drag the whole OA argument over here and use one of the Japanese names for a Shaman, like Fusha or Miko.




Why?  Who is complaining about the Druid?   Is there some issue with druid that has been brought up or are you inventing issues that don't exist.


----------



## Hussar

/edit - nope, not sinking to that level.  My bad.


----------



## Hussar

Derren said:


> Another case of someone playing the white knight again by insisting that somewhere, someone on the planet is offended and that everyone must cater to this unknown person.
> And of course it doesn't matter if there really is someone who is offended or how silly the supposed reason for that is.
> 
> News flash: There is no problem. So no need to "solve" it.




Or, alternatively, there are people in the world with a modicum of empathy for their fellow humans and would like to make the world just a tiny bit better instead of pretending that everything is all rainbows and sunny days.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Derren has earned a vacation from the thread.


----------



## aramis erak

Galandris said:


> Current members of the holy Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and Malta would certainly disagree on your last point.



The several I've known, including two chaplains, would not use the term Paladin for themselves. All of them are at least vaguely familiar with the term in its D&D usage, (You meet some interesting folk when you work at the archdiocesan cathedral)


----------



## Bagpuss

Sorry but that's just how language works. Cultures meet they interact and they share words from each other. It's why we have terms like pyjamas, bungalows and veranda.

It is interesting to know the origins of words and how words change overtime, but we aren't about to stop using a word that we all have an understand of in game, and there is no reason we should.


----------



## aramis erak

Ruin Explorer said:


> Buddy do we really want to have the discussion where we point out that this may be true in the US under various state laws, but in the UK, and in much of the world, this absolutely would not be true and that the real problem here is that the US legal system is hopelessly legalistic (in the bad sense) and obsessed with the letter of the law rather than intent or justice?
> 
> Because why muck things up with such a culturally specific example?



In the case of a discussion which seems to center around «shaman», «druid», and «mana» being bad when used in D&D because they aren't used in their correct cultural context of origin, and are applied only to primitives in D&D, and D&D is largely written by subjects of the US, within the US, for a still largely US-dominated market, with US Law being its relevant baseline under which it works...


----------



## Sadras

I must say after all these threads about shamans and tribes, it does make me want to revisit lizard men.
Note to self: Must find a way to have the PCs return to the _Mere of the Dead Men _or the _Malpheggi Swamp_ (in the other campaign).


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

pemerton said:


> @Doug McCrae
> 
> Your textual analyses are thorough.
> 
> Thinking about system and gameplay, in my view one of the problems D&D faces is ambiguity over the relationship between clerics, druids and MUs.
> 
> This post isn't going to unpack every aspect of the issue, but will try and set out what I see as the basic problem.
> 
> Clerics are, at their core, heavily armed and armoured religious warriors who work channel the power of the divine to work miracles of healing, divining, turning sticks into snakes, dispelling evil spirits, and sometimes calling down doom upon their enemies. They are not allowed to be true neutral: they are proselytising and they establish fortresses from which they rule the land, extracting taxes and tithes. We know from the paladin class entry in the AD&D PHB (p 24) that clerics can be nobles.
> 
> In summary, clerics are a mix of Biblical trope with the mediaeval military orders and warrior bishops. In terms of the divide/contrast I posited upthread, they are urban/cosmopolitan.
> 
> Druids use lighter armour (leather, wooden shields) and spears and knives and "exotic" weapons like scimitars and (in UA) the khopesh. According to the AD&D PHB (p 21) "They hold trees (particularly oak and ash), the sun, and the moon as deities." They must be true neutral, which is (per the DMG p 23) is a "naturalistic ethos" that sees each element of the world as part of the whole, provided that (per the PHB p 33) things do not" become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be." There magic deals extensively with plants, animals, weather and the elements. They can change shape and pass without trace through the woodlands.
> 
> Druids are clearly on the rural side of my contrast. Their outlook and abilities are identifiable as broadly animistic/shamanic. They do not build great temples. They are not proselytisers.
> 
> This cleric/druid relationship starts to break down as soon as clerics - beginning in the PBH but moreso with DDG - are shoved into the polytheistic context without any mechanical or flavour change. In 5e this comes up in the question of the relationship between nature clerics and druids. In 4e it is the problem of the relationship of clerics of Melora to druids.
> 
> In AD&D, if there are clerics of Ehlonna - who are, in virtue of that, presumably bearers of truth about nature - then what is the role of druids and the "old faith"? They must be wrong!
> 
> MUs only further complicate the matter, because while their core tropes (robes, books, alembics) suggest late mediaveal/early modern alchemist types, their magic also overlaps heavily with druids, because they also play the "witch"/pagan role in the gameworld which, in part, is a way of looking at the rural aspects of religion and spirituality through the urban/cosmopolitan lens. Subsequent developments in the game take this further - eg in OA wu jen are a MU subclass but many of their spells and their focus on elements overlaps with druids; in 4e we have witch as a subclass of wizard; etc.
> 
> I think if druids had been treated as a version of MU rather than as a deviant or less form of cleric; if lizardmen and gnolls had druidic religious/cultural leaders rather than the second-tier "shamans" and "witchdoctors"; if 4e had not drawn a sharp distinction between primal and arcane power sources (eg wizards could be "primal" + literacty); then at least this aspect of D&D might have fewer problems.




It is interesting.  In the previous thread I'd mentioned that, perhaps, one way to avoid these kinds of issues is to use terms that fall under a bigger umbrella.

Use terms like Holy Leader - instead of cleric or Shaman.

Then subclasses can be divided into lines such as the ones that you mention.  Rural vs Metropolitan, for example.  You could have animistic-type Holy Leaders, more Bureaucratic Holy Leaders from hierarchical  religions.   Oral tradition vs Literary traditions  etc...

Gets rid of some of the overlap between Nature Clerics and Druids.  Druid can just be a subclass of, what is now, cleric.  Each subclass expanded upon and given special abilities based on its focus.




Hussar said:


> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day?  Even a blind squirrel finds nuts once in a while?  Take your pick.




There were lots of people quoted in my last post.  Was your rude comment directed at all of us engaged in that conversation or just me?  You don't have to answer,  It was a rhetorical question.

Perhaps the issue is you aren't insightful enough to see that problems are multi-faceted?  I do notice you don't engage in discussions that try to dig deeper than what's on the surface but, instead, only comment when you want to disagree with someone. It's unfortunate you see every comment that doesn't conform to your world view as a challenge rather than an opportunity to have a conversation.

I pride myself in not blocking people, regardless of how disrespectful they are.  Regardless, I certainly won't engage your abusive comments anymore.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TaranTheWanderer said:


> It is interesting.  In the previous thread I'd mentioned that, perhaps, one way to avoid these kinds of issues is to use terms that fall under a bigger umbrella.
> 
> Use terms like Holy Leader - instead of cleric or Shaman.
> 
> Then subclasses can be divided into lines such as the ones that you mention.  Rural vs Metropolitan, for example.  You could have animistic-type Holy Leaders, more Bureaucratic Holy Leaders from hierarchical  religions.   Oral tradition vs Literary traditions  etc...
> 
> Gets rid of some of the overlap between Nature Clerics and Druids.  Druid can just be a subclass of, what is now, cleric.  Each subclass expanded upon and given special abilities based on its focus.




To me, these all sound much less evocative than shaman, Druid or cleric. People gravitate towards real world words because they evoke certain flavors. the end result when you take this kind of microscope to the language people use, in my opinion, is a very stifling result. You just end up in a state of constant second guessing and focused on the linguistics, and you get so sidetracked from focusing on the stuff that makes games fun and interesting


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> To me, these all sound much less evocative than shaman, Druid or cleric. People gravitate towards real world words because they evoke certain flavors. the end result when you take this kind of microscope to the language people use, in my opinion, is a very stifling result. You just end up in a state of constant second guessing and focused on the linguistics, and you get so sidetracked from focusing on the stuff that makes games fun and interesting



”Priest” is commonly used outside of D&D instead of “cleric” with basically no problems or people complaining about the term. There are other terms that could work just as well. We have evocative terms like seer, oracle, augur, prophet, soothsayer, and the like.

In the case of “Druid,” we could always use evocative terms like Geomancer or even Ecomancer (to borrow from Pirates of Dark Water) to communicate what the class is about.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Bedrockgames said:


> To me, these all sound much less evocative than shaman, Druid or cleric. People gravitate towards real world words because they evoke certain flavors. the end result when you take this kind of microscope to the language people use, in my opinion, is a very stifling result. You just end up in a state of constant second guessing and focused on the linguistics, and you get so sidetracked from focusing on the stuff that makes games fun and interesting



I tend to agree but was just throwing around ideas.   The idea is that you take the microscope off the language entirely.

The flavour comes from the sub-classes.  There's nothing very evocative about the name 'Fighter'.   Battlemaster is a way cooler name but it's a subclass for a Fighter.  I think the idea is to give people the freedom to turn these classes into whatever they need for their campaigns.  If you want a shaman, choose archetype 'x' and add all the trappings.  If you want a Crusader Cleric Warrior, take archetype 'y'.

I'm still not a fan of some of the overlapping archetypes.  I never saw a reason to have Nature Clerics when Druids already existed and I have, literally, never used a shaman class.  If I have a 'shaman' goblin or something, I just a take a regular goblin and give it spell slots and divine spells.  Which, I suppose, is the issue:  people tend to only use the term Shaman when talking about 'evil' humanoid divine casters.


----------



## Aldarc

I did propose the term “mystic” earlier.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> ”Priest” is commonly used outside of D&D instead of “cleric” with basically no problems or people complaining about the term. There are other terms that could work just as well. We have evocative terms like seer, oracle, augur, prophet, soothsayer, and the like.
> 
> In the case of “Druid,” we could always use evocative terms like Geomancer or even Ecomancer (to borrow from Pirates of Dark Water) to communicate what the class is about.




Sure, but priest is also kind of vanilla because it can apply to anything from a Catholic priest to a Daoist priest. I think when people use terms like shaman or druid, they use them because they bring more flavor to mind on their own. Seer and augur are also very flavorful. I don't think geomancer or ecomancer bring things as quickly to mind as druid does. Again, maybe for a particular setting those would work. I am not saying Druid is the only and best .I just think this taking a fine tooth comb to these names is misguided. You are just taking useful words off the table.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Aldarc said:


> ”Priest” is commonly used outside of D&D instead of “cleric” with basically no problems or people complaining about the term. There are other terms that could work just as well. We have evocative terms like seer, oracle, augur, prophet, soothsayer, and the like.
> 
> In the case of “Druid,” we could always use evocative terms like Geomancer or even Ecomancer (to borrow from Pirates of Dark Water) to communicate what the class is about.



Prophet could be touchy - idk.  These are all good terms though, although, perhaps some are a bit too specific - such as being forms of divination.  Dresden Files does this for spellcasters.  Takes a specialty and adds "mancy" to the end of it such as  Ectomancy(magic dealing with ghosts).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

aramis erak said:


> In the case of a discussion which seems to center around «shaman», «druid», and «mana» being bad when used in D&D because they aren't used in their correct cultural context of origin, and are applied only to primitives in D&D, and D&D is largely written by subjects of the US, within the US, for a still largely US-dominated market, with US Law being its relevant baseline under which it works...




Yeah, that still doesn't make sense, sorry, because this isn't actually a legal issue, it's an _ethical _one. And the particular "bike theft" example relied not ethics at all, but on a peculiarity in part of the US legal system, which many (most?) legal systems do not share.


----------



## Bedrockgames

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Prophet could be touchy - idk.




And this is exactly why these kinds of arguments that stifle language, are not good for creativity in my opinion. Prophet is a perfectly useful word, and it evokes so much. Used accurately, it would be awesome, but it could also bring a lot of flavor if used in a new way. And I think if we are at the point where a word like prophet is a problem, then things are pretty dire in terms of creative freedom.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, but priest is also kind of vanilla because it can apply to anything from a Catholic priest to a Daoist priest.



Feature, not a bug. 



> I think when people use terms like shaman or druid, they use them because they bring more flavor to mind on their own. Seer and augur are also very flavorful. I don't think geomancer or ecomancer bring things as quickly to mind as druid does. Again, maybe for a particular setting those would work. I am not saying Druid is the only and best .I just think this taking a fine tooth comb to these names is misguided. You are just taking useful words off the table.



Off the table? As far as the OP, I said that we should consider how we use these terms.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Feature, not a bug.




It can be. I am not saying priest isn't useful in D&D. But I think it would be a mistake to use priest in place of more flavorful options where more flavor is a good thing.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> It can be. I am not saying priest isn't useful in D&D. But I think it would be a mistake to use priest in place of more flavorful options where more flavor is a good thing.



”Priest” is no less flavorful than “rogue,” “fighter,” or even “wizard.”


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Off the table? As far as the OP, I said that we should consider how we use these terms.




Fair enough, but you are still stifling peoples language. And I think the reason you get such backlash against it is because language and the words we use and know, these are often just natural ways we communicate. When you start making people second guess that, it puts people on edge and it reduces their ability to comfortably be creative. I would liken it to having a boss who goes over every little thing you type in an email or report, and attacks the frills rather than the meat of the material. Enough of that, and it just has a chilling effect on your ability to communicate. And this is fundamentally about communication. 

In the case of how words are used. I just think there are a lot of very bad arguments, perhaps well intentioned, that equate accuracy and authenticity with morally good, and inaccuracy or inauthenticity with morally bad. But that stifles a very important part of creativity and of cultural exchange. Borrowing thing X and using it to create a new thing is what breathes life into stuff. If you can only use it in a certain approved way....I don't know. It just seems like you are killing peoples ability to make new things. Why should the word have to match the original context in any way? Just look at a word like Zombies. Those evolved into their own unique monster when the term was borrowed. Sometimes terms are misunderstood as well, and this accidentally creates something new and interesting. I just don't see why we need to wring our hands over something like that.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is exactly why these kinds of arguments that stifle language, are not good for creativity in my opinion. Prophet is a perfectly useful word, and it evokes so much. Used accurately, it would be awesome, but it could also bring a lot of flavor if used in a new way. And I think if we are at the point where a word like prophet is a problem, then things are pretty dire in terms of creative freedom.



Once again, I agree.   But that's why I wrote IDK.  There's an entire 'book of Prophets' in the Bible.  What are the odds that it will be taken out of context and, then, have to be removed?  It's a minefield.



Aldarc said:


> Feature, not a bug.




I actually don't think Priest is a wide enough umbrella if you want to be inclusive to everyone.  Many religions, including many Christian denominations don't have Priests.  And the religions that do have them could easily make the same argument that are being made for Shaman.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> ”Priest” is no less flavorful than “rogue,” “fighter,” or even “wizard.”




I agree. But we are talking about druids and shamans. I am not saying every word used in the game should have the same level of flavor as druid. I am saying, it is useful to be able to use that kind of word freely in a game.


----------



## Aldarc

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I actually don't think Priest is a wide enough umbrella if you want to be inclusive to everyone.  Many religions, including many Christian denominations don't have Priests.  And the religions that do have them could easily make the same argument that are being made for Shaman.



I suspect that “priest” is more applicable of a term for most spiritual leaders than either “druid,” “cleric,” or “shaman.”


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> Fair enough, but you are still stifling peoples language. And I think the reason you get such backlash against it is because language and the words we use and know, these are often just natural ways we communicate. When you start making people second guess that, it puts people on edge and it reduces their ability to comfortably be creative. I would liken it to having a boss who goes over every little thing you type in an email or report, and attacks the frills rather than the meat of the material. Enough of that, and it just has a chilling effect on your ability to communicate. And this is fundamentally about communication.
> 
> In the case of how words are used. I just think there are a lot of very bad arguments, perhaps well intentioned, that equate accuracy and authenticity with morally good, and inaccuracy or inauthenticity with morally bad. But that stifles a very important part of creativity and of cultural exchange. Borrowing thing X and using it to create a new thing is what breathes life into stuff. If you can only use it in a certain approved way....I don't know. It just seems like you are killing peoples ability to make new things. Why should the word have to match the original context in any way? Just look at a word like Zombies. Those evolved into their own unique monster when the term was borrowed. Sometimes terms are misunderstood as well, and this accidentally creates something new and interesting. I just don't see why we need to wring our hands over something like that.



I am so sorry that my earnest call for us to respectfully consider how we use these culturally misunderstood terms in our fantasy elf game oppresses you as a creative.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Aldarc said:
			
		

> I suspect that “priest” is more applicable of a term for most spiritual leaders than either “druid,” “cleric,” or “shaman.”




I agree. I understand that _priest_ might have narrower connotations for members of certain groups or denominations, but it's the only relatively neutral catch-all term we have - phenomenologically speaking.

In our world, a shaman is someone who:

Uses ecstasy as a method to contact a spirit or divine world and "travel" within it
Acts as an intercessor for spirits to purportedly effect changes in our world - especially divination and healing
Exhibits dress, speech and other behaviours which set them apart from "regular people"
Occupies a social role which permits/requires the violation of certain taboos
In the D&D-verse, a shaman is someone who acts as a religious functionary for "primitive" groups and "savage humanoids" - i.e. a priest.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> I am so sorry that my earnest call for us to respectfully consider how we use these culturally misunderstood terms in our fantasy elf game oppresses you as a creative.




If you want to have a discussion we can have one. If you want to just make snarky quips, I am not going to reply.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Sepulchrave II said:


> I agree. I understand that _priest_ might have narrower connotations for members of certain groups or denominations, but it's the only relatively neutral catch-all term we have - phenomenologically speaking.
> 
> In our world, a shaman is someone who:
> 
> Uses ecstasy as a method to contact a spirit or divine world and "travel" within it
> Acts as an intercessor for spirits to purportedly effect changes in our world - especially divination and healing
> Exhibits dress, speech and other behaviours which set them apart from "regular people"
> Occupies a social role which permits/requires the violation of certain taboos
> In the D&D-verse, a shaman is someone who acts as a religious functionary for "primitive" groups and "savage humanoids" - i.e. a priest.



This is interesting.   So, in essence, the D&D-verse has it backwards?  In my mind, this description of Shaman fits people's perception of a Cleric's role in the game.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Bedrockgames said:


> Enough of that, and it just has a chilling effect on your ability to communicate. And this is fundamentally about communication.






Aldarc said:


> I am so sorry that my earnest call for us to respectfully consider how we use these culturally misunderstood terms in our fantasy elf game oppresses you as a creative.



How do you feel this comment affects communication?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Why?  Who is complaining about the Druid?   Is there some issue with druid that has been brought up or are you inventing issues that don't exist.



Either it's okay to borrow things from other cultures that aren't completely accurate or it isn't okay.  If we aren't supposed to use inaccurate Samurai, then Japan and other non-Celtic cultures aren't supposed to use inaccurate Druids.  It's not a pick and choose sort of thing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> ... my earnest call for us to respectfully consider how we use these culturally misunderstood terms ...




Focusing on the non-snark , I think this isn't what you are doing. Like I said, it may be well-intentioned. This may be your intention. But if you look at my post I was commenting on how authentic and accurate is being equated with morally good (and in this case I think you are equating 'respectful' largely with authentic and accurate. I don't think people have to understand a term in its original context in order to use it, and to use it without being disrespectful. But the bar for something being considered disrespectful is so low here, and that is the problem. I do get your intentions. But I think the result is people just feel like they are having their words policed. And I don't think that is good for creators, or for gamers. It produces more pablum content.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> ”Priest” is commonly used outside of D&D instead of “cleric” with basically no problems or people complaining about the term. There are other terms that could work just as well. We have evocative terms like seer, oracle, augur, prophet, soothsayer, and the like.




Priests are commonly used in multiple religions and would probably offend some people.


----------



## Aldarc

Bedrockgames said:


> If you want to have a discussion we can have one. If you want to just make snarky quips, I am not going to reply.



It may be best if you don’t then. It’s scarcely a discussion if you are just gonna accuse me of being an oppressor of language and creativity just because I suggested a little critical and cultural reflection on how we use words in our hobby.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I suspect that “priest” is more applicable of a term for most spiritual leaders than either “druid,” “cleric,” or “shaman.”



So it's okay to be offensive to people, so long as you aren't offending the groups you've decided shouldn't be offended?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> It may be best if you don’t then. It’s scarcely a discussion if you are just gonna accuse me of being an oppressor of language and creativity just because I suggested a little critical and cultural reflection on how we use words in our hobby.




I don't mind you being clear in what you think of my position. And I am going to continue being clear with you as well. We can do that respectfully. You've essentially said people in the course of these threads people are being culturally disrespectful, potentially even racist, by misappropriating terminology. I am totally fine with you making that argument. I disagree with it, but if that is your position, it is good for us to understand that is your position and for you to make it clear. My response to that post was all about the way you said it, it was insulting and it put words in my mouth. I feel like I have been respectful to you in this discussion. I haven't pulled my punches when it comes to saying what I think is bad about your argument, but I haven't engaged in that kind of snark. I don't want to derail the thread, so this is the last I will comment on this.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> ...accuse me of being an oppressor of language and creativity just because I suggested a little critical and cultural reflection on how we use words in our hobby.




I am just pointing out what I think is negative about the position you have been taking, and about the trend your positions are part of. It isn't a discussion if we can't honestly disagree with your conclusions, and if we can't point to why we think that are not good conclusions. What we've seen in thread after thread, in my opinion, isn't just a little critical and cultural reflection. We've seen a constant call to vet language and content, in ways, I personally think, are counter-productive, and harmful to creativity in the hobby. One of the ways I think it is harmful is it stifles communication, it makes people second guess what words they use, and it creates an atmosphere where you are walking on eggshells all the time. It is also, in my opinion, harmful because it often falls along class/educational lines (and I think this is hard to see if you are steeped in this conversation or come from a strong academic background). I get that you see it as a mere call for self reflection, to be more respectful. But I think where you set the bar on what is and isn't respectful, is part of why this kind of thinking produces the outcomes I am talking about. My goal here isn't to insult you or be disrpecftul it is to persuade you and to point to an argument that I think creates more problems than it solves (and personally I don't think it even solves any problems).


----------



## Doug McCrae

If terminology was never criticised, D&D would still have "Fighting Man" as a class.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> If terminology was never criticised, D&D would still have "Fighting Man" as a class.




I think what people are reacting to is the constancy and intensity of it these days. No one is saying criticism is never valid. They are saying this feels like being in a room with someone who is constantly telling you 'don't step there', 'and definitely don't step there'. I am sure there are plenty of people in this thread who are having this experience with it. I know I did. For a while I was able to track all these conversations and concerns but it reached a point where, just to be creative, I had to tune it out. I think what is going on, is a lot of writers and designers now are just weary of hearing the thousand voices from the internet in their heads when they sit down to make something. But on the other end, as a consumer, I am growing weary of products that are overly vetted, and just, like I said before, pablum, because they have to pass so many filters in order to be considered appropriately wholesome.


----------



## Campbell

I think there is a difference in kind between the way D&D has classically used Clerics, Druids, and Paladins.

From my perspective this is not completely about accuracy. We are talking about marginalized cultures here. The depictions of shamans and witch doctors seen in pop culture are often used to reinforce negative stereotypes of indigenous people.

I am fine with shamans in D&D if just a standard good faith effort is made not to reinforce those negative stereotypes. I just expect creatives to try to do better. I understand there will be missteps. Just like try.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is exactly why these kinds of arguments that stifle language, are not good for creativity in my opinion. Prophet is a perfectly useful word, and it evokes so much. Used accurately, it would be awesome, but it could also bring a lot of flavor if used in a new way. And I think if we are at the point where a word like prophet is a problem, then things are pretty dire in terms of creative freedom.




I think this attitude is the real problem here, frankly.

You're claiming stuff is banned and that creative freedom is "dire", when there's an extremely mild suggestion that people _think_ before they use terms. It's kind of outrageous that people are "upvoting" you on this, when you're basically misleading people, in quite a serious way. Your argument is utterly hypocritical, too - by your own logic, you're policing people's ability to communicate, essentially suggest (again by your own logic) that it's "illegal" for people to ask others to be more thoughtful in their use of language.

It's also amusing to hear someone claim to be a "creative" whilst insisting they don't have to think about the word choices they use. The reality is, any competent creative thinks very carefully about word choices in writing. They may not be thinking "is this harmful", but rather "does this convey what I want", but to imply that being asked to think about usage is unreasonable is just nonsensical in that context.



Bedrockgames said:


> But I think the result is people just feel like they are having their words policed. And I don't think that is good for creators, or for gamers. It produces more pablum content.




The first bit here is you deciding you're the victim, _because you've been asked to think about word usage_. That is ridiculous. Ludicrous. Laughable. It's not a reasonable thing to "feel" in response to such an incredibly mild point.

The second point, re: "pablum", requires citations. You need specific examples of how when mild requests that people think about what words they use have lead directly to low-quality content. If you can't provide these, then that is not a reasonable claim, because it should be extremely easy, if there's a direct causal relationship, and you are asserting a direct causal relationship.



Bedrockgames said:


> But on the other end, as a consumer, I am growing weary of products that are overly vetted, and just, like I said before, pablum, because they have to pass so many filters in order to be considered appropriately wholesome.




Going to need citations on those products, or I'm going to have to say, this is a fiction.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> You're claiming stuff is banned and that creative freedom is "dire", when there's an extremely mild suggestion that people _think_ before they use terms. It's kind of outrageous that people are "upvoting" you on this, when you're basically misleading people, in quite a serious way. Your argument is utterly hypocritical, too - by your own logic, you're policing people's ability to communicate, essentially suggest (again by your own logic) that it's "illegal" for people to ask others to be more thoughtful in their use of language.




No.  "Don't police me." is not the same as policing you.  You are free to curtail your use of whatever words you wish.  If you find 10,000 other people who feel the same way, you can all curtail your own uses of words.  It's when the 10,000 of you try to curtail the use of those words by other people that policing comes into play.


----------



## Aldarc

Campbell said:


> I am fine with shamans in D&D if just a standard good faith effort is made not to reinforce those negative stereotypes. I just expect creatives to try to do better. I understand there will be missteps. Just like try.



These are just the words of an elitist oppressor of languages and creatives everywhere. What’s next? Asking creatives to carefully consider the words we use to refer to marginalized genders, sexualities, nationalities, and ethnicities? Don’t worry, fellow creatives. Sing with me, “We Shall Overcome (Walking on Eggshells)”.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> You're claiming stuff is banned and that creative freedom is "dire", when there's an extremely mild suggestion that people _think_ before they use terms. It's kind of outrageous that people are "upvoting" you on this, when you're basically misleading people, in quite a serious way. Your argument is utterly hypocritical, too - by your own logic, you're policing people's ability to communicate, essentially suggest (again by your own logic) that it's "illegal" for people to ask others to be more thoughtful in their use of language.




It isn't mild, and it isn't small at this stage in my opinion. 

I am not policing anyone. I've invited critiques form you and from Aldarc. But I can criticize the criticism sure? And when the criticism becomes a trend, and impacts how people think when they are making art or designing games, I think it is fair to point out. Especially when it goes beyond that, as it has in recent years and you have calls to put pressure on companies or to boycott, so that products get removed. I think that is where this stuff becomes a big issue. 

If people are upvoting my post, it might be because I am expressing something they are having trouble expressing, but think is true.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> No.  "Don't police me." is not the same as policing you.  You are free to curtail your use of whatever words you wish.  If you find 10,000 other people who feel the same way, you can all curtail your own uses of words.  It's when the 10,000 of you try to curtail the use of those words by other people that policing comes into play.




It absolutely is the same thing.

Either neither of you are policing each other, or you're both policing each other. Claiming one side is and the other isn't, is partisan nonsense with no logical basis.

And in reality, "maybe think about word usage" isn't policing. Policing requires the ability to punish, to incarcerate, and so on. It's ludicrous and frankly incredibly "Princess and the Pea" to act like a mild request like this is policing. And again, if you really think it is, demanding people don't make the suggestion is exactly the same thing. Because you're saying they're not even allowed to suggest it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't mild, and it isn't small at this stage in my opinion.
> 
> I am not policing anyone. I've invited critiques form you and from Aldarc. But I can criticize the criticism sure? And when the criticism becomes a trend, and impacts how people think when they are making art or designing games, I think it is fair to point out. Especially when it goes beyond that, as it has in recent years and you have calls to put pressure on companies or to boycott, so that products get removed. I think that is where this stuff becomes a big issue.




If you don't think this is "mild", you need to explain what was unreasonable in what Aldarc said, without resorting to nonsensical generalizations and vague, unsourced claims of persecution or mysterious "theys" who feel _allegedly _feel persecuted for unclear reasons. You have not presented any kind of reasonable, logical or straightforward argument here. You've merely thrown accusations at Aldarc for suggesting that maybe you think about language use, implying he's a policeman with his boot on your chest, which is just totally laughable.

Be very interested to see those cites on your claims re: pablum. They're very important to your argument here. If you can actually demonstrate harm, instead vague feelings of oppression, then things change a bit. Show us the pablum.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> The first bit here is you deciding you're the victim, _because you've been asked to think about word usage_. That is ridiculous. Ludicrous. Laughable. It's not a reasonable thing to "feel" in response to such an incredibly mild point.




I am not claiming to be a victim. I am telling you how these things impact people trying to be creative. And I am just giving my honest reaction to the state of things in the hobby. I reached a point where I simply had to tune out these conversations because I found it stifling. I don't see how that is painting myself as a victim. And I don't see how it is an unreasonable reaction when you see constant threads on social media (in forums, on twitter, etc) around the topic of the way we use language in gaming. 




> The second point, re: "pablum", requires citations. You need specific examples of how when mild requests that people think about what words they use have lead directly to low-quality content. If you can't provide these, then that is not a reasonable claim, because it should be extremely easy, if there's a direct causal relationship, and you are asserting a direct causal relationship.




I don't think I am required to cite anything. This isn't an academic paper. It is also an issue of not wanting to put products on the spot. All I can say, and I am sure people who share my view on this can also say they have this experience, I've seen a lot of gaming content that appears to be pablum because of the kinds of vetting being done. You can disagree. But you can't demand I provide you with citations. 





> Going to need citations on those products, or I'm going to have to say, this is a fiction.




You can declare it a fiction if you want to. If you think there isn't a lot of pablum out there, and if you think this kind of development isn't contributing to more pablum content, more power to you. All I can say is that is not how I see things.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> It absolutely is the same thing.
> 
> Either neither of you are policing each other, or you're both policing each other. Claiming one side is and the other isn't, is partisan nonsense with no logical basis.




You've just stated the equivalent  of my saying, "Don't punch me." is the same as me punching you.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> If you don't think this is "mild", you need to explain what was unreasonable in what Aldarc said, without resorting to nonsensical generalizations and vague, unsourced claims of persecution. You have not presented any kind of reasonable, logical or straightforward argument here.




I feel like I have provided clear explanations and clear responses to what he has posted (and I've clarified when asked to do so). If that isn't sufficient for you, that is fair. But just declaring my posts illogical or not properly sourced, I don't know. Not really sure how to respond to this. If I haven't persuaded you, then I haven't persuaded you. But honestly what this feels like is you just asking arbitrarily raising the standards for giving an opinion on something. 



> You've merely thrown accusations at Aldarc for suggesting that maybe you think about language use, implying he's a policeman with his boot on your chest, which is just totally laughable.




I don't know how you get this. I said his argument, and the trend it is part of, is causing people to feel like their language is policed. It is a metaphor. Trying to draw a connection to that, and the event you are invoking here, is frankly somewhat repugnant.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> You've just stated the equivalent of my saying, "Don't punch me." is the same as my punching you. It doesn't work that way.




No, this is a false equivalence, and thank you for proving my point.

No-one has committed a physical act against you. No-one has objectively oppressed you. You are claiming instead that you have subjectively experienced oppression, because of a mild request. Equating a mild request to a violent physical assault which might cause very serious harm or even kill (see: "one punch manslaughter") absolutely supports what I'm saying re: partisan and unreasonable arguments.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> I feel like I have provided clear explanations and clear responses to what he has posted (and I've clarified when asked to do so). If that isn't sufficient for you, that is fair. But just declaring my posts illogical or not properly sourced, I don't know. Not really sure how to respond to this. If I haven't persuaded you, then I haven't persuaded you. But honestly what this feels like is you just asking arbitrarily raising the standards for giving an opinion on something.




I've made an extremely reasonable request, which is that you provide examples of the pablum you say this leads to.

If you really don't want to "put products on the spot" (which seems ludicrous unless you never publicly criticise works for being low-quality, but hey, maybe you don't), then PM me some examples. Anyone who has ever PM'd me hear knows I will not repeat anything said in PMs or otherwise make it an issue.

At least then I might be able to understand your perspective re: pablum. This is important because the only actual harm you're claiming here is "creatives" feeling "oppressed" which in your opinion, has lead to "pablum". Unless you are willing to explain further, then you should terminate that line of argument, because you're not willing to actually argue it. No-one is denying that some products suck, and some are better, but I've seen plenty of total trash which had absolute creative freedom, and excellent products created with a bunch of restrictions. And this is a very minor suggestion, not even a restriction.

If you don't like police metaphors, don't use police metaphors. It's hypocritical in the extreme to complain about them after using one. The reality is, no-one is being policed here, and the metaphor is actively unhelpful, as I hope I helped show.



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think I am required to cite anything. This isn't an academic paper. It is also an issue of not wanting to put products on the spot. All I can say, and I am sure people who share my view on this can also say they have this experience, I've seen a lot of gaming content that appears to be pablum because of the kinds of vetting being done. You can disagree. But you can't demand I provide you with citations.




What "vetting"? By whom? When? WotC has literally just decided to start doing this. Looking through history, I can't think of a single RPG product nerfed by "vetting" about this kind of language. I can see 2E was designed somewhat to avoid MADD etc., initially, but 2E certainly wasn't "pablum", and that was something very different - not a suggestion to be careful with language, but an organised campaign to specifically destroy D&D by people who didn't play it.

So I think it's reasonable that, without you pointing out any real incidents at all, and with not having been an industry trend (even now it's hard to argue it is), this is a fiction. 

I can produce counter-examples all day, where books had total creative freedom, but were bad or mediocre, and sometimes wildly racist or sexist or the like to boot. I mean let's start with WoD: Gypsies - clear creative freedom, total trash on literally every level, and wildly racist. Indeed we could say White Wolf offered more creative freedom than TSR did or indeed most contemporaries of White Wolf, in the 1990s, but produced tons of terrible products. Indeed, one might reasonably go as far as to say that WW products which really pushed the boundaries on "creative freedom" in terms of acceptable content, were often lower-quality than their more mainstream products, on a variety levels. Amusing, often, but in a laughing-at kind of way.

So for you to claim that there is a correlation, apparently a strong one, between mild creative suggestions/restrictions (whatever) and "pablum", meaning completely bland and insipid products seems in need of evidence.

The only restriction I can see that does have some evidence that it leads to more insipid works is a much older one than any kind of language deal - it's requiring books to actually sell to a mass audience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> And in reality, "maybe think about word usage" isn't policing. Policing requires the ability to punish, to incarcerate, and so on. It's ludicrous and frankly incredibly "Princess and the Pea" to act like a mild request like this is policing. And again, if you really think it is, *demanding people don't make the suggestion is exactly the same thing*. Because you're saying they're not even allowed to suggest it.




This isn't really what is being done. At least, that isn't what I am doing. I've said time and time again, people can make the criticisms. But I can respond to the critiques and explain why I think they are bad. Both me and Aldarc are free to express these views, and it is good that we both express our viewpoints on this matter. I want Aldarc to make whatever criticisms Aldarc feels are needed. What I am saying is what I think is flawed about those criticisms, and where I think it is leading in the hobby as these kinds of critiques become more commonplace (due largely to the prevalence of social media). 

Also, once again, when people talk about language policing, they are not speaking about literal policing (so it doesn't require the ability to incarcerate to be language policing---that strikes me as a pretty absurd argument). They are just talking about the atmosphere, the state of the discussion. When it becomes a constant vetting of language that is what people mean by language policing. This would be like if someone said I was tone policing when I rebuked Aldarc's post for snark, and I responded that it would be impossible for me to tone police Aldarc because I can't put him in jail.


----------



## Campbell

I think there is a trend towards more socially conscious media. I regard this as a good thing.
I also believe there is a trend towards more censorious attitudes. I do not regard this as a good thing.

However not all cultural criticism is censorious. Generally I do not approve of attempts to get existing material removed from the market place since I believe attempts to curb the regressive tend to also impact the subversive. I am not really a fan of organized boycotts, but I believe there is nothing wrong with basing your economic decisions based on ethical judgments of content or its creators. This is not fundamentally different from people criticizing recent pop culture like Mad Max - Fury Road, Star Wars, Black Panther or Captain Marvel because they think it is "too woke". I fundamentally disagree with them, but I do not think that criticism is always censorious.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> If you really don't want to "put products on the spot" (which seems ludicrous unless you never publicly criticise works for being low-quality, but hey, maybe you don't), then PM me some examples. Anyone who has ever PM'd me hear knows I will not repeat anything said in PMs or otherwise make it an issue.




I have to be honest, based on your posting style and your tone, I wouldn't trust PMs with you to remain private. And a big reason why I am not providing examples to you, is again, your tone and your posting style. If I felt it was a good faith request, I would have happily gone down that road. But my sense was it wasn't a good faith request.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> And generally I note there are a lot of people who get disproportionately upset (just in the world generally) when cultural appropriation is discussed, which is a neutral term describing an act with no inherent moral characteristics (hence appropriation, rather than a weighted word like theft), which is a natural part of humanity, but can become problematic when it takes on certain forms (particularly a powerful culture taking a lot from a weak one, especially if they weaken the value of the "IP" as it were, or misinterpret, misunderstand, or cheaply use sacred stuff).




Cultural appropriation might be a neutral term in academic circles, but in spaces like this it's most often used as a pejorative.  It's more common for someone here to list cultural appropriation as one of their complaints about a game than it is as a positive or even neutral descriptor.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> No, this is a false equivalence, and thank you for proving my point.
> 
> No-one has committed a physical act against you. No-one has objectively oppressed you. You are claiming instead that you have subjectively experienced oppression, because of a mild request. Equating a mild request to a violent physical assault which might cause very serious harm or even kill (see: "one punch manslaughter") absolutely supports what I'm saying re: partisan and unreasonable arguments.



Eh, no.  Policing =/= oppression, seems like you're no stranger to the False Equivalence yourself.  Nor did I equate a mild request to a violent physical assault.  I equated one instance of you doing something to me and my saying, "don't do that to me." as me doing the same thing to you, to another instance of the same category of thing.  So the only False Equivalence here is yours.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> What "vetting"? By whom? When? WotC has literally just decided to start doing this. Looking through history, I can't think of a single RPG product nerfed by "vetting" about this kind of language. I can see 2E was designed somewhat to avoid MADD etc., initially, but 2E certainly wasn't "pablum", and that was something very different - not a suggestion to be careful with language, but an organised campaign to specifically destroy D&D by people who didn't play it.




Again, being honest here, something about your posting style makes me very wary of getting into specifics with you. I do have specifics in mind, I am sure many who follow this topic can intuit the games and vetting I am talking about. But you have a posting style that just makes me not want to get into the trenches with you as I think it won't be terribly productive


----------



## MGibster

Maxperson said:


> And you have to get rid of Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, Elves, Dwarves, Wizards and Warlocks(and even more) which all have real world correlations.  We wouldn't want the wrong cultures appropriating them.




Actually, warlocks are pretty damned close to the conception of witches as held by western Europeans during the early modern period.  The class has both diabolism and maleficum built right in!  Aside from the fighter and rogue, the warlock might be the most historically accurate class!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> I have to be honest, based on your posting style and your tone, I wouldn't trust PMs with you to remain private. And a big reason why I am not providing examples to you, is again, your tone and your posting style. If I felt it was a good faith request, I would have happily gone down that road. But my sense was it wasn't a good faith request.




Except, talk to anyone, including people I've argued with at length, who has PM'd me, and you'll find out it's true.

You refuse to give any evidence at all for your claim that mild language suggestions/restrictions lead to "pablum". I have demonstrated, with at least two examples, and I can come up with more, that pablum and trash are perfectly easy to produce with total creative freedom. How many examples do you need from me?



Maxperson said:


> Nor did I equate a mild request to a violent physical assault.




You literally did. That's not arguable. Your words are right there. Oh well.



Bedrockgames said:


> Again, being honest here, something about your posting style makes me very wary of getting into specifics with you. I do have specifics in mind, I am sure many who follow this topic can intuit the games and vetting I am talking about. But you have a posting style that just makes me not want to get into the trenches with you as I think it won't be terribly productive




Okay, but the fact is, you've made really extreme claims, that require specific evidence to support them, and have refused to provide that evidence. If you were serious, and still somehow afraid I'm going to hurt you in some way, you could simply block me, and post the evidence. I then would not be able to argue with you, and but you would have proven your point.

Without evidence, which should be relatively easy to obtain, given your claims, your position is not reasonable. Whether you like me or not, you clearly are aware that you need to provide evidence. So if you're really concerned, block and then post it or whatever. I'm happy to provide counter-examples, and right now, that's all we have counter-examples. Proof against your assertion. I can think of tons of pablum, but I can't think of any bits where restrictions about language for cultural sensitivity-type reasons have caused the pablum.

Stuff like "many" and "intuit" is not rational argument, note, it's just innuendo.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Campbell said:


> I think there is a trend towards more socially conscious media. I regard this as a good thing.
> I also believe there is a trend towards more censorious attitudes. I do not regard this as a good thing.




I think socially conscious media can be good. It can also be less interesting than media that doesn't worry about being socially conscious. I think there is a danger when people look to media for salvation, or when we lose the ability to distinguish between content and message. There is also the danger that the parameters of what is allowable become narrower and narrower (which is where I think you get the pablum problem). I generally agree with you, the censorious attitude is the thing I take issue with. But I think you also have to address critiques you think are bad critiques. But addressing a bad critique isn't the same as saying the critique shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> Except, talk to anyone, including people I've argued with at length, who has PM'd me, and you'll find out it's true.
> 
> You refuse to give any evidence at all for your claim that mild language suggestions/restrictions lead to "pablum". I have demonstrated, with at least two examples, and I can come up with more, that pablum and trash are perfectly easy to produce with total creative freedom. How many examples do you need from me?
> 
> 
> 
> You literally did. That's not arguable. Your words are right there. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, but the fact is, you've made really extreme claims, that require specific evidence to support them, and have refused to provide that evidence. If you were serious, and still somehow afraid I'm going to hurt you in some way, you could simply block me, and post the evidence. I then would not be able to argue with you, and but you would have proven your point.
> 
> Without evidence, which should be relatively easy to obtain, given your claims, your position is not reasonable. Whether you like me or not, you clearly are aware that you need to provide evidence. So if you're really concerned, block and then post it or whatever.
> 
> Stuff like "many" and "intuit" is not rational argument, note, it's just innuendo.




So far you are the only poster I haven't given specifics to when asked. And the reason is your posting style. I am not going to ask other people if you are trustworthy in PM, if my intuition says, don't give this person specifics because they don't have any intention of doing anything but ripping them to shreds. Sorry but that is my impression and it is why I won't engage you in  the way you are requesting. I feel my arguments have been sound and I feel I have been willing to go into more detail when there were good faith requests.

Also, worth pointing out, my remark about pablum was a fairly small part of my argument.


----------



## Galandris

Ruin Explorer said:


> Interesting. I do think though that all the stuff Aldarc has linked/quote showed a far more nuanced opinion than a legalistic one devoid of context and intent, and asked people to think about the usage, rather than suggesting they were "offenders" for using (indeed the last quote was very positive about it).
> 
> But it does explain to some extent, some of the very defensive reactions from people to certain things - things which aren't accusations, in that they're not intended to carry moral judgment or the like, merely to inform, but which people take as pretty serious allegations. And generally I note there are a lot of people who get disproportionately upset (just in the world generally) when cultural appropriation is discussed, which is a neutral term describing an act with no inherent moral characteristics (hence appropriation, rather than a weighted word like theft), which is a natural part of humanity, but can become problematic when it takes on certain forms (particularly a powerful culture taking a lot from a weak one, especially if they weaken the value of the "IP" as it were, or misinterpret, misunderstand, or cheaply use sacred stuff).




The use of "misappropriation" in the OP probably was a part of the negative reaction it garnered, as well as the strange analogy with bike "theft". While you point out that cultural appropriation can be a  valid evolution of any culture, that it can be problematic in some case, and not in others (pyjamas and mana counting, IMHO, as example of cases where I don't think it is problematic), "cultural *mis*appropriation" is more loaded and evocative of theft. On a more personal level, the fact that disagreeing that appropriation was taking place when people with no knowledge of how it entered the English language in the first place acquired it in turn (from English) got me an accusation of not knowing what the mana was and two accusations of not having watched the video didn't make me consider the OP was debating in good faith, so I bowed out debating with him. I could easily have gotten incensed instead.



> Oddly with mana I feel like it's a slightly passe term. It's still used a lot, but much less in TT RPGs than CRPGs/MMOs.




Yes I thought of GURPS but I don't see it used anymore in fantasy RPGs. It's more a computer game thing.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> I think socially conscious media can be good. It can also be less interesting than media that doesn't worry about being socially conscious.




Again no evidence, no examples. It really seems like they should be easy to find. But it's a claim that requires you to demonstrate a connection.

There's plenty of wild and unrestricted media that is absolutely boring junk - or media that is not at all socially conscious that is absolute drivel. A good example in the media in general might be NCIS, which is a show that various been homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, racist and a whole bunch of other things over the years. But it's never been anything but pablum. Indeed the same could be said of a number of cop-shows.

Or we might look at Star Trek TNG - a generally socially-conscious show, and the least socially-conscious episodes are among the worst here - The second episode of S1 is both grotesquely racist (which is a long story) and just a bad story. Go through a list of "worst episodes" for TNG and you'll a correlation with them and being completely non-socially-conscious.



Bedrockgames said:


> So far you are the only poster I haven't given specifics to when asked. And the reason is your posting style. I am not going to ask other people if you are trustworthy in PM, if my intuition says, don't give this person specifics because they don't have any intention of doing anything but ripping them to shreds. Sorry but that is my impression and it is why I won't engage you in the way you are requesting. I feel my arguments have been sound and I feel I have been willing to go into more detail when there were good faith requests.




It really seems unreasonable to make a strong claim like you have repeatedly don't re: pablum, and not provide any examples. You could certainly do so and then ignore me, but instead you're using me as a rather transparent excuse to not provide examples. Accusing me of "bad faith" and variously being scary or whatever is kind of amusing, as it makes me feel like I'm some sort of tricky monster or something but meh.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> Again no evidence, no examples. It really seems like they should be easy to find. But it's a claim that requires you to demonstrate a connection.
> 
> There's plenty of wild and unrestricted media that is absolutely boring junk - or media that is not at all socially conscious that is absolute drivel. A good example in the media in general might be NCIS, which is a show that various been homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, racist and a whole bunch of other things over the years. But it's never been anything but pablum. Indeed the same could be said of a number of cop-shows.
> 
> Or we might look at Star Trek TNG - a generally socially-conscious show, and the least socially-conscious episodes are among the worst here - The second episode of S1 is both grotesquely racist (which is a long story) and just a bad story. Go through a list of "worst episodes" for TNG and you'll a correlation with them and being completely non-socially-conscious.
> 
> 
> 
> It really seems unreasonable to make a strong claim like you have repeatedly don't re: pablum, and not provide any examples. You could certainly do so and then ignore me, but instead you're using me as a rather transparent excuse to not provide examples. Accusing me of "bad faith" and variously




Pretty comfortable with not engaging you


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Galandris said:


> (pyjamas and mana counting, IMHO, as example of cases where I don't think it is problematic)




Quite. Most of this kind of cultural appropriate is "Oh look, we needed a word for this concept which has been floating around, and this other culture/language has it, we'll just use it!". English has horribly infiltrated countless languages this way, because we have so many words .

I have no time for the bike theft example, and I do agree it was unhelpful (but not the OP's work, I think).



Bedrockgames said:


> Pretty comfortable with not engaging you




Sure but you keep making this argument that any kind of social consciousness or considering your language leads to "pablum", which is a very extreme and specific claim, and you provide no evidence. You claim others know, but they don't provide any evidence either. You insult me, which is amusing, but again, no evidence. If you keep making the argument, it needs evidence, and I don't think it's unreasonable or unfair for me to ask for it. I'll be interested to see what happens if Aldarc or others ask for evidence on this.

I will however, keep providing counter-examples and asking you to provide any examples at all, if you keep arguing it. That's how reasoned debate works - people provide examples.


----------



## Aldarc

Somehow a call for us to responsibly consider how we use these terms we acquired from other cultures as a potential impediment to creatives. However, I would also argue that properly understanding how these terms are used in their respective cultures can lead to far greater creative venues for creatives than is being considered. Consider, for example, the case of "mana." The fantasy genre has been primarily working from the misunderstandings of 'mana' from Euro-American cultural anthropologists. This means, that the original use of "mana" has been largely untapped (no MtG pun intended) as a source of inspiration for games. And sometimes the original source provides a far richer wellspring of creativity than the appropriated understanding. We even see this in the case of European-inspired fantasy. We are seeing less of "Viking: The Horned, Pillaging Cliché" and more games like "Trudvang Chronicles." 



Galandris said:


> The use of "misappropriation" in the OP probably was a part of the negative reaction it garnered, as well as the strange analogy with bike "theft".



... an analogy that stems from the silly claim that it can't be cultural appropriation if you are not aware where it was appropriated from or are working from misunderstandings of a word's actual cultural origins.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> Quite. Most of this kind of cultural appropriate is "Oh look, we needed a word for this concept which has been floating around, and this other culture/language has it, we'll just use it!". English has horribly infiltrated countless languages this way, because we have so many words .
> 
> I have no time for the bike theft example, and I do agree it was unhelpful (but not the OP's work, I think).
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but you keep making this argument that any kind of social consciousness or considering your language leads to "pablum", which is a very extreme and specific claim, and you provide no evidence. You claim others know, but they don't provide any evidence either. You insult me, which is amusing, but again, no evidence. If you keep making the argument, it needs evidence, and I don't think it's unreasonable or unfair for me to ask for it. I'll be interested to see what happens if Aldarc or others ask for evidence on this.
> 
> I will however, keep providing counter-examples and asking you to provide any examples at all, if you keep arguing it. That's how reasoned debate works - people provide examples.




Ok

merit: wasn’t an ok of agreement


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Somehow a call for us to responsibly consider how we use these terms we acquired from other cultures as a potential impediment to creatives. However, I would also argue that properly understanding how these terms are used in their respective cultures can lead to far greater creative venues for creatives than is being considered. Consider, for example, the case of "mana." The fantasy genre has been primarily working from the misunderstandings of 'mana' from Euro-American cultural anthropologists. This means, that the original use of "mana" has been largely untapped (no MtG pun intended) as a source of inspiration for games. And sometimes the original source provides a far richer wellspring of creativity than the appropriated understanding. We even see this in the case of European-inspired fantasy. We are seeing less of "Viking: The Horned, Pillaging Cliché" and more games like "Trudvang Chronicles."
> 
> ... an analogy that stems from the silly claim that it can't be cultural appropriation if you are not aware where it was appropriated from or are working from misunderstandings of a word's actual cultural origins.




to be clear, I agree using an authentic approach can be interesting and creatively rewarding. My point is that it shouldn’t be the only way. Authenticity is great, except when it becomes a requirement


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> ... an analogy that stems from the silly claim that it can't be cultural appropriation if you are not aware where it was appropriated from or are working from misunderstandings of a word's actual cultural origins.




Still a terrible analogy though, because the analogous situation is an unjust one. You should not be treated as a criminal for mistakenly borrowing the wrong bike, and in most countries, you wouldn't be!


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> Still a terrible analogy though, because the analogous situation is an unjust one. You should not be treated as a criminal for mistakenly borrowing the wrong bike, and in most countries, you wouldn't be!



Do I regret the particular analogy I used? Most definitely. But I also don't think that a person's ignorance of the cultural origins of a term is a good defense (or standard) for whether something constitutes cultural appropriation or not.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> Do I regret the particular analogy I used? Most definitely. But I also don't think that a person's ignorance of the cultural origins of a term is a good defense (or standard) for whether something constitutes cultural appropriation or not.




Sure, but I think it's problematic to associate cultural appropriation with being innately harmful (let alone accidentally casting the "accuser" in the role of a cop enforcing an unjust law!), and we should be clear that participating in cultural appropriation does not make one morally bad. If you unknowingly use an appropriated term, even one that is the product of the bad kind of appropriation, you are not a bad person. Let's be really clear on that. But it does pay to understand the origin of these terms, both in expanding the mind, and in preventing unpleasant situations and further harm.

I feel like this is the big issue with cultural appropriation. It is a neutral term. It's not academic to understand that. It can become problematic, but it is not inherently so. Being part of it, unknowingly, does not make you culpable or bad or evil or anything. It just means you were part of it. Which doesn't mean you should regret it or apologise or whatever, just that you should learn from that. You might not even need to change future usage of the term at all. But that awareness has value, and it's not oppressive to be aware of things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'll be interested to see what happens if Aldarc or others ask for evidence on this.




At this point I won’t delve into it (since you would seize on any post I make on the topic. Not insulting you, I just don’t believe your requests feel like good faith requests based on your aggressive style of posting.,some posters feel like they are talking with you, some feel like they are pressing you against a wall and shouting. Your style is more the latter to me, and I have learned not engage people who display that posting style when they press for more information, or specifics.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> You literally did. That's not arguable. Your words are right there. Oh well.




Are you aware that you can compare argument forms without comparing the details of the argument?  If your argument is A + B = C and another argument also follows that form, I can say that the forms are equivalent without saying the details are equivalent.  That's what I did.  I compared the argument forms, not the details.  Those are my words.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> Enough of that, and it just has a chilling effect on your ability to communicate.




So, you say, "enough of that."  But, is the strategy to avoid "enough of that" really - accept none of it, so that we can never possibly go over the line into "chilled"?

If you (generic you, not Bedrockgames, in particular) reject each and every attempt to discuss the language used, you are pushing the entire burden of avoiding offense on the audience.  Which you can do, but it comes around to being a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it to - the creative wants all the accolades for making a good product, but if they cheese folks off, the fault of that is entirely on someone else?

That... sounds like a dodge.  Sorry, but it does.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> So, you say, "enough of that."  But, is the strategy to avoid "enough of that" really - accept none of it, so that we can never possibly go over the line into "chilled"?
> 
> If you (generic you, not Bedrockgames, in particular) reject each and every attempt to discuss the language used, you are pushing the entire burden of avoiding offense on the audience.  Which you can do, but it comes around to being a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it to - the creative wants all the accolades for making a good product, but if they cheese folks off, the fault of that is entirely on someone else?
> 
> That... sounds like a dodge.  Sorry, but it does.




I will reply in a bit but just to be clear I said “enough of that,”, not “enough of that.”. I didn’t mean it as an imperative, but just as “when this happens enough, X follows”


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> So, you say, "enough of that."  But, is the strategy to avoid "enough of that" really - accept none of it, so that we can never possibly go over the line into "chilled"?
> 
> If you (generic you, not Bedrockgames, in particular) reject each and every attempt to discuss the language used, you are pushing the entire burden of avoiding offense on the audience.  Which you can do, but it comes around to being a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it to - the creative wants all the accolades for making a good product, but if they cheese folks off, the fault of that is entirely on someone else?
> 
> That... sounds like a dodge.  Sorry, but it does.




Appreciate the clarification about ‘you’. i think people can talk all they want about language, but I also think when you reach a point of being hyper critical about everything, it is stifling (and it genuinely becomes difficult to listen to anyone as it just all starts sounding like white noise). And I think rebutting people who make language critiques you disagree with is healthy. Ideally there is a balance where creative people weigh criticisms they hear and accept ones they think are valid. But the problem I have about the approach being advocated it places no responsibility on media consumers and audience (especially when intent isn’t considered). It is all about protecting the audience at any cost. I don’t want to be protected from problematic content. I can digest it and assess it where it arises. It just seems the bar here is getting lower and lower


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> I think what people are reacting to is the constancy and intensity of it these days.




Yes, well, with respect, not a single one of these criticisms are new - these things have been coming up for years.   But when criticism was less constant and less intense... it was largely ignored*.  Because hey, it was less constant and intense, so clearly it wasn't a _BIG_ issue, right?

And now, when it is louder... we use _that_ as a reason to not accept it again?  

That looks like goalpost moving.  What kind of criticism _won't_ be overlooked or rejected out of hand?  Goldilocks needs their criticism _just right_ to accept it, but won't elucidate what _just right_ is.  That starts to look like making excuses to not accept criticism at all, doesn't it?








*There's a strong argument that WotC has actually slowly and steadily been moving in the direction of greater care for such matters for two decades now, since the release of 3e.  Slow and imperfect, but at least an attempt.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> Your style is more the latter to me, and I have learned not engage people who display that posting style when they press for more information, or specifics.




To me, this is strongly suggestive that you don't have good evidence or specifics. I mean you are saying "I have learned...", well so have I. I've been arguing on the internet literally since I was a child (look they've done to me!), and my very long experience is that when people roll out excuses not to provide evidence after repeatedly making an argument that relies on it, one of two things is true:

A) The evidence is really complicated and requires research and is annoying to provide. This is a fair enough reason in a lot of ways.

or

B) They ain't got no evidence, or their evidence is incredibly flimsy, or just obviously subjective in the extreme.

If people have strong evidence, even if they think I'm a jerk, they tend to just drop it in the thread and go "how about THAT eh?!". And there have actually been a number of times where I've had to go "Oh, ok, damn, alright...". People always act like it's the first time in human history I've ever admitted I'm wrong when I've actually done it an awful lot of times! 

I'm sure there are Cs or Ds, but like you, I have experiences that lead me to believe it's A or B and here it seems like B. I could be wrong.

*Let me just say one thing you might like *- I do believe that with _sufficient_ restrictions, you _can eventually_ reach a situation where pablum is very likely, or if not pablum, then extremely same-y material. So we may not be as far apart as you think.

Specifically, I once read a blog (I forget what, it's still going though, I saw it linked a few weeks ago), which is about fantasy and SF, both literary, TV and RPGs. They had this article, about what you should and shouldn't do if you write a fantasy novel. And it was extremely prescriptive. Not all of it was about social consciousness or the like, indeed most of it wasn't, but all the prescriptions (and they were presented as such, like actively saying "You're a bad person if you don't do this", rather than the mild suggestion here that it's useful to consider this, and one should endeavour to be aware of origins) pushed one the writer the idea that they should write something utterly MoR and bland, and that deviating from this made you a bad person (IIRC, the article was just as extreme in suggesting not coming up with an alternative calender as they were in saying "you shouldn't have homophobia in your books, even when the homophobes are purely negative!". Which is very different from saying "Have a think about why you're including homophobia in your books". It's easy to think about something and go "Okay, I have a valid reason!", but without thinking, it's easy to say "I'll just do this because it makes sense, without considering that maybe the reason you think it makes sense is a cheap trope, or an unfortunate tradition or the like.

If all authors had followed the prescriptions in that article, we'd have very bland fantasy, and that would suck. But in fact few have - now some have (presumably accidentally) followed some/most of the prescriptions, and still produced vivid works, but I do see how if everyone follows really prescriptive standards about what they must output, rather than just thinking about their choices a bit more, then that could be bland.

The reason I ask for evidence though, is that I don't believe TT RPGs have begun to approach the "pablum point" re: restrictions due to social consciousness. I do think a lot of pablum RPG material has come into existence trying to target a very broad audience in terms of age/complexity/etc., but much of that does contain problematic stuff that shows a lack of what you call social consciousness! I know you think I'm a Bad Man (TM) who will do Bad Things (C) to your posts, and okay, fair enough, but that is why I want evidence, because I think this could happen, but I can't think of any examples _yet_, nor do I think current suggestions make it at all likely.



Maxperson said:


> Are you aware that you can compare argument forms without comparing the details of the argument? If your argument is A + B = C and another argument also follows that form, I can say that the forms are equivalent without saying the details are equivalent. That's what I did. I compared the argument forms, not the details. Those are my words.




As I said, you engaged in false equivalence.

A punch is objective. The harm you're describing is extremely subjective, and indeed, hard to quantise. But your argument literally doesn't work unless the harm is objective, hence you had to use that kind of argument. You weren't punched. If you want analogy (why? It only makes things less clear), then you were not saying "Don't punch me", you were saying "Stop insulting me!", and the other person does not perceive what they're saying as an insult and there's no objective measurement which suggests it is.


----------



## Bedrockgames

not engaging you like I said before


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> not engaging you like I said before




Sure and as a result you're probably going to miss the bit where I agree with your premise, because you responded faster than someone could read that  You may want to put me on ignore, I think you'll find it helpful.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> I will reply in a bit but just to be clear I said “enough of that,”, not “enough of that.”. I didn’t mean it as an imperative, but just as “when this happens enough, X follows”




Yes, I know.  Unfortunately that's the grammatical contstruction for ending a sentence, which is what I was doing.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure and as a result you're probably going to miss the bit where I agree with your premise, because you responded faster than someone could read that  You may want to put me on ignore, I think you'll find it helpful.




Hey, RE.  Maybe just let it go?  He's said he doesn't really want to engage with you.  There's not a shred of anything constructive coming out of you pressing on this.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> Hey, RE.  Maybe just let it go?  He's said he doesn't really want to engage with you.  There's not a shred of anything constructive coming out of you pressing on this.




I mean, given I'm suggesting he ignores me, I feel like I have, but yeah, will do.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> A punch is objective. The harm you're describing is extremely subjective, and indeed, hard to quantise. But your argument literally doesn't work unless the harm is objective, hence you had to use that kind of argument. You weren't punched. If you want analogy (why? It only makes things less clear), then you were not saying "Don't punch me", you were saying "Stop insulting me!", and the other person does not perceive what they're saying as an insult and there's no objective measurement which suggests it is.



If you don't understand, you can just say so.  You don't have to keep demonstrating your lack of understanding.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Maxperson said:


> If you don't understand, you can just say so.  You don't have to keep demonstrating your lack of understanding.




Captain Picard Facepalm is all I have to say to that. But you do you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> Yes, well, with respect, not a single one of these criticisms are new - these things have been coming up for years.   But when criticism was less constant and less intense... it was largely ignored*.  Because hey, it was less constant and intense, so clearly it wasn't a _BIG_ issue, right?
> 
> And now, when it is louder... we use _that_ as a reason to not accept it again?
> 
> That looks like goalpost moving.  What kind of criticism _won't_ be overlooked or rejected out of hand?  Goldilocks needs their criticism _just right_ to accept it, but won't elucidate what _just right_ is.  That starts to look like making excuses to not accept criticism at all, doesn't it?




