PDA

View Full Version : Nuances Between Terms for "Magic User"



The Rose Dragon
2013-08-10, 11:09 AM
Some settings use different terms for different kinds of magic users. The primary example that comes to my mind is Belgariad, where sorcerers are immortal people who use their internal power to change the world, witches are people who entreat spirits of nature and magicians are people who summon demons. A similar distinction exists in D&D, especially the 3rd Edition, with warlocks, sorcerers and wizards all being fairly distinct.

The question is, what differences do you have between various terms for magic user, if any? Do the people in the settings you use acknowledge such distinctions, or use the terms interchangeably despite mechanical differences? Would magic users care for enforcing the distinction, if they are aware of it at all?

erikun
2013-08-10, 11:32 AM
Most systems distinguish between various magic users because each has either distinct class features (such as D&D) or distinct magic systems (something like Gurps or Burning Wheel) that make the difference relevant.

As for the distinction, I tend to find that the magical "priest" or religious devotee, or just general user of healing/"white" magic, is typically distinct from others. Even in games where all spellcasters can potentially learn all spells, there tends to be a cleric-type class of spellcasters.

Most games feature a shaman or druid, as a nature- or spirit-focus type of magic user rather than one who gets power from devoted worship or just possessing magic.

"Wizard" as a term generally implies learning and study, at least for me. Maybe it's the D&D influence or just running into the term with other games, but the "book-learned wizard" is just too strong of an archetype in my mind.

As for the rest, a lot of names get thrown around and have ended up with no real distinct meaning in my head. I would assume that witches would be more focused on curses and herbal remedies, but that term has been attached to anything from female wizards to summoners. Some games have templars and paladins as basic soldiers, while others have them a divine magicians of considerable power. Sorcerer, warlock, mage, spellsword, and many others give a general impression of what they mean but could be just about anything when appearing in a random game.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-10, 11:46 AM
Wizard - Scholarly fellow, into books, wears a big old robe, and has a huge beard and hat. Usually goes for flashy magic, but not always. Almost always has his own tower, castle, or other impressive lair.

Conjurer- Same as Wizard.

Sorcerer - As Wizard, but with less facial hair, usually younger, and hatless.

Enchanter- As Sorcerer, but uses more illusions and mind-control.

Warlock - Same as Sorcerer, with a goatee and a heavier focus on battle-magic. Wears armor.

Sorceress - Attractive young-looking woman, tends to specialize in illusions and mind-control because of gender roles, but can branch out into other areas (example; the redhead light-worshiper sorceress from Game of Thrones). It's a 50/50 whether she's found in a chainmail bikini or a robe.

Enchantress - As Sorceress, except she definitely has illusions/mind control, no question. Often lacks in combat ability, but makes up for it by keeping someone beefy as a thrall.

Witch - Female of any age, specializes in herbalism/potions, manipulating crops, screwing with people's heads. Usually a fan of poisons, cauldrons, caves, animal friends, and wilderness huts. Almost always malicious.

Shaman - As Witch, only male. Tends to have more stereotypical/racist "tribal" accessories like bone necklaces, shrunken heads, and piercings. Often shirtless too. Also tends not to speak English fluently, in keeping with stereotypes.

Cleric - Priestly character who specializes in healing magic. Usually walks around in a robe and carries a staff. Can be either sex, although female Clerics are almost always found in their teens or 20s (not sure why, though).

The Rose Dragon
2013-08-10, 11:50 AM
As for the rest, a lot of names get thrown around and have ended up with no real distinct meaning in my head. I would assume that witches would be more focused on curses and herbal remedies, but that term has been attached to anything from female wizards to summoners. Some games have templars and paladins as basic soldiers, while others have them a divine magicians of considerable power. Sorcerer, warlock, mage, spellsword, and many others give a general impression of what they mean but could be just about anything when appearing in a random game.

Hence why I asked what distinctions you make in your settings, if any, rather than asking what they mean in established games. "Sorcerer", especially, seems to have a lot of variety in what it refers to, from Blue Rose's users of evil magic to Exalted's (usually) academically taught reality warpers, to Belgariad's immortal users of power, to D&D's spontaneous arcane spellcasters. So the question is, what do you use, say, "sorcerer" to mean in your setting? What about mage, or warlock, or wizard.

