WOTC Is Considering Not Using Druid Or Shaman Creatures Anymore

Mark Rosewater recently revealed that Wizards of the Coast is currently discussing abandoning the use of Druid and Shaman as creature types because of their "real-world religious" connotations. Considering the game recently abolished "witch" as a creature type for similar reasons, I'm not exactly surprised. Today, I want to examine what Rosewater said and the thought process for and against such changes in Magic: The Gathering in general.

Shaman And Driuds May Not Be A Creature Type Moving Forward

There has been a recent wave of changes to certain terms that WOTC uses internally and/or on cards. For example, they stopped using the term tribal to refer to decks built around a particular creature type. They're now saying typal instead. While this was only meant to be an internal call, many popular sites (EDHrec now has a "typal" section) and content creators have followed suit and are using the new term.

You May Also Like: The Term "Tribal" Is Being Replaced By "Typal" In Magic: The Gathering

They've also moved away from using "witch" as a creature type because of its religious connotations. So, cards like Sedgemoor Witch have a "warlock" sub-type. And it was this that spawned the conversation about similar terms.

You can see the question asked by a user on Rosewater's blog, to which he replied, "We are currently examining that exact topic." This could spark some big changes if it comes to fruition, as there are currently around 260 Druid cards, including some that see a lot of play (like Bloom Tender, Arbor Elf, Beast Whisper, and more) and nearly 500 Shaman card, including a tribal deck built around the creature type.

If this happened, they'd likely just errata the cards online, print any new reprints with the new type, and not use it going forward. That doesn't leave much room for cards like Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro or Harmonic Prodigy to exist without big changes, though.

Does The Change Make Sense For MTG?

Overall, I don't think so. Changes like these may come from a good place of not wanting to offend anyone, and that's alright. The issue is that it puts you on a very slippery slope. There are a ton of things that could possibly offend one viewer or another. For example, on various religious grounds alone, you'd have to consider changing not just Shaman, Druid, and Witch but also Devil, Demon, God, Angel, Djinn, and more. Possibly even things like Vampires, Werewolves, and other folk monsters.

Really, the entire concept of the game, "casting spells" and using Magic is offensive to some people. There are too many things to change to ensure that no one playing the game will likely be offended. So, you come to a point where you have to ask how much good you're doing by changing a few select things and leaving a plethora of similar things untouched.

Conclusion

As of now, these changes are only being discussed. So, nothing may come of them. However, as mentioned, you come to a point where if you change some it won't make sense not to change similar terms. But you can't change them all. So, changing possibly offensive things from a precautionary viewpoint creates an impractical, neverending endeavor where many things in the game can't exist.

I'm sure some people have opinions that differ from mine. What do you think of these possible changes in the game and issues like typal vs. tribal? All opinions are welcome; just try and be respectful of others.