#ttrpg commentary | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sacred-algae · 4 months ago

Text

Magic, Witchcraft, and Classism in Modern Fantasy Settings (or any fantasy settings):

a really casual essay that’s really more a braindump that’s scholarly cosplay because I have actual scholarly bullshit to do

This thought appears in my brain every once in a while when I imagine Mollymauk Tealeaf in any modern AU such as highschool, college, coffee shop, bookshop—you name it. You don’t have to have any knowledge of C2 or even Critical Role to understand this post, don’t worry; this is just the intro to the topic. I myself haven’t seen C2 and my understanding of the character comes from my place in the greater Critical Role fandom, watching hour long compilations of Molly moments, and playing the character in Widomauk RP’s with my best friend. (also, the whole post isn't even about D&D, though it does start out with a lot of examples before I move on.)

The thing is, that in a wholesome modern AU, Molly’s class (for those unfamiliar with D&D, this is not applicable to classism as we will be discussing, it's like an occupation) as a Bloodhunter doesn’t really translate all too well. Sure, if it were a modern AU where the Nein still does their job, that’s one thing, but there’s often no reason for Molly to be a Bloodhunter in highschool, college, or a coffee shop. The class is pretty dark, and I won’t get into too many details because it’s unnecessary.

What is necessary to know is that they read tarot, and they were adopted into the circus (I'm about 90% sure he's Irish Traveler). And for that reason, I think the character pretty heavily relies on the witchcraft aesthetic when being translated into a wholesome modern setting. And when I say that, you have to think of Magic and Witchcraft as two entirely separate entities. It wouldn’t be the same if he were a wizard, or a sorcerer, no. There is a 'shiftiness,' a craftiness, and an all-around rejection of the System that comes with the character of Molly. With any of Taliesin Jaffe’s characters, actually—the man is a goth. Mollymauk Tealeaf is a character that screams ACAB at the top of his lungs while wearing a skirt with celestial motifs on it and throwing Molotov cocktails made extra special with red chilies, belladonna, and graveyard dirt.

This is where the thesis comes in: In a society where magic exists and is utilized as a source of power, a feudalistic division between Magic/Sorcery and Witchcraft will rise, discounting the legitimacy of "the lesser" to uphold the desired social structure of the Magic practitioners.

Still here? Awesome. This is gonna be fun. *Rolls up sleeves.*

Defining "Magic" and "Witchcraft"

So what is the difference anyway? When we think of witchcraft, we acknowledge that it is magic. Of course it's magic, but I would argue that in a fantasy setting, the craft part would be the part with an emphasis when defining the difference.

Magic: The study, practice, and execution of arcane energy for otherworldly outcomes.

Witchcraft: The use of magic with a distinctly "at home"/"DIY" energy to it. Components are easily found if you know where to look, and through the social focus on pure arcane magic with bigger and more immediate effects, these common ways have been forgotten—There is no big show of lights, no sounds, no *POOF* to let you know that it worked like there would be with a more traditional form of magic; it is a matter of waiting. Often, it is a more chaotic and unpredictable form as if it was a wish fulfilled by a djin. Witchcraft spells have their limits, but you can get creative if you want a certain psychological effect.

Basically, I'm talking real-world folk magic put into a fantasy setting.

Magic, Materials, and Academia

Dungeons and Dragons is a great example of this, because oh boy, as a Dungeon Master, I can tell you how inherently fucked up this game is. Drows and Goblins (and other races) are actually naturally evil-aligned and have heavy racial biases coded into them. The difference between a Cleric and a Warlock is that Clerics are coded to be Good because they made a deal with a god, and Warlocks are Bad because they made a deal with something that isn't godly. Even if you don't play them like that, more nuanced in a way like Shadowheart from Baldur's Gate 3, (we aren't talking about Wyll, Wyll has his own problematic writing separate to this point) Clerics deal radiant damage, and Warlocks deal necrotic. And there is a classic divide between Sorcerers and Wizards, with Sorcerors having inherent power, often bullying the weaker Wizards who came into it through hours of dedication to study and practice.

However, the biggest problem, and the problem I'm going to be using as an example, is material spell components.

When you are casting a spell in D&D, you have three types of components you need to cast a spell. Verbal (spoken), Somatic (gestures), and Material (exactly what it sounds like). A spell can be cast with any combination of these three, and material spell components are something that I despise (apologies to any non-D&D players for what I'm about to say next, it gets confusing).

Of course, there are more inexpensive spell components that do not need to be repurchased, or you can opt for a focus in its place, but if a spell specifies a material cost, the material is needed to cast the spell. A common material spell component is literally diamonds. A good example of this is Chromatic Orb, a level 1 spell that requires a diamond worth 50gp to cast. Most players start out with 10-20gp at level 1. Now, this is a component that isn't consumed for Chromatic Orb (though a lot of spells requiring diamonds do consume it), meaning it can be reusable for this spell or another one and thus, would probably be found in a component pouch.

See, I understand their function within the game as a mechanic to keep tension, however, the problem arises when you think about the implications: Imagine you're a sorcerer in a small town. You were born with magic in you, but you were also born poor. Unfortunately, there are some spells that need materials to cast, materials you cannot afford. You're kept away from certain kinds of magic. And a wizard? Well, unless you have access to books or a mentor, you can't learn magic at all. Wizards are either born into the middle or upper class, or have to fight their way up from poverty to fulfill their goals.

Accessibility vs. Academia

I think The Owl House portrays this thought process the best. Arcane/League of Legends is another big one, but the theme is literally everywhere in media all throughout the history of storytelling with characters like Ripley in Critical Role/The Legend of Vox Machina, Lady Eboshi in Princess Mononoke, or Batman or Iron Man or literally every story about technology (or magic), and discovery ever. Hell, it goes back to fucking Jason and the Golden Fleece. Further, even. But The Owl House has got to be my favorite when it comes to this topic because it's not about a latent lust for power, it's purely about accessibility.