Morty
2013-08-10, 12:03 PM
I like to keep names as in-character as possible. Two different people might have two completely different names for the same breed of magic-user. Having everyone stick to the same pre-set terms makes for a rather dry language. A person who does magic through academic study, weird symbols and other classic trappings of arcane magic might be called 'wizard' by some, 'sorcerer' by others and 'warlock' by others still.

Personally, I like using the word 'sorcerer' to evoke a pulp-fantasy, sword-and-sorcery feel of a creepy, untrustworthy magician who dabbles in things too dangerous for common, reasonable people.

Berenger
2013-08-10, 01:23 PM
Can be either sex, although female Clerics are almost always found in their teens or 20s (not sure why, though).

Because complex starting age is 15 +2d6 (= 17 to 27)? :smalltongue:

erikun
2013-08-10, 01:31 PM
Hence why I asked what distinctions you make in your settings, if any, rather than asking what they mean in established games. "Sorcerer", especially, seems to have a lot of variety in what it refers to, from Blue Rose's users of evil magic to Exalted's (usually) academically taught reality warpers, to Belgariad's immortal users of power, to D&D's spontaneous arcane spellcasters. So the question is, what do you use, say, "sorcerer" to mean in your setting? What about mage, or warlock, or wizard.
When I hear "sorcerer", I first think of Terry Pratchett and Diskworld's sourcerer as being the source of magic. Hence, a spellcaster who naturally produces magic and can dynamically generate very general effects, as opposed to a character who memorizes complex, structured spell effects. Other than that, I tend to think a sorcerer as the vizer or king's diviner, a spellcaster who is also a political advisor. I'm not sure where that particular idea came from.

An alchemist should be a character who puts together magical regants for specific outcomes. They're anything from a potion-brewer to the magical equilivant to a chemist. One thing that frequently annoys me is when they're just turned into another spell-slinger, casting "alchemy" spells or worse yet, "alchemy formulas" like a wizard casts spells.

The warlock, in my mind, is a spellcaster specialized for combat and, well, war. They'd either be the guy with the sword tossing fireballs, or the guy with the sword tossing curses in the middle of the fight. Or the gal, if you prefer.

Mages and magi are just general terms for magic-users, in my mind. A "mage" would generally be someone specialized in magic use, as opposed to someone who casts spells and gets into combat (like a Paladin or Warlock, above).

Other than that, most other names should be relatively self-explanatory. Summoner, diviner, hexor, enchanter, illusionist, elementalist, and necromancer are all people who specialize in a particular type of spellcasting - summoning, divining, hexing, enchanting, illusions, elementalism, and necromancy respectively.

Fighter1000
2013-08-10, 01:40 PM
In my homebrew setting, no one is called a "sorcerer"
If you know how to cast arcane spells, you are known as a wizard.
If you know how to properly ask power, or "spells" from a deity, you are known as a priest.
If you have strange powers for some reason (hence a warlock or sorcerer math-wise) then you aren't really called anything. Just a freak, really.
I like to keep things simple. Others might call it "dry" but I have found if there is too much information flying around in my head, I start to get flustered.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-10, 01:41 PM
Because complex starting age is 15 +2d6 (= 17 to 27)? :smalltongue:

They're not found above their starting age... So it's because they have a horrible survival rate, then :smallbiggrin:

Berenger
2013-08-10, 02:01 PM
They're not found above their starting age... So it's because they have a horrible survival rate, then :smallbiggrin:

Nah, it's just that vows of chastity and close proximity to beefy barbarians, knights in shining armor and mischievous yet charming rogues don't mix well when you are far away from the abbey and nights are cold in the orclands... :smallamused:

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-10, 02:08 PM
For most part, I use real-world definitions of words. This means "sorcerer", "wizard", "magician", "conjurer" etc. are pretty much synonymous with each other, with the last two perhaps carrying more connotations of deceit, trickery, entertainment etc.. People also use them just like they are used in real world, so if someone is called a magician that is no guarantee he has actual supernatural powers.

People with actual supernatural powers have much more specific terms for them. Naturally I use Finnish for them, but here are the more-or-less exact translations:

"Alchemist": someone who, through rituals and ingredients gained from supernatural entities, can advance the realm of chemistry to the supernatural.

"Witch": a sage with any kind of supernatural knowledge. Gender-neutral and theoretically value-neutral, though in common speech carries derogatory connotations due to people fearing the supernatural.

"Necromancer": someone with ability to summon, communicate with, control or exorcise dead spirits.

