| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the lore/mechanics for the animist are much closer to IRL shamanic traditions than to animist ones. The acquisition of helper spirits, which inhabit a spirit world, which you can allow to possess you, seems fairly close to what I've read of shamanic cultures. Far more to the point it strikes me as very different from what I've read of animist tradition. While definitions of animism are hard to pin down, one reasonable one is the claim that non-human things in general, and particularly inanimate ones, have a spirit tied to them. By contrast, there seems to be no particular idea that the apparitions are spirits of things.
I don't know, but it seems a pretty odd decision to me. I know it might have been hard to persuade the fanbase to accept some totally new set of mechanics for a "shaman" class, but given that Paizo have already said they want to talk with actual members of a given culture before trying to represent it in game, I'm guessing that any shaman class would be considerably altered in the new edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oxford Dictionary is defining animism a 'the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.'
Encyclopedia Brittannica gives us 'belief in innumerable spiritual beings concerned with human affairs and capable of helping or harming human interests.'
I don't know that I've ever seen an understanding of animism that exclusively applied to inanimate objects, but the Animist playtest calls out Apparitions as "spiritual entities" of humans, animals, natural features (volcanos, rivers, etc), and man-made things (secrets, farmland). The Shaman name is dicey for a number of reasons; it's tied to a 1e class whose mechanical identity (a pet class) is nowhere to be seen here, while it exists conversationally as a North Asian term frequently misapplied to Native American cultures by white outsiders to both.
Oxford Dictionary is defining animism a 'the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.'
Encyclopedia Brittannica gives us 'belief in innumerable spiritual beings concerned with human affairs and capable of helping or harming human interests.'
I don't know that I've ever seen an understanding of animism that exclusively applied to inanimate objects, but the Animist playtest calls out Apparitions as "spiritual entities" of humans, animals, natural features (volcanos, rivers, etc), and man-made things (secrets, farmland). The Shaman name is dicey for a number of reasons; it's tied to a 1e class whose mechanical identity (a pet class) is nowhere to be seen here, while it exists conversationally as a North Asian term frequently misapplied to Native American cultures by white outsiders to both.
Certainly, I would be surprised to find any culture that ascribed a spirit to trees without ascribing one to animals. The problem I have with the playtest is that the lore seems to detach the spirits from that of which they are. For example, the animist can interact with the spirit of a grove. This makes sense to me. That they can do so when that grove is many thousands of miles away seems very weird. This being because it seems to me that it would be analogous with human spirits: certainly you can interact with them while you're in the same room, by talking to the person, but if you want to talk while they're a thousand miles away you'll need a telephone.
Regarding the difficulties with the name "Shaman", I get that it's a little more dicey, and I don't know what discussions went on in house about the name, but it's hard to see another name working better, excepting insofar as it would sit at odds with previous mechanical identity which is in my view relatively minor, and on the other hand there are few names that are actually any worse than animist for this: you might as well call it wizard or bard, and the name would have as much relation to the abilities. The only difference might be a vague sense of "spirits are a primitive religion idea, and animist is a primitive religion word", a sentiment with which I really cannot agree.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they should have just kept the 1e name 'Medium'.
Maybe they should have just kept the 1e name 'Medium'.
Meh. At that point we would still have people complaining, "Well, we aren't writing anything on the character's face or something like that. So what is with the name 'Medium'?"
Certainly, I would be surprised to find any culture that ascribed a spirit to trees without ascribing one to animals. The problem I have with the playtest is that the lore seems to detach the spirits from that of which they are. For example, the animist can interact with the spirit of a grove. This makes sense to me. That they can do so when that grove is many thousands of miles away seems very weird. This being because it seems to me that it would be analogous with human spirits: certainly you can interact with them while you're in the same room, by talking to the person, but if you want to talk while they're a thousand miles away you'll need a telephone.
My reading of the class is that they're connecting to local Apparitions every single day as part of their preparation. They *aren't* dragging one beloved old spirit around - that's a Summoner's thing.
Each day during your daily preparations, choose two apparitions from the list on page 12 to attune to. Of these, choose one to be your primary apparition.
-
Channelers tend to associate more freely with a wide array of apparitions, as they are naturally skilled at acting as conduits for spiritual energy. While they tend not to form deep bonds with a single apparition, they are able to wield the power of multiple apparitions with great ease. Channelers are often travelers, itinerant merchants, or similar drifters, carrying stories from town to town. They often associate with apparitions of local natural features they find themselves near[...]
My reading of the class is that they're connecting to local Apparitions every single day as part of their preparation. They *aren't* dragging one beloved old spirit around - that's a Summoner's thing.
Perhaps, but that certainly isn't how they described it in the stream, or at least they left the door on that one wide open. If I recall correctly, they hardly described such characters as you note at all, whereas ones about which they went into detail were such as had one particular spirit which took pride of place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I am reading, there are several. Starting with 2 and going up from there.
The mechanics don't specify if it is new apparitions each day or if it is the same ones that follow the Animist. I think that is deliberately left vague in the mechanics so that the player can decide which one is appropriate for their particular character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of a repeat of the problem with the name "Barbarian"- as in you can be a Barbarian who is in no sense a barbarian. Like if you're someone from a culture whose spiritual tradition is "animism" you're an animist whether you're a fighter or a rogue or a bard, but if you're one of those things then you're not also an Animist.
Even though we live with the problem with the name "Barbarian", I'm not sure we need to replicate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with Animist. It's the apparition that bugs me as not really fitting semi-divine powers. It feels that Paizo is carefully trying to avoid the word vestige (on which they seem to be at least partly inspired) used by analogous feature of 3rd edition binder class.
The second term that I find misplaced is sage animist practice. It should be medium or something like that. Sage feels forced as that terms has nothing to do with the spirits and undead.
This reminds me of the software engineering joke/quote...
There are only two hard problems in software: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
Yeah, Sage feels like a bit of a misnomer. It really doesn't imply sedentary or undead-focused at all.
Yeah, Sage feels like a bit of a misnomer. It really doesn't imply sedentary or undead-focused at all.
It's not a spice either.