Recently in the Dolmenwood thread, the original setting's Wormskin witch portrayal was mentioned alongside the more recent disneyification and sent me down the rabbit hole to see what the original was and I was very impressed with dark sensual fantasy evil portrayal as opposed to the sanitized "don't piss off the reddit Bewiccans" versions we see more recently.   It made me realize that we really haven't had a real portrayal of either version in the D&D editions that I've played with the closest things being the warlock with their pacts and the monster npc hags and their spawn as a race.

How were witches portrayed in earlier editions of D&D prior to the 2e introduction the hag?  Do any OSR products keep that more dark portrayal as well?  I wasn't sure if the dark classic portrayal of witches were yet another casualty of the satanic panic in the 80s along with assassins, devils, demons, and thieves or if they never existed in the proporty (as opposed to the continued avoidance due to woke moral panic in more recent editions).

I'd say they never really existed in TSR D&D - even OD&D has its "beautiful witch" Glenda/Bewitched type pic. But Judges Guild had Witches Court Marshes leaning heavily into the classic portrayal.

Best of Dragon #1 has a couple of articles on witches for D&D. Interesting stuff.

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMHow were witches portrayed in earlier editions of D&D prior to the 2e introduction the hag?  Do any OSR products keep that more dark portrayal as well?  I wasn't sure if the dark classic portrayal of witches were yet another casualty of the satanic panic in the 80s along with assassins, devils, demons, and thieves or if they never existed in the proporty (as opposed to the continued avoidance due to woke moral panic in more recent editions).

Hags were in the 1977 first-ed Monster Manual. (They're under "N" for "Night Hag" and "S" for "Sea Hag".)

Before that, there was the infamous 1976 Dragon magazine #7 article "Women & Magic" by Len Lakofka which suggested rules for female PCs in OD&D which included female magic users that go from level 1 "Medium" to level 9 "Witch". Those aren't really dark, though - they mostly have a lot of "Charm Man" and "Seduction" powers. Similar goes for other versions of witches that appeared in early Dragon magazine.

Dark satanic witches were part of original Chivalry & Sorcery, but that's distant from D&D/OSR rules.

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2025, 12:16:21 PM

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMHow were witches portrayed in earlier editions of D&D prior to the 2e introduction the hag?  Do any OSR products keep that more dark portrayal as well?  I wasn't sure if the dark classic portrayal of witches were yet another casualty of the satanic panic in the 80s along with assassins, devils, demons, and thieves or if they never existed in the proporty (as opposed to the continued avoidance due to woke moral panic in more recent editions).

Hags were in the 1977 first-ed Monster Manual. (They're under "N" for "Night Hag" and "S" for "Sea Hag".)

Before that, there was the infamous 1976 Dragon magazine #7 article "Women & Magic" by Len Lakofka which suggested rules for female PCs in OD&D which included female magic users that go from level 1 "Medium" to level 9 "Witch". Those aren't really dark, though - they mostly have a lot of "Charm Man" and "Seduction" powers. Similar goes for other versions of witches that appeared in early Dragon magazine.

Dark satanic witches were part of original Chivalry & Sorcery, but that's distant from D&D/OSR rules.

Thanks as I wasn't aware of that.   I usually use the FR wiki for info on older editions (especially ones I didn't play in to any real extent) and the hag only goes back to 2e on the entry.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hag

One might assume that's because FR only came out in 2e but other entries like the orc have 1e info as well so I assumed (incorrectly) that might have been when they introduced them.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Orc

Quote from: bat on April 25, 2025, 11:29:30 AMBest of Dragon #1 has a couple of articles on witches for D&D. Interesting stuff.

Thanks!   I'll have to see if I can find a version of it online to peruse.

Quote from: S'mon on April 25, 2025, 11:18:06 AMI'd say they never really existed in TSR D&D - even OD&D has its "beautiful witch" Glenda/Bewitched type pic. But Judges Guild had Witches Court Marshes leaning heavily into the classic portrayal.

I'm ok with "beautiful" witches if they're still rotten to the core on the inside.     Even the ugly ones typically both in D&D and just the wider fantasy space have routine access to shapechanging/illusion to make themselves more beautiful so it doesn't bother me.   I'll have to see if I can scrounge up that version online as well.   By classic portrayal, do you mean simply ugly to behold or dark body horror shenanigans?

