Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Setting all the issues of the origins of the word aside, it boils down to one main point- being a medium armor user who might swing around certain weapons or do field control and is elemental/nature coded is basically what a 5e Druid already is. 5e has made a point that rather than keep trying to build whole classes from the ground up the way earlier editions or other systems have, they're focusing on their core 12. Artificer got iterated because it's a very iconic one that doesn't mesh with existing classes, but it was mostly a one and done deal. Within the context of the 5e system, the WoW concepts of Druid and Shaman are pretty interchangeable variants on a 5e Druid, depending on what build choices you make. Ergo, they haven't spent a bunch of time designing a Druid with a different coat and hairstyle just so they can call it a Shaman, in addition to all the other reasons why they don't want to use that word.
That's a strawman fallacy: you are twisting my words and, therefore, criticising something I've never said.
What I've said is: I understand why WotC is not creating a shaman class, I totally respect that, but I just disagree with the reasons given: I don't think branding a new class "shaman" is racist; and I believe there's still room to create a shaman class whose powers and idiosyncrasy can be different from what we've already seen in other subclasses. That's been my point of view throughout this thread.
Then you come here and say that "I'm not letting WotC use or not use whatever words they wish", that "I'm saying they are wrong for their speech choices", and that "I'm trying to force WotC to abandon their perspective". I beg your pardon? What are you talking about? I respect their decision and their point of view, but I disagree with them, and I am allowed to disagree. That's not disrespectful in any way, that's freedom of speech. I don't have to agree with every single decision WotC makes.
Then you say that I've used the word "dangerous". I used that word because, in my opinion, if you start banning fantasy concepts because they have been twisted by Western eyes, and don't portray or respect their original meaning, you would end up banning almost every fantasy concept (and I gave an example of why the word "druid" would also be incorrect).
The funny thing, though, is that WotC actually uses the word "shaman" in their 5e settings. There are, for example, Lizardfolk shamans, Orc shamans, Goblin shamans, Human shamans... So nor the word nor the concept are banned, they just haven't decided to create a shaman class yet, and that's totally fine.
"
Let us give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your repeated insistence on telling wizards “you can do the thing you have said you do not want to do” is not meant as disrespectful or dog whistling, even though it decidedly does off that way due to its volume and repetitive nature.
The proper way to disagree with someone respectfully on a topic where different sides can be right as it is a matter of personal choice is to (a) acknowledge their position holds validity, (b) disagree without insisting they switch to your term, and (c) find something you can agree on. Instead of “I get where you’re coming from, now make me a shaman” which is the general vibe of your repeated posts, maybe try something like the below?
I understand why you do not like the term and that it has some bad history. I think its usage has evolved beyond that history within the fantasy genera, but it is your game and you can use whatever words you like. I still think the basic concept of a class that deals with spirits is useful and deserves something independent of existing subclasses. What would such a class look like and what other word could we name it?”
That is the post you should be making if you are honest in your intentions, and not simply hung up on a word you think Wizards should use.
oh,. I know about that but it is the same reasoning as to why WoTC themselves didn't do it just like they didn't with shaman.
It was a discussion on the Discord. The same "We don't know how to do this respectfully" was the consensus from the mods. (Unless i am mis remembering it was Pre OGL so 2023)
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
So real quick, this is not a freedom of speech issue. Nobody's threatened any legal action. No government authorities have anything to say about it. The issue at hand is respect, empathy, human dignity, and thoughtfulness - or, sadly, the lack thereof. Frankly, given the tone and content of your posts in this thread I don't get a sense that you genuinely respect other people's opinions, especially when they don't support argument you want to keep advancing. The tone and subtext that's coming across from your posts is that your desire to play a character class and call it a shaman is more important than acknowledging the implicity racism of how the term has been used and WotC's intentional decision to be thoughtful and respectful.
No one here is saying you're not free to speak your mind (though of course it is up to the mods to clean up the thread if they find you or anyone else has posted in a way that doesn't jive with the posting guidelines here). But being free to say something or having the right to say something don't mean that speech is wise or contributes meaningfully.
