Females can NOT be wizards

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Cadmus (290 posts) -

WTF is Blizzard thinking????  Females who practice magic are called witches.  It's impossible for a female to be a wizard, as much as its impossible for a woman to be a man, everyone knows this.  Which leaves me to ask, why has this not been discussed anywhere else and why do I seem to be the only one that has a problem with this.  It's horrible decisions like this that have led me to the conclusion that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing and are just riding the diablo series carcass's coat-tails by introducing the most ridiculous ideas; probably as a means to be politically correct.  What do you think? 
#2 Posted by AjayRaz (12476 posts) -

doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. wizard sounds cooler, too. 

#3 Posted by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -

I didn't know wizard was gender-specific. I thought "warlock" was a male witch.

#4 Posted by Linkyshinks (9880 posts) -

Aye, It's against the Wizard's code.

#5 Posted by Out_On_Bail (1549 posts) -

I think your overreacting to something that's not really a big deal.  That's just what I think, though.

#6 Posted by Bones8677 (3276 posts) -

If you're serious, then you could go about this through role playing. For example, Blood Elves don't actually have Palidans, they are called "Blood Knights," and Tauren Palidans are actually called "Sun Reavers." But for simplicity's sake, in the game they are called Palidans, even though in the lore and in the reality within the game they are called something else. It's a game mechanic, in the lore, they'll probably be called Witches.

#7 Posted by Jimbo (9984 posts) -

And yet their sleeves are inherently female.  Go figure.

#8 Posted by lebkin (331 posts) -
@Cadmus: You must never have played any D&D or other similar role-playing games.  There have been female wizards since the very beginning.  It is a class, with a specific set of powers, nothing more.  Heck, in 3rd and 4th edition, you can even have a female warlock.  Using wizard as general neutral is a relatively common occurrence.
#9 Posted by Rallier (1739 posts) -

What if she has a beard?
 
I've seen it, they exist.

#10 Posted by IzzyGraze (854 posts) -

I don't know...
 
  Main Entry: witch
Pronunciation: \ ˈwich\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German wīh holy — more at victim
Date: before 12th century
1 : one that is credited with usually malignant supernatural powers; especially : a woman practicing usually black witchcraft often with the aid of a devil or familiar : sorceress — compare warlock 
 
  Main Entry: wiz·ard
Pronunciation: \ ˈwi-zərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise
Date: 15th century
1 archaic : a wise man : sage
2 : one skilled in magic : sorcerer 
 
It seems like wizard can be a sorceress who is skilled in magic but not DARK magic. I know wizards tend to be males but that might just be a double standard thing. From the definitions it looks like wizard is just someone who is good with magic. 
 
So:
 
Wizard = general magic
 
witch/warlock= black magic user
 
Hogwarts is a school of wizardry isn't it? It has female students there too.
 
Other suggestions.

#11 Edited by Tactical_Kill (1695 posts) -

@IzzyGraze: This says School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.     
On topic I think it was done just to make things simpler.

#12 Posted by Driadon (3027 posts) -
@Cadmus: Your avatar is fitting. 90% of other games, be it video, table-top or otherwise do not classify magical women as witches, only when said magic is more than a little devious. You can be a female wizard in D&D, so why not here?
#13 Posted by Emandudeguyperson (2501 posts) -

That is some sexist shit right there.

#14 Posted by Icemael (6364 posts) -
@IzzyGraze said:
"Hogwarts is a school of wizardry isn't it? It has female students there too."
You mean the ones they call witches?
#15 Posted by pause422 (6240 posts) -

WoW has female Warlocks...the class name doesnt change there. Hardly a big deal, get over it.

#16 Posted by Aaox (1657 posts) -
#17 Posted by eroticfishcake (7789 posts) -

Hehe. Female wizards with "wizards sleeves".

#18 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@IzzyGraze said:
" I don't know...
 
  Main Entry: witch
Pronunciation: \ ˈwich\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German wīh holy — more at victim
Date: before 12th century
1 : one that is credited with usually malignant supernatural powers; especially : a woman practicing usually black witchcraft often with the aid of a devil or familiar : sorceress — compare warlock 
 
  Main Entry: wiz·ard
Pronunciation: \ ˈwi-zərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise
Date: 15th century
1 archaic : a wise man : sage
2 : one skilled in magic : sorcerer 
 
It seems like wizard can be a sorceress who is skilled in magic but not DARK magic. I know wizards tend to be males but that might just be a double standard thing. From the definitions it looks like wizard is just someone who is good with magic. 
 
