If warlocks are male witches, then what would be a female wizard?

A male witch is just a witch. Witch is suppose to be a sex neutral word. Warlocks make pacts with demons.

Bitches

The word Warlock never made sense to me. I'm sure it's some old germanic shit that makes no fucking sense, but logically to me a Warlock should be some guy who keeps wars from happening by locking shit down.

Warlock means oath-breaker in Old English.

The professional term is "Minus 4 Strength Wizard"

Enchantress?

It's still Wizard. The term is gender neutral, like drunkard.

No, that would specifically be a female enchanter.

So do witches.

>probably get a fake beard and big hat to compensate for the dong you don't have
>mfw this fashion sense probably arose from females trying to be wizards a lot
>mfw this means any bearded Wizard with a conical hat has a 50/50 chance of actually being a chick in disguise
I'm unsure how to feel about this

Wizardess
allwords.com/word-wizardess.html
Perfectly acceptable word usage user.

Warlocks are warlocks, wizards are wizards. The name is unisex in most contexts.

A warlock is a male witch.
If you disagree, then explain the difference between the two otherwise.

>If you disagree, then explain the difference
Warlock comes from the word "waerloc" which is an old English word to refer to "oathbreakers" and has no natural connotations withagic naturally

Witch, however, comes directly from the word wicca(mas)/wicce (fem). The etymology is harder to pin down, but most sources associate it with some kind of spiritual/sorcerous practice.

One is a condemnation for an act, the other is directly a magical title with gender variation.

That's like saying the word faggot has no connotations with homosexuality.
The meaning of the word 'warlock' has been recognised as denoting a male witch for at least a century.

Some say that the path of pure wizardry and the path of that which is called degeneracy are separated by naught but a hair

>recognised as denoting a male witch
No, it was recognised as "Satanist asshole who breaks his covenants with God for hell magic"

Meanwhile, a Witch has always been used as a gender neutral title even into the Salem Trials, as even men could be accused of being witches/performing WITCHcraft

not him, but a warlock is in league with the devil as is they've made a deal for power.
It also means "oathbreaker" after all what type of a so-and-so makes deals with the devil.
in fact it used to mean "devil" full stop.

a witch is just a sort of herbal wizard not good, not evil, just you know,
"here's some wort to heal your wounds"
"but not you! you get the evil eye!"
sort of thing. not to be confused with a "hag" which is a evil spirit
but Christianity painted them as evil because well in medieval England anything that isn't Christian was the work of the devil.

To stick with the analogy I'd say it's more like the difference between being a "homosexual" and being a "raging faggot"

A whore

>pharaohs can only be male

Unfortunately, you are categorically wrong.

Yes.
Even the female ones.

Honestly just lump them all as Mages or "Magic Users" if you want really on the nose.

The terms were used fairly interchangeably anyway. I don't see why we should act like there is a high definition just because wizards (of the coast) co-opt it for class names.

You know the role of "Princess" in vampire masquerade is neither male or no royalty in anyway sense of the term always

Faggots are a bunch of sticks tied together for the purposes of kindling, also British Commonwealth slang cigarette.

That's like mentioning bring up Pope Joan.

Queen Hatshepsut was a special case. The only reason she was called pharaoh was because she had everyone else who didn't acknowledge as such put to the sword. Although the same could be said for literally any monarch.

What about Nitocris? Or is she not a pharaoh?

"Look to my coming, at first light, on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East."

Now I kinda wanna rewatch the Rankin and Bass Hobbit, but with Gandalf replaced and redubbed with a babe with a rich alto voice

Honestly no. She was acting Interregnum at best, and that's assuming she existed to begin with.

Anyway this is like that time the Oscars insisted on "best female actor" as a award category.

I'm not sure if Diana really "counts" as princess either but like these broads she dead now what difference does it make?

Everyone's just a particular type of wizard now anyway. Even the fighters and rouges and especially the cleric.

Etymology aside, "warlock" has commonly been used to denote a male witch, and a trip to the dictionary will back that up. It may be used more broadly to refer to any male practitioner of magic, but then witch may be broadly used to refer to any female practitioner of magic, so even that doesn't necessarily put space between them.

A Warlock is a man who practices witchcraft.

what about cleo?

>If warlocks are male witches

Source?

Pratchett was a talentless numale, stop letting him dictate general fantasy.

a trap

The term " pharaoh" had well had fallen way out of fashion by the time Cleopatra came to power.

She was born in 69 BC (that's means before Christ, who yes was real, before you bring in that "common era" bullshit. Not that the dates actually lineup to his birth of anything or anything) which is a good deal after what we would consider ancient Egypt. I'm sure she'll be as DLC assassins Creed Origins but,

People refer to her as Queen back on the day. Just as they did in the 50s and I'll be dammed if I'm gonna start now.

Also depicted her as anything more than slightly tanned is probably wrong as well. She was descended from other European and Mediterranean royal families. Rachel Dolezal probably had more African blood blood then her.

Here's your (you)

A wizard.

>that's means before Christ, who yes was real, before you bring in that "common era" bullshit.
I don't think that many people question his existence; they just doubt he was a wizard. As for the whole CE / BCE thing, while I support the idea of not having our date system be explicitly religious ("in the year of the Lord"), but "common era" is dumb, and "BCE" is very verbally awkward. So I support the idea, but functionality is lacking.