"Medium": someone with inborn gift to perceive and interact with spirits of the dead as if they were corporeal. Entails the risk of being possessed and driven mad by dead spirits.

"Seer": one with ability to perceive spatial or temporal locations outside his normal senses.

"Paladin": member of an order dedicated to protecting people from supernatural threats through fighting them with force of arms. They use weapons made of materials of ritual signifigance to affect things over the barrier of physical and spiritual worlds.

"Meditant": member of one of the various religious sects that use meditation, cognitive conditioning and rigorous discipline to achieve superhuman powers.

"Elf": a person or creature who has metaphysical influence over a specific location, and within this location is capable of telekinesis and telepathy.

The line between a magic-user and magical creature are very, very thin in my setting. On the other hand, there is also a variety of bizarre effects achievable through perfectly natural means; for example, (biological) immortality can be achieved through normal chemistry, as a by-product of the existence of certain odd but natural creatures.

This also why I don't like using the word "magic" to describe supernatural phenomena. I feel it implies to people an over-arching force that allows these breaks from natural law, when that is infact not how things work. If supernatural effects can be reduced to a single origin, said origin is some first principle of the supernatural world that (by definition) can not be observed or examined from the natural world. So you can't really say "necromancers" and "meditants" both are "magic-users". They both break normal natural laws, but rely on completely different mechanisms and effects to do so. You can say they are both "magical" or "supernatural", in contrast to "non-magical" or "natural" phenomena, but this implies no other connection between them. They are their own, distinct things.

As a corollary, no-one seriously in the know or using scientific method to observe these things would really use the word "magic" when referring to them.

endoperez
2013-08-10, 02:15 PM
Witch - a female magician with nature magic, part of a coven of 3 witches taking the roles of the maiden, the mother and the crone (Pratchett and many other British authors' works)

Witch - any female magician, as powerful as any male (Harry Potter)

Witch - any female magician, far weaker than any male magician (Earthsea)

Witch - a wicked old woman specializing in curses and other evil things, like poisoning apples, stealing the youth and life of the heroes and heroines, transforming into monsters and feeding a dozen cats (e.g. Stardust)

Witch - a generic term for any natural magician, male or female, in a book I read in Finnish. Might've been a quirk of translation.

Witch - a female shaman of a Scandinavian tribe, who flies on a broom and has a special bond with her soul-animal so that it can be sent far away (Pullman's Hidden Knife books)

Witch - a person who made a deal with a devil, and received magical powers or other favours (old Christian belief, features in various stories)

Witch - anyone who can use magic (e.g. Diana Wynne Jones in Witch Week, the Witch World series)

In short, there are some stereotypes, but you don't have to blindly follow them.

You should make it quickly apparent which stereotype you're using, though. If you use "witch" when speaking of all nature mages, both male and female, but haven't introduced any male witches an haven't given any extra information, people might be confused.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-10, 02:30 PM
The Finnish equivalent to "witch", "noita", originally meant just a "sage". However, when christianity came into these parts, the definition became more specifically "pagan sage", in contrast to clergymen, and the usual negative connotations followed suit.

Originally, "noita" was a gender-neutral term. For example, in Finnish translation of the Hobbit, Sauron is referred to as "noita". We used the suffix "ukko" or "akka" to differentiate between genders, with them meaning old man or old woman, respectively.

Somewhere down the line, the suffix was dropped and "noita" became strongly female-leaning in contemporary usage. I'm not sure why this happened. Men were associated with and accused of witchcraft in the past as well. The public mental image of "noita" became predominantly female, though, and has stayed that way.

A more specific compound term, "lapinnoita" ("Lapland's witch") has not suffered this fate. If anything, most examples in contemporary fiction have been male.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-10, 02:50 PM
I don't like using the word "magic" to describe supernatural phenomena.


So what do you call it, if not magic?

Yora
2013-08-10, 02:53 PM
I would say mage and wizard are completely interchangeable. Arcanist is rather uncommon, but also means the same thing.
A witch is a mage who practices magic of a more primal sort without any real connections to arcane schools or library or the study of magical laws and furmulas. A witch doctor is pretty much the same.
A sorcerer is a mage who is practicing some rather doubious forms of magic that don't really make them appear in a good light.
And a warlock is someone who has given in entirely to dark and evil powers.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-10, 03:14 PM
So what do you call it, if not magic?

Your sentence structure illustrates your core misunderstanding. You refer to "magic" as "it", as if it is a singular entity. You should have used the plural form "them".