It is about where the weight of the discussion is. It is also about where the cultural mean has shifted to in the online gaming community (and I do think there is a big difference between the online and the offline gaming community). 

To use an example from another thread, I think when we reached the point that 'orcs are racist' became an opinion, at least in online circles, that was taken quite seriously, to me that is when these critiques really start to jump the shark. Another would be when people are actually calling for WOTC to take down a book because of content they object to. And I think the things we are seeing in this thread are in a similar category in terms of, it is stuff most people in regular life probably wouldn't bat an eye at, but in the context of online, social media discussion, it has gained a lot more traction (and if you are a writer, online discussions affect what gets printed, if you are a reader, it affects what kinds of books you will see on the shelves). I just feel we are moving in a direction that isn't good for the hobby (which is why I make a point of expressing my view in these kinds of threads).


----------



## Voadam

The view of pablum is going to be a matter of taste that varies by individuals. 2e reportedly had morality guides for their writers and stuff which not only led to the removal of any demons or devils for a long while but also drove to PCs are heroic and not mercenary or evil for player facing stuff and bad guys being defeated which led to a lot of Skeletor/StarScream type things where the Zhentarim is always failing. 2e has a lot of great stuff, but there is also a lot of material that different people just consider stuff.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Voadam said:


> The view of pablum is going to be a matter of taste that varies by individuals. 2e reportedly had morality guides for their writers and stuff which not only led to the removal of any demons or devils for a long while but also drove to PCs are heroic and not mercenary or evil for player facing stuff and bad guys being defeated which led to a lot of Skeletor/StarScream type things where the Zhentarim is always failing. 2e has a lot of great stuff, but there is also a lot of material that different people just consider stuff.




I liked a lot of the 2E material, but I think there is no question the push to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of some people during the Satanic panic made the line much more pablum. There were still interesting things being done, in Dark Sun and Ravenloft for example, but even that was interesting in a  wholesome, 1950s style manner. Ravenloft for example drew a lot of inspiration from Hammer Studios, which was far form wholesome, but the end result felt a lot more like Universal horror than Hammer. I grew up on that stuff, so I liked it, but I do think overall the line was harmed by the need to avoid controversy. I see similarities to that today (especially having grown up in an extremely religious community where the Satanic panic had big impact). Now we are not taking demons out of 1E books, but we are trying to strip out content that people are saying is harmful, dangerous, etc. A lot of times, the content is just misunderstood though. Which is what I would say is the case with something like orcs, or with people seeing colonialist tropes in D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> Ravenloft for example drew a lot of inspiration from Hammer Studios, which was far form wholesome, but the end result felt a lot more like Universal horror than Hammer. I grew up on that stuff, so I liked it, but I do think overall the line was harmed by the need to avoid controversy.




Ravenloft is an interesting case because the main book from the boxed set in 2E discussed the decision to focus pretty much solely on Hammer/Gothic horror, rather than more gory, violent, scary then-modern horror (which would have been stuff like Friday the 13th, American Werewolf in London, Fright Night, Dawn of the Dead, Halloween, and so on). As I recall, the book is somewhat scathing about the quality of modern horror, as compared to the Hammer era and generally seems to really strongly look down on modern horror.

I can't comment on the line overall re: avoiding controversy, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with it, but that initial 2E book seemed to take a very firm position about its inspiration (if desired I may even be able to find some quotes, as I read it only a few months ago), which would preclude it being (from the author's perspective) any kind of reaction to "moral codes".


----------



## Voadam

Shamans have had a varied life in D&D.

Already brought up is the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide where shamans were humanoid clerical spellcasters generally lower powered than PC oriented clerics, though a decent power up over standard humanoids.

In 1e Deities and Demigods this was carried forward even for giants, but American Indians used the full powered clerics just as Greek and Norse and fantasy pantheons did.

In Basic you had PC shaman classes in GAZ10 Orcs of Thar (plus a wicca class), GAZ12 Golden Khan of Ethengar, GAZ13 Shadow Elves, and GAZ14 Atruaghin Clans.

In 2e a lot of those Basic Gazetteers were dual statted for 2e as well plus there was a whole Shaman sourcebook that introduced a whole optional spirit realm for D&D cosmology. The Shaman is book is interesting having originally been planned for Mayfair Games's Role Aids line which was acquired by TSR after a lawsuit.

The Forgotten Realms 2e god book Faiths & Avatars added in a shaman class with spirit powers along with a mystic and crusader and divine spellcasting monk classes.

The 2e Complete Priest's Handbook there was a savage priest kit which was described as "a shaman of a savage tribe".

In 3e there was the spirit shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine. In the 3e and 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide the role of humanoid NPC shaman from 1e was genericized to the adept and applied to any race as a lower powered NPC class. I am sure somewhere there was a shamanic prestige class and I know of multiple OGL shaman classes.

In 4e the shaman class was from Player's Handbook 2, they were primal powered leaders and not divine power source.

In 5e I am not sure off the top of my head where there are shaman things other than some references in the MM.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ruin Explorer said:


> Ravenloft is an interesting case because the main book from the boxed set in 2E discussed the decision to focus pretty much solely on Hammer/Gothic horror, rather than more gory, violent, scary then-modern horror (which would have been stuff like Friday the 13th, American Werewolf in London, Fright Night, Dawn of the Dead, Halloween, and so on). As I recall, the book is somewhat scathing about the quality of modern horror, as compared to the Hammer era and generally seems to really strongly look down on modern horror.




Yes, this is absolutely true. I don't recall if they explicitly mentioned hammer (they mainly used the term Gothic Horror for what they were going for; but there was so much that was clearly based on Universal and Hammer---the hammer influence became more pronounced as the line developed). They also quoted lovecraft a lot, and quoted books like Frankenstein (this was actually what prompted me to read Frankenstein). So it wasn't purely gothic, but definitely had an 'old fashioned horror' feel to it. It took particular issue with gore and excess blood. I was a kid who loved Clive Barker, Evil Dead, gore, and slasher movies, etc. But I do think the boxed set made a good case for the value of restraint in horror  





> I can't comment on the line overall re: avoiding controversy, as I'm not sufficiently familiar with it, but that initial 2E book seemed to take a very firm position about its inspiration (if desired I may even be able to find some quotes, as I read it only a few months ago), which would preclude it being (from the author's perspective) any kind of reaction to "moral codes".




It definitely had a very strong voice, and I think you are right the authors had a clear vision. I always assumed it was given the go by TSR because it wasn't as likely to upset religious groups. My assumption was something like Vampire wouldn't have been green lighted. But that is fair so I actually sent a message to someone who worked on the line, and they confirmed it was purely a creative decision, not a product of the satanic panic. So it seems my assumption here was incorrect


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> It is about where the weight of the discussion is. It is also about where the cultural mean has shifted to in the online gaming community (and I do think there is a big difference between the online and the offline gaming community).




Maybe there's a difference, but... you really do need to beware on that.  WotC's demographics say that 40% of their players are under 25.  Only 11% are 40+.  The generations have shifted, so you should expect shifts in the cultural means both online and offline.  

The above really implies an assertion that _YOU_ know what these communities are _really_ like, and others are missing THE TRUTH.  That's a pretty big claim.  You probably need to back it up with some evidence, or this is rather hollow.



> To use an example from another thread, I think when we reached the point that 'orcs are racist' became an opinion, at least in online circles, that was taken quite seriously, to me that is when these critiques really start to jump the shark.




Ah,  So, first off, that's a shorthand.  A more full statement of the point is that orcs have traditionally been and are still currently presented using many elements of language and tropes that are used in real-world racism, and that is a problem.  

And, if "orcs are racist" is jumping the shark... I have to tell you that, "If we do change our language, games will be pablum!" is no less grandiose.  Pot and kettle having a moment here, if you will.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> The above really implies an assertion that _YOU_ know what these communities are _really_ like, and others are missing THE TRUTH.  That's a pretty big claim.  You probably need to back it up with some evidence, or this is rather hollow.




This is notoriously difficult to figure out. So I am not claiming to have all the answers here. There isn't much in the way of data here that I am aware of. So all one has to go on is what one sees, what one hears, etc. And granted that isn't a great indication, it is just a general sense one has. I will say I mostly game online though Skype, and I have several groups i am part of with ages ranging from 20-55. I am just reporting my impression. I see the same thing with game groups I am a part of that meet in real life (though lately I have been doing that less and less, as it is just easier to use Skype). But I do see a large difference among the gamers in my groups who are regular online posters on social media and in forums, and those who have no clue what the online community thinks).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> Ah,  So, first off, that's a shorthand.  A more full statement of the point is that orcs have traditionally been and are still currently presented using many elements of language and tropes that are used in real-world racism, and that is a problem.
> 
> And, if "orcs are racist" is jumping the shark... I have to tell you that, "If we do change our language, games will be pablum!" is no less grandiose.  Pot and kettle having a moment here, if you will.




A couple of things. First, I think we are just not going to agree on orcs!  ----and I am sure we have both explained our positions to one another on orcs in earlier threads, so I won't rehash that here. Second, I am not saying people shouldn't change the language they use. If a designer wants to or wants to make a game that explored more nuanced orcs, I am all for that. I am all for people being able to do more creatively in the hobby. What I am opposed to is new taboos forming that make something like having evil orcs in your game completely out of the question, or using druids or mana (to keep it with this thread) in a creative and new way that doesn't follow the material on them in the source cultures. Like I said, it isn't even the critiques. The critiques are fine. It is when it reaches a point that people feel like they can't actually make something, or feel like they are being watched the whole time they work on a project because they are worried about all these new lines that are emerging. Or when it just reaches a point that the whole gaming community has shifted in favor of an idea, that to me, seems really unsound (like orcs being racist). As I said earlier, I just reached a point where I had to ignore it. It was too paralyzing. And I think a lot of other people are starting to feel that as well.


----------



## Mercurius

Ruin Explorer said:


> I think this attitude is the real problem here, frankly.
> 
> It's kind of outrageous that people...
> 
> Your argument is utterly hypocritical...
> 
> you're policing people's ability...
> 
> It's also amusing to hear someone claim...
> 
> to imply...is just nonsensical in that context.
> 
> ...you deciding you're the victim
> 
> That is ridiculous. Ludicrous. Laughable.




Just wondering...is this carefully considered use of language?


----------



## Mercurius

As I said up-thread, *shaman *has a distinct meaning, different from priest, cleric, holy leader, and pretty much any other word in the English language (no matter how it was acquired).

There are people of all cultures and ethnicities that engage in shamanic practice, which by and large involves "entering" or "working with" altered states of consciousness. 

If anything I'd like to see an official D&D treatment highlight this difference: that a shaman uses trance and even psychotropic substances to enter into an altered state (plane?) in which they can do their thing.


----------



## Voadam

Arguably the biggest icons for shamans in RPGs would be FASA's Shadowrun and White Wolf's Dreamspeakers from Mage the Ascension (and also the whole White Wolf magical spirit focus of Werewolf the Apocalypse).


----------



## Hussar

Voadam said:


> Shamans have had a varied life in D&D.
> 
> Already brought up is the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide where shamans were humanoid clerical spellcasters generally lower powered than PC oriented clerics, though a decent power up over standard humanoids.
> 
> In 1e Deities and Demigods this was carried forward even for giants, but American Indians used the full powered clerics just as Greek and Norse and fantasy pantheons did.
> 
> In Basic you had PC shaman classes in GAZ10 Orcs of Thar (plus a wicca class), GAZ12 Golden Khan of Ethengar, GAZ13 Shadow Elves, and GAZ14 Atruaghin Clans.
> 
> In 2e a lot of those Basic Gazetteers were dual statted for 2e as well plus there was a whole Shaman sourcebook that introduced a whole optional spirit realm for D&D cosmology. The Shaman is book is interesting having originally been planned for Mayfair Games's Role Aids line which was acquired by TSR after a lawsuit.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms 2e god book Faiths & Avatars added in a shaman class with spirit powers along with a mystic and crusader and divine spellcasting monk classes.
> 
> The 2e Complete Priest's Handbook there was a savage priest kit which was described as "a shaman of a savage tribe".
> 
> In 3e there was the spirit shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine. In the 3e and 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide the role of humanoid NPC shaman from 1e was genericized to the adept and applied to any race as a lower powered NPC class. I am sure somewhere there was a shamanic prestige class and I know of multiple OGL shaman classes.
> 
> In 4e the shaman class was from Player's Handbook 2, they were primal powered leaders and not divine power source.
> 
> In 5e I am not sure off the top of my head where there are shaman things other than some references in the MM.




And, realistically, this is the issue no?  Shaman are not even divine?  Shaman are always less powerful than clerics?  Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races?  Does anyone actually not see the issue here?

As far as 5e goes, the problem is solved in 10 seconds.  Find and replace the seven instances of "shaman" with "druid" and you're done.  It's more fitting, it works with the mechanics and it solves the problem.

Ten (or so) pages after I originally posted this solution and no one was able to tell me about any real, actual criticisms or issues with using "druid".  So, how is this not solving the problem.

@TaranTheWanderer - I realize you think I'm being extremely rude and dismissive, but, I just solved the problem that has now dragged on for the past ten pages in three sentences.  Is there any real problem with my solution?  

It's just like the orc situation.  Virtually everyone agrees with how to resolve orcs.  It's easy.  Couple of sentences get snipped and it's done.

The real problem is all the slippery slope hand wringing that's going on about how we're turning the works to "pablum".  If snipping three sentences out of the game turns it to pablum, I'm going to say that the writing probably wasn't that good to begin with.


----------



## Hussar

Conversely, with shaman, you could expand the use of the term to encompass non-evil, non-primitive people in the game and thus remove the stigmatization.  I'd suggest elves have shaman instead of clerics and possibly some of the other races like Firbolg and other fae related races.  Thus, Shamanism becomes tied to fae which I don't think anyone would particularly object to.


----------



## MGibster

Hussar said:


> The real problem is all the slippery slope hand wringing that's going on about how we're turning the works to "pablum".  If snipping three sentences out of the game turns it to pablum, I'm going to say that the writing probably wasn't that good to begin with.




I do agree that the work isn't being turned to pablum as I believe 5th edition is the best edition yet. But I do think we'll reach a point where the audience grows tired of hearing everything is problematic, fatigue will set it, and they'll become alienated.


----------



## Hussar

MGibster said:


> I do agree that the work isn't being turned to pablum as I believe 5th edition is the best edition yet. But I do think we'll reach a point where the audience grows tired of hearing everything is problematic, fatigue will set it, and they'll become alienated.




But, is everything problematic?  So far, and I'll freely admit that I skip over stuff, so, I'm probably missing things, and I'm not on Twitter, I see orcs, drow, now shaman, Oriental Adventures, and maybe half a dozen different other things.  Most of the solutions are a couple of sentences, at most.  

The fatigue seems to be from people making this out to be so much more of an issue than it really is.


----------



## Fenris-77

Shaman and Druid aren't interchangeable. I don't have any issues with the word Shaman if it's used accurately either. I certainly don't think it comes pre-loaded with a whole ton of negative baggage. Not in general usage anyway. I also don't think this is a 14 page problem, but that's just me. Use the idea with respect and everything is fine.


----------



## MGibster

Hussar said:


> But, is everything problematic?  So far, and I'll freely admit that I skip over stuff, so, I'm probably missing things, and I'm not on Twitter, I see orcs, drow, now shaman, Oriental Adventures, and maybe half a dozen different other things.  Most of the solutions are a couple of sentences, at most.




It was hyperbole, but it often seems as though you can't swing a dead cat without hitting something problematic these days.  Great.  And now my vegan friends tell me the phrase "swing a dead cat" is problematic because it reinforces a carnivo-normative point of view that leads to the suffering of animals. 



> The fatigue seems to be from people making this out to be so much more of an issue than it really is.




I suspect we have a different idea about who is making an issue out of what.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> And, realistically, this is the issue no?  Shaman are not even divine?  Shaman are always less powerful than clerics?  Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races?  Does anyone actually not see the issue here?
> 
> As far as 5e goes, the problem is solved in 10 seconds.  Find and replace the seven instances of "shaman" with "druid" and you're done.  It's more fitting, it works with the mechanics and it solves the problem.




Can you change shaman to druid with ease? Yes.  There's no "problem" being solved, though.



> Ten (or so) pages after I originally posted this solution and no one was able to tell me about any real, actual criticisms or issues with using "druid".  So, how is this not solving the problem.




First, it's not a "problem."  Second, why should non-Celtish people be able to appropriate Druids?  You had an issue with Samurai.  Why not also with Druids?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Conversely, with shaman, you could expand the use of the term to encompass non-evil, non-primitive people in the game and thus remove the stigmatization.  I'd suggest elves have shaman instead of clerics and possibly some of the other races like Firbolg and other fae related races.  Thus, Shamanism becomes tied to fae which I don't think anyone would particularly object to.



We already have non-primitive Shamans in 5e in any humanoid race you want with any alignment you want.  MM page 346.  Druids are sometimes tribal shamans.  Tribes don't have to be primitive and the alignment given for the druid-Shaman on page 346 is any.  Your "problem" has already been "fixed."


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Shaman and Druid aren't interchangeable.



Except that in 5e those terms literally are interchangeable.


----------



## Mercurius

Hussar said:


> And, realistically, this is the issue no?  Shaman are not even divine?  Shaman are always less powerful than clerics?  Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races?  Does anyone actually not see the issue here?
> 
> As far as 5e goes, the problem is solved in 10 seconds.  Find and replace the seven instances of "shaman" with "druid" and you're done.  It's more fitting, it works with the mechanics and it solves the problem.
> 
> Ten (or so) pages after I originally posted this solution and no one was able to tell me about any real, actual criticisms or issues with using "druid".  So, how is this not solving the problem.




Because it reduces shamans to druids, when there are distinct differences, which is its own form of "misappropriation." Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.

While the origins of both are unclear and highly speculative, it does seem that shamans--of whatever cultural origin--arose in paleolithic times, perhaps with the dawn of religious practices that is generally believed to have occured sometime around or before 50,000 years ago and the "Great Leap Forward." Druids are almost certainly a development from shamans in Celtic culture, possibly during the mesolithic or neolithic periods, or much later.


----------



## Voadam

Hussar said:


> And, realistically, this is the issue no? Shaman are not even divine? Shaman are always less powerful than clerics? Shaman only belong to evil, primitive races? Does anyone actually not see the issue here?



I think you are focusing on what you consider negative and letting that color how you are perceiving the rest.

Shamans were less than clerics and only for humanoid races (including stone and frost and fire giants, not just evil primitive races) in 1e. 

In the other editions from Basic to 4e they are full caster PC classes. Even in 3e the lower powered NPC one is genericized and not called shamans while the spirit shaman class is a full caster PC class.

4e shamans being primal was not a dig that shamans were lesser than druids. Both were primal and neither were divine, tapping energy from spirits and the world instead of gods and the planes.

In the 5e MM index on page 352 it says: "Tribal Shaman. See Druid."

In the 5e MM on page 346 in the NPC section it says:

"DRUID
Medium humanoid (any race), any alignment
* * *
Druids dwell in forests and other secluded wilderness locations, where they protect the natural world from monsters and the encroachment of civilization. Some are *tribal shamans* who heal the sick, pray to animal spirits, and provide spiritual guidance."

At least some shamans already are druids in 5e.

The statblock for the 5e lizardfolk shaman is on MM page 205, they are neutral and cast druid spells and shapechange into crocodiles.

In the MM monster entries the word shaman only shows up for default Neutral Stone Giants, default Neutral Lizardfolk, and default Chaotic Neutral Quaggoth. Shamans are not explicitly associated with any default evil race, not Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Troglodytes, Gnolls, Grimlocks, Bugbears, Ogres, or Hill Giants. They are associated with druids who can be any race and any alignment so evil orcs just as much as good elves.


----------



## Hussar

Fenris-77 said:


> Shaman and Druid aren't interchangeable. I don't have any issues with the word Shaman if it's used accurately either. I certainly don't think it comes pre-loaded with a whole ton of negative baggage. Not in general usage anyway. I also don't think this is a 14 page problem, but that's just me. Use the idea with respect and everything is fine.




Fair enough.  Like I said, that's option 2.  Reclaim the word so that it doesn't only apply to certain races and whatnot and use it more broadly.  That's certainly an option.



Mercurius said:


> Because it reduces shamans to druids, when there are distinct differences, which is its own form of "misappropriation." Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.
> 
> While the origins of both are unclear and highly speculative, it does seem that shamans--of whatever cultural origin--arose in paleolithic times, perhaps with the dawn of religious practices that is generally believed to have occured sometime around or before 50,000 years ago and the "Great Leap Forward." Druids are almost certainly a development from shamans in Celtic culture, possibly during the mesolithic or neolithic periods, or much later.




Not really.  I'm removing shaman entirely.  There's no reduction at all.  If you want to add shaman back into the game, that's entirely possible to.  Again, worrying too much about historical accuracy isn't really the issue here.  It's the fact that shaman, as @Doug McCrae very rightly pointed out, only apply to violent, dangerous, and, frankly pretty darn evil, primitive races.  And, since 5e already defines shaman as druids as a class, then what's really the problem with dropping the shaman title and just calling them druids?



Voadam said:


> In the other editions from Basic to 4e they are full caster PC classes. Even in 3e the lower powered NPC one is genericized and not called shamans while the spirit shaman class is a full caster PC class.




Yes, but, we're not talking about other editions are we?  In 5e, a shaman is just a druid.  Full stop.  It's a druid that's linked to violent, savage, primitive enemy races.  Since it's perfectly fine to have druids for everyone else, why not just call them druids here?  Seems the simplest solution.

Otherwise, let's have an actual shaman class and go from there.

Quoting @Doug McCrae who says this better than I do:




Doug McCrae said:


> This is true of its usage in D&D.
> 
> In 5e, stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths have shamans. The stone giant in the MM wears animal skins and wields a club. They also fight with thrown rocks. Lizardfolk are "primitive reptilian humanoids" with INT 7. They use simple weapons such as clubs. "Though they aren't skilled artisans, lizardfolk craft tools and ornamental jewelry out of the bones of their kills, and they use the hides and shells of dead monsters to create shields." "[T]hey have a taste for humanoid flesh", devouring their victims in "great feasts" if they’re not "sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god." Quaggoths, INT 6, are "brutal and savage", were "never an enlightened species", and practise cannibalism. They do not use weapons but attack with their claws.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Not really.  I'm removing shaman entirely.  There's no reduction at all.  If you want to add shaman back into the game, that's entirely possible to.  Again, worrying too much about historical accuracy isn't really the issue here.*  It's the fact that shaman, as @Doug McCrae very rightly pointed out, only apply to violent, dangerous, and, frankly pretty darn evil, primitive races. * And, since 5e already defines shaman as druids as a class, then what's really the problem with dropping the shaman title and just calling them druids?




The bold part is objectively false as has been proven to you over and over in this thread.  Shamans in 5e are literally any humanoid race and of any alignment, without the need for violence, evil or primitive.



> It's a druid that's linked to violent, savage, primitive enemy races.




Factually false.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Mercurius said:
			
		

> Both are animistic, and druids employed some shamanic--or quasi-shamanic--practices, but the similarities end there.




Why do you say that? What makes you think that the druids were animists?

Which "shamanic" or "quasi-shamanic" practices did the druids employ?


----------



## Mercurius

Sepulchrave II said:


> Why do you say that? What makes you think that the druids were animists?




Here's something:






						Are all Druids animistic? - The Druid Network
					

Are all Druids animistic? Druidry is essentially an animistic tradition in that Druids consider all aspects of nature to be inspirited or have soul; in other words, every aspect of nature has its own inherent value and purpose.  Some would go further and say that at every …



					druidnetwork.org
				




As for historical druids, many/most ancient traditions had some degree of animism, so it makes sense.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

So why do you think the historical druids were animists?


----------



## Aldarc

Incidentally, the YouTube channel I linked in the OP also has a video overview on the Druids:


----------



## Mercurius

Sepulchrave II said:


> So why do you think the historical druids were animists?




As I said, many/most ancient religious traditions had some degree of animism. Druids are rather mysterious, with accounts varying from a few ancient sources, Medievalism, Romanticism, New Age authors, and "neo-druids." It may be the authentic tradition changed over time, but my sense is that they carried a piece of what Aldous Huxley called the "perennial philosophy" from some forgotten civilization. I personally like the idea that they were from Atlantis, but who knows.

Animism is somewhat problematic as a concept, because it is a scholarly (anthropological) term, which isn't the same as a lived understanding.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Hussar said:


> Quoting @Doug McCrae who says this better than I do



This post, from page 7 upthread, gives my fullest account of the core rules 5e shaman.









						Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms
					

"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.




					www.enworld.org
				




It also answers @Voadam's point about the neutrality of stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths - all of them have the wrong alignment by the 5e PHB definition. Even if we accept their alignments, stone giants and lizardfolk have very strange belief systems that permit actions we'd consider to be immoral. The shamanic religious practices of lizardfolk and quaggoths also involve immoral actions - devouring and sacrificing sentient beings, and the ritual slaughter of a failed leader followed by cannibalism.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The 5e Volo’s Guide to Monsters introduces the shamans of two more "savage" races.

Kobold (lawful evil, INT 8 in the MM) shamans are "very rare" as kobolds "depend on arcane magic rather than divine".

Orc (chaotic evil, INT 7 in the MM) shamans serve their god of disease, Yurtrus. Chapter 1 Monster Lore (pg 84):

Yurtrus is often depicted as consumed by rot and covered in oozing pustules, utterly repulsive except for his hands, which are pure white and free of any blemish… The followers of Yurtrus are allowed to dwell on the fringes of the tribe, but are looked upon with distaste and unease... Shamans who heed the telepathic whispers of Yurtrus walk the perilous line between the living and the dead, and gain uncanny powers from doing so... These shamans, known as White Hands, cover their hands in white ash or wear pale gloves made of elf skin to symbolize their connection to the power of Yurtrus. The necromancy practiced by the shamans of Yurtrus is a force considered taboo by orcs, which makes them both revered and feared by the rest of the tribe.​
It’s hard to imagine a more negative portrayal of shamanism than this. "Uncanny powers", gloves made out of the skin of sentient beings, "necromancy", "feared by… the tribe" – straight out of the early 20th century pulp tradition.

The section on orcs in Chapter 3 Bestiary repeats most of the information above but employs different phrasing. "Shaman" is not used, being replaced by "priest". "Orc priests that oversee the line between life and death are known by the others in the tribe as hands of Yurtrus." (pg 185) Perhaps the work of two different writers?


----------



## jasper

So Doug, Hussar, and others in the thread have prove Shamans are a generic game term. Shamans are generally not a pc class but can occasionally be the druid class. Shamans spell list is up to the individual dm. DMs are ask to read the flavor text of the monster race and decide which spells the shaman can cast.


----------



## Hussar

jasper said:


> So Doug and others have prove Shamans are a generic game term which means not generally a pc class but can cast spells.




Sorry, having a little trouble parsing that.  Can you clean up the grammar a bit because I'm not really sure what this says.

------

It's funny though.  If WotC had just quietly replaced the word "shaman" in the books with "druid", no one would have noticed, it wouldn't have been a problem, and it would have resolved all of this.  

Sorry, but, we don't have to worry about cultural appropriation from dead people.  The copyright on culture expires when the culture does.  So, using druid is pretty much perfectly fine, since, well, there aren't any druids anymore.  Yes, there are modern people who are trying to recreate druidic beliefs, I'm sure.  But, again, they have no more right to the culture than anyone else.  

You'd think we were advocating massive changes. 9 words. Out of all the books in 5e, 9 words need to be changed. And, that's apparently a problem. Good grief.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, we don't have to worry about cultural appropriation from dead people.  The copyright on culture expires when the culture does. So, using druid is pretty much perfectly fine, since, well, there aren't any druids anymore.




The Samurai says hello


----------



## Fenris-77

Sadras said:


> The Samurai says hello



The Celts as a culture, are dead, last time I checked the Japanese were not.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> The Celts as a culture, are dead, last time I checked the Japanese were not.



At least the Pre-Christian/Roman Celtic culture.


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> At least the Pre-Christian/Roman Celtic culture.



Yeah, that's what I meant. A bunch of modern cultures have renewed their felt connections to that ancient culture, but that's a markedly different thing.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

Fenris-77 said:


> The Celts as a culture, are dead, last time I checked the Japanese were not.



Weird.  In my home town, We learned Gaelic in high school and have pretty deep Celtic traditions.  That said, it was a Christian - Scottish colony so much of the religious aspects of the culture had already been changed.  

Edit:  my point being that some might take exception to that.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Whether Celtic culture still exists is open to argument. What's not open to argument is that that culture no longer has magico-religious specialists called druids.


----------



## Sadras

Doug McCrae said:


> Whether Celtic culture still exists is open to argument. What's not open to argument is that that culture no longer has magico-religious specialists called druids.




And the Japanese no longer have Samurais.
Also speaking of dead cultures - MANY already dead cultures had shamans. What is to say D&D cannot borrow the shaman from one of them and not the ones that are currently active?


----------



## Aldarc

Probably most of the Celtic-descended peoples would identify their religion as Christian or non-religious. It was thoroughly Romanized and then Christianized.


----------



## Fenris-77

The Japanese no longer have an armor-wearing, katana-wielding warrior caste, but that's not the point. The connections between the samurai and modern japanese culture are direct and clear. The connections between the Celtic culture that contained the Druids and modern cultures that identify as 'Celtic' are not. If someone wants to be offended that I think they aren't 'Celtic' the same way the Japanese are still Japanese I'm fine with that. The differences between the two examples at hand are obvious enough that I don't think it's controversial.


----------



## HorusArisen

Hussar said:


> Sorry, having a little trouble parsing that. Can you clean up the grammar a bit because I'm not really sure what this says.
> 
> ------
> 
> It's funny though. If WotC had just quietly replaced the word "shaman" in the books with "druid", no one would have noticed, it wouldn't have been a problem, and it would have resolved all of this.
> 
> Sorry, but, we don't have to worry about cultural appropriation from dead people. The copyright on culture expires when the culture does. So, using druid is pretty much perfectly fine, since, well, there aren't any druids anymore. Yes, there are modern people who are trying to recreate druidic beliefs, I'm sure. But, again, they have no more right to the culture than anyone else.
> 
> You'd think we were advocating massive changes. 9 words. Out of all the books in 5e, 9 words need to be changed. And, that's apparently a problem. Good grief.




I’m a Celt and maybe I’m offended you’re fantasy pissing all over my ancestors?

Or maybe I’m a grown up and realise it’s a game.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> It also answers @Voadam's point about the neutrality of stone giants, lizardfolk, and quaggoths - all of them have the wrong alignment by the 5e PHB definition. Even if we accept their alignments, stone giants and lizardfolk have very strange belief systems that permit actions we'd consider to be immoral. The shamanic religious practices of lizardfolk and quaggoths also involve immoral actions - devouring and sacrificing sentient beings, and the ritual slaughter of a failed leader followed by cannibalism.



What about all the good Elven, Dwarven, Halfling, Human, Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half-Orc, Gnome and Half-Elf shamans who are not primitive and do not engage in the above activities? Do they not count?


----------



## Campbell

When it comes to the way we portray shamanism in games I think there is a fundamental difference from how we portray Druids - our modern understanding of indigenous cultures is shaped by that portrayal. The way we view Irish people or Scots (speaking as one) is not shaped by portrayals of Druids in a meaningful way. Also while being wildly historically inaccurate D&D Druids do not reinforce any negative stereotypes about Scots.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, we don't have to worry about cultural appropriation from dead people.  The copyright on culture expires when the culture does.  So, using druid is pretty much perfectly fine, since, well, there aren't any druids anymore.  Yes, there are modern people who are trying to recreate druidic beliefs, I'm sure.  But, again, they have no more right to the culture than anyone else.




So a culture that loses something of itself can't go back and regain it?  Once it's gone it's up for grabs by anyone who comes along?


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> When it comes to the way we portray shamanism in games I think there is a fundamental difference from how we portray Druids - our modern understanding of indigenous cultures is shaped by that portrayal. The way we view Irish people or Scots (speaking as one) is not shaped by portrayals of Druids in a meaningful way. Also while being wildly historically inaccurate D&D Druids do not reinforce any negative stereotypes about Scots.



The way we view any peoples with Shamans and Samurai is also not shaped in any meaningful way by D&D.  Rational people don't take a fantasy game and then try to apply it to the real world.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> So a culture that loses something of itself can't go back and regain it?  Once it's gone it's up for grabs by anyone who comes along?



When you say 'culture', what exactly do you mean? One the one hand you have the Japanese example, and on the other you have the Celtic example. At what level of remove are you happy saying that two cultures are still contiguous enough to make this argument? That's really the heart of the disagreement here IMO.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Druids started off as "monsters" in D&D, in OD&D Book IV Greyhawk (1975). They became a PC class in Book VI Eldritch Wizardry (1976).

Whether a cultural component is a PC class or a monster, whether it's in the PHB or the MM, is, I think, the most important factor. Alignment is the second most important.

The big problem with D&D is that, with some exceptions like the monk, the PHB = Europe and the MM = not Europe.

Stuff like frost giants are consistent with this. Frost giants aren't vikings, they were mostly the enemies of the Norse gods in the myths of the vikings. To present them as monsters is to agree with the vikings. A number of the MM monsters are connected with real world peoples, not their myths*.

EDIT: *Or we could say, the myths Europeans told about those peoples.


----------



## Maxperson

We have been told countless times that the problem with Orcs would go away if there were examples of Orcs that were different than the ones in the PHB, and that if there were such exampled, it would be okay to also have the PHB Orcs.  Yet here we have Shamans who are portrayed as both good AND bad, yet the problem didn't go away.  Which is it?  Is it okay if you have both or not?


----------



## Doug McCrae

The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.




Again, this is pretty contested. A lot of people in these threads have pushed back against this nation and there have been a lot of arguments as to why


----------



## MGibster

Maxperson said:


> So a culture that loses something of itself can't go back and regain it?  Once it's gone it's up for grabs by anyone who comes along?




The important thing to realize is that the Celts and most of their descendants are white Europeans.  It's okay to appropriate their heritage, to distort it, and to include their unique cultural identifiers in hodgepodge ahistorical settings, but it is wrong to "borrow" from other cultures for very important sociohistorical and political reasons.  Sometimes it's tough to figure out where it's acceptable to take influence from but so long as it's Europe you're probably safe.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> The weirdest thing of all in D&D is that monsters that seem to be from the European tradition, like goblins, have been given the properties of non-European peoples. The monsters have been deported from Europe. That goes back to The Lord of the Rings.



What are the non-European properties of Pixies, Vampires, Banshees, Cyclops, Chimera, Dryads, Pegasus, Gargoyle, etc.?


----------



## Aldarc

The funny thing is, no one is really proposing that we get rid of shamans in D&D or our hobby, only that we think about how we frame and contexualize them, particularly in relation to other spiritual classes and various in-game cultures. It amazes me that such a mild suggestion has received as much of an adverse reaction as it has. It’s on a similar level of suggestions from old that maybe stories should involve more than rescuing helpless damsels in distress. 



MGibster said:


> The important thing to realize is that the Celts and most of their descendants are white Europeans.  It's okay to appropriate their heritage, to distort it, and to include their unique cultural identifiers in hodgepodge ahistorical settings, but it is wrong to "borrow" from other cultures for very important sociohistorical and political reasons.  Sometimes it's tough to figure out where it's acceptable to take influence from but so long as it's Europe you're probably safe.



This is hardly a good faith reading of the arguments. No one has argued cultural appropriation is okay “because they are white.” The issue pertains cultural continuity. As I said before, Evenki people and their shamans still exist. Druids don’t, apart from Neo-Pagan reconstructionism. We probably know more about Evenki spiritual practices than we do about the Gaulic druids and theirs. One reason why is because we can ask the Evenki shamans. The project of Romanizing (and then Christianizing) the Gauls and many other Celtic peoples was pretty darn systematic and successful. We are left mostly with the “myths” about the druids.


----------



## Campbell

Maxperson said:


> The way we view any peoples with Shamans and Samurai is also not shaped in any meaningful way by D&D.  Rational people don't take a fantasy game and then try to apply it to the real world.




We are influenced by the media we partake in, usually in small subtle ways. Games are art and like all other art forms they can move us. Fiction is not real, but it says stuff about real stuff even when it is not trying to.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not claiming to be a victim. I am telling you how these things impact people trying to be creative. And I am just giving my honest reaction to the state of things in the hobby. I reached a point where I simply had to tune out these conversations because I found it stifling. I don't see how that is painting myself as a victim. And I don't see how it is an unreasonable reaction when you see constant threads on social media (in forums, on twitter, etc) around the topic of the way we use language in gaming.
> ...
> You can declare it a fiction if you want to. If you think there isn't a lot of pablum out there, and if you think this kind of development isn't contributing to more pablum content, more power to you. All I can say is that is not how I see things.




When I see pablum in any creative medium it is because the "creative" person has been half-arsing it. That they've used a mix of half formed and badly researched stereotypes instead of nuance, research, and attention to detail. Which is _exactly_ the problem with using terms like Shaman - that they are words which have been taken so far out from any reasonable root meaning and any sensible set of overlaps that they just mean "strange religious-like thing with primitive overtones".

People with a desire and drive to be creative will, in my experience, take these critiques and realise that a big problem of what they have produced is that it is pablum and they will use it to spur them on to do better next time. Meanwhile people who more want to have written a novel than actually want to write a novel in my experience will be the ones who are discouraged because they dislike that writing a novel is hard, and they dislike that people don't fall down at their feet for having done so irrespective of the quality.

So yes there is a lot of pablum out there. And this kind of development is in my experience contributing to both easy ways to spot the pablum while you are only a few pages in and to ways to push it back.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> This is hardly a good faith reading of the arguments. No one has argued cultural appropriation is okay “because they are white.”




I understand nobody's put forth such an argument, but between this thread and others, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and who it's okay to appropriate from.  And let's face it, if you want to appropriate from Europe you're pretty safe from criticism. 



> The issue pertains cultural continuity. As I said before, Evenki people and their shamans still exist. Druids don’t, apart from Neo-Pagan reconstructionism.




I get the argument.  And people are complex.  When I took my anthropology courses most of them revolved around Middle Eastern cultures.  I was very, very surprised to learn that modern Egyptians have some strong opinions regarding how Ancient Egypt is viewed.  After all, they don't have any more continuity with that past than Spain does with the Celts.  



> We probably know more about Evenki spiritual practices than we do about the Gaulic druids and theirs. One reason why is because we can ask the Evenki shamans. The project of Romanizing (and then Christianizing) the Gauls and many other Celtic peoples was pretty darn systematic and successful. We are left mostly with the “myths” about the druids.




We know remarkably little about the druids aside from what the Romans wrote about them and they're not exactly an unbiased source.  So what's the answer here?  Should we just drop shaman entirely from D&D and make them all druids?  I admit I don't have very strong feelings about this.  I did just use a lizardman shaman just last week but that's the first time I can remember using one in many years.  So it's not like I'm going to miss the shaman.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> Druids don’t, apart from Neo-Pagan reconstructionism.




BTW, why is the neo-pagan religious belief not worth protecting? Neodruidry started in England in the 18th century, that's not just a fad. Besides, the D&D druid certainly uses images closer to the one believed by the Neo-druid than the real celtic druids.


----------



## Sadras

MGibster said:


> I was very, very surprised to learn that modern Egyptians have some strong opinions regarding how Ancient Egypt is viewed.  After all, they don't have any more continuity with that past than Spain does with the Celts.




This is true and is hilarious.


----------



## Voadam

Aldarc said:


> This is hardly a good faith reading of the arguments. No one has argued cultural appropriation is okay “because they are white.”



I do not think in this thread but "punching up" versus "punching down" has been brought up multiple times recently in cultural appropriation discussions here.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> I understand nobody's put forth such an argument, but between this thread and others, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and who it's okay to appropriate from.




In the US, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and socio-economic status.  Appropriating in general may not be great.  Doing so from folks who are generally lower on the socio-economic ladder than you is an abuse of your higher status.


----------



## Aldarc

Galandris said:


> BTW, why is the neo-pagan religious belief not worth protecting?



Would you mind not pointing your loaded question at my face without at least putting the safety on first?


----------



## Sadras

Voadam said:


> I do not think in this thread but "punching up" versus "punching down" has been brought up multiple times recently in cultural appropriation discussions here.




Uppercuts have always been more popular. They were all the rage in Street Fighter II.

All you can


----------



## Voadam

Umbran said:


> Appropriating in general may not be great.  Doing so from folks who are generally lower on the socio-economic ladder than you is an abuse of your higher status.



Is one view.

Another is that cultural appropriation is a subset of cultural exchange where there is a power or privilege differential. Some argue this is inherently harmful, others that it is not and you would have to examine the specific harm of the situation to say if it is problematic.

There are also other ways that people differ on what cultural appropriation is and means such as whether knowledge of the origin is important, whether the treatment is respectful, who profits, etc.

So whether the Beastie Boys (or Vanilla Ice, or Kid Rock, or M&M) using or profiting off of hip hop and rap, or D&D using and profiting off of the term and concept of Shamans, is a negative is viewed differently by different people.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> In the US, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and socio-economic status.  Appropriating in general may not be great.  Doing so from folks who are generally lower on the socio-economic ladder than you is an abuse of your higher status.




You have a valid point, but the prohibition against appropriation even applies to groups higher on the socio-economic ladder.  Asians in the US have a higher median income and are more educated than any other group in the country.  I realize income and education are but two metrics, but they're pretty important metrics.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Maxperson said:


> What are the non-European properties of Pixies, Vampires, Banshees, Cyclops, Chimera, Dryads, Pegasus, Gargoyle, etc.?



I'm talking about a transformation that occurs between OD&D (1974) and the 1e AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide (1979) that affects bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, orcs, and trolls.

In OD&D only orcs have tribes. Gnolls and hobgoblins are led by kings. Goblins have a "goblin king" in quote marks. Kobolds are treated the same as goblins. Frost and fire giants live in castles.

The only hint of a non-European association is the orcish "tribe". In Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings the appearance of orcs is based on Asian peoples - "swart", "sallow", "slant-eyed", "squint-eyed" (LotR), "least lovely Mongol-types" (letter #210). The goblins in The Hobbit have one minor non-European association - their use of scimitars.

In the 1e AD&D Monster Manual (1977), hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, and orcs live in "tribes". "Bugbears live in loose bands". "Goblins have a tribal society" though they still show "fealty to the goblin king". Gnolls live in "rapacious bands". "They have a so-called king… but his authority extends only as far as his reach."

The hobgoblin is depicted wearing the armour of a Japanese warrior. "There is a great resemblance between gnolls and hyenas." The hyena is an African animal.

Skin colours of the monsters under consideration are predominantly yellow, red, brown, and black:

"The skin of bugbears is light yellow to yellow brown — typically dull yellow."
"Hill giants have tan to reddish brown skins"
"Goblins range from yellow through dull orange to brick red in skin color."
"The hairy hides of hobgoblins range from dark reddish-brown to gray black. Their faces are bright red-orange to red."
"The hide of kobolds runs from very dark rusty brown to a rusty black."
"The hide of ogres varies from dull blackish-brown to dead yellow."
"Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration — brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen — highlights their pinkish snouts and ears."

Half-orcs, new to the AD&D MM, are "mongrels", a racial slur directed at people of mixed race -









						D&D 5E - WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward
					

On Twitter, Jeremy Crawford discussed the treatment of orcs, Vistani, drow and others in D&D, and how WotC plans to treat the idea of 'race' in D&D going forward. In recent products (Eberron and Wildemount), the mandatory evil alignment was dropped from orcs, as was the Intelligence penalty...




					www.enworld.org
				




Orcs outbreed other races and have 'genetically' dominant traits. Both were believed to be true of black people by early 20th century race pseudoscientists -

"Half-orcs tend to favor the orcish strain heavily, so such sorts are basically orcs although they can sometimes (10%) pass themselves off as true creatures of their other stock (goblins, hobgoblins, humans, etc.)."









						D&D 5E - WotC's Jeremy Crawford on D&D Races Going Forward
					

On Twitter, Jeremy Crawford discussed the treatment of orcs, Vistani, drow and others in D&D, and how WotC plans to treat the idea of 'race' in D&D going forward. In recent products (Eberron and Wildemount), the mandatory evil alignment was dropped from orcs, as was the Intelligence penalty...




					www.enworld.org
				




In the AD&D DMG bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, orcs, and trolls have shamans. In the reading material of Gary Gygax and other TSR staff shamans would’ve been associated with Africans such as Solomon Kane’s friend, N’Longa and Native Americans - L Sprague de Camp, The Reluctant Shaman and Other Fantastic Tales (1970).

TSR’s RPG Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) may have been a significant influence here in making the connection between backwardness, tribes, and shamans. It is set on board a futuristic starship that has suffered a disaster. PCs live in tribes, which are led by shamans. "Radiation has caused all knowledge to be 'lost' and humans are in a state of semi-barbarism." "Later generations of humans lost all sense of identity, with the ship regressing into a state of savagery… The humans settled into a tribal way of life". A shaman also features in Sterling Lanier’s post-apocalyptic Hiero’s Journey (1973).

In the 1e AD&D DMG bugbears, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and orcs have witch doctors, which in popular culture are sub-Saharan African magicians. The clerics of 1e MM tribesmen are also called witch doctors. "Primitive tribesmen are typically found in tropical jungles or on islands. They use large shields... These men dwell in villages of grass, bamboo or mud huts."

I conclude therefore that a number of humanoid monsters which in 1974 OD&D possessed almost no non-European associations have, by the 1979 1e AD&D DMG, been expelled from Europe.


----------



## Voadam

Doug McCrae said:


> In the AD&D DMG bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, orcs, and trolls have shamans. In the reading material of Gary Gygax and other TSR staff shamans would’ve been associated with Africans such as Solomon Kane’s friend, N’Longa and Native Americans - L Sprague de Camp, The Reluctant Shaman and Other Fantastic Tales (1970).




Weren't tribes and shamans also directly associated with European Picts in Howard's Conan stories?


----------



## MGibster

Voadam said:


> Weren't tribes and shamans also directly associated with European Picts in Howard's Conan stories?




There's also the Germanic tribes as described in antiquity by people like Tacitus.  But that does fit the idea of primitive and uncivilized as the Romans were wont to describe norther Europeans.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch.

I am for everyone to use whatever terms they deem necessary in their fantasy. Misappropriation is a feature not a bug : ideas, meaning and cultures evolve that way.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Voadam said:


> Weren't tribes and shamans also directly associated with European Picts in Howard's Conan stories?



The most notable shaman in Howard’s Conan stories is the Pict, Zogar Sag, in Beyond the Black River. Picts also feature prominently in The Black Stranger. They are described as white, but are not regarded as such by their Hyborian neighbours. They have the trappings of Native Americans – warriors are called braves, wear feathers on their heads, "naked except for scanty loin-clouts", use dugout canoes, store their bows in "buckskin cases", wield axes, and take scalps.

Beyond the Black River (1935)
"The Picts were a white race, though swarthy, but the border men never spoke of them as such."
"No white man has ever plunged deep into that fastness [Pictish wilderness] and returned alive to tell us what he found."
"Balthus saw a lean figure [Zogar Sag] of middle height, almost hidden in ostrich plumes set on a harness of leather and copper. From amidst the plumes peered a hideous and malevolent face."
"He felt the eyes of the Picts upon him – hundreds of hungry, cruel eyes that reflected the lust of souls utterly without humanity as he knew it. They no longer seemed men; they were devils of this black jungle, as inhuman as the creatures to which the fiend in the nodding plumes screamed through the darkness."

The Hyborian Age (1938)
"[T]he Pict remained the eternal barbarian, ferocious, elemental, interested only in the naked primal principles of life, unchanging, unerring in his instincts which were all for war and plunder, and in which arts and the cultured progress of humanity had no place."

The Black Stranger (1953)
"They were dark-skinned men of short stature, with thickly-muscled chests and arms. They wore beaded buckskin loin-cloths, and an eagle’s feather was thrust into each black mane. They were painted in hideous designs, and heavily armed."
"The first to reach the crag was a brawny brave whose eagle feather was stained scarlet as a token of chieftainship."
"Blood-smeared braves dived howling into huts and the shrieks that rose from the interiors where women and children died beneath the red axes rose above the din of the battle."
"A feathered chief wheeled from the door, lifting a war-ax, and behind the racing Cimmerian lines of fleet-footed braves were converging upon him."
"I might as well leave you for the Picts to scalp"

Another shaman makes a brief appearance in Queen of the Black Coast (1934) as one of Bêlit’s crew, who all seem to be black people. "Bêlit... is a Shemite woman, who leads black raiders."

EDIT:
There are a few other shamans in Howard's Conan. Two are mentioned in passing in The Hour of the Dragon (1950). "[A] feathered shaman of the barbarians", probably a Pict, and a "Pictish _shaman_". The fragment Wolves Beyond the Border (1967) has two shamans. One is "the Wizard of the Swamp... a pre-Pictish shaman". The other is a Pict, "old Teyanoga of the South Hawks". "A feathered shaman was dancing between the fire and the altar, a slow, shuffling dance indescribably grotesque, which caused his plumes to swing and sway about him: his features were hidden by a grinning scarlet mask that looked like a forest-devil’s face."


----------



## Doug McCrae

As an aside, the last paragraph of Beyond the Black River is the most Conan-y thing ever:

"'Barbarism is the natural state of mankind,' the borderer said, still staring somberly at the Cimmerian. 'Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.'"


----------



## Aldarc

MGibster said:


> And let's face it, if you want to appropriate from Europe you're pretty safe from criticism.



Counter-example that readily comes to mind: the Romani.



> We know remarkably little about the druids aside from what the Romans wrote about them and they're not exactly an unbiased source.  So what's the answer here?  Should we just drop shaman entirely from D&D and make them all druids?  I admit I don't have very strong feelings about this.  I did just use a lizardman shaman just last week but that's the first time I can remember using one in many years.  So it's not like I'm going to miss the shaman.



I'm not against using shaman in our games, but I think we should reflect about how we use them. Are we doing so in a way that implies that they are "lesser" than clerics or cultic spiritual leaders? Are they typically ascribed to antagonist factions and peoples? Do the civilized peoples of the setting also have shamans or only clerics? Is 'shaman' just a word we use synonymously with "primitive priest/cleric" in our game?

Again, I do think that RuneQuest did a better job of presenting shamanism, but that was because it's syncretic with theist religions. Spirits exist, and every day people call on them just as readily as they would the gods. Arcana Evolved did something similar actually, albeit with rune manifests, where people would call upon living rune manifestations representing concepts for day-to-day living. I believe the book where this was described was incidentally written by Mike Mearls.

Though 4e had some problems in framing shamans as "primal," to the credit of 4e, the primal source pertained to spirits. And the spirits of the Material World were the primary agents responsible for ending the Dawn War between the Gods and the Primordials. So the spirits are arguably the most mortal-aligned powers in the World Axis.



MGibster said:


> You have a valid point, but the prohibition against appropriation even applies to groups higher on the socio-economic ladder.  *Asians in the US have a higher median income and are more educated than any other group in the country.  *I realize income and education are but two metrics, but they're pretty important metrics.



The reasons why ironically involve 20th century US anti-Asian immigration laws.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> Counter-example that readily comes to mind: the Romani.




I thought about them, and if I wanted to be pedantic I'd point out that the Romani originate from India even if their diaspora places them in Europe. But until fairly recently, most Americans knew nothing about the Roma, wouldn't have any idea if they met someone with Romani ancestry, and are completely puzzled by their poor treatment in many European nations.  



> I'm not against using shaman in our games, but I think we should reflect about how we use them. Are we doing so in a way that implies that they are "lesser" than clerics or cultic spiritual leaders? Are they typically ascribed to antagonist factions and peoples? Do the civilized peoples of the setting also have shamans or only clerics? Is 'shaman' just a word we use synonymously with "primitive priest/cleric" in our game?




And if we reflect upon it and decide we're fine with how the word is currently used?  



> The reasons why ironically involve 20th century US anti-Asian immigration laws.




This is true.


----------



## Aldarc

MGibster said:


> And if we reflect upon it and decide we're fine with how the word is currently used?



Then your games go about as usual, while those who reflect on it and change their usage do so in their games/products. Hence why I find the opposition to this mild call for critical self-reflection a bit much.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> Then your games go about as usual, while those who reflect on it and change their usage do so in their games/products. Hence why I find the opposition to this mild call for critical self-reflection a bit much.




So anything other than agreement is "a bit much?"


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I'm a Finn. In the Finnish mythology 'Mana' or 'Manala' is the underworld where the spirits of the dead and various gods and other entities related to death dwell. 'Mana' as a word root is related to spirits in shamanistic sense. 'Manata' is to curse or to summon spirits or to banish them. 'Manaaja' is a summoner or an exorcists. There are other related words and sayings. 

So to me it was always natural to link word 'mana' to mystical energies and magic. At some point I actually though that the use of the word in the popular media was related to Finnish usage and I was a bit bummed when I learned that this was not the case.

My oldest dog is named Mana. Despite this his magical abilities remain decidedly mediocre, though otherwise he is a good boy.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, we don't have to worry about cultural appropriation from dead people.  The copyright on culture expires when the culture does.  So, using druid is pretty much perfectly fine, since, well, there aren't any druids anymore.  Yes, there are modern people who are trying to recreate druidic beliefs, I'm sure.  But, again, they have no more right to the culture than anyone else.



I can't say I like how this sounds. Who decides when a culture is 'dead?' The descendants of ancient Celts still live. Sure, over time the cultural practices have changed and vanished, many intentionally destroyed by conquerors. But would you say the same callous thing about the South American native cultures? They were almost completely destroyed, their artefacts and traditions lost. Perhaps you should reconsider your words?


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> The Samurai says hello




I don't know about you, but, I meet Japanese people every day.


----------



## Hussar

MGibster said:


> And if we reflect upon it and decide we're fine with how the word is currently used?




We, as a hobby?  Fair enough.  Obviously not every issue that gets brought up needs action.  "We" as in, "Me" decides that "we" are fine with it and ignores all the negative elements?  Well, what you do in your own games is your business, but, I wouldn't expect "our" preferences to be the deciding factor.


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> I can't say I like how this sounds. Who decides when a culture is 'dead?' The descendants of ancient Celts still live. Sure, over time the cultural practices have changed and vanished, many intentionally destroyed by conquerors. But would you say the same callous thing about the South American native cultures? They were almost completely destroyed, their artefacts and traditions lost. Perhaps you should reconsider your words?




Well, perhaps a better way would be, "When a culture has been dead for so long that no one actually knows what that culture consisted of, no living people can actually directly trace their current culture to that culture, no one speaks that language, no one holds the faith of that culture, no one eats the food of that culture and the music of that culture is lost.  That some of those things might survive to today is one thing, but, to claim to be part of that culture?  That's a bit trickier.

But, there is another element here that's getting ignored.  Samurai were brought up as an example of cultural appropriation of a dead element.  Well, number one, while the samurai as a social caste ended in the late 19th century with the Meiji Restoration, the cultural elements of samurai - the code of Bushido, religion, language, art - all exist and are practiced today.  It's not a dead culture.

And, there is another element that gets lost here.  Borrowing from other cultures, when done respectfully, isn't a problem.  Samurai in D&D are not limited to barbarian, primitive, warlike, evil groups.  The Samurai as a PC class is detailed as highly cultured, the epitome of a warrior, strongly ethical and a paragon of society.  Hardly a negative depiction is it?

There is more to cultural appropriation than simply coming from another culture.  That's fine.  We borrow stuff all the time and I, for one, am very thankful that I don't have to just eat English food.  I love souvlaki.  Double loves me some blues music.  That's perfectly fine and no problem.

The problem is when the borrowed element is then indelibly linked to negative stereotypes.  Imagine a D&D where paladins are described as rapacious murderers whose greatest duty is to exterminate any non-believer in service to their cleric lords who dine on the blood of the children of their enemies and ritualistically sacrifice captives before engaging in rape to spread the seed of the faithful as far as possible.

Incredibly negative view of faith right?  Would never get off the ground.  Yet, that's how shaman are described.  Lizardfolk shaman do exactly this - although they lack paladins.  EVIL clerics might do this, but, that's counter balanced by the fact that you have GOOD clerics too.  But, where are the good shaman?  Where are the shaman of peaceful, caring cultures?  Oh, right, in D&D, shaman can only be part of rapacious, murderous races that torture, kill and destroy where ever they go.

But, apparently, that's a perfectly acceptable depiction of shaman because it's just a game right?  These things don't really exist, so, it's perfectly fine.  Don't do it to OUR cultural heritage, because that would be bad, but, other people's cultural heritages?  Oh, that's perfectly fine because everyone knows that other people's cultures and heritages aren't really important.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> Well, perhaps a better way would be, "When a culture has been dead for so long that no one actually knows what that culture consisted of, no living people can actually directly trace their current culture to that culture, no one speaks that language, no one holds the faith of that culture, no one eats the food of that culture and the music of that culture is lost.  That some of those things might survive to today is one thing, but, to claim to be part of that culture?  That's a bit trickier.



That Finnish Mythology I mentioned, it is barely remembered folklore, about as relevant to modern Finns than ancient druids to the modern Irish. And if someone would mine that mythology for a fantasy game, I obviously wouldn't mind, I might be pleased. (And D&D has done this. Mielikki is an ancient Finnish forest goddess.) But if the stated rationale why it was OK to do so was that the the culture was a cadaver ripe for plundering then I might be somewhat less thrilled. I fully get that temporal distance in these things matters, someone's living traditions are more important than ancient history, but the difference also isn't that clear cut. And considering that Celtic culture and language has historically been targeted by systematic attempts to eliminate it, your proclamation came across as a tad insensitive.




> But, there is another element here that's getting ignored.  Samurai were brought up as an example of cultural appropriation of a dead element.  Well, number one, while the samurai as a social caste ended in the late 19th century with the Meiji Restoration, the cultural elements of samurai - the code of Bushido, religion, language, art - all exist and are practiced today.  It's not a dead culture.
> 
> And, there is another element that gets lost here.  Borrowing from other cultures, when done respectfully, isn't a problem.  Samurai in D&D are not limited to barbarian, primitive, warlike, evil groups.  The Samurai as a PC class is detailed as highly cultured, the epitome of a warrior, strongly ethical and a paragon of society.  Hardly a negative depiction is it?
> 
> There is more to cultural appropriation than simply coming from another culture.  That's fine.  We borrow stuff all the time and I, for one, am very thankful that I don't have to just eat English food.  I love souvlaki.  Double loves me some blues music.  That's perfectly fine and no problem.



Sure.



> The problem is when the borrowed element is then indelibly linked to negative stereotypes.  Imagine a D&D where paladins are described as rapacious murderers whose greatest duty is to exterminate any non-believer in service to their cleric lords who dine on the blood of the children of their enemies and ritualistically sacrifice captives before engaging in rape to spread the seed of the faithful as far as possible.



Hey, with crusaders you can either get 'historically accurate' or 'respectful!' Because 'both' is not an option!



> Incredibly negative view of faith right?  Would never get off the ground.  Yet, that's how shaman are described.  Lizardfolk shaman do exactly this - although they lack paladins.  EVIL clerics might do this, but, that's counter balanced by the fact that you have GOOD clerics too.  But, where are the good shaman?  Where are the shaman of peaceful, caring cultures?  Oh, right, in D&D, shaman can only be part of rapacious, murderous races that torture, kill and destroy where ever they go.
> 
> But, apparently, that's a perfectly acceptable depiction of shaman because it's just a game right?  These things don't really exist, so, it's perfectly fine.  Don't do it to OUR cultural heritage, because that would be bad, but, other people's cultural heritages?  Oh, that's perfectly fine because everyone knows that other people's cultures and heritages aren't really important.



Yeah, I fully agree. Having shamans in the game is not an issue, that only 'savage monsters' have shamans most definitely is!


----------



## SkidAce

Just for the record, and consideration...

My elves have always had shaman, and the lizardman paladin that joined the group is one of their favorite NPCs.

(Oh side note, Dragonbait was a paladin....)

So there have been examples of "good" flavored uses of these terms for a long time.

So I don't feel (IMO) that shaman is as much of a problem as some of the other racial, cultural, societal, terms we have been debating are.

But never hurts to reflect upon such things....


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> We are influenced by the media we partake in, usually in small subtle ways. Games are art and like all other art forms they can move us. Fiction is not real, but it says stuff about real stuff even when it is not trying to.



I can guarantee you that not one time has anything in D&D(or any other RPG) influenced how I view or treat a real world group  Not even a little bit.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> In the US, there's a very strong correlation between race and ethnicity and socio-economic status.  Appropriating in general may not be great.  Doing so from folks who are generally lower on the socio-economic ladder than you is an abuse of your higher status.



How is it an abuse?  If I appropriate the Japanese Tea Ceremony for my game and nobody outside of my group ever hears about it, who is hurt by it?  How are people who have no idea what was done abused?  For that matter, a lot of times something is appropriated, because the person doing the appropriation admires that aspect of the other culture and wants to incorporate it into his life.  How is such respect an abuse?


----------



## Fenris-77

If it's done with respect you're generally going to avoid accusations if appropriation.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Fenris-77 said:


> If it's done with respect you're generally going to avoid accusations if appropriation.



I generally agree, but sometimes even if done with respect, if it's still offensive, it's on the person doing the offensive act for being ignorant.


----------



## Fenris-77

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I generally agree, but sometimes even if done with respect, if it's still offensive, it's on the person doing the offensive act for being ignorant.



If it's done with respect, and with knowledge of the culture it's coming from, then ignorance isnt a charge that can be leveled, is it?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Fenris-77 said:


> If it's done with respect, and with knowledge of the culture it's coming from, then ignorance isnt a charge that can be leveled, is it?



Sure it is. You can be ignorant of something that may be offensive while still having any knowledge of the culture.


----------



## Fenris-77

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure it is. You can be ignorant of something that may be offensive while still having any knowledge of the culture.



Ok yeah, sure you could. You can always say that. But it's not likely. Respect and k knowledge are the key.


----------



## Campbell

While I understand concerns around cultural appropriation my personal criticisms are not rooted in that concern. My primary concerns all rest around perpetuating negative stereotypes and uncritical portrayals of imperialism, colonialism, centralized power, and authoritarian states. When I speak to punching up instead of down I am referring to those uncritical portrayals. 

I have no control of anyone who is not me and I will not seek it. I will play the games I want to play with the people I want to play them with. I will also speak up for the things like and want to see. I will also criticize what I do not like. We all make these sorts of aesthetic judgments. 

