D&D 5E So Where my Witches at?

[Accaris]

There's certainly been some effort put in to reclaiming the word 'witch' away from the Hallowe'en stereotype, but it's generally met with limited success.

Every wiccan I know loves the Halloween imagery and spooky goth imagery. They are totally cool with it. And these are people with the most serious, esoteric books on the subject, people who actually know what they're doing. Wicca is just like Satanism. It's more of an anti-establishment movement than an actual functioning religion with a historical precedent. Some beatnik guy invented it in 1954. It's kinda like the dudes who wear mjolnir necklaces and listen to Amon Amarth and say they're into Asatru. Nobody actually knows what the real Norse religion was like, or even if it was a religion at all. All of our historical sources are heavily twisted and Christianized; it's become a meme.

 

[Mecheon]

Never heard of this - what book was it in?

Basic. There were early references to it in... Master I think? For non human casters.

Main place I know mentions of it from is Tall Tales of the Wee Folk as it was specifically called out as centaurs could become 'em.

 

[Alzrius]

As a general rule, no one names a class after an existing religion.

Well, a quick search on DriveThruRPG turned up The Wiccae (affiliate link), with at least one 4/5-star rating. Although it's apparently a race rather than a class. ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Guest 6801328]

Then there's W.I.T.C.H.

 

[Lanefan]

Every wiccan I know loves the Halloween imagery and spooky goth imagery. They are totally cool with it.

You know different Wiccans than I, then.

And these are people with the most serious, esoteric books on the subject, people who actually know what they're doing. Wicca is just like Satanism. It's more of an anti-establishment movement than an actual functioning religion with a historical precedent. Some beatnik guy invented it in 1954.

Dunno where you're getting your info but you might want to try again.

It's a revival, to be sure, and perhaps not accurate to whatever the true old ways might have been, but neo-Paganism goes back somewhat farther than 1954. (though I don't know exactly at what point the 'Wicca' name became attached to a major branch of it)

It's kinda like the dudes who wear mjolnir necklaces and listen to Amon Amarth and say they're into Asatru. Nobody actually knows what the real Norse religion was like, or even if it was a religion at all.

I wouldn't say this in Iceland if I were you, where the religion still exists and has continuously since the days of the Vikings; though (as one might expect) much morphed over the intervening thousand years.

All of our historical sources are heavily twisted and Christianized; it's become a meme.

Yes, the early Christians (say, about pre-1000) were very adept at taking what was already present in a society such as major celebrations and folding those elements into their religion. It's a major factor in the religion's success.

 

[Lanefan]

Basic. There were early references to it in... Master I think? For non human casters.

Ah, hence my confusion: you said 1e. Basic is usually counted as a variant of 0e, with AD&D being 1e.

 

[Marandahir]

"Using the witch archetype takes careful judgement in a table-by-table basis?" I'm sorry, but this sounds a bit ridiculous. Tell me gaming tables haven't seriously gotten this sensitive. That's like saying you have to be cautious in introducing clerics or paladins because Christians acted nastily hundreds of years ago.

It's not just hundreds of years ago.

Witch hunts continue to this day around the world, with devastating consequences. These are as painful and blood-soaked tropes as depictions of central Asian or African peoples as violent barbaric tribes and races. Sensitivity is not a bad thing. Nobody's taking your game and tropes away. Full stop. Some of us ARE discussing why WotC is avoiding the class in name only and thus answering the OP's question, "So where my witches at?" Literally nothing changes if you want to rename the Warlock the Witch class, or use another class to tell a story about witchcraft. But please don't try to pretend the history here isn't laced in violent, sexist, toxic masculinity that led to the murder of countless women (and other persons) across the world, and STILL IS HAPPENING.

 

[Remathilis]

It's not just hundreds of years ago.

Witch hunts continue to this day around the world, with devastating consequences. These are as painful and blood-soaked tropes as depictions of central Asian or African peoples as violent barbaric tribes and races. Sensitivity is not a bad thing. Nobody's taking your game and tropes away. Full stop. Some of us ARE discussing why WotC is avoiding the class in name only and thus answering the OP's question, "So where my witches at?" Literally nothing changes if you want to rename the Warlock the Witch class, or use another class to tell a story about witchcraft. But please don't try to pretend the history here isn't laced in violent, sexist, toxic masculinity that led to the murder of countless women (and other persons) across the world, and STILL IS HAPPENING.

At the risk of opening a political can of worms...

There is a lot of D&D language that can be viewed as problematic. Druid does in fact refer to a religious title that is in use today. Barbarian is a class that carries a lot of racial baggage. Monk is bordering on cultural appropriation. Paladin, assassin and samurai can have historical baggage. Should these be removed from game? Do we opt for some made up terminology the rageborn or oathbound? Can these tropes be used in a positive way (all of them are PC classes and typically viewed as heroic, even the darker ones) or must these archetypes be removed due to their overbearing connotation?

It's not a conversation this thread is looking for, but I feel this path is going to lead to a lot of elements of the game removed or radically altered.

I'd like to proceed under the assumption that witch in a fantasy setting is no more problematic than barbarian, monk, druid, cavalier, or samurai are.

 

[cbwjm]

Witch has, and still does, show up in various media throughout the world, it's become so commonly used that anyone that complains about it claiming that it infringes upon their religious beliefs is going to have a hard time changing anything. It's like a trademark for something that has become the common term for a product which prevents the trademark being able to be upheld in court.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd like to proceed under the assumption that witch in a fantasy setting is no more problematic than barbarian, monk, druid, cavalier, or samurai are.

Where I think "witch" differs from those other names is that it was a label used in the cause of torturing and killing people, usually women, and as such it is still used today as a pejorative for a woman who, well, doesn't conform to behaviors some men prefer. Upthread I linked to an example where feminists have (somewhat humorously) tried to re-claim the word, but in my mind that just emphasizes its loaded meaning.

So it's not that "witch" has historical meaning that we might get wrong, thereby offending people who follow certain religions, but that "witch" is specifically a word used for oppression, not just in history, or even in near memory, but in the present day.

I'll leave you with this, which I find quite funny and yet it illustrates the negative connotations of the word: