A quick Google-Serch turned out that it comes from:wǣrloga(“traitor, deceiver”, literally “truce-breaker”) - but could also mean pact breaker or oath breaker.
That said ethymology doesn't say much about the current meaning of a word. Paladins comes from palace guards, druid meant “oak-knower”. A lot of words are used different today and especially in popular culture. I'd say the female version of warlock IS witch.
Btw. :Witch has litterally in its ethymology " wicca(“witch, sorcerer, warlock”) ".
A quick Google-Serch turned out that it comes from:wǣrloga(“traitor, deceiver”, literally “truce-breaker”) - but could also mean pact breaker or oath breaker.
That said ethymology doesn't say much about the current meaning of a word. Paladins comes from palace guards, druid meant “oak-knower”. A lot of words are used different today and especially in popular culture. I'd say the female version of warlock IS witch.
Btw. :Witch has litterally in its ethymology " wicca(“witch, sorcerer, warlock”) ".
Thank you
Practitioners of Wicca irl call themselves witches
I guess I was troubled because the basis of a warlock’s power is her pact and being an oath breaker is the opposite of what a warlock should be. Plus the word witch would be more inclusive for female characters.
From what I've read the Oath breaker/traitor/deceiver comes from a Christian point of view so 'breaking the oath' of the covenant and now worshipping satan or some other patron still applies.
I may be wrong, but also with what Sutlo says. Words evolve and 'warlock' has became a word all on its own. For example. in the Eragon books a warlock is just a magician that was corruption/possessed by a shade/spirit. In warcraft it's just a sorcerer that dabbles in shadow/fel fire/demon magic compared to the evocation/elemental sorcerer or the tribal/elemental shaman or the divine/shadow priest.
Other stories use every word synonymously (mage, magi, wizard, magician, sorcerer, witch, warlock, etc) and there is no difference at all between each other. Other works have each as an individual type that has it's own uniqueness.
From what I've read the Oath breaker/traitor/deceiver comes from a Christian point of view so 'breaking the oath' of the covenant and now worshipping satan or some other patron still applies.
I may be wrong, but also with what Sutlo says. Words evolve and 'warlock' has became a word all on its own. For example. in the Eragon books a warlock is just a magician that was corruption/possessed by a shade/spirit. In warcraft it's just a sorcerer that dabbles in shadow/fel fire/demon magic compared to the evocation/elemental sorcerer or the tribal/elemental shaman or the divine/shadow priest.
Other stories use every word synonymously (mage, magi, wizard, magician, sorcerer, witch, warlock, etc) and there is no difference at all between each other. Other works have each as an individual type that has it's own uniqueness.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, but there is no intuitive approach to think Warlock applies exclusively to males in the instance of what the class is, according to WotC's application of the class, versus the literal meaning of the word Warlock. In spite of it's definition which can be taken too literally it is inclusive to all creatures, identifiable by gender or not, and what a player feels the class should be called comes down to semantics. If you want to be a Warlock, be a Warlock; If you want to be a Witch, be a Witch; If you want to be a witch and called a Warlock, or vice versa, then do so. If you want to call the Warlock class a Witch, that is also fine and there is nothing suggesting that you can't or shouldn't if that is what you want to do. There isn't anything about the class other than personal interpretation or the real-world definition that suggests it is exclusive to males. There's also really no reason to presume it should be called something else or that a person needs to feel excluded because gender is being attacked by requiring what could surmount as an unreasonable amount of specificity.
The following is what the current Definitions of Oxford reads as for Warlock
war·lock
/ˈwôrˌläk/
noun
noun: warlock; plural noun: warlocks
1. a man who practices witchcraft; a sorcerer.
Similar: sorcerer, wizard, male witch, (black) magician, diviner, occultist
Note specifically "male witch", which i slikely to source of confrontation in the definition. In the instance of trying to apply a label to an entire class, categorically this "Warlock's are only male or pander exclusively to male's only" is still incorrect because as definitions go "man" seems to suggest "mankind" or "humankind" and should be interpreted as such, rather than "male" and not "male and/or/not female". Socially the difference of gender and its restrictions to definitions of the class are the agenda of the player and their interpretations of equality, for various personal and/or political inclinations. How the character chooses to identify itself or how the player chooses to identify the character and its class is more important than what the class should be or is called currently, because regardless the class will still function the same. Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerers, Diviners etc. can all be considered witches since it can be a practice of witchcraft. Depending on the setting or how they're perceived through various filters, religious or otherwise, they may not be called any of those things either and that is irrespective of gender as well.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Warlock is the male form of witch. In Anne Rice’s novel The Witching Hour male witches refer to themselves as witches, not warlocks. Same in the RPG Torg Eternity.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Warlock is the male form of witch. In Anne Rice’s novel The Witching Hour male witches refer to themselves as witches, not warlocks. Same in the RPG Torg Eternity.