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 01:25:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2025, 12:16:21 PM

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMHow were witches portrayed in earlier editions of D&D prior to the 2e introduction the hag?  Do any OSR products keep that more dark portrayal as well?  I wasn't sure if the dark classic portrayal of witches were yet another casualty of the satanic panic in the 80s along with assassins, devils, demons, and thieves or if they never existed in the proporty (as opposed to the continued avoidance due to woke moral panic in more recent editions).

Hags were in the 1977 first-ed Monster Manual. (They're under "N" for "Night Hag" and "S" for "Sea Hag".)

Before that, there was the infamous 1976 Dragon magazine #7 article "Women & Magic" by Len Lakofka which suggested rules for female PCs in OD&D which included female magic users that go from level 1 "Medium" to level 9 "Witch". Those aren't really dark, though - they mostly have a lot of "Charm Man" and "Seduction" powers. Similar goes for other versions of witches that appeared in early Dragon magazine.

Dark satanic witches were part of original Chivalry & Sorcery, but that's distant from D&D/OSR rules.

Thanks as I wasn't aware of that.   I usually use the FR wiki for info on older editions (especially ones I didn't play in to any real extent) and the hag only goes back to 2e on the entry.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Hag

One might assume that's because FR only came out in 2e but other entries like the orc have 1e info as well so I assumed (incorrectly) that might have been when they introduced them.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Orc

OK. I've now updated the "Hag" wiki entry to reflect their 1E stats. That's the great thing about wikis.

You can browse Dragon magazine here. As far as I know, different takes on witches showed up in #3, #20, #43, and #114.

https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/rpg.rem.uz/Dungeons%20&%20Dragons/Magazines/Dragon/

Thanks for editing the wiki and the links to the dragon magazine archives.  I'll take a look at the articles tonight!   As for the wiki, you have to have technosorcery as a trained skill for that but I'm glad you do!

I always liked the Palladium Fantasy RPG witch class. 

They're spell casters who took a shortcut.  Rather than study magic for years and do the work needed, they form a permanent pact with a supernatural creature.  In exchange they can easily cast magic, get a familiar animal that is both useful and keeps tabs/spies on the witch for their master, and occasionally get missions from their master.

It's also a requirement to be an evil alignment.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 25, 2025, 09:14:51 PMThey're spell casters who took a shortcut.  Rather than study magic for years and do the work needed, they form a permanent pact with a supernatural creature.

Isn't that exactly the 5e warlock? If memory serves the Pathfinder witch class is based on that concept as well.

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMIt made me realize that we really haven't had a real portrayal of either version in the D&D editions that I've played with the closest things being the warlock with their pacts and the monster npc hags and their spawn as a race.

I think the witch archetype generally just gets crowded out of D&D by all of the other magic user types. Traditionally, a witch is just an evil wizard. If you give them powers associated with what witches in early modern Europe were believed to do: blighting crops/cattle, cursing people with bad luck, causing illnesses, etc., then they're kind of crap relative to normal D&D magic. If you model them more on older archetypes like Morgan le Fay or Circe, then you're back to just a female wizard/sorcerer. Even if you just want to emphasize an evil magic user, then there's already necromancers, evil clerics and so on.

I just don't know if D&D has enough design space for a designated "sexy wizard" class

Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 25, 2025, 09:14:51 PMI always liked the Palladium Fantasy RPG witch class. 

They're spell casters who took a shortcut.  Rather than study magic for years and do the work needed, they form a permanent pact with a supernatural creature.  In exchange they can easily cast magic, get a familiar animal that is both useful and keeps tabs/spies on the witch for their master, and occasionally get missions from their master.

It's also a requirement to be an evil alignment.

I actually played a witch with a major pact for a couple games in the 90s in Rifts translated over using the conversion guide.  It was meant always as a temp character so the alignment wasn't an issue as the gm just wanted an expanded npc that he didn't have to run and my previous character had just died.  I wasn't even trying to be edgy!    I'll have to take another look at those too.  I read through some of the articles so thanks again for the links.  The issue 43 one by Moldvey of bx fame was very interesting.  I didn't know that wicca as a word signified a male witch for example.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 25, 2025, 10:39:21 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 25, 2025, 09:14:51 PMThey're spell casters who took a shortcut.  Rather than study magic for years and do the work needed, they form a permanent pact with a supernatural creature.

