[Discuss] What's the difference between Wizard, Sorcerer, Magician, Magus, etc

Which one do you prefer to use?

  • Magician

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Wizard

    Votes: 5 13.5%
  • Sorcerer

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Magus

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Sage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Warlock

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Shaman

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • etc (not listed here for some reason)

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Mage

    Votes: 16 43.2%

  • Total voters
    37

Toomanysorrows

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
37
Points
58
So, for most of this thread I honestly don't think it matters. Most of these words are somewhat mutually interchangeable, so I think attaching firm definitions isn't useful. You should just use the one that has connotations close to what you want to imply with the title in your fiction (or hey, maybe use it to invert expectations!)

Buuut I also wanted to comment on this because it's something that pops up so much around discussions of witches and warlocks and it's.... well entirely wrong.
Witch/Warlock
As I covered above, Witches and Warlocks are respectively the titles for a female and male priest of the Wiccan faith.

Wicca was derided as a pagan religion by the Roman Christians who sought to convert them. However, Wicca was one of the faiths that Christianity approached with honey rather than vinegar, adopting a lot of their holy days and simply re-purposing them into Christian lore. (Such as making Christmas 4 days after the Winter Festival when by all rights it ought to have been somewhere in April.)

The manner in which Christianity approached Wicca is the only reason why the terms "Witch" and "Warlock" are still around rather than having been completely erased from history as was the case with most other pagan religions.

Wicca was a practice of the natives of what is England today. As such, in some tellings of the King Arther story, Merlin was a Warlock instead of a Wizard. These portrayals of Merlin as a Warlock also state he had demon blood, thus demonstrating the particularly negative view Christian influenced fiction has for Witches and Warlocks.

Even DnD makes the view of Witches and Warlocks rather negative, although they generally treat Witches and Warlocks as 2 separate entities. However, they are rather similar in how they are treated. In both cases, they make some form of contract with an otherworldly power, reminiscent of the original Christian-influenced corruption of the lore that states Witches and Warlocks make a contract with the devil in order to gain their powers.
Wicca is not a centuries-old religion persecuted by the christians. Wicca is a religion founded by Gerald Gardner in the middle of the 20th century. Since the late 18th century there had been a lot of interest in the occult in Britain, with organisations like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and this often included an interest in old pagan religions (it's in the 19th century that you start to see people trying to revive druid rituals for instance). Gardner was steeped in this occult-obsessed environment.

Moreover at the time there were ideas about the persistence of pagan religions into later history. Most importantly there was the book The Witch Cult in Western Europe by Margaret Murray in which she posited that the witches persecuted in the early modern period were actually remnants of an ancient pagan religion spanning Europe. This book is pretty much entirely historically incorrect, and was recognised as such by most historians at the time, but it caught on in occult circles (and a lot of its ideas still persist in pop culture and especially among neopagans, it's in some ways the foundational myth of wicca.) When Gerald Gardner met a coven of occultists in the New Forest he was convinced that they were remnants of Murray's witch cult and decided to revive what he saw as an ancient religion, and thus he founded wicca. But there is 0 evidence to support the idea that witches were secret pagans persecuted by the church, and even if they were there is no connection between the witches persecuted in the witch hunts and wicca except insofar as the modern religion has adopted them as a founding mythology.

The word witch derives from the old English wicca and wicce, respectively the male and female forms of... well the meaning is ambiguous, it just seems to have been someone doing something vaguely magic-related. Gardner would end up appropriating this old name for such people for his religion, hence the similarity in names. Later these words would morph into witch, a word that in practice could be used for both male and female magic users.

So you have the word wicca/wicce as a relatively neutral term to denote practitioners of sorcery/magic. At the start of the middle ages this was only illegal when it was specifically acts of harmful magic. But since, indeed, folk sorcery often involved remnants of pagan practice (although due to the relatively fast christianisation of England soon most who practiced it were christians) the church insisted on it becoming illegal (although when compared to pagan Roman laws about sorcery, which often called for torture and death, the penalties were relatively light with just some years of penance.) Due to those pagan elements it became associated with manipulating evil spirits and soon with making a deal with the devil himself. But by then, again, we're in a time when most people in England (and Western Europe) in general are christians, just with folk magic that has a lot of syncretism between christianity and old pagan religions.