I use the more specific term (f. ex. "necromancy") or just description of an action (f. ex. "speaking with the dead). If I need a catch-all term, I use "otherwordly" or "supernatural phenomena" (the plural form is important), depending on what group of things I need to refer to. In my setting, meditants for example are supernatural in that they break normal rules of nature, but they are not otherwordly as their power originates from and is tied to their world.

Yes, I do understand if this puts a few brain cells into a twist if you don't know the metaphysical and philosophical technicalities my setting is based on.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-10, 03:51 PM
Your sentence structure illustrates your core misunderstanding. You refer to "magic" as "it", as if it is a singular entity. You should have used the plural form "them".


Yeah, I refer to pretty much any supernatural force as magic. Like if you wave your hands and fire comes out in defiance of real-world physics, I'm going to call that magic. You can have different kinds of magic with different sources and behaviors (like your example where Necromancy only works in Zombie World), but that's my go-to umbrella term for supernatural reality-breakage.

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-10, 04:07 PM
If I have to state something breaks expectations of how our world works, I don't use the word "magic". I use terms "unreal" or "speculative". For example, my settings are filled with flora and fauna that do not exist, but which break no natural laws. Another example would be a fighter's ability to lift more than expected in our world. Calling these things "magic" is the same as calling a card trick so - the magic is in the subjective experience of the player, and not the actual underlying function of the setting.

This is a rather crucial point in "giving mundanes nice things" as it's put on these forums. Unrealistic =/= magical. Speculative =/= supernatural.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-10, 08:25 PM
If I have to state something breaks expectations of how our world works, I don't use the word "magic". I use terms "unreal" or "speculative". For example, my settings are filled with flora and fauna that do not exist, but which break no natural laws. Another example would be a fighter's ability to lift more than expected in our world. Calling these things "magic" is the same as calling a card trick so - the magic is in the subjective experience of the player, and not the actual underlying function of the setting.


That's why I said supernatural reality breakage. Last time I checked, animals, fighters, and plants are part of nature :smalltongue:

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-10, 09:50 PM
You may see the difference, but not everyone does. There are people who by default view any departures from realism as "magic", which is erroneous.

Wardog
2013-08-11, 09:17 AM
The warlock, in my mind, is a spellcaster specialized for combat and, well, war. They'd either be the guy with the sword tossing fireballs, or the guy with the sword tossing curses in the middle of the fight. Or the gal, if you prefer.

"Warlock" has nothing to do with war. It's from the Old English wǣrloga, which literally means "oathbreaker" and came to mean essentially "evil magic-user".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warlock

Frozen_Feet
2013-08-11, 09:28 AM
Of course it hasn't. But this thread isn't really about common definitions of these words - it's about what specific people, systems and/or settings use.

Outside the D&D bubble, wizard, sorcerer, magician and conjurer are synonymous and mutually interchangeable. Warlock is a specifically a male black magician, while witch is the female counterpart. Druid refers to priest of certain archaic celtic and gaulic religion. So on and so forth; RPG meanings for these words are usually much more specific.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-11, 09:31 AM
"Warlock" has nothing to do with war.

Maybe not to an English major, but I've seen it used that way in video games, so that's how I often interpret it.

Jay R
2013-08-11, 10:57 AM
For historical completeness, we should at least mention one fact. In original D&D, different words were used for different levels.

Medium: 1st level Magic-User
Seer: 2nd level Magic-User
Conjurer: 3rd level Magic-User
Theurgist: 4th level Magic-User
Thaunaturgist: 5th level Magic-User
Magician: 6th level Magic-User
Enchanter: 7th level Magic-User
Warlock: 8th level Magic-User
Sorcerer: 9th level Magic-User
Necromancer: 10th level Magic-User
Wizard: 11th level Magic-User (or higher)

This had no effect on play, and nobody I knew ever used the terms. They were used in the early issues of The Dragon, however.

Wardog
2013-08-11, 01:12 PM
Maybe not to an English major, but I've seen it used that way in video games, so that's how I often interpret it.

I'm not an English major (I had to look it up on the internet to get the exact derivation). But the traditional meaning (in myth and legend and folk-tale) is (evil) wizard, and (in my experience) almost all modern fantasy follows that (although often drops the "evil" afpect).

The "it's got 'war' in the name so it must be about fighting" interpretation seems to be a very recent and limited use that is simply wrong and should be rejected.