Isn't that exactly the 5e warlock? If memory serves the Pathfinder witch class is based on that concept as well.

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMIt made me realize that we really haven't had a real portrayal of either version in the D&D editions that I've played with the closest things being the warlock with their pacts and the monster npc hags and their spawn as a race.

I think the witch archetype generally just gets crowded out of D&D by all of the other magic user types. Traditionally, a witch is just an evil wizard. If you give them powers associated with what witches in early modern Europe were believed to do: blighting crops/cattle, cursing people with bad luck, causing illnesses, etc., then they're kind of crap relative to normal D&D magic. If you model them more on older archetypes like Morgan le Fay or Circe, then you're back to just a female wizard/sorcerer. Even if you just want to emphasize an evil magic user, then there's already necromancers, evil clerics and so on.

I just don't know if D&D has enough design space for a designated "sexy wizard" class

The dragon 43 article might interest you in that the origins of witches according to Moldvey's sources is from a pre-Roman druidic earth magic with a mix of what dnd calls arcane and clerical spells which to me sounds more like a charisma based druid to me.   I agree though that the casting space is quite crowded though so from that sense it doesn't matter but interesting food for thought regardless.

Hyperborea has a really good Witch class. And since Hyperborea is just a mix of original d&d and 1e, it's completely compatible with TSR era D&D/OSR.

As for the Witch classes from Dragon Magazine, I'm rather partial to the class in issue #114.

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:46:20 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 25, 2025, 10:39:21 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 25, 2025, 09:14:51 PMThey're spell casters who took a shortcut.  Rather than study magic for years and do the work needed, they form a permanent pact with a supernatural creature.

Isn't that exactly the 5e warlock? If memory serves the Pathfinder witch class is based on that concept as well.

Quote from: RNGm on April 25, 2025, 10:55:15 AMIt made me realize that we really haven't had a real portrayal of either version in the D&D editions that I've played with the closest things being the warlock with their pacts and the monster npc hags and their spawn as a race.

I think the witch archetype generally just gets crowded out of D&D by all of the other magic user types. Traditionally, a witch is just an evil wizard. If you give them powers associated with what witches in early modern Europe were believed to do: blighting crops/cattle, cursing people with bad luck, causing illnesses, etc., then they're kind of crap relative to normal D&D magic. If you model them more on older archetypes like Morgan le Fay or Circe, then you're back to just a female wizard/sorcerer. Even if you just want to emphasize an evil magic user, then there's already necromancers, evil clerics and so on.

I just don't know if D&D has enough design space for a designated "sexy wizard" class

The dragon 43 article might interest you in that the origins of witches according to Moldvey's sources is from a pre-Roman druidic earth magic with a mix of what dnd calls arcane and clerical spells which to me sounds more like a charisma based druid to me.  I agree though that the casting space is quite crowded though so from that sense it doesn't matter but interesting food for thought regardless.

It is interesting. Moldvay seems to be leaning on the interpretation of witches in Margaret Murray's The Witch Cult in Western Europe, which isn't surprising given the time period. My understanding is that that book is now pretty much universally considered to be discredited by folklorists, but that doesn't really matter much for a fantasy game. Personally, I do think the idea that witchcraft is a surviving pre-Christian religion has a certain charm, even if it's not true. At any rate, a belief in witches and witchcraft certainly appears in pre-Christian accounts. If memory serves, witches feature prominently in the early chapters of Apuleius' The Golden Ass, generally credited as the oldest known novel in western literature.

For what it's worth, I think the actual Druids would be thoroughly insulted to be conflated with witches, but they're all dead, so again who cares?

The flying ointment ability is certainly authentic, as is shapechanging. Fascination has literary precedent, though I don't think it's a major feature of accusations against alleged witches during European witch trials. The colored candles thing strikes me as more of a modern Wicca influence than anything historical, but I could be wrong. The "control" (read: "voodoo") doll thing I can't recall now whether I've seen in European accounts of witchcraft. Sympathetic magic being a pretty universal human belief, I could believe that 16th-18th century European folk magic had a tradition of it.

Incidentally, for an entertaining take on the Satan-worshipping theory of witchcraft, I'd recommend Montague Summers' The History of Witchcraft and Demonolgy. He's almost a perfect anti-Murray. Equally disreputable to modern folklorists, but he instead proposes the theory of a long-running secret network of antisocial Satanic cults across Europe.