Also the “oath breaker” issue I mentioned above.
As far as the whole "oathbreaker" is concerned with what your friend was probably trying to portray, its association with witches and other magical creatures is a derivative from Scots; in Scotland these people were seen as something who made a pact with their equivalent of "the devil" which lead to betraying the existing christian faith, breaking their vows of baptism. So it's essentially the same as being a traitor to the popular faith even if it means persecution, and that being said the context of a warlock still applies in a fantasy realm with an IRL historical meaining.
So the cut and dry of it is that it's an interpretation of an idea rather than a literal meaning, and that is versus a pantheon of acceptable worship and/or faith given in the setting you're under, you're not part of the religious order, or operate independently of such an order.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Warlock is the male form of witch. In Anne Rice’s novel The Witching Hour male witches refer to themselves as witches, not warlocks. Same in the RPG Torg Eternity.
Also the “oath breaker” issue I mentioned above.
As far as the whole "oathbreaker" is concerned with what your friend was probably trying to portray, its association with witches and other magical creatures is a derivative from Scots; in Scotland these people were seen as something who made a pact with their equivalent of "the devil" which lead to betraying the existing christian faith, breaking their vows of baptism. So it's essentially the same as being a traitor to the popular faith even if it means persecution, and that being said the context of a warlock still applies in a fantasy realm with an IRL historical meaining.
So the cut and dry of it is that it's an interpretation of an idea rather than a literal meaning, and that is versus a pantheon of acceptable worship and/or faith given in the setting you're under, you're not part of the religious order, or operate independently of such an order.
That makes a lot of sense. Witches (at least Wiccan witches) are defo rebelling against the dominant Christian faith.
well I think it depends, when you think "witch" you would probably think of an old lady with black robes and a pointy hat. whereas warlock makes me think of an evil magician, most of the time a middle aged man.
I think maybe they could make warlock have a feminine form of witch. But witch has always seemed to be the feminine Wizard. Considering the rest are in masculine form I think warlock is fine. although maybe in 6e, (if they ever make one,) they could add feminine counterparts like sorceress, witch and druidess.
well I think it depends, when you think "witch" you would probably think of an old lady with black robes and a pointy hat. whereas warlock makes me think of an evil magician, most of the time a middle aged man.
I think maybe they could make warlock have a feminine form of witch. But witch has always seemed to be the feminine Wizard. Considering the rest are in masculine form I think warlock is fine. although maybe in 6e, (if they ever make one,) they could add feminine counterparts like sorceress, witch and druidess.
Omg you made me laugh so hard one time I wore a sexy witch costume for Halloween and I put on the big black pointed hat to make it clear I was a witch and my cat (not the one in the pic) got so scared his tail puffed out to twice its normal size.
No, as it would be insensitive to actual practitioners of an IRL religion.
I disagree. I think at least some practitioners of that religion would feel included and empowered by using the term witch. I also think practitioners of that religion might feel offended by the term warlock because of its negative connotations.
I’m not the only one who feels this way. The designers of Torg Eternity chose to use the term witch instead of warlock for exactly that reason.
I'm pretty sure there nothing good will come from bringing any real world Religion into the DnD world. Especially not when dealing with things THAT fundamental for the game. DnD uses the popular meaning of words. Monk isn't always "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience", Druids don't really have anything to do with real world druidic religions etc. I don't think we should go down that path.
I'm pretty sure there nothing good will come from bringing any real world Religion into the DnD world. Especially not when dealing with things THAT fundamental for the game. DnD uses the popular meaning of words. Monk isn't always "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience", Druids don't really have anything to do with real world druidic religions etc. I don't think we should go down that path.
This.
I also don't think it is necessary, or conducive to forward-thinking, to assume a class is gender-lock based on a name. A name which is already inclusive to practically anything that has the capacity to perform the functions of the class. If you start segregating the ability for a player or a player's character to play a class version because of gender "equality" and force or assume they must be called a gender-appropriate class name, by which both classes literally will do the same thing, you're inviting more exclusive behavior.