So:
 
Wizard = general magic
 
witch/warlock= black magic user
 
Hogwarts is a school of wizardry isn't it? It has female students there too.
 
Other suggestions. "
Hogwarts is a school of witchcraft and wizardry. 
#19 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

wat

#20 Posted by Ignor (2372 posts) -

Wizette

#21 Posted by ez123 (1994 posts) -

I would have gone with Sorcerer/Sorceress. Whatever, I just want this game to be released.

#22 Posted by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -
@Tactical_Kill said:
" This says School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.     On topic I think its just to make things simpler. "
Indeed, but let's not give the Harry Potter universe more authority than it deserves.
#23 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

Where is this coming from.  Is WoW adding a wizard class or something?  And if they are how is that any different from a mage or a warlock?

#24 Posted by Tactical_Kill (1695 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL:
Diablo 3 is adding a wizard.
#25 Posted by End_Boss (3220 posts) -
@Cadmus said:
"It's impossible for a female to be a wizard, as much as its impossible for a woman to be a man, everyone knows this.  Which leaves me to ask, why has this not been discussed anywhere else and why do I seem to be the only one that has a problem with this."
Well perhaps partly because these days, due to the miracles of science, a woman can come pretty damn close to being a man. Or, y'know, be born as both. It happens.
 
I think it's mostly because no one gives a shit, though.
#26 Edited by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -

Getting a bit technical with the language.  Witch has a very specific meaning, wizard just means wise person.  There are quite a few terms for magic user that can be thrown around and it's still all made up stuff anyway.
 
As for it being politically correct, the last time I checked, the "politically correct" complaint has to do with people being afraid to say what they want for fear of social stigma.  Blizzard obviously isn't afraid to use the term how they like.

#27 Posted by Kiemoe (1058 posts) -

In DnD, men and women are both called wizards. Since DnD is always right, I guess this is alright in Diablo as well.

#28 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Everyone knows bitches can't cast magic, yo.

#29 Posted by Kazona (3096 posts) -

I think this is probably in my top 3 of dumbest things to get mad over.

#30 Posted by Skald (4370 posts) -
@Cadmus said:
" WTF is Blizzard thinking????  Females who practice magic are called witches.  It's impossible for a female to be a wizard, as much as its impossible for a woman to be a man, everyone knows this.  Which leaves me to ask, why has this not been discussed anywhere else and why do I seem to be the only one that has a problem with this.  It's horrible decisions like this that have led me to the conclusion that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing and are just riding the diablo series carcass's coat-tails by introducing the most ridiculous ideas; probably as a means to be politically correct.  What do you think?  "
Yeah, you're right. IN THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE!  
No, but seriously. 

Unfortunately, since wizards don't ACTUALLY exist, their exact qualities are up to interpretation. Personally, I think that's a perfectly valid interpretation, and a less chauvinistic one to boot. 
Besides, I must agree that "witch" has strong pagan conoctations. Also, images, fancy ones:
 
King Arthur with Merlin, the best wizard ever.
 
 
    
 Your run-of-the-mill witch. See the difference?
#31 Posted by Cadmus (290 posts) -

@extremeradical: 
Uh, just no.  Throughout history women have always been witches and men have been wizards.  For example, Merlin was a wizard and Mim was a witch.  And it's not chauvinistic.  It's just a fact you need to accept.  I don't understand why everyone wants to see things otherwise then how they actually are in order to be politically correct.  Don't you see that everything just gets dumbed down?  
 
@ahoodedfigure: 
Yes, but Witch and Wizard are each specifically attributed to males and females in order to differentiate between them.  Males and females are different, and I guess, their use of magic is different from one another.  In Demon's Souls, the Witch Yuria said that her magic is tied to her emotions which is the exact opposite of that of Sage Freke's magic (i.e. the wizard and yes he is a guy, arguably woman can't be sages, but I'll leave that discussion to another thread).   
 
You can't escape who you are and calling a women a wizard is like calling a donkey a horse.  
 