I disagree with your statement that this is about "respect, empathy, human dignity, and thoughtfulness". In my opinion, it's about people respectfully expressing different opinions on a certain topic, and you coming here to tell me what I am allowed to say, trying to invalidate my point of view out of the blue (not even knowing my background, by the way). Freedom of speech doesn't only have to do with "legal actions", it has to do with situations like this one, where you tried to tell another user what he or she can or can't say on a forum, when that's something only moderators decide, not you.
Moreover, you make a lot of assumptions (and accusations) throughout your post regarding my intentions and my desires. I think that's your problem, not mine. I've already expressed several times what I think and has nothing to do with the depiction of me you are making, I'm afraid.
"
New strawman fallacies?
Trying to patronise me telling how should I've done things? (Oh, god, If I had to tell you how I think you should've handled this conversation, I'd be typing all night long. But it's not worth my time).
I think I've already told you everything I had to say in my previous post (not to mention you didn't even addressed any of my arguments that proved that "shaman" is not a banned word in D&D, as you try to depict).
Take care.
"
When I go to the zoo, I try to stop by the sealion exhibit just to catch a glimpse.
Anyway, the topic seems to have been answered fully and several times. The OP seems to have acknowledged it and wants to argue about some other thing now. Shaman have baggage attached to it that turns off potential buyers. Shaman exclusions do not turn off potential buyers. Simple enough for me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
With racism, "agree to disagree" doesn't cancel out racism, only side-steps it.
This is becoming Rage Trap Thread 2.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
This whole thread seems unnecessary since the upcoming WoW crossover book will have a section on how to create Shamans using 5.5e classes/subclasses. But some folks need the dopamine fix of starting pointless debates and keeping them going long have they've been resolved.
Sorry, Jaime, but I'm getting the sense you aren't here to discuss in good faith. No one is trying to silence you or dictate what you can or can't say. Several people have explained to you the realities of the world and the situation and why those realities mean there is not an official shaman class for D&D. It's quite impossible to have a productive discussion with you when you misconstrue what others are saying and make up inaccurate claims about how people are talking to you.
I think you are making a projection here, I'm afraid (not discussing in good faith, miscontructions, inaccurate claims...). Have a look at your previous posts.
Several people have explained to me their points of view on the matter and I've answered some of them with my opinion in a respectful way, creating, in my opinion, an interesting debate.
Some of you, however, came here and instantly accused me of trolling or not discussing in good faith just because I disagree with your points of view. You, for example, have been using several ad hominem fallacies in your posts.
Many conversations have been as follows:
- Why do you think there's no a shaman class in D&D?
- Because it's racist and there are already classes and subclasses that fill the shaman idiosyncrasy.
- Oh, I see, I respect your point of view, but I disagree because... (insert my respectful argument here).
- What? Are you trying to force WotC? If they don't wanna use that word, why are you trying to force them to use it?!
????
In my opinion, many of you can't handle a debate. Some have attacked me rather than my argument (ad hominem fallacy), and others have twisted my words in order to be able to deal with my point of view (strawman fallacy).
Fortunately, some users have brought up their points of view without resorting to logical fallacies, and we had, in my opinion, a nice debate.
That said, I agree with those that think this topic has fulfilled its purpouse. Thanks to all who tried to have a respectful debate. Pity some users had to taint the post with their toxic behaviour.
"
I notice that there are two things that the OP doesn't seem to have addressed: what a shaman class would actually add to the game that can't be done by an already existing class, and why does it need to be called a shaman instead of something else that doesn't have the real-world baggage attached to it, like a "spirit caller" or the like?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's one of the problens with your argument, Shaman isn't a fantasy concept.
And no, druid doesn't have the same problem, you wouldn't find the term druid using to refer to spiritual groups in Africa or in America.
They don't fit the Fantasy trope. It's better to have those types assigned to regular humans or non-human bipedals (orcs, goblins, giants etc.). Although I guess any monster with intelligence and the ability to conduct rituals will do. On a separate, but similar matter Dragon Magazine posted the Witch class in one or two of their segment series long ago. We have the Warlock now, so I don't know if one sparked the other or Warlock just emerged on it's own.