WOTC Is Considering Not Using Druid Or Shaman Creatures Anymore

Genoslugcs October 3, 2023 2 min
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.

MTGA Assistant

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 Witchimage have a "warlock" sub-type. And it was this that spawned the conversation about similar terms.

a post from mark rosewater about shaman and druid creatue types

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 Tenderimage, Arbor Elfimage, Beast Whisper, and more) and nearly 500 Shaman card, including a tribal deck built around the creature type.

image image image

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 Seshiroimage or Harmonic Prodigyimage 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.


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.


Login to comment


@OkamiKun: Honestly, I'd recommend Flesh & Blood.
Wow, I thought of returning to Magic after initially ditching it because of them making Aragorn black.
But seeing this now... no way I am coming back to this clown show.
It's really sad to see how braindead they are. No interest in supporting WotC anymore.
Are there any alternatives anybody can recommend?
@matrixarchitect: I agree, for sure!
There are people who invent being offended and oppressed by things like this. That companies like wotc are giving this the time of day is sadly nothing new.
@CR5Orca: They don't care what religious people think. Otherwise Priest, or Cleric, or Devil, or Demon, or Angel, or any of the other plethora of theologically related types would be problematic as well. Buy the cards you want now so that when the company burns because they decided listening to brain dead infants on twitter/x instead of their actual fans was worth the risk. ESG pays well but it won't pay well enough if you lose the majority of your fan base.
@CR5Orca: And it's weird to even have to say that because I don't think anyone is actually complaining about either term.
@CR5Orca: I tend to agree. Anyone taking issue with anything in the game (or anything else for that matter) has the option to simply not consume said thing... You'll never be able to make it friendly to everyone and everything and still have a game.
@octivate: Cards don't have the creature type witch, even if the name says "witch." They switched to using Warlock, which I thought was weird because warlock is really just a male witch. Super strange. I swear WOTC has a guy who gets paid by how many issues he finds, and he's trying to keep his job with this stuff.
Here we go with another "Go woke, get broke" comment.
Druid and Shaman are staple fantasy classes. It would be weird for a fantasy game to not use them. We need to stop care what religious people think
Search Articles

Enter The Battlefield Prepared

With the MTGA Assistant deck tracker MTGA Assistant