People other than us will make aesthetic judgments that determines what will and will not be readily available to us. That is just part of how culture is made. I am no fan of censorious attitudes, but there is another inclination that I find just as pernicious - the notion that cultural criticism and attempts to influence culture are forms of censorship. When someone says "Go woke - go broke" or complains about the social messaging in The Dark Knight or Black Panther I do not interpret that as a form of censorship. I do not agree with them or where they want to move the cultural needle, but I do not see it as censorious.

I just do not buy this sense that creatives need to live in fear that they cannot produce what they want to produce. We are experiencing a cultural moment where norms change. We have been here before and will be here again. I have been part of the indie RPG community for years. Games like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, and Monsterhearts were culturally controversial when they came out and still found their audience. Remember when Vampire came out? How it shook up the entire culture of gaming?

No one gets to control this stuff. People will say stuff about everything.


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> That Finnish Mythology I mentioned, it is barely remembered folklore, about as relevant to modern Finns than ancient druids to the modern Irish. And if someone would mine that mythology for a fantasy game, I obviously wouldn't mind, I might be pleased. (And D&D has done this. Mielikki is an ancient Finnish forest goddess.) But if the stated rationale why it was OK to do so was that the the culture was a cadaver ripe for plundering then I might be somewhat less thrilled. I fully get that temporal distance in these things matters, someone's living traditions are more important than ancient history, but the difference also isn't that clear cut. And considering that Celtic culture and language has historically been targeted by systematic attempts to eliminate it, your proclamation came across as a tad insensitive.




Yeah.  Fair enough.  I can see that.  There is a side point though that you'll see people claiming membership of a culture in order to "be offended" which would be rather difficult as that culture doesn't exist anymore.  

Like someone claiming to be culturally ancient Roman simply because they happen to live in Rome. 

And, again, so long as the depiction is respectful and even celebratory even, then it's not a problem. 



> Sure.
> 
> 
> Hey, with crusaders you can either get 'historically accurate' or 'respectful!' Because 'both' is not an option!




Well... let's just say that history is rarely one thing or another.  And, you can at least try to be both.



> Yeah, I fully agree. Having shamans in the game is not an issue, that only 'savage monsters' have shamans most definitely is!




Yeah, I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing to be honest.


----------



## Maxperson

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yeah, I fully agree. Having shamans in the game is not an issue, that only 'savage monsters' have shamans most definitely is!



Thankfully, that has never been the case in 5e.  Shamans of every humanoid race and alignment have been present in the game from the day the Monster Manual came out.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Thankfully, that has never been the case in 5e.  Shamans of every humanoid race and alignment have been present in the game from the day the Monster Manual came out.



Do you have a different Monster Manual from me? The only shamans in the book I can see are Lizardfolk shamans and some other monstrous races.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Do you have a different Monster Manual from me? The only shamans in the book I can see are Lizardfolk shamans and some other monstrous races.



Apparently I do.  Mine says this on page 346

"DRUID
Medium* humanoid (any race), any alignment*

Druids dwell in forests and other secluded wilderness
locations, where they protect the natural world from
monsters and the encroachment of civilization. *Some
are tribal shamans* who heal the sick, pray to animal
spirits, and provide spiritual guidance."

So there you have it.  Shamans come in every humanoid race and alignment.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Apparently I do.  Mine says this on page 346
> 
> "DRUID
> Medium* humanoid (any race), any alignment*
> 
> Druids dwell in forests and other secluded wilderness
> locations, where they protect the natural world from
> monsters and the encroachment of civilization. *Some
> are tribal shamans* who heal the sick, pray to animal
> spirits, and provide spiritual guidance."
> 
> So there you have it.  Shamans come in every humanoid race and alignment.



I guess technically, that works, but I wouldn't call a druid a shaman anymore than I would call a warlock a cultist. Sure, they can be it, but that's not really the point of them, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I guess technically, that works, but I wouldn't call a druid a shaman anymore than I would call a warlock a cultist. Sure, they can be it, but that's not really the point of them, IMO.



D&D has been a game with a ton of "Doesn't quite fits" since it came out.


----------



## Hussar

If Shaman=Druid, then there is no need to use the term shaman is there?  It's included under druid.  So, all those races that list having shamans, can instead have druids and that is actually bringing it in line with the contradictory rules.

So, where's the problem?


----------



## Dire Bare

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I generally agree, but sometimes even if done with respect, if it's still offensive, it's on the person doing the offensive act for being ignorant.



I think it's important when trying to respectfully appropriate a cultural element for D&D, your home game or a published product, to be mindful and aware of the issues surrounding cultural appropriation and specific stereotypes and systemic racist tropes in regards to the specific cultures you are borrowing from. And try to avoid furthering all of that, of course.

But I also think you need to go into your design understanding that you might get it wrong, despite your best efforts. And that's okay! Don't let that stop you from trying! Be open minded to criticism, especially from folks connected to the cultures you borrow from. Be willing to listen, and then change your design to make it even better.

_EDIT: Oh yeah, and don't just be open-minded to criticism . . . . *actively go out and seek it*! If you are a white guy designing some D&D elements inspired by Asian mythology . . . . try to go find some Asian American gamers (preferably specific to the culture you are borrowing from) willing to critique your work! Or, well, Asian Canadian, Asian Australian . . . Asians born-and-raised in the West. It's cool to get critique from Asians-from-Asia also, but they have a very different lived experience to those of Asian descent in the West._


----------



## Dire Bare

Hussar said:


> Yeah.  Fair enough.  I can see that.  There is a side point though that you'll see people claiming membership of a culture in order to "be offended" which would be rather difficult as that culture doesn't exist anymore.




This isn't really a thing.

Sure, the ancient Celts aren't around anymore. Their culture was absorbed by the Romans and the Germanic peoples and modern day Celts have little more than language and place names to connect them to their ancient past. Sure, we don't know a lot of the details of the ancient Celtic culture, including specifics on their druids and bards, the ancient Celts weren't big on written records (ogham not withstanding) and much of their history and lore has been lost to time. It can even be argued that genetically the ancient Celts became so intermixed with the invading groups that a Celtic lineage is meaningless, at least genetically speaking.

But fact remains, there are plenty of folks who identify, today, as Celts and claim a connection stretching back to those ancient times. There are folks who identify as druids (Celtic heritage or not), and again claim a connection to the ancient druids from pre-Roman, pre-Viking, pre-Christian times. It's certainly true that modern ideas of Celtic and druidic identity are more romanticized than real . . . . but modern day Celts and modern day druids aren't claiming membership of these cultures and religions "_in order to be offended_". That idea itself is pretty damn offensive.

People are claiming connection to the ancient past, Celtic, Viking, _what-have-you_ . . . . because they want a connection to an imagined time when things didn't suck, like they do today in the modern world (well, perceived suck at least). They aren't looking for group membership so that they can have something to complain about. Jeesh.

When creating art inspired by ancient cultures . . . . don't assume the culture is "dead" and nobody cares anymore. You'll probably be wrong. Do your research and see if modern groups do claim a connection to those cultures, real or perceived, and honor those connections. That doesn't mean drop druids and bards from your D&D game, but when using those elements or designing new takes on those elements, take the same approach you would with Asian-inspired fantasy (or fantasy inspired by any other living culture).

Culture doesn't die. It evolves.


----------



## Dire Bare

Hussar said:


> If Shaman=Druid, then there is no need to use the term shaman is there?  It's included under druid.  So, all those races that list having shamans, can instead have druids and that is actually bringing it in line with the contradictory rules.




Druids are not shamans.

We don't know an awful lot of the specifics of druidic belief from ancient Celtic times. The ancient Celtic druids may have been very shamanic . . . or not. However, modern day notions of druids, in fantasy literature, in popular mythology, in modern day neo-pagan religions . . . do have some overlap with shamanism, but the concepts are not interchangeable.

A better solution to the shaman problem D&D has, isn't dropping shamans from the game and replacing them with druids. It's elevating shamans to the same level as druids, as potentially powerful characters. We need a good shaman class in the core rules, one that avoids "primitive" stereotypes like savagery or even "noble savagery". When a shaman character is as likely to be an orc as they are an elf or a halfling . . . from a nomadic tribe or from an urban settlement . . . . that's the way to go!


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Hussar said:


> If Shaman=Druid, then there is no need to use the term shaman is there?  It's included under druid.  So, all those races that list having shamans, can instead have druids and that is actually bringing it in line with the contradictory rules.
> 
> So, where's the problem?




Because Druid is a character class and shaman is not. And the two are quite different by game rules, other than those few exceptions the DM may want to employ bu using that little bit from the Monster Manual. There are enough confusing, multiple uses of similar words and terms in 5E and there is no need to add yet another one to the list by pretending that all shamans are actually Druids.


----------



## reelo

Dire Bare said:


> We need a good shaman class in the core rules, one that avoids "primitive" stereotypes like savagery or even "noble savagery".




Do you have any real-world examples of shamanistic civilizations that qualify for being percieved as the opposite of "primitive/noble savage" ? I would be hard-pressed to find any. Most shamanistic cultures I can think of fall loosely onto a "tribal/egalitarian/nomadic/hunter-gatherer" spectrum. As soon as you start having "civilization" (as in "civitas", meaning cities, however small) with social stratification, centralized power-structures, etc, shamanism tends to get abandoned in favour of a more "organized" form of belief.


----------



## Sadras

reelo said:


> Do you have any real-world examples of shamanistic civilizations that qualify for being percieved as the opposite of "primitive/noble savage" ? I would be hard-pressed to find any. Most shamanistic cultures I can think of fall loosely onto a "tribal/egalitarian/nomadic/hunter-gatherer" spectrum. As soon as you start having "civilization" (as in "civitas", meaning cities, however small) with social stratification, centralized power-structures, etc, shamanism tends to get abandoned in favour of a more "organized" form of belief.




I was just about to post something along these lines but you said it perfectly here.

D&D lore is not about making value judgements on human history.


----------



## Galandris

reelo said:


> Do you have any real-world examples of shamanistic civilizations that qualify for being percieved as the opposite of "primitive/noble savage" ? I would be hard-pressed to find any. Most shamanistic cultures I can think of fall loosely onto a "tribal/egalitarian/nomadic/hunter-gatherer" spectrum. As soon as you start having "civilization" (as in "civitas", meaning cities, however small) with social stratification, centralized power-structures, etc, shamanism tends to get abandoned in favour of a more "organized" form of belief.




The Oracle of Delphi was shamanistic in its practice, according to some scholars. But it's more the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Sadras said:


> D&D lore is not about making value judgements on human history.



One could hardly get a clearer, simpler, value judgement than Good and Evil in the D&D alignment system. That’s what its proponents like about it. A GM can look at the alignment of an NPC or monster and quickly determine its behaviour. It's also a way of judging a PC's actions.

As to whether D&D has anything to say about human history -

1e PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."

2e PHB: "The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers."


----------



## Dire Bare

reelo said:


> Do you have any real-world examples of shamanistic civilizations that qualify for being percieved as the opposite of "primitive/noble savage" ? I would be hard-pressed to find any. Most shamanistic cultures I can think of fall loosely onto a "tribal/egalitarian/nomadic/hunter-gatherer" spectrum. As soon as you start having "civilization" (as in "civitas", meaning cities, however small) with social stratification, centralized power-structures, etc, shamanism tends to get abandoned in favour of a more "organized" form of belief.




Part of the problem with shamans, and also the barbarian class, in D&D . . . is the supposed duality of primitive cultures versus civilized cultures. The idea that so-called primitives are simpler and less advanced, and that as civilization rose and spread it quite naturally replaced what came before, with the primitives, the barbarians, existing only in the margins of the world. This view of culture isn't unique to D&D, but rather D&D pulls from a long tradition in both literature and even in the social sciences of viewing cultural evolution as progressive . . . that primitives cultures naturally give way to more complex civilized ones.

Like so many entrenched ideas, this isn't supported by modern social science. Hunter-gatherer and nomadic cultures are not simpler than urban and settled cultures, they are just organized differently. Both types of cultures are equally complex in culture, social structure, religious belief, mythology, and sometimes even technology and knowledge of the world. There are modes of knowledge held by hunter-gatherers and nomads today that are more advanced that the knowledge of so-called civilization.

The barbarian class, of course, is directly inspired by Conan and other similar heroes from pulp fiction. Conan was, in the context of Robert E. Howard's stories, a barbarian from the uncivilized north. The class was later expanded to also cover barbarians inspired by real world cultures. But what is a barbarian? Barbarians were not Roman, they were the peoples of Europe who resisted and fought against the Roman Empire. They were dehumanized as simple, savage, barbaric . . . lesser, than the Romans. But those ancient "barbarian" cultures were not simple, were not more or less savage than the Romans themselves, and they were not all nomads or hunter-gatherers either. They just were opposed to Rome.

The barbarian class has continued to evolve in D&D, and now barbarians can be of any race and come from any culture, settled or nomadic. They still embody that "primitive" archetype, but have also expanded beyond it somewhat.

We can do the same with shamans. In fact, D&D has already done this in both 2nd and 4th edition (maybe 3rd too?).

Most religious specialists that social science would identify as shamanic are from hunter-gatherer or nomadic cultures, at least traditionally. But as our understanding of culture and religion grows, we see shamanic practices in "civilized" cultures, we see how the many so-called shamans world-wide differ from the limited archetype, and we also see how more "modern" practitioners aren't as different from shamans as we used to think. Plus, not only have some folks in modern Western society revived traditions of paganism and druidism, but they have also revived traditions of shamanism. And just like neo-paganism and neo-druids, neo-shamans are often more romanticized than truly connecting to an existing shamanic tradition. But these are very real religious traditions none-the-less.

In my view, D&D needs a quality core shaman class that is just as archetypal and fun to play as a druid, cleric, wizard, or warlock. And just like all of those classes don't truly model historical (or even modern) examples, the D&D shaman should honor and respect real-world shamans, but also embrace the fantastic archetype and move beyond trying to embody a real-world religious practice. D&D barbarians can come from "civilized" or "primitive" cultures, so should the D&D shaman.

For some "civilized" examples of shamans, other than modern-day Western practitioners . . . . how about the mediums of the 19th century? These European practitioners didn't call themselves shamans (not sure the term had been appropriated yet by scientists) . . . but they did act as intermediaries between the spirit world and the mortal world. Instead of "primitive" ritual tools, they used crystal balls, ouija boards, and tarot cards . . . instead of dances and chants, they used seances. How about practitioners in the West who claim they can intercede with angels (spirits of God) and/or devils (spirits of Satan) on behalf of mortals?

_EDIT: Oooo, I almost forgot . . . . what about the ancient Greeks? They were civilized, no? We often view them as one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization! Greeks worshiped a pantheon of gods . . . but they were also animists. Animism is the belief that nature is filled with spirits; spirits of the land, of the waters, of the sky, of the dead, of animals . . . . it's already been pointed out that some scholars feel that Greek oracles were possibly shamanic in nature, and it's very likely that other ancient Greek religious practitioners were as well._


----------



## Sadras

Doug McCrae said:


> One could hardly get a clearer, simpler, value judgement than Good and Evil in the D&D alignment system. That’s what its proponents like about it. A GM can look at the alignment of an NPC or monster and quickly determine its behaviour. It's also a way of judging a PC's actions.
> 
> As to whether D&D has anything to say about human history -
> 
> 1e PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."
> 
> 2e PHB: "The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers."




There is no value judgement made ON human history.
I believe your post does not provide contrary evidence when one takes into account the preposition.


----------



## Dire Bare

Sadras said:


> There is no value judgement made ON human history.
> I believe your post does not provide contrary evidence when one takes into account the preposition.



Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.


----------



## Aldarc

Dire Bare said:


> For some "civilized" examples of shamans, other than modern-day Western practitioners . . . . how about the mediums of the 19th century? *These European practitioners didn't call themselves shamans (not sure the term had been appropriated yet by scientists)* . . . but they did act as intermediaries between the spirit world and the mortal world. Instead of "primitive" ritual tools, they used crystal balls, ouija boards, and tarot cards . . . instead of dances and chants, they used seances. How about practitioners in the West who claim they can intercede with angels (spirits of God) and/or devils (spirits of Satan) on behalf of mortals?



In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dire Bare said:


> Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.



One part of the problem here is that historically 'primitive tribal societies' have been so vilified and derided that there is sort of vicious association circle here. Most of the language we have to describe non-city-based low-tech civilisations comes across as at least somewhat offensive. Which is just messed up as such cultures have existed, still exist and are perfectly fine and valid. Granted, in many instance D&D doesn't even try.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.




Is this is a double standard or is this just the nature of language (where people don't always use words consistently). Also, from a modern standpoint, it isn't like spiritualism itself is taken more seriously now than shamans (I would say the opposite, where the spiritualist moment is regarded as a little ridiculous by most people, and shamanism is considered a more legitimate spiritual practice). When I think of spiritualism, I think of charlatans and a quirky religious fad (I live in an area where spiritualism was pretty prevalent at its height, and today most people here would look upon it with some amount of mockery).


----------



## Dire Bare

Aldarc said:


> In the great history of double-standards, they called themselves "spiritualists" rather than "shamans." The term "shaman" had already been brought into Europe in the 17th century.



The only practitioners that called themselves shamans, other than modern neoshamans, are the Asiatic Tungusic peoples . . . if even them. The word shaman, as noted before in the thread, is really a Western appropriasm that oversimplifies indigenous religious practice and reinforces the false duality of primitives versus civilized peoples.

I don't know if spiritualists or mediums not using the word shaman is a double-standard . . . they may have never made the connection. They certainly didn't see their tradition as primitive, and as far as I'm aware, didn't try to make connections to ancient practice. Despite the fact that "speakers for the dead" go back to the dawn of human culture . . . .


----------



## Aldarc

Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.


----------



## Dire Bare

Aldarc said:


> Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.



I prefer the term _shaman_. It's problematic, like the term _barbarian_ . . . but it's already a part of the fantasy lexicon (beyond even D&D) and I think expanding the term and making it more positive is better than removing it from the game (and the larger fantasy genre literature).

But, if I had to choose a second favorite . . . I'd go with _spiritualist_.


----------



## Sadras

Dire Bare said:


> Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.




This reply is based on this and your immediate reply to @reelo 

My understanding of the word primitive - is low level technology and where culture/traditions/law are all learned and passed down orally. This is not a value judgement.
My understanding of the word simple - runs along the same lines. The bureaucracy which may exist in a town, city, barony, duchy or nation is limited or non-existent within a simple culture. This is not a value judgement. 

Savage and Barbaric may refer to a number of things - the way one eats (living creatures as opposed to cooked or dead), treatment of elderly, sick or cripple, treatment of prisoners, rule of law, execution...any number of things.
Again, these are not value judgements on RL people but yes we do draw these words from our own human experience. 

On the otherhand, I'm with you in that I'm all for a Shaman class. It is not something that I believe is depicted negatively, instead I think it is not depicted at all. Calling it a tribal druid I believe does the word a disservice IMO. As a D&D player I'd like some proper stats.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dire Bare said:


> I prefer the term _shaman_. It's problematic, like the term _barbarian_ . . . but it's already a part of the fantasy lexicon (beyond even D&D) and I think expanding the term and making it more positive is better than removing it from the game (and the larger fantasy genre literature).
> 
> But, if I had to choose a second favorite . . . I'd go with _spiritualist_.




In terms of what these words evoke, none of them seem particularly helpful, certainly not as flavorful as shaman for what is being aimed for in these instances. When I hear "spiritualist", however badly informed this imagery is, what I imagine is a person in a monocle flipping a switch to make a table hover somewhere in the late 19th, early 20th century east coast USA. I get the term has other uses, I am not sure it connotes what the writers of these sections were trying to convey.

And I think this brings us to one of the issues with taking such fine combs to peoples language. This is how people talk and communicate, and not everyone does so in the same way, or with the same degree of 'sophistication'. Like I said earlier, this is a product of how people naturally communicate and convey what they are trying to say. By putting this lens on it, and not reading things charitably, I think it starts to go from an attempt to be sensitive, to an attempt to control language, and that is going to stifle people. You had mentioned anthropology and similar social science. I am sure the conversations in those fields have advanced and developed to a certain point beyond what the public's lexicon is around these things. Are we really reaching the point where one needs to 1) be an anthropologist, 2) be deeply familiar with the literature around use of language in anthropology, or 3) be personally guided by an expert in anthropology to write a book about orcs and knights fighting in a fantasy setting? Some of the things you mentioned, are also a bit questionable (like equating all ways of knowing with science, which seemed to be the implication of part of your post----but probably a subject for another topic). This is where I start to have issues because it does turn into something where what we are really talking about is the etiquette around these things adopted by people from the more educated classes, sneering at people who may just not have as much education on these matters (or to frame it the way you did earlier, may just have a different mode of education). This is why I think intent needs to be weighed. There is a difference between someone who doesn't share your lexicon describing something as primitive because that seems to be the best word, and someone who is intentionally trying to make a commentary about some group of modern hunter gatherers. We are also talking about orc tribes, or in some cases fantasy world human tribes, not real world people, and I think that is a very big difference that we shouldn't lose sight of.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> One could hardly get a clearer, simpler, value judgement than Good and Evil in the D&D alignment system. That’s what its proponents like about it. A GM can look at the alignment of an NPC or monster and quickly determine its behaviour. It's also a way of judging a PC's actions.
> 
> As to whether D&D has anything to say about human history -
> 
> 1e PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."
> 
> 2e PHB: "The cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages: the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers."



So alignment is a value judgment, but not about human history, and the Druid and Cleric reference human history, but fail to make a value judgment.  Your examples don't apply to what Sadras said.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Crimson Longinus said:


> One part of the problem here is that historically 'primitive tribal societies' have been so vilified and derided that there is sort of vicious association circle here. Most of the language we have to describe non-city-based low-tech civilisations comes across as at least somewhat offensive. Which is just messed up as such cultures have existed, still exist and are perfectly fine and valid. Granted, in many instance D&D doesn't even try.




I think we are getting very far afield of the topic. But I think it is a lot more complicated than this. Also, I think there are different perspectives on this expressed in a lot of fantasy. That is one of the reasons it is interesting Conan is so foundational. That is very much written as a critique of city based society. A lot of how this plays out is going to depend on what historical perspective you are looking through when you draw inspiration. You see this in movies all the time. If you are watching a movie about Romans, with more of a Roman point of view, the Germans are going to be more 'barbaric'. If you are watching a movie from the point of view of the tribes in Brittania, then the Romans might look more like cruel occupiers. Most fantasy settings have cities that fit into both types, and have non-city people who fit into both types. And evil is always more interesting, and more gameable, so you are often going to see more of the evil type than the good. Just look at cities that are good for adventuring. If everything is perfect and peaceful, there is less opportunity for adventure. Places with corruption, secret societies, criminal underworlds, etc (all the negative stereotypes of cities) are more gameable. Same thing with tribes of orcs. You can have peaceful orcs and do a deep dive into the complexities of their society if you want (and I have done that, it is fine and can serve a useful function in a campaign), but I think for what most people are looking for, in terms of gameabilty, evil orc tribes serve a functional utility for adventure and excitement.


----------



## Maxperson

Dire Bare said:


> Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.



Not on human history.  If I'm describing a fantasy people as primitive, savage and barbaric, then yes, I'm providing a value judgment on a fantasy people.


----------



## reelo

The OSR game "Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea" has an interesting Shaman class.
Granted, the descriptive language is _also_ quite retro (meaning: words like "savage" and "primitive" are used liberally) but the actual class mechanics are neat.

Prime attributes Int and Wis
d6 HD
Light armour
Class abilities: 
Draw poison (heals poisonous bites)
Magic Item use
Medicine Man: kind of a "Lay on hands"
Read magic
Read/scribe scrolls
Sorcery: casting ability, gains spells from 2 spell lists, chosen at lvl 1: Cleric OR Druid as well as Magician OR Necromancer
Totem: weekly "contact otherworldly being" spell
Turn Undead
Longevity: reduced aging speed after a certain level

So, in summary, here the Shaman is a hybrid divine/arcane caster with focus on 2 of either healing or nature, and divination or necromancy.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Not on human history.  If I'm describing a fantasy people as primitive, savage and barbaric, then yes, I'm providing a value judgment on a fantasy people.



If you had an off-brand Africa (e.g. Chult in FR or Garund in Golarion) in your setting that described its dark-skinned inhabitants as “primitive, savage, and barbaric,” then while the people in the fantasy setting are fictitious, it would most definitely seem like you were making a (morally dubious) value judgement about Africa and its people in all but name. At the very least, it would raise all sorts of red flags. This is a shortcoming of the “but it’s fiction” line of argumentation.


----------



## Voadam

Aldarc said:


> Paizo’s Occult Adventures had a number of applicable classes: Psychic, Medium, Spiritualist, and Occulist. Not to mention their Shaman class in one of their other books. So a number of other labels would work as well for one who deals with spirits.



I looked up the Pathfinder 1e Shaman as I had not remembered them at all. From their hybrid classes book (Advanced Class Guide) they are a mix of oracles and witches pretty much full divine casters with witch hexes and some spirit powers and a little bit of a dip into druid spells. Their flavor text is connection to generic spirits of the world the way witches are connected to unspecified generic themed entities.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

In my current setting druids are called shamans as that fits the vibe of the setting better. They're also fluffed as shamanistic, in the sense that they deal with various nature spirits as opposed to clerics who dedicate themselves to one greater god. The mechanics are vague enough that it makes sense to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> If you had an off-brand Africa (e.g. Chult in FR or Garund in Golarion) in your setting that described its dark-skinned inhabitants as “primitive, savage, and barbaric,” then while the people in the fantasy setting are fictitious, it would most definitely seem like you were making a (morally dubious) value judgement about Africa and its people in all but name. At the very least, it would raise all sorts of red flags. This is a shortcoming of the “but it’s fiction” line of argumentation.



Is that from 1e or 2e, because the information on Chult that I have from 3e is that they are tribal and dark skinned, and distrust too much arcane magic.  Nothing is said about savage and barbaric.  You might be able to eek out primitive from the comment about using mostly non-metal weapons, but...


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Is that from 1e or 2e, because the information on Chult that I have from 3e is that they are tribal and dark skinned, and distrust too much arcane magic.  Nothing is said about savage and barbaric.  You might be able to eek out primitive from the comment about using mostly non-metal weapons, but...



They were listed as examples of off-brand Africa in prominent settings. However, both the depiction of Chult in ToA and Garund in PF1 were criticized for how they depicted peoples in their off-brand Africas. Supposedly Paizo sought to improve how they depicted the peoples of Garund in PF2, though I can’t say that I have read through the new setting books closely. believe that @Campbell listed a bit of that as it applied to the native lizard folk. (Can’t remember how they call themselves.)


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Dire Bare said:


> Describing a culture as primitive, savage, barbaric, simple . . . that's a value judgment my friend.




Yes, and what's particularly awful is that, historically, it's often been an extremely inaccurate value judgement, even by the standards of the people making it. Incredibly complex cultures with elaborate traditions, highly-developed moral ideas and philosophies, and centuries or thousands of years of history were frequently dismissed as "primitive" or "savage" because they didn't wear pants or value gold highly. And god help you if you're "too civilized", we got a whole other set of vague condemnations for you then ("effete", "decadent", etc.).

RPGs often have a problem in that you have stuff that's written exactly like the subjective, agenda-bearing, inaccurate waffle that is most of human history (soz everyone, but that's how it is), which will throw around terms like "primitive" and "barbaric" willy-nilly, but instead of being from the perspective of some fallible idiot, it's often from a sort of "this is a fact" perspective (ugh can't remember how to say that). Occasionally books will try to correct this a bit, and put in an unreliable narrator like Volo, but then it'll go outside the text by him, and be using equally dubious terminology, and using it in this totally slapdash way. What does "barbaric" even mean? Or "savage"? They're so broadly used as to be meaningless, at this point. Barbaric could be anything from simply referring to appearance, to utterly bloodthirsty-ness. Savage could merely mean "Doesn't live in a city", or it could mean "incredibly brutal and vicious".

This sort of language, which both vague, relative, highly judgemental, and highly subjective, should probably be confined to actual in-character writing in the setting (or fiction bits, rather than the core information about stuff). I'm not saying "CENSOR THEM!!!" before some unreasonable person freaks out and starts barricading his door before the Word Police break it down and fill him full of gerunds, I'm saying like, it's just kinda inept and thoughtless to use words like that (including a ton of words which have nothing to do with "social consciousness" or whatever note) in "factual" text because you basically have to define what you mean by them, as they're so misused and vague. And don't tell me context will reveal the meaning, because that's the whole problem, it typically doesn't!

So even leaving social stuff aside, vague words with multiple potential meanings in the same context like this are not great for factual stuff. They're fine for in-character stuff, because the reason they're so vague and misused is that actual people extend how words are used.


----------



## Voadam

Hussar said:


> If Shaman=Druid, then there is no need to use the term shaman is there?  It's included under druid.  So, all those races that list having shamans, can instead have druids and that is actually bringing it in line with the contradictory rules.
> 
> So, where's the problem?



This can work as an artistic choice.

It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Voadam said:


> It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.




Have "shamanic concepts" which are connected to real-world cultures ever been used in D&D?

For it to be "cultural erasure", that would necessarily have to have been the case.

If I look at various "Shaman" classes through the editions, there's very little consistency. Typically "spirits" are involved, but the actual class/kit/prc etc. can range from anything from basically a berserker to an extremely high-fantasy character who is constantly summoning actual solid spirit-beings which smash people's faces in, to basically just a synonym for another divine or even arcane caster, and their cultural trappings, in my experience, have typically been skin-deep at most.

It's a bit like the Shaman class in World of Warcraft, where it's got some vague trappings which kinda sorta slightly maybe tie it to Native American ideas (sorta kinda) but it's basically just "elemental magic dude", with the most "Shaman" thing it does being putting down "totems" (let's not even get into that).

It's not Druids in D&D past 2E are even vaguely related to even nonsensical New Age takes on what a Druid is, either. They're just Nature Magic Class with bonus Shapeshifting. That shapeshifting itself is un-Druidic is we look at Celtic and other ideas of Druids. There's a lot of shapeshifting in Celtic myth (hell, in virtually all myth, world-wide), but it's not Druids doing it, by and large. If anything Shamans should be the shapeshifters - a lot of cultures who the West has called the holy people/wise people of "Shamans" have strong traditions of shapeshifting associated with those people.

So I kind of question this premise here. If D&D had consistently used real-world stuff in Shamans, or had a consistent idea of what "Shamans" could do, and if 5E Druids didn't actually match what Shamans can do in a lot of myth BETTER than what Druids can do, I think you'd have a better point. Maybe we should just rename Druid to Shaman and call it a day.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's not Druids in D&D past 2E are even vaguely related to even nonsensical New Age takes on what a Druid is, either. They're just Nature Magic Class with bonus Shapeshifting. That shapeshifting itself is un-Druidic is we look at Celtic and other ideas of Druids. There's a lot of shapeshifting in Celtic myth (hell, in virtually all myth, world-wide), but it's not Druids doing it, by and large. If anything Shamans should be the shapeshifters - a lot of cultures who the West has called the holy people/wise people of "Shamans" have strong traditions of shapeshifting associated with those people.
> 
> So I kind of question this premise here. If D&D had consistently used real-world stuff in Shamans, or had a consistent idea of what "Shamans" could do, and if 5E Druids didn't actually match what Shamans can do in a lot of myth BETTER than what Druids can do, I think you'd have a better point. Maybe we should just rename Druid to Shaman and call it a day.



Yeah, that's exactly what I did. The point about shapeshifting influenced my decision too.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Maxperson said:


> So alignment is a value judgment, but not about human history, and the Druid and Cleric reference human history, but fail to make a value judgment.  Your examples don't apply to what Sadras said.




1e PHB: "[Druids] are the only absolute neutrals... viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."
2e PHB: "Clerics are generally good"

The paladin class is also relevant.

2e PHB: "Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class... A paladin must be lawful good in alignment"


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yeah, that's exactly what I did. The point about shapeshifting influenced my decision too.




Yeah after typing all that I had a horrible feeling that if I read back I'd find that out, sorry lol! But hey nice to know we came to similar conclusions!


----------



## SkidAce

Look this up and see what you think...


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's a bit like the Shaman class in World of Warcraft, where it's got some vague trappings which kinda sorta slightly maybe tie it to Native American ideas (sorta kinda) but it's basically just "elemental magic dude", with the most "Shaman" thing it does being putting down "totems" (let's not even get into that).



The class's powers might not have had strong associations but the only races that could be shamans in Classic WoW - tauren, trolls, orcs - did, especially the first two. Tauren had Native American stylings, trolls were Caribbean. Orcs seemed to be black, though it wasn't as clear-cut.


----------



## Bedrockgames

SkidAce said:


> Look this up and see what you think...
> 
> View attachment 124130




I had that book. I remember one of my friends really liking it. I can't say I remember the contents very well.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Doug McCrae said:


> The class's powers might not have had strong associations but the only races that could be shamans in Classic WoW - tauren, trolls, orcs - did, especially the first two. Tauren had Native American stylings, trolls were Caribbean. Orcs seemed to be black, though it wasn't as clear-cut.




Quite. Orcs in WoW (specifically, less so Warcraft 1-2, 3 it starts to get more complicated) have a certain amount of coding as being black as in specifically African-American (rather than African), particularly Thrall himself, but also have a lot of general Honorable Warrior Race (i.e. Klingon) and some Noble Savage coding (the sheer amout of Noble Savages in WoW is bloody staggering though - it's like hands up who is a "Savage" but not noble in some way? Okay I got Troggs, and I got Quillboars, and even Quillboars are questionable, and I have about two dozen races with their hands down). Whereas yes, Trolls actually had Jamaican-adjacent accents, referenced Reggae songs, and so on, and Tauren were and remain extremely Native American-themed.

There were always Shaman NPCs in-game who weren't just those races, though they strongly tended towards the "non-civilized" races, and they expanded Shamans to Dwarves (who are very civilized, but tightly connected to the elements) in the first expansion - The Burning Crusade, in 2007, and also to the civilized and "spiritual" Draenei.

Once the Goblins got in on the act (who are, if anything, unfortunate Jewish stereotypes, but there's a lot of general stereotypical "New Yorker" in there), with mechanical totems and so on, it was very hard to say there was any particular connection to any actual ideas about Shamanism.

Honestly I feel like WoW is flying under the radar and is kind of a ticking time bomb of eye-popping racial stereotypes, which Blizzard desperately bailed water on with BfA. But that's a whole other discussion.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly I feel like WoW is flying under the radar and is kind of a ticking time bomb of eye-popping racial stereotypes, which Blizzard desperately bailed water on with BfA. But that's a whole other discussion.



WoW has a lot of terrible racist stereotypes. Trolls are pretty damn bad but nothing compared to the fact that they literally included a race of diminutive tribal monsters that speak pseudo-African gibberish and called them 'pygmies.' Yes, their orcs are pretty unproblematic as orcs go, but that probably was just an accident.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> You have a valid point, but the prohibition against appropriation even applies to groups higher on the socio-economic ladder.




I think you're focusing a bit on the economic side of the thing.  In a social sense, Asians in the US still experience a great deal of marginalization.


----------



## jasper

Ok since Shaman is a bad word. Give us A word to use in replace of Shaman.
edit to add Bad as in has a history.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

jasper said:


> Ok since Shaman is a bad word. Give us A word to use in replace of Shaman.
> edit to add Bad as in has a history.



Maybe Spiritualists? I don't think Shaman is a bad word as long as they're portrayed in an inoffensive way.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> I think you're focusing a bit on the economic side of the thing.  In a social sense, Asians in the US still experience a great deal of marginalization.




Isn't that kind of reasonable, though, re: cultural appropriation? Social marginalization is a complex and non-one-sided issue (i.e. it's not always "oppressor group keeps marginalized group out"), and cultural appropriation is most often harmful when it is taking bread out of the mouths of marginalized groups, as it were, typically by having a bunch of white people generalize, bowlderize and misunderstand some cultural stuff, but manage to make it highly marketable for aforementioned white people.



MGibster said:


> You have a valid point, but the prohibition against appropriation even applies to groups higher on the socio-economic ladder.  Asians in the US have a higher median income and are more educated than any other group in the country.  I realize income and education are but two metrics, but they're pretty important metrics.




There's no "prohibition" against appropriation, merely a suggestion that one take care and consider what one is doing. People culturally appropriate stuff all the time without causing any problems, including from Asia.

This also misses the point that you're not appropriating from say, Chinese-Americans, in most cases, but from actual Chinese people or wherever. So the economic harm is more there.



jasper said:


> Ok since Shaman is a bad word.




Why do this? No-one has said that.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's no "prohibition" against appropriation, merely a suggestion that one take care and consider what one is doing. People culturally appropriate stuff all the time without causing any problems, including from Asia.




I didn't mean prohibition in the literal sense that someone passed a law against it.  And I certainly agree that people culturally appropriate all the time.  But when I hear it within the context of gaming it's not used in a neutral sense it's used negatively.  Including here.  



> This also misses the point that you're not appropriating from say, Chinese-Americans, in most cases, but from actual Chinese people or wherever. So the economic harm is more there.




We've been over this in other threads such as the recent _Oriental Adventures _one. OA didn't do any economic harm to China or Japan. In fact, OA probably never would have existed if Chinese and Japanese production companies weren't making money by exporting their media to the United States in the 60s and 70s. If you've got a good argument to make that the existence of games like Legend of the Five Rings, OA, or other similar gaming products has done economic harm to China and Japan I'd be interested in hearing it. Also, in some of those other threads, some people pointed out that it didn't actually matter what Japanese or Chinese people thought of the product. What mattered was what Asian Americans thought of it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> If you've got a good argument to make that the existence of games like Legend of the Five Rings, OA, or other similar gaming products has done economic harm to China and Japan I'd be interested in hearing it.




Well it prevented an actual Japanese developer from writing such a product for TSR, and TSR sued the hell out of third-party stuff so that wasn't possible either. That's the issue, at the crux. It also, by saying it represented all of the Orient, made it so that even though it was just "Japanese Mythology Adventures", people would think there was no room for a "Chinese Mythology Adventures" or the like, which was unhelpful.

I mean, I love Zeb Cook, and he ensured that some Japanese people were actually involved in the making of OA (and hopefully they benefited in some way), but this is a book that really should have been written either by a Japanese author (including Japanese-Americans, of course), or in actual clear collaboration with them.

Indeed, that could, for example, have lead to more "Japanese Mythology Adventures"-type products from Japanese authors. And a better title and approach might have left room for other cultures.

To be fair with OA, it was less of a problem because Japan is relatively powerful nation with a powerful culture that actually, unlike most, is exported worldwide in many ways. They're not the best example for claiming negative cultural appropriation.

More disenfranchised groups are more harmed by cultural appropriation of this kind than Japan. It's still a disappointing missed opportunity that they didn't use or formally collaborate with a Japanese/Japanese-American writer though (but again, Zeb Cook clearly made an effort to actually include actual Japanese viewpoints, so there's that).



MGibster said:


> Also, in some of those other threads, some people pointed out that it didn't actually matter what Japanese or Chinese people thought of the product.




Did they? I'm not seeing any argument, rationale, or basis for that view. It doesn't seem logical or reasonable, on the surface, so if you believe that's some kind of "point" you're going to have to explain it.



MGibster said:


> But when I hear it within the context of gaming it's not used in a neutral sense it's used negatively. Including here.




Sure it is. I and others have used it neutrally multiple times in this thread. But you interpret it solely negatively.

Which is exactly the problem I stated earlier - a lot of people are apparently incapable of hearing "cultural appropriation" and not seeing it as an attack on someone. It seems bizarre to me but there you are.


----------



## Aldarc

SkidAce said:


> Look this up and see what you think...



The cover uses 'papyrus' font, so I already hate it.


----------



## SkidAce

Aldarc said:


> The cover uses 'papyrus' font, so I already hate it.




Hmmm, I dont see a smiley....


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> Well it prevented an actual Japanese developer from writing such a product for TSR, and TSR sued the hell out of third-party stuff so that wasn't possible either. That's the issue, at the crux.




Did a Japanese developer approach TSR in the early 80s about producing something similar to _Oriental Adventures?  _


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I think Shamans should come out as a class in 5e, but they should definitely be careful with the language describing them, have sensitivity readers so they can avoid offensive language, and just in general try to avoid calling them savage or anything like that.


----------



## Voadam

Ruin Explorer said:


> cultural appropriation is most often harmful when it is taking bread out of the mouths of marginalized groups, as it were, typically by having a bunch of white people generalize, bowlderize and misunderstand some cultural stuff, but manage to make it highly marketable for aforementioned white people.




Can you provide an example of that kind of harm? The link does not seem intuitively apparent between "white people generalize, bowlderize and misunderstand some cultural stuff, but manage to make it highly marketable for aforementioned white people" and the marginalized group loses money they would otherwise have.

Most arguments and examples I have seen for the economic angle are focused on the unfairness that the marginalized group does not profit as the privileged one does, not that the marginalized group loses money.


----------



## Dire Bare

SkidAce said:


> Look this up and see what you think...
> 
> View attachment 124130



Because of this thread, I was going through this last night. There's a lot of good stuff in this book, but . . . . there's lots of problems too. The "primitive" problem is here in force, and a lot of the art is cringeworthy (and, IMO, objectively of bad quality). I also don't like the separation between tribal shaman, solitary shaman, and the spiritualist shaman . . . or at least, how they are described and differentiated.


----------



## Mercurius

"Spiritualist" is not at all accurate to what a shaman is, with a specific connotation to the 19th century occult movement "spiritualism." Calling shamans spiritualists would be a rather egregious instance of cultural appropriation/colonialism, for those concerned with such things, considering that the 19th century spiritualism movement was almost entirely in Europe and the US. 

Shamanism is not specific to the Tungus people. The word derived from them, but is used to refer to practices and beliefs held by cultures across the globe. Using it in such a way is not cultural misappropriation.

I agree that shamans should not be equated with druids. The best solution, in my mind, is to create a shaman class that actually practices shamanism, albeit the D&D version. This doesn't require a sensitivity reader but someone who knows something about shamanism.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion

Dire Bare said:


> I also don't like the separation between tribal shaman, solitary shaman, and the spiritualist shaman . . . or at least, how they are described and differentiated.




That feels lifted directly from the Neo-pagan movement and Wicca, with the solitary witch, the coven witch, and the more spiritual white witch.


----------



## SkidAce

Dire Bare said:


> Because of this thread, I was going through this last night. There's a lot of good stuff in this book, but . . . . there's lots of problems too. The "primitive" problem is here in force, and a lot of the art is cringeworthy (and, IMO, objectively of bad quality). I also don't like the separation between tribal shaman, solitary shaman, and the spiritualist shaman . . . or at least, how they are described and differentiated.



That's an accurate assessment.

I used the tribal (although they are not tribal) shaman for my elves.

And used the solitary versus spiritualist as groups that have been at odds through the ages.

So I picked and chose I guess.


----------



## Dire Bare

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> That feels lifted directly from the Neo-pagan movement and Wicca, with the solitary witch, the coven witch, and the more spiritual white witch.



Possibly . . . . the tribal shaman is one who serves the community, they are the intermediary between the community and the spirit world. The solitary is the weird hermit in the woods. The spiritualist is . . . not well described, but the "darkest" of the three (as per the book) and seems to be based on 19th century spiritualist mediums to a degree.

There IS a lot of good stuff in this book, and it seems like the authors did their research into the social science literature on shamanism . . . . and carried forward the problems with how Western society views indigenous religion.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> Did a Japanese developer approach TSR in the early 80s about producing something similar to _Oriental Adventures?  _




I'm not sure why you think that's material to questions of cultural appropriation. I'm sorry mate, but "Well nobody actually tracked _me_ down and said they wanted to do it!" doesn't make so that harmful cultural appropriation isn't harmful.

In this case, I don't think there was much harm, if any, beyond some issues with the book itself (primarily around the fact that it's called Oriental Adventures). 

But say you, a white guy (I'm assuming), decided you wanted to do a book based on some cool cultural/mythological stuff about a particular Native American tribe, which are not are in way related to, and you made little serious effort to see if you could find someone from that tribe (or a related one) to collaborate, or even be primary author, then yeah, you'd be doing something kinda crummy. Not evil but not great. If you talked to the community, no-one wanted to be in on writing it, but they were happy for you to do so, and happy to provide info and stuff for it, then great, you might still get someone who doesn't know going "cultural appropriation!" but you could have a nice foreword in your book explaining the situation. It's much more important with groups like Native Americans, because they're severely disenfranchised anyway, and particularly have had their culture stolen and misportrayed a lot, so it's good to avoid doing that again.

Remember OA was not Zeb Cook's idea - Gary Gygax said they needed to do an OA book to cash in on the then-popularity in media of a lot of these things (and ninjas and to a lesser extent samurai were indeed popular in film and books right then). So at that point, the "right thing" to do (by modern standards, I accept this would have been less obvious in 1984) would be to see if you could find someone in Japan, who was familiar with D&D, and preferably had good English to make things easy, and was a writer (not actually that high a bar - D&D was quite big in Japan right then), and wanted to run this. But that's not what happened - he got Zeb Cook to do it - thankfully Zeb Cook got some actual Japanese people involved (which is downright unusual - most of this sort of book makes no attempt to involve people from the culture portrayed), which probably helped it.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not sure why you think that's material to questions of cultural appropriation. I'm sorry mate, but "Well nobody actually tracked _me_ down and said they wanted to do it!" doesn't make so that harmful cultural appropriation isn't harmful.




I'm very confused because you're the one who brought up economic harm. 



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This also misses the point that you're not appropriating from say, Chinese-Americans, in most cases, but from actual Chinese people or wherever. So the economic harm is more there.




And I was very interested to hear from you what economic harm was caused to anyone in Japan or China because of Bushido, Oriental Adventures, or Legend of the Five Rings and you replied as follows.     



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Well it prevented an actual Japanese developer from writing such a product for TSR, and TSR sued the hell out of third-party stuff so that wasn't possible either. *That's the issue, at the crux.*




I was very intrigued to learn that a Japanese developer was interested in writing something similar for OA.  Was this the case or were you simply raising a hypothetical issue?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Voadam said:


> Can you provide an example of that kind of harm? The link does not seem intuitively apparent between "white people generalize, bowlderize and misunderstand some cultural stuff, but manage to make it highly marketable for aforementioned white people" and the marginalized group loses money they would otherwise have.
> 
> Most arguments and examples I have seen for the economic angle are focused on the unfairness that the marginalized group does not profit as the privileged one does, not that the marginalized group loses money.




Not sure why this is complicated, but I okay I guess some people have difficulty with this. Obviously yes, there's the unfairness you describe.

But culture is like an IP. Particularly cultures that are somewhat obscure and have some broadly interesting myth/stories/ideas. That IP has value, and that IP can be damaged.

If I write, say, Choctaw Adventures, or whatever (I swear to god if anyone tries to argue specifics on this entirely theoretical example I WILL block them and never think about them again), and I use Choctaw myth and so on, may misunderstood in some kinda crummy ways, but let's focus on the economic, because it's what you want to know about. I don't share the profit with anyone from the community or whatever, so you've already identified a harm in that they don't profit, but I do.

But there's more than that - if someone from that community had wanted to do a Choctaw sourcebook, well, too late, there's already one written a white guy. Any one they put out is going to struggle to get out of the shadow of that. Because it's not the first, it's probably going to have to be twice as good to attract half the notice. And even if it's more authentic, or even just cooler, because there's going to be a ton of overlap, some people are just not going to be interested.

And it could be worse - the person who wrote Choctaw Adventures could have really mucked it up, and make the IP toxic or crummy-seeming in some way, like maybe he told the myths very poor, or made them seem boring or dumb, so he's damages the IP as well, so then if an actual member of the marginalized group wanted to write his Choctaw sourcebook, it's even harder for them to succeed, and it may be that the idiot who took your myths has managed to convince a bunch of people that they're dumb and boring (or even just that they know them already when they don't), which might even damage projects in other media.

Then on another level, there's the issue of "official" books. Say WotC put out Choctaw Adventures (remember this is theoretical people, don't make me Block you!), then that's going to massively boost the sales of that book. But say you come along and say to WotC, guys, this is the bad kind of cultural appropriation, and misrepresents our myths in a really crummy way, let us do a better version, chances are, they won't want to, because they already did a Choctaw Adventures, and it sucked (or succeeded, it doesn't actually matter), but they're not going to put out another book on the same subject in the same edition, so your community double misses out.

So do you see how that's harmful to artists and creators from that community on a level beyond the unfairness you already identified?

Now, note, this isn't always bad, particularly if you work with the community in question, and particularly if you just take one story or one myth, and you do a really good job - because then you can actually increase interest in that marginalized culture. But historically that's been rare, and typically requires a fair bit of luck or exceptional judgement.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> 1e PHB: "[Druids] are the only absolute neutrals... viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."
> 2e PHB: "Clerics are generally good"
> 
> The paladin class is also relevant.
> 
> 2e PHB: "Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class... A paladin must be lawful good in alignment"



Sure, but those things don't make value judgments about real world Druids, Clerics and Paladins.  They say what game Druids, Clerics and Paladins are like.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> I was very intrigued to learn that a Japanese developer was interested in writing something similar for OA. Was this the case or were you simply raising a hypothetical issue?




I'm not sure if you're really having comprehension problems with what I'm saying, or just trolling here. It doesn't seem like you're interested in the general issue, but rather trying to make some kind pointless argument about OA specifically, so you do you.



Mercurius said:


> The best solution, in my mind, is to create a shaman class that actually practices shamanism, albeit the D&D version. This doesn't require a sensitivity reader but someone who knows something about shamanism.




Dude, how is it you haven't already realized that Shamanism isn't a consistent thing, given this thread? Shamanism is a word use to identify a wildly broad swathe of practices, which range from the highly informal to the extremely formal.

There's no such thing as "the D&D version" of Shamanism, because it's been a bunch of different things.

Also one of the more consistent features of Shamanism, world-wide, is some kind of notion of shapeshifting, alongside spellcasting, so your declaration that Druids are inappropriate for it is pretty weird given the rest of what you're saying. If anything, if you wanted Shamans in D&D, and to not do them a complete injustice, you're going to need to overlap significantly with Druid, or simply make D&D's Druid (which has nothing at all to do with Celtic Druids) into a subclass of Shaman or something.

And it does require a sensitivity reader as well, because most/all of the religions which involved practices deemed "Shamanism" belong to marginalized groups, some extremely marginalized. Just waving your hand and dismissing that is, frankly, *exactly* the attitude that leads really unfortunate stuff happening.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm not sure if you're really having comprehension problems with what I'm saying, or just trolling here. It doesn't seem like you're interested in the general issue, but rather trying to make some kind pointless argument about OA specifically, so you do you.




I'm not trolling but I do think you're having difficulty writing down what you actually intend to mean.  You specifically mention economic harm and followed that up by saying an actual Japanese developer was unable to work on a product similar to OA.  If you just want to drop it, fine, but it's not like I'm pulling any of this out of the blue.  I can only go by what you write not by what you meant.


----------



## Hussar

Dire Bare said:


> Druids are not shamans.
> 
> We don't know an awful lot of the specifics of druidic belief from ancient Celtic times. The ancient Celtic druids may have been very shamanic . . . or not. However, modern day notions of druids, in fantasy literature, in popular mythology, in modern day neo-pagan religions . . . do have some overlap with shamanism, but the concepts are not interchangeable.
> 
> A better solution to the shaman problem D&D has, isn't dropping shamans from the game and replacing them with druids. It's elevating shamans to the same level as druids, as potentially powerful characters. We need a good shaman class in the core rules, one that avoids "primitive" stereotypes like savagery or even "noble savagery". When a shaman character is as likely to be an orc as they are an elf or a halfling . . . from a nomadic tribe or from an urban settlement . . . . that's the way to go!




Well, that depends on a certain value of "better".

Do we need a third "divine" (and I'm using that term loosely) class in the game?  And, since WotC has been VERY reticent about adding classes, I'm not sure how viable this one is.  It might very well be.  Fair enough.  

D&D druids are barely connected to European druids as it stands.  There's no mention of mistletoe anymore.  Nothing about tracking seasons or stone circles or anything traditionally associated with druids.  The examples of shaman in the Monster Manual can, and have, already been replaced by the druid class, as per the druid writeup in the Monster Manual.  There's certainly nothing specifically shamanistic about, say, lizard folk in the description of lizard folk.  So, IMO, since Shaman doesn't exist as a class, it's the simple expedient to replace Shaman with Druid.  It already means that since shaman are mechanically druids in 5e D&D.



Voadam said:


> This can work as an artistic choice.
> 
> It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.




Since the shaman that exist in the books don't actually have any real connection to real world shaman, other than name, there's no whitewashing going on.  And, frankly, druids are  "pseudo-European Celt" in name only.  They have already removed any references from the class to actual, historical druids.  Since a Lizardfolk shaman isn't related to shamanism in any real way, removing it and replacing it with druids isn't whitewashing.

Now, if there is a viable shaman class in 5e?  Then we can change it back.


----------



## Mallus

Ruin Explorer said:


> But culture is like an IP. Particularly cultures that are somewhat obscure and have some broadly interesting myth/stories/ideas. That IP has value, and that IP can be damaged.



Culture ain’t like IP. Ain’t in the same ballpark. Ain’t in the same league. Ain’t even the same <censored> sport.

(apologies to Jules Winnfield)

Is it just me, or has neoliberal capitalism eaten every other mode of thinking?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Mercurius said:


> "Spiritualist" is not at all accurate to what a shaman is, with a specific connotation to the 19th century occult movement "spiritualism." Calling shamans spiritualists would be a rather egregious instance of cultural appropriation/colonialism, for those concerned with such things, considering that the 19th century spiritualism movement was almost entirely in Europe and the US.
> 
> Shamanism is not specific to the Tungus people. The word derived from them, but is used to refer to practices and beliefs held by cultures across the globe. Using it in such a way is not cultural misappropriation.
> 
> I agree that shamans should not be equated with druids. The best solution, in my mind, is to create a shaman class that actually practices shamanism, albeit the D&D version. This doesn't require a sensitivity reader but someone who knows something about shamanism.



I didn't mean "spiritualist" in an occult way. I just meant like they draw power from the spirits of nature. It isn't a perfect name, but there's rarely a perfect name for something. I just provided an alternate to shamans, if for some reason it did need changing.


----------



## Dire Bare

Hussar said:


> Do we need a third "divine" (and I'm using that term loosely) class in the game?  And, since WotC has been VERY reticent about adding classes, I'm not sure how viable this one is.  It might very well be.  Fair enough.



Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.

Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.

For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not? 

Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Dire Bare said:


> Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.
> 
> Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.
> 
> For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?
> 
> Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.



Yeah, I think we should have a Shaman class in the game, but we don't really need one. If they did make one, they would probably make it be a Druid subclass, because they have a phobia of class making in 5e. 

(If I were to do it, I would probably use a feature like Pact Magic to differentiate them from other divine casters.)


----------



## Hussar

I totally agree.  And, since the casters presented in the Monster Manual that use the term "shaman" incorrectly, then why not remove the term and use the term that is correct - "druid"?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Hussar said:


> I totally agree.  And, since the casters presented in the Monster Manual that use the term "shaman" incorrectly, then why not remove the term and use the term that is correct - "druid"?



I don't think personally druid is more correct, and I think there should be a difference between Druids and Shamans.


----------



## Hussar

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I don't think personally druid is more correct, and I think there should be a difference between Druids and Shamans.




Which is great an all.

But, shamans don't exist in 5e.

So, right now, there is no contrast because, in 5e, shaman ARE druids.  Full stop.  That's how they are defined.  

You basically have three choices at that point:

A) add a shaman class to define shaman - a very long process that is not guaranteed to succeed as issues with class design run into the vetting process - see psionics for a perfect example of a class hung up in development hell.

B) replace the seven instances in the MM where the word shaman is used with the word druid, which is what they actually mean.

C)  Add a Shaman to the Monster Manual in the NPC section, same as we have Noble and Druid.  Since it's a "monster", it doesn't have to follow class construction rules, and can have a unique spell list and abilities.  

I prefer simpler solutions. It's quick, easy, gets the job done and solves the problem.  

Heck, you could do all three.  Replace the words in subsequent printings of the Monster Manual and issue an errata AND begin development of a Shaman class.  An NPC Shaman, divorced from class doesn't have to run the gauntlet of Unearthed Arcana revisions and can be added pretty easily.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> So, right now, there is no contrast because, in 5e, shaman ARE druids.  Full stop.  That's how they are defined.




I don't play 5E but based on the text people posted on shamans and druids here, it seems they are a subcategory of Druid (some Druids are Shamans but not all druids are Shamans), and it is just meant to be a thing where you reskin your druid as a shaman (perhaps explaining the flavor of how they get their powers slightly differently, and carefully selecting spells to best reflect a shaman character). If you just change all those instances into Druid, you do lose a potential distinction they were going for (and possibly a bit of flavor)


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> A) add a shaman class to define shaman - a very long process that is not guaranteed to succeed as issues with class design run into the vetting process - see psionics for a perfect example of a class hung up in development hell.




Great example of why development by committee is stupid.



> B) replace the seven instances in the MM where the word shaman is used with the word druid, which is what they actually mean.




They didn't mean druid or they would have said druid.  They said shaman because they meant shaman.



> C)  Add a Shaman to the Monster Manual in the NPC section, same as we have Noble and Druid.  Since it's a "monster", it doesn't have to follow class construction rules, and can have a unique spell list and abilities.




This is probably the least acceptable option of the three.  Players are going to want to play shamans.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not sure why this is complicated, but I okay I guess some people have difficulty with this. Obviously yes, there's the unfairness you describe.
> 
> But culture is like an IP. Particularly cultures that are somewhat obscure and have some broadly interesting myth/stories/ideas. That IP has value, and that IP can be damaged.
> 
> If I write, say, Choctaw Adventures, or whatever (I swear to god if anyone tries to argue specifics on this entirely theoretical example I WILL block them and never think about them again), and I use Choctaw myth and so on, may misunderstood in some kinda crummy ways, but let's focus on the economic, because it's what you want to know about. I don't share the profit with anyone from the community or whatever, so you've already identified a harm in that they don't profit, but I do.
> 
> But there's more than that - if someone from that community had wanted to do a Choctaw sourcebook, well, too late, there's already one written a white guy. Any one they put out is going to struggle to get out of the shadow of that. Because it's not the first, it's probably going to have to be twice as good to attract half the notice. And even if it's more authentic, or even just cooler, because there's going to be a ton of overlap, some people are just not going to be interested.
> 
> And it could be worse - the person who wrote Choctaw Adventures could have really mucked it up, and make the IP toxic or crummy-seeming in some way, like maybe he told the myths very poor, or made them seem boring or dumb, so he's damages the IP as well, so then if an actual member of the marginalized group wanted to write his Choctaw sourcebook, it's even harder for them to succeed, and it may be that the idiot who took your myths has managed to convince a bunch of people that they're dumb and boring (or even just that they know them already when they don't), which might even damage projects in other media.
> 
> Then on another level, there's the issue of "official" books. Say WotC put out Choctaw Adventures (remember this is theoretical people, don't make me Block you!), then that's going to massively boost the sales of that book. But say you come along and say to WotC, guys, this is the bad kind of cultural appropriation, and misrepresents our myths in a really crummy way, let us do a better version, chances are, they won't want to, because they already did a Choctaw Adventures, and it sucked (or succeeded, it doesn't actually matter), but they're not going to put out another book on the same subject in the same edition, so your community double misses out.
> 
> So do you see how that's harmful to artists and creators from that community on a level beyond the unfairness you already identified?
> 
> Now, note, this isn't always bad, particularly if you work with the community in question, and particularly if you just take one story or one myth, and you do a really good job - because then you can actually increase interest in that marginalized culture. But historically that's been rare, and typically requires a fair bit of luck or exceptional judgement.




I hope no members of the Choctaw nation come into this thread and as they’re reading start thinking to themselves “oh man, do I know the perfect example to post”......and then they find your post and are left exampleless.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dire Bare said:


> For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?



There are indeed too many arcane casters.



> Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.



But do they really? In a way that would matter for D&D mechanics? The thing is druids already do certain things that are in real life associated with shamans but not really with druids (shapeshifting.)


----------



## Aldarc

Ruin Explorer said:


> And it does require a sensitivity reader as well, because most/all of the religions which involved practices deemed "Shamanism" belong to marginalized groups, some extremely marginalized. Just waving your hand and dismissing that is, frankly, *exactly* the attitude that leads really unfortunate stuff happening.



One of the points of my OP as well was that there are a number of marginalized indigenous groups that are resisting the labeling of their spiritual leaders or medicine men as "shamans," and that the term "plastic shamans" was coined due to the exploitation and commercialization of American Indian spiritual practices. This is part of the harm as well. But this gets back to how the point is that we stop using the term, but that we consider how we use it. (Maybe less American Indian-inspired art with our fantasy shamans for starters.) 

A lot of anthropologists and sociologists basically viewed a lot of non-Western religious practices as the same, and threw them under the label of "shamanism" and placed them on a religious evolutionary model "lower" in a ladder that leads to polytheism and then monotheism. I believe that @pemerton also talked about this as well earlier in the thread.


----------



## Aldarc

Dire Bare said:


> Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.
> 
> Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.
> 
> For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?
> 
> Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.



There is another possibility. I have been inspired by how Pathfinder 2 reduced all spell lists to four sources: Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal/Nature. So classes could be designed primarily around method (e.g., scholar with a tome, makes pacts with intermediary forces, innate, battle-caster, etc.) and then pick a spell list that determines your "label." So to take "scholar with a tome," for example, we may end up with a Wizard (Arcane Scholar), a Cleric (Divine Scholar), or Druid (Primal Scholar). But if one were a battle-caster, you may end up with a Swordmage (Arcane Battle-Caster), a Templar/War Priest (Divine Battle-Caster), or a Warden/Shapeshifter (Primal Battle-Caster).


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> Like someone claiming to be culturally ancient Roman simply because they happen to live in Rome.



Oh, hey, that's me! I mean, kind of. I cannot claim to be an _ancient_ roman, but I certainly am a modern roman, and as such I absolutely claim all of roman culture, including ancient roman culture, as part of my cultural heritage.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch.

Culture belongs to none. Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.

I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and make them my own.

You know, like mankind has done since the dawn of time.


----------



## Galandris

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Culture belongs to none. Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.
> 
> I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and make them my own.




So, you're refusing to culturally misappropriate the capitalist culture?


----------



## Aldarc

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> *Culture belongs to none.* Only post 20th century capitalism-drenched people may believe otherwise.
> 
> I'm a cultural integrator. I will use bits and portions of other cultures as I see fit, and *make them my own.*
> 
> You know, like mankind has done since the dawn of time.