I'm pretty sure there nothing good will come from bringing any real world Religion into the DnD world. Especially not when dealing with things THAT fundamental for the game. DnD uses the popular meaning of words. Monk isn't always "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience", Druids don't really have anything to do with real world druidic religions etc. I don't think we should go down that path.
This.
I also don't think it is necessary, or conducive to forward-thinking, to assume a class is gender-lock based on a name. A name which is already inclusive to practically anything that has the capacity to perform the functions of the class. If you start segregating the ability for a player or a player's character to play a class version because of gender "equality" and force or assume they must be called a gender-appropriate class name, by which both classes literally will do the same thing, you're inviting more exclusive behavior.
Okay. I’m just saying, other RPG sourcebooks that were just released like last week and are pretty woke about stuff like that have used the term witch and specifically noted why they didn’t use warlock (which is one of the reasons I asked this question). The Torg Eternity sourcebook Cyberpapacy used witch instead of warlock because warlock means oath breaker and it’s gender exclusive for male characters.
I'm pretty sure there nothing good will come from bringing any real world Religion into the DnD world. Especially not when dealing with things THAT fundamental for the game. DnD uses the popular meaning of words. Monk isn't always "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience", Druids don't really have anything to do with real world druidic religions etc. I don't think we should go down that path.
This.
I also don't think it is necessary, or conducive to forward-thinking, to assume a class is gender-lock based on a name. A name which is already inclusive to practically anything that has the capacity to perform the functions of the class. If you start segregating the ability for a player or a player's character to play a class version because of gender "equality" and force or assume they must be called a gender-appropriate class name, by which both classes literally will do the same thing, you're inviting more exclusive behavior.
Okay. I’m just saying, other RPG sourcebooks that were just released like last week and are pretty woke about stuff like that have used the term witch and specifically noted why they didn’t use warlock (which is one of the reasons I asked this question). The Torg Eternity sourcebook Cyberpapacy used witch instead of warlock because warlock means oath breaker and it’s gender exclusive for male characters.
Oh, I understand that, but I reject their premise entirely because I don't think it is necessary differentiate. Words and meanings evolve over time. "Woke" or otherwise, in comparison WotC seems the more mature and intuitive approach, and they're not going out of their way to make everyone happy based on some pseudo-stringent politically correct climate.
My friend told me warlock literally means “oath breaker” and usually refers to practitioners of black magic.
A quick Google-Serch turned out that it comes from:wǣrloga (“traitor, deceiver”, literally “truce-breaker”) - but could also mean pact breaker or oath breaker.
That said ethymology doesn't say much about the current meaning of a word. Paladins comes from palace guards, druid meant “oak-knower”. A lot of words are used different today and especially in popular culture. I'd say the female version of warlock IS witch.
Btw. :Witch has litterally in its ethymology " wicca (“witch, sorcerer, warlock”) ".
Thank you
Practitioners of Wicca irl call themselves witches
I guess I was troubled because the basis of a warlock’s power is her pact and being an oath breaker is the opposite of what a warlock should be. Plus the word witch would be more inclusive for female characters.
From what I've read the Oath breaker/traitor/deceiver comes from a Christian point of view so 'breaking the oath' of the covenant and now worshipping satan or some other patron still applies.
I may be wrong, but also with what Sutlo says. Words evolve and 'warlock' has became a word all on its own. For example. in the Eragon books a warlock is just a magician that was corruption/possessed by a shade/spirit. In warcraft it's just a sorcerer that dabbles in shadow/fel fire/demon magic compared to the evocation/elemental sorcerer or the tribal/elemental shaman or the divine/shadow priest.
Other stories use every word synonymously (mage, magi, wizard, magician, sorcerer, witch, warlock, etc) and there is no difference at all between each other. Other works have each as an individual type that has it's own uniqueness.
Thanks. That makes sense.
I can see the point of inclusiveness, since warlock seems to be a purely male description. Since english is not my native language, pls correct me if I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, but there is no intuitive approach to think Warlock applies exclusively to males in the instance of what the class is, according to WotC's application of the class, versus the literal meaning of the word Warlock. In spite of it's definition which can be taken too literally it is inclusive to all creatures, identifiable by gender or not, and what a player feels the class should be called comes down to semantics. If you want to be a Warlock, be a Warlock; If you want to be a Witch, be a Witch; If you want to be a witch and called a Warlock, or vice versa, then do so. If you want to call the Warlock class a Witch, that is also fine and there is nothing suggesting that you can't or shouldn't if that is what you want to do. There isn't anything about the class other than personal interpretation or the real-world definition that suggests it is exclusive to males. There's also really no reason to presume it should be called something else or that a person needs to feel excluded because gender is being attacked by requiring what could surmount as an unreasonable amount of specificity.