Slipperychicken
2013-08-11, 02:57 PM
The "it's got 'war' in the name so it must be about fighting" interpretation seems to be a very recent and limited use that is simply wrong and should be rejected.

You never know. The fun thing about language is, if enough people think a word means something, that becomes the correct usage :smallbiggrin:

Siosilvar
2013-08-11, 04:10 PM
For historical completeness, we should at least mention one fact. In original D&D, different words were used for different levels.

-snip-

This had no effect on play, and nobody I knew ever used the terms. They were used in the early issues of The Dragon, however.

AD&D has different terms for the first and second levels: "Prestidigitator" (that one was always fun) and "Evoker" respectively.

GungHo
2013-08-12, 08:36 AM
Depends on the world, really, but I will say that in most of my worlds, all but the most educated mundanes really don't mark much of a difference between a sorcerer/wizard/enchanter... it's all some crazy guy that controlled demons and made fire dance in his hands... even if he only summoned a wolf and cast light.

They see the difference between priests and magic-users, but that's mostly because of the garb and praying. Unless of course it's an evil priest with a retinue of foul things, in which case he's a damn dirty warlock just like the wizards above.

I don't really play games where any of the characters are actually aware of the mechanics or what the rules call their characters. I've considered it, but ultimately I'd end up apeing the Order of the Stick, which is doing just fine without my input.

endoperez
2013-08-12, 12:50 PM
Lyndon Hardy's book Master of the Five Magics had some interesting, distinct definitions for the different types of magic. They were all defined well, and those definitions were later applied on different situations. It's not a perfect book, but if you're interested in magic systems, I do recommend checking it out. Here's a short summary of the types of magic as explained in the first book.

Thaumaturges practice Thaumaturgy - Like produces like combined with Once together, always together. Take a small part of a big thing, and a source of energy (e.g. fire). Raise the small part and the big thing raises too.

Alchemists practice Alchemy - The attributes without mirror the powers within. Potions are made by following recipes, with more ingredients required for each step. The ingredients are often rare or expensive, and for every step, there's a chance of failure, so an unlucky alchemist has nothing to show off for all his work. Even worse, all the effects are temporary, and the potions etc can't be stored for too long.

Magicians practice (ritual) Magic - Perfection is eternal. The ritual might require hitting a blade with a lead hammer thrice during a solar eclipse while a dragon breathes fire through a golden hoop held by a 21-year old blonde virgin. That might be step 6 of 29. If all steps are completed, the result is a permanent magical item, no charges, no limited uses, no limitations. Magical swords, flying carpets, anything. But how are you going to feed and train that dragon? Only a guild of magicians working together can afford to do anything beyond the simplest of the simple rituals.

Sorcerers practice Sorcery - Thrice spoken, once fulfilled. The sorcerer makes eye contact and says the spell, thrice. It happens. Powerful spells require long incantations, so affecting an unwilling suspect can be tricky. Every spell also comes with a price.

Wizards practice Wizardry - Flame permeates all and Dominance or submission. A wizard may summon beings from other dimensions. These being are called demons, but could also be called djinni - they're dangerous, but not necessarily evil. These being must be summoned through a fire. The wizard must assert his control over the demon, or he will be enslaved under its will

holywhippet
2013-08-14, 11:27 PM
In the manual for the AD&D game "Curse of the Azure Bonds" they listed titles for each different level of the magic user class (and all the others):

1. Prestidigitator
2. Evoker
3. Conjurer
4. Theurgist
5. Thaumaturgist
6. Magician
7. Enchanter
8. Warlock
9. Sorcerer
10. Necromancer
11. Wizard

I suspect they just used a thesaurus and ordered them based on what they thought seemed right. Odd though since some of them had fairly specific meanings and others ended up being their own class in later editions.

Figgin of Chaos
2013-08-15, 12:55 AM
I have a homebrew system that's a bit like D&D with more restrained scale. It doesn't have strict classes, but there are four archetypes that I have names for:

Elementalists: Wielders of raw force and energy, who blast and shape the world through telekinesis.

Spiritualists: Manipulators of the body and mind, who can heal, injure, and control the actions of others.

There are also Warriors and Rogues, who function about how you'd think. They can have plenty of obviously magical abilities, though, ones that fit their role. Imbuing weapon strikes with fire, turning invisible, that sort of thing.

My setting doesn't have a single shared language like Common, but most cultures have words that roughly describe these archetypes.