Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6747679" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't grasp either of these points. Witches aren't all ugly old women, as anyone who's ever watch "The Wizard of Oz" knows. Its not as if there aren't plenty of connotations that may or may not hold for a given PC embedded in other classes either. I guess the "I'm a guy and I don't want to play a class that is ugly girls" might actually be a valid point, but I'd say THAT is a lot more sexist logic than anything in point 2, personally.As for point 2, 'Witch' and 'Warlock' being simply the female and male terms for the same thing one is not more or less offensive than the other. Beyond that you might well wish to play as something you identify with IRL, its not clear to me that making a 'Witch' class is going to add some new offensiveness on the whole. Nor has D&D historically worried too much about that, as clearly the majority of people in the US are Christians and much of D&D could be found offensive to them, at least some of them. Of course I have no idea what went through people's minds when 'Witch' was or was not considered as a class name at some point, any of your points might have been taken. I just really doubt that the game would actually offend any net greater number of people if 'Witch' was a class vs 'Warlock'. IMHO.</blockquote>