There may be some neo-liberal double-speak at work here.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't play 5E but based on the text people posted on shamans and druids here, it seems they are a subcategory of Druid (some Druids are Shamans but not all druids are Shamans), and it is just meant to be a thing where you reskin your druid as a shaman (perhaps explaining the flavor of how they get their powers slightly differently, and carefully selecting spells to best reflect a shaman character). If you just change all those instances into Druid, you do lose a potential distinction they were going for (and possibly a bit of flavor)




@Bedrockgames - I mean this with all respect, but, since you flat out admit you don't know what you're talking about, that your ideas are only based on what you've read from other people's posts, I'm going to say that it would be far, far more useful to actually read the 5e material before venturing an opinion?  

These conversations are difficult enough without having to explain things to people who cannot even be bothered to actually read the works in question.  And not even the entire works.  Just 7 entries.


----------



## Hussar

Olrox17 said:


> Oh, hey, that's me! I mean, kind of. I cannot claim to be an _ancient_ roman, but I certainly am a modern roman, and as such I absolutely claim all of roman culture, including ancient roman culture, as part of my cultural heritage.




See, the problem with that is, pretty much all of Europe and most North Americans, Australians and quite a few other people, have just as much of a claim to ancient Roman culture as you do.  

Other than geography, what distinguishes you from any other Italian?  I realize that there are a few different ethnic groups recognized in Italy, but, by and large, Italian people are Italian, not Roman.  I'm not trying to be snotty here, I'm genuinely curious.  My study background is in ethnic conflict, so, I understand the importantance of ethnicity, but, honestly, you're the first person I've ever seen who is claiming that Rome is a separate ethnicity and culture from Italian.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Druids being referred as shamans in some cultures in the setting is not a problem, it makes perfect sense. What is a problem though that this shaman moniker seems to almost exclusively happen in connection to nasty monsters. If it said that mountain dwarfs refer call their druids shamans I don't think many people would have a problem with it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> See, the problem with that is, pretty much all of Europe and most North Americans, Australians and quite a few other people, have just as much of a claim to ancient Roman culture as you do.
> 
> Other than geography, what distinguishes you from any other Italian?  I realize that there are a few different ethnic groups recognized in Italy, but, by and large, Italian people are Italian, not Roman.  I'm not trying to be snotty here, I'm genuinely curious.  My study background is in ethnic conflict, so, I understand the importantance of ethnicity, but, honestly, you're the first person I've ever seen who is claiming that Rome is a separate ethnicity and culture from Italian.



I'm not sure they meant that. Certainly Italy is obviously the successor of the Roman state and has clear cultural and genetic connection. That the country is now called 'Italy' instead of 'Rome' wouldn't really change that any more than 'Persia' now being called 'Iran' would imply any fundamental cultural discontinuity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> @Bedrockgames - I mean this with all respect, but, since you flat out admit you don't know what you're talking about, that your ideas are only based on what you've read from other people's posts, I'm going to say that it would be far, far more useful to actually read the 5e material before venturing an opinion?




I am basing it on the portion of material people quoted and discussed. If there is something inaccurate in that, fair enough. But I think I can still venture an opinion.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

MGibster said:


> followed that up by saying an actual Japanese developer was unable to work on a product similar to OA




I mean "actual Japanese" as in theoretical person of that actual ethnicity, not "actual" as in specific person was trying to do it. I guess that's the misunderstanding? But it's a bit weird that's the only thing you've engaged with, which makes me consider your motivation here.



Mallus said:


> Culture ain’t like IP. Ain’t in the same ballpark. Ain’t in the same league. Ain’t even the same <censored> sport.
> 
> (apologies to Jules Winnfield)
> 
> Is it just me, or has neoliberal capitalism eaten every other mode of thinking?




Sure, but I'm trying to explain something to people who I feel actively don't WANT to understand it, and neoliberalism has yes eaten most modes of thinking, sadly and commodified everything, but that's a whole other discussion!


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> See, the problem with that is, pretty much all of Europe and most North Americans, Australians and quite a few other people, have just as much of a claim to ancient Roman culture as you do.
> 
> Other than geography, what distinguishes you from any other Italian?  I realize that there are a few different ethnic groups recognized in Italy, but, by and large, Italian people are Italian, not Roman.  I'm not trying to be snotty here, I'm genuinely curious.  My study background is in ethnic conflict, so, I understand the importantance of ethnicity, but, honestly, you're the first person I've ever seen who is claiming that Rome is a separate ethnicity and culture from Italian.



No it's not really about ethnicity. There are plenty of dark skinned people, for instance, that are just as roman as I am. The ancient roman themselves were very ethnically mixed. Italy's geographical position in the middle of the mediterranean sea is very important to consider. We had people coming in from the north (north europe) and from the south (north africa) for millennia.

All those people brought part of their culture, but they were all eventually assimilated, either in the ancient roman culture or, after the fall of the western empire, in the many italian regional cultures.
And regional cultures are the crux of the matter: a lombard is not a tuscan, a tuscan is not a roman, a sicilian is not a naepolitan, a genoese is not a venetian, etc etc.

My regional culture is roman. My native dialect is the roman dialect. If a venetian dude (especially an older fellow) speaks to me in pure venetian dialect, I'm not going to understand a word he's saying. I'd probably understand a spanish guy better, and I never even studied spanish!

So, what is modern roman culture? It's the regional culture of the people of Rome and surrounding areas, tracing its roots to our ancient roman ancestors (753 BC-476 AD), going through the primacy of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church (edit: latin was and is their official language, I'm going to add) for more than a millennia, until the kingdom of Italy took Rome from the Papacy in 1870 to make it its capital.
Newsflash: this last development is relatively recent history. While modern romans certainly consider themselves italians, if you ask romans whether they feel more italian or more roman, the answer might surprise you.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't play 5E but based on the text people posted on shamans and druids here, it seems they are a subcategory of Druid (some Druids are Shamans but not all druids are Shamans), and it is just meant to be a thing where you reskin your druid as a shaman (perhaps explaining the flavor of how they get their powers slightly differently, and carefully selecting spells to best reflect a shaman character). If you just change all those instances into Druid, you do lose a potential distinction they were going for (and possibly a bit of flavor)




You have it reversed.

If we look at real-world usages of Shamanism, Shamanism covers such a very wide variety of practices, and certainly everything a 5E D&D Druid does, fit within the general purview of "Shamanism". Shamanic practices also have a bunch of other stuff going on which 5E Druids only kinda-sorta deal with.

But the point is D&D 5E Druid should essentially be a subset of a Shaman class, if one were to exist in 5E, and to actually attempt to encompass Shamanism. All the capabilities of 5E Druids fit well within those attributed to Shamans.

Some of your suggestions make absolutely no sense, presumably you aren't familiar with 5E. Carefully picking your spells to be a Shaman for example makes no sense. Shamans in world-culture have a huge breadth of magical abilities. Essentially limitless magical abilities. If anything, spells should be added to the Druid to allow for Shamans.

Really, right now, to do a "decent" Shaman class in 5E, you just rename Druids and replace all instances of the word Druid with Shaman. Boom done. It wouldn't be perfect - it could be improved, but you'd be getting into territory where you'd be making an already-strong class maybe even more powerful. Class feature variants make this even better, because then instead of shapeshifting, you can instead summon spirit familiars and stuff, which is on-brand for some kinds of Shaman.

It's worth noting that 5E's Druid has almost nothing to do with 1E/2E's Druid thematically. Indeed, one might argue 5E's Druid has more in common with World of Warcraft's Druid than 2E's Druid (which was a specific example of a Priest of a Specific Mythos).


----------



## jasper

Hussar said:


> Which is great an all.
> 
> But, shamans don't exist in 5e.
> 
> So, right now, there is no contrast because, in 5e, shaman ARE druids.  Full stop.  That's how they are defined.
> 
> You basically have three choices at that point:
> 
> A) add a shaman class to define shaman - a very long process that is not guaranteed to succeed as issues with class design run into the vetting process - see psionics for a perfect example of a class hung up in development hell.
> 
> B) replace the seven instances in the MM where the word shaman is used with the word druid, which is what they actually mean.
> 
> C)  Add a Shaman to the Monster Manual in the NPC section, same as we have Noble and Druid.  Since it's a "monster", it doesn't have to follow class construction rules, and can have a unique spell list and abilities.
> 
> I prefer simpler solutions. It's quick, easy, gets the job done and solves the problem.
> 
> Heck, you could do all three.  Replace the words in subsequent printings of the Monster Manual and issue an errata AND begin development of a Shaman class.  An NPC Shaman, divorced from class doesn't have to run the gauntlet of Unearthed Arcana revisions and can be added pretty easily.



D) Keep the word Shaman and allow DMS to make each shaman Unique be creating a custom spell list.  So a shaman in tier 1 adventure may have cure wounds, fire bolt, and cause wounds. A tier 2 can have boot to the head, cure mass wounds, cure disease and thor's hammer.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> Newsflash: this last development is relatively recent history. While modern romans certainly consider themselves italians, if you ask romans whether they feel more italian or more roman, the answer might surprise you.




Isn't that kind of like asking Londoners if they feel more British (or god help you, English), or more Londoners? Because I mean, as a Londoner, I can tell you an awful lot (maybe the majority) will have Londoner as an identity higher on the list than British (let alone English). I don't think it necessarily means people who live in Rome see themselves as "The Heirs of Caesar" or whatever (though as I think you pointed out, the whole Mussolini incident proved that was bubbling away - and whole Operation Gladio insanity probably didn't help, thanks CIA!).



hawkeyefan said:


> I hope no members of the Choctaw nation come into this thread and as they’re reading start thinking to themselves “oh man, do I know the perfect example to post”......and then they find your post and are left exampleless.




 But yeah you understand the issue in terms how it functions (luckily my posts are not advantaged over those of others particularly - also my wife is 1/4 Choctaw so I'm hoping this example is forgivable!).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> But this gets back to how the point is that we stop using the term, but that we consider how we use it. (Maybe less American Indian-inspired art with our fantasy shamans for starters.)




Missing a not there I think but yeah (ie. "is _not_ that we stop using the term"). And yes good god re: Native American. It's like, I don't want less representation of one of the most marginalized groups that exists in the West, but could you stop just stealing their stuff and sticking it on non-humans for a bit? Huh?



Aldarc said:


> A lot of anthropologists and sociologists basically viewed a lot of non-Western religious practices as the same, and threw them under the label of "shamanism" and placed them on a religious evolutionary model "lower" in a ladder that leads to polytheism and then monotheism. I believe that @pemerton also talked about this as well earlier in the thread.




There's no denying that a lot of anthropologists (especially pre-1980) need a damn good spanking, so yeah, that is problematic.


----------



## MGibster

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean "actual Japanese" as in theoretical person of that actual ethnicity, not "actual" as in specific person was trying to do it. I guess that's the misunderstanding? But it's a bit weird that's the only thing you've engaged with, which makes me consider your motivation here.




My apologies, I honestly could not tell when you typed "actual Japanese person" you weren't referring to a hypothetical rather than an actual Japanese person.  I can't read what you mean to communicate only what you actually put on the screen.  

And if you think I'm a troll then please either stop communicating with me, report me, or both.  Because passive aggressive comments like "makes me consider your motivation here" is just a crummy thing to say.


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> Isn't that kind of like asking Londoners if they feel more British (or god help you, English), or more Londoners? Because I mean, as a Londoner, I can tell you an awful lot (maybe the majority) will have Londoner as an identity higher on the list than British (let alone English).



Maybe? I honestly don't know enough about english regional cultures, beside the divide between england, scotland, wales and northern ireland, so you tell me.

Anyway, when we talk about italian regional cultures, we have to keep in mind that most of them have a really venerable history.
Just take Venice as an example. The republic of venice lasted from 697 AD to 1797 AD, more than a millennia. It was a fully independent, sovereign state, holding multiple dominions over the Mediterranean sea. It's not at all surprising that many modern venetians may see themselves as venetians first, italians second.
Similar things can be said for the republic of Genoa, the republic of Pisa, the republic of Florence, the kingdom of Sicily, etc.


Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't think it necessarily means people who live in Rome see themselves as "The Heirs of Caesar" or whatever (though as I think you pointed out, the whole Mussolini incident proved that was bubbling away - and whole Operation Gladio insanity probably didn't help, thanks CIA!).



I'll tell you this much: if that dumbass Mussolini ever got substantially more power and territory than he ever managed to hold, people would've started believing him. People frown on his roman imperial ambitions nowadays because it was just foolish posturing from the head of a nation that wasn't even ready for modern war yet.


----------



## Sadras

Ruin Explorer said:


> And yes good god re: Native American. It's like, I don't want less representation of one of the most marginalized groups that exists in the West, but could you stop just stealing their stuff and sticking it on non-humans for a bit? Huh?




Make our humanoids _less human_ by the removal of cultural trappings (Japanese hairdo + armour + shamanism).
Make our humanoids _more human_ by the removal of inherently evil, less intellectual + other offensive stuff.

Got it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> Maybe? I honestly don't know enough about english regional cultures, beside the divide between england, scotland, wales and northern ireland, so you tell me.




It does sound similar. I think whether someone is venerable or not doesn't _necessarily _impact how a modern population regards it, because venerable traditions can be abruptly cut off or vanish due to cultural change, and new regional identities can spring up very rapidly. I mean, the concept of Londoner is probably not really much more than 500 years old, and really only a strong identity for 200-odd years (and even then it was more a working-class identity for a long time), but it is very strong now (and cuts across class, race, politics, national origin and so on). And yeah they specifically see themselves as Londoners first, and British, English, European or the like second or lower. This is true for something like 7/10 people who live in London.


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> It does sound similar. I think whether someone is venerable or not doesn't _necessarily _impact how a modern population regards it, because venerable traditions can be abruptly cut off or vanish due to cultural change, and new regional identities can spring up very rapidly. I mean, the concept of Londoner is probably not really much more than 500 years old, and really only a strong identity for 200-odd years (and even then it was more a working-class identity for a long time), but it is very strong now (and cuts across class, race, politics, national origin and so on). And yeah they specifically see themselves as Londoners first, and British, English, European or the like second or lower. This is true for something like 7/10 people who live in London.



Then there could be a (relatively) new londoner culture, distinct enough from "generic" english culture to be considered its own thing.
A difference I spot between londoner culture and, say, venetian culture: londoner is a culture born from within the kingdom of England. It originated from within the kingdom, and never existed outside of it.

Venetian culture, on the other hand, was born more than millennia before Italy existed (similar things can be said about every italian regional culture). So a venetian identity, a roman identity, a florentine identity etc existed way before Italy, which is now the umbrella nation under which all those previously existing identities live.
Italy, as a political entity, is more akin to the EU than to England, if you get my meaning.


----------



## Maxperson

Olrox17 said:


> Oh, hey, that's me! I mean, kind of. I cannot claim to be an _ancient_ roman, but I certainly am a modern roman, and as such I absolutely claim all of roman culture, including ancient roman culture, as part of my cultural heritage.



Yeah, but doesn't, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." give everyone a free pass to appropriate your culture while we are there?


----------



## Olrox17

Maxperson said:


> Yeah, but doesn't, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." give everyone a free pass to appropriate your culture while we are there?



If that stops the barbarians from putting pineapple on pizza, then by all means!


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> See, the problem with that is, pretty much all of Europe and most North Americans, Australians and quite a few other people, have just as much of a claim to ancient Roman culture as you do.
> 
> Other than geography, what distinguishes you from any other Italian?  I realize that there are a few different ethnic groups recognized in Italy, but, by and large, Italian people are Italian, not Roman.  I'm not trying to be snotty here, I'm genuinely curious.  My study background is in ethnic conflict, so, I understand the importantance of ethnicity, but, honestly, you're the first person I've ever seen who is claiming that Rome is a separate ethnicity and culture from Italian.











						Guide to Roman Culture and Customs
					

Learn how to "do as the Romans do" while understanding Roman culture and customs with this handy guide of how to get by in the 'Eternal City'.




					citywonders.com
				



.


----------



## Maxperson

Ruin Explorer said:


> Isn't that kind of like asking Londoners if they feel more British (or god help you, English), or more Londoners? Because I mean, as a Londoner, I can tell you an awful lot (maybe the majority) will have Londoner as an identity higher on the list than British (let alone English). I don't think it necessarily means people who live in Rome see themselves as "The Heirs of Caesar" or whatever (though as I think you pointed out, the whole Mussolini incident proved that was bubbling away - and whole Operation Gladio insanity probably didn't help, thanks CIA!).




So they have two cultures.  If you couldn't have two cultures, African Americans, Jewish Americans, etc. couldn't exist.  There would only be the American culture allowed to those born in America.  If Romans and Londoners feel a separate cultural identity to their country, so be it.


----------



## Maxperson

Olrox17 said:


> If that stops the barbarians from putting pineapple on pizza, then by all means!



It's good to know that I am not a barbarian.


----------



## Olrox17

Maxperson said:


> Guide to Roman Culture and Customs
> 
> 
> Learn how to "do as the Romans do" while understanding Roman culture and customs with this handy guide of how to get by in the 'Eternal City'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> citywonders.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



That was a decent general description. I'll give you another important aspect of modern roman culture: mockery is a fundamental aspect of our lives. In D&D terms, we're all taught the vicious mockery cantrip at an early age, and that is also why romans are stereotyped as rude.
Here's a funny (if not entirely PC) insult that is often levied towards northern europeans (and northern italians) in Rome: _"While you were all still living in caves, we were already gay"._


----------



## Galandris

What about an American whose ancestors came from Germany and claiming to own the Roman culture? Why would he claim more Roman cultures than the Native American culture (because in both cases, his ancestors just invaded the place...) At what point is it OK to claim ownership of a culture? Coming from a culture that doesn't allow ethic stats (because all humans are humans, there are no White, Black or Green people, just humans), I am really interested to learn how other cultures think about it. What are the objective characteristics allowing one to appropriate a cultural element as "his own"?


----------



## Sadras

Olrox17 said:


> If that stops the barbarians from putting pineapple on pizza, then by all means!




The authentic Italian pizza is very different to what is bulk-produced for the rest of the world.
This barbarian appreciates both styles.


----------



## Olrox17

Sadras said:


> The authentic Italian pizza is very different to what is bulk-produced for the rest of the world.
> This barbarian appreciates both styles.



Well, at least you get d12 hit dice


----------



## Aldarc

To put it gently, Ancient Rome “exported” it’s culture throughout Europe, and yes it was appropriated by various successor states claiming to act as a continuation of Rome. Ancient Greco-Roman cultures made it their business to put their cultural imprint on the rest of Europe. The Renaissance and the rise of Classical learning also basically pushed Greco-Roman cultures into the education of many non-Italian Europeans. It was often deemed of “higher” value than the various non-Italian native cultures and their languages. This does not make a German or Spaniard a Roman, but it is important to understand the degree to which Rome erased many other cultures and/or elevated their own and how that impacted the cultural development and identities of Europe.


----------



## Olrox17

Aldarc said:


> To put it gently, Ancient Rome “exported” it’s culture throughout Europe, and yes it was appropriated by various successor states claiming to act as a continuation of Rome. Ancient Greco-Roman cultures made it their business to put their cultural imprint on the rest of Europe. The Renaissance and the rise of Classical learning also basically pushed Greco-Roman cultures into the education of many non-Italian Europeans. It was often deemed of “higher” value than the various non-Italian native cultures and their languages. This does not make a German or Spaniard a Roman, but it is important to understand the degree to which Rome erased many other cultures and/or elevated their own and how that impacted the cultural development and identities of Europe.



Indeed, although this is usually the moment _that_ Monty Python sketch gets linked and/or referenced!


----------



## Maxperson

Olrox17 said:


> Indeed, although this is usually the moment _that_ Monty Python sketch gets linked and/or referenced!



Well, the one I can think of involves Brian trying to prove his parentage.  I don't think that scene is appropriate to link here.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Sadras said:


> Make our humanoids _less human_ by the removal of cultural trappings (Japanese hairdo + armour + shamanism).
> Make our humanoids _more human_ by the removal of inherently evil, less intellectual + other offensive stuff.
> 
> Got it.



I'm just going to fix that for you.

Make our humanoids less based on real world cultures, or if we do base it on cultures from Earth, do it respectfully and in an inoffensive way.
Make our humanoids more human by the removal of inherently evil, less intellectual, and other offensive stuff.

Removing offensive/problematic depictions of real world people does not make them less human.

Now, do you "got it"?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Olrox17 said:


> If that stops the barbarians from putting pineapple on pizza, then by all means!



I don't recall ever playing a barbarian.


----------



## Fenris-77

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I don't recall ever playing a barbarian.



Blocked it out have you? I sympathize. The human mind's ability to erase trauma is pretty enormous.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Fenris-77 said:


> Blocked it out have you? I sympathize. The human mind's ability to erase trauma is pretty enormous.



I don't know what makes people dislike the best kind of pizza. 

Also, in the 18th century, if they saw how much pineapple we had access too, they would be in awe. Back then, a pineapple could cost around $8,000-$10,000 US dollars in todays money. 

Their question would not be "why do you put pineapple on pizza" it would be "WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT ON EVERYTHING!?!?"


----------



## Fenris-77

I vastly prefer pineapple puree cooked into the sauce than actual chunks of pineapple.  I don't know where that leaves on the barbarism scale though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

In a world where cod pizza exists how on earth is pineapple pizza the most despised ?


----------



## Fenris-77

Bedrockgames said:


> In a world where cod pizza exists how on earth is pineapple pizza the most despised ?



It's the same world where we find amusement in spending 65+ pages arguing about our personal takes on alignment. Carpe diem!


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm just going to fix that for you.
> 
> Make our humanoids less based on real world cultures, or if we do base it on cultures from Earth, do it respectfully and in an inoffensive way.
> 
> Removing offensive/problematic depictions of real world people does not make them less human.
> 
> Now, do you "got it"?



Great news!  Already fixed!  None of them are based on real world cultures at all.  Any resemblance is purely coincidental and it's the coincidence that has people upset.



> Make our humanoids more human by the removal of inherently evil, less intellectual, and other offensive stuff.




I don't play D&D to encounter 50 varieties of human.  I want to encounter non-human humanoids.


----------



## Shandy

Well I have read far to much of these posts, and yes I would like a turn to wallow in the mud.

First of all you're my people, I don't know how I didn't find you all sooner but all this intellectual grandstanding is intoxicating.  It makes me think "this is what an opium den must feel like." 

Second appropriation has to do with your perspective, for instance if you take a dying language and write such a compelling novel in said language you gain fortune and fame who is the victim?  Even if your novels content has no acknowledgment of the cultures significance who is harmed?  Appropriation has at its heart guilt and it is usually a projection that a consumer of information likes to use as a indictment to compel someone to conform to their standards.  I for one think that all the best things are appropriated.  Take for instance every food that ever existed, appropriation is delicious. 

Third I don't know if you guys are aware but D&D is a game of imagination, imposing your standards on my fantasy is a farce.  You don't like how shamanic traditions are depicted? Guess what your game can address this discrepancy.  In fact you have inspired me, now my game has a sophisticated shamanic dark skinned group that lords their superiority over white skinned clerics who are clearly bred from inferior stock.  After all your argumentation is at the end of the day an attempt at persuasion that means make an attempt to inspire your audience.  

Forth  and final point is in my experience you have to use fire to kill trolls, otherwise they regenerate.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Make our humanoids _less human_ by the removal of cultural trappings (Japanese hairdo + armour + shamanism).
> Make our humanoids _more human_ by the removal of inherently evil, less intellectual + other offensive stuff.
> 
> Got it.




Or, I dunn, maybe PICK ONE!


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> Whether a cultural component is a PC class or a monster, whether it's in the PHB or the MM, is, I think, the most important factor. Alignment is the second most important.
> 
> The big problem with D&D is that, with some exceptions like the monk, the PHB = Europe and the MM = not Europe.
> 
> Stuff like frost giants are consistent with this. Frost giants aren't vikings, they were mostly the enemies of the Norse gods in the myths of the vikings. To present them as monsters is to agree with the vikings. A number of the MM monsters are connected with real world peoples, not their myths*.
> 
> EDIT: *Or we could say, the myths Europeans told about those peoples.



I think one of the more striking illustrations of your point, which I haven't seen discussed in the recent threads except by me and one reply from you (caveat: I'm still catching up on this one), is the _Tribesman _entry in the AD&D MM. These are a sub-entry of _Cavesman_, which is not a good start. Then it just gets worse:

*Tribesman:* Primitive tribesmen are typically found in tropical jungles or on islands. They use large shields. Their leaders conform to those of cavemen [ie higher level fighters at varioous ratios], but they have the following additional figures:

1 - 4th level cleric for every 10 tribesmen
1 - 6th level cleric for every 30 tribesmen
1 - 8th level head cleric (witchdoctor)

Tribesman clerics will be druidical in nature.

These men dwell in villages of grass, bamboo or mud huts. There is a 50% chance that the village lair will be protected by a log palisade. The village will contain females and young equal to 100% of the males encountered. There is a 75% chance that there will be 20-50 slaves. There is a 50% chance thot there will be 2-12 captives (food!) held in a pen.​
There could hardly be a claarer instance of the replication of 19th century ideas filtered through late 19th century and first half ot the 20th century pulp tropes.


----------



## Hussar

Shandy said:


> Appropriation has at its heart guilt and it is usually a projection that a consumer of information likes to use as a indictment to compel someone to conform to their standards.




I think I largely agree with that.  And it should.  You SHOULD feel guilty for taking a dying language, writing a novel in that language, that in no way acknowledges the culture that language was taken from and then profit (somehow) from it?  Yeah, that's pretty despicable.  That's bottom feeding.

If I write a novel entirely in Ainu language, and yet completely ignore the genocide of the Ainu people over the past century, and somehow, probably because I'm white and have enough privilege to market such a book in such a way that it makes money, then, yeah, I'm a bottom feeder.

When, over the course of history of most of our nations, we have perpetrated incredible crimes against these people, profiting from their culture by yanking from it and pretending that what I'm doing is original and not related to that culture, is morally bankrupt.

It's the Nazi themed restaurant opened in Seoul, owned by Koreans, and catering to the prurient.  It's pretending that only Japanese culture matters in Asia and all other cultures are secondary.  It's using language to justify why we can kill this monster (note, this language is not repeated anywhere else in the game) that word for word mirrors the language real world people used to murder real world minorities, in the twentieth century.  

On and on.  Is it about guilt?  Well, yes.  We have every reason to feel guilty.  If you look back at history and feel no guilt, there is seriously something lacking somewhere in that equation.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> We are influenced by the media we partake in, usually in small subtle ways. Games are art and like all other art forms they can move us. Fiction is not real, but it says stuff about real stuff even when it is not trying to.



I find it bizarre that this even needs saying;. This thread is replete with reference to _culture_ and yet a good chunk of the posters, who casually throw around that term, don't even seem to understand what social artefacts and social proceses it refers to!


----------



## Esau Cairn

pemerton said:


> I find it bizarre that this even needs saying;. This thread is replete with reference to _culture_ and yet a good chunk of the posters, who casually throw around that term, don't even seem to understand what social artefacts and social proceses it refers to!




Great comment.^^

"The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves." (Clifford Geertz)

A secondary thought to it (and a shake-my-head kinda addition) is how many of those complaining about misappropriation have ever studied or travelled somewhere outside of their own culture? Internet blogs are not, in and of themselves, study. Being an American/British student going to Paris and/or Rome for a summer doesn't really qualify. I mean outside of the comfort zone of same language and familiarity. Somewhere _They_ don't speak _Your_ language. Some would argue you don't know your own culture until you've been outside of it for a while. Sometimes, the traveller will discover the culture they were born into is not the one they find to be their home.

Tertiary thought: self-identifying from what ethnicity someone is speaking from when they make declarations about Others. Intention could also be a factor. Moral judgment included in intention when discussing any part of any culture is a dangerous thing and rarely provides any benefit to discussion. This last part is lathered over a great many statements on this thread and in the greater discussion. Leave your own ideology in a luggage locker and pick it up later is a great suggestion someone once offered.

_Any_one can speak to any ethnic criticism regardless of their accident of birth, provided they've done their homework into the topic they wish to discuss. It's a fundamental premise in such things as postcolonial studies, modernity, and hybridity. Y'know, the study of different cultures and how they interact...


----------



## pemerton

Voadam said:


> This can work as an artistic choice.
> 
> It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.



I tend to agree with @Ruin Explorer's reply to this post.

Personally I feel there is a bigger issue here that is in the neighbourhood of "whitewashing" but perhaps not quite the same.

I'll start with a non-RPG example: when people in England use the zero to help them with their arithmetic no one characterises that as an Indian or Persian cultural practice. But if a person in Tanzania wears a t-shirt or uses penicilin to treat an infection that will often be described as "westernisation" or in some similar way that characterises it as the uptake by the "traditional" culture of the practices and artefacts of Europe and North America ("the west").

This tendency to treat "the west" as the reference point and norm for cultural practices even extens to ahistorical/fictional assumptions - so the invention and spread of printing is associated with Germany even though (to the best of my knowledge) it was invented in China (wood-block printing) and Korea (metal type printing).

To now bring this back to D&D and fantasy: if our PC uses stirrups that's fine and dandy - the first iimage many RPGers have of a mounted fantasy warrior is a central or western Euroepean knight. Even though strirrups are not a European invention. In other words, stirrups don't carry their history with them because that history is non-European. But the class _druid _struggles to become generic in the same way (as reflected in Voadam's post quoted above). So using the druid class for non-European religious practices gets flagged as whitewashing.

My (mild, not terrifically strong) preference would be to develop a general conception of a spirit-and-nature oriented religous figure (visions, shapechanging, use of plants and herbs, has a certain sort of kinship with or affinity to important animals) and then use that character type without building in the assumption that _because we use the word druid_ we must be talking about something European. Of the editions of D&D I'm familiar with (and my 5e knowledge is limited) 4e probably got closest to this - the difference between its druid and shaman classes is bascially mechanical, not deeply trope-ish. Oddly enough, and having been very critical of the MM "tribesman" entry just upthread, I think this is one thing it got right. (And @Doug McCrae made the same point in another recent thread). The "tribesman" religious leaders are druids, not the inferior DMG shamans or witchdoctors.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> While I understand concerns around cultural appropriation my personal criticisms are not rooted in that concern. My primary concerns all rest around perpetuating negative stereotypes and uncritical portrayals of imperialism, colonialism, centralized power, and authoritarian states. When I speak to punching up instead of down I am referring to those uncritical portrayals.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I am no fan of censorious attitudes, but there is another inclination that I find just as pernicious - the notion that cultural criticism and attempts to influence culture are forms of censorship. When someone says "Go woke - go broke" or complains about the social messaging in The Dark Knight or Black Panther I do not interpret that as a form of censorship. I do not agree with them or where they want to move the cultural needle, but I do not see it as censorious.



I basically agree with this. These discussions about racism in fantasy literature and fantasy gaming aren't about censorship. It's about FRPGing finally getting it's head out of <another part of its body> and engaging in some serious critical reflection. That's part of what characterises contemporary cultural activity. (If we were living in Ancient Rome we probably wouldn't be doing this sort of criticism, because it hadn't really been invented yet to the best of my knowledge; but then if we were living in Ancient Rome we wouldn't be RPGing either!)

I'm also a critic of Black Panther, although I think from quite a different perspective than the one you refer to here. I'm thinking of Tejo Cole's essay in Medium and some other essays I read around the same time.



Dire Bare said:


> _Oh yeah, and don't just be open-minded to criticism . . . . *actively go out and seek it*! If you are a white guy designing some D&D elements inspired by Asian mythology . . . . try to go find some Asian American gamers (preferably specific to the culture you are borrowing from) willing to critique your work! Or, well, Asian Canadian, Asian Australian . . . Asians born-and-raised in the West. It's cool to get critique from Asians-from-Asia also, but they have a very different lived experience to those of Asian descent in the West._



I think this is very specific advice, making very specific assumptions about who is the audience, whose interests are at stake, and what sort of harm might be done by a cultural work. I think it's somewhat orthogonal to @Aldarc's OP.


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> 1e PHB: "[Druids] are the only absolute neutrals... viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."
> 2e PHB: "Clerics are generally good"



This is part of the "paradox" of traditional D&D alignments.

If one reads the description of True Neutral as a "naturalistic ethoc" (AD&D DMG) which worries about nature being disturbed by intentinal action (AD&D PHB) various real-world philosophies and religions immediately come to mind: Stoicism, Taoism, a range of indigenous beliefs particularly as these have developed in response to colonisation and the agricultural and industrial productive processes that tend to accompnay that colonisation, etc. Clearly all these outlooks think they they are giving true accounts of right living (including when action is or isn't appropriate, how to accomodate onself to "natural law", etc). But D&D flags them as non-good.

From the TN point of view the description of paladins, clerics etc as good has to be ironic or in inverted commas - "so-called 'good'". This works better for Stoicism or Taoism which are to some extent oppositional outlooks (though like many oppositional outlooks at various points and in various ways they become "mainstreamed"). For indigenous outlooks it's trickier because they are not either objectively or subjectively/self-consciously oppoisitional. So they get positioned as "other" or deviant in unhelpful ways.

It's a bit like REH's somewhat Nietzschean treatment of "barbarism" as superior to "civilisation". He's doing this as self-consciously oppositional to the "civilised" culture from which he comes and in which he lives. But he's hardly giving us the viewpoint of, or an affirmation of, a person whose whole life is rural and non-literate rather than urban, literate and cosmopolitan.


----------



## pemerton

Mallus said:


> Is it just me, or has neoliberal capitalism eaten every other mode of thinking?



Yes. Yes it has.



Mallus said:


> Culture ain’t like IP.



Maybe, maybe not.

At a certain point neoliberal capitalism isn't just an ideology but becomes part of the base.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Great news! Already fixed! None of them are based on real world cultures at all. Any resemblance is purely coincidental and it's the coincidence that has people upset.



Shamans aren't based on real world cultures, then? Most of the names for the D&D classes came from real world people. 


Maxperson said:


> I don't play D&D to encounter 50 varieties of human. I want to encounter non-human humanoids.



I agree, but I also think that there's more to player races/classes than culture or stereotypical play of them.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Shamans aren't based on real world cultures, then? Most of the names for the D&D classes came from real world people.




That's quite a goal post haul.  You said humanoids, which are races.  This isn't basic where some are classes, too.



> I agree, but I also think that there's more to player races/classes than culture or stereotypical play of them.



You can make them what you wish.  That's one of the beauties of D&D.  It's extremely flexible.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> You want to see if it's possible to move the goal posts farther? You said humanoids, which are races. This isn't basic where some are classes, too.



The first part I said humanoids in, because the person I was quoting said humanoids. The second more general statement afterwards was meant to apply to cultures and stereotypes. 


Maxperson said:


> You can make them what you wish. That's one of the beauties of D&D. It's extremely flexible.



Yes, but offensive language describing orcs or shamans should be fixed even if I personally could get rid of it.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> There could hardly be a claarer instance of the replication of 19th century ideas filtered through late 19th century and first half ot the 20th century pulp tropes.




Pemerton, how would you describe tribesmen in stat terms? We are talking about human history here.
And yet somehow some of us on these forums INSIST on only attributing this sense of tribesman idea to specific parts of the world. People need to get out of that mindset. The Sword Coast is filled with Uthgardt barbarian tribes (black hair, blue eyes). That is hardly 19th century pulp tropes.

My issue with the example that you quoted is the specificity of the location of where tribesmen exist. They should be found within any environment and perhaps to mix it up - create matriarchies as well as patriarchies.


----------



## Campbell

Given that monsters are not built in the same way that PCs are and these "shamans" do not function in the same way mechanically or often conceptually anyway is there a reason why they should have the same name? Why not come up with specific names that match the culture of the race?

This is pretty much what we see in Pathfinder Second Edition. They also tend to vary the cultural orientation and magical traditions utilized by antagonistic ancestries. Here are some examples:


Deep gnomes who organize in underground settlements and cities. They have Rockwardens (Prepared Primal).
Derro are sparsely detailed. They have Magisters (Spontaneous Occult).
Duergar are also organized into settlements. They are known for their strict hierarchy. They have Taskmasters (Divine Prepared)
Drow are organized into a loose collection of noble houses. Some are matriarchal and others are patriarchal. The listed spell caster is a Drow Priestess (Divine Prepared).
Goblins are primarily organized into tribes. They have a Goblin Pyro (Spontaneous Arcane) and Warchanter (Spontaneous Occult) listed.
Gnolls are organized into clans. They have cultists (Prepared Divine)
Hobgoblin Society is organized into military units from birth. They have no listed spell casters. Their ancestry write up says they distrust arcane magic, preferring the science of alchemy.
Kobolds are organized into Tribes. They have Dragon Mages (Arcane Spontaneous)
Lizardfolk are organized into villages. They are indigenous, but they are described as having a society with literal hidden depths (under water settlements).  They have Stargazers (Prepared Primal).
Orcs are organized in more of feudal fashion (socially they remind me of Anglo Saxons). They belong to their hold. There are no listed spell casters, but the ancestry write up in the Advanced Player's Guide mentions they respect the Primal and Divine traditions.
I am not entirely sure this approach is something that Fifth Edition should copy. Paizo has a single setting so they get to add a level of depth and nuance that might be impractical for Fifth Edition. I do think some additional diversity in spell caster names and roles would be helpful - particularly given that goblin shaman are pretty much wizards that use Wisdom instead of Intelligence.


----------



## Dire Bare

Campbell said:


> Given that monsters are not built in the same way that PCs are and these "shamans" do not function in the same way mechanically or often conceptually anyway is there a reason why they should have the same name? Why not come up with specific names that match the culture of the race?
> 
> This is pretty much what we see in Pathfinder Second Edition. They also tend to vary the cultural orientation and magical traditions utilized by antagonistic ancestries. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> Deep gnomes who organize in underground settlements and cities. They have Rockwardens (Prepared Primal).
> Derro are sparsely detailed. They have Magisters (Spontaneous Occult).
> Duergar are also organized into settlements. They are known for their strict hierarchy. They have Taskmasters (Divine Prepared)
> Drow are organized into a loose collection of noble houses. Some are matriarchal and others are patriarchal. The listed spell caster is a Drow Priestess (Divine Prepared).
> Goblins are primarily organized into tribes. They have a Goblin Pyro (Spontaneous Arcane) and Warchanter (Spontaneous Occult) listed.
> Gnolls are organized into clans. They have cultists (Prepared Divine)
> Hobgoblin Society is organized into military units from birth. They have no listed spell casters. Their ancestry write up says they distrust arcane magic, preferring the science of alchemy.
> Kobolds are organized into Tribes. They have Dragon Mages (Arcane Spontaneous)
> Lizardfolk are organized into villages. They are indigenous, but they are described as having a society with literal hidden depths (under water settlements).  They have Stargazers (Prepared Primal).
> Orcs are organized in more of feudal fashion (socially they remind me of Anglo Saxons). They belong to their hold. There are no listed spell casters, but the ancestry write up in the Advanced Player's Guide mentions they respect the Primal and Divine traditions.
> I am not entirely sure this approach is something that Fifth Edition should copy. Paizo has a single setting so they get to add a level of depth and nuance that might be impractical for Fifth Edition. I do think some additional diversity in spell caster names and roles would be helpful - particularly given that goblin shaman are pretty much wizards that use Wisdom instead of Intelligence.



I like this approach by Paizo, it doesn't solve all of the issues, but it certainly lessens the impact of appropriated words and adds diversity to world-building. D&D has done this too in places, here and there, over the decades. But, just like coming up with a cool, unique name for your rock band . . . this approach will at some point reach diminishing returns.

One problem is that all of these cool _magico-religious specialist_ names are all in English! Well, I mean, they kinda have to be without diving into fantasy language _gibberish_ . . . . but I strongly suspect that the many cultural words for shaman/wizard/priest *IRL* roughly translate to "priest" or "divine intermediary". Which is why anthropologists use broad terms like priest and shaman, despite the risk of over-generalizing different cultural traditions.

I would love to see a future D&D Players Handbook have wording like this (_or better than this really, but hopefully my point is made_), "Wizards use rote formulas to manipulate arcane energies to create magical effects . . . but each cultural wizard tradition views their abilities differently and uses different lexicons, practices, and even mindsets in their approach to arcane magic." In other words, one cultural wizard tradition might be the classic eight "philosopher" schools of magic . . . and another might refer to themselves as wu jen and have a different approach to magic, but both would be "wizards" (or wizard subclasses) in the game rules . . . and even within the setting scholars might argue just how different wizards and wu jen truly are . . . Replace wizard with cleric, shaman, fighter, and every other class name.


----------



## pemerton

In the fiction are they speaking English? If not, everything is translated. So what exaactly is gained by translating further eg from Egnlish to the (pseudo-?)Chinese of _wu jen_? I'm not saying the answer is _nothing is gained _but I don't think the gains have been clearly articulated yet.

I take it as given that _being "exotic" _isn't what we're looking for.


----------



## Doug McCrae

pemerton said:


> I think one of the more striking illustrations of your point, which I haven't seen discussed in the recent threads except by me and one reply from you (caveat: I'm still catching up on this one), is the _Tribesman _entry in the AD&D MM. These are a sub-entry of _Cavesman_, which is not a good start. Then it just gets worse...
> 
> There could hardly be a claarer instance of the replication of 19th century ideas filtered through late 19th century and first half ot the 20th century pulp tropes.



Also the intelligence of "Caveman (Tribesman)" is listed as "Low (to average)". I think this means that tribesman intelligence is in a range from low to average. Low corresponds to an intelligence score of 5-7, average is 8-10. Almost all the other entries for men in the MM, such as the viking-coded berserkers and nomads who are "desert or steppes/plains dwellers", have intelligence listed as "average to very". Very corresponds to 11-12.

In World of Greyhawk (1980) it seems that Gary Gygax tries to push back against the racism in the MM tribesman entry when he makes some of the Amedio Jungle "tribes of cannibal savages... purportedly of Suloise extraction or admixture". The 1983 boxed set reveals that "[t]he Suel race is very fair-skinned, some being almost albino. They have light red, yellow, blond, or platinum blonde hair." However "[t]hose bands that migrated into the vast Amedio Jungle and Hepmonaland are so altered as to be no longer typical of the race; they are tan to brown with heavy freckling."

One could interpret World of Greyhawk as saying 'white people are cannibals too' but it could also be interpreted as 'interbreeding with black people has turned white people into cannibals', so the attempted push back (if that's what it is) is not very successful.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Pemerton, how would you describe tribesmen in stat terms? We are talking about human history here.
> And yet somehow some of us on these forums INSIST on only attributing this sense of tribesman idea to specific parts of the world. People need to get out of that mindset. The Sword Coast is filled with Uthgardt *barbarian tribes (black hair, blue eyes)*. That is hardly 19th century pulp tropes.
> 
> My issue with the example that you quoted is the specificity of the location of where tribesmen exist. They should be found within any environment and perhaps to mix it up - create matriarchies as well as patriarchies.




Conan would like to have a word...   But, again, in 5e, why is a Tribal Warrior the LEAST INTELLIGENT of all the NPC's?  Even the Beserker is more intelligent.  Least intelligent and, only the Thug, Bandit and Commoner have less Wisdom (and none of them have an actual penalty).  Umm, that's pretty much exactly from 19th century concepts and 20th century pulps.

I think part of the broader issue is that most people aren't genre scholars.  They like this story or that story or this author or that author and that's about as far as the examination goes.  People don't very often start delving down into the history of the genre (or any genre) unless they are already invested in literary traditions.  So, it's entirely possible that someone reading, say, Stephen King loves King's horror but has no idea who H. P. Lovecraft or August Derlith are. And, frankly, they don't care.  They like the books, and, because the books are pretty far removed from earlier sources, the inherent racism and bigotry of the earlier works becomes more, "Well, that's what genre fiction looks like".

You hear all these people talk about how they don't see color, or don't see this or that, yet, change Starbuck's gender in BSG and people lose their minds.  Or Doctor Who?  The one character in genre fiction where gender and race change makes the MOST sense, and people still freak out about it.  Imagine how much people would have lost their minds if Gandalf was played by Idris Alba.  

There's been so much layering on top of the original genre works that it becomes more and more difficult to clearly see the inherent bigotry and misogyny.  We've been getting better in the past decade or so.  More diversity in the art.  Less cheesecake.  Now, we're mostly just cleaning up the last bits and bobs that have been hanging on.  And, just like losing the cheesecake and adding more diversity to the art, these changes are not going to signal some collapse of the hobby.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> It's a bit like REH's somewhat Nietzschean treatment of "barbarism" as superior to "civilisation". He's doing this as self-consciously oppositional to the "civilised" culture from which he comes and in which he lives. But he's hardly giving us the viewpoint of, or an affirmation of, a person whose whole life is rural and non-literate rather than urban, literate and cosmopolitan.




Is this supported with anything? I always saw it as being more about the divide between rural and city life (especially when you consider REH was an American who grew up in rural Texas).


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> In the fiction are they speaking English? If not, everything is translated. So what exaactly is gained by translating further eg from Egnlish to the (pseudo-?)Chinese of _wu jen_? I'm not saying the answer is _nothing is gained _but I don't think the gains have been clearly articulated yet.
> 
> I take it as given that _being "exotic" _isn't what we're looking for.




I don't think it is necessarily about exoticism. We live in a world where the names of places are not all translated into other peoples language. Maps are different by language obviously. But at least in English, maps help reveal linguistic differences in the world, and a setting with different kinds of names can help emulate having different languages, different cultures. It isn't the only possibility. But do we really need to be reading nefarious intentions if someone has a place on their map called French or Arabic? (even if only vaguely so)

Again, my issue with this kind of handwringing over details like this, is it seems to me it is only going to lead people to stifle their creativity, and it really produces a humorless approach to gaming and game design, that I don't think is leading us anywhere better or even interesting.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> I take it as given that _being "exotic" _isn't what we're looking for.




Exotic isn't always bad though. It is a real experience people have with cultures that are distant or they are not familiar with, and it is something you find present in literature all over the world (I think it is often the first step in people developing an interest in another culture, which can eventually lead to a much more complete, and far less exocitized, understanding of that culture). But a story like Journey to the West, which I recommend reading if people haven't, relies on the west (which in this case means India and the path to it from from China) being exotic. And it is that exotic, unknown space, that gets filled with all kinds of interesting creatures and people. I certainly can understand some of the concerns people are expressing. At the same time I think things are going so far in the direction of making this taboo, if you do take it seriously and heed it, it makes these kinds of stories nearly impossible to tell (and certainly seems to drain the fun from them). And Journey to the West is a great example because it is such gameable material. It could easily be a D&D campaign.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Bedrockgames said:


> a humorless approach to gaming



That's part of D&D's problem - it doesn't realise how ridiculous its pulp tropes are.

Compare -
RuneQuest: Serious, scholarly.
D&D: Serious, pulpy.
World of Warcraft: Comedic, pulpy.

Another comedic approach, one I favour, is more satirical, a sort of anti-D&D. Here's an example -

The PCs are adventurers living in the Free City of Greyhawk. They, together with many other adventurers, are constantly raiding Monstertown, a relatively peaceful underground city inhabited by monsters, which adventurers call a dungeon. The Mayor of Greyhawk reaches an agreement with the Mayor of Monstertown to ban adventurers. In order to get the ban lifted the PCs disguise themselves as monsters and raid Greyhawk.​


----------



## Campbell

Sadras said:


> Pemerton, how would you describe tribesmen in stat terms? We are talking about human history here.
> And yet somehow some of us on these forums INSIST on only attributing this sense of tribesman idea to specific parts of the world. People need to get out of that mindset. The Sword Coast is filled with Uthgardt barbarian tribes (black hair, blue eyes). That is hardly 19th century pulp tropes.
> 
> My issue with the example that you quoted is the specificity of the location of where tribesmen exist. They should be found within any environment and perhaps to mix it up - create matriarchies as well as patriarchies.




Not  @pemerton

I do not think I would stat a generic tribesman. A tribe is a way of organizing politically. A tribe is just a collection of kinship groups (clans or lineages) that have loosely joined together. That a society is organized by tribes does not really tell us anything meaningful about how they subsist, what their culture values, skillsets, or belief systems.

I would need to know more before putting stats to paper. I do not consider that sort of overly generic stuff to be worth the paper it is written on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> That's part of D&D's problem - it doesn't realise how ridiculous its pulp tropes are.
> 
> Compare -
> RuneQuest: Serious, scholarly.
> D&D: Serious, pulpy.
> World of Warcraft: Comedic, pulpy.




First edition seemed pretty at ease with the humor of the pulp material


----------



## Bedrockgames

Doug McCrae said:


> The PCs are adventurers living in the Free City of Greyhawk. They, together with many other adventurers, are constantly raiding Monstertown, a relatively peaceful underground city inhabited by monsters, which adventurers call a dungeon. The Mayor of Greyhawk reaches an agreement with the Mayor of Monstertown to ban adventurers. In order to get the ban lifted the PCs disguise themselves as monsters and raid Greyhawk.​




Fair enough, but not everything needs to be a commentary on something. I think one danger you run with Satire is the message can overpower the enjoyment, fun and quality of the content. It is sort of like how some shows rely exclusively on messaging, and after a while it can become a matter of liking something simply because you agree with the social message of it (rather than genuinely  finding it entertaining). Not saying this example is bad. Just when message becomes the most important thing, I start to lose interest in what people are making (often times the books, movies and games I have enjoyed the most, were ones where I've disagreed with the underlying message)


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Conan would like to have a word...   But, again, in 5e, why is a Tribal Warrior the LEAST INTELLIGENT of all the NPC's?  Even the Beserker is more intelligent.  Least intelligent and, only the Thug, Bandit and Commoner have less Wisdom (and none of them have an actual penalty).  Umm, that's pretty much exactly from 19th century concepts and 20th century pulps.




You have a point with the intelligence score, but Commoners being far and away the largest number of humans translates into, "...and, only the vast majority of humans have less Wisdom."  That's hardly a compelling complaint.


----------



## Sadras

Campbell said:


> I do not think I would stat a generic tribesman. A tribe is a way of organizing politically. A tribe is just a collection of kinship groups (clans or lineages) that have loosely joined together. *That a society is organized by tribes does not really tell us anything meaningful about how they subsist, what their culture values, skillsets, or belief systems.*
> 
> I would need to know more before putting stats to paper. I do not consider that sort of overly generic stuff to be worth the paper it is written on.




Bold emphasis mine. Isn't that the DM's work?
The game cannot provide every variation for culture values, skillsets or belief systems. 
It provides basic stats for a generic tribe - the rest falls under the work load of the DM.

Just to add this specific avenue of discussion was not really my point with my query to @pemerton.


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> In World of Greyhawk (1980) it seems that Gary Gygax tries to push back against the racism in the MM tribesman entry when he makes some of the Amedio Jungle "tribes of cannibal savages... purportedly of Suloise extraction or admixture". The 1983 boxed set reveals that "[t]he Suel race is very fair-skinned, some being almost albino. They have light red, yellow, blond, or platinum blonde hair." However "[t]hose bands that migrated into the vast Amedio Jungle and Hepmonaland are so altered as to be no longer typical of the race; they are tan to brown with heavy freckling."
> 
> One could interpret World of Greyhawk as saying 'white people are cannibals too' but it could also be interpreted as 'interbreeding with black people has turned white people into cannibals', so the attempted push back (if that's what it is) is not very successful.



Slightly off-topic, but while I've played a lot in GH I've never been into the _Vikings and Black people and monastic people of the plateau (ie East Asians) are really Suel_. I've just ignored that bit of lore. And then tried also to dial back some of the pulpiness of the tropical forests and the Scarlet Brotherhood.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> londoner is a culture born from within the kingdom of England. It originated from within the kingdom, and never existed outside of it.




Sure, but that doesn't mean as much as you think, in the UK at least. Basically the UK is seen as having five "regions" - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (and lots of British people think that shouldn't be in the UK, note), and London.

It doesn't really matter whether something existed 200 years ago or 4000 years ago, because humans don't live that long. Any identity you choose to have is an identity you choose to have.  You say Italy is like the EU in that these states pre-existed it, sure, but none of the _people_ pre-existed Italy. Completely unlike the EU. That's a big deal - when no-one alive actually remembers the "before times".

And by that logic, the UK/Britain is "like the EU", because all the nations pre-existed it. But London culture is massively distinct from "English" culture. To the point where a lot of "regionals" as we refer to to other English people, often find it almost alien (especially the older generation). And this happened pretty quickly - this is what I'm saying - these cultural shifts can happen very fast. It doesn't matter what the history of the place is, not really. People successful erase local histories, or they got forgotten, or they aren't relevant to a few generations, then they're all but gone.

You can see this with a lot of regional identities in the UK, which have massively declined over the last couple of centuries.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Is this supported with anything? I always saw it as being more about the divide between rural and city life (especially when you consider REH was an American who grew up in rural Texas).



REH is not rural in any relevant sense. He got the names for Phoenix on the Sword from a copy of Plutarch's Lives (if I'm remembering rightly - I don't have access to Patrice Louinet's essays on the authoring of the Conan stories just at the moment). It hardly gets more "civilised" (ie literate and cosmopolitan) than that!



Bedrockgames said:


> do we really need to be reading nefarious intentions if someone has a place on their map called French or Arabic?



I don't know, do we? You tell me.

What I posated - and what you quoted, so I assume you read it - was the following:

In the fiction are they speaking English? If not, everything is translated. So what exaactly is gained by translating further eg from Egnlish to the (pseudo-?)Chinese of _wu jen_? I'm not saying the answer is _nothing is gained _but I don't think the gains have been clearly articulated yet.​
JRRT had a theory of what was gained. He sets some of it out in Appendix F to LotR, and Shippey elaborates on it in _The Road to Middle Earth_. Part of his theory was how language, including the choice of which real language to translate imaginary languages into, and how to present the orthography of those imaginary languages, woudl establish a particular "feel".

Maybe a FRPG could do this too, but then if that the case it would be wrong to say - as you have posted in this thread - that other linguistic and related choices, such as those around the description of orcs, are meaningless in relation to the real world.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> REH is not rural in any relevant sense. He got the names for Phoenix on the Sword from a copy of Plutarch's Lives (if I'm remembering rightly - I don't have access to Patrice Louinet's essays on the authoring of the Conan stories just at the moment). It hardly gets more "civilised" (ie literate and cosmopolitan) than that!
> 
> I




how does borrowing from Plutarch make him not rural. Rural people can read Plutarch. And REH was himself rural. And a running theme of Conan is the protagonists discomfort with city life. Again living in the US, the rural versus city theme seems pretty obvious, particularly given REH’s background


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Maybe a FRPG could do this too, but then if that the case it would be wrong to say - as you have posted in this thread - that other linguistic and related choices, such as those around the description of orcs, are meaningless in relation to the real world.




Now you are just blending two points force a conclusion


----------



## Bedrockgames

Pemerton you are kind of an _bleeeep_

*Mod Edit:*  Profane insult redacted.  ~Umbran


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> Pemerton, how would you describe tribesmen in stat terms? We are talking about human history here.





Sadras said:


> The game cannot provide every variation for culture values, skillsets or belief systems.
> It provides basic stats for a generic tribe - the rest falls under the work load of the DM.





Sadras said:


> My issue with the example that you quoted is the specificity of the location of where tribesmen exist. They should be found within any environment and perhaps to mix it up - create matriarchies as well as patriarchies.



I don't know what you mean by a "generic tribe". Are you thinking of the Gauls who fought Caesar? The Lakota (and allies) who fought Custer? The Zulu's who fought Chelmsford? Some other people(s)?

I've focused on combat because D&D doesn't use stats for much else (eg it doesn't set out relationships or similar pscyho-social phenomena in stat terms). Ther stats (ability scores and hit points) of all the peoples I've just mentioned are the same as any other generic humans. And their ACs and damage can be worked out from their equipment.



Sadras said:


> And yet somehow some of us on these forums INSIST on only attributing this sense of tribesman idea to specific parts of the world. People need to get out of that mindset. The Sword Coast is filled with Uthgardt barbarian tribes (black hair, blue eyes). That is hardly 19th century pulp tropes.



Probably at the heart of my point was that AD&D's "geeneric tribesman" is a cannibal who keeps prisoners for food and lives in a grass, bamboo or mud hut. I don't know if that's part of Ed Greenwood's vision of his "Uthgardt barbarians". But my guess would be that they don't. And that their housing is not described as "huts". Given that "Uthgardt" seems like it's intended to evoke Nordic or Germanic peoeples my guess would be that they're not.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Why are people arguing about some ancient AD&D source book? What does it matter now? I am much more concerned about the stuff the currently print.


----------



## pemerton

Crimson Longinus said:


> Why are people arguing about some ancient AD&D source book? What does it matter now? I am much more concerned about the stuff the currently print.



I'm posting about the AD&D MM for two (related) reasons.

(1) It shows us something about the history of the game. This is where the current material was derived from.

(2) As @Hussar posted not too far upthread, unpacking this history shows that the current stuff isn't just "what FRPG material is" - a genre to be taken at face value. It has a history.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I don't think @pemerton and me are arguing about AD&D 1e. I'd say we're in pretty much total agreement!


----------



## Doug McCrae

I talk about 1e because:

1) I find the history of D&D interesting*.
2) Previous editions are probably the most important sources for the current edition. You can't understand it without reference to them.
3) Many posters on ENWorld prefer older editions, including 1e.
4) It's particularly relevant to this thread topic because there are shamans in the 1e core rules (the DMG).

*To give an example of the depth of my madness extent of my interest, this afternoon I've been reading Jerry Todd and the Whispering Mummy (1923) because Gary Gygax really liked it when he was a kid.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> Pemerton you are kind of ...




*Mod Note:*

Bedrockgames you are kind of done in this thread.  That's not acceptable.


----------



## Doug McCrae

pemerton said:


> Slightly off-topic, but while I've played a lot in GH I've never been into the _Vikings and Black people and monastic people of the plateau (ie East Asians) are really Suel_. I've just ignored that bit of lore. And then tried also to dial back some of the pulpiness of the tropical forests and the Scarlet Brotherhood.



The Suel are part of the Lost Race genre started by H Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines, which was based on the racist (and then colonialist) idea that Great Zimbabwe wasn't built by black people but by light-skinned Phoenicians. The Mound Builders Myth in the US was very similar.

Daniel Tangri, Popular Fiction and the Zimbabwe Controversy (1990):
"Haggard believed that the local Bantu were too primitive to have produced anything monumental, and opted in favor of Mediterranean colonists."
"This message [proposed by Cecil Rhodes and his employees] was simple; Phoenicia had once been a great imperial power in southern Africa, much in the same way as Britain was in the nineteenth century. Britain, then, was legally and morally entitled to colonize the region, as it was the successor of Phoenicia."

President Andrew Jackson, second annual address to Congress (1830):
"In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes."

The World of Greyhawk (1980):
"The humanoid bands of the Pomarj, particularly kobolds, orcs, and gnolls, seem to love this forest [Suss], and many hundreds are known to dwell within its depths... A lost, ruined city of the Old Suloise is said to be hidden somewhere in the Suss forest"


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, but that doesn't mean as much as you think, in the UK at least. Basically the UK is seen as having five "regions" - England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (and lots of British people think that shouldn't be in the UK, note), and London.
> 
> It doesn't really matter whether something existed 200 years ago or 4000 years ago, because humans don't live that long. Any identity you choose to have is an identity you choose to have.  You say Italy is like the EU in that these states pre-existed it, sure, but none of the _people_ pre-existed Italy. Completely unlike the EU. That's a big deal - when no-one alive actually remembers the "before times".
> 
> And by that logic, the UK/Britain is "like the EU", because all the nations pre-existed it. But London culture is massively distinct from "English" culture. To the point where a lot of "regionals" as we refer to to other English people, often find it almost alien (especially the older generation). And this happened pretty quickly - this is what I'm saying - these cultural shifts can happen very fast. It doesn't matter what the history of the place is, not really. People successful erase local histories, or they got forgotten, or they aren't relevant to a few generations, then they're all but gone.
> 
> You can see this with a lot of regional identities in the UK, which have massively declined over the last couple of centuries.



Well, as I said before, I was aware of the "kingdoms" divide in the UK. I was not aware of the existence of a strong londoner identity, but given you're an actual londoner, I'll obviously trust you on this matter.

And yes, no one alive today in Italy has experienced first hand the several different political and cultural entities that used to exist in our peninsula. Regional cultures are nowhere as pronounced and important as they were 50 years ago, or 100 years ago: radio, TV, and rising literacy among the population all contributed to a gradual homogenization.
But trust me on this: regional cultures here are still alive and well. Slightly more than 150 years of unity under Italy's flag...not enough time to kill them yet.


----------



## 5atbu

IMHO this is all a sideshow.
It's about who has the economic power, before long they have all the power.
Or someone seizes it off them.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, my issue with this kind of handwringing over details like this, is it seems to me it is only going to lead people to stifle their creativity, and it really produces a humorless approach to gaming and game design, that I don't think is leading us anywhere better or even interesting.




And yet, you cannot even bother to READ what we're talking about.  How can you come to conclusions like this without actually bothering to educate yourself about the issue?  It seems that you have come to a conclusion first and are now just looking to cherry pick things that support that conclusion.

Because if removing 7 words from the MM is going to "stifle their creativity", well, I'm thinking you've never actually met an editor.


----------



## Hussar

Why are people talking about 1e D&D?

5e D&D tribesmen entry:

Lowest Int of ALL NPC's.  Nothing is as stupid as a tribesman.
Only 3 other NPC's have a lower wisdom.  Of all the NPC's in the Monster Manual only 3 are less aware of their surroundings than tribesmen.

Umm, no one has a problem with this?

So, Shaman are specifically defined as druids for savage, primitive, evil races.  Tribal people are specifically defined as less intelligent THAN AN AVERAGE COMMONER.  

And this is all perfectly acceptable?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Why are people talking about 1e D&D?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And this is all perfectly acceptable?



I have a 1st ed MM but not a 5e one. I've got no disagreement with your assessment of 5e. I agree with @Doug McCrae that there is a clear lineage/heritage here.


----------



## the Jester

Doug McCrae said:


> The Suel are part of the Lost Race genre started by H Rider Haggard's King Solomon's Mines, which was based on the racist (and then colonialist) idea that Great Zimbabwe wasn't built by black people but by light-skinned Phoenicians. The Mound Builders Myth in the US was very similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snip<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The World of Greyhawk (1980):
> "The humanoid bands of the Pomarj, particularly kobolds, orcs, and gnolls, seem to love this forest [Suss], and many hundreds are known to dwell within its depths... A lost, ruined city of the Old Suloise is said to be hidden somewhere in the Suss forest"
Click to expand...