Luz is a human. Meaning that she can't produce magic because it's not in her, it's something that she can't do. But she finds a way anyway by devoting time and patience to studying what happens when her magical peers do magic. Through it, she's able to discover these glyphs as shown in the gif above, and by drawing them, she can replicate their power. They function much like spell scrolls in D&D, but they're much more hands-on and don't require the knowledge of a scholar to make them.

There's this great video on Medieval Stasis in fantasy by Perseus Grim on YouTube. It's half an hour and I highly recommend that every fantasy writer or game master should watch it, and if you aren't a writer and just an enjoyer, you should check it out too. Even if you don't care about medieval aesthetic fantasy, it discusses magic, technology, and power dynamics, which is what we're talking about here! Basically, he argues a lot better than I can, that since magic = power > power = influence > influence = control > control = corruption, the 1% is going to do everything within their power to control who uses magic. How many stories have you heard where a wizard gets a taste of power and decides they need more? I can think of many within the sources being discussed. Academia in real life is incredibly limited, because knowledge is power. There may be a person who is self-taught at their trade that may be so much better than a person with a degree, but who is going to get the job?

The same thing goes for magic and witchcraft, and we'll get back to that in a second.

The Gender of Witchcraft: Misogyny and Christo-Colonialism

Whooboy, long section title.

Now let me make this perfectly clear. It is now more relevant than ever with WitchTok, Wicca, and New Age, that we assert the fact that historical witches weren't fucking doing anything. They were innocent women (oftentimes women of color, Jewish women, Roma women, or disabled women) who had nothing to do with witchcraft. If I have to hear one more person say "We are the witches they couldn't burn" or any modern witch try to claim the Witch Tartan for anything other than purely advocacy for women's rights I'm going fucking to throw something.

HOWEVER. Modern practice of witchcraft is inherently feminine because of it. Gender is a construct, yes, but just because it's constructed doesn't mean it's not real. It was made real when it was constructed. Gender roles are guidelines no one has to adhere to, but it is going to be hundreds and hundreds of years before every single person on this planet forgets everything they ever knew all throughout history about masculine and feminine energy. People are affirmed in their genders by practicing "feminine" and "masculine" things. Like it or not, we all have gendered perceptions of things, and that's okay so long as we don't abuse them and we recognize that it's not a one size fits all. Gender is a buffet, babydoll. Pick and choose what you want and indulge.

But like I said, because of the history of witches, witchcraft, and misogyny, there is something inherently feminine about the way we use witchcraft today.

Before Christian-Colonialism, what we consider today to be "witchcraft" or "magic" were just facts of life. Rituals done every day by everyday people. It was tradition, medicine, food, art, you name it. But the most prominent practices we think of today were magics of the hearth and home. Herbs, candles, potions—feminine. And it was that way throughout history too. And as witchcraft is reclaimed in the wake of American Christian Extremism (because think about it, most modern witches that reclaim it were Americans raised in American Christian Extremism), we'll continue to think of it that way because of the same Christian thinking we are trying to avoid. Part of that is social conditioning...

But part of that is a pushback against Christian Colonialism that wiped out indigenous folk practices all throughout the world, and the misogyny faced in the face of what is considered "proper" forms of faith. When the people who call witchcraft a cult are the same people who centuries ago burnt the witches, they think of witchcraft as feminine. So what do you do? You get more feminine to push back. It's like hyperfeminity!

So if witchcraft is feminine... it's feared.

But back to "proper forms of faith", post-Christian-Colonialism, witchcraft in the West is a pick and choose. Mixing up some herbs and rolling an oiled candle in them before burning it so that you get a job? Witchcraft. A member of the church blessing some water and pouring it over the top of the head of a newborn baby so they don't end up in Hell if they die early? Not witchcraft. Much like gender, the idea of witchcraft is a construct. This is because of power division. They want to keep themselves pure by not associating with the unpure witchcraft because if people knew they were doing witchcraft, they would lose faith. And conversely, if they're seen as doing witchcraft, witchcraft now has legitimacy. They don't want witchcraft to have legitimacy, because if it does, they don't have a monopoly on power.

So put the ideas of feminism, fear, and power monopoly together and you suddenly get a motive for the gatekeeping of magic.

Freedom in the "Hocus Pocus"

So like... what's real magic, then?

I find the politics of what's considered to be "real magic" and what's hocus-pocus woo-woo in a fantasy world really interesting. Like, you believe in magic but there's limits on what's real? You have access to divination, but tarot and astrology is bullshit? Things like plants and herbs, honeycomb, incense, gemstones, and even glass are material components in D&D, but combining those ingredients in a different way isn't magic? By all logic, it should work considering those ingredients are magical. Maybe there just isn't a massive flash of light, a booming sound, and an immediate effect.

So... who's to say that all the courtly magicians and professors and all the people relying on their magic to keep their social power didn't... just... say some of it isn't magic? It gets dismissed as hocus-pocus woo-woo so that "real magic" is held for only the people they want to have it. Because if there is a different, more accessible form of magic out there, the class divide is gone. It just makes sense.

And if the legitimacy of witchcraft as a form of magic is acknowledged, they’d be like “Yeah it’s real, but why even bother when you can get something better and more effective.” There's something to be explored in fantasy here and I want to see it used. Is it unknown and unharnessed? Is it underground and passes through generations? Is it known and just not cared about? Is it persecuted? How is it persecuted? Is it seen as weird? Is it feared? Is it outlawed?

Anyways I just think it's really fucking cool. If you made it this far on this massive, unedited braindump, you're also really fucking cool.

6 notes · View notes