At the same time, the church is combatting heresies throughout Europe like the Cathars and Waldensians. On the one hand there's all sorts of lurid stories about the orgies these sects are throwing and how they are secretly worshipping the devil. On the other hand a theological idea starts developing that heresy is always consciously or subconsciously working for the devil. So heretics are working for the devil, and sorcerers/witches have ties with him as well. And the heretics serve him. And they worship him in orgies at night where they eat baby flesh. And there you go, sorcery and heresy get associated with each other and you have all the ingredients for the witch beliefs. Then, in the general malaise of the late 15th century where a lot of people are disillusioned with the church and society and start to found reform movements, and then the spiritual chaos caused by the reformation and counterreformation, as people become paranoid about who is a true christian and seek to purge anyone who could be causing the community harm, it all boils over in the panic of the witch hunts. And again, I want to stress: there is no evidence of anyone in England or anywhere else in Western Europe being pagan at this point in time. The old religions were long dead by then and wicca wouldn't be created for another 400 years. At most some people probably engaged in a form of folk magic, which was a syncretic mess of christian and pagan rituals, but this didn't mean they actually believed in pagan gods.

At the same time the witch became gendered. Images of evil female magic-users go back to pagan Roman religion, and in medieval and early modern christianity women were implicitly seen as more corruptible and closer to the supernatural, and therefore easy prey to the devil. As such they featured prominently in witch iconography and the majority of those accused of witchcraft were women. That said, during the witch hunts there were many men accused of and convicted for witchcraft and the idea that witches can only be women is something that only arose afterwards as witches became a pop culture figure.

So, yes, in its earliest origin the negative associations around the term witch derived from the church's condemnation of folk magic which often incorporated older pagan elements. However, the modern image of the witch found in places like D&D as someone making a pact with the devil and serving him has a lot less to do with demonising paganism than with the spiritual anxieties of late medieval and early modern christians in the context of a 15th century that saw a lot of disillusionment with the church and a 16th and 17th century that became a battlefield for different christian theologies. And it has nothing to do with wicca, which is a thoroughly modern religion that just incorporates elements of old pagan religions.

The word warlock is an accessory to all this. It's a scottish term coming from old english Waerloga, an oath-breaker. Since witches were held to be making pacts with the devil and therefore betraying christianity, a male witch came to be called a warlock for that supposed treachery (in general, Scotland tended to have more male witches than a lot of other places.)
 

Jemini

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
1,907
Points
153
So, for most of this thread I honestly don't think it matters. Most of these words are somewhat mutually interchangeable, so I think attaching firm definitions isn't useful. You should just use the one that has connotations close to what you want to imply with the title in your fiction (or hey, maybe use it to invert expectations!)

Buuut I also wanted to comment on this because it's something that pops up so much around discussions of witches and warlocks and it's.... well entirely wrong.

Wicca is not a centuries-old religion persecuted by the christians. Wicca is a religion founded by Gerald Gardner in the middle of the 20th century. Since the late 18th century there had been a lot of interest in the occult in Britain, with organisations like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and this often included an interest in old pagan religions (it's in the 19th century that you start to see people trying to revive druid rituals for instance). Gardner was steeped in this occult-obsessed environment.

Moreover at the time there were ideas about the persistence of pagan religions into later history. Most importantly there was the book The Witch Cult in Western Europe by Margaret Murray in which she posited that the witches persecuted in the early modern period were actually remnants of an ancient pagan religion spanning Europe. This book is pretty much entirely historically incorrect, and was recognised as such by most historians at the time, but it caught on in occult circles (and a lot of its ideas still persist in pop culture and especially among neopagans, it's in some ways the foundational myth of wicca.) When Gerald Gardner met a coven of occultists in the New Forest he was convinced that they were remnants of Murray's witch cult and decided to revive what he saw as an ancient religion, and thus he founded wicca. But there is 0 evidence to support the idea that witches were secret pagans persecuted by the church, and even if they were there is no connection between the witches persecuted in the witch hunts and wicca except insofar as the modern religion has adopted them as a founding mythology.

The word witch derives from the old English wicca and wicce, respectively the male and female forms of... well the meaning is ambiguous, it just seems to have been someone doing something vaguely magic-related. Gardner would end up appropriating this old name for such people for his religion, hence the similarity in names. Later these words would morph into witch, a word that in practice could be used for both male and female magic users.

So you have the word wicca/wicce as a relatively neutral term to denote practitioners of sorcery/magic. At the start of the middle ages this was only illegal when it was specifically acts of harmful magic. But since, indeed, folk sorcery often involved remnants of pagan practice (although due to the relatively fast christianisation of England soon most who practiced it were christians) the church insisted on it becoming illegal (although when compared to pagan Roman laws about sorcery, which often called for torture and death, the penalties were relatively light with just some years of penance.) Due to those pagan elements it became associated with manipulating evil spirits and soon with making a deal with the devil himself. But by then, again, we're in a time when most people in England (and Western Europe) in general are christians, just with folk magic that has a lot of syncretism between christianity and old pagan religions.