Well- there's something to what you say here, but on the other hand, the GH lore includes ancient migrations by the Suel, Baklunish, etc, and even has pictures of where they migrated. And I think that, especially in the 1e conception of the humanoid (as opposed to the demihumans), it's fair to say that this is a different case than in the real world examples, because it's the actual history of the fantasy world instead of the sort of pseudohistorical nonsense promoted by the real world examples you cite. I'm not saying that makes it immune to the concerns raised here, but I do think it puts it on a different footing, as does the explicitly nonhuman nature of e.g. orcs and goblinoids in 1e. Remember, those were absolutely NOT player races in their early edition incarnations- they were monsters. Again, not that that puts them above concern; just that it really is a beast of a different type than the real world lost race myths. I mean, in fantasy, the 'lost civilization' trope is a longstanding one and one that leads to a lot of adventures. I don't have a problem with a lost human people having ruins in an area now populated by savage orcs and gnolls, but I do think it's worth having examples of the converse as well- savage humans living on the ruins of an elder civilization of hobgoblins or lizardfolk or what have you.

I do think that the idea of having adventurers go into such an now-savage-once-civilized area and discovering that the so-called elder human ruins are actually the ruins of the previous orcish (or whatever) civilization is a cool way to twist the stereotype, though.


----------



## Hussar

Again, that isn't true.  Drow were a player race in 1e.  I'm pretty sure Dragon had rules for playing humanoids.


----------



## pming

Hiya!

You say...



Aldarc said:


> But as noted above, using these terms are not without their problems, as these terms (and a number others) *entered our lexicon through Euro-American cultural misappropriation.*




...and I say  "...entered out lexicon through our shared Euro-American culture and the flexibility of the English language".

ToMAYto toMAHto and all that.

"Europeans" and "Americans" have their own cultures. They have their own ways of describing the world. That typically involves taking what they like from other cultures, keeping what they want, tossing out what they don't, and then adapting what's left for their own purposes/uses. Just like how other cultures do the exact same thing, but taking from Euro-American, dropping what they don't like, adapting what they want to their own particular country/culture's "style". For example, all the "American Idol" copy-cat shows from other countries; all basically the same idea, but with slightly different rules, expectations of what is a "good act" and what is a "bad act". But this is a TV show for entertainment...hardly anything to worry about.

...or maybe the idea of the modern hamburger, but with toppings, condiments, etc being switched out for what the culture/country/ethnicity likes (e.g., McDonald's in Japan has a Big Mac with teriyaki, and they have something called a 'Moonviewing Burger'...which is a burger with the main topping on the patty being an egg). That would be considered "cultural misappropriation", would it not?

Are all those McDonald's "misappropriating American culture"? No. Because EVERY culture/country does the same thing; it's human nature to see something from another culture, equate it to something familiar within that persons own culture, and then adapt it to what they want (e.g., an egg on a burger). It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. At least in my view. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Aldarc

pming said:


> ...or maybe the idea of the modern hamburger, but with toppings, condiments, etc being switched out for what the culture/country/ethnicity likes (e.g., McDonald's in Japan has a Big Mac with teriyaki, and they have something called a 'Moonviewing Burger'...which is a burger with the main topping on the patty being an egg). That would be considered "cultural misappropriation", would it not?
> 
> Are all those McDonald's "misappropriating American culture"? No. Because EVERY culture/country does the same thing; it's human nature to see something from another culture, equate it to something familiar within that persons own culture, and then adapt it to what they want (e.g., an egg on a burger). It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. At least in my view.



Hiya? I think that your understanding of cultural misappropriation may be sorely lacking if you believe that an American fast food chain customizing their menu for Japanese customers somehow debunks the concept. Because, no, that would not be considered cultural misappropriation.


----------



## Eltab

You know, I _do_ like pineapple on my pizza.  Hawaiian Pizzas taste good, and I will eat one once in a while.  Does mean I have multi-classed?

I had a chance to chaperone a HS trip to Italy, and while in Rome we were served a Caesars Salad.  I'm now sceptical of the authenticity of _both_ recipes (US and Roman).  If Caesar was really eating the same salad we were served, his cook was ripping him off !  (One student said the lettuce had been replaced with garden weeds.)


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Eltab said:


> You know, I _do_ like pineapple on my pizza.  Hawaiian Pizzas taste good, and I will eat one once in a while.  Does mean I have multi-classed?
> 
> I had a chance to chaperone a HS trip to Italy, and while in Rome we were served a Caesars Salad.  I'm now sceptical of the authenticity of _both_ recipes (US and Roman).  If Caesar was really eating the same salad we were served, his cook was ripping him off !  (One student said the lettuce had been replaced with garden weeds.)



Caesar salad is not named after Gaius Julius Caesar, any of his relatives or any Roman Emperor, it is named after restaurateur Caesar Cardini.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> I don't know what you mean by a "generic tribe". Are you thinking of the Gauls who fought Caesar? The Lakota (and allies) who fought Custer? The Zulu's who fought Chelmsford? Some other people(s)?




I'm not sure why you are adopting the Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg level of confusion here where simple words become suddenly unclear. Generic as in any type of tribesman from any era and any location.



> I've focused on combat because D&D doesn't use stats for much else (eg it doesn't set out relationships or similar pscyho-social phenomena in stat terms). Ther stats (ability scores and hit points) of all the peoples I've just mentioned are the same as any other generic humans. And their ACs and damage can be worked out from their equipment.
> 
> Probably at the heart of my point was that AD&D's "geeneric tribesman" is a cannibal who keeps prisoners for food and lives in a grass, bamboo or mud hut. I don't know if that's part of Ed Greenwood's vision of his "Uthgardt barbarians". But my guess would be that they don't. And that their housing is not described as "huts". Given that "Uthgardt" seems like it's intended to evoke Nordic or Germanic peoeples my guess would be that they're not.




Here I agree with you that the cannibalism was unnecessary, as well as the fixed location (the latter issue I mentioned earlier). Thankfully 5e has evolved from there allowing the DM to decide on the type of primitive culture of the tribe to be injected into the campaign.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> I think part of the broader issue is that most people aren't genre scholars.  They like this story or that story or this author or that author and that's about as far as the examination goes.  People don't very often start delving down into the history of the genre (or any genre) unless they are already invested in literary traditions.  So, it's entirely possible that someone reading, say, Stephen King loves King's horror but has no idea who H. P. Lovecraft or August Derlith are. And, frankly, they don't care.  They like the books ...(snip)...




This is me. I wouldn't event think of looking at the tribesman INT score, nevermind comparing it to anyone other NPC. The INT is not why I would utilise the tribesman stat block.



> You hear all these people talk about how they don't see color, or don't see this or that, yet, change Starbuck's gender in BSG and people lose their minds.  Or Doctor Who?  The one character in genre fiction where gender and race change makes the MOST sense, and people still freak out about it.  Imagine how much people would have lost their minds if Gandalf was played by Idris Alba.




The same people would also not want Patrick Stewart to play Luke Cage or Lucy Liu to play the role of Uhura. I'm not saying all changes are bad or all changes are good either, *for me it is subjective* - but generally (personally) I tend to towards tradition.
I like my Luke Cage black, I like my M-J Watson with red hair and I was no fan of Amy Adams as Lois Lane straight off the bat because of her look (hair) - it didn't gel with thick lustrous black hair of Teri Hatcher or the one I had seen so many times depicted in the comics.


----------



## Bagpuss

Hussar said:


> You hear all these people talk about how they don't see color, or don't see this or that, yet, change Starbuck's gender in BSG and people lose their minds. Or Doctor Who? The one character in genre fiction where gender and race change makes the MOST sense, and people still freak out about it. Imagine how much people would have lost their minds if Gandalf was played by Idris Alba.




You sure it is the same people? I get a feeling it isn't.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Sadras said:


> I'm not sure why you are adopting the Bill Gates/Mark Zuckerberg level of confusion here where simple words become suddenly unclear. Generic as in any type of tribesman from any era and any location.




“Tribe” is a nonsense word.

The problem is that the words "tribe" "tribal" "tribalism" are themselves an aspect of the debate over ethnicity. It’s why anthropologists typically use terms like "ethnic group" nowadays. "Tribe" was originally used to translate two Ancient Hebrew words (šēveṭ and maṭṭeh) and its application outside of this context always connotes a value judgment of “archaic” and “less civilization”; where “tribe” has been reclaimed as a self-identifier, it is usually both in translation and in defiance of prevailing power structures.

_Culture is not your friend_, as Terence McKenna – himself a great appropriator of various shamanic practices – once noted, and I tend to agree. Inasmuch as the maxim points to all culture being an obstacle to realizing our shared humanity. But that’s not what these conversations are ever about. They are more:

*Thoughtful Gamer:* Hey, why not show some sensitivity to [insert: ethnos, culture, sexuality, gender identity etc.]

*Aging Reactionary White Male Cisgendered Heteronormative Anglophone Monoglot Gamer:* Wah! But muh hegemony!

I mean, however it’s dressed up, this is the usual argument. An infantile scream at a perceived loss of power.


----------



## Hussar

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> /snip
> That would be considered "cultural misappropriation", would it not?
> /snip




Umm, nope.  Are the Japanese McDonald's pretending that they invented the concept of hamburger?  (Little hint, this month in Japan's McDonald's, you can eat the Original American Big Mac)  Is their adding an egg to the burger (which is freaking AWESOME by the way) in some way condescending or insulting American cultural tastes?    I'd say not.

When we're talking about cultural misappropriation, it's a BAD THING.  It's Elvis fans pretending that Elvis invented all that music and refusing to play black artists on the radio until you get Motown in the 70's.  Or, in this case, it's taking the notion that tribal people are LESS INTELLIGENT than commoners and that shaman traditions only apply to those less intelligent people.  Is that really the message we want to send?  Are we so sure of our position that we can categorically state that tribal people are less intelligent than civilized people?  Seriously?  

Is anyone actually defending this?  Or are you just trying to throw up enough smoke and mirrors to hide the actual issue?


----------



## Olrox17

Eltab said:


> You know, I _do_ like pineapple on my pizza. Hawaiian Pizzas taste good, and I will eat one once in a while. Does mean I have multi-classed?
> 
> I had a chance to chaperone a HS trip to Italy, and while in Rome we were served a Caesars Salad. I'm now sceptical of the authenticity of _both_ recipes (US and Roman). If Caesar was really eating the same salad we were served, his cook was ripping him off ! (One student said the lettuce had been replaced with garden weeds.)




Caesar Salad isn’t really a thing in Italy. If you go to Italy and you find it in the menu, you are probably in a tourist trap restaurant (or the owner is just savvy about american culture).

Italian salad can vary tremendously in ingredients, but the only condiments used (usually) are olive oil and vinegar.


----------



## Sadras

Sepulchrave II said:


> “Tribe” is a nonsense word.
> The problem is that the words "tribe" "tribal" "tribalism" are themselves an aspect of the debate over ethnicity. It’s why anthropologists typically use terms like "ethnic group" nowadays. "Tribe" was originally used to translate two Ancient Hebrew words (šēveṭ and maṭṭeh) and its application outside of this context always connotes a value judgment of “archaic” and “less civilization”; where “tribe” has been reclaimed as a self-identifier, it is usually both in translation and in defiance of prevailing power structures.




Ethnic group works great for historical and anthropological work.
What do you suggest we then re-label the tribesman stat in D&D if we do not use the word tribesman? barbarian?
Personally I feel barbarian does the same for me as tribesman in terms of the implying "archaic" and "less civilised"



> _Culture is not your friend_, as Terence McKenna – himself a great appropriator of various shamanic practices – once noted, and I tend to agree. Inasmuch as the maxim points to all culture being an obstacle to realizing our shared humanity. But that’s not what these conversations are ever about.




If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're implying culture is a method of separating us (humanity). This is an interesting avenue of conversation, I'm not so sure these boards cater for it, but it is indeed VERY interesting (to me at least). I would think one would have to determine the value of culture - would the loss of it hurt an ethnic group, who would benefit and how by its removal. We'd also have to define then what culture is. These are not easy questions.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Ethnic group works great for historical and anthropological work.
> What do you suggest we then re-label the tribesman stat in D&D if we do not use the word tribesman? barbarian?
> Personally I feel barbarian does the same for me as tribesman in terms of the implying "archaic" and "less civilised"
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're implying culture is a method of separating us (humanity). This is an interesting avenue of conversation, I'm not so sure these boards cater for it, but it is indeed VERY interesting (to me at least). I would think one would have to determine the value of culture - would the loss of it hurt an ethnic group, who would benefit and how by its removal. We'd also have to define then what culture is. These are not easy questions.




Ok, so, we use the word tribesperson.  For people who live in tribes, are probably less technologically advanced than other groups.  Fair enough.  Tribal works.

Should we keep them as being less intelligent than baseline commoners?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, we use the word tribesperson.  For people who live in tribes, are probably less technologically advanced than other groups.  Fair enough.  Tribal works.
> 
> Should we keep them as being less intelligent than baseline commoners?




Nope, make them 10 intelligence. 
I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that the reason for the intelligence dip of 8 was due to the tribesmen's lack of understanding of technology, not necessarily their inability to learn. I'm certainly not going to defend the 8, but like I said it is also not something I would have paid attention to.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Nope, make them 10 intelligence.
> I suspect, perhaps wrongly, that the reason for the intelligence dip of 8 was due to the tribesmen's lack of understanding of technology, not necessarily their inability to learn. I'm certainly not going to defend the 8, but like I said it is also not something I would have paid attention to.




See, and I mean absolutely no insult here, but, that's generally what people mean when they talk about privilege.  We have the privilege of being able to ignore these things and not notice them.  So, shaman are tied to tribal peoples, who are defined as less intelligent (and among the lowest wisdom of all the NPC's) than commoners.  Or, Shaman are tied to violent, backward, and frankly evil groups as well.  It's all tied together.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> See, and I mean absolutely no insult here, but, that's generally what people mean when they talk about privilege.  We have the privilege of being able to ignore these things and not notice them.




I'm not sure this specific example is about privilege.
Firstly, we are talking about INT, the dump stat of D&D.
Secondly, we are talking about INT on a "monster" where INT does not matter in the great scheme of things. Only the physical stats matter for To hit bonuses, Damage, Hit Points and AC.
Thirdly, my perception is pretty low.



> So, shaman are tied to tribal peoples, who are defined as less intelligent (and among the lowest wisdom of all the NPC's) than commoners.  Or, Shaman are tied to violent, backward, and frankly evil groups as well.  It's all tied together.




Vikings have Shamans and everybody loves Vikings. So I think on this specific issue we are reaching.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Olrox17 said:


> Regional cultures are nowhere as pronounced and important as they were 50 years ago, or 100 years ago: radio, TV, and rising literacy among the population all contributed to a gradual homogenization.




Yeah this is happening here too. We used to have very strong regional identities, not just the kingdoms, but also subregions in them with violently different identities. You call a Northerner by the wrong Northern region and he'd have probably had an aneurysm, for example. That's fading due to the homogenization you're discussing. You still have say, a strong "Yorkshire" identity (think of it as the Texas of Britain, yeah you heard me Yorkshiremen, I went there!), but it's nowhere near what it was 50 years ago.

London identity isn't declining currently, interestingly, in part because it's not about being born here (unlike a lot of regional identities), it's about adopting the identity, which is fairly easy to do. Of course, barring big changes, I'm pretty sure housing prices will kill it in the next century or so (if climate change doesn't!), as the same people who mostly strongly have the identity are gradually being forced out of London into the edges and suburbs,  but that's another story.



Olrox17 said:


> But trust me on this: regional cultures here are still alive and well. Slightly more than 150 years of unity under Italy's flag...not enough time to kill them yet.




Oh I definitely believe you, but I think part of it is that no conscious attempt has been made to kill them (AFAIK), and there's been no exciting new identity to replace them. My feeling, from both life and reading history (and indeed archaeological evidence) is that a cultural identity can change massively in just decades sometimes. Maybe had ol' Musso got his faux-Rome he'd have culturally painted that all over Italy and attempted to erase local cultures (authoritarians tend to dislike local cultures because they stand in opposition to centralization of power).


----------



## Olrox17

Ruin Explorer said:


> Maybe had ol' Musso got his faux-Rome he'd have culturally painted that all over Italy and attempted to erase local cultures (authoritarians tend to dislike local cultures because they stand in opposition to centralization of power).



Probably. In the 20 years he remained in power, he went after the local cultures that were perceived as "non-italian" pretty hard. Given enough time, he might've tried to wipe out other regional cultures, as well.


----------



## Bagpuss

Hussar said:


> Should we keep them as being less intelligent than baseline commoners?




It depends what Intelligence represents in D&D it frequently seems to indicate education( learning) , rather than what we might consider the ability to learn in which case perhaps they should be.

Wisdom on the other hand is for less traditional education, so perhaps a bonus to that.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bagpuss said:


> It depends what Intelligence represents in D&D it frequently seems to indicate education( learning) , rather than what we might consider the ability to learn in which case perhaps they should be.




That's not what it means, so we can solve that real easy:



			
				5E D&D said:
			
		

> Intelligence
> Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.
> 
> Intelligence Checks
> An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion Skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence Checks.












						Roll20
					

Roll20 brings pen-and-paper gameplay to your 		browser with features that save time and enhance your favorite parts of tabletop games.




					roll20.net
				




Education is in there, as a secondary thing, i.e. ability to draw on it, but Intelligence definitely does not mean education. So it's definitely inappropriate.


----------



## Bagpuss

All but one of those skills depends on your education. Int in earlier editions was all the knowledge skills.

While they might say it is meant to be stuff other than education it seems that is pretty much all it tends to cover especially since you also have wisdom.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> I'm not sure this specific example is about privilege.
> Firstly, we are talking about INT, the dump stat of D&D.
> Secondly, we are talking about INT on a "monster" where INT does not matter in the great scheme of things. Only the physical stats matter for To hit bonuses, Damage, Hit Points and AC.
> Thirdly, my perception is pretty low.
> 
> 
> 
> Vikings have Shamans and everybody loves Vikings. So I think on this specific issue we are reaching.




No, actually, in 5e, they don't.  The only things that have shamans in 5e, specifically, are ravenous monsters that eat people.  IE. Evil stuff.  Vikings, in 5e, have clerics.

And, again, let's not forget the optics of this.  Saying that Tribal HUMANS are less intelligent than human commoners is probably a very, very bad message to send.



Bagpuss said:


> All but one of those skills depends on your education. Int in earlier editions was all the knowledge skills.
> 
> While they might say it is meant to be stuff other than education it seems that is pretty much all it tends to cover especially since you also have wisdom.




Again, let's not beat around the bush here.  Tribal humans are less intelligent than commoner humans?  Yeah, that's not going to fly too well.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Bagpuss said:


> All but one of those skills depends on your education. Int in earlier editions was all the knowledge skills.
> 
> While they might say it is meant to be stuff other than education it seems that is pretty much all it tends to cover especially since you also have wisdom.




It's not like their definition wasn't clear. If they wanted it to mean "education", they could have said so, but they didn't. And INT saves, for example, definitely don't rely on "education" (nor benefit from it, generally).


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Again, that isn't true.  Drow were a player race in 1e.  I'm pretty sure Dragon had rules for playing humanoids.



As people are so fond of reminding me when I bring up Dragon articles, those aren't official rules or even official options.  They were just ideas the DM could use if he wanted to make them into house rules. That said, Dark Elves were presented as a PC race in the 1e UA, so were an official optional race.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Or, in this case, it's taking the notion that tribal people are LESS INTELLIGENT than commoners and that shaman traditions only apply to those less intelligent people.




That case not only doesn't exist in 5e, it explicitly says otherwise.  First, there are no stats for tribal people.  There are only stats for tribal WARRIORS.  Second, tribal shamans use the druid stats and have an int of 12, which makes them more intelligent than commoners.  We don't have stats for tribal chiefs, hunters, etc.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> See, and I mean absolutely no insult here, but, that's generally what people mean when they talk about privilege.  We have the privilege of being able to ignore these things and not notice them.  So, shaman are tied to tribal peoples, who are defined as less intelligent (and among the lowest wisdom of all the NPC's) than commoners.  Or, Shaman are tied to violent, backward, and frankly evil groups as well.  It's all tied together.



Tribal peoples are not defined as less intelligent.  We only have two examples of tribal peoples.  Warriors who are less intelligent, and Shamans(druids) who are more intelligent.  And this spin you've put on tribal wisdom continues to be amusing.  Tribal WARRIORS have a higher wisdom than the vast majority of humans, since commoners make up the vast majority of humans and have a lower wisdom.  Tribal shamans have a much higher wisdom.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> No, actually, in 5e, they don't.  The only things that have shamans in 5e, specifically, are ravenous monsters that eat people.  IE. Evil stuff.



Aaaaaaaaand, every good humanoid race, like Halflings, Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and so on.  they all specifically have shamans, too.


----------



## Umbran

Sepulchrave II said:


> *Aging Reactionary White Male Cisgendered Heteronormative Anglophone Monoglot Gamer:* Wah! But muh hegemony!




*Mod Note:*

Yeah, so, the trolling isn't acceptable.  Walk it back several notches, or you'll be asked to leave the discussion.


----------



## pming

Hiya!



Aldarc said:


> Hiya? I think that your understanding of cultural misappropriation may be sorely lacking if you believe that an American fast food chain customizing their menu for Japanese customers somehow debunks the concept. Because, no, that would not be considered cultural misappropriation.




*shrug*

As I said...tomahto, tomayto.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## pming

Hiya!



Sepulchrave II said:


> “Tribe” is a nonsense word.
> 
> The problem is that the words "tribe" "tribal" "tribalism" are themselves an aspect of the debate over ethnicity. It’s why anthropologists typically use terms like "ethnic group" nowadays. "Tribe" was originally used to translate two Ancient Hebrew words (šēveṭ and maṭṭeh) and its application outside of this context always connotes a value judgment of “archaic” and “less civilization”; where “tribe” has been reclaimed as a self-identifier, it is usually both in translation and in defiance of prevailing power structures.
> 
> _Culture is not your friend_, as Terence McKenna – himself a great appropriator of various shamanic practices – once noted, and I tend to agree. Inasmuch as the maxim points to all culture being an obstacle to realizing our shared humanity. But that’s not what these conversations are ever about. They are more:
> 
> *Thoughtful Gamer:* Hey, why not show some sensitivity to [insert: ethnos, culture, sexuality, gender identity etc.]
> 
> *Aging Reactionary White Male Cisgendered Heteronormative Anglophone Monoglot Gamer:* Wah! But muh hegemony!
> 
> I mean, however it’s dressed up, this is the usual argument. An infantile scream at a perceived loss of power.




I really don't see how some CEO of a big company, for example, is going to somehow "loose his position of power in the company" (or even perceived power) because he used the term "ethnic group" in stead of "tribe". Or how a Senator of some state is going to be seen as "more capable and more qualified" to be a Mayor because he uses the term "tribe" in stead of "ethnic group".

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> That case not only doesn't exist in 5e, it explicitly says otherwise.  First, there are no stats for tribal people.  There are only stats for tribal WARRIORS.  Second, tribal shamans use the druid stats and have an int of 12, which makes them more intelligent than commoners.  We don't have stats for tribal chiefs, hunters, etc.



Is there any other example of warriors having less intelligence than the other humanoids because of them being warriors? If your argument is that it's because they are warriors that they are less intelligent instead of their tribal nature, back that up with evidence.

Gladiators, Knights, Soldiers, Thugs, Veterans, Champions, Warlords, and basically every other generic "warrior" type NPC has higher intelligence than the Tribal Warrior and most of them are more intelligent than commoners. If it's them being "warriors" that makes them less intelligent, it raises the question of why absolutely no one else that is a warrior has lower intelligence.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Is there any other example of warriors having less intelligence than the other humanoids because of them being warriors? If your argument is that it's because they are warriors that they are less intelligent instead of their tribal nature, back that up with evidence.




Tribal warriors and tribal shamans have two very different intelligence scores.   9 and 12 respectively.   That's proof of what I am saying. And it's all I need in order to disprove the claim that the entire tribe is at a 9 Int.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Tribal warriors and tribal shamans have two very different intelligence scores.   9 and 12 respectively.   That's proof of what I am saying. And it's all I need in order to disprove the claim that the entire tribe is at a 9 Int.



Or it's proof that shamans/druids have higher intelligence than the average person/warrior. You're jumping to conclusions about the significance of that, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Or it's proof that shamans/druids have higher intelligence than the average person/warrior. You're jumping to conclusions about the significance of that, IMO.



Are they tribal?  Yes or no?  If yes, it's an absolute fact that not all tribesmen have an 8 int.  Look at other leaders?  They are also smarter.  Look at scouts.  They're smarter, too.  Sort of like hunters would be.  You know, like tribal hunters.   The claim was that tribal people are all stupid.  The basis was that is the tribal WARRIOR stat block.  The one jumping to conclusions isn't me.  I'm not over generalizing.  I'm using hard facts.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Are they tribal?  Yes or no?  If yes, it's an absolute fact that not all tribesmen have an 8 int.  Look at other leaders?  They are also smarter.  Look at scouts.  They're smarter, too.  Sort of like hunters would be.  You know, like tribal hunters.   The claim was that tribal people are all stupid.  The basis was that is the tribal WARRIOR stat block.  The one jumping to conclusions isn't me.  I'm not over generalizing.  I'm using hard facts.



No one was saying it was absolute fact that tribesmen have an intelligence of 8. They were saying for the general tribal warrior, it's kind of questionable having them be less intelligent. 

Also, the Tribal Shaman is the druid, and aren't limited to only being tribespeople, right? They didn't design the Druid stat as a Tribal Shaman stat, but instead as a Druid stat that can be used for a tribal shaman. 

It's jumping to conclusions saying that the tribal warrior is a sign for the general tribal culture as a whole, but it seems much smaller a leap than assuming that it's because of their war-like nature that makes them less intelligent.


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No one was saying it was absolute fact that tribesmen have an intelligence of 8. They were saying for the general tribal warrior, it's kind of questionable having them be less intelligent.




Hussar said quite clearly that tribal PEOPLE had low intelligence.  He by no means limited it to warriors only.



> Also, the Tribal Shaman is the druid, and aren't limited to only being tribespeople, right? They didn't design the Druid stat as a Tribal Shaman stat, but instead as a Druid stat that can be used for a tribal shaman.




One = the other.  If it didn't, then Druid could not be used.  So it doesn't matter whether it was designed for Druids and Shamans are equal to Druids, or it was designed for Shamans and Druids are equal to Shamans.  It's the same difference.



> It's jumping to conclusions saying that the tribal warrior is a sign for the general tribal culture as a whole, but it seems much smaller a leap than assuming that it's because of their war-like nature that makes them less intelligent.



Why?  The majority of most tribal peoples were hunters/fishers/farmers, not warriors.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Hussar said quite clearly that tribal PEOPLE had low intelligence.  He by no means limited it to warriors only.
> 
> 
> 
> One = the other.  If it didn't, then Druid could not be used.  So it doesn't matter whether it was designed for Druids and Shamans are equal to Druids, or it was designed for Shamans and Druids are equal to Shamans.  It's the same difference.
> 
> 
> Why?  The majority of most tribal peoples were hunters/fishers/farmers, not warriors.



I guess we're not going to come to an agreement with this. 

Edit: Sorry, got this mistaken for another thread. @Hussar is still here.

Honest Question: Do you not find it problematic that tribal warriors have less intelligence, and if not, what justification do you have for this?


----------



## Maxperson

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I guess we're not going to come to an agreement with this. @Hussar is no longer posting in this thread, so we won't be able to get his input here.
> 
> Honest Question: Do you not find it problematic that tribal warriors have less intelligence, and if not, what justification do you have for this?



They probably went with book learning = intelligence, not some bigoted idea that tribal people are stupid.  They did something similar to Berserkers.  I wouldn't have done that myself, because I don't equate book learning to intelligence.  I've met uneducated people that you knew were mentally quick, and I've met college graduates that were so dumb that interacting with them tried my patience.  

As for the game, no I don't have a problem with it because 1) I'm absolutely convinced that it was not done for bigoted reasons, and 2) it's a game.  I don't equate/link games to real life.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> They probably went with book learning = intelligence, not some bigoted idea that tribal people are stupid. They did something similar to Berserkers. I wouldn't have done that myself, because I don't equate book learning to intelligence. I've met uneducated people that you knew were mentally quick, and I've met college graduates that were so dumb that interacting with them tried my patience.



I get that. I also get that it probably wasn't done as a conscious "let's make tribal people stupid" and was probably more of an automatic placement based on whomever designed it. If they did it as a "book learning = intelligence" then they went against their own definition of intelligence from the PHB, but we have no real way of knowing the purpose of this intelligence placement. I just feel there's no need for a penalty to intelligence.


Maxperson said:


> As for the game, no I don't have a problem with it because 1) I'm absolutely convinced that it was not done for bigoted reasons, and 2) it's a game. I don't equate/link games to real life.



I understand that, and there's no real need to discuss those two points further, as we're in agreement for the first point, and the second can't be changed by discussing on an online forum.


----------



## TheSword

Interesting video about the origins of mana. Etymology can be fascinating, particularly where use has changed over time. I don’t think it’s calling for removal, just calling out an interesting derivation that has come to mean something else.

The solution of course is not to pretend the words don’t exist, or remove and replace them. This isn’t necessary and doesn’t make the world a better place.

Instead learn the history to avoid insults through lack of understanding or pay someone who knows it. Then move on. There is no need to wring your hands and delve into a pit of angst, on one side of the other.

I think the sad thing is this debate (it is all one debate) has extremes on both sides, whether that be the ‘taking muh orcs’ fellas or the ‘find and replace function’ fellas. The battle lines pretty much draw up the same five or six people on each side and endless grind of this topic continues.

It was interesting at first, now it’s come to dominate the boards. It’s starting to get tiresome.


----------



## Hussar

Umm, I'm still here.  

Yes, @Maxperson is technically right.  It's Tribal "Warrior" that is less intelligent.  THAN EVERYONE.  But, hey, that's okay.  We're allowed to say that tribal peo... err... warriors are less intelligent right?  Because, that's not racist at all.  

This is really the hill people want to die on?

Seriously, changing Int to 10 would break people's games?  See, @TheSword, I fundamentally disagree with you.  One one side you have people who will block any and all changes, without question and without any analysis.  No matter what, nothing can ever be changed.  On my side of the fence, I want to change about 7 words in the Monster Manual to remove Shaman and replace it with druid and change a couple of stats from 8 to 10.  

OMG, Hussar has lost his mind!!! The game will never be the same!!! It will no longer be recognizable!?!?!  It's not D&D anymore if Tribal Warriors have the same Int score as everyone else!?!!?!!!  

You're right in that these discussions have become tedious and tiresome.  And unbelievably frustrating.  

If WotC had been smart, they would have quietly made these changes and no one would have even noticed other than the people who are being insulted by the current state of things.  Unfortunately now we have to wade through endless pages of crap and hyperbole to make, what is at the end of the day, a couple of minor edits that the same people who are bitching about the changes, wouldn't even notice if we hadn't pointed it out.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> Interesting video about the origins of mana. Etymology can be fascinating, particularly where use has changed over time. *I don’t think it’s calling for removal, *just calling out an interesting derivation that has come to mean something else.
> 
> The solution of course is not to pretend the words don’t exist, or remove and replace them. This isn’t necessary and doesn’t make the world a better place.
> 
> Instead learn the history to avoid insults through lack of understanding or pay someone who knows it. Then move on. There is no need to wring your hands and delve into a pit of angst, on one side of the other.
> 
> I think the sad thing is this debate (it is all one debate) has extremes on both sides, whether that be the ‘taking muh orcs’ fellas or the ‘find and replace function’ fellas. The battle lines pretty much draw up the same five or six people on each side and endless grind of this topic continues.
> 
> It was interesting at first, now it’s come to dominate the boards. It’s starting to get tiresome.



I don't think that I am either, but knowing this would require from people the onerous task of actually reading my OP.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that I am either, but knowing this would require from people the onerous task of actually reading my OP.



I didn’t mention anyone specifically, however at least one person in this thread suggested using the find and replace function on the word processor.
The idea that certain words are taboo is serious and should only be done in serious cases.

There are some words that need excising because of persistent abuse linked to systemic real word hurt that has effected millions of people. Let’s not cheapen the real and important actions by claiming Druid or Mana is in the same league.

Learn from history, remember origins, don’t be grotesquely provocative or offensive. Other than that, let’s not tie ourselves up in knots.


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> Umm, I'm still here.
> 
> Yes, @Maxperson is technically right.  It's Tribal "Warrior" that is less intelligent.  THAN EVERYONE.  But, hey, that's okay.  We're allowed to say that tribal peo... err... warriors are less intelligent right?  Because, that's not racist at all.
> 
> This is really the hill people want to die on?
> 
> Seriously, changing Int to 10 would break people's games?  See, @TheSword, I fundamentally disagree with you.  One one side you have people who will block any and all changes, without question and without any analysis.  No matter what, nothing can ever be changed.  On my side of the fence, I want to change about 7 words in the Monster Manual to remove Shaman and replace it with druid and change a couple of stats from 8 to 10.
> 
> OMG, Hussar has lost his mind!!! The game will never be the same!!! It will no longer be recognizable!?!?!  It's not D&D anymore if Tribal Warriors have the same Int score as everyone else!?!!?!!!
> 
> You're right in that these discussions have become tedious and tiresome.  And unbelievably frustrating.
> 
> If WotC had been smart, they would have quietly made these changes and no one would have even noticed other than the people who are being insulted by the current state of things.  Unfortunately now we have to wade through endless pages of crap and hyperbole to make, what is at the end of the day, a couple of minor edits that the same people who are bitching about the changes, wouldn't even notice if we hadn't pointed it out.



I, for one, never even noticed that tribal warriors had less than average Int. Am I against raising their Int to 10? Nah, go ahead. 
It's not like anyone is ever going to waste a 2nd level slots to cast Phantasmal Force on these chumps!


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> Umm, I'm still here.
> 
> Yes, @Maxperson is technically right.  It's Tribal "Warrior" that is less intelligent.  THAN EVERYONE.  But, hey, that's okay.  We're allowed to say that tribal peo... err... warriors are less intelligent right?  Because, that's not racist at all.
> 
> This is really the hill people want to die on?
> 
> Seriously, changing Int to 10 would break people's games?  See, @TheSword, I fundamentally disagree with you.  One one side you have people who will block any and all changes, without question and without any analysis.  No matter what, nothing can ever be changed.  On my side of the fence, I want to change about 7 words in the Monster Manual to remove Shaman and replace it with druid and change a couple of stats from 8 to 10.
> 
> OMG, Hussar has lost his mind!!! The game will never be the same!!! It will no longer be recognizable!?!?!  It's not D&D anymore if Tribal Warriors have the same Int score as everyone else!?!!?!!!
> 
> You're right in that these discussions have become tedious and tiresome.  And unbelievably frustrating.
> 
> If WotC had been smart, they would have quietly made these changes and no one would have even noticed other than the people who are being insulted by the current state of things.  Unfortunately now we have to wade through endless pages of crap and hyperbole to make, what is at the end of the day, a couple of minor edits that the same people who are bitching about the changes, wouldn't even notice if we hadn't pointed it out.



I’m not sure whether anyone cares if tribal warriors get their Int raised to 10. It has no impact on the game. I take Int in D&D to be more about processing knowledge but I don’t think it has ever been well established and I’m sure there are lots of grey areas. Who cares.

Stating that some language is unacceptable and Shouldn’t be printed is not a small thing. Where it happens now it’s because of serious and widespread hurt, not a tenuous etymology or a result of logic. You need to demonstrate harm, not just imaginary harm, but actual harm. As has been done with racial slurs against POC and stereotypes towards Roma. They experience daily racism because of these attitudes. You haven’t demonstrated that the current us of the word shaman has any impact on existing Shaman. Neither is it used as a racial slur.

Yes there are people who want to block all changes. I am not one of those people. I’m happy with a lot of the changes they make sense. However there is a bar to meet to justify making them. I just don’t think you have.

Claiming the change is minor is irrelevant when you are insisting on it happening. You’re also assuming that WOC agree with you that words like shaman are somehow wrong and should be stopped. You just haven’t made a convincing case, imho. You have a historian l explaining the history of mana in video games and have filled the gaps to say it’s cultural misappropriation, rather than just good old cultural appropriation.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> I didn’t mention anyone specifically, however at least one person in this thread suggested using the find and replace function on the word processor.
> The idea that certain words are taboo is serious and should only be done in serious cases.
> 
> There are some words that need excising because of persistent abuse linked to systemic real word hurt that has effected millions of people. Let’s not cheapen the real and important actions by claiming Druid or Mana is in the same league.
> 
> Learn from history, remember origins, don’t be grotesquely provocative or offensive. Other than that, let’s not tie ourselves up in knots.




Again, raises hand.

Umm, I put forward that solution as the simplest one.  "Taboo" is your invention.

Tying real world religious practices ONLY to evil, violent, technologically backward monsters is a bad idea.  Either broaden the use of the word, or use another word whose meaning is already broadened, like "druid" instead of "shaman".  It would require replacing a grand total of SEVEN words in the monster manual, would actually reflect the fact that mechanically, shaman in 5e D&D ARE druids, and would reduce confusion.  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.

It's not about cheapening anything.  It's a simple problem.  It has a very simple solution.  Why we have to drag this out over hundreds of posts is certainly beyond me.


----------



## Galandris

Olrox17 said:


> I, for one, never even noticed that tribal warriors had less than average Int. Am I against raising their Int to 10? Nah, go ahead.
> It's not like anyone is ever going to waste a 2nd level slots to cast Phantasmal Force on these chumps!




Many said that people discriminated against by the stereotype will usually notice it much easily. You're Italian, from what I've read in the thread, so you're not usually associated with tribe, unlike Germans ("germanic tribe" being the first idea that comes to my mind when thinking of the word) Frankish or Belgian (the bravest of the Gauls!). You'd probably notice it more if you were.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> Stating that some language is unacceptable and Shouldn’t be printed is not a small thing




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?


----------



## Sadras

Galandris said:


> Many said that people discriminated against by the stereotype will usually notice it much easily. You're Italian, from what I've read in the thread, so you're not usually associated with tribe, unlike Germans ("germanic tribe" being the first idea that comes to my mind when thinking of the word) Frankish or Belgian (the bravest of the Gauls!). You'd probably notice it more if you were.




I will wait patiently for a Frank, Belgian or German to raise his/her hand about the INT.  
Greeks had tribes, never seen a Greek complain either.


----------



## Olrox17

Galandris said:


> Many said that people discriminated against by the stereotype will usually notice it much easily. You're Italian, from what I've read in the thread, so you're not usually associated with tribe, unlike Germans ("germanic tribe" being the first idea that comes to my mind when thinking of the word) Frankish or Belgian (the bravest of the Gauls!). You'd probably notice it more if you were.



Sure, could be. Although, I also never really checked the NPC gladiator's Int stat, either (just checked, it's 10  ).


----------



## Crimson Longinus

The tribesmen having lower Int is pretty questionable, but I doubt people not noticing it is due privilege in this case. Like how often do you look at the mental stats of the enemies? Because I usually don't.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> 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?



You can go back through the thread yourself and see the post where someone was advocating using a word processor to replace words.


----------



## Sadras

Crimson Longinus said:


> The tribesmen having lower Int is pretty questionable, but I doubt people not noticing it is due privilege in this case. Like how often do you look at the mental stats of the enemies? Because I usually don't.




Apparently some D&D players identify themselves as fantasy tribesmen and go looking to see how they have been statted.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:
			
		

> On my side of the fence, I want to change about 7 words in the Monster Manual to remove Shaman and replace it with druid and change a couple of stats from 8 to 10.



Wait a minute, so you too want to do it! A few posts ago.


----------



## Sadras

Olrox17 said:


> Sure, could be. Although, I also never really checked the NPC gladiator's Int stat, either (just checked, it's 10  ).




To be fair, gladiators were not all Roman but were often silly little tribal warriors that were educated in weapons, armour, etiquette but mostly sexual performance (as per the true-to-fact show Spartacus) which allowed them to raise their INT from 8 to 10 with the bonus ASI. It's all very logical.


----------



## Doug McCrae

It seems to me there's two reasonable approaches to the problem of racism in D&D texts:

1) Avoid referring to real world peoples.
2) Refer to real world peoples but avoid predominantly negative portrayals.

The first approach could be characterised as "find and replace".


----------



## TheSword

Doug McCrae said:


> It seems to me there's two reasonable approaches to the problem of racism in D&D texts:
> 
> 1) Avoid referring to real world peoples.
> 2) Refer to real world peoples but avoid consistently negative portrayals.
> 
> The first approach could be characterised as "find and replace".



Removing references to real world is the nuclear option. Shutting down lots of interesting history.

Option 2 is sensible, measured and long overdue.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Doug McCrae said:


> It seems to me there's two reasonable approaches to the problem of racism in D&D texts:
> 
> 1) Avoid referring to real world peoples.
> 2) Refer to real world peoples but avoid predominantly negative portrayals.
> 
> The first approach could be characterised as "find and replace".



Definitely option two.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> You can go back through the thread yourself and see the post where someone was advocating using a word processor to replace words.




Yeah.  Me.

Not because the words are "taboo" or anything so melodramatic.  But, because the words are tied to someone's real life faith and to a very negative portrayal - stupid, backward, evil, violent.

So, as @Doug McCrae says, find and replace seems to be the simplest, most straight forward and easiest solution.  This is basic editing, not "censorship".

Now, @Sadras - to be honest, I never noticed the intelligence thing either until this thread started talking about shaman.  But, it's all tied together.  The primary reason that tribal warriors have a lower intelligence is probably because in D&D, they have ALWAYS had a lower intelligence and I doubt any more thought was given to it.  But, the reason tribal warriors in D&D were given lower intelligence is because of the portrayal of tribal warriors in genre fiction.  And, that's where the problem lies.  It's tied straight back into the whole "lesser people" theme in genre fiction from the very first days.  

So, now, we have an opportunity to sever that connection.  Tribal warriors are just as intelligent as anyone else and everyone in D&D land who worships a sort of nature based faith of some sort has druids.  And druids can be found pretty much everywhere, no negative connotation connected.

Like I said, this just seems so self evident and simple to me.  I am frankly baffled where the resistance is coming from.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> Yeah.  Me.
> 
> Not because the words are "taboo" or anything so melodramatic.  But, because the words are tied to someone's real life faith and to a very negative portrayal - stupid, backward, evil, violent.
> 
> So, as @Doug McCrae says, find and replace seems to be the simplest, most straight forward and easiest solution.  This is basic editing, not "censorship".
> 
> Now, @Sadras - to be honest, I never noticed the intelligence thing either until this thread started talking about shaman.  But, it's all tied together.  The primary reason that tribal warriors have a lower intelligence is probably because in D&D, they have ALWAYS had a lower intelligence and I doubt any more thought was given to it.  But, the reason tribal warriors in D&D were given lower intelligence is because of the portrayal of tribal warriors in genre fiction.  And, that's where the problem lies.  It's tied straight back into the whole "lesser people" theme in genre fiction from the very first days.
> 
> So, now, we have an opportunity to sever that connection.  Tribal warriors are just as intelligent as anyone else and everyone in D&D land who worships a sort of nature based faith of some sort has druids.  And druids can be found pretty much everywhere, no negative connotation connected.
> 
> Like I said, this just seems so self evident and simple to me.  I am frankly baffled where the resistance is coming from.



Please don’t equate the two issues. One is self evident and easy - ability score changes.

Self-censorship as a result of fear of retaliation is still censorship. However even then sometimes self-censorship is worthwhile. There are a fair number of words that we would consider off limits. Please just don’t think shaman, or mana has reached that level.

No removing all references to real peoples is almost impossible and definitely the nuclear option. Weeding out what has been influenced and what hasn’t is not at all simple and probably Not effective. Not to mention the collateral damage to lots of concepts that don’t cause any offense at all.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> Removing references to real world is the nuclear option. Shutting down lots of interesting history.
> 
> Option 2 is sensible, measured and long overdue.




What interesting history?  Shaman is referred to SEVEN TIMES in the Monster Manual and NO WHERE ELSE.  There is no "interesting history" here.  It's lazy writing to mean "druid for primitives."  What history?  What references?

Look, if we wanted to pull druid from the game, sure, I'd understand.  But, I'll bet dollars to donuts that before this thread, you didn't even know that the word shaman even appeared in the Monster Manual.  There's no long standing tradition here.  There's no history.  

Now, if you want to have a shaman tradition added to the game, FANTASTIC.  I'd be very interested.  But, let's get it out of the negative meaning that it's in right now and THEN you can write your shaman class and tradition to your heart's content.  

"Nuclear option".  Holy crap.  Melodrama much?


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> What interesting history?  Shaman is referred to SEVEN TIMES in the Monster Manual and NO WHERE ELSE.  There is no "interesting history" here.  It's lazy writing to mean "druid for primitives."  What history?  What references?
> 
> Look, if we wanted to pull druid from the game, sure, I'd understand.  But, I'll bet dollars to donuts that before this thread, you didn't even know that the word shaman even appeared in the Monster Manual.  There's no long standing tradition here.  There's no history.
> 
> Now, if you want to have a shaman tradition added to the game, FANTASTIC.  I'd be very interested.  But, let's get it out of the negative meaning that it's in right now and THEN you can write your shaman class and tradition to your heart's content.
> 
> "Nuclear option".  Holy crap.  Melodrama much?



Well my experience isn’t limited to d&d. Pathfinder and other spin offs has had these concepts for a long time, not to mention earlier editions.

The law of unintended consequences applies.

The simple statement of expecting the removal references to real world peoples is a nuclear option. Not this single case of it.


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> What interesting history?  Shaman is referred to SEVEN TIMES in the Monster Manual and NO WHERE ELSE.  There is no "interesting history" here.  It's lazy writing to mean "druid for primitives."  What history?  What references?
> 
> Look, if we wanted to pull druid from the game, sure, I'd understand.  But, I'll bet dollars to donuts that before this thread, you didn't even know that the word shaman even appeared in the Monster Manual.  There's no long standing tradition here.  There's no history.
> 
> Now, if you want to have a shaman tradition added to the game, FANTASTIC.  I'd be very interested.  But, let's get it out of the negative meaning that it's in right now and THEN you can write your shaman class and tradition to your heart's content.
> 
> "Nuclear option".  Holy crap.  Melodrama much?



Well, shaman used to be a class both in 3e and in 4e, so there is a history in the game. It's not a class or a subclass in 5e yet, but that could change in the future.


----------



## TheSword

There is also a vast wealth of historical references in the game overall. Sometimes overt, sometimes oblique. If we have to stop using historical references to any people in the real world then we are missing out.


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> Now, @Sadras - to be honest, I never noticed the intelligence thing either until this thread started talking about shaman.  But, it's all tied together.  The primary reason that tribal warriors have a lower intelligence is probably because in D&D, they have ALWAYS had a lower intelligence and I doubt any more thought was given to it.  But, the reason tribal warriors in D&D were given lower intelligence is because of the portrayal of tribal warriors in genre fiction.  And, that's where the problem lies.  It's tied straight back into the whole "lesser people" theme in genre fiction from the very first days.
> 
> So, now, we have an opportunity to sever that connection.  Tribal warriors are just as intelligent as anyone else and everyone in D&D land who worships a sort of nature based faith of some sort has druids.  And druids can be found pretty much everywhere, no negative connotation connected.
> 
> Like I said, this just seems so self evident and simple to me.  I am frankly baffled where the resistance is coming from.




I have no issue with the INT boost. It is definitely not a hill I want to die on.
I remember a Forgotten Realms book I read years ago - these knights got off their horses and the writer was portraying the PoV from the scout ("Aztec or Inca like-culture") that was watching them and he, the author through the character, described it as one large beast being separated into two, the shiny part (armoured knight) split from the large 4-legged beast. I thought that was genius at the time as I had not encountered something like that before in my reading and I remember my initial read left me confused until I realised this was the scout's PoV seeing something unfamiliar. I have always likened that limited knowledge as the reason for the low INT in tribesmen.

EDIT: It was the Maztica Trilogy by Douglas Niles

The word Shaman is very evocative for me, and instead of advocating for its removal or even replacement, I'd rather include it in some good and neutral ethnic groups or better yet make it a class as I mentioned earlier in the thread. That is my position.


----------



## Hussar

You all do realize that you can do both right?

Remove it now, and, later on, when it's a class with history and all that good stuff, add it back in.

Isn't that the best of both worlds?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> You all do realize that you can do both right?
> Remove it now, and, later on, when it's a class with history and all that good stuff, add it back in.
> Isn't that the best of both worlds?




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?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Yes, @Maxperson is technically right.  It's Tribal "Warrior" that is less intelligent.  THAN EVERYONE.  But, hey, that's okay.  We're allowed to say that tribal peo... err... warriors are less intelligent right?  Because, that's not racist at all.




Er... "TRIBAL WARRIOR Medium humanoid (*any race*), any alignment."

Who is it racist against?  last I checked, tribe isn't a race.



> If WotC had been smart, they would have quietly made these changes and no one would have even noticed other than the people who are being insulted by the current state of things.  Unfortunately now we have to wade through endless pages of crap and hyperbole to make, what is at the end of the day, a couple of minor edits that the same people who are bitching about the changes, wouldn't even notice if we hadn't pointed it out.



People would have noticed and been even more upset.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> 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

Sadras said:


> 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

Hussar said:


> 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

Hussar said:


> 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

TheSword said:


> 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 said:


> 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

Fenris-77 said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> 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?




I'll go out on a limb and say the people being eaten.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Whilst I agree that the context and manner how shamanism is mentioned in D&D has some issues, I'd be really wary of starting to purge references in real life cultural practices. As basically everyone agrees that Europoean cultures are fair game this in practice will lead to even more increased euro-centrism in depiction of a fantasy worlds. I kinda had similar misgivings regarding the Oriental Adventures debacle, as justified as a lot of the criticism was.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say the people being eaten.



But what if that limb has been *EATEN*?! _Muhuhahaahah_!!!  Nom nom nom.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> But what if that limb has been *EATEN*?! _Muhuhahaahah_!!!  Nom nom nom.



Then there's a good chance that we are dealing with Treant cannibals.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Then there's a good chance that we are dealing with Treant cannibals.



Not the dreaded Treannibals! Always identified by their chewing on a toothpick while they lounge around the woods looking tough. With little carvings of tear drops next to their beady eyes.


----------



## Alzrius

Fenris-77 said:


> Not the dreaded Treannibals! Always identified by their chewing on a toothpick while they lounge around the woods looking tough. With little carvings of tear drops next to their beady eyes.




Still better than their hillbilly cousins:


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> Not the dreaded Treannibals! Always identified by their chewing on a toothpick while they lounge around the woods looking tough. With little carvings of tear drops next to their beady eyes.



Their bite is worse than their bark.


----------



## Maxperson

Alzrius said:


> Still better than their hillbilly cousins:



Friends of the Redneck Avengers.









						WATCH: Bad Lip Reading is back with ‘Redneck Avengers’
					

It’s been four months since the last Bad Lip Reading hit YouTube, but this instalment of ‘Redneck Avengers' is worth the wait.




					www.siliconrepublic.com


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Their bite is worse than their bark.



Even the bark is good if your marinate it with some herbs and onion.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> 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.*



The harm of "Plastic Shamans" have been discussed before. Again, if one were to bother reading the OP. 



Fenris-77 said:


> 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?



If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> The harm of "Plastic Shamans" have been discussed before. Again, if one were to bother reading the OP.




The assumed harm.  Real harm has not been proven.



> If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?



They have shamans with druid spellcasting.


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?



From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.

If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.
> 
> If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.



Yep. Druid was just the closest fit to a Shaman from the highly limited number of 5e classes.  Would a dedicated Shaman class be better?  Sure.  Does it really matter that they went with Druid?  Nope.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> The harm of "Plastic Shamans" have been discussed before. Again, if one were to bother reading the OP.
> 
> If lizardfolk explicitly have druids, then wouldn't "druidic" be the more apt?



I have read your post. You’ve not demonstrated at all that use of the term shaman in D&D increases negative opinions of shamans, or causes them to experience any real racism, or that there is any notable group of shamans playing the game that would be reminded of real world racism in the game. Or that removing it would reduce these issues if they even existed before.

You’ve assumed that because real shamans exist that they are being harmed. I’m saying there’s no evidence of this at all.

This is quite different to the example of Orcs where a not insignificant number of people see the way monstrous humanoids are described and treated as reminding them of real world racism they experience. They have come forward and told us this.

Your example is a case of jumping on the bandwagon.

Do you have any evidence that the people understandably concerned about con artists using their cultural traditions to defraud people are also bothered by their use in rpg board and computer games?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Fenris-77 said:


> From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.
> 
> If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.




There is a druid in the 5e Monster Manual Appendix B: Nonplayer Characters. None of the other NPC names are class names. For example there is an "archmage" and "mage" (both with wizard spells), but not a "wizard"; an "acolyte" and a "priest" (both with cleric spells), but not a "cleric". This suggests that the NPC names in Appendix B are terms used in the game world. We can therefore conclude that "druid" is both a rules term for a class and a term used in the game world. The lizardfolk shaman casts druid spells. There would therefore be no difficulty in calling the lizardfolk caster a druid.

Why then is the lizardfolk caster a shaman? Because "shaman" is only used in D&D to refer to NPCs and monsters, not PCs. It does not appear in the PHB. But why should the word be used in this way?

The PC druid in the PHB is described as a "priest of the Old Faith, wielding the powers of nature". The "Old Faith" usually refers to pre-Christian European religion. The historical druid was a pre-Christian Celtic magico-religious specialist. "Old Faith" does not appear in the MM. The NPC druid is, instead, a "tribal shaman". In popular culture "shaman" is associated with non-European (particularly Native American) magico-religious specialists who communicate with nature spirits. This is how it is used in Robert E Howard’s Conan stories, which are cited in Appendix N of the 1e DMG and Appendix E of the 5e PHB.

Lizardfolk live in "swamps and jungles". Europe is not known for its jungles. They lure trespassers "into the lairs of crocodiles". Crocodiles live only in hot climates - the tropics and subtropics. Lizardfolk eat and sacrifice sentient beings, tropes which have, over the last 300 years been attached largely to non-Europeans, especially sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. According to TVTropes the Cannibal Tribe trope refers to "dark-skinned, non-Christian native tribes".

Lizardfolk have shamans instead of druids because they’re not European.


----------



## TheSword

Incidentally there are many tribal societies in D&D that are not seen as less or monstrous... the Uthgardt of FR, The dragons tribes of Eberron, the Elves of Athas. Each are nuanced, powerful and cool.

Incidentally none of the actual human tribes in d&d are primitive... as they are not early examples of their species. It isn’t a word that is appropriate for the tribes I described above.


----------



## Fenris-77

A druid character could easily be a Shaman. Just because the word shaman isnt a character class doesnt mean it is thus pejorative. Lots of titles arent character classes. That doesnt make any of them bad or good. The Lizardfolk have Shamans instead of Druids because that's the the word that was closest to what the designer was trying to convey. Calling that same thing a Druid is different, as you this have all the baggage and expectations of the class, which the Shaman does not have in the entry, inluding different cultural baggage. Trying to deny that difference is silly, bit that doesnt seem to stop people from trying.

Where, for example, is the guardian of the natural world bit, what is probably the defining thing for a Druid? Missing, absent, not there. Probably a key reason why they used the word Shaman, not Druid, because Druid would have been incorrect.


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> Since you're an expert and all...




Yeah, color me surprised.  Guess that's told me.


----------



## TheSword

Doug McCrae said:


> There is a druid in the 5e Monster Manual Appendix B: Nonplayer Characters. None of the other NPC names are class names. For example there is an "archmage" and "mage" (both with wizard spells), but not a "wizard"; an "acolyte" and a "priest" (both with cleric spells), but not a "cleric". This suggests that the NPC names in Appendix B are terms used in the game world. We can therefore conclude that "druid" is both a rules term for a class and a term used in the game world. The lizardfolk shaman casts druid spells. There would therefore be no difficulty in calling the lizardfolk caster a druid.
> 
> Why then is the lizardfolk caster a shaman? Because "shaman" is only used in D&D to refer to NPCs and monsters, not PCs. It does not appear in the PHB. But why should the word be used in this way?
> 
> The PC druid in the PHB is described as a "priest of the Old Faith, wielding the powers of nature". The "Old Faith" usually refers to pre-Christian European religion. The historical druid was a pre-Christian Celtic magico-religious specialist. In popular culture "shaman" is associated with non-European (particularly Native American) magico-religious specialists who communicate with nature spirits. This is how it is used in Robert E Howard’s Conan stories, which are cited in Appendix N of the 1e DMG and Appendix E of the 5e PHB.
> 
> Lizardfolk live in "swamps and jungles". Europe is not known for its jungles. Lizardfolk lure trespassers "into the lairs of crocodiles". Crocodiles live only in hot climates - the tropics and subtropics. They eat and sacrifice sentient beings, tropes which have, over the last 300 years been attached largely to non-Europeans, especially sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. According to TVTropes the Cannibal Tribe trope refers to "dark-skinned, non-Christian native tribes".
> 
> Lizardfolk have shamans instead of druids because they’re not European.



You say that Shaman don’t exisit in d&d however there are lots of classes that don’t exist yet. In pathfinder and previous editions they do definitely exist and there is no reason why they couldn’t exist in the future.

IIRC they were represented across all sorts of player races and certainly not limited to Monstrous creatures.The Pathfinder shaman iconic is a dwarf I believe.

If we’re saying they should be removed from D&D, presumably they should also be removed from other games that do have the name as player class.That shaman don’t exist in the game yet as playable characters is not a reason to remove them from the d&d lexicon. Its a good reason to get them added to the game.


----------



## Galandris

Fenris-77 said:


> The Lizardfolk have Shamans instead of Druids because that's the the word that was closest to what the designer was trying to convey.




The last religious leader of the lizardfolk who styled himself as a Druid was ceremonially eaten when the rest of his tribe got the invoice for delivering fresh mistletoe to their jungle. It was especially pricey since it was brought to them by an amazon, or something like that.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> There is a druid in the 5e Monster Manual Appendix B: Nonplayer Characters. None of the other NPC names are class names. For example there is an "archmage" and "mage" (both with wizard spells), but not a "wizard"; an "acolyte" and a "priest" (both with cleric spells), but not a "cleric". This suggests that the NPC names in Appendix B are terms used in the game world. We can therefore conclude that "druid" is both a rules term for a class and a term used in the game world. The lizardfolk shaman casts druid spells. There would therefore be no difficulty in calling the lizardfolk caster a druid.




That's a faulty assumption.  Archmage and mage are just alternative names for Wizard, as Acolyte and Priest are alternate names for Cleric.  A much stronger assumption is that those NPCs are Wizards and Clerics.  Just as an Assassin is a Rogue and a Berserker is a Barbarian.  

It's not hard to see that NPCs can have alternative subclasses that are not allowed to players.



> Why then is the lizardfolk caster a shaman? Because "shaman" is only used in D&D to refer to NPCs and monsters, not PCs. It does not appear in the PHB. But why should the word be used in this way?




No.  The Druid can be a tribal Shaman, and therefore a PC Druid can also be a tribal Shaman.  I mean, would you say no if a player wanted to call his druid a tribal Shaman?  I certainly wouldn't.  Hell, I wouldn't even say no to a player calling his Cleric a Shaman.



> Lizardfolk live in "swamps and jungles". Europe is not known for its jungles. They lure trespassers "into the lairs of crocodiles". Crocodiles live only in hot climates - the tropics and subtropics. Lizardfolk eat and sacrifice sentient beings, tropes which have, over the last 300 years been attached largely to non-Europeans, especially sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. According to TVTropes the Cannibal Tribe trope refers to "dark-skinned, non-Christian native tribes".




Europe isn't known for it's Treants, Aboleths and much more, either.  You're stretching things beyond credulity in order to try and divorce Shamans from Druids and it doesn't work.



> Lizardfolk have shamans instead of druids because they’re not European.



No.  They're not.  And neither are any other races, classes or monsters..............unless you homebrew a fantasy D&D Europe campaign, in which case Lizard Folk are European.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> You say that Shaman don’t exisit in d&d however there are lots of classes that don’t exist yet. In pathfinder and previous editions they do definitely exist and there is no reason why they couldn’t exist in the future.
> 
> If we’re saying they should be removed from D&D, presumably they should also be removed from other games that do have the name as player class.
> 
> That shaman don’t exist in the game yet as playable characters is not a reason to remove them from the d&d lexicon. Its a good reason to get them added to the game.




This makes no sense.  Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.  

So, "presumably they should be removed from other games" doesn't make any sense.  How do those other games treat shaman?  I don't know, I haven't read those other games, so, I make zero judgement for or against those other games.  You can't judge unrelated works just because they use the same terminology.  How that terminology is used is the important part.  

You say that Pathfinder has a rich culture attached to shaman.  Ok, fantastic.  Sounds like it's job done.  It's a respectful use of the concept.  Great.  Does Pathfinder only have shaman in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies?  No?  Then why would you remove it from Pathfinder?  

OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies-  see druid".  

Meh, this is just going around in circles and it's not getting anywhere.  I've been pretty clear how and why I would fix this issue - remove the whole seven instances where shaman appears in the Monster Manual from subsequent printings and replace it with the more accurate "druid".  Then, begin the design process to add shaman back into the game through Unearthed Arcana and either design it as a new class or as a subclass of druid.  

You folks have a good time endlessly chasing your tails as folks who have a vested interest in making sure that you never come to anything approximating a consensus will continue to troll these types of threads just to stir the pot.  

Fortunately, in about three to five years from now, we'll be able to look back at this sort of stuff and shake our heads.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> This makes no sense.  Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.




D&D is a culture of its own and the culture of D&D includes all editions and games.  Just because 5e doesn't have a Shaman class yet, doesn't mean that Shamans are no longer part of the D&D culture.



> OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies-  see druid".




At this point you know this to be an untruth. It's quite frankly offensive that you would continue to spread it when we know the truth.  5e D&D clearly uses Shaman to mean any race of humanoid of any alignment.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> This makes no sense.  Just because another game uses shaman in no way is reflexive of how or when 5e D&D uses the term.
> 
> So, "presumably they should be removed from other games" doesn't make any sense.  How do those other games treat shaman?  I don't know, I haven't read those other games, so, I make zero judgement for or against those other games.  You can't judge unrelated works just because they use the same terminology.  How that terminology is used is the important part.
> 
> You say that Pathfinder has a rich culture attached to shaman.  Ok, fantastic.  Sounds like it's job done.  It's a respectful use of the concept.  Great.  Does Pathfinder only have shaman in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies?  No?  Then why would you remove it from Pathfinder?
> 
> OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies-  see druid".
> 
> Meh, this is just going around in circles and it's not getting anywhere.  I've been pretty clear how and why I would fix this issue - remove the whole seven instances where shaman appears in the Monster Manual from subsequent printings and replace it with the more accurate "druid".  Then, begin the design process to add shaman back into the game through Unearthed Arcana and either design it as a new class or as a subclass of druid.
> 
> You folks have a good time endlessly chasing your tails as folks who have a vested interest in making sure that you never come to anything approximating a consensus will continue to troll these types of threads just to stir the pot.
> 
> Fortunately, in about three to five years from now, we'll be able to look back at this sort of stuff and shake our heads.



