Elder-Basilisk
First Post
I've actually seen druidess used and it seemed appropriate. The others, not so much. But you're missing more than a few--particularly if you branch out from the labels we apply to class mechanics. I would use witch for a female warlock, for instance. I would call a female priest a priestess, dame for a female knight, and queen for a female king. (Though the last one is not reversible--a king is not simply a male queen; a male queen is something else entirely 
.
Why only a few classes and not all?* "Because that's the way we've always done it" seems at least as good of a reason to keep it the same as "because it fits in with a the political and social agenda of the feminist movement" is to change it.
If you got a step further and ask what the benefits of standing in the tradition of our language are, I think you have an even better reason to keep the traditional terms. Language doesn't just stand alone. It evokes the ways that it has been used in the past--it literature, myth and legend. Particularly in a creative setting where the ability to craft images and weave words is at a premium, standing in the natural continuity of language rather than disrupting it is important.
All that said, it sounds like it might be amusing. I'm almost certainly not the book's target audience, and I'll probably never buy it or even look at it, but I hope it's a good book and draws more people into the hobby.
*Another reason, which applies to more than a few classes is that the names are modern inventions or generic descriptions to begin with. Fighter? That's not a recognizable group or even a role. The only place it sees use outside of gaming circles is as a description "he's a fine fighter"/ "a fighter jet"/ etc and in combat tournament circles where people want a synonym for "boxer" or where boxer is not appropriate (a martial arts tournament, for instance). There is more tradition behind the word "sorcerer" than "fighter" and therefore variants like "sorceress" are useful.
.Why only a few classes and not all?* "Because that's the way we've always done it" seems at least as good of a reason to keep it the same as "because it fits in with a the political and social agenda of the feminist movement" is to change it.
If you got a step further and ask what the benefits of standing in the tradition of our language are, I think you have an even better reason to keep the traditional terms. Language doesn't just stand alone. It evokes the ways that it has been used in the past--it literature, myth and legend. Particularly in a creative setting where the ability to craft images and weave words is at a premium, standing in the natural continuity of language rather than disrupting it is important.
All that said, it sounds like it might be amusing. I'm almost certainly not the book's target audience, and I'll probably never buy it or even look at it, but I hope it's a good book and draws more people into the hobby.
*Another reason, which applies to more than a few classes is that the names are modern inventions or generic descriptions to begin with. Fighter? That's not a recognizable group or even a role. The only place it sees use outside of gaming circles is as a description "he's a fine fighter"/ "a fighter jet"/ etc and in combat tournament circles where people want a synonym for "boxer" or where boxer is not appropriate (a martial arts tournament, for instance). There is more tradition behind the word "sorcerer" than "fighter" and therefore variants like "sorceress" are useful.
theredrobedwizard said:
) is a pseudonym for either one women or multiple female WotC employees collaborating. WotC did the pseudonym thing for its in-house writers who wrote the short-lived D&D novel line featuring the D&D Iconics that came out right after 3.0 premiered.