At the same time, the church is combatting heresies throughout Europe like the Cathars and Waldensians. On the one hand there's all sorts of lurid stories about the orgies these sects are throwing and how they are secretly worshipping the devil. On the other hand a theological idea starts developing that heresy is always consciously or subconsciously working for the devil. So heretics are working for the devil, and sorcerers/witches have ties with him as well. And the heretics serve him. And they worship him in orgies at night where they eat baby flesh. And there you go, sorcery and heresy get associated with each other and you have all the ingredients for the witch beliefs. Then, in the general malaise of the late 15th century where a lot of people are disillusioned with the church and society and start to found reform movements, and then the spiritual chaos caused by the reformation and counterreformation, as people become paranoid about who is a true christian and seek to purge anyone who could be causing the community harm, it all boils over in the panic of the witch hunts. And again, I want to stress: there is no evidence of anyone in England or anywhere else in Western Europe being pagan at this point in time. The old religions were long dead by then and wicca wouldn't be created for another 400 years. At most some people probably engaged in a form of folk magic, which was a syncretic mess of christian and pagan rituals, but this didn't mean they actually believed in pagan gods.

At the same time the witch became gendered. Images of evil female magic-users go back to pagan Roman religion, and in medieval and early modern christianity women were implicitly seen as more corruptible and closer to the supernatural, and therefore easy prey to the devil. As such they featured prominently in witch iconography and the majority of those accused of witchcraft were women. That said, during the witch hunts there were many men accused of and convicted for witchcraft and the idea that witches can only be women is something that only arose afterwards as witches became a pop culture figure.

So, yes, in its earliest origin the negative associations around the term witch derived from the church's condemnation of folk magic which often incorporated older pagan elements. However, the modern image of the witch found in places like D&D as someone making a pact with the devil and serving him has a lot less to do with demonising paganism than with the spiritual anxieties of late medieval and early modern christians in the context of a 15th century that saw a lot of disillusionment with the church and a 16th and 17th century that became a battlefield for different christian theologies. And it has nothing to do with wicca, which is a thoroughly modern religion that just incorporates elements of old pagan religions.

The word warlock is an accessory to all this. It's a scottish term coming from old english Waerloga, an oath-breaker. Since witches were held to be making pacts with the devil and therefore betraying christianity, a male witch came to be called a warlock for that supposed treachery (in general, Scotland tended to have more male witches than a lot of other places.)
Well, thank you for the info and correction then. I suppose I was a little lazy in my quick search. I was a little more thorough with my search on Magi, and the list got exhaustive by that point so I just went along with what I'd thought I knew from popular myth.

I do have to disagree though on how easily interchangeable the terms are. Yes, they can be used rather loosely. However, if you anchor the terms a little closer to their historical portrayal both historically and also in more modern perceptions of it, it will add weight to your writing. A sense of weight deepens the reader's immersion.

Adding weight to your writing is proportionate to the number of rules you attach to your writing, and how detailed those rules are. Borrowing real world historical context is both a short-cut to getting a set of rules far more complex than you can easily create on your own and also it manages to borrow some of the weight that the real life term has behind it.

Also, when you are using it like this, original sources are always the best and sources that are from the current generation of writing (other webnovels in this case) are nearly useless. As such, the definition of Wicca that I gave is medium grade in terms of usefulness, being around 70 years old and having had time to accumulate some weight. In fact, the very fact it's such a popular misconception means it has the appropriate amount of power behind it. The power is damaged slightly due to this being an inaccurate view, but if a writer were to use it carefully and not make the mistake of explicitly stating that 'this is the history of the term' as I did, then it will still have plenty enough weight to get the job done. Meanwhile, the true original sources history you gave has even more power behind it than what I gave if one were to try to incorporate it into their writing.
 

Kilolo

I'm so kewl
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
419
Points
103
magic is never scientifically proven to be exist, which is the main reason why there's no general consensus about these terms.

so there's no point in acclaiming something to be right or wrong in terms of magic. It can only be based from contradictory history and fantasy fiction anyway.

it's my bad by the way, I should've put [discuss] prefix since beginning. I mean I made this thread with the purpose of wanting to know how other people perceiving magical term. not trying to be historically accurate.
 

Kilolo

I'm so kewl
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
419
Points
103
Based Sam Wilson
A sorcerer.jpg
 
Top