For the record the word shaman is pretty ubiquitous in the fantasy genre. I will be highly surprised if it goes anywhere.

With the release of all old content in pdf format, Shaman are effectively part of d&d in their current form until superseded. Much of this is fluff rather than crunch so will continue to exist in fluff based wikis and sources for existing 5e campaigns.


----------



## Hussar

@Maxperson - I'm sorry, but, I didn't realize you were posting in this thread until my feed told me.  I've had you on ignore for a while now. If you are responding to points I've made, go ahead, but, know that I will not engage you directly.  None of our interactions are ever fruitful.  So, feel free to springboard from points that I've made to other people, but, if you are trying to respond directly to me, it will be in vain.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> For the record the word shaman is pretty ubiquitous in the fantasy genre. I will be highly surprised if it goes anywhere.




To be frankly honest, I probably agree with you.  Not because it's "ubiquitous" because, in 5e, it certainly isn't, but because there is a significant number of gamers who have a vested interest in the status quo and refuse to accept that change isn't about taking away anything from them, but, rather, about doing something nice for other people.  

But, like I said, unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who claim not to be able to "see color" or other garbage like that  who will stand in the way of progress.  Fortunately, in a few years, we'll be able to look back at these kinds of discussions, shake hands over a job well done, and the true bigots and trolls will have to go back to whatever hole they inhabit, to wait for a new day where they can try to force their privilege on others.

I mean, we, as in you and me @TheSword, agree that changes should be made.  We might disagree about what changes, but, we agree that leaving it the way it is isn't viable.  Whether we simply broaden Shaman or cut shaman then broaden it, the end result is the same.

There are those here who would deny that any change is necessary at all.  And that's just sad.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> To be frankly honest, I probably agree with you.  Not because it's "ubiquitous" because, in 5e, it certainly isn't, but because there is a significant number of gamers who have a vested interest in the status quo and refuse to accept that change isn't about taking away anything from them, but, rather, about doing something nice for other people.
> 
> But, like I said, unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who claim not to be able to "see color" or other garbage like that  who will stand in the way of progress.  Fortunately, in a few years, we'll be able to look back at these kinds of discussions, shake hands over a job well done, and the true bigots and trolls will have to go back to whatever hole they inhabit, to wait for a new day where they can try to force their privilege on others.
> 
> I mean, we, as in you and me @TheSword, agree that changes should be made.  We might disagree about what changes, but, we agree that leaving it the way it is isn't viable.  Whether we simply broaden Shaman or cut shaman then broaden it, the end result is the same.
> 
> There are those here who would deny that any change is necessary at all.  And that's just sad.



Yes I agree there will always be reactionaries. Some changes are long overdue.

However in the case of cultural appropriation I think it’s really tricky ground. Yes we have Native American Indian imagery and names being exploited by multi-million dollar organizations, or rpg games called Fortune Cookie Kung-fu. Then on the other hand we have Mexican restaurants in small English towns and amazing computer games set in other countries... like Ghost of Tsushima.

There’s more debate to be and I think somethings will be revealed to be causing people harm. Until something is though, I think we owe it to ourselves to be pragmatic about what we try and cut. If it goes to deep, it just fuels arguments that it’s a slippery slope and causes people to dig their heels in.


----------



## Hussar

Was thinking about this a little more, so I thought I'd add a final thought since it looks like this thread is winding up.

Realistically, if you go back to the orc discussions or the drow or the alignment or whatever, there is far, far more agreement than disagreement.  Yeah, I push for stripping the word "shaman" out of the Monster Manual but, that's because I worry that the expanded shaman might get tied up in development for a long time in the Unearthed Arcana (see psionics for an example of this) and it's a change we can make now.  But, realistically, at the end of the day, we all get to the same place- an expanded shaman added to the game complete with traditions, that isn't tied to such a negative depiction.

In the orc thread, we all had pretty much agreed that a bit of snipping here and there (you need to remove about three sentences) is all that's needed.

IOW, nearly everyone agrees that changes aren't a bad thing and that a light touch will solve most of the problems.

What truly baffles me, through all of this though, is the camp that has lobbied so hard that either, 1.  These problems don't exist at all or 2.  Any change will be so widespread as to completely change the game.

The reason this baffles me is that we play 5e D&D.  5e has already rewritten so much of the game.  Take alignment for example.  5e alignment fills less than a page of explanation and has zero mechanical impact (or very close to zero).  Have any of you actually read the alignment section in the PHB outside of an alignment argument on the Internet?  If they took out those pages from the PHB, would anyone actually notice?  The writing is already on the wall - 4e reduced alignment, 5e gutted it to a shell and now, it's going to go away.  It just is.

Same as these things that have been talked about.  Orcs, drow, shaman, whatever.  These things are all going the way of the chainmail bikini and gender based stat modifiers.  I just have such a hard time understanding why anyone wants to preserve these things.  They are holdovers from a bigoted past and are best left in the past.  Why is that a bad thing?


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> Was thinking about this a little more, so I thought I'd add a final thought since it looks like this thread is winding up.
> 
> Realistically, if you go back to the orc discussions or the drow or the alignment or whatever, there is far, far more agreement than disagreement.  Yeah, I push for stripping the word "shaman" out of the Monster Manual but, that's because I worry that the expanded shaman might get tied up in development for a long time in the Unearthed Arcana (see psionics for an example of this) and it's a change we can make now.  But, realistically, at the end of the day, we all get to the same place- an expanded shaman added to the game complete with traditions, that isn't tied to such a negative depiction.
> 
> In the orc thread, we all had pretty much agreed that a bit of snipping here and there (you need to remove about three sentences) is all that's needed.
> 
> IOW, nearly everyone agrees that changes aren't a bad thing and that a light touch will solve most of the problems.
> 
> What truly baffles me, through all of this though, is the camp that has lobbied so hard that either, 1.  These problems don't exist at all or 2.  Any change will be so widespread as to completely change the game.
> 
> The reason this baffles me is that we play 5e D&D.  5e has already rewritten so much of the game.  Take alignment for example.  5e alignment fills less than a page of explanation and has zero mechanical impact (or very close to zero).  Have any of you actually read the alignment section in the PHB outside of an alignment argument on the Internet?  If they took out those pages from the PHB, would anyone actually notice?  The writing is already on the wall - 4e reduced alignment, 5e gutted it to a shell and now, it's going to go away.  It just is.
> 
> Same as these things that have been talked about.  Orcs, drow, shaman, whatever.  These things are all going the way of the chainmail bikini and gender based stat modifiers.  I just have such a hard time understanding why anyone wants to preserve these things.  They are holdovers from a bigoted past and are best left in the past.  Why is that a bad thing?



I dont really want to bring the alignment thread hear but unlike a lot of other things, you’ve mentioned like evil orcs or gender differences. Alignment is a pretty impactful part of the game, has value to a lot of people and is hugely important in the Planescape setting that forms a big chunk of the cosmology of the game. I don’t really want an argument It’s just my viewpoint and we’ve all gone back and forth over this a huge amount elsewhere.

The problem is, when you take genuine issues like the Tolkien based orcs reminding people of racism. Then lump in more frivolous issues like use of the word shaman or mana or expecting the removal of the whole alignment system, it undermines the first. I can be against big cat sanctuaries without being against scientific based zoos. Not all issues are created equal.

I also think some of these frivolous issues make great settings like Planescape, Darksun, Birthright etc a lot less likely to be updated because of the noise. Which makes me sad.

(For the reference: i’d like to see Birthright updated to be well consulted and respectful, with big changes in some areas to be more inclusive, while keeping the great kingdom building and diplomacy elements and the cool world building)


----------



## pemerton

Crimson Longinus said:


> Whilst I agree that the context and manner how shamanism is mentioned in D&D has some issues, I'd be really wary of starting to purge references in real life cultural practices.



No one has sugested this.

What I have suggested - and I'm followng @Hussar's lead here, and drawing on @Doug McCrae's careful textual analyses - is reducing the reliance on pulp tropes.

Queen of the Black Coast is widely regarded as one of the best of REH's Conan stories. Maybe it is, But it's not an account of "real lie cutural practices" unless the cultural practice you have in mind is the racism of many of the pulp authors, and their use of racist tropes which have spread throughout the fantasy genre.

If someone wants to present a sympathetic account of lizardfolk religon, family life and so on, and include shamnic religous leaders as an element of that, that could be pretty interesting. But this is not what I understand the 5e MM to offer. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> As basically everyone agrees that Europoean cultures are fair game this in practice will lead to even more increased euro-centrism in depiction of a fantasy worlds. I kinda had similar misgivings regarding the Oriental Adventures debacle, as justified as a lot of the criticism was.



I don't really want to reopen the whole OA debate in this thread. But as @Aldard is certainly aware of, my opinion of OA is that it is a sincere and relatively respectful (not completely respectful and not completely successful even when respect is attempted) presentation of elements of East Asian folk stories and pseudo-historical tropes for FRPGing purposes.

The difference, for me, between OA and the discussion in this thread is that the former presents the non-European history and culture largely on its own terms, Whereas in this thread I am responding to aspecs of D&D and FRPGing more broadly that present non-European history and culture as "primitive" and "different" and objects of curiosity for an essentially European/contemporary North American perspecive.

Just as I don't think OA is all one-way traffic, nor is contemporary D&D - eg there's the monk PC sitting there in the core of the game. But I'm nevertheless satsfied that there is a meaningful difference between the two cases.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> The Lizardfolk have Shamans instead of Druids because that's the the word that was closest to what the designer was trying to convey. Calling that same thing a Druid is different, as you this have all the baggage and expectations of the class, which the Shaman does not have in the entry, inluding different cultural baggage.



I posted about this upthread. _Why _does druid have to carry cultural baggage?

D&D can have monks who don't have to be East Asian. Who aren't Buddhist or Taoist but rather worship fictional gods like Xan Yae and hang out with characters whose nearest fictional analogues are Sir Lancelot and the Grey Mouser.

So why do druids have to carry any sort of cultural baggage? Especially because, being good shapechangers and not particularly good fortune-tellers, they actually seem to have more in common with shamanic religioius traditions than with the real-world druidic figures from whom they derive their name.


----------



## Hussar

@TheSword, I'm not sure I agree that this is frivolous, but, by the same token, I do agree that there are larger issues in the world and, yes, if nothing were to be changed here, I doubt the world would come to an end.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> I posted about this upthread. _Why _does druid have to carry cultural baggage?
> 
> D&D can have monks who don't have to be East Asian. Who aren't Buddhist or Taoist but rather worship fictional gods like Xan Yae and hang out with characters whose nearest fictional analogues are Sir Lancelot and the Grey Mouser.
> 
> So why do druids have to carry any sort of cultural baggage? Especially because, being good shapechangers and not particularly good fortune-tellers, they actually seem to have more in common with shamic religioius traditions than with the real-world druidic figures from whom they derive their name.



My main complaint there is actually the nature thing. Divorce from history aside, that's key to the Druid thing. In the case at hand it really doesnt match. The spell list does, but the class doesn't.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Hussar said:


> @TheSword, I'm not sure I agree that this is frivolous, but, by the same token, I do agree that there are larger issues in the world and, yes, if nothing were to be changed here, I doubt the world would come to an end.



I agree. This is neither frivolous nor the biggest problem on the planet, especially at the current moment. I do, however, believe that these small changes are good and are changes that should be made. Progress is progress, even if it is small progress.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> I have read your post. You’ve not demonstrated at all that use of the term shaman in D&D increases negative opinions of shamans, or causes them to experience any real racism, or that there is any notable group of shamans playing the game that would be reminded of real world racism in the game. Or that removing it would reduce these issues if they even existed before.
> 
> You’ve assumed that because real shamans exist that they are being harmed. I’m saying there’s no evidence of this at all.
> 
> This is quite different to the example of Orcs where a not insignificant number of people see the way monstrous humanoids are described and treated as reminding them of real world racism they experience. They have come forward and told us this.
> 
> Your example is a case of jumping on the bandwagon.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that the people understandably concerned about con artists using their cultural traditions to defraud people are also bothered by their use in rpg board and computer games?



Your post here is a good example about failing to critically read text. My primary is issue is less with shamans per se, but with how indigenous cultures have had the term "shaman" misapplied to their spiritual leaders, their cultural desire to resist that imposed label, and the harm that it causes them. My other issue, which is one that actual anthropologists are struggling with in their field, pertains to assumptions around shamanism, how language around it is framed and built in with cultural assumptions and spiritual hierarchies. If anthropologists see actual harm in how they discuss shamanism, do you think that TTRPGs, which borrowed many of these older assumptions, are free of (unintentional) foul play? Or is this a Tertullian argument to the effect of "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?"



Fenris-77 said:


> From a language use standpoint, sure, whichever is more accurate. From a gaming standpoint no. It's a monster statblock, its not a player class. It uses the Druid spell list, that's it. That doesnt make it a druid, nor make druid a more appropriate term. So your use of the term 'explicitly have Druids' seems problematic, or at the very least quite incorrect.
> 
> If you were to make a PC version I might use Druid. The best you can argue from the MM entry though is that the designer thought the Druid spell list was the best match for a 'Shaman', which seems pretty trivially correct to me.



True that my statement "explicitly have druids" is not true. They also essentially wild shape, albeit limited to a crocodile. So if it walks looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck?* Nor does this spell list of druid spells really involve shamanistic activities, dealing with spiritual intermediaries. So what about the lizardfolk shaman makes it a shaman? If lizardfolk had 4e shamans rather than druids, then one definitely could point to a difference.

* It's probably a druid in disguise!


----------



## Fenris-77

Language is a funny thing  I agree completely about the wide use of 'shaman' to describe a pretty disparate set of actual rules. However, when it comes to a fantasy race, the generality is a plus, not a minus. It doesnt actually describe any particular cultures religois figures and so serves pretty well as a generic term for world building. The issue the word has in practice dont follow it into fiction unless you also pull along some specific cultural material.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> The assumed harm.  Real harm has not been proven.



Considering your dubious stance on proving harm in the orcs/racism and OA thread, I am skeptical that you are arguing in good faith here either. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, however... There is no fruitful conversation to be had ever in engaging this line of argumentation with you.



TheSword said:


> You say that Shaman don’t exisit in d&d however there are lots of classes that don’t exist yet. In pathfinder and previous editions they do definitely exist and there is no reason why they couldn’t exist in the future.
> 
> IIRC they were represented across all sorts of player races and certainly not limited to Monstrous creatures.The Pathfinder shaman iconic is a dwarf I believe.



@Doug McCrae is familiar with shamans in 4e, so maybe you are arguing against a strawman position. Maybe just maybe, Doug, is referring to 5e where no Shaman class exists.



> *If we’re saying they should be removed from D&D,* presumably they should also be removed from other games that do have the name as player class.That shaman don’t exist in the game yet as playable characters is not a reason to remove them from the d&d lexicon. Its a good reason to get them added to the game.



You say that you understand the argument is not about removing shamans, and yet you repeat this error of argumentation. Why? Baffling.

The issue is not so much regarding the absence or removal of the shamans in D&D, but, rather, with how shamans are framed by the game world fiction. I agree with both @pemerton and @Doug McCrae that the larger issue is about untangling the racist, colonial baggage that came with D&D's adoption of pulp tropes and outdated academic modes of thinking.

I do think that 4e did a better job of it. Sure it's "primal," but it deals with intermediary spirits of the material world, with their powers being called "evocations" because they evoked the spirits. 4e shamans did a better job of showing different depictions of their shamans. While there are a number of depictions of "primitive" shamans in 4e, there were also depictions of non-primitive ones too. This picture, for example, is of a deva shaman in 4e:







It's within the realm of "add, but don't subtract" regarding the depiction of shamans that others have mentioned before in this thread. 5e D&D, in many respects, also felt like it made several large steps backwards.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

pemerton said:


> No one has sugested this.
> 
> What I have suggested - and I'm followng @Hussar's lead here, and drawing on @Doug McCrae's careful textual analyses - is reducing the reliance on pulp tropes.
> 
> Queen of the Black Coast is widely regarded as one of the best of REH's Conan stories. Maybe it is, But it's not an account of "real lie cutural practices" unless the cultural practice you have in mind is the racism of many of the pulp authors, and their use of racist tropes which have spread throughout the fantasy genre.
> 
> If someone wants to present a sympathetic account of lizardfolk religon, family life and so on, and include shamnic religous leaders as an element of that, that could be pretty interesting. But this is not what I understand the 5e MM to offer.
> 
> I don't really want to reopen the whole OA debate in this thread. But as @Aldard is certainly aware of, my opinion of OA is that it is a sincere and relatively respectful (not completely respectful and not completely successful even when respect is attempted) presentation of elements of East Asian folk stories and pseudo-historical tropes for FRPGing purposes.
> 
> The difference, for me, between OA and the discussion in this thread is that the former presents the non-European history and culture largely on its own terms, Whereas in this thread I am responding to aspecs of D&D and FRPGing more broadly that present non-European history and culture as "primitive" and "different" and objects of curiosity for an essentially European/contemporary North American perspecive.
> 
> Just as I don't think OA is all one-way traffic, nor is contemporary D&D - eg there's the monk PC sitting there in the core of the game. But I'm nevertheless satsfied that there is a meaningful difference between the two cases.



Yeah, sure, I agree with you. And with 'purging' I was referring to Hussar wanting to find-and-replace instances of word 'shaman' in the MM. But yeah, the solution is to have more respectful and positive mentions of shamanism (which is not necessarily the same as 'historically accurate,' nothing in D&D is.) And I don't think it needs some shaman class or subclass as an excuse to do so, this is lore we are talking about.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> Considering your dubious stance on proving harm in the orcs/racism and OA thread, I am skeptical that you are arguing in good faith here either. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, however... There is no fruitful conversation to be had ever in engaging this line of argumentation with you.
> 
> @Doug McCrae is familiar with shamans in 4e, so maybe you are arguing against a strawman position. Maybe just maybe, Doug, is referring to 5e where no Shaman class exists.
> 
> You say that you understand the argument is not about removing shamans, and yet you repeat this error of argumentation. Why? Baffling.
> 
> The issue is not so much regarding the absence or removal of the shamans in D&D, but, rather, with how shamans are framed by the game world fiction. I agree with both @pemerton and @Doug McCrae that the larger issue is about untangling the racist, colonial baggage that came with D&D's adoption of pulp tropes and outdated academic modes of thinking.
> 
> I do think that 4e did a better job of it. Sure it's "primal," but it deals with intermediary spirits of the material world, with their powers being called "evocations" because they evoked the spirits. 4e shamans did a better job of showing different depictions of their shamans. While there are a number of depictions of "primitive" shamans in 4e, there were also depictions of non-primitive ones too. This picture, for example, is of a deva shaman in 4e:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's within the realm of "add, but don't subtract" regarding the depiction of shamans that others have mentioned before in this thread. 5e D&D, in many respects, also felt like it made several large steps backwards.



There may have been confusion. I have no challenge at all with people adding more versions of these Issues. Just with the suggestion of removing widely used terms from d&d.

A lot of the arguments I’ve seen are along the lines of ‘shaman’ are only ever monstrous races and it’s great to expand that beyond that. I fully subscribe that shaman can be a title though in game terms rather than a class.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> A lot of the arguments I’ve seen are along the lines of ‘shaman’ are only ever monstrous races and it’s great to expand that beyond that. I fully subscribe that shaman can be a title though in game terms rather than a class.



I would not mind "shaman" being an in-game title if it better reflected what shamanism as a term is meant to describe rather than being synonymous with "Primitive Priest/Cleric" or "Half-baked Druid." Again, I think that 4e established a consistent tone with the Primal source as being derived from spirits. Druids, Shamans, Barbarians, and Wardens alike were shamanistic in that their powers derived from the spirits of the Material Plane. This was a mythic cosmology closer in affinity to the likes of RuneQuest, which also treats animism well. 

Looking closer at the Lizardfolk spiritual practices, there is not really a sense that the shamans are not so much dealing with spirits, but, rather, with their deity Semaunya: 


> Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god.





> Lizardfolk respect and fear magic with a religious awe. Lizardfolk shamans lead their tribes, overseeing rites and ceremonies performed to honor Semuanya.



So is the term "shaman" actually meant to be a substitute for "primitive cleric" here rather than druids?


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> Your post here is a good example about failing to critically read text. My primary is issue is less with shamans per se, but with how indigenous cultures have had the term "shaman" misapplied to their spiritual leaders, their cultural desire to resist that imposed label, and the harm that it causes them. My other issue, which is one that actual anthropologists are struggling with in their field, pertains to assumptions around shamanism, how language around it is framed and built in with cultural assumptions and spiritual hierarchies. If anthropologists see actual harm in how they discuss shamanism, do you think that TTRPGs, which borrowed many of these older assumptions, are free of (unintentional) foul play? Or is this a Tertullian argument to the effect of "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?"



Instead of suggesting that this disagreement is because I don’t/can’t read critically. Let’s instead assume that we disagree.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for different groups to have different uses for words. Particularly within academic circles. It is appropriate for anthropologists to be extremely precise when studying real world religions. It isn’t necessary for people looking for inspiration for fiction, or trying to name something in a computer game.

The fantasy gaming industry isn’t best placed to be cutting edge regarding academic debate in naming conventions. As a general rule it is massively derivative and takes inspiration from a wide range of sources, including a few thousand years of history, the complete body of fiction and the general  public awareness.

These things will change when popular culture changes, perhaps in fits in starts, but it will follow. Expecting rpgs to set popular culture instead of responding to it is probably wishful thinking.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I would not mind "shaman" being an in-game title if it better reflected what shamanism as a term is meant to describe rather than being synonymous with "Primitive Priest/Cleric" or "Half-baked Druid." Again, I think that 4e established a consistent tone with the Primal source as being derived from spirits. Druids, Shamans, Barbarians, and Wardens alike were shamanistic in that their powers derived from the spirits of the Material Plane. This was a mythic cosmology closer in affinity to the likes of RuneQuest, which also treats animism well.
> 
> Looking closer at the Lizardfolk spiritual practices, there is not really a sense that the shamans are not so much dealing with spirits, but, rather, with their deity Semaunya:
> 
> So is the term "shaman" actually meant to be a substitute for "primitive cleric" here rather than druids?



It is indeed weird to describe a priests dedicated to a single god as shaman. Calling these lizardfolk priests shamans seem like a misnomer, probably arising from some rather questionable assumptions. The whole lizardfolk lore seems pretty suspect.

And yeah, I like the 'primal power source' logic, though I still feel that because D&D version of druid already contains many trappings associated with shamanism, having a separate shaman class would be weird.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> It isn’t necessary for people looking for inspiration for fiction, or trying to name something in a computer game.
> 
> The fantasy gaming industry isn’t best placed to be cutting edge regarding academic debate in naming conventions. As a general rule it is massively derivative and takes inspiration from a wide range of sources, including a few thousand years of history, the complete body of fiction and the general  public awareness.
> 
> These things will change when popular culture changes, perhaps in fits in starts, but it will follow. Expecting rpgs to set popular culture instead of responding to it is probably wishful thinking.



The problem is that (1) a fair number of our fictional tropes in fantasy are rooted in racist, colonial baggage and (2) that our hobby, as a whole, has mostly turned a blind eye to the ubiquitous presence of these problematic tropes while also being resistant to changing them. Other popular media _are_ changing and reflecting on these tropes at a much faster pace than D&D. I think that it is reasonable to expect that D&D should walk alongside popular culture rather than getting dragged unwillingly behind it, particularly if we want to regard our hobby as contemporaneously relevant and engaging.


----------



## Hussar

Heh.  I was just thinking about how "other media" has had to change.  I teach ESL and have done so for about 25 years.  Cultural misappropriation and cultural imperialism have been issues in the field since I started teaching.  We've constantly had to revise syllabi, textbooks are constantly being rewritten and amended, and there is a constant discussion (at least as acrimonious as anything you'll see here) over what is and is not appropriate in a textbook.

I sometimes forget that this sort of thing is kinda new to people.  Taking the "shaman" example, it's not a "widely used term" in D&D.  At least not in 5e D&D.  It's only used SEVEN TIMES.  That's it.  Cutting it out (with the option of adding it back in later of course - there's nothing saying you can't bring something back later) is a minor ripple in the text.  

The biggest issue here is that people get emotionally attached to various terminology and lose perspective.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> The problem is that (1) a fair number of our fictional tropes in fantasy are rooted in racist, colonial baggage and (2) that our hobby, as a whole, has mostly turned a blind eye to the ubiquitous presence of these problematic tropes while also being resistant to changing them. Other popular media _are_ changing and reflecting on these tropes at a much faster pace than D&D. I think that it is reasonable to expect that D&D should walk alongside popular culture rather than getting dragged unwillingly behind it, particularly if we want to regard our hobby as contemporaneously relevant and engaging.



The extent at which cultural appropriation is a bad thing is very much a live debate. We aren’t talking about the Benin Bronzes here. We are talking about the usage of words. More so, the use of words for fiction. The issue is not resolved and to expect a derivative game like this to be ahead of the curve is an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I was just thinking about how "other media" has had to change.  I teach ESL and have done so for about 25 years.  Cultural misappropriation and cultural imperialism have been issues in the field since I started teaching.  We've constantly had to revise syllabi, textbooks are constantly being rewritten and amended, and there is a constant discussion (at least as acrimonious as anything you'll see here) over what is and is not appropriate in a textbook.
> 
> I sometimes forget that this sort of thing is kinda new to people.  Taking the "shaman" example, it's not a "widely used term" in D&D.  At least not in 5e D&D.  It's only used SEVEN TIMES.  That's it.  Cutting it out (with the option of adding it back in later of course - there's nothing saying you can't bring something back later) is a minor ripple in the text.
> 
> The biggest issue here is that people get emotionally attached to various terminology and lose perspective.



It is a wildly used term in fantasy gaming though. You are expect D&D to exercise an academic standard of rigor that the industry as a whole doesn’t subscribe to.

You keep repeating seven times, as if it isnt referenced over and over again in dozens of products and settings. D&D 5e is set in a context of 30 years worth of PDFs still available.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> The extent at which cultural appropriation is a bad thing is very much a live debate. We aren’t talking about the Benin Bronzes here. We are talking about the usage of words. More so, the use of words for fiction. The issue is not resolved and to expect a derivative game like this to be ahead of the curve is an unreasonable expectation.



Stop exaggerating the issue, please. It doesn't have to be ahead of the curve. I have consistently been asking for people in our hobby to critically reflect and consider where along the curve's placement it is. That is hardly requiring it to be ahead of the curve, only that it shows a willingness to walk forward on its own feet without being dragged behind.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> Stop exaggerating the issue, please. It doesn't have to be ahead of the curve. I have consistently been asking for people in our hobby to critically reflect and consider where along the curve's placement it is. That is hardly requiring it to be ahead of the curve, only that it shows a willingness to walk forward on its own feet without being dragged behind.



Who decides where the curve lies? Academia? Twitter? You?


----------



## pemerton

TheSword said:


> The fantasy gaming industry isn’t best placed to be cutting edge regarding academic debate in naming conventions. As a general rule it is massively derivative and takes inspiration from a wide range of sources, including a few thousand years of history, the complete body of fiction and the general  public awareness.
> 
> These things will change when popular culture changes, perhaps in fits in starts, but it will follow. Expecting rpgs to set popular culture instead of responding to it is probably wishful thinking.





Aldarc said:


> The problem is that (1) a fair number of our fictional tropes in fantasy are rooted in racist, colonial baggage and (2) that our hobby, as a whole, has mostly turned a blind eye to the ubiquitous presence of these problematic tropes while also being resistant to changing them. Other popular media _are_ changing and reflecting on these tropes at a much faster pace than D&D. I think that it is reasonable to expect that D&D should walk alongside popular culture rather than getting dragged unwillingly behind it, particularly if we want to regard our hobby as contemporaneously relevant and engaging.



Further to Aldarc's post: D&D is as much a part of popular culture as any other cultural artefact (short of a few really big films). Talking about "popular culture" changing without talking about any particular part of it - such as D&D - changing makes little sense to me.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> Who decides where the curve lies? Academia? Twitter? You?



That is a good question. Since you initially brought up being ahead of the curve, presumably you can answer: who do you think decides where it lies?

And regardless of who decides, was my expectation unreasonable that our hobby considers its placement along the curve? Is it unreasonable to expect that hobby walks forward on its own without having to be dragged along as dead weight by the rest of popular culture, to which D&D belongs? Are you suggesting that our hobby should remain ignorant of the curve and its placement therein? Should we not know its contours?  Or is the question of “who decides?” not really being asked in good faith? Is it yet another rhetorical stonewalling tactic meant to send the conversation down an irrelevant spiral of slippery slope arguments? So what purpose does your question here really serve in this discussion, TheSword?

What do you really want TheSword out of this conversation? That things stay the same in our hobby? You can be honest if that’s truly what you want. That we all refrain from thinking critically about our hobby? Why does it clearly make you so clearly uncomfortable that people are reflecting on our hobby’s reliance on problematic pulp tropes and language? Why does a hobby that relishes in vanquishing undead in deepest, dark dungeons so afraid of confronting the skeletons in its own closet?

All that said, I apologize that asking people in our hobby to think about our use of language in tropes in our fantasy elf games. I realize now that this apparently an unreasonable request that is tantamount to asking for the moon.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> That is a good question. Since you initially brought up being ahead of the curve, presumably you can answer: who do you think decides where it lies?
> 
> And was my expectation unreasonable that our hobby considers its placement along the curve? Is it unreasonable to expect that hobby walks forward on its own without having to be dragged along as dead weight by the rest of popular culture, to which D&D belongs? Are you suggesting that our hobby should remain ignorant of the curve and its placement therein? Should we not know its contours?  Or is the question of “who decides?” not really being asked in good faith? Is it yet another rhetorical stonewalling tactic meant to send the conversation down an irrelevant spiral of slippery slope arguments? So what purpose does your question here really serve in this discussion, TheSword?
> 
> What do you really want TheSword out of this conversation? That things stay the same in our hobby? You can be honest if that’s truly what you want. That we all refrain from thinking critically about our hobby? Why does it clearly make you so clearly uncomfortable that people are reflecting on our hobby’s reliance on problematic pulp tropes and language? Why does a hobby that relishes in vanquishing undead in deepest, dark dungeons so afraid of confronting the skeletons in its own closet?
> 
> All that said, I apologize that asking people in our hobby to think about our use of language in tropes in our fantasy elf games. I realize now that this apparently an unreasonable request that is tantamount to asking for the moon.



I would like d&d to follow the general consensus in the industry... which seems to be about confounding stereotypes; creating representation in the hobby at all levels; and changing monolithic ideas that make people think about real world racism they suffer when they play the game. I see these things a making real steps to make the hobby inclusive.

I’d like WoC to canvas opinion and obtain reactions and sort through the positive and negative to decide what is best for the hobby as a whole. Not be beholden to a small but vocal crowd on twitter or forums.

I’d like measured progress that genuinely benefits people not knee jerk reactions and hand wringing, based on white room progress. In short progress is great, and I’m all for it. Let’s make sure it really is progress though.


----------



## Aldarc

Thank you for the earnest answer.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> Thank you for the earnest answer.



Thanks for pushing the envelope, researching the topic, posting a really interesting link and challenging the community to be better.


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> OTOH, 5e D&D only uses shaman to mean "religious figure in evil, canabalistic, tribal, primitive societies-  see druid".




Where, specifically, does it actually say this? Shaman, as far as I recall from 2nd edition on, is sort of like a spirit druid. In fact, 2nd edition had a supplement devoted specifically to that. Is it possible that you are using hyperbole here?



Hussar said:


> You folks have a good time endlessly chasing your tails as folks who have a vested interest in making sure that you never come to anything approximating a consensus will continue to troll these types of threads just to stir the pot.




You mean like you're doing?


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> Yeah, color me surprised.  Guess that's told me.



Well, if you are going to accuse someone of doing the exact same thing you are doing, then be prepared to have it pointed out. And since you're an expert at it, I was pointing it out. See how that works?


----------



## Aldarc

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.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Stop exaggerating the issue, please. It doesn't have to be ahead of the curve. I have consistently been asking for people in our hobby to critically reflect and consider where along the curve's placement it is. That is hardly requiring it to be ahead of the curve, only that it shows a willingness to walk forward on its own feet without being dragged behind.



So only you and those on your side get to exaggerate the issue?  Fair is fair.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> That is a good question. Since you initially brought up being ahead of the curve, presumably you can answer: who do you think decides where it lies?




You told him that calling it ahead of the curve was an exaggeration, so presumably you can answer as well, and he asked you the question first.  It's a dodge to turn the question back at him like that.


----------



## Maxperson

Raunalyn said:


> Where, specifically, does it actually say this? Shaman, as far as I recall from 2nd edition on, is sort of like a spirit druid. In fact, 2nd edition had a supplement devoted specifically to that. Seems that the person who is making this statement is you.



Not even 5e does that.  5e explicitly uses shaman in non-evil, non-cannibalistic and non-primitive ways.


----------



## Aldarc

Max, don’t try to start making trouble between TheSword and me now that the conversation is becoming more amicable and fruitful.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> 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.


----------



## Voadam

Aldarc said:


> 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.


----------



## Aldarc

Voadam said:


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



If only we didn’t have reactionary calls to roll back everything 4e, we would not have to rely on DMsGuild.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> If only we didn’t have reactionary calls to roll back everything 4e, we would not have to rely on DMsGuild.



If only people could dislike things that were in 4e without being called reactionary.


----------



## Raunalyn

Maxperson said:


> If only people could dislike things that were in 4e without being called reactionary.



If only people realized that Shaman wasn't started in 4e...it was also in previous editions.


----------



## Aldarc

Raunalyn said:


> If only people realized that Shaman wasn't started in 4e...it was also in previous editions.



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).


----------



## Voadam

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Raunalyn said:


> 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.


----------



## Raunalyn

Doug McCrae said:


> 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.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Olrox17

Aldarc said:


> 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).



Hey man, look, I'm also a 4e fan. I miss the shaman, I miss the warden, I miss the avenger, I miss the battlemind, and gawd do I miss the swordmage.
I just don't think making a big issue out of very iffy claims of cultural misappropriation is the way we're going to get these amazing 4e things back.


----------



## Umbran

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> You know, like mankind has done since the dawn of time.




This is old, but there's a point to be made - tradition is not in and of itself a reason to do things. 

I mean, mankind has had bloody invasions and slavery since the dawn of time, too.  We have been dying of malaria, smallpox, and various other communicable diseases since the dawn of time.  But I think you'll have a hard time arguing that means we should keep on doing those things.


----------



## aramis erak

Voadam said:


> Shamans were less than clerics and only for humanoid races (including stone and frost and fire giants, not just evil primitive races) in 1e.
> 
> In the other editions from Basic to 4e they are full caster PC classes.



No, they are not. 
Moldvay Basic - no reference to shaman at all, nor druids.
Cook Expert gives shamans as clerics or magic users leating tribes of "natives" and being at least 5th level. The native in question is essentially the Amazonian basin uncontacted tribe type.

Mentzer only uses shaman in the Master Set, but druids come in in the companion set. Mentzer Shamans have a different spell list from clerics or druids, and Wiccas from wizards, but working the same basic way. They get 1d6+2 per HD instead of 1d8+0, so tougher than priests or wizards, too. Not a playable class. Druids in companion only 
Alston/Denning Cyclopedia and Basic: Wicca changed to Wokani. Still different list.



Fenris-77 said:


> The Celts as a culture, are dead, last time I checked the Japanese were not.



Samurai Culture was terminated from within by Emperor Meiji. It's been dead well over 100 years. The Japanese Culture we know of now is more a product of WW II than of the samurai.
And it's not like samurai culture wasn't on the decline by 1700...
But Heian period was also different from the much overdone Tokugawa Era ... thank you James Clavell.


Fenris-77 said:


> The Japanese no longer have an armor-wearing, katana-wielding warrior caste, but that's not the point. The connections between the samurai and modern japanese culture are direct and clear. The connections between the Celtic culture that contained the Druids and modern cultures that identify as 'Celtic' are not. If someone wants to be offended that I think they aren't 'Celtic' the same way the Japanese are still Japanese I'm fine with that. The differences between the two examples at hand are obvious enough that I don't think it's controversial.



 The Links are neither clear, nor based upon the actual culture, nor even, really, the idealized culture referenced by Musashi in Book of 5 Rings.


Aldarc said:


> The funny thing is, no one is really proposing that we get rid of shamans in D&D or our hobby, only that we think about how we frame and contexualize them, particularly in relation to other spiritual classes and various in-game cultures.



The first several posts, and a bunch between pages 13 to 17, sure seem to be just a hair shy of saying, "one should never use these terms"


Doug McCrae said:


> 1e PHB: "[Druids] are the only absolute neutrals... viewing good and evil, law and chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things."
> 2e PHB: "Clerics are generally good"
> 
> The paladin class is also relevant.
> 
> 2e PHB: "Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class... A paladin must be lawful good in alignment"



If lawful good is the requirement, then that pretty much rules out Lancelot and the de Ganis boys...  Lance was having an affair with a married woman, risking destabilizing the nation for his lust, and lying about his chastity to his best friend.
And the various groups opposed to Lancelot were no better...


Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly I feel like WoW is flying under the radar and is kind of a ticking time bomb of eye-popping racial stereotypes, which Blizzard desperately bailed water on with BfA. But that's a whole other discussion.



Warcraft, and WoW, both fly under the radar. Woke culture has far less infiltrated the videogames industry than the tabletop one. And Bethesda's in Irvine, California, not the kind of liberal hotbed that Seattle is, but in diriving range of one.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Why are people arguing about some ancient AD&D source book? What does it matter now? I am much more concerned about the stuff the currently print.



They're almost all available in dead tree again, via PoD./


Hussar said:


> Again, that isn't true.  Drow were a player race in 1e.  I'm pretty sure Dragon had rules for playing humanoids.



Playable Drow were added in Unearthed Arcana for AD&D1e, not core. And of my white, native, and Japanese-american friends, not one of the put an african-american identifiable vocal trope in for them. One did do a yiddish accent... he gets a pass, tho', being a jew himself.


----------



## Doug McCrae

This post compares the lizard man/lizardfolk entries in AD&D/D&D across editions from 1e to 5e. It finds a correlation between shamans/witch doctors and evil actions, in particular eating sentient beings. Likewise there is a correlation between druids/mystics and a lower incidence of 'cannibalism'.

1e MM: "[L]izard men are likely to prefer human flesh to other foods. In this regard they have been known to ambush humans, gather up the corpses and survivors as captives, and take the lot back to their lair for a rude and horrid feast."

As per the 1e DMG rules for tribal casters, lizard men have shamans and witch doctors. Intelligence is "[l]ow (average)". My interpretation of this is that the 10% of lizard men that "evolved to a higher state" have average intelligence (8-10) while the remaining 90% are of low intelligence (5-7).

2e lizard men are very similar to those in 1e - the quoted text above is repeated in the Monstrous Manual. They have shamans but not witch doctors, the latter having been almost entirely removed from 2e. War leaders and potentially lizard kings are their leaders.

3e MM: "[P]opular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes)... Shamans offer advice but rarely become leaders themselves… Most lizardfolk leaders are barbarians or druids. Lizardfolk clerics (shamans) worship Semuanya."

Druid is their favoured class. They have intelligence 9, due to an intelligence penalty of -2.

4e MM: "Some especially cruel and savage lizardfolk capture and eat other humanoid creatures, boldly launching raids against the lands of nearby humanoids to capture victims for their feasts... Shamans and mystics commonly advise the chieftain."

The lizardfolk controller is a "Greenscale Marsh Mystic". Intelligence scores range from 5 to 10, with 8 being most common.

5e MM:
Lizard folk… have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god... Lizardfolk shamans lead their tribes, overseeing rites and ceremonies performed to honor Semuanya.​
They have intelligence 7.

The only lizardfolk to engage in the sacrifice of sentient beings (5e) are also the only ones to be explicitly led by shamans. That sacrifice is part of shamanic religious practice. The lizard men and lizardfolk that are always 'cannabilistic' (1e, 2e, 5e) have shamans and, in 1e, witch doctors as their sole magico-religious specialists. Both of these have non-European associations. Lizardfolk that have druids and mystics (3e, 4e) are seldom 'cannibals' - "some tribes", "especially cruel and savage lizardfolk". "Mystic" has no geographical associations, while "druid" is associated with Europe. The 3e and 4e lizardfolk are also the most intelligent.

Supplemental note on lizardfolk religious sacrifices:
The idea of lizardfolk shamans performing humanoid sacrifice seems to derive from the 2e Monster Mythology (1992). In this book, the sacrifices are in honour of the demon, Sess’innek, who is worshipped by a small number of evil lizard men. "[Sess’innek’s avatar] is invoked by a shamanic servant in a carefully staged ceremony at which he receives homage and sacrifice." In the 5e MM this appears to have been transferred to Semuanya, a god worshipped by most lizardfolk.


----------



## Voadam

aramis erak said:


> No, they are not.
> Moldvay Basic - no reference to shaman at all, nor druids.
> Cook Expert gives shamans as clerics or magic users leating tribes of "natives" and being at least 5th level. The native in question is essentially the Amazonian basin uncontacted tribe type.
> 
> Mentzer only uses shaman in the Master Set, but druids come in in the companion set. Mentzer Shamans have a different spell list from clerics or druids, and Wiccas from wizards, but working the same basic way. They get 1d6+2 per HD instead of 1d8+0, so tougher than priests or wizards, too. Not a playable class. Druids in companion only
> Alston/Denning Cyclopedia and Basic: Wicca changed to Wokani. Still different list.




I had posted this before:



Voadam said:


> In Basic you had PC shaman classes in GAZ10 Orcs of Thar (plus a wicca class), GAZ12 Golden Khan of Ethengar, GAZ13 Shadow Elves, and GAZ14 Atruaghin Clans.




I recently got PC3 Creature Crucible: The Sea People and it has options for becoming shaman piecemeal to add on specific shaman abilities to existing characters, so more PC shaman options.


----------



## Galandris

There is nothing wrong with lizardmen doing human sacrifice and liking human flesh. Humans eat crocodile. Lizardmen eat human. They are explicitely neutral, not evil, in a game with absolute morality, so their human sacrifice aren't by themselves evil, whether it is because to them, human sacrifice isn't different from ox sacrifice or because they sacrifice for the greater good or because sacrifice isn't inherently evil in the D&D world.

(we could discuss the ethicality of doing human sacrifice in real life and whether humans were mostly evil until the classical antiquity and later somewhere (Mayans), but it wouldn't affect the objective morality system of D&D).


----------



## Doug McCrae

Galandris said:


> a game with absolute morality



Which is why cultural relativism, applied only to stone giants and lizardfolk, makes no sense. I discuss it in more detail in this post.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

aramis erak said:


> Warcraft, and WoW, both fly under the radar. Woke culture has far less infiltrated the videogames industry than the tabletop one. And Bethesda's in Irvine, California, not the kind of liberal hotbed that Seattle is, but in diriving range of one.




I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Blizzard are kind of moderately, safely, kind of woke these days. They didn't used to be, though also were not intentional bigots, I think, just prone to cheap stereotypes as a result of too much '90s and earlier low-brow entertainment as inspiration. But they've done stuff like put out unequivocal pro-feminist statements (in response to some kind of vaguely bigot-y criticism of Overwatch), made BfA largely about female characters and specifically female leaders, which ruffled a few feathers among the sexists and misogynists of the word (of which there are always an amazing number), Overwatch has, in its clumsy way, clearly attempted to be progressive (quite apart from being very international and fairly gender-balanced, Tracer being gay, which again, ruffled some feathers and lead to some hilariously demented criticisms). Even back in 2012, Diablo III was notable because not only did they have both genders for each class (unlike D1/D2), which sort of expected, they also didn't conform to norms of conventional attractiveness (so the female Barbarian isn't some Frazetta-esque character, but rather kind of a hulking shotputter-type like the male one). We can see with Diablo 4 they're not longer limiting the classes racially either (there were white, black and asian barbarians, for example).

It's more WoW specifically. And in a weird way. It's like if they acknowledge it, the spell will be broken, but they're free to do other "woke" stuff, like they're making it so changing the gender of your character no longer costs real-world money, and adding in more diverse skin-tones and faces for the humans (and also more diverse skin tones for all races - the only one which has ruffled feathers, of course, is the human-like Blood Elves, who have darker skin options as well as new tones, which has really upset a few er... my lawyer advises me to say "individuals"). So they do this stuff, and it clearly is a result of better understanding and what we're calling "woke"-ness (social consciousness or whatever).

But at the same time, the new expansion has a dungeon in it called "De Other Side". Starring our good friend Bwonsamdi (a faux-Jamiacan corruption of Baron Samedi, the voodoo loa). Because that's how Jamiacans Trolls speak, right? And it's like, is that okay? I kind of feel like it might not be. It's obviously not like _outright_ racist or anything but it's a bit like... uncomfortable. Like 1990s or even 1980s.

To be clear I'm not actually complaining about it, but I offer it as an example of how weird WoW is about this stuff. I mean, the race stuff is really obvious (esp. as all the races that equate to "non-white" are on the Horde), and just no-one ever talks about it. There's no possible way Blizzard leadership isn't aware of it, but I guess they're hoping to get far enough ahead that when some major gaming site finally does a bit that's like "Um WoW seems kinda full of weird racial stereotypes, including anti-Semitic ones", they can go "Yeah, that was like 20 years ago and we're gradually changing/updating and have been for some years!". But Bwonsamdi etc. is not from that long ago and goblins only got more stereotypical when they became playable in 2010.

I mean, if WoW was released now, even if the exact same people started playing it, the fact that it was new and thus scrutinized more by everyone, would mean that stuff like the Goblins being the pile of stereotypes they are would not even make it through alpha.


----------



## Galandris

Doug McCrae said:


> Which is why cultural relativism, applied only to stone giants and lizardfolk, makes no sense.




Then it's simply absolutely neutral in D&D to sacrifice prisonners to a god. If we think of it, I got from reading the many threads about whether absolutely evil monsters were needed that most gaming groups would kill bad guy who, say, attacked a caravan. Some consciously, some "out of camera" (he fell, and he probably missed his death saves because the GM didn't have them wake up and ambush us on the way back), but there seems to be very little reluctance to using lethal force among adventurers, even when playing absolutely good characters. If "killing outlaws" is not absolutely evil, then the lizardmen killing trespassers in their lands aren't either. The step between killing convicts and sacrificing them to a god is just the religious ceremony around the death sentence. Maybe it's not enough to make a death sentence absolutely evil in D&D morality?

So we can have evil (who go out if its lair to raid people and sacrifice them to his evil god) and neutral (who finds that a fitting punishment for trespassers is being sacrificed to a neutral god) and maybe even good gods. The divide being how they behave to get the people they decide to kill, with the sacrifice to a god being just an irrelevant trapping of the big deal (taking people and killing them).


----------



## Weiley31

I can still use the 5E UA Rune Knight as a Nordic/Vikingesque type deal or is that gonna be an issue?


----------



## MGibster

Weiley31 said:


> I can still use the 5E UA Rune Knight as a Nordic/Vikingesque type deal or is that gonna be an issue?




It shouldn't be.  Scandinavians are one of those groups from whom it is okay to culturally appropriate from.


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> It shouldn't be.  Scandinavians are one of those groups from whom it is okay to culturally appropriate from.




*Mod Note:*

This is a strawman that's been addressed multiple times in several other threads recently, to the point where continuing to spout this sure looks like a deliberate attempt to be to be divisive.  Time to put it away, please.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch.

Umbran said:


> This is old, but there's a point to be made - tradition is not in and of itself a reason to do things.
> 
> I mean, mankind has had bloody invasions and slavery since the dawn of time, too.  We have been dying of malaria, smallpox, and various other communicable diseases since the dawn of time.  But I think you'll have a hard time arguing that means we should keep on doing those things.



You'll not be able to convince me that the exchange between cultures has had such horrid consequences as deadly diseases, invasions and slavery.

In other words, "like mankind has done since the dawn of time" is to be understood in the context as "various cultures have contributed to each other since the dawn of time...  and have immensely benefited from this".

"Cultural (mis)appropriation" is a reality of our human way of thinking. And it is a good thing, because the exchange of ideas is a good thing.

One other thing : in its best aspect, tradition is the way of the proven things. If you've got a tradition which has brought you good things in the past, without bad consequences, why not follow it ?

But the intermingling of ideas and culture - culture being the collective concatenation of ideas, - between groups of humans is not a tradition. It is merely a recurring thing which happens by itself, because of the way our human minds operate.


----------



## Hussar

TheSword said:


> It is a wildly used term in fantasy gaming though. You are expect D&D to exercise an academic standard of rigor that the industry as a whole doesn’t subscribe to.
> 
> You keep repeating seven times, as if it isnt referenced over and over again in dozens of products and settings. D&D 5e is set in a context of 30 years worth of PDFs still available.




But, I don't care about those other games.  They aren't owned by WotC, and thus WotC has zero say over what goes into those books.  Earlier edition books are less of an issue by virtue of already coming with disclaimer warnings.  I care about the books that are most being used right now.

And, again, I'm not saying going back and editing some thirty year old Dragon magazine.  I'm talking about editing what we are using right now.  

This is no different than what is done in textbooks all the time.


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> Where, specifically, does it actually say this? Shaman, as far as I recall from 2nd edition on, is sort of like a spirit druid. In fact, 2nd edition had a supplement devoted specifically to that. Is it possible that you are using hyperbole here?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like you're doing?




@Doug McCrae has answered this more fully than I can, so, I won't repeat what he has said.  

Funny thing is, that's probably the third time, at least, in this thread, he's had to repeat himself because people, purporting to be knowledgeable in the issue keep coming in, obviously not having done any basic research, demanding to see proof.  And, funnily enough, when that proof is presented, we come to a pretty clear consensus that it's probably a good idea to change what's in the books.  I mean, everyone's agreeing here that adding a broader "shaman" class/lore to the game would be a very good thing.  I admit to taking it slightly further in removing references to shaman (all 7 of them) from the 5e books until such time as the broader shaman is presented.  But, that's not a hill I would die on.  I think it's a good idea simply because adding a new class is a very long process with no guarantee of success.  Removing the seven instances of Shaman from the Monster Manual would have very little impact on the book, most people wouldn't even notice and those that would notice would be happy about it.

But, like I said, it's not something that must be done.  Just what I would do.

But, hey, @Raunalyn, I know for a fact that you hold some pretty strong opinions on these issues.  Opinions you've been freely sharing elsewhere.  So, would you care to freely share your views here?  Perhaps you could present where you are coming from and what opinions you hold on the issue?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> This is old, but there's a point to be made - tradition is not in and of itself a reason to do things.
> 
> I mean, mankind has had bloody invasions and slavery since the dawn of time, too.  We have been dying of malaria, smallpox, and various other communicable diseases since the dawn of time.  But I think you'll have a hard time arguing that means we should keep on doing those things.



Progress is also not a reason in and of itself to do things.  A lot of the recent "progress" being discussed involves damage that might possibly be happening to a group.  Changing things based on something that we don't even know for sure is happening is progress for the sake of progress.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> This post compares the lizard man/lizardfolk entries in AD&D/D&D across editions from 1e to 5e. It finds a correlation between shamans/witch doctors and evil actions, in particular eating sentient beings. Likewise there is a correlation between druids/mystics and a lower incidence of 'cannibalism'.
> 
> 1e MM: "[L]izard men are likely to prefer human flesh to other foods. In this regard they have been known to ambush humans, gather up the corpses and survivors as captives, and take the lot back to their lair for a rude and horrid feast."
> 
> As per the 1e DMG rules for tribal casters, lizard men have shamans and witch doctors. Intelligence is "[l]ow (average)". My interpretation of this is that the 10% of lizard men that "evolved to a higher state" have average intelligence (8-10) while the remaining 90% are of low intelligence (5-7).
> 
> 2e lizard men are very similar to those in 1e - the quoted text above is repeated in the Monstrous Manual. They have shamans but not witch doctors, the latter having been almost entirely removed from 2e. War leaders and potentially lizard kings are their leaders.
> 
> 3e MM: "[P]opular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes)... Shamans offer advice but rarely become leaders themselves… Most lizardfolk leaders are barbarians or druids. Lizardfolk clerics (shamans) worship Semuanya."
> 
> Druid is their favoured class. They have intelligence 9, due to an intelligence penalty of -2.
> 
> 4e MM: "Some especially cruel and savage lizardfolk capture and eat other humanoid creatures, boldly launching raids against the lands of nearby humanoids to capture victims for their feasts... Shamans and mystics commonly advise the chieftain."
> 
> The lizardfolk controller is a "Greenscale Marsh Mystic". Intelligence scores range from 5 to 10, with 8 being most common.
> 
> 5e MM:
> Lizard folk… have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts and rites involving dancing, storytelling, and ritual combat. Victims are either cooked and eaten by the tribe, or are sacrificed to Semuanya, the lizardfolk god... Lizardfolk shamans lead their tribes, overseeing rites and ceremonies performed to honor Semuanya.​




Those quotes I guess show a correlation between shamans and evil actions like eating people, but it's crystal clear from those quotes that there is no causation there.  Every last one of them is Lizard Men/Lizardfolk doing those actions and wouldn't change if you removed Shamans from the equation.  The true correlation/causation is the race(Lizard Men), not the class(Shaman).


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> Which is why cultural relativism, applied only to stone giants and lizardfolk, makes no sense. I discuss it in more detail in this post.



Then the answer is that eating sentient beings is not inherently evil in D&D.  Eating your neighbor who you just murdered? Probably evil cannibalism.  Eating a human prisoner who just wandered into Lizard Man territory for sustenance?  Clearly not evil in D&D.


----------



## Aldarc

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> "Cultural (mis)appropriation" is a reality of our human way of thinking. And it is a good thing, because the exchange of ideas is a good thing.



It's worth reminding you and the people who liked your inaccurate post that Cultural (Mis)appropriation =! Trans-Cultural Diffusion. Most of the time when people are asking "What's wrong with cultural appropriation?" and then describe this as a natural process of human history that amounts to a harmless exchanging of ideas, they are often describing the process of 'trans-cultural diffusion' rather than 'cultural appropriation.' They are not the same and pretending that they are the same is fallacious.


----------



## Hussar

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> One other thing : in its best aspect, tradition is the way of the proven things. If you've got a tradition which has brought you good things in the past, without bad consequences, why not follow it ?




And that's perfectly fair.  However, if one can show bad consequences, does that change your mind that traditions should be followed?

Elvis yoinked black blues music and made billions of dollars on it while black artists couldn't even get played on the radio.  Is that a bad consequence or not?

Early Fantasy genre fiction is replete with bigotry and misogyny.  This isn't an opinion, this is a demonstrable fact.  Howard, Lovecraft and lots of others all benefited from the fact that minorities were excluded from the business.  And, again, this isn't ancient history either.  There's a reason we say J. K. Rowling but also say Stephen King or Robert Howard.  It's a lot easier to be top of the business model when you exclude over 50% of the potential competition after all.

So, when we perpetuate those stereotypes and tropes in our hobby, are we not continuing a bad consequence?  No one is saying that Gygax was some closet bigot.  I am absolutely sure that he wasn't.  But, in the 70's, when D&D was hitting it's stride, and it was being written and edited by ... talented amateurs I guess would be the best way to phrase it ... social awareness and cultural respect weren't even a blip on their radar.  They were simply yoinking ideas from every fantasy story and fairy tale they could get their hands on.  

And, in doing so, continued the same bigoted themes and tropes that inhabit those early works.  

So, sure, we're a couple steps removed from H. P. Lovecraft.  Fair enough.  But, shouldn't we fix things that we know are wrong?  Using a real world religious figures to describe the religious leaders of an evil, violent, primitive groups is wrong.  It is just wrong.  We know better.  And you fix it, not because you're winning points or trying to change minds.  You fix it because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> Then the answer is that eating sentient beings is not inherently evil in D&D.  Eating your neighbor who you just murdered? Probably evil cannibalism.  Eating a human prisoner who just wandered into Lizard Man territory for sustenance?  Clearly not evil in D&D.




Indeed. There is no reason (except random happenstance) that the absolute morality system of a fantasy world should align perfectly with the ethics of the reader. I think it's especially true since I doubt the D&D community can agree on a common shared set of ethics, given it's worldwide diffusion.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> It's worth reminding you and the people who liked your inaccurate post that Cultural (Mis)appropriation =! Trans-Cultural Diffusion. Most of the time when people are asking "What's wrong with cultural appropriation?" and then describe this as a natural process of human history that amounts to a harmless exchanging of ideas, they are often describing the process of 'trans-cultural diffusion' rather than 'cultural appropriation.' They are not the same and pretending that they are the same is fallacious.




Aldarc as you well know not everyone identifies/defines things the same way or even places values on the same things. I have a friend who doesn't define himself by anyone culture or people, elevates science/facts/technology, places no value in religion and thinks anything within human history is fair game to be used within his fantasy elf game. What you or any sociologist define as cultural appropriation he'd define as human history accessible to all, sensitivities be nine-helled.

So fallacious is very much in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Doug McCrae

"Shaman" and its derivatives do not appear in the 5e PHB. But shamanic* concepts do, in the barbarian and druid class entries, and the spell, Druidcraft.

"The Path of the Totem Warrior is a spiritual journey, as the barbarian accepts a spirit animal as guide, protector, and inspiration. In battle, your totem spirit fills you with supernatural might, adding magical fuel to your barbarian rage."

"Perhaps your [druid] character had a dramatic encounter with the spirits of nature, coming face to face with a giant eagle or dire wolf and surviving the experience."

"Whispering to the spirits of nature, you create one of the following effects"

Shamanism without shamans.

*"Shamanic" is here being used in a very broad sense, to include the popular understanding of indigenous magico-religious beliefs. The use of the word "totem" seems to have been similar to "shaman" and "mana" in that it's been greatly expanded and altered from its original meaning.


----------



## TheSword

Sadras said:


> Aldarc as you well know not everyone identifies/defines things the same way or even places values on the same things. I have a friend who doesn't define himself by anyone culture or people, elevates science/facts/technology, places no value in religion and thinks anything within human history is fair game to be used within his fantasy elf game. What you or any sociologist define as cultural appropriation he'd define as human history accessible to all, sensitivities be nine-helled.



The only danger with that approach is that just because they write it for their living room doesn’t mean it’s going to be published for anyone else’s living room. With that line of reasoning there could be all sorts of unpalatable stuff justified. No one wants to see the next Dark Sun campaign feature our plucky adventurers setting up their own slave triangle.


----------



## Olrox17

TheSword said:


> No one wants to see the next Dark Sun campaign feature our plucky adventurers setting up their own slave triangle.



Now wait a sec. I certainly wouldn't want a Dark Sun book to give us detailed rules for slave trading, specifically, but I wouldn't want the book to just pretend slavery doesn't exist in the setting, either. It's an evil thing evil villains do, and if the PCs are also evil, they might also engage in it, just like they would probably engage in assassinations, robbery and other evil stuff.

I know it's off topic and I don't want to derail the thread, but your assertion caught my eye.


----------



## Sadras

TheSword said:


> With that line of reasoning there could be all sorts of unpalatable stuff justified. No one wants to see the next Dark Sun campaign feature our plucky adventurers setting up their own slave triangle.




I suppose you could apply slavery to what I said about but I was referring to the use of Samurai, Wu-Jen, Shamans....and other.

Speaking about slavery, I do recall a thread here opening up discussion about how a slavery system would work or to that effect. So there certainly is interest for those who want to have it run in the background possibly to make a setting more _authentic_.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Doug McCrae said:


> "Shaman" and its derivatives do not appear in the 5e PHB. But shamanic* concepts do, in the barbarian and druid class entries, and the spell, Druidcraft.
> 
> "The Path of the Totem Warrior is a spiritual journey, as the barbarian accepts a spirit animal as guide, protector, and inspiration. In battle, your totem spirit fills you with supernatural might, adding magical fuel to your barbarian rage."
> 
> "Perhaps your [druid] character had a dramatic encounter with the spirits of nature, coming face to face with a giant eagle or dire wolf and surviving the experience."
> 
> "Whispering to the spirits of nature, you create one of the following effects"
> 
> Shamanism without shamans.
> 
> *"Shamanic" is here being used in a very broad sense, to include the popular understanding of indigenous magico-religious beliefs. The use of the word "totem" seems to have been similar to "shaman" and "mana" in that it's been greatly expanded and altered from its original meaning.



Yeah, I wish they should have used word 'shaman' or 'shamanistic' in some of those druid descriptions as that's clearly what it is. And the Totem Warrior is a clear example as well.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Aldarc as you well know not everyone identifies/defines things the same way or even places values on the same things. I have a friend who doesn't define himself by anyone culture or people, elevates science/facts/technology, places no value in religion and thinks anything within human history is fair game to be used within his fantasy elf game. What you or any sociologist define as cultural appropriation he'd define as human history accessible to all, sensitivities be nine-helled.
> 
> So fallacious is very much in the eye of the beholder.




What someone wants to do in their own home is fine.  No one is talking about that.

However, a product for public consumption is obviously a very different thing.

And, AGAIN, using Samurai, or Wu Jen, or whatever, is perfectly fine, IF it's done respectfully.   Using Shaman is perfectly fine, if it's done respectfully.  Heck, even having slavery in the game is probably fine, so long as it's presented as purely evil, something only evil bastards do and not really something heroic characters should be partaking in.  OTOH, if the Dark Sun book simply lists, "Slave, healthy, 5 gp" without any other description, I'm thinking that perhaps that's not exactly going to fly.


----------



## TheSword

Olrox17 said:


> Now wait a sec. I certainly wouldn't want a Dark Sun book to give us detailed rules for slave trading, specifically, but I wouldn't want the book to just pretend slavery doesn't exist in the setting, either. It's an evil thing evil villains do, and if the PCs are also evil, they might also engage in it, just like they would probably engage in assassinations, robbery and other evil stuff.
> 
> I know it's off topic and I don't want to derail the thread, but your assertion caught my eye.



If you expect a WOC product for dark sun to support PCs setting up their own slave trade (evil or not) you are tripping. There is a big difference between something existing in the world and a product supporting creating it... to be clear this has happened in any edition of Dark Sun yet.