And you're wrong, this was probably a calculated political decision on the part of Blizzard.  Blizzard wants everyone to play their game.  Blizzard wants everyone to get to level 60 or w/e the new level cap in WoW is.  Blizzard is feeding the universal lie that everyone can succeed with minimal effort and that wealth should be re-distributed and people can be whatever they want to be.  I suppose it's only a matter of time before there will be no more distinction between anything and everything will be dumbed down. 
 
@End_Boss: 
Aye, but a man will always be a man and a woman a woman you can't change it.  What Blizzard is doing is ridiculous and it's feeding the mainstream illusion that 'anybody can be whatever you want to be' (no, you aren't, you are only whatever you think you are within your own head only) and 'everyone can succeed' and all these other politically correct nonsensical ideas.  
  
@Driadon:  
That is because those other table-top games and what not are business ventures and so, are not concerned about the proper etymology concerning the proper use of words.  That's my problem with Blizzard.  Just because the magical universe is niche doesn't doesn't make it right to pass off a wizard as a female in order to make your game appealing and accessible to a female audience.  Blizzard manipulating all of you. 
 
@IzzyGraze: 
A sorceress isn't a wizard, only males can be wizards.  That is why in D2 the sorceress was FEMALE.  It would have been ridiculous if the sorceress had been male, so why is it ok for a wizard to be female?  It's stupid.  A male is a sorcerer and a female is a sorceress.  A wizard is a male and a witch is a female.   
 
@lebkin: 
Then D&D makes no sense either.  Women can't be wizards it's psychically and physically impossible.
 
@Bones8677: 
This game isn't and SHOULD NOT be WoW.  But your post and others has confirmed my fears that the Diablo series has become WoW now, but superficially structured around the Diablo mythos.  
 
@AjayRaz:
It's a huge deal.  I don't want to play as an oxymoron.

#32 Posted by Karmum (11519 posts) -

Female Wizard? Certainly sounds lame, I'd rather much see a Female looking Witch than a Wizard. Won't bother me too much, since I'd really never use the Wizard class.

#33 Posted by Bellum (2944 posts) -

Really? I mean. Really?

#34 Posted by Kazona (3096 posts) -
@Cadmus: It's impossible to claim fact over something that doesn't actually exist.
#35 Posted by Cerza (1653 posts) -

Throughout human history across all of man's different civilizations in all corners of the world there have been witches and these people are sometimes seen as good and other times evil. A witch can be a man or a woman and in some societies anyone and everyone can be or is a witch. Witches are not just women so why can wizards only be men? Also, a man and can totally become a woman today and a woman can totally become a man thanks to modern science. I grew up with a girl who is now a guy and if you saw him walking down the street you would never know he was born a her. I don't want to get into the rest of it, because it's fucked up, but then this whole thread is fucked up. 
 
I have to agree 100% with whomever said this is one of the stupidest things to get upset over.

#36 Edited by crusnchill (856 posts) -

To the general casual gaming public, a WIzard is male and Witch is female. But again, generally speaking it is normally accepted that witches are evil old crones that do nothing but scheme to revitalize there personal youth by using children as ingredients in their potions or whatever, or just controlling people around them for some reason or another. 
 
And this all stem's, from historical witch hunting and Disneys': "Eat my Apple, My pretty...", "Mirror, Mirror on the wall..." etc and that big-fat-squid-witch-woman in the Little mermaid. 
All of this bring's a stigma to the title of "Witch". So of course they do this. Besides, Everyone has to appear to be open to ALL Genders. And that is ALWAY'S a large factor in the entertainment industry when it comes to publicity and their revenues. 
 
(Yes, I had an ordinary childhood which involved me watching cartoons of all kinds, even little mermaid. So what! lol.)
#37 Edited by Cadmus (290 posts) -
@Kazona:
But it does exist.  The WORD wizards and witches exist as much as any other word in a dictionary exists.   Words help us categorize abstract ideas.  Alike, if someone practices magic and is a female, you call that person a witch; if a male, a wizard. 
 
If you don't think wizards and witches exist, then you must not also think other words that have a specific appropriate definition exist also.  How do you know entities that are ABSTRACT are not real? 
#38 Posted by Giantsquirrel (601 posts) -

SO IMPORTANT

#39 Posted by MetalGearSunny (7003 posts) -

Couldn't men be witches also? 
  