Thanks, I needed that.

I think Common Era sounds cool. That's the only reason I use it.

Depends on setting.

Why do you keep making these threads?

There is no historical evidence of jesus' existance.

#
#
>I don't think that many people question his existence

I fucking wish. On the Internet people believe the Bible is either the literal word of God or "fairytales for adults" zero historical basis at all. It's one or the other.

I'm not opposed to overhauling the calendar system for actually new and better like the Revolutionary French tried to do. But It's the standard Gregorain Calendar with the the serial numbers filed off.

For recordkeeping purposes it's just terrible, and and as far as trying to generate "secular inclusiveness" it's probably up there with holiday trees.

#
Dude Jesus of Nazareth has more evidence then vaccines, global warming or the moon landing at this point.

People said Aleister Crowley was a wizard as well. Just because they're wrong doesn't doesn't mean the guy didn't exist.

>what would be a female wizard?

FtM

Show that evidence, then, bucko. You're making some wild ass claims here.

Wicca. Enchantress.

Why make this thread? You knew exactly what you were doing, feeding the realism retards who think reading up on a word's origins gives them the right in shitting on other people's setting design choices. Why is this part of Veeky Forums now and how do we excise it?

Wizardess. Look it up.

The dictionary. Look it up.

Warlock means 'oath-breaker', so I suppose the difference is that witches make pacts with demons but stick to their own code of morals, but warlocks just do anything for 'moar powah'.

>shit thread
>OP picture is a goddamn /pol/ meme-bitch
poetry

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

He didn't become famous until after his death but there are non-Christian corroborated historical accounts from Jews, Romans and Greeks about him. People paid much more than you are who are experts on this time period universally agree that Jesus was a real historical person.

To be honest, I wholeheartedly suppost CE/BCE just because it reduces the chances of the muslim countries banning the modern calendar, and synchronised calendars are really useful to scholars, especially historians.

>reduces the chances of the muslim countries banning the modern calendar,
>Caring what fascist anti-intellectuals who are too busy destroying museums and Babylonian sculptors instead of actually trying to make viable nations think

If having one calendar for the whole world makes it easier for academics to do their job, then I do. I wish we could just force them to adopt a decent culture, maybe by nailing their babies to the walls of mecca and nuking them, then doing the same to other holy cities until they get the point, but that would probably end with the extinction of the white race, since 100% of muslims are warriors compared to not even 1% of white men.

You sound like a legitimate psychopath

Enchantress, next question

Wizard = male
Witch = female
Warlock = edgy hipster demonologist that wants to be good even tho he is clearly evil

How was he a numale?

I think I'm getting the hang of Veeky Forums, where the plebs of wealth and taste go to unwin

>this user is not retarded, he is VERY CAREFULLY AND PRECISELY pretending to be retarded
>in fact he was so exact about it that he gave himself away as not being retarded at all

That or I'm just going crazy.

That's litteraly what the female initiates of Lhankor Mhy must do. (and even men and non-humans unable to grow a beard)

Depends on the setting. In AD&D, Wizard is a category, with Mage being a gender neutral term for both male and females who are general wizards.

Irl, the term is normally associated with one who is a wise sage (wiz coming from wise) so the term is gender neutral anyways.

>universally agree that jesus existed
>all based on the bible

The bible is propaganda, not a historical text. It doesn't matter what their universal opinion is if they use this as a source.

And considering that Nazareth the city didn't exist till sometime after Yeshua's supposed life, yeah, there are some problems with his supposed existence (archaeology of the region paints it as a vineyard and a jewish graveyard on two sides of the valley the city resides in. Jesus as a hyper jew and god himself wouldn't break jewish law he set down himself, thus living in a graveyard is verboten. Guess where most of the supposed homes of Jesus are located in the city?). Or the fact that the earliest writer Paul conceived him as a purely celestial being with no earthly presence. Or the multitude of inaccurate and ahistorical issues within the writing. Or so much more.

A lot of people mistake a few truthy details about the setting with the actual "messiah" being real. Or they mistake a bunch of historian commenting on a cult existing as confirmation that the supposed messiah of that cult was real, totally disregarding how many modern cults have made up messiahs.

The Bible is and has always been passed down by generation to generation.

The general and canon bible is a recent invention that came with the printing press.

Passing down the Bible this way is like playing a game of telephone with over 3000 words and across ~5 languages.

Basing your whole arguement on some loopholes in the Bible is rather stupid considering how much has changed. I'm willing to believe that the Old Testament mark 1 didn't have the god hardened Pharohs heart verse, that was likely a evolution of mistakes.

The Jesus existed side has some evidence and considering that no one has a time marching yet I'm far more willing to accept tangential evidence than evidence based on loopholes.

I would like to invoke Ockham's razor, Jesus existed and did some stuff is a far simpler explanation than a mystical being called Jesus appearing out of the void of groupthink.

What about a wizardette?

No it doesn't, you goof. Unless there's a specific reason for it (which there generally isn't, let's be honest here) then it's just because the writer doesn't know the damn difference.

>even men
I remember when the Malleus Maleficarum was considered controversial for even suggesting that women could be witches. And then the entire book was spent ranting about Archer Wizards and demanding female witches get more lenient sentences. You all need to stop watching The Burning Times and brush up on actual history.

Forged his own sword because he though it would be cool.

Care to give me some sources?