If you equate assassination with setting up a slave trade you need to go and do a lot of research on the subject.


----------



## Olrox17

TheSword said:


> If you expect a WOC product for dark sun to support PCs setting up their own slave trade (evil or not) you are tripping. There is a big difference between something existing in the world and a product supporting creating it... to be clear this has happened in any edition of Dark Sun yet.
> 
> If you equate assassination with setting up a slave trade you need to go and do a lot of research on the subject.



Don't strawman me, please. 
I said "I certainly wouldn't want a Dark Sun book to give us detailed rules for slave trading, specifically, but I wouldn't want the book to just pretend slavery doesn't exist in the setting, either". Respond to this, not to a made up position.
To rephrase what I already expressed: I agree with not having any game mechanics for slave trade, if that's what you're suggesting.
I'm not ok with the word "slave" being banned from the book for sensitivity reasons, if that's what you're suggesting. Slavery exists in Dark Sun, it's an evil act to engage in it, only obviously evil PCs should ever really consider it. Kinda like mass murdering innocents.

Wether the murder of innocents (a typical very evil act that happens in D&D) is better or worse than slave trading, is extremely debatable, I think, and we probably shouldn't debate it at all.


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> @Doug McCrae has answered this more fully than I can, so, I won't repeat what he has said.
> 
> Funny thing is, that's probably the third time, at least, in this thread, he's had to repeat himself because people, purporting to be knowledgeable in the issue keep coming in, obviously not having done any basic research, demanding to see proof.




I didn't purport to be knowledgeable; I simply asked for evidence. I thanked @Doug McCrae when he presented that evidence. Maybe you should refrain from accusing others of something when you are going to deliberately misinterpret their comment.



Hussar said:


> But, hey, @Raunalyn, I know for a fact that you hold some pretty strong opinions on these issues.  Opinions you've been freely sharing elsewhere.  So, would you care to freely share your views here?  Perhaps you could present where you are coming from and what opinions you hold on the issue?




Since you brought it up; what exactly would those opinions be? Are you somehow able to read my thoughts through the internet?

As you've clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, if someone has an opinion that you don't agree with presents and alternate point of view, you immediately attack that individual personally and do not present a clear and cogent argument. They are simply badwrong, evil, etc.

But if you would like to know my opinion on this particular matter; I think the needless polarization and making a mountain out of a molehill are not necessary; there are far worse things to concerns ourselves about than what is being written in a fictional game universe.

Another opinion I will freely share; since you are trying to bring our personal disagreement here, I will refrain from further discussion with you. I'm sure the other readers, commentors, and moderators would appreciate that. If you would like to take our personal disagreement private so that we can discuss it, feel free.


----------



## jasper

Disagree @Hussar. Shaman should just be a title. Not a class. No additional lore. Leave it be. Shaman in the game has been altered from the original meaning.


----------



## TheSword

Olrox17 said:


> Don't strawman me, please.
> I said "I certainly wouldn't want a Dark Sun book to give us detailed rules for slave trading, specifically, but I wouldn't want the book to just pretend slavery doesn't exist in the setting, either". Respond to this, not to a made up position.
> To rephrase what I already expressed: I agree with not having any game mechanics for slave trade, if that's what you're suggesting.
> I'm not ok with the word "slave" being banned from the book for sensitivity reasons, if that's what you're suggesting. Slavery exists in Dark Sun, it's an evil act to engage in it, only obviously evil PCs should ever really consider it. Kinda like mass murdering innocents.
> 
> Wether the murder of innocents (a typical very evil act that happens in D&D) is better or worse than slave trading, is extremely debatable, I think, and we probably shouldn't debate it at all.



No strawmaning taking place here. You responded to this quote...



			
				“TheSword” said:
			
		

> No one wants to see the next Dark Sun campaign feature our plucky adventurers setting up their own slave triangle.



At no point did I say we would pretend slavery didn’t exist or remove it from the game.


----------



## Olrox17

TheSword said:


> At no point did I say we would pretend slavery didn’t exist or remove it from the game.



All right. I just wanted to understand if you were talking about dedicated game mechanics or the whole concept in general. That clears it up for me.


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> I didn't purport to be knowledgeable; I simply asked for evidence. I thanked @Doug McCrae when he presented that evidence. Maybe you should refrain from accusing others of something when you are going to deliberately misinterpret their comment.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you brought it up; what exactly would those opinions be? Are you somehow able to read my thoughts through the internet?
> 
> As you've clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere, if someone has an opinion that you don't agree with presents and alternate point of view, you immediately attack that individual personally and do not present a clear and cogent argument. They are simply badwrong, evil, etc.
> 
> But if you would like to know my opinion on this particular matter; I think the needless polarization and making a mountain out of a molehill are not necessary; there are far worse things to concerns ourselves about than what is being written in a fictional game universe.
> 
> Another opinion I will freely share; since you are trying to bring our personal disagreement here, I will refrain from further discussion with you. I'm sure the other readers, commentors, and moderators would appreciate that. If you would like to take our personal disagreement private so that we can discuss it, feel free.




Well, @Raunalyn, you twice specifically quoted me in this thread, not to ask any questions, but, to specifically call me out and attack me.  I'm not really sure that you get to claim that I'm attacking people.  But, hey, you're apparently the one who seems to feel the need to air dirty laundry here by calling me out.

You claimed that I was engaging in hyperbole without any evidence.  Yet, when you get shown the evidence, you simply double down to claim that I'll attack people I don't agree with.  Dude, you're the one with issues here, apparently.  I politely offered you a platform with which to present your viewpoint, which, apparently is an attack as well.

I have no further comment really.  You jumped into the middle of a conversation, accused me of making baseless claims that were instantly proven to be 100% false, and then continue to bait me. Feel free to continue to add to the conversation, but, let's not make this personal, no?


----------



## Hussar

jasper said:


> Disagree @Hussar. Shaman should just be a title. Not a class. No additional lore. Leave it be. Shaman in the game has been altered from the original meaning.




Well, I can't really disagree with your point.  Shaman have been altered from the original meaning.  Shaman in 5e mean "religious leader of evil, violent, primitive groups."  I'm not really sure that's a meaning that we want to attach to the term to be honest.  Druid works better since druids are shown to be broadly applicable to all sorts of cultures and backgrounds.  By sticking with this one meaning, it's not exactly culturally sensitive is it?


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> Well, @Raunalyn, you twice specifically quoted me in this thread, not to ask any questions, but, to specifically call me out and attack me.  I'm not really sure that you get to claim that I'm attacking people.  But, hey, you're apparently the one who seems to feel the need to air dirty laundry here by calling me out.




For accusing others of doing the exact same thing you were doing. If you don't like that being pointed out, perhaps you should stop the intellectual dishonesty.



Hussar said:


> You claimed that I was engaging in hyperbole without any evidence.  Yet, when you get shown the evidence, you simply double down to claim that I'll attack people I don't agree with.  Dude, you're the one with issues here, apparently.  I politely offered you a platform with which to present your viewpoint, which, apparently is an attack as well.




Refrain from strawmen. I asked if you were engaging in hyperbole; I did not claim you were...there is a huge difference. And when I was presented evidence, I thanked Doug and let it go. And then you went and proved my point by making a personal attack...good job. Your "polite" platform was an attempt to bring a personal matter here, which I will not do.



Hussar said:


> I have no further comment really.  You jumped into the middle of a conversation, accused me of making baseless claims that were instantly proven to be 100% false, and then continue to bait me. Feel free to continue to add to the conversation, but, let's not make this personal, no?




I have no further comment either, especially considering that you made a claim about me that is clearly false (I didn't make a baseless claim about you that was instantly proven 100% false). If you'd like to take this private, we can. But please stop bringing your personal beef with me (since you were the one who brought that up originally) to the forum. I won't ask again.


----------



## Voadam

Hussar said:


> Elvis yoinked black blues music and made billions of dollars on it while black artists couldn't even get played on the radio. Is that a bad consequence or not?




As you present it, no. Its a correlation, not a causation.

If they were not getting money or being played on the radio before then why attribute their continued exclusion as a consequence of his actions? There would be a stronger argument about economic competition harm if they had been making money but then could not because people switched from them to him.

There are different views on his impact for black artists.

There is a decent argument that Elvis's music had a positive impact.

Here is a decent discussion of his impact on black artists.



> Up to the mid-1950s black artists had sold minuscule amounts of their recorded music relative to the national market potential. Black songwriters had mostly limited horizons and could only eke out a living. But after Presley purchased the music of  African American Otis Blackwell and had his "Gladys Music" company hire talented black songwriter Claude Demetrius, the industry underwent a dramatic change.




The problem would be the systemic suppression of black artists, not white ones adopting black art.


----------



## jasper

Hussar said:


> Well, I can't really disagree with your point.  Shaman have been altered from the original meaning.  Shaman in 5e mean "religious leader of evil, violent, primitive groups."  I'm not really sure that's a meaning that we want to attach to the term to be honest.  Druid works better since druids are shown to be broadly applicable to all sorts of cultures and backgrounds.  By sticking with this one meaning, it's not exactly culturally sensitive is it?



you forgot a word Shaman in 5e mean "religious leader of evil, violent, primitive FANTASY groups." . And as soon as the lizardmen drop their human flesh suit I will worry about being culturally sensitive.


----------



## Olrox17

jasper said:


> you forgot a word Shaman in 5e mean "religious leader of evil, violent, primitive FANTASY groups." . And as soon as the lizardmen drop their human flesh suit I will worry about being culturally sensitive.



Also, I think that the evil label in that bit you quoted should be flat out removed. The shaman title in the MM is used for lizardfolk, stone giants and quaggoths, _none of which are evil_.


----------



## Sadras

I think if anything I have probably been guilty of not making shamans cool enough in the game, enough to make PCs worry about facing a goblin or orc shaman and their mysterious primal powers. If anything these discussions have inspired me to play up certain monsters. For me it is not so much whether x race is non-good, just make them memorable. It is all about the cool factor.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Elvis yoinked black blues music and made billions of dollars on it while black artists couldn't even get played on the radio.  Is that a bad consequence or not?




You're conflating Elvis singing the blues with the racism of the era.  His songs weren't what were keeping those black artists off of the air.



> Early Fantasy genre fiction is replete with bigotry and misogyny.  This isn't an opinion, this is a demonstrable fact.  Howard, Lovecraft and lots of others all benefited from the fact that minorities were excluded from the business.  And, again, this isn't ancient history either.  There's a reason we say J. K. Rowling but also say Stephen King or Robert Howard.  It's a lot easier to be top of the business model when you exclude over 50% of the potential competition after all.




Again, your conflating individuals with the general racism of the era.  They weren't personally keeping minorities out of business.  Stephen King published his first book in 1974.  Katherine Kurtz published hers in 1970, and Anne McCaffery published hers in 1974.  Robert Howard started writing and publishing in 1936.  Mary Shelley started hers in 1818.  



> So, when we perpetuate those stereotypes and tropes in our hobby, are we not continuing a bad consequence?  No one is saying that Gygax was some closet bigot.  I am absolutely sure that he wasn't.  But, in the 70's, when D&D was hitting it's stride, and it was being written and edited by ... talented amateurs I guess would be the best way to phrase it ... social awareness and cultural respect weren't even a blip on their radar.  They were simply yoinking ideas from every fantasy story and fairy tale they could get their hands on.
> 
> And, in doing so, continued the same bigoted themes and tropes that inhabit those early works.
> 
> So, sure, we're a couple steps removed from H. P. Lovecraft.  Fair enough.  But, shouldn't we fix things that we know are wrong?  Using a real world religious figures to describe the religious leaders of an evil, violent, primitive groups is wrong.  It is just wrong.  We know better.  And you fix it, not because you're winning points or trying to change minds.  You fix it because it's the right thing to do.



Yoinked and altered.  They didn't transplant those ideas intact.  D&D isn't a couple of steps removed from Lovecraft.  It's about half a mile.


----------



## jasper

We could replace "Shaman" with "Caster of Arcana, Divine, and other magics. Who are sometime leaders of the tribe  this group of monsters (see Monster Manual page ? for definition of  monsters).


----------



## Maxperson

jasper said:


> you forgot a word Shaman in 5e mean "religious leader of evil, violent, primitive FANTASY groups." .



The don't even mean that much.  Hussar just refuses to acknowledge facts that multiple people here have shown him and continues to repeat what he knows to be untrue.  Shamans in 5e mean anyone of any humanoid race of any alignment.


----------



## Umbran

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> One other thing : in its best aspect, tradition is the way of the proven things.




And in its worst aspect?  Slavery and oppression.  So, yeah, there's that.



> If you've got a tradition which has brought you good things in the past, without bad consequences, why not follow it ?




So, the devil is in that "without any bad consequences".

Absolutes (like "without _ANY_....") are rather extreme statements.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and we haven't haven't seen even ordinary proof on this.

If you turn this into a case where others present bad consequences which you refuse to accept, and you then stand there and say, "Well, nobody proved me wrong, so I am correct!", you have fundamentally failed to understand where the burden of proof lies in the matter.

There is also, as Aldarc has kindly brought up, a difference between cultural diffusion and cultural misappropriation that you don't seem to be acknowledging.  Failure to recognize that difference leaves your argument as a "bait and switch", silently trading out definitions of the term before claiming everything is really okay.

So, I'm not terribly impressed with your position yet.


----------



## Galandris

Umbran said:


> There is also, as Aldarc has kindly brought up, a difference between cultural diffusion and cultural misappropriation that you don't seem to be acknowledging.  Failure to recognize that difference leaves your argument as a "bait and switch", silently trading out definitions of the term before claiming everything is really okay.
> 
> So, I'm not terribly impressed with your position yet.




The point is, there have been no proof in this thread that people using mana in a variety of languages in CRPGs to describe a slowly replenishable resource of magic points depleted when you cast a spell is cultural misappropriation, has caused any discernable harm to Polynesians, and not just use of a loanword and ascribing to it a new meaning (like PJs). The OP would have been much more received without the accusations of misappropriation and just a neutral post stating that he discovered the origin of the mana word in a video, sharing it and emphasizing the cool stories we could tell by being more conscious on the original meaning of the word and including it in our games.


----------



## Alzrius

jasper said:


> Shaman in the game has been altered from the original meaning.




Fun fact: when a term has changed from its original meaning, indicting its current usage based on how it was formerly used is known as the genetic fallacy.


----------



## Aldarc

Galandris said:


> The OP would have been much more received without the accusations of misappropriation and just a neutral post stating that he discovered the origin of the mana word in a video, sharing it and emphasizing the cool stories we could tell by being more conscious on the original meaning of the word and including it in our games.



Remember when we were at the stage of discussion when you were refusing even to accept that the word or concept was Polynesian in origin? Good times.

That said, the misappropriation happen, but by anthropologists. It was more of a hand-me-down to gamers via literary fiction by the time that we mostly care about.


----------



## Galandris

Aldarc said:


> Remember when we were at the stage of discussion when you were refusing even to accept that the word or concept was Polynesian in origin? Good times.




If you are sincere, then my ability to convey my position and your ability to understand it both have been abysmal and we should refrain from interacting, since such a complete misinterpretation seems only to happen with you. I'll gladly accept blame with regard to the English language, not being my primary language, but your depiction of my position seems so removed from what I said that I don't think such a misunderstanding is only my fault.


----------



## Aldarc

There’s nothing wrong with disengaging if you feel frustrated by our inability to communicate properly with each other.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch.

Umbran said:


> And in its worst aspect?  Slavery and oppression.  So, yeah, there's that.
> [...]
> So, the devil is in that "without any bad consequences".
> 
> Absolutes (like "without _ANY_....") are rather extreme statements.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and we haven't haven't seen even ordinary proof on this.




I'm not making absolute statements. I'm making reasonable statements.

Is it your position that because tradition has good and bad instances, we should never follow tradition ? I'm preaching for following good traditions, if what those traditions are bringing to our life are to our liking and our collective improvement.

Or do you adhere only to good and untarnished concepts in the human experience ? Because nothing is all good or all bad. To desire only good and pure concepts is a fool's errand.


----------



## aramis erak

Maxperson said:


> You're conflating Elvis singing the blues with the racism of the era.  His songs weren't what were keeping those black artists off of the air.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your conflating individuals with the general racism of the era.  They weren't personally keeping minorities out of business.  Stephen King published his first book in 1974.  Katherine Kurtz published hers in 1970, and Anne McCaffery published hers in 1974.  Robert Howard started writing and publishing in 1936.  Mary Shelley started hers in 1818.



When people are reseeding the ideas from these sources, the question becomes "how much fidelity is acceptable for new work?"

From a business standpoint, the answer is "Whatever sells best."

If you test market in liberal-dominant areas, you get liberal-dominant views. If you test market in conservative-dominant areas, you get conservative-dominant views.

WotC's test market is known to start with Seattle, where they are based, in the more liberal side of it, as well... Which puts it right about on par with much of Europe, but way out of sync with large portions of their largest market share - the US market.



Maxperson said:


> They didn't transplant those ideas intact.  D&D isn't a couple of steps removed from Lovecraft.  It's about half a mile.



Yes and no, on Lovecraft... while it's true that D&D shows a stronger correlation to Moorcock's Eternal Champion series (plural), AD&D especially shows an influx of things ripped out of Lovecraft. The most obvious, the Illithids. But also the nature and goals of lower-planar entities are constantly reseeded with lovcraftian elements over the years.

AD&D 1E Appendix N also cites Lovecraft, and several other authors who are known to have been inspired by him. It's fairer to say that Lovecraft's stories are not intended to be replicated, but the horror elements HPL created are intended to be available for use in all editions, especially as some are now more known in their D&D flavor than in the HPL flavor.

I don't think ANY of HPL's ideas about race, gender, or government are meant to be in current editions, and I think Gygax really didn't think about those elements in his inclusions back in the day, either. He was, however, clearly a fan of the purple prose, in as much as he tries to emulate its style in the AD&D 1E rules...

So Lovecraft's influence is subtle but pervasive.


----------



## Fenris-77

I'd be curious to see how many people posting in this thread actually know not just where the work shaman comes from, but how it entered our general lexicon, and how it came to apply to cultural examples well beyond the initial source. Without looking it up on Google first.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Yoinked and altered.  They didn't transplant those ideas intact.  D&D isn't a couple of steps removed from Lovecraft.  It's about half a mile.



AD&D is hardly devoid of Lovecraftianisms. @Doug McCrae is the best documentor of this. Some examples that occur readily to me: cannibalistic tribesmen; the reference to half-orcs as "mongrels" and associated tropes of racial purity vs degeearation;  kuo-toans are Lovecraftian fishmen who are in a state of racial degeneration suffering a tendency to "insanity"; of course body-horror and brain/mind-oriented tropes like aboleths, mind flayers etc.


----------



## Raunalyn

Maxperson said:


> The don't even mean that much.  Hussar just refuses to acknowledge facts that multiple people here have shown him and continues to repeat what he knows to be untrue.  Shamans in 5e mean anyone of any humanoid race of any alignment.




Tends to happen quite a bit, I'm afraid...


----------



## Raunalyn

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd be curious to see how many people posting in this thread actually know not just where the work shaman comes from, but how it entered our general lexicon, and how it came to apply to cultural examples well beyond the initial source. Without looking it up on Google first.



"One Who Knows"

It's an old Manchurian word, I believe. And I didn't Google it, either. I knew quite a few practicing druids and Wiccans in my youth


----------



## Hussar

If Shaman apply to any race of any alignment, then, why is that not reflected in the Monster manual or in any of the text regarding shaman?  

Why are there no 5e elven shaman?  Someone above mentioned orc and goblin shaman.  Orcs are tribal, yet, their religious figures are clerics - complete with cleric spell list.  And no mention of shaman whatsoever in the orc writeup.  Goblins do not mention religious figures at all in the Monster Manual.  Perhaps in Volo's?

Instead, shaman are limited to violent, primitive, and, yes, while they might not be given evil alignment, evil monsters.  @Doug McCrae has very clearly outlined why these creatures would be called evil.  

So, no, DRUIDS can be any alignment.  The NPC writeup for druids says that some druids can serve as shaman, but, give no actual information beyond that.  The only concrete examples of shaman in 5e (note, I'm specifying 5e D&D here yet again so that we don't hare off down the rabbit hole of dragging in other games) is directly connected to violent, primitive, evil races.  

Hell, ok, take out evil.  It doesn't really matter.  People seem to think that if one minor point is "disproved" then nothing is right.  Sure, we can keep the blinders on and only look at one thing at a time without bothering with things like context, but, that just leads to more rabbit holes.  We have to maintain a broader view here - how are shaman presented in ALL OF 5e.  Not just this paragraph or that line.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The main themes of D&D – heroic fantasy, Good vs Evil, zero to hero, flashy magic – are not Lovecraftian. But, to add to what @pemerton said, there are a number of Lovecraftian elements in the 5e D&D core rules:

The "Great Old One" warlock patron, the Far Realm, Tharizdun, cultists, ghouls, and amorphous tentacled monsters such as the gibbering mouther and yochlol demon. The roper comes directly from the TV show Space: 1999 but I don’t think it could’ve existed without Lovecraft.

The Yuan-ti probably derive partly from the Lovecraft story The Curse of Yig. This curse turns human beings into snakes. Yig is worshipped by Native Americans. The human ancestors of the Yuan-ti "worshiped serpents as totem animals" (5e MM). They live in Mesoamerican-style step pyramids. Robert E Howard’s serpent people and their almost human descendants in The Children of the Night and People of the Dark were likely also a source.

The Points of Light setting somewhat resembles Lovecraft’s cosmic horror but on a smaller scale. Most of the default 5e D&D world is monster-infested wilderness. "Wild regions abound. City-states, confederacies, and kingdoms of various sizes dot the landscape, but beyond their borders the wilds crowd in. People know the area they live in well... but few know what lies beyond the mountains or in the depths of the great forest" (5e DMG).

Likewise in Lovecraft's Mythos stories the distant past, the far future, space, other dimensions, the sea deeps, and parts of rural New England, among other places, are all the realm of monsters. "We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." (The Call of Cthulhu). In D&D otoh the PCs _are_ meant to voyage far - that's the game!

5e PHB (emphasis mine):

THE GREAT OLD ONE​​Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. Its motives are incomprehensible to mortals, and its knowledge so immense and ancient that even the greatest libraries pale in comparison to the vast secrets it holds. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.​​Entities of this type include Ghaunadar, called That Which Lurks; Tharizdun, the Chained God; Dendar, the Night Serpent; Zargon, the Returner; *Great Cthulhu*; and other unfathomable beings.​
5e DMG:

THE FAR REALM​​The Far Realm is outside the known multiverse. In fact, it might be an entirely separate universe with its own physical and magical laws. Where stray energies from the Far Realm leak onto another plane, matter is warped into alien shapes that defy understandable geometry and biology. Aberrations such as mind flayers and beholders are either from this plane or shaped by its strange influence.​​The entities that abide in the Far Realm itself are too alien for a normal mind to accept without strain. Titanic creatures swim through nothingness there, and unspeakable things whisper awful truths to those who dare listen. For mortals, knowledge of the Far Realm is a struggle of the mind to overcome the boundaries of matter, space, and sanity. Some warlocks embrace this struggle by forming pacts with entities there. Anyone who has seen the Far Realm mutters about eyes, tentacles, and horror.​


----------



## Fenris-77

Raunalyn said:


> "One Who Knows"
> 
> It's an old Manchurian word, I believe. And I didn't Google it, either. I knew quite a few practicing druids and Wiccans in my youth



It's a cognate of the Tungus verb saman, meaning 'to know'. So you're close. That was only half the question though.


----------



## Maxperson

aramis erak said:


> Yes and no, on Lovecraft... while it's true that D&D shows a stronger correlation to Moorcock's Eternal Champion series (plural), AD&D especially shows an influx of things ripped out of Lovecraft. The most obvious, the Illithids. But also the nature and goals of lower-planar entities are constantly reseeded with lovcraftian elements over the years.
> 
> AD&D 1E Appendix N also cites Lovecraft, and several other authors who are known to have been inspired by him. It's fairer to say that Lovecraft's stories are not intended to be replicated, but the horror elements HPL created are intended to be available for use in all editions, especially as some are now more known in their D&D flavor than in the HPL flavor.
> 
> I don't think ANY of HPL's ideas about race, gender, or government are meant to be in current editions, and I think Gygax really didn't think about those elements in his inclusions back in the day, either. He was, however, clearly a fan of the purple prose, in as much as he tries to emulate its style in the AD&D 1E rules...
> 
> So Lovecraft's influence is subtle but pervasive.




Inspiration is different from pulling straight from Lovecraft's books without making changes.  While There are things that are superficially Lovecraftian, like Mind Flayers, they don't have anything like the kind of horror feel of Lovecraft's writings.  WotC has actually put much more of Lovecraft into the game with their Old Ones and outsider stuff, which they introduced in 3e than Gygax had.  Just look at the Alienist from the Complete Arcane.  




pemerton said:


> AD&D is hardly devoid of Lovecraftianisms. @Doug McCrae is the best documentor of this. Some examples that occur readily to me: cannibalistic tribesmen; the reference to half-orcs as "mongrels" and associated tropes of racial purity vs degeearation;  kuo-toans are Lovecraftian fishmen who are in a state of racial degeneration suffering a tendency to "insanity"; of course body-horror and brain/mind-oriented tropes like aboleths, mind flayers etc.




Or maybe cannibalistic tribesman were inspired by tribesmen from the Amazon.  Mongrels from dogs where it meant mixed breed.  Degenerate beings are not purely Lovecraftian, either.  The humans in the future from the book The Time Machine were degenerate.  Did Lovecraft have some influence?  Absolutely.  It's not as strong as you guys want to make it out to be, though.


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> The main themes of D&D – heroic fantasy, Good vs Evil, zero to hero, flashy magic – are not Lovecraftian. But, to add to what @pemerton said, there are a number of Lovecraftian elements in the 5e D&D core rules:
> 
> The "Great Old One" warlock patron, the Far Realm, Tharizdun, cultists, ghouls, and amorphous tentacled monsters such as the gibbering mouther and yochlol demon. The roper comes directly from the TV show Space: 1999 but I don’t think it could’ve existed without Lovecraft.
> 
> The Yuan-ti probably derive partly from the Lovecraft story The Curse of Yig. This curse turns human beings into snakes. Yig is worshipped by Native Americans. The human ancestors of the Yuan-ti "worshiped serpents as totem animals" (5e MM). They live in Mesoamerican-style step pyramids. Robert E Howard’s serpent people and their almost human descendants in The Children of the Night and People of the Dark were likely also a source.
> 
> The Points of Light setting somewhat resembles Lovecraft’s cosmic horror but on a smaller scale. Most of the default 5e D&D world is monster-infested wilderness. "Wild regions abound. City-states, confederacies, and kingdoms of various sizes dot the landscape, but beyond their borders the wilds crowd in. People know the area they live in well... but few know what lies beyond the mountains or in the depths of the great forest" (5e DMG).
> 
> Likewise in Lovecraft's Mythos stories the distant past, the far future, space, other dimensions, the sea deeps, and parts of rural New England, among other places, are all the realm of monsters. "We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." (The Call of Cthulhu). In D&D otoh the PCs _are_ meant to voyage far - that's the game!
> 
> 5e PHB (emphasis mine):
> 
> THE GREAT OLD ONE​​Your patron is a mysterious entity whose nature is utterly foreign to the fabric of reality. It might come from the Far Realm, the space beyond reality, or it could be one of the elder gods known only in legends. Its motives are incomprehensible to mortals, and its knowledge so immense and ancient that even the greatest libraries pale in comparison to the vast secrets it holds. The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.​​Entities of this type include Ghaunadar, called That Which Lurks; Tharizdun, the Chained God; Dendar, the Night Serpent; Zargon, the Returner; *Great Cthulhu*; and other unfathomable beings.​
> 5e DMG:
> 
> THE FAR REALM​​The Far Realm is outside the known multiverse. In fact, it might be an entirely separate universe with its own physical and magical laws. Where stray energies from the Far Realm leak onto another plane, matter is warped into alien shapes that defy understandable geometry and biology. Aberrations such as mind flayers and beholders are either from this plane or shaped by its strange influence.​​The entities that abide in the Far Realm itself are too alien for a normal mind to accept without strain. Titanic creatures swim through nothingness there, and unspeakable things whisper awful truths to those who dare listen. For mortals, knowledge of the Far Realm is a struggle of the mind to overcome the boundaries of matter, space, and sanity. Some warlocks embrace this struggle by forming pacts with entities there. Anyone who has seen the Far Realm mutters about eyes, tentacles, and horror.​



Yeah.  WotC has brought far more Lovecraftian influences into the game than Gygax ever did.  Even so, they're mainly just names and some broad themes of being "otherworldly," rather than close to how Lovecraft would have portrayed them.


----------



## Fenris-77

Alzrius said:


> Fun fact: when a term has changed from its original meaning, indicting its current usage based on how it was formerly used is known as the genetic fallacy.



Unless you actually know anything about the specific use and spread of the word shaman this isn't helpful. Nor is it particularly correct in this case.


----------



## Umbran

Raunalyn said:


> Maybe you should refrain from accusing others of something when you are going to deliberately misinterpret their comment.




*Mod Note:*

That's enough.

At the point when you feel someone is no longer discussing in good faith, that's the time you should stop discussing.

When you cannot be respectful, it is time to stop talking.


----------



## Hussar

Heh, I just thought of something.

We can totally answer one of the great alignment questions of D&D of all time.  What to do with prisoners.  After all, this is a question that has plagued tables since day 1 - can we kill prisoners?  set them loose?  take them back to town?  What's the answer?

Well, boys and girls, this thread has the answer.

We can EAT them.  That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil.  Apparently.  So, we solve so many in game problems at once.  Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week.  No more needing to carry around rations.  

It's the Swiftest solution to a problem.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd be curious to see how many people posting in this thread actually know not just where the work shaman comes from, but how it entered our general lexicon, and how it came to apply to cultural examples well beyond the initial source. Without looking it up on Google first.





Fenris-77 said:


> It's a cognate of the Tungus verb saman, meaning 'to know'. So you're close. That was only half the question though.



Yeah, it comes from the Tungusic/Evenki word šaman. It was brought into European vocabularies essentially after Russia conquered Siberia and other Europeans began traveling these new Russian territories. As to how it was applied to other cultural examples, the answer is typically from European sociologists, ethnolinguists, anthropologists, comparative religion scholars, etc.


----------



## Hussar

The last few pages aside, I have a feeling that most of us agree on things.  Other than some fairly minor issues (what to do right now - edit future printings of the Monster Manual or not - again, not a hill I'm going to die on, despite having an opinion) I'd say we've got this pretty much licked.

Older edition books are already covered by the disclaimer that WotC is putting on the books.  In the (hopefully fairly near) future, introduce a shaman of some sort to the game - be it a full class, a subclass, or a bit of lore with a couple of different example stat blocks - (and, thinking about it, there's no reason you couldn't do all of the above) - to balance out how shaman are presented in the game.

Anyone have a major issue with this?


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> The last few pages aside, I have a feeling that most of us agree on things.  Other than some fairly minor issues (what to do right now - edit future printings of the Monster Manual or not - again, not a hill I'm going to die on, despite having an opinion) I'd say we've got this pretty much licked.
> 
> Older edition books are already covered by the disclaimer that WotC is putting on the books.  In the (hopefully fairly near) future, introduce a shaman of some sort to the game - be it a full class, a subclass, or a bit of lore with a couple of different example stat blocks - (and, thinking about it, there's no reason you couldn't do all of the above) - to balance out how shaman are presented in the game.
> 
> Anyone have a major issue with this?



I don’t really see how anyone can argue with adding positive examples to balance things out. It seems like the way through most of the problems being identified.

Lucky WOC! It turns out being balanced and representative gives you more product to sell!


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> The last few pages aside, I have a feeling that most of us agree on things. Other than some fairly minor issues (what to do right now - edit future printings of the Monster Manual or not - again, not a hill I'm going to die on, despite having an opinion) I'd say we've got this pretty much licked.
> 
> Older edition books are already covered by the disclaimer that WotC is putting on the books. In the (hopefully fairly near) future, introduce a shaman of some sort to the game - be it a full class, a subclass, or a bit of lore with a couple of different example stat blocks - (and, thinking about it, there's no reason you couldn't do all of the above) - to balance out how shaman are presented in the game.
> 
> Anyone have a major issue with this?




Never going to argue against more content!


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Heh, I just thought of something.
> 
> We can totally answer one of the great alignment questions of D&D of all time.  What to do with prisoners.  After all, this is a question that has plagued tables since day 1 - can we kill prisoners?  set them loose?  take them back to town?  What's the answer?
> 
> Well, boys and girls, this thread has the answer.
> 
> We can EAT them.  That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil.  Apparently.  So, we solve so many in game problems at once.  Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week.  No more needing to carry around rations.
> 
> It's the Swiftest solution to a problem.



This is worth quoting in full, for two reasons:

(1) Humour value. Especially the last line.

(2) I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.


----------



## Galandris

Hussar said:


> We can totally answer one of the great alignment questions of D&D of all time.  What to do with prisoners.  After all, this is a question that has plagued tables since day 1 - can we kill prisoners?  set them loose?  take them back to town?  What's the answer?
> 
> Well, boys and girls, this thread has the answer.
> 
> We can EAT them.  That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil.  Apparently.  So, we solve so many in game problems at once.  Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week.  No more needing to carry around rations.
> 
> It's the Swiftest solution to a problem.




Indeed. Provided extrajudicial killing in the first place is not an Evil act (something that can't be deduced for sure from the lizardman example, because the trespassers could be convicted by a legitimate authory, and we had countless example in the fluff of kingdoms not being labelled evil despite using death penalty, so we know judicial killings aren't objectively evil in D&D), once you've killed them, _you can as well eat them_ instead of dying of starvation yourself. The idea of borrowing already legitimate convicts with a death sentence to kill them and eat them as you go, like self-moving rations, before going to adventure is a _great_ idea. I am not fan of act-based objective morality systems generally (because it leads to this sort of silly things), but since we have one, we might as well take it to its logical consequences. 



> In the (hopefully fairly near) future, introduce a shaman of some sort to the game - be it a full class, a subclass, or a bit of lore with a couple of different example stat blocks - (and, thinking about it, there's no reason you couldn't do all of the above) - to balance out how shaman are presented in the game.
> 
> Anyone have a major issue with this?




Absolutely not. Same with mana. Add, don't substract, without unneeded drama.

I am looking forward to playing a lizardman shaman. We know they are usually tribe leaders, but to be more exact they are called tribe chefs.






They know how to deal with intruders. That's a flavourful subclass!


----------



## TheSword

pemerton said:


> This is worth quoting in full, for two reasons:
> 
> (1) Humour value. Especially the last line.
> 
> (2) I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.



I think with these descriptions so called Mens Rea is as important as Actus Reus.

I think most people would agree that the rugby players and their families crashing in the Andes who were forced to eat the dead to survive were not evil.

The residents of Terminus (walking dead) probably are.

The ‘why’ is almost as important as the act.


----------



## Hussar

Galandris said:


> They know how to deal with intruders. That's a flavourful subclass!




That just makes me giggle so much.  ROTFLMAO


----------



## Crimson Longinus

What the tangent about Lovecraftian influences in D&D had to do with anything? I feel that I kinda missed the point of that...


----------



## Doug McCrae

Hussar said:


> We can EAT them.  That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil.  Apparently.  So, we solve so many in game problems at once.  Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week.  No more needing to carry around rations.



And if the PCs are too full to eat any more monsters or they've captured monsters that don't taste good then they can be sacrificed to the gods.

The downside is that when the PCs interrupt a group of 'evil' cultists performing a human sacrifice, they can't do anything about it because that's no longer an evil act.

'Evil' High Priest: "Like our scaly friends the lizardfolk, I have no concept of good and evil so that means I can do whatever I want. Cast Know Alignment on me and you'll see I'm neutral. This is a neutral cult. We're sacrificing the princess to Obad-Hai."


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> We can EAT them.  That's right, eating prisoners is not an evil act and is not evil.  Apparently.  So, we solve so many in game problems at once.  Take a couple of prisoners, and you're fed for the week.  No more needing to carry around rations.
> 
> It's the Swiftest solution to a problem.



That would absolutely work for a lizardfolk party. For a human/dwarven/elven party? Probably not so much. Unless those characters hailed from a culture in which cannibalism is ok, of course.

Good aligned cannibal: only eats enemies who died in battle.
Neutral aligned cannibal: can eat enemy prisoners when food is lacking, but makes their death quick and painless, taking no pleasure in causing suffering.
Evil aligned cannibal: eats whoever, slowly, painfully and torturously, and enjoys every minute of it.



pemerton said:


> I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.



A possible counter-argument: cannibalism has been practiced in the past by several RL cultures (and they were sometimes wiped out by foreign "civilized" peoples for it). By calling lizardfolk evil because of their cannibalistic practices, we would, by extent, be calling those human cultures evil, as well.
That sounds very colonialistic to me.


----------



## Galandris

Olrox17 said:


> A possible counter-argument: cannibalism has been practiced in the past by several RL cultures (and they were sometimes wiped out by foreign "civilized" peoples for it). By calling lizardfolk evil because of their cannibalistic practices, we would, by extent, be calling those human cultures evil, as well.
> That sounds very colonialistic to me.




Because that is. The lizardfolk are practicing human sacrifice (like the Mayans), sometimes perform cannibalism (like the Aztecs to a debatable extent), don't use advanced tools like the wheel and advanced ironworking like the Incas. The conquistadors arrived and said "hew, they are barbarians". While they were an advanced, if misunderstood, culture. Lacking cultural relativism, conquistadors painted them as evil because they judged them according to their worldview.

In D&D, the objective morality system makes them Neutral, because apparently, it's much sympathetic to the Mayan worldview than the Conquistador's. Of course, if you're a CG adventurer who just wanted to cross their land to seek the McGuffin (a fountain of youth?), you'll probably have a very dim view on their practices and if you escape, you'll probably perpetuate the myth that they are evil nonetheless. But you'll be objectively wrong in the setting. While you would be objectively right if the objective morality happened to align with your own, Western, views on these matters.


----------



## TheSword

This thread is so off topic it feels like it’s lost in the Maztican jungle!


----------



## jasper

Olrox17 said:


> ........
> 
> Good aligned cannibal: only eats enemies who died in battle.
> Neutral aligned cannibal: can eat enemy prisoners when food is lacking, but makes their death quick and painless, taking no pleasure in causing suffering.
> Evil aligned cannibal: eats whoever, slowly, painfully and torturously, and enjoys every minute of it.
> ......



Lies Lies and more lies.
Good Aligned. Eats whomever Medium Rare
Neutral Aligned. Eats whomever Medium.
Evil Aligned. Eats whomever WELL DONE!


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> Yeah, it comes from the Tungusic/Evenki word šaman. It was brought into European vocabularies essentially after Russia conquered Siberia and other Europeans began traveling these new Russian territories. As to how it was applied to other cultural examples, the answer is typically from European sociologists, ethnolinguists, anthropologists, comparative religion scholars, etc.



So you're familiar with the definition of shaman from anthropology and the history of religion then. Excellent. That means you know that the term was coined by anthropologists, and is used to describe a variety of religious practices the world over. Would you say that that definition is used by anthropology generally in a negative or judgemental fashion?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is worth quoting in full, for two reasons:
> 
> (1) Humour value. Especially the last line.




I'm really not sure what's so funny about, "It's the Swiftest solution to a problem."  Just kidding, I know which line you meant and it was pretty darn funny.



> (2) I think it brings out the absurdity of the argument above, that lizadfolk et al are properly categorised as Netural, better than any attempt at laboriously setting out the argument.



This however is untrue.  There's a big difference between eating sentient beings that are truly nothing but food to you(neutral in D&D,) and eating sentient beings just as a convenient way to kill them and not get in trouble, which could be and in my opinion is an evil act.


----------



## Maxperson

Crimson Longinus said:


> What the tangent about Lovecraftian influences in D&D had to do with anything? I feel that I kinda missed the point of that...



Racism.  Lovecraft was racist, so some people feel that anything inspired by Lovecraft is also racist.


----------



## Maxperson

jasper said:


> Lies Lies and more lies.
> Good Aligned. Eats whomever Medium Rare
> Neutral Aligned. Eats whomever Medium.
> Evil Aligned. Eats whomever WELL DONE!



Okay.  That was even funnier than Hussar's cannibal line.


----------



## Fenris-77

I find it odd, in this thread especially, that a moment of non-judgement on the part of WotC should be met with such resistance. There's nothing inherently evil about cannibalism. It's certainly taboo, but not evil. At the very least I would think it appropriate to address the issue with some nuance. Endocannibalism? Exocannibalism? Context? That sort of thing.


----------



## Fenris-77

Maxperson said:


> Racism.  Lovecraft was racist, so some people feel that anything inspired by Lovecraft is also racist.



And those people would be glaringly incorrect.


----------



## Raunalyn

Maxperson said:


> Racism.  Lovecraft was racist, so some people feel that anything inspired by Lovecraft is also racist.



Wait, so Lovecraft is canceled now?


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> So you're familiar with the definition of shaman from anthropology and the history of religion then. Excellent. That means you know that the term was coined by anthropologists, and is used to describe a variety of religious practices the world over. Would you say that that definition is used by anthropology generally in a negative or judgemental fashion?



Jein. I do think that there are some anthropologists who attempt to use it critically as a term to describe the particular worldview and practices. However, it was often imposed on a number of indigenous cultures’ spiritual leaders, and not always with great accuracy or care (e.g., American Indians / First Nations).* Euro-American scholars most definitely did place shamanism in a lower position in the “ideological hierarchy” regarding what they felt was the evolution of religious thought, typically from more “primitive” animistic shamanism to “lo and behold!” (Abrahamic) monotheism. This was the prevailing way to view religions in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, and despite scholarly resistance against such reductionistic (and condescending) interpretations, it is arguably still fairly pervasive among popular thought. This is part of the “baggage” that the word carries with it as a descriptive term.

* As I said earlier, there have been a number of American Indian nations that have increased their resistance to the imposition of the term “shaman” on their medicine men and other spiritual leaders.


----------



## Fenris-77

Raunalyn said:


> Wait, so Lovecraft is canceled now?



I prefer to say that some people who are incapable of parsing his works have elected to practice a selective blindness as regards the mythos. Their loss.


----------



## Raunalyn

Fenris-77 said:


> I prefer to say that some people who are incapable of parsing his works have elected to practice a selective blindness as regards the mythos. Their loss.



Agreed


----------



## Fenris-77

@Aldarc - I think those groups should have some issues. The term has always been very general, and the fit to any one exemplar is never perfect. That does kind of speak to my point though - Shaman is really more of a general use term than it is indexed to a particular culture. It's an academic construct. That's why I think arguments about cultural appropriation and its use fall rather flat.


----------



## Hussar

Fenris-77 said:


> I prefer to say that some people who are incapable of parsing his works have elected to practice a selective blindness as regards the mythos. Their loss.




Seriously?

Good grief, what does a writer have to do?  Lovecraft was quite open in his bigotry and used his writing to promote his racist views.  Numerous works tie straight into this.  Do I need to list them or can we take that as given?  Are you seriously questioning the notion that Lovecraft was a bigot?  Or, are you questioning that his bigotry never appeared in any of his mythos works?  

What, exactly, do you mean by "selective blindness"?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Good grief, what does a writer have to do?  Lovecraft was quite open in his bigotry and used his writing to promote his racist views.  Numerous works tie straight into this.  Do I need to list them or can we take that as given?  Are you seriously questioning the notion that Lovecraft was a bigot?  Or, are you questioning that his bigotry never appeared in any of his mythos works?



We all know that Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Boycotting living people for their obnoxious views makes perfect sense. Boycotting people who have been dead for ages for similar reasons makes zero sense.


----------



## Fenris-77

Hussar said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Good grief, what does a writer have to do?  Lovecraft was quite open in his bigotry and used his writing to promote his racist views.  Numerous works tie straight into this.  Do I need to list them or can we take that as given?  Are you seriously questioning the notion that Lovecraft was a bigot?  Or, are you questioning that his bigotry never appeared in any of his mythos works?
> 
> What, exactly, do you mean by "selective blindness"?



I mean that rather than identify the issue in question, and cull it out, they choose to just pretend the whole set of texts is taboo.  That generally means they also feel very free to lob charges of racism at anything even remotely Lovecraftian. It's perfectly possible to enjoy the Mythos, and use it games, without dragging along it's awful racist component. Putting your fingers in your wars and shouting racism is certainly one way to go, just not a way I think is helpful.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> It's an academic construct. That's why I think arguments about cultural appropriation and its use fall rather flat.



IMO, the fact that it is an academic construct divorced from its original cultural context and (mis)applied to other cultures seems like a point of evidence that it was culturally appropriated.


----------



## Raunalyn

Crimson Longinus said:


> We all know that Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Boycotting living people for their obnoxious views makes perfect sense. Boycotting people who have been dead for ages for similar reasons makes zero sense.



I agree. He was also a product of the time he lived in.

Might as well boycott T.S. Eliot and Roald Dahl for their anti-semitic views, or Dr. Seuss.

This is derailing the conversation, though.


----------



## Raunalyn

Fenris-77 said:


> I mean that rather than identify the issue in question, and cull it out, they choose to just pretend the whole set of texts is taboo.  That generally means they also feel very free to lob charges of racism at anything even remotely Lovecraftian. It's perfectly possible to enjoy the Mythos, and use it games, without dragging along it's awful racist component. Putting your fingers in your wars and shouting racism is certainly one way to go, just not a way I think is helpful.



Tends to happen a lot, unfortunately


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> We all know that Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Boycotting living people for their obnoxious views makes perfect sense. Boycotting people who have been dead for ages for similar reasons makes zero sense.




I dunno.  I don't exactly go out of my way to buy Mein Kampf or incorporate it into my games.  And he's been dead about the same amount of time.

It's not about boycotting though.  It's about recognizing that

A) the Mythos and many of the mythos stories are grounded in some extreme racism.  
B) using Mythos stories and elements from Mythos stories without examination is tantamount to approval of the message.  Or, at the very least, gives the appearance of approval.

Given the mountain of fantasy fiction out there, I'm not sure we need to enshrine one of our most horrid examples of humanity as a source of material for the game.  It's kind of like how they don't use Lovecraft's bust as a writing award anymore after handing one to a black author.  Does make things kinda uncomfortable.  "Yeah, Dave, I know the writer of this stuff I'm using in the game called you a sub-human stain on existence who should be murdered in your sleep, but, his ideas are just SOOOO cool." is a conversation I'd rather not have with my players.  Or my children for that matter.


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> IMO, the fact that it is an academic construct divorced from its original cultural context and (mis)applied to other cultures seems like a point of evidence that it was culturally appropriated.



Appropriated from whom? Thats the question. If it were a cultural term I'd be with you, but it's not. The charge of misapplication is complicated. One, it's not obvious that even were that generally the case, which it isn't, that that fact speaks to misappropriation at all. The movement is in the wrong direction. Nothing is being appropriated from those cultures. Rather an academic discipline is struggling to find broadly descriptive ideas that allow for the comparison of ideas. That process is always one of incremental adjustments. More broadly, the fact that the term is applied in some specific cases in ways that certain cultures disagree with isnt evidence that that is how the term is used in general. That argument runs counter to the way academic disciplines use words like shaman. Every academic puts their own spin on it, and has an individual thesis, and modifies elements of the definition. It's not monolithic.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  I don't exactly go out of my way to buy Mein Kampf or incorporate it into my games.  And he's been dead about the same amount of time.



Since he was talking about using the non-racist portion of Lovecraft's works, and there's a ton of it, how about you remove every racist portion of Mein Kampf and let us know how much is left.

False Equivalences are false.


----------



## Olrox17

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  I don't exactly go out of my way to buy Mein Kampf or incorporate it into my games.  And he's been dead about the same amount of time.
> 
> It's not about boycotting though.  It's about recognizing that
> 
> A) the Mythos and many of the mythos stories are grounded in some extreme racism.
> B) using Mythos stories and elements from Mythos stories without examination is tantamount to approval of the message.  Or, at the very least, gives the appearance of approval.
> 
> Given the mountain of fantasy fiction out there, I'm not sure we need to enshrine one of our most horrid examples of humanity as a source of material for the game.  It's kind of like how they don't use Lovecraft's bust as a writing award anymore after handing one to a black author.  Does make things kinda uncomfortable.  "Yeah, Dave, I know the writer of this stuff I'm using in the game called you a sub-human stain on existence who should be murdered in your sleep, but, his ideas are just SOOOO cool." is a conversation I'd rather not have with my players.  Or my children for that matter.



I think you just won the Godwin award for this thread.
Anyway, fallacy aside, your comparison doesn't make much sense. Mr adolf wasn't much of a writer, especially compared to an actual genius like Lovecraft. Was he a troubled man with some horrible views? Yep. Still a genius though.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Hussar - We're going to disagree about Lovecraft. I don't see any value in not facing and being honest about the seminal works that inform the genre. You cant take Lovecraft out of the horror and fantasy genres even if you wanted to. I'd prefer to identify the racism for what it is so that identifying when it rears its head, either through a lack of examination, or worse through agreement is possible.


----------



## Raunalyn

Fenris-77 said:


> @Hussar - We're going to disagree about Lovecraft. I don't see any value in not facing and being honest about the seminal works that inform the genre. You cant take Lovecraft out of the horror and fantasy genres even if you wanted to. I'd prefer to identify the racism for what it is so that identifying when it rears its head, either through a lack of examination, or worse through agreement is possible.



Exactly...I mean, might as well stop reading Orson Scott Card or teaching T.S. Elliot. And while you're at it, stop reading Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl to your kids, too.

Also, if we are going to go that far, might as well stop reading Clive Barker, Dean Koontz and Stephen King; much of their work was inspired by Lovecraft.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> Appropriated from whom? Thats the question. If it were a cultural term I'd be with you, but it's not.



The Tungusic peoples and their culture. You admit as much when you fished for this question.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  I don't exactly go out of my way to buy Mein Kampf or incorporate it into my games.  And he's been dead about the same amount of time.



That is a political manifest, not a work of fiction.



> It's not about boycotting though.  It's about recognizing that
> 
> A) the Mythos and many of the mythos stories are grounded in some extreme racism.



That is an exaggeration. In some of the stories racist assumptions are part of the premise in some they appear tangentially and in some they do not feature at all.


> B) using Mythos stories and elements from Mythos stories without examination is tantamount to approval of the message.  Or, at the very least, gives the appearance of approval.



Why you assume that this examination has not happened or is not happening? Lovecraft being a horrible racist and this being reflected his stories is not exactly news. It was so apparent that people commented on when he was still alive. 

There is literally a new TV series 'Lovecraft Country' which explores the conjunction of racism and lovecraftian horror. (I haven't seen it yet, so I cannot comment more on it.) 



> Given the mountain of fantasy fiction out there, I'm not sure we need to enshrine one of our most horrid examples of humanity as a source of material for the game.  It's kind of like how they don't use Lovecraft's bust as a writing award anymore after handing one to a black author.  Does make things kinda uncomfortable.  "Yeah, Dave, I know the writer of this stuff I'm using in the game called you a sub-human stain on existence who should be murdered in your sleep, but, his ideas are just SOOOO cool." is a conversation I'd rather not have with my players.  Or my children for that matter.



Yes, his bust as an award is another matter. But his work has merit despite him being personally horrible. A lot of great artists throughout the human history have been pretty horrible people and doubly so if we start to apply modern standards to them (granted, Lovecraft was racist even by standards of his time.) Purging our media from products of people with questionable morals would leave very little. It simply is not a sensible or a feasible standard. Sure, applying pressure to hateful people who are still alive, but the dead are beyond our reach. We can (and should) remember that they were terrible people and still find merit in their art.


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> The Tungusic peoples and their culture. You admit as much when you fished for this question.



It comes from a Tungus verb, not a cultural title. Big difference. Nor is the word shaman, by anyone's definition, limited to the Tungis culture. Nor has it ever been. The project has always been one of comparison.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> It comes from a Tungus verb, not a cultural title.



FYI, it’s fairly common for verbs to become nouns. Saying that the word comes from a verb is kinda meaningless. If we take ‘shaman’ to mean “one who knows” then we are likely dealing with a verbal noun or an etymological root. The word that is the focus of my dissertation (Hebrew rûāh.): wind, breath, spirit, temperament) is believed to trace its origin to the verb RWH. (to be spacious, wide) and yet we would still recognize rûāh. as a noun. From what I can tell in my searches so far, the spiritual leaders of the Evenks are referred to as “shamans”. Do you have a source for their actual cultural title? 



> Nor is the word shaman, by anyone's definition, limited to the Tungis culture. Nor has it ever been. The project has always been one of comparison.



You mean since Euro-American scholars took the term and applied it to other cultures? Okay. So how is appropriating another cultural term divorced from its original context not cultural appropriation again?


----------



## Fenris-77

Aldarc said:


> FYI, it’s fairly common for verbs to become nouns. Saying that the word comes from a verb is kinda meaningless. If we take ‘shaman’ to mean “one who knows” then we are likely dealing with a verbal noun or an etymological root. The word that is the focus of my dissertation (Hebrew rûāh.): wind, breath, spirit, temperament) is believed to trace its origin to the verb RWH. (to be spacious, wide) and yet we would still recognize rûāh. as a noun. From what I can tell in my searches so far, the spiritual leaders of the Evenks are referred to as “shamans”. Do you have a source for their actual cultural title?
> 
> You mean since Euro-American scholars took the term and applied it to other cultures? Okay. So how is appropriating another cultural term divorced from its original context not cultural appropriation again?



You keep saying a term was appropriated. It wasnt. Obviously the Tungus peoples had a title for their religious intermediaries. Using that word would be appropriation. I dont see any serious argument where using a verb that means one who knows is somehow culturally specific though. 

I also think your argument about using that word to describe other cultures is a complete canard. Unless you're suggesting that studying cultures shouldn't be undertaken, which is arrant nonsense, the only way you can do that is through a process of comparison and contrast. Keep in mind that many of the scholars you so quickly accuse were also using that same word to describe elements of their own cultures. The study of extant preliterate cultures in order to expand our knowledge of non extant ones is a perfectly cromulent academic pursuit. This isnt controversial. Nor is it a process that requires or assumes cultural appropriation. It might, academics are individuals, and pretty obviously not without their own biases, but that doesnt mean you get to toss the baby out with the  bathwater.


----------



## Aldarc

Fenris-77 said:


> You keep saying a term was appropriated. It wasnt. *Obviously the Tungus peoples had a title for their religious intermediaries.* Using that word would be appropriation.



What is or was that word then?



> I dont see any serious argument where *using a verb that means one who knows* is somehow culturally specific though.



Why do you keep dismissing its nominal status by acting like a verbal noun or a participle (noun) can't act as a noun? Your approach is linguistically unsound.



> I also think your argument about using that word to describe other cultures is a complete canard. Unless you're suggesting that studying cultures shouldn't be undertaken, which is arrant nonsense, the only way you can do that is through a process of comparison and contrast. Keep in mind that many of the scholars you so quickly accuse were also using that same word to describe elements of their own cultures. The study of extant preliterate cultures in order to expand our knowledge of non extant ones is a perfectly cromulent academic pursuit. This isnt controversial. Nor is it a process that requires or assumes cultural appropriation. It might, academics are individuals, and pretty obviously not without their own biases, but that doesnt mean you get to toss the baby out with the  bathwater.



Seems like you are clearly constructing a false dilemma here between using this word to describe other cultures or not being able to study other cultures at all.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Aldarc - excellent reply. It deserves my full attention and an actual keyboard. I'll get a reply up when I'm home.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> FYI, it’s fairly common for verbs to become nouns. Saying that the word comes from a verb is kinda meaningless. If we take ‘shaman’ to mean “one who knows” then we are likely dealing with a verbal noun or an etymological root. The word that is the focus of my dissertation (Hebrew rûāh.): wind, breath, spirit, temperament) is believed to trace its origin to the verb RWH. (to be spacious, wide) and yet we would still recognize rûāh. as a noun. From what I can tell in my searches so far, the spiritual leaders of the Evenks are referred to as “shamans”. Do you have a source for their actual cultural title?




It doesn't matter.  Shaman is just the generic word for a variety of religious practices that have some similarities.  It's no different than using Polytheistic to describe various cultures that worshiped multiple/pantheons of gods.  Using Polytheistic doesn't appropriate the specifics of a culture.  If I create a fictional D&D country and develop some gods for it, then describe it as polytheistic, I haven't appropriated anything from Greek culture, Roman culture, Japanese culture or any other culture that had multiple gods.  Shaman is the same way.  Using Shaman doesn't take from any culture since it's just a generic religious term for someone who deals with spirits.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

So, I just read back several pages of the thread, and what we see is the same argument, about one word, going on, and on, and on, and on, with no resolution. 

If there is no sign of resolution, or forward motion into something constructive, this thread will close shortly.


----------



## Doug McCrae

I think I've found the source for lizard men/lizardfolk, in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan at the Earth's Core. Was planning a post connecting it with the treatment of cannibalism elsewhere in Burroughs. It could go in its own thread, as it is only weakly related to mana and shamans.


----------



## Cadence

Fenris-77 said:


> I'd be curious to see how many people posting in this thread actually know not just where the work shaman comes from, but how it entered our general lexicon, and how it came to apply to cultural examples well beyond the initial source. Without looking it up on Google first.






Aldarc said:


> The Tungusic peoples and their culture. You admit as much when you fished for this question.




Thank you both for making me go read more on it!   It's probably outdated in parts, but was interesting reading the view from 1917 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/660223 .


----------



## aramis erak

Fenris-77 said:


> I find it odd, in this thread especially, that a moment of non-judgement on the part of WotC should be met with such resistance. There's nothing inherently evil about cannibalism. It's certainly taboo, but not evil. At the very least I would think it appropriate to address the issue with some nuance. Endocannibalism? Exocannibalism? Context? That sort of thing.



Most real world human cannibalism is funerary praxis.

On the other hand, a significant risk to chimps, gorillas, and bonobos is human predation upon them; these are beings with a sense of self, the ability to learn languages, the ability to communicate at a basic level non-linguistically across species...

And many people consider the eating of fellow apes (noting that taxonomically, humans are also apes) to be evil. 

It's a fine line.



TheSword said:


> The extent at which cultural appropriation is a bad thing is very much a live debate. We aren’t talking about the Benin Bronzes here. We are talking about the usage of words. More so, the use of words for fiction. The issue is not resolved and to expect a derivative game like this to be ahead of the curve is an unreasonable expectation.



Even what qualifies is debatable.


Crimson Longinus said:


> We all know that Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Boycotting living people for their obnoxious views makes perfect sense. Boycotting people who have been dead for ages for similar reasons makes zero sense.



Not when people are making money off of continuing to sell said bigotry.
When a reprint of one of HPL's books is made, someone is benefitting financially from the reprint, and the reprints are continuing to advance HPL's own xenophobia and racism.
Boycotting HPLs work, even in reprint, or works derived from his works (such as CoC), makes perfect sense in that those opposed to the views of HPL don't want his works reprinted, but forgotten.
Boycotting the derivatives, even when sanitized, helps reduce the incentives to produce non-sanitized derivatives and to reduce interest in reading the originals.


----------



## Hussar

Fenris-77 said:


> @Hussar - We're going to disagree about Lovecraft. I don't see any value in not facing and being honest about the seminal works that inform the genre. You cant take Lovecraft out of the horror and fantasy genres even if you wanted to. I'd prefer to identify the racism for what it is so that identifying when it rears its head, either through a lack of examination, or worse through agreement is possible.




As a Shakespeare fan, I totally understand what you mean.

But, to put it in a personal context, I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage.  According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth.  So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids?  "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."  

Basically, you're saying that because he had cool ideas, we're supposed to just ignore the context of those ideas.  Ignore the fact that people still make considerable amounts of money from that context.  

Or, as an alternative, we could let him fade into history like so many other genre authors of the time.  

See, I'm not sure that "finding merit in their art" is really worth the price.  There are all sorts of brilliant writers out there.  There have been more original fantasy works printed since 2000 than in the previous century.  I'm pretty sure we can find some pretty cool ideas there.  Let the past go.  Consign it to the dustbin of history along with the other trash and instead celebrate works by authors who weren't horrible people.  

Is that really too much to ask?  Is your pretend eldritch horror really that important?


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> But, to put it in a personal context, I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage.  According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth.  So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids?  "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."




Or (and this is a crazy idea here, I know), you can simply not introduce it. If you feel that strongly about it, then don't read it...don't play it. You have that right.

You know who else has the right to read it and enjoy the game and who often like to play it? A good majority of people who enjoy their eldritch horror.


----------



## Umbran

aramis erak said:


> Not when people are making money off of continuing to sell said bigotry.
> When a reprint of one of HPL's books is made, someone is benefitting financially from the reprint, and the reprints are continuing to advance HPL's own xenophobia and racism.




So, I think this is oversimplified.  And it ignores the possibility of constructive derivatives.



> Boycotting HPLs work, even in reprint, or works derived from his works (such as CoC), makes perfect sense in that those opposed to the views of HPL don't want his works reprinted, but forgotten.




So, perhaps you should go read _Lovecraft Country_, by Matt Ruff (and about to be a series on HBO), and also _The Ballad of Black Tom_, a novella by Victor LaValle.  Both recent works that take Lovecraft's mythos and his racism, and tell the stories from the point of view of African American characters to explore those issues.

Such works cannot exist if the original works are forgotten.

In general, rather than erase problematic works, it is better to _use them to teach about the problems_.  If you forget the problematic work, you cannot properly remember the harm it did, either.


----------



## Raunalyn

Umbran said:


> So, perhaps you should go read _Lovecraft Country_, by Matt Ruff (and about to be a series on HBO), and also _The Ballad of Black Tom_, a novella by Victor LaValle.  Both recent works that take Lovecraft's mythos and his racism, and tell the stories from the point of view of African American characters to explore those issues.




_Lovecraft Country _is amazing, by the way. Can't wait until the HBO series comes out.


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> Or (and this is a crazy idea here, I know), you can simply not introduce it. If you feel that strongly about it, then don't read it...don't play it. You have that right.
> 
> You know who else has the right to read it and enjoy the game and who often like to play it? A good majority of people who enjoy their eldritch horror.




But, I was just told that I could simply ignore the problematic elements of the work and introduce it to anyone and it wouldn't be a problem.  But, now you're telling me that I shouldn't introduce it to just anyone, but, only to certain people apparently who hold certain points of view - ie. we can ignore the bigotry so long as the other ideas are cool enough.  You don't see any problem with that?  You don't see the issue when someone walks into an FLGS and sees that great big honking Cthulhu statue in the corner, or posters on the wall, or the games prominently displayed.  Oh, yeah, that's welcoming.  "Hello!  Welcome to our hobby.  Don't mind the racism."