/runs

#40 Posted by Gamer_152 (14109 posts) -
@Cadmus said:
"It's horrible decisions like this that have led me to the conclusion that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing and are just riding the diablo series carcass's coat-tails by introducing the most ridiculous ideas "
Out of all the things that could make you dislike a developer whether they name their female mage class conventionally or not is what did it for you?
Moderator
#41 Posted by KamasamaK (2409 posts) -
@Cadmus said:

" But it does exist.  The WORD wizards and witches exist as much as any other word in a dictionary exists. "

And which dictionary are you pulling your definition from? This site cites definitions from Random House Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Online Etymology Dictionary without mentioning that it should be male. WordNet, YourDictionary, and Wiktionary also do not mention gender.
#42 Posted by Cadmus (290 posts) -
@Gamer_152 said:
"@Cadmus said:
"It's horrible decisions like this that have led me to the conclusion that Blizzard has no idea what they're doing and are just riding the diablo series carcass's coat-tails by introducing the most ridiculous ideas "
Out of all the things that could make you dislike a developer whether they name their female mage class conventionally or not is what did it for you? "

I dunno what you just asked.  But you have to remember that when D3 comes out, the time span between it and the previous game will have been more then 10 years.  I'm not impressed.  The two things that struck me was the insane idea of a female wizard and the giant boss battles.  My thoughts about the giant boss battles are analogous to those fighting games with special attacks that fill up the entire screen which we can all hopefully agree do not make a good game and are condiments at best (see Capcom vs. Tatsunoku).  The series should have made the jump to 3d.  I don't like Blizzard any more because they are definitely milkin their series and they aren't the same company they were back before 2000.  The only difference between them and Namco is that Blizzard releases their re-hashes + 10 years and that they actually care about their image.
#43 Posted by ThatFrood (3391 posts) -

You aren't really making sense.

#44 Posted by Adamantium (885 posts) -

I'm so glad I stumbled onto this thread. Thank you all. Sorry to interrupt, please continue.

#45 Posted by Andryan (52 posts) -

Please, please, please read a book as nothing you said is correct. Even just one!

#46 Posted by thedj93 (1237 posts) -

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS

#47 Edited by Cadmus (290 posts) -
@Kamasama said:

" @Cadmus said:

" But it does exist.  The WORD wizards and witches exist as much as any other word in a dictionary exists. "

And which dictionary are you pulling your definition from? This site cites definitions from Random House Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Online Etymology Dictionary without mentioning that it should be male. WordNet, YourDictionary, and Wiktionary also do not mention gender. "
Not from any dictionary.  Words are referenced in dictionaries, but I hope you don't think their existence is directly connected or dependent on a dictionary or any other so-called authority.  Don't you see that you just listed 2-3 sources and each one had a slightly different meaning?  Your own sources can't even agree to what the proper definition of a witch and wizard is, what authority do they carry? So of what value would it be if I sourced yet another opinionated so called authority?  We'd still be no better off then we were before.
#48 Posted by Irishjohn (581 posts) -
@ez123 said:
" I would have gone with Sorcerer/Sorceress. Whatever, I just want this game to be released. "
I agree that Sorcerer/Sorceress solves the conundrum, but wizards are cool. THE WIZARD.
#49 Edited by Hamst3r (4563 posts) -

I go with what the dictionary says when it comes to things like this:

sorcerer

 a person who practices sorcery; black magician; wizard. 
 

sorceress

a woman who practices sorcery; witch.
  

warlock

a man who practices the black arts; a male witch; sorcerer.

witch

a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art; sorceress. 
 

wizard

 a person who practices magic; magician or sorcerer.  

So:
 
1. Sorcerer, Wizard and Magician are gender-neutral.
2. Witch is supposed to be gender-neutral but in time has come to refer to women.
3. Warlock is gender-specific for men.
4. Sorceress is gender-specific women.
 
Perhaps it sounds silly that Sorcerer and Sorceress don't respectively mean Man and Woman, but it's kind of like the term, "Man" itself: "Man" in reference to mankind is all men and women, but "a man" is only for males and "a woman" is only females.
#50 Posted by Jerusahat (139 posts) -

You should read Equal Rites. But to cut a medium-sized story short, Eskarina Smith was a wizard.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.