The following is what the current Definitions of Oxford reads as for Warlock
Note specifically "male witch", which i slikely to source of confrontation in the definition. In the instance of trying to apply a label to an entire class, categorically this "Warlock's are only male or pander exclusively to male's only" is still incorrect because as definitions go "man" seems to suggest "mankind" or "humankind" and should be interpreted as such, rather than "male" and not "male and/or/not female". Socially the difference of gender and its restrictions to definitions of the class are the agenda of the player and their interpretations of equality, for various personal and/or political inclinations. How the character chooses to identify itself or how the player chooses to identify the character and its class is more important than what the class should be or is called currently, because regardless the class will still function the same. Warlocks, Wizards, Sorcerers, Diviners etc. can all be considered witches since it can be a practice of witchcraft. Depending on the setting or how they're perceived through various filters, religious or otherwise, they may not be called any of those things either and that is irrespective of gender as well.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Warlock is the male form of witch. In Anne Rice’s novel The Witching Hour male witches refer to themselves as witches, not warlocks. Same in the RPG Torg Eternity.
Also the “oath breaker” issue I mentioned above.
As far as the whole "oathbreaker" is concerned with what your friend was probably trying to portray, its association with witches and other magical creatures is a derivative from Scots; in Scotland these people were seen as something who made a pact with their equivalent of "the devil" which lead to betraying the existing christian faith, breaking their vows of baptism. So it's essentially the same as being a traitor to the popular faith even if it means persecution, and that being said the context of a warlock still applies in a fantasy realm with an IRL historical meaining.
So the cut and dry of it is that it's an interpretation of an idea rather than a literal meaning, and that is versus a pantheon of acceptable worship and/or faith given in the setting you're under, you're not part of the religious order, or operate independently of such an order.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
That makes a lot of sense. Witches (at least Wiccan witches) are defo rebelling against the dominant Christian faith.
well I think it depends, when you think "witch" you would probably think of an old lady with black robes and a pointy hat. whereas warlock makes me think of an evil magician, most of the time a middle aged man.
I think maybe they could make warlock have a feminine form of witch. But witch has always seemed to be the feminine Wizard. Considering the rest are in masculine form I think warlock is fine. although maybe in 6e, (if they ever make one,) they could add feminine counterparts like sorceress, witch and druidess.
Omg you made me laugh so hard one time I wore a sexy witch costume for Halloween and I put on the big black pointed hat to make it clear I was a witch and my cat (not the one in the pic) got so scared his tail puffed out to twice its normal size.
the original question. no I think if they were even going to have a witch, it would be its own class or a feminine form of warlock or wizard.
Thank you
No, as it would be insensitive to actual practitioners of an IRL religion.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I disagree. I think at least some practitioners of that religion would feel included and empowered by using the term witch. I also think practitioners of that religion might feel offended by the term warlock because of its negative connotations.
I’m not the only one who feels this way. The designers of Torg Eternity chose to use the term witch instead of warlock for exactly that reason.
I'm pretty sure there nothing good will come from bringing any real world Religion into the DnD world. Especially not when dealing with things THAT fundamental for the game. DnD uses the popular meaning of words. Monk isn't always "a member of a religious community of men typically living under vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience", Druids don't really have anything to do with real world druidic religions etc. I don't think we should go down that path.
This.
I also don't think it is necessary, or conducive to forward-thinking, to assume a class is gender-lock based on a name. A name which is already inclusive to practically anything that has the capacity to perform the functions of the class. If you start segregating the ability for a player or a player's character to play a class version because of gender "equality" and force or assume they must be called a gender-appropriate class name, by which both classes literally will do the same thing, you're inviting more exclusive behavior.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
Okay. I’m just saying, other RPG sourcebooks that were just released like last week and are pretty woke about stuff like that have used the term witch and specifically noted why they didn’t use warlock (which is one of the reasons I asked this question). The Torg Eternity sourcebook Cyberpapacy used witch instead of warlock because warlock means oath breaker and it’s gender exclusive for male characters.
Oh, I understand that, but I reject their premise entirely because I don't think it is necessary differentiate. Words and meanings evolve over time. "Woke" or otherwise, in comparison WotC seems the more mature and intuitive approach, and they're not going out of their way to make everyone happy based on some pseudo-stringent politically correct climate.
Not now at least.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!