I mean, you've mentioned Dr Seuss a few times now.  But, you're ignoring context. 
 1.  Schools ARE adjusting reading lists and syllabi to lessen the reliance on Seuss and to introduce more works from other authors, and, 
 2.  Suess' problematic works are a very, very small amount of the total works that he produced and, are probably some of his least known and least taught works.  

So, your example doesn't really say what you think it says.  We already ARE stopping reading Dr. Seuss.  Because it's recognized that there are other authors out there that are better examples of works that should be taught to children.  AFAIK, Orson Scott Card isn't on scholastic reading lists (although I could be wrong).  And, frankly, do you WANT him to be?  Given that we have thousands of authors to choose from, many of which aren't raging bigots and homophobes, perhaps if you were designing a reading list for schools, you might skip that one.  

I guess that's my basic point.  There are literally thousands of authors, tens of thousands of works in the genre to choose from.  Do we really need to enshrine THIS author in the game?  Would removing the word Cthulhu from the description of Warlocks completely change how we understand GOO Warlocks?  Heck, even if we removed GOO warlocks (which I'm NOT advocating), would the game radically change?

I'm not saying we should never look at Lovecraft.  But, there's a difference between excising Lovecraft entirely and enshrining his works front and center in our hobby.  AFAIK, Cthulhu is the only non-D&D setting reference in all of the 5e books.  No other work gets mentioned at all.  Umm, maybe not taking the sole example of a non-D&D bit of lore from someone whose writing makes Klansmen blush?


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> But, I was just told that I could simply ignore the problematic elements of the work and introduce it to anyone and it wouldn't be a problem.  But, now you're telling me that I shouldn't introduce it to just anyone, but, only to certain people apparently who hold certain points of view - ie. we can ignore the bigotry so long as the other ideas are cool enough.  You don't see any problem with that?  You don't see the issue when someone walks into an FLGS and sees that great big honking Cthulhu statue in the corner, or posters on the wall, or the games prominently displayed.  Oh, yeah, that's welcoming.  "Hello!  Welcome to our hobby.  Don't mind the racism."




I knew that was coming...that's a mighty big strawman there. I said if you don't like it, don't read it. You are the one who chose to completely misinterpret my comment. 

I think Umbran said it best earlier; since it is clear that you aren't discussing in good faith, there's no further reason to engage you. 

@Umbran made a very well stated point about using it to teach about the problem rather than erase it. I think that is good advice


----------



## Campbell

There are some really great socially conscious takes on Mythos fiction including both Lovecraft Country and Harlem Unbound that use the framework Lovecraft put in place to explore class and race boundaries in a very fruitful way. Some other latter day Mythos authors have managed to excise most of the racist and colonialist tropes while still providing tense tales of cosmic horror. I think they are worthwhile.

I think the same can be done in our hobby. I favor an approach that seeks to bring nuance and a critical eye towards these tropes - just the sort of work Paizo (Pathfinder), Fantasy Flight Games (Legend of the 5 Rings) and Chaosium (Call of Cthullhu) are doing right now. The same sort of approach Tanith Lee, Gene Wolf, and Michael Moorcock took to Swords and Sorcery.

Let's also be crystal clear here. Lovecraft was not an author who happened to be racist. He authored fiction embedded with his own racist fears.  Robert E. Howard called him out for doing so.


----------



## Fenris-77

Hussar said:


> As a Shakespeare fan, I totally understand what you mean.
> 
> But, to put it in a personal context, I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage.  According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth.  So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids?  "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."
> 
> Basically, you're saying that because he had cool ideas, we're supposed to just ignore the context of those ideas.  Ignore the fact that people still make considerable amounts of money from that context.
> 
> Or, as an alternative, we could let him fade into history like so many other genre authors of the time.
> 
> See, I'm not sure that "finding merit in their art" is really worth the price.  There are all sorts of brilliant writers out there.  There have been more original fantasy works printed since 2000 than in the previous century.  I'm pretty sure we can find some pretty cool ideas there.  Let the past go.  Consign it to the dustbin of history along with the other trash and instead celebrate works by authors who weren't horrible people.
> 
> Is that really too much to ask?  Is your pretend eldritch horror really that important?



So, at risk of getting banned or whatever, _bleep_ Lovecraft, and _bleep_ his racism. I'm not saying you need to live with that. I'm actually saying no one dors. Lovecraft doesnt control his texts. We do.

*Mod Edit:* Foul language removed. ~Umbran


----------



## Dire Bare

Umbran said:


> So, perhaps you should go read _Lovecraft Country_, by Matt Ruff (and about to be a series on HBO), and also _The Ballad of Black Tom_, a novella by Victor LaValle.  Both recent works that take Lovecraft's mythos and his racism, and tell the stories from the point of view of African American characters to explore those issues.
> 
> Such works cannot exist if the original works are forgotten.
> 
> In general, rather than erase problematic works, it is better to _use them to teach about the problems_.  If you forget the problematic work, you cannot properly remember the harm it did, either.





Campbell said:


> There are some really great socially conscious takes on Mythos fiction including both Lovecraft Country and Harlem Unbound that use the framework Lovecraft put in place to explore class and race boundaries in a very fruitful way. Some other latter day Mythos authors have managed to excise most of the racist and colonialist tropes while still providing tense tales of cosmic horror. I think they are worthwhile.
> 
> Let's also be crystal clear here. Lovecraft was not an author who happened to be racist. He authored fiction embedded with his own racist fears.  Robert E. Howard called him out for doing so.




I am soooooooo looking forward to _Lovecraft Country_ on HBO . . . . .


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But, to put it in a personal context, I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage.  According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth.  So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids?  "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."




Or you could just not run it like that.  You could be like, "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but I want you to understand that the guy who wrote it a long time ago was racist, so I changed all those parts of the game.  Those fish people you met at Innsmouth were just fish people from beyond time and space. That's it."


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> So, at risk of getting banned or whatever, naughty word Lovecraft, and naughty word his racism. I'm not saying you need to live with that. I'm actually saying no one dors. Lovecraft doesnt control his texts. We do.



This.  There's only as much racism in a game of Cthulhu as you put into it.  Lovecraft has no ability to reach from beyond the grave and change your game.


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> I knew that was coming...that's a mighty big strawman there. I said if you don't like it, don't read it. You are the one who chose to completely misinterpret my comment.
> 
> I think Umbran said it best earlier; since it is clear that you aren't discussing in good faith, there's no further reason to engage you.
> 
> @Umbran made a very well stated point about using it to teach about the problem rather than erase it. I think that is good advice



No, @Raunalyn, that's not what you said.  What you said was:



> Or (and this is a crazy idea here, I know), you can simply not introduce it. If you feel that strongly about it, then don't read it...don't play it. You have that right.
> 
> *You know who else has the right to read it and enjoy the game and who often like to play it? A good majority of people who enjoy their eldritch horror*.




Kinda missing that second bit there in your response.  Not really sure how it's a strawman when you are flat out stating that "people who enjoy their eldritch horror" can enjoy Lovecraft.  But, what about the inherent bigotry in the text?  I have no problems enjoying the eldritch horror part.  That's groovy.  I DO have a problem enshrining raging bigots into the hobby and celebrating their work.

"Don't like it, don't read it" means, "Don't play D&D if you don't like it".  Sorry, but, I like the hobby.  I enjoy playing D&D.  Not sure I really want my hobby of choice to be tied to raging bigotry though.  Not really comfortable just telling people "don't read it if you don't like it".  Not exactly the message I would want to put out there.


----------



## Hussar

Dire Bare said:


> I am soooooooo looking forward to _Lovecraft Country_ on HBO . . . . .




If you like that, take a listen to the Drabblecast August episodes where they deconstruct Lovecraft every year and present all sorts of different stories and authors doing just that.  It's been going on for a few years now.  Really great stuff.


----------



## Raunalyn

Hussar said:


> Kinda missing that second bit there in your response.  Not really sure how it's a strawman when you are flat out stating that "people who enjoy their eldritch horror" can enjoy Lovecraft.  But, what about the inherent bigotry in the text?  I have no problems enjoying the eldritch horror part.  That's groovy.  I DO have a problem enshrining raging bigots into the hobby and celebrating their work.




There was no point in addressing that because you attacked a really big strawman at the very first part of your comment. In fact, you claimed I was making an argument that I actually didn't make...the argument you attacked wasn't even close to the comment I made. That is known as a strawman. So why address the rest of your shallow argument when you are going to argue in bad faith?



Hussar said:


> "Don't like it, don't read it" means, "Don't play D&D if you don't like it".  Sorry, but, I like the hobby.  I enjoy playing D&D.  Not sure I really want my hobby of choice to be tied to raging bigotry though.  Not really comfortable just telling people "don't read it if you don't like it".  Not exactly the message I would want to put out there.




No, that's your interpretation and putting words in my mouth. I have no control over how you choose to interpret my comment (which, by the way, was yet another strawman argument (my, but you like those)).

Again, we're done here. You have no interest in being intellectually honest, so why bother addressing anything else you say?


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> /snip
> 
> In general, rather than erase problematic works, it is better to _use them to teach about the problems_.  If you forget the problematic work, you cannot properly remember the harm it did, either.




Do you think that a D&D rulebook is the place to teach about the problems?  

Do you really think that if we stopped using Lovecraft in games, we would forget about racism?


----------



## Hussar

Raunalyn said:


> Again, we're done here. You have no interest in being intellectually honest, so why bother addressing anything else you say?




I completely agree.  I agreed with you before as well.  I'm just wondering, if you insist that I'm being intellectually dishonest, and attacking people, and not posting in good faith, WHY do you keep directly addressing me?  And then why do you keep getting annoyed when I respond to you directly addressing me?

If you don't want to talk to me, here's an easy thought, stop directly addressing me.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Do you think that a D&D rulebook is the place to teach about the problems?



As a place to teach kids in a fun way?  Absolutely.



> Do you really think that if we stopped using Lovecraft in games, we would forget about racism?




That wasn't the point.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

@Raunalyn and @Hussar, please stop.  Your quibbling is adding nothing to the discussion. Both of you disengage from each other.  Thanks.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Do you think that a D&D rulebook is the place to teach about the problems?




If you're going to make an supplement on Cthulhu Mythos horror, a segment addressing it would be called for.  



> Do you really think that if we stopped using Lovecraft in games, we would forget about racism?




I don't think my response to a post suggesting boycott of _all Lovecraft's writing and derivative works_ even vaguely implies that I think that.  

Do please try to keep up with the context.  It matters.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> If you're going to make an supplement on Cthulhu Mythos horror, a segment addressing it would be called for.




So, the inclusion of Cthulhu in the PHB is fine without comment?




> I don't think my response to a post suggesting boycott of _all Lovecraft's writing and derivative works_ even vaguely implies that I think that.
> 
> Do please try to keep up with the context.  It matters.




Fair enough.  You stated that



> If you forget the problematic work, you cannot properly remember the harm it did, either.




so, exactly what can we no longer properly remember if we forgot about Lovecraft?

And, note, I am not suggesting a boycott of all Lovecraft's writing and derivative works.  I'm sorry if I implied that.  I'm suggesting that perhaps, IN D&D, we could pull out direct references to Lovecraft so that I don't have to explain why we are using material from a raging bigot in our game that is supposed to be welcoming to everyone.  The point is rather well made that if we are serious about the game being welcoming to everyone, then perhaps it's a good time to eject some historical baggage that really does have some rather brutal origins.

See, since we're talking about context, let's delve a bit more into the notion of "if you don't like it, don't read it."  Because, I agree, context matters.  A lot.

If I say, "I don't really like Tolkien, it's not my bag.  I find it boring to read", well, that's an opinion and you can pretty much take it or leave it.  And, in that context, "don't read it then" is probably perfectly fine to say.

However, "I don't like the Mythos in my hobby because the writer of the Mythos considers my children to be worthless degenerates who should be strangled at birth" is a bit of a different context.  Is it equal to tell me, "Just don't read it then"?


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> So, the inclusion of Cthulhu in the PHB is fine without comment?




Once again, context matters.  I am not going to give a general stamp of approval of a pig in a poke.



> so, exactly what did that mean then if it doesn't meant that we would somehow forget about racism if we forgot about Lovecraft?




If you forget about Lovecraft, you lose context on the damage done _by Lovecraft's writing_.  And, since Lovecraft came to influence much of the horror genre, that's rather a lot of understanding lost.



> See, since we're talking about context, let's delve a bit more into the notion of "if you don't like it, don't read it."




That rather simple statement is not my notion.  You're free to delve into it, but you're talking about what other folks have said at this point.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> /snip
> 
> If you forget about Lovecraft, you lose context on the damage done _by Lovecraft's writing_.  And, since Lovecraft came to influence much of the horror genre, that's rather a lot of understanding lost.
> /snip




I'm not sure I agree with that.  I don't really need to understand Lovecraft to know that Howard's writing is problematic.  Or to take a more modern example, Stephen King.  Do I really need to know that Lovecraft wrote X in order to look at a later work and recognize bigotry in the later work?


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that.  I don't really need to understand Lovecraft to know that Howard's writing is problematic.




Well, now we seem to be making Lovecraft a special case.  Why?  If Howard is problematic, too, why isn't his work getting the Lovecraft treatment?

My position is not vulnerable to that cascade failure.



> Do I really need to know that Lovecraft wrote X in order to look at a later work and recognize bigotry in the later work?




Given how often folks fail to see racism or sexism when they are not themselves the target?  Knowing the history enhances your ability to recognize it when it is in front of you.


----------



## TheSword

A large chunk of Eberron is influenced by Cosmic Horror and the Cthulhu Mythos, Xoriat and the Daelkyr for instance. Keith Baker made the Orcs (who Echo the ‘othered’ tribespeople often pictured in the Cthulhu Mythos) the protectors and guardians of the world against the Mythos. It may not have been intentional but turning things like that on its head is a good way of subverting and undoing the harm while keeping the good.


----------



## Hussar

Well, since you mention it, yoinking Howard out probably wouldn't hurt all that much either.  

The PHB lists HP Lovecraft as a source of inspiration for players in Appendix E.  There is nothing mentioned whatsoever about the history or background there.  How is that educating people about the racism in the works?

And, as far as folks failing to see racism or sexism, well, whether or not they've read Lovecraft probably won't suddenly lift the scales from their eyes.  There are none so blind and all that.


----------



## Hussar

To be perfectly fair here, I'm probably making more out of this than it needs to be.  Lovecraft, honestly, is a very good example of taking something that is fundamentally flawed and reforming it and reclaiming the good parts.  Like @TheSword says, Eberron uses lots of Mythos styles material.  And, frankly, that's become so ingrained into so much of genre fiction that it would be completely unrealistic to try to remove it.

OTOH, though, if we reclaim the Mythos material, doesn't that mean that we can take Lovecraft off of his pedastal?  You want to know about Mythos stuff?  There's a hundred authors I can point you to that are doing fantastic Mythos inspired stuff.  Do we need to remember Lovecraft at this point?


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> To be perfectly fair here, I'm probably making more out of this than it needs to be.  Lovecraft, honestly, is a very good example of taking something that is fundamentally flawed and reforming it and reclaiming the good parts.  Like @TheSword says, Eberron uses lots of Mythos styles material.  And, frankly, that's become so ingrained into so much of genre fiction that it would be completely unrealistic to try to remove it.
> 
> OTOH, though, if we reclaim the Mythos material, doesn't that mean that we can take Lovecraft off of his pedastal?  You want to know about Mythos stuff?  There's a hundred authors I can point you to that are doing fantastic Mythos inspired stuff.  Do we need to remember Lovecraft at this point?



So much of Lovecraft fiction wasn’t written by him, I never really put him on a pedestal. In my opinion Lovecraft anthologies should have an essay at the start (or in an appendix at the end) referencing some of the issues. To be clear I’d have no problem with either oriental adventures edition having the same thing as part of a pdf pack sale.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah.  Sorry about that folks.  Was chasing my own tail there.  It's so easy to get wrapped up in pointless minutia and lose sight of the primary issues.   My bad.


----------



## Aldarc

Regarding the whole "but it comes from a verb" line of argument for the etymology of "shaman": We actually see this fairly regularly with a lot of nouns, including nouns for religious titles both in English and other languages, such as Hebrew. One word, in particular, that I have I have in mind here is "seer". It is a title for a religious/spiritual functionary, but it clearly comes from the verb "to see." The use of verb-derived nouns for religious functionaries is arguably clearer in the Hebrew texts of the Bible, and we can see it (no pun intended) likewise with its use of "seer".



> *1 Sam 9,9: *(Formerly in Israel, anyone who went to inquire of God would say, “Come, let us go to the *seer*”; for the one who is now called a prophet was formerly called a *seer*.)



The title of _ro'eh_ (seer) derives from the Hebrew verb _ra'ah_ (to see), but it serves as Samuel's official title, though he is also a _kohen_ (i.e., priest).


Spoiler



There is also a lovely bit of irony in 1 Samuel 16, which is the story of Samuel's anointing of David as king. Samuel is a seer who fails to see appropriately, with God telling Samuel that he fails to see properly because he sees as mortals do (i.e., to/with the eyes) and not as God does (to the heart). So even though Samuel serves as the divine functionary of a "seer," his humanity still limits the capacity of his sight.



Likewise the title/function of _kohen_ (priest) likely derives from the verb the older verb _kahan _(to be/serve as a priest)_._ In this case, however, the noun shaped how the verb likely developed from its original sense: e.g., to mediate in religious services.

With both of these words, you can see a similar transformation from the standard verbal root in the Qal stem X*a*X*a*X to its masculine singular participle form X*o*X*e*X. But this is not always the verb to noun transformation that takes place.

We commonly understand the Hebrew word _nabi'_ to mean "prophet" (from the Greek _προφήτης : one who foretells _[pro_-_phemi-tes])* as a result of the Septuagint translation. This carries a lot of assumptions about what a _nabi'_ does. However, it actually means "one who proclaims,  calls," which derives from the verb _naba'_ (to call, proclaim). To be a "prophet" (_nabi'_) in the Hebrew Bible is not to "foretell" the future, but, rather, to proclaim on behalf/for God. (There are other terms/titles/offices for divining the future.)

* Here also noting that "_προφήτης_" is a noun that derives from a verb.

This is all to say, that depending upon the language, the idea of a nouns deriving from verbs is hardly so far-fetched that this observation should serve as the basis of dismissing a word's use as a cultural title or religious function. The idea that saman/shaman may derive from a verb seems less like an argument and more like a trite observation that deserves scribbling _"So what?"_ with red ink in the margins of the assignment.



Cadence said:


> Thank you both for making me go read more on it!   It's probably outdated in parts, but was interesting reading the view from 1917 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/660223 .



Neat. Other sources I have read also is skeptical of its meaning of "one who knows," and instead thinks that its meaning/etymology derives instead from dancing, jumping, and motion.

All that said, just because shaman was appropriated from the Tungusic peoples does not mean that it cannot be used by scholars to describe the pertinent phenomenon. However, the main issues that I have amounts to (1) the scholarly (and subsequently lay) indiscriminate misapplication of the term to various contemporaneous and historic cultures and (2) the hierarchical presumptions and judgments that frames it as a more primitive/lesser form of religious expression. These are really the more relevant issues when it comes to our hobby anyway.


----------



## aramis erak

Campbell said:


> Let's also be crystal clear here. Lovecraft was not an author who happened to be racist. He authored fiction embedded with his own racist fears.  Robert E. Howard called him out for doing so.



Robert Howard himself isn't a great example of avoiding racist tropes in his own works; it's this which highlights why HPL is so problematic: he's sufficiently advocating for racism that it caused the relatively racist by modern standards REH to make negative commentary which is known 4 score years later. 

I personally don't buy anything labeled with the Cthulhu mythos, but have received some as well meaning but unwelcome gifts. I don't worry so much personally about 2nd or 3rd order removals (L5R, WH40K) myself... but I'd really rather 5E didn't include it (nor REH, nor ERB) in the recommended reading, specifically because they are all writing fiction where racism is front-and-center.

Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era. Recommending them blanket for an appendix most likely to be used by Teens is, in my professional opinion as a former educator, irresponsible. I feel much the same about ERB's John Carter.

Now, I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.

HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious. 

Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works. Having seen sufficient excerpts of his more racist elements, and having seen sufficient academic, peer, and other reviews pointing out the overt racism, xenophobia, and dismal worldview, I can say that I've seen nothing of merit in what I've seen of his works, and seen nothing indicating I'd find it elsewhere in his works

@Umbran I was primarily responding to why people would boycott HPL and derivatives. While I wish more would boycott HPL and things labeled as being with the Mythos' various key IP elements, I'm not personally advocating for that level of boycott.



Hussar said:


> So, the inclusion of Cthulhu in the PHB is fine without comment?



I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.

I could see listing Howard and Boroughs with a "These works contain racist and genderist themes, and being listed here as inspirations is not endorsement of their worldview."

HPL should have an even more strongly worded disclaimer if used, but logical consistency isn't a hallmark of reading list selection even in most educators' lists for their students.



> so, exactly what can we no longer properly remember if we forgot about Lovecraft?
> 
> And, note, I am not suggesting a boycott of all Lovecraft's writing and derivative works.  I'm sorry if I implied that.  I'm suggesting that perhaps, IN D&D, we could pull out direct references to Lovecraft so that I don't have to explain why we are using material from a raging bigot in our game that is supposed to be welcoming to everyone.  The point is rather well made that if we are serious about the game being welcoming to everyone, then perhaps it's a good time to eject some historical baggage that really does have some rather brutal origins.
> 
> See, since we're talking about context, let's delve a bit more into the notion of "if you don't like it, don't read it."  Because, I agree, context matters.  A lot.
> 
> If I say, "I don't really like Tolkien, it's not my bag.  I find it boring to read", well, that's an opinion and you can pretty much take it or leave it.  And, in that context, "don't read it then" is probably perfectly fine to say.
> 
> However, "I don't like the Mythos in my hobby because the writer of the Mythos considers my children to be worthless degenerates who should be strangled at birth" is a bit of a different context.  Is it equal to tell me, "Just don't read it then"?



QFT


----------



## TheSword

aramis erak said:


> Robert Howard himself isn't a great example of avoiding racist tropes in his own works; it's this which highlights why HPL is so problematic: he's sufficiently advocating for racism that it caused the relatively racist by modern standards REH to make negative commentary which is known 4 score years later.
> 
> I personally don't buy anything labeled with the Cthulhu mythos, but have received some as well meaning but unwelcome gifts. I don't worry so much personally about 2nd or 3rd order removals (L5R, WH40K) myself... but I'd really rather 5E didn't include it (nor REH, nor ERB) in the recommended reading, specifically because they are all writing fiction where racism is front-and-center.
> 
> Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era. Recommending them blanket for an appendix most likely to be used by Teens is, in my professional opinion as a former educator, irresponsible. I feel much the same about ERB's John Carter.
> 
> Now, I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.
> 
> HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious.
> 
> Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works. Having seen sufficient excerpts of his more racist elements, and having seen sufficient academic, peer, and other reviews pointing out the overt racism, xenophobia, and dismal worldview, I can say that I've seen nothing of merit in what I've seen of his works, and seen nothing indicating I'd find it elsewhere in his works
> 
> @Umbran I was primarily responding to why people would boycott HPL and derivatives. While I wish more would boycott HPL and things labeled as being with the Mythos' various key IP elements, I'm not personally advocating for that level of boycott.
> 
> 
> I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.
> 
> I could see listing Howard and Boroughs with a "These works contain racist and genderist themes, and being listed here as inspirations is not endorsement of their worldview."
> 
> HPL should have an even more strongly worded disclaimer if used, but logical consistency isn't a hallmark of reading list selection even in most educators' lists for their students.
> 
> 
> QFT



If you cut out the views of people you don’t agree with you miss out on a great deal.

Heart of Darkness, Robinson Crusoe and Moby Dick are all quite shocking in parts now. However I can recognize these elements and yet still see why the books are consistently in lists of the best 100 books ever.

When something is a product of its time I think you just have to accept that there will be elements you don’t agree with. Understand it and move on. There is an argument that Lovecraft was worse than his time, but at that point it’s all relative.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> When something is a product of its time I think you just have to accept that there will be elements you don’t agree with. Understand it and move on. *There is an argument that Lovecraft was worse than his time,* but at that point it’s all relative.



I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.



I think he was a very sick man in many different way that ways. It almost certainly contributed to his ideas, good and bad.

His obvious social disfunction and the means in which he was being published - letter and magazines rather than a reputable publisher - didn’t help with the dog doop that mixes in which some of the stuff he wrote.

To be clear, I suspect a number of people imagined it, they just didn’t write it down and release it to the public.

His pretty horrible upbringing doesn’t justify these ideas but it helps understand why was so out of touch with the times.


----------



## Maxperson

aramis erak said:


> I don't think so. I don't think Howard or Boroughs should be, either. Most especially because of the claims of inclusivity within the PHB. It's a logical inconsistency that a game advocating equality is recommending books with pretty heavy sexual and racial inequality in their texts. I will say that Boroughs is just across the line I'd draw, but was still more forward looking than the rest of the era. He did have strong women in some of his works. Thuvia, Deja, and a few others. But the Barsoom politics are inherently rampantly racist between the red and white Martians; the question of "is it racism if they're clearly another species" doesn't really make it any the less racist.



And yet they included the Greek, Norse and Celtic deities in the PHB, despite those cultures owning slaves and mistreating women.  Further, there are even stories of some of those gods chasing down and raping women.


----------



## pemerton

aramis erak said:


> Howard's Conan stories (not others, just REH's) are casually racist in the same way as most other authors of his era.



I think REH is pretty awful in this respect - the Vale of Lost Women is one low point, Beyond the Black River another.



aramis erak said:


> I have paid for, read, and enjoyed REH's Conan, Kull, and Solomon Kane stories - but not when I was in the still impressionable Under 16 crowd. And I don't think them appropriate for my 16 YO, nor should they be in school libraries general circulation.



I've also purchased REH works, the Patrice Louinet critical editions. I've got a copy of HPL stories also, with an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates.

I wouldn't be keen on my younger daughter reading them. Maybe my teenager, if she wanted to, though I think I would have to give her a warning in advance.



aramis erak said:


> HPL, however, is another whole level of bad. Individual derivatives may or may not have merit as literature, but as a general rule, I don't think encouraging reading the originals to be meritorious.
> 
> Add to that that, having tried several times to read HPL, so as to be able to make an informed opinion, I found the lack of actual skill as a writer to be sufficiently annoying that I couldn't finish the works.



I agree that he is, on the whole, not a very good writer. There is a contrast here with REH, whose work is pretty readable.

Some of HPL's ideas and tropes are interesting, like the dream-influence of Cthulhu and Atlantis rising again as a source of terror rather than redemption. But the "cosmic horror" seems to rest on two main bases: being disconcerted by relativity, and being disconcerted by cosmopolitan modernity. The latter is where the personal racism feeds into the fiction, using language or tropes of "race science"; the central idea seems to be that cultural contact and interaction will inevitably drag modern people down to an imputed "lowest level". Neither seems very compelling to me, which means that I can't move beyond the interest in the tropes to any actual sense of fear or dread.



Hussar said:


> I'm in a mixed marriage and my children are of mixed heritage.  According to Lovecraft, I'm a race traitor and my children should have been strangled at birth.  So, how exactly am I supposed to introduce Call of Cthulhu to my kids?  "Oh, hey, honey, here's this really cool game with really cool monsters and horror elements.  Let's play, but, you have to promise me that you won't read the source material for this game because then you'll realize that those fish people we met at Innsmouth are actually supposed to be you."
> 
> Basically, you're saying that because he had cool ideas, we're supposed to just ignore the context of those ideas.  Ignore the fact that people still make considerable amounts of money from that context.
> 
> Or, as an alternative, we could let him fade into history like so many other genre authors of the time.



I can relate very much to this, and it informs my preference about my children reading HPL and REH.

In both cases, though, I think I might be more willing than you to prise the ideas of the context. That's not any sort of critical judgement of your approach, just an account of mine.

But I don't think I would include these works in a recommended reading list, as opposed to (say) a scholarly bibliography.


----------



## Galandris

Maxperson said:


> And yet they included the Greek, Norse and Celtic deities in the PHB, despite those cultures owning slaves and mistreating women.  Further, there are even stories of some of those gods chasing down and raping women.




I agree with your main point that art shouldn't be forgotten because you object to the values held by the culture or individual producing the art, but the gods you mention in the PHB are accompanied by a bizarre warning: "They include deities that are most appropriate for use in a D&D game,_ divorced from their historical context in the real world_ and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game". So basically, they just lift names and portfolio and transplant them into the game, with no "real life connection". I suppose that's how they can paint Apollo as an (objectively) Good god.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> I agree with your main point that art shouldn't be forgotten because you object to the values held by the culture or individual producing the art, but the gods you mention in the PHB are accompanied by a bizarre warning: "They include deities that are most appropriate for use in a D&D game,_ divorced from their historical context in the real world_ and united into pantheons that serve the needs of the game". So basically, they just lift names and portfolio and transplant them into the game, with no "real life connection". I suppose that's how they can paint Apollo as an (objectively) Good god.



Yes.  They divorce pretty much everything that they use, though. Medusa contains no such warning, but it's not as if the MM Medusa was punished by Athena for the temerity of having been raped in one of her temples by another god.  That's the biggest issue I have with connecting things in D&D to the real world.  There really isn't the connection that some people think is there.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Maxperson said:


> That's the biggest issue I have with connecting things in D&D to the real world.  There really isn't the connection that some people think is there.



I completely agree.

Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.


----------



## aramis erak

Doug McCrae said:


> I completely agree.
> 
> Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
> Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.



I find myself wondering: where is the line between meat to eat and meat to meet (aka people)? Are only homo sapiens people? Or Genus Homo? Or Subfamily homininae? or family Hominidae?

It's one of those lines that, when combined with the subject matter of names and behaviors of fictional groups, affects how one reacts, especially when confronted with REH and that generation's casual racism...


----------



## Galandris

aramis erak said:


> I find myself wondering: where is the line between meat to eat and meat to meet (aka people)? Are only homo sapiens people? Or Genus Homo? Or Subfamily homininae? or family Hominidae?




MaxPerson (I think) pointed out that chimpanzees were on the brink of extinction because of hunting. It is sold as bushmeat, it's legal and tasty for humans to eat members of the same family and subfamily (of the genus Pan). We no longer have an opportunity to taste other members of the genus Homo, but at the time this was a possibility, cannibalism was practiced within the Homo sapiens population, so it would be unlikely that we had reluctance to eat an Homo Neandertalensis. I consider a fantasy intelligent, bipedal lizard species to be at least as far evolutionary removed from fantasy human than real life humans are from real life chimpanzees.

The depiction of cannibalism by real-life colonial authors associated it to a deeply disturbing behaviour because:
a) they had no understanding of cultural relativism and thought that because in their culture it is taboo to eat your own kind, it must be evil (and not simply different) to eat your own kind
b) they were prejudiced against the native cultures because one of their goals was to spread christianity, so they demonized every part of the native culture (who actually did only practice cannibalism to a very limited extent) in order to emphasize the need to convert them and force them to adopt their (in their mind) superior values;
c) they were genuinely shocked because, due to lack of relevant knowledge, they probably had never imagined people could eat people as part of a cultural activity and not due to extraordinary circumstances like famine.

Nowadays, we have none of these handicaps and I don't understand them resurfacing when speaking of a saurian fantasy culture while we'd have no problem if we met a human cannibalistic society in an unexplored part of the world. Up until very recently it was supposed that the Andaman North Sentinel residents were cannibals and we didn't go out of our way to fight them nor did we consider them evil.


----------



## Maxperson

Galandris said:


> MaxPerson (I think) pointed out that chimpanzees were on the brink of extinction because of hunting. It is sold as bushmeat, it's legal and tasty for humans to eat members of the same family and subfamily (of the genus Pan). We no longer have an opportunity to taste other members of the genus Homo, but at the time this was a possibility, cannibalism was practiced within the Homo sapiens population, so it would be unlikely that we had reluctance to eat an Homo Neandertalensis. I consider a fantasy intelligent, bipedal lizard species to be at least as far evolutionary removed from fantasy human than real life humans are from real life chimpanzees.



It wasn't me!


----------



## Maxperson

Doug McCrae said:


> I completely agree.
> 
> Shamans in 1e and 5e (A)D&D don't look anything like real world shamans. They look like the racist and colonialist depiction of shamans in Robert E Howard's Conan.
> Lizard man/lizardfolk 'cannibalism' in OD&D and 5e doesn't look anything like real world cannibalism. It looks like the racist and colonialist depiction of cannibalism (and 'cannibalism') in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs.



If you take inspiration from somewhere else, but aren't taking for things like racism and colonialism, then they don't go with you.  If I decide to add the fish people from Cthulhu that Hussar mentioned as being based on mixed race humans, but I decide that they are not based on mixed race humans, but are rather just fish people from beyond space and time, then none of his racism is in my game.  Even if I use the same name and description for said fish people.

Shamans in D&D don't have Robert E Howard's racist and colonialist baggage, because they aren't the same, even if he inspired the D&D Shamans.  Lizard people are not racist or colonialist in D&D, because they are just lizard people.  Gygax didn't bring over the baggage.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> But I don't think I would include these works in a recommended reading list, as opposed to (say) a scholarly bibliography.




How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?


----------



## Campbell

Hussar said:


> How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?




I would not. If you feel it necessary because of all the Lovecraftian and pulp elements embedded into the game (and there is a lot) I think a warning about its use of racist tropes would be the bare minimum that I would expect.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> How about Appendix E of the 5e PHB?



I don't have a 5e PHB, but from your account of it this seems more like a recommended reading list (like Appendix N in the original DMG) rather than a list of influences for scholarly-type purposes.

I also think that D&D is in a very different position from a smaller RPG self-consciously catering to a smaller audience who are either (i) more familiar with the issues, or (ii) won't be put-off by a gloss or commentary on the listed works.



Campbell said:


> I would not. If you feel it necessary because of all the Lovecraftian and pulp elements embedded into the game (and there is a lot) I think a warning about its use of racist tropes would be the bare minimum that I would expect.



To elaborate on what I've said just above to Hussar: Burning Wheel has a bibliography that supports explanation/commentary which could include this sort of thing. So do Prince Valiant and Pendrgaon. But D&D is presented as a mass-market thing and also as "complete" or "total" in a way that smaller games are not - smaller games are in more of a self-conscious conversation with their audiences.

So if I looked at a D&D reading list, as a first-time purchaser/player, and saw a gloss like that I think I would be asking "Why"? Just don't include them! It's not like new players can't find their way to HPL _and_ HPL commentary on their own if they want to.


----------



## Hussar

It seems to me the simpler solution is to simply not include the name in the "recommended reading" list.  I mean, sure, back in 1976, I wouldn't have expected anything different.  But, in 2015?  An "Inspirational Reading" list of fantasy that includes H. P. Lovecraft but, not J. K. Rowlings?  I will admit, that I'm much more of a SF reader than fantasy, but, ignoring the biggest fantasy writer in history seems something of an oversight.  

And, before anyone says it's about exposure - I'd point out that the list in page 312 in the PHB includes authors like Tolkien and Stephen King.  Not exactly unknown names.


----------



## TheSword

You can be recommended to read something without agreeing with the things inside. When I was recommended to read Heart of Darkness it wasn’t because my dad was trying to make me a racist. It was because the book is amazing at conveying the oppression of environment and being out of your comfort zone.

Acting as if people... even young people can’t recognize and sort racism in books is incredibly patronizing. Filter out the casual BS then enjoy the amazing stories and influences that have shaped modern storytelling. If you don’t want to read the classics I understand that, but there’s a reason a lot of these books are on pretty much every 100 best books list.


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> It seems to me the simpler solution is to simply not include the name in the "recommended reading" list.



By telling people what to read, you’re also telling people what not to read. When the genre has been so wildly influenced by these people not mentioning them is jarring and smacks of putting your head in the sand or worse attempting to sanitize the past.

The list is Gygax’s self identified inspirations with a few added on that have inspired the writers since. I love the HP books but JKRowling not getting on the list doesn’t phase me at all. Its not claiming to be a list of the most popular fantasy books after all. While JK may inspire people to fantasy, what she’s done isn’t new.


----------



## Hussar

I thought the point though was to take the Mythos and strip out the Lovecraft?

It's absolutely not about sanitizing the past.  That's one of those bugaboos that get tossed out which really misses the point.  The point of these discussions is improving the game and making it more accepting and acceptable to more and more people.  Putting a name on the reading list in the PHB that, if you actually read the works, tells about half of your audience that they are worthless pieces of trash that should be exterminated is maybe not the message we want to send?

There are literally thousands of authors we could choose from to put on a list of recommended reading for D&D.   

What I'm saying is that in a list that is celebrating the best of the genre, maybe leaving off the name of the racist bigot isn't so much sanitizing the past as much as accepting that the present has just as much relevance.  And, frankly, the reason that the genre, and D&D, has been a white boys club for so long is this reluctance to step up and say, "Yup, he had some cool ideas, but, y'know what, so did these other authors.  Howzabout we celebrate those other ones and not keep putting people like Lovecraft in prestige positions.


----------



## Olrox17

I suggest we all stop derailing this thread. I, for one, will stop responding to posts about Lovecraft.

@Hussar consider opening your own thread.


----------



## Hussar

Fair enough.

By the same token, we've pretty much come to a consensus on the whole shaman thing, so, this isn't really a big problem.  Well, other than a couple of holdouts, it's pretty much given that:

a) shaman traditions should be added to the game separate from druids
b) shaman traditions should be connected to more than just violent, primitive, cannibalistic groups.  
c) shaman traditions could be added as a class, or as subclasses for existing classes as well as simply a broader addition of lore to various races.

d)  (calling this one out separate because it's my thing and there is disagreement here) future printings of the Monster Manual could remove references to shaman and replace them with druids until such time as A through C are added to the game.  (Note, again, there is disagreement here and it's not really a requirement, just a suggestion)

Does anyone disagree with those?


----------



## Hussar

Olrox17 said:


> I suggest we all stop derailing this thread. I, for one, will stop responding to posts about Lovecraft.
> 
> @Hussar consider opening your own thread.




I would like to point out though, that while I was a participant, I hardly was the one who started talking about Lovecraft.  In fact I tried to stay out of it and failed my saving throw.  Again, it's not a hill I'm going to die on, but, I do believe it sends the wrong message when we tell new gamers, "Hey, this is one of the roots of our game. Don't mind the racism and bigotry that's directed square at you.  Ignore all that and enjoy the really cool ideas."


----------



## TheSword

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> By the same token, we've pretty much come to a consensus on the whole shaman thing, so, this isn't really a big problem.  Well, other than a couple of holdouts, it's pretty much given that:
> 
> a) shaman traditions should be added to the game separate from druids
> b) shaman traditions should be connected to more than just violent, primitive, cannibalistic groups.
> c) shaman traditions could be added as a class, or as subclasses for existing classes as well as simply a broader addition of lore to various races.
> 
> d)  (calling this one out separate because it's my thing and there is disagreement here) future printings of the Monster Manual could remove references to shaman and replace them with druids until such time as A through C are added to the game.  (Note, again, there is disagreement here and it's not really a requirement, just a suggestion)
> 
> Does anyone disagree with those?



Certainly no issue with the first three. The last we’ve discussed at length.


----------



## Galandris

Though I agree mostly with a) and c) and noticed you no longer consider shaman to be associated with evil, so I can generally agree with your first three points, I am still surprised that lizardmen, stone giants and quaggoth are considered "violent" and "primitive" and I'll try to make the point that b) is already implemented in the monster manual.

The stone giant are described this way: "Stone Giants are reclusive, quiet, and peaceful as long as they are left alone [...] They are private creatures, hiding their lives and art away from the world". Later "Stone giants view the world outside their underground homes as realms of dreams [...] Killing prey or sentient beings is no cause for guilt in the dreaming world beneath the sky." and finally "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 stones. Survivors of such encounters spread tales of stone giants violence, never realizing how little those brutes dwelling in the unreal dreaming world resemble their quiet and artistic kin".

So, they carve exquisite art, have advanced stoneworking and masonry techniques that surpasses the dwarfs. There is nothing "primitive" implied in their description, except that they throw rock boulders as a weapon, but catapults do that as well. Basically they didn't need to devise more efficient weapons. They do have an alien view on the surface world, but the only manifestation of violence is against "trespassers" who "stray too far" into their territories. I am not sure the human cultures usually depicted in D&D settings are less violent than that. Think of Eberron: the five main nations had a bloody 100 yaars wars for... succession. They attacked each other because some guy or gal sitting on the local throne wanted to grab his cousins's throne. And these cultures should be lecturing stone giants who just want trespassers to let them alone? I don't think we should hold them to a greater standard of peacefulness than other fantasy cultures. And for those who say that "being in a fantasy isn't an argument", I could add that some real life cultures, among which D&D is sold, fully supports a real life personn who'd shoot at intruders trespassing into his home. Most cultures where D&D is sold would support defensive wars.  Interestingly, stone giant are mostly, in setting, victim of prejudice, since the surviving trespassers (ie, bad guys) "spread tales of stone giant violence". Their brutality is only self defence, granted they might show little pity to trespassers, but who would? Apparently, adventuring groups usually don't have a sense of guilt when they kill bandits, so they are not different from stone giants on this account, despite not sharing the alien giant worldview of the surface world.

Basically, shamans are associated with a peaceful, culturally evolved group of giants, who might even be _less_ violent than the default (human/elves/dwarves) and they are prejudiced against because of tales spread by the default (human/elves/dwarves)...

Same with lizardfolk, they are primitive, but not especially violent. It is only when their shamans jobs are usurped by followers of Ssessinek that "these lizard kings and queens dominate lizardfolk tribes, usurping a shaman's authority and inspiring uncharacteristic aggression among their subjects". They are only violent, like stone giant, when their territory is invaded. Agression is "uncharacteristic" to them. They happen to eat anyone who trespass, making "no distinction between humanoids, beasts and monsters". So, they are omnivorous, big deal! Same, when an evil dragon exploit them, they are turned into "raiders and plunderers". So basically, barring outside, evil, influence, they are just wanting to be left alone. They don't seem to be any more violent than the default. Primitive, yes, alien in their worldview, yes, but violent? Not really.

Interestingly, they are also victims of prejudice (the merchant account above the lizard king stat block, for example) and the (previous edition) blurb about their flesh eating habit. It's easy to suppose that the survivor of a trespassing expedition would spread distorted tales of cannibalism, as in "they all want to eat human flesh" and not "they are omnivorous, including mammal humanoid flesh".

Granted, quaggoth are primitive AND violent. I could make the argument that shaman are associated with one violent culture, one peaceful culture and a neutral culture, so they are associated with the whole spectrum violence-wise. But let's continue and explore the source of this violent culture. The fluff tells us that "Quaggoths were never an enlightened species" (ok, they are primitive) "but they were not always the brutal Underdark denizens they are today. In a distant age, quaggoth tribes dwelled upon the surface as nocturnal arboreal hunters, possessing their own language and culture". Really? So they were more advanced, despite not being "enlightened". OK. What happened? "When elves appeared in the mortal realm, they clashed with the quaggoths, eventually driving them to near extinction". WHAT?!? Elves committed a genocide against a sentient , intelligent, species with a language and culture? I hope they are not setting the standard for morality in the game! And they call the not Quaggoth "not enlightened"? "Only by fleeing deep into the Underdark did the quaggoth survive". Not "into the Underdark" but "deep into the Underdark". Apparentely, the genocidal war against the Quaggoth wasn't just a need for the elves to acquire a territory (since they arrived later and wanted to take some place to live) but they chased them even in the outskirts of the underdark to make them extinct. "Weird magic of their new realm transformed them. Turning increasingly brutal and savage, they ate whatever food they could find -- and when they could not find it, they preyed on each other.  As cannibalism became part of their culture, their past was abandonned". So basically, they had to turn to sustenance cannibalism and were subsequently even more transformed by the dark elves.

In this third, and final example of refence to a culture with shamans, we do have a primitive and violent culture, but it is made explicitely clear that they are in this sorry state because of the genocide conducted by the elves in the distant past, and had to live in the equivalent of a radiation zone. The prejudice against them was immense, to the point of them being killed, all of them, even the baby quaggoths, despite them not being evil, even in their current state.

So in the current 5e MM, shamans are associated with:

Evil Alignment ? 0 case out of 3 (as was shown previously).
Violent ? 1 case out of 3, with a fluff explaining that their inherent violence is the result of being extremely brutalized in the past by a player race and wild magics, and that they had shamans before, when they were not yet violent.
Primitive? 2 cases out of 3.
Prejudiced against by the default setting races ? 3 cases out of 3.

I agree that they could make more explicit the fact that non primitive cultures (ie, metalworking and living in an environment were complex, far ranging social organization beyond the clan level are needed) also have shamans to avoid misconception.

I do like, however, that stone giants, lizardfolks and quaggoth, all who have shamans, are the victim of prejudice by the cultures the players usually hail from. I feel some  can share some of this prejudice "surely, they must be evil, they are CANNIBALS" without considering the origin of this cultural trait (not being a mammal in one case, being forced into it for sustenance reasons in the other) or "they are violent, they throw ROCKS at passer-bys" without considering the self-defense aspect of it and the fact they wouldn't, as PCs, behave differently or "they are primitive, they don't USE METAL TOOLS" without considering that maybe you can have exquisite culture that just happen to not follow the same steps as yours. In exploring the setting, they can realize that the reality is more nuanced, more complex, and that their own approach was judgemental and misguided. It prompts reflection over the player's own values in case he shares some of this prejudice. In setting, if we keep shaman as the religious intermediary of the victims of prejudice, it's easy to include this particular prejudice into the regular PC cultures ("look, they are evil worshippers, they have shaman and not proper clerics") to add another avenue of reflection on whether the PC culture is really in a position to pass judgement over them -- perhaps one more easily acccessible to players, because they will easily realize that shamans aren't inferior to priests, while they may struggle at first with recognizing the other source of prejudice (it's easy not to realize that the violence you're recieving is justified, or to think that cannibalism is inherently evil when our own culture has a cannibalism taboo). If you make shaman more culturally widespread, you remove this particular proof of prejudice by the default culture, but you don't really substract to this trend because there are enough proof of it in the remaining fluff.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Hussar said:


> a) shaman traditions should be added to the game separate from druids



 No they souldn't. D&D druid resmbles a shaman more than it resembles historical druid. Creating a separate shaman class would produce a massive overlap or alternatively avoiding it would mean the shaman lacks elements it should have (like shapeshifing.) It would make more sense to just rename the druid to shaman or just acknowledge that it is an alteranate name for the class that some cultures use. Besides, this game doesn't need more caster classes and generally by demanding that a whole new class would be created just to fix this representation issue over-complicates the matter needlessly. The issue can be fixed far more easily by just altering the flavour text. 



> b) shaman traditions should be connected to more than just violent, primitive, cannibalistic groups.



Yes.



> c) shaman traditions could be added as a class, or as subclasses for existing classes as well as simply a broader addition of lore to various races.



Sure.



> d)  (calling this one out separate because it's my thing and there is disagreement here) future printings of the Monster Manual could remove references to shaman and replace them with druids until such time as A through C are added to the game.  (Note, again, there is disagreement here and it's not really a requirement, just a suggestion)




No. And as you don't need to do A you can just easily add more positive references to shamanism in the lore text with about the same amount of effort it would take to remove the references to shamanism. Granted, the lizardfolk shamans do not seem to practice animism, so they would be more accurately called priests.


----------



## Cadence

Pathfinder 1e had done a few things mentioned above.  

Shamans aren't tied to primitive, "While some heroes speak to gods or consort with otherworldly muses, shamans commune with the spirits of the world and the energies that exist in every living thing. These divine adventurers draw upon their power to shape the world and expand the influence of their spiritual patrons. Shamans have strong ties to natural spirits. They form powerful bonds with particular spirits, and as their power grows they learn to call upon other spirits in times of need." The second to last sentence makes them sound very similar to druids - but it feels like that sentence could be dropped out; some of the spirit options include Ancestors, Battle, Lore, and Tribe. 

For those who want to focus just on shape shifting, PF added the non-spellcasting Shifter class. 

As far as Druids just being Nature priests, didn't the druids in 3.5 (and thus PF) already have things that separated them from the nature clerics beyond just the shape changing? In particular the spontaneous casting being "Summon Nature's Ally" instead of healing and not being able to channel positive or negative energy seems fairly big. In any case, I can still see them being rolled into Cleric, but the Terrain and Totem Animal Archetypes in PF at least seemed like they were trying to emphasize something very different than the usual clerics.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> By the same token, we've pretty much come to a consensus on the whole shaman thing, so, this isn't really a big problem.  Well, other than a couple of holdouts, it's pretty much given that:
> 
> a) shaman traditions should be added to the game separate from druids
> b) shaman traditions should be connected to more than just violent, primitive, cannibalistic groups.
> c) shaman traditions could be added as a class, or as subclasses for existing classes as well as simply a broader addition of lore to various races.
> 
> d)  (calling this one out separate because it's my thing and there is disagreement here) future printings of the Monster Manual could remove references to shaman and replace them with druids until such time as A through C are added to the game.  (Note, again, there is disagreement here and it's not really a requirement, just a suggestion)
> 
> Does anyone disagree with those?



A) I think Shaman should be a separate class, but if it's not, then it fits as a Druid subclass the best, since there's a nature aspect to Shamanism.
B) Is already done and you know that.
C) I can see Shaman as a Druid subclass or Cleric, but I think Druid fits better.


----------



## Maxperson

Crimson Longinus said:


> No they souldn't. D&D druid resmbles a shaman more than it resembles historical druid. Creating a separate shaman class would produce a massive overlap or alternatively avoiding it would mean the shaman lacks elements it should have (like shapeshifing.) It would make more sense to just rename the druid to shaman or just acknowledge that it is an alteranate name for the class that some cultures use. Besides, this game doesn't need more caster classes and generally by demanding that a whole new class would be created just to fix this representation issue over-complicates the matter needlessly. The issue can be fixed far more easily by just altering the flavour text.




I'm going to disagree with this.  Shamans deal primarily with spirits, with nature coming in a fairly distant second place.  Druids on the other hand are entirely nature.  They don't really resemble Shamans other than the nature aspect, which is a minority of what Shamans are.


----------



## Cadence

Maxperson said:


> I'm going to disagree with this.  Shamans deal primarily with spirits, with nature coming in a fairly distant second place.




Is the Shaman somewhere in between a 5e Druid and 5e Warlock thematically? (I'm wondering how different the PF one would be if it had been a hybrid Druid and Witch instead of Oracle and Witch).

In any case, stumbled across this in a google search and thought it had a nice summary of the Shaman's across the various versions: Shaman - 1d4chan


----------



## Maxperson

Cadence said:


> Is the Shaman somewhere in between a 5e Druid and 5e Warlock thematically? (I'm wondering how different the PF one would be if it had been a hybrid Druid and Witch instead of Oracle and Witch).
> 
> In any case, stumbled across this in a google search and thought it had a nice summary of the Shaman's across the various versions: Shaman - 1d4chan



I don't see Shamans primarily as making pacts with and serving spirits or having them as a patron, so much as just being a liaison between humans and the spirit world.  I think a closer combination would be Druid and Path of the Ancestral Guardian(Barbarian).


----------



## Maxperson

I'm not sure how balanced this is, but what if you combined Druid and Path of the Ancestral Guardian.  Start with Druid and remove wild shape and any abilities that come later and deal with it.  Reduce the spell casting ability to that of a Ranger.  Then add in the Path of Ancestral Guardian abilities as a new "Circle."  You can convert Primal Champion to add Wisdom and Charisma, instead of Strength and Con, since the Shaman would be losing Archdruid. 

It probably needs a bit of tweaking, but it seems like a good start.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> I doubt many of his contemporaries were writing poetry imagining a derogatory origin of black people.




This is true.  However, during Howard's life time, more than 3,000 African Americans were lynched in the United States and rarely was anyone indicted let alone convicted for these crimes.  So some of Howard's contemporaries actually murdered black people and many more of those contemporaries approved of or at least tolerated those murders.


----------



## Aldarc

MGibster said:


> This is true.  However, during Howard's life time, more than 3,000 African Americans were lynched in the United States and rarely was anyone indicted let alone convicted for these crimes.  So some of Howard's contemporaries actually murdered black people and many more of those contemporaries approved of or at least tolerated those murders.



You mean the lynchings that he explicitly has defended? As one article says,


Spoiler



Regarding the domestic terrorism of white minorities in the predominantly black Alabama and Mississippi, he excused them for “resorting to extra-legal measures such as lynching and intimidation [because] the legal machinery does not sufficiently protect them.” He lamented these sullen tensions as unfortunate, but nevertheless says that “anything is better than the mongrelisation which would mean the hopeless deterioration of a great nation.”


Yikes. But I'm not sure "at least he didn't kill anyone" is a particularly compelling defense of his beyond the norm racism.


----------



## Hussar

Galandris said:


> "Stone giants view the world outside their underground homes as realms of dreams [...] Killing prey or sentient beings is no cause for guilt in the dreaming world beneath the sky."




Hey, we have another winner for what to do with prisoners.

Any time we're outside of town, we believe that we are entering the "dream land" and nothing we do is evil.  Burn down that orphanage?  No problem, they're not real.

Granted, that means that we're insane, but, hey, we're not evil right?  And, well, there's nothing negative about depicting an entire race as insane is there?


----------



## Galandris

Hussar said:


> Hey, we have another winner for what to do with prisoners.




The last time, you misssed that the ethical problem with prisonners is "killing them or not?", not "what do we do with the bodies?" when considering the ethics of cannibalism.



> Any time we're outside of town, we believe that we are entering the "dream land" and nothing we do is evil.  Burn down that orphanage?  No problem, they're not real.
> 
> Granted, that means that we're insane, but, hey, we're not evil right?  And, well, there's nothing negative about depicting an entire race as insane is there?





1. If an adventurer is saying that he thinks he's only in a dream to avoid the blame when killing people right and left, then it would be Evil in D&D and morally wrong in the real life. He's not escaping out of the prisonner problem this easily.

2. If he is, as you state in the second part of your argument, insane and really think your excursions outside of town are just dreams, of course he's not Evil in D&D (he'd be unaligned, as he's unable to make a moral choice on his actions) and of course he wouldn't be guilty of anything in real life. Being truely insane on the scope you describe prevents penal prosecution (insert usual bike theft disclaimer).

3. Never in the description it is claimed that they believe they are in a dream. They consider what happens on the surface to be guilt-free, as if it was a dreamworld. It's not the same (no mental illness, just a societal view that what happens in Vegas surface stays in Vegas  surface). Does this cultural approach change anything with regard to their alignment? No, because D&D alignement isn't subjective. So they can't escape being evil-aligned if they are behaving contrary to the objective moral laws, which apply equally whether one considers the surface world to matter or not. And yet, they are neutral, not evil. Despite considering that what happens on the surface doesn't matter, they are not murderous psychopath, they are, as described, peaceful and serene as long as they are left alone. They only rage against trespassers, which is OK in D&D morality system.

4. A point could be made that many (most?) adventurers, who don't have a dilemma with prisonners (I am glad your group has this dilemma as part of their game but I think the solutions you put forward wouldn't fly with my group) and will kill evil bandits who attack a caravan without problem, are effectively acting as you describe: they consider that what happens outside town doesn't really matter and have no guilt when killing other sentient being. It doesn't mean they will suddently slaughter the traders and feast on their entrails, but in most adventuring groups, there is no real sense of guilt accrued when killing bandits.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> Yikes. But I'm not sure "at least he didn't kill anyone" is a particularly compelling defense of his beyond the norm racism.




I have no interest in defending Lovecraft's racism I'm just putting it within the context of the era.  Millions of Americans would have agreed with or sympathized with his position.


----------



## Aldarc

MGibster said:


> I have no interest in defending Lovecraft's racism I'm just putting it within the context of the era.  Millions of Americans would have agreed with or sympathized with his position.



If you were trying to put it within the context of his era, then you would not be downplaying his racism as you are, as he was a conspiracy theorist loon, white supremacist, and Nazi sympathizer even by the standards of his day.


----------



## Hussar

Barracks room lawyer sophistry at its best.  Kudos to you sir.  

"It's not about whether we EAT the prisoners, it's whether we kill them."  I'll solve that Gordian knot for you, sashimi prisoner.  Eat them live.  There, now we aren't evil.

The point that I'm making here is that at no point is this a POSITIVE view of a race.


----------



## TheSword

Aldarc said:


> If you were trying to put it within the context of his era, then you would not be downplaying his racism as you are, as he was a conspiracy theorist loon, white supremacist, and Nazi sympathizer even by the standards of his day.



Dude take it down a notch. Nobody is down playing his racism by saying other people were racist too. His erroneous ideas are known and recognized. Other people had similar ideas too to varying degrees.

Let’s stop pretending he was uniquely bad though and therefore worthy of some special castigation beyond that we give to other writers. As if we can grade racism in levels or ranks and decide on cutoffs. It’s all bad. Period.


----------



## Aldarc

TheSword said:


> Dude take it down a notch. Nobody is down playing his racism by saying other people were racist too. His erroneous ideas are known and recognized. Other people had similar ideas too to varying degrees.
> 
> Let’s stop pretending he was uniquely bad though and therefore worthy of some special castigation beyond that we give to other writers. As if we can grade racism in levels or ranks and decide on cutoffs. It’s all bad. Period.



An argument amounting to “at least he didn’t lynch any black people” was casually thrown out there and you’re telling me to take it down a notch?


----------



## Sadras

Hussar said:


> The point that I'm making here is that at no point is this a POSITIVE view of a race.




Hussar, honestly, do you view the lizard folk as evil or in a negative light?


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> An argument amounting to “at least he didn’t lynch any black people” was casually thrown out there and you’re telling me to take it down a notch?




That was not the argument.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> Hussar, honestly, do you view the lizard folk as evil or in a negative light?




Does it matter?  Either way it's bad.  

Look, if shaman belonged to groups that were shown in a positive light, then my argument would fall apart.  But they're not.  All the hand wringing and pedantry in the world doesn't change that.  I just get rather annoyed when people lose sight of the argument and start chasing these pointless sidebars that only serve to obfuscate the issue.

I mean, sheesh, we all (or nearly all of us) agree that it's problematic and that the solution isn't terribly difficult.  Doesn't that usually signal the end of the discussion?  We see this all the time when people try to talk about the issues with things like orcs or Oriental Adventures or whatnot.  They latch onto these side points, completely lose sight of the actual issues and then proclaim that no solution is possible

It truly is frustrating.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Any time we're outside of town, we believe that we are entering the "dream land" and nothing we do is evil.  Burn down that orphanage?  No problem, they're not real.
> 
> Granted, that means that we're insane, but, hey, we're not evil right?  And, well, there's nothing negative about depicting an entire race as insane is there?



Slaad anyone?  And Derro.  Read Derro in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.  They're an insane race of dwarves.  Besides, there nothing wrong with depicting an entire imaginary race in a negative light.


----------



## Galandris

Hussar said:


> Does it matter?  Either way it's bad.
> 
> Look, if shaman belonged to groups that were shown in a positive light, then my argument would fall apart.  But they're not.




They are portrayed as associated to groups depicted as _varied_: bad -- but with a huge excuse, they are more victim than culprits -- with the Quaggoths, neutral with the Lizardfolks, positive with the Stone giants, and "all the spectrum" with the mention that druids can act as tribal shaman.

They don't need to be portrayed in a positive light, only not to be portrayed systematically in a bad light. The crux of your solution (make a Shaman class or subclass) still stands and is shared by all. I'd play a lizardfolk shaman any day with the current lore.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Lizardfolk don’t kill and eat humanoids because they have no other source of food. They do so because they like the taste. This goes back to OD&D, is continued in 1e, repudiated as "largely unfounded" in 3e, then brought back again in 5e.

OD&D: "They are fond of human flesh, and they will generally capture as many humans as they can when offered the opportunity in order to take them to their lair and have a tribal feast."

1e: "They are omnivorous, but lizard men are likely to prefer human flesh to other foods."

3e: "Although they are omnivores, lizardfolk prefer meat; popular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer humanoid flesh, but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captives or slain foes)."

5e: "Lizard folk are omnivorous, but they have a taste for humanoid flesh. Prisoners are often taken back to their camps to become the centerpieces of great feasts"

This makes the killing and eating of sentient beings by lizardfolk less moral than the killing and eating of sentient beings by many 5e monsters of evil alignment, such as grell, perytons, ropers, trolls, and yeti.


----------



## jasper

Crimson Longinus said:


> We all know that Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Boycotting living people for their obnoxious views makes perfect sense. Boycotting people who have been dead for ages for similar reasons makes zero sense.



And Loving the various games which are making money off his works but hating the author is especially silly.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jasper said:


> And Loving the various games which are making money off his works but hating the author is especially silly.



Why? Lovecraft is not getting that money, he's dead. Also, it is possible to like some aspects of artist's work whilst simultaneously acknowledging that the artist was a horrible human being. Or at least it is possible to me, the same might not apply to everyone.


----------



## Raunalyn

Crimson Longinus said:


> Why? Lovecraft is not getting that money, he's dead. Also, it is possible to like some aspects of artist's work whilst simultaneously acknowledging that the artist was a horrible human being. Or at least it is possible to me, the same might not apply to everyone.




I happen to know for a fact that one of the commentors in this very thread is a huge fan of Primeval Thule, which was enormously influenced by Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft. Strange that it didn't seem troublesome to him while he ran his campaign.


----------



## MGibster

Aldarc said:


> If you were trying to put it within the context of his era, then you would not be downplaying his racism as you are, as he was a conspiracy theorist loon, white supremacist, and Nazi sympathizer even by the standards of his day.




Where did I downplay his racism?


----------



## Raunalyn

Maxperson said:


> Slaad anyone?  And Derro.  Read Derro in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.  They're an insane race of dwarves.  Besides, there nothing wrong with depicting an entire imaginary race in a negative light.



Yep...we can take out all of the negative stereotypes from the game. The lore is there in D&D as a way to give motivation for the monsters' actions. It is there simply as a guideline.

That's the thing about lore...if you don't like it, don't use it.

There is no rule in the PhB or DMG that says that you can't change the lore. Mind Flayers aren't really evil and do not actually want to eat your brains...those tentacles are just so they can give your face a big ol' hug! Completely misunderstood.

Ooo...people could even rename the entire game for their campaigns...something like Fluffies and Bunnies or something...


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*

The thread does seem to be stuck in circles that are not resolving, several of which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread.

Time to put this one to rest, folks.


----------

