Player vs. Player: Mage-Killer vs. Wizard

[Mr.Kraken]

Hello to the playground. Friends, can you help me with an issue that has shown up in our group? So, there are two groups in our campaign due to different schedules, but we're playing two sides of the same story. My group is only made up of myself and another guy. I'm playing a Fighter 7//(Arcane Spellcaster Fav. Enemy Urban) Ranger 4/Lion Totem Barbarian 1/Decisive Strike Monk 1/Occult Slayer 1 and the other guy's playing a Wizard 6/Frostmage 1//Factotum 7. To understand what happened, you have to first look into our character's motivations:

My character was a thirty-something farmer who lived happily alone with his only daughter, until they were attacked by a mysterious mage. The girl was killed in cold blood and my character was left horribly scarred. Due to this, he has decided that magic is something no mortal is worthy of wielding, an unnatural and dangerous force, and those who use it must be hunted down. He tolerates divine magic due to its helpful nature and uses magic items to aid him in his life goal, but he doesn't tolerate any other use of magic and will strike anyone using magic on sight.

My friend's character is a gray elf prodigy who was found and raised by a hermit wizard in the cold north. Being true neutral, he travels only to seek knowledge and knowledge is indeed one of his many specialties (Knowledge Devotion). He sees magic as knowledge given form, and seeks even more - no matter the source or the price.

Due to their conflicting philosophies we were expecting some difficulties to join them together, but it was all settled in the first battle they fought together. The wizard managed to save my character from death, and despite the initial hostilities, my character decided to follow the wizard in order to repay the debt. The wizard saved him two other times, so the debt has increased. My character is chaotic neutral, though, so any notions of honor, oaths or debts may be a little bit of a stretch to him.

Now, onto the issue per se. We were exploring a dungeon and found that it was the lair of several different kinds of beholders. We found that a beholder mage was being held prisoner and his grimoire was being used as a source of unlimited knowledge by a drow. We decided to look for the grimoire for different reasons: my character wanted to destroy it, my friend's wanted to use it. And so, we found the grimoire and moments later, we were disarming, sundering and tripping each other.

We, players, are okay, but the atmosphere turned a little heavy after that for the characters. We tried to stretch our character's philosophies a bit so we could play together, but apparently it proved futile. It actually took quite a bit for the two characters to clash. I'm an amateur actor and I like to play my character exactly as he would act, so I know my character would simply snap at the other character stopping him from destroying a powerful source of dark knowledge and forget all about those debts. To be honest, I always try to stay fateful to the character, even if it means bumping heads with another player.

What should I do in this situation? Have you had any similar experience in your sessions?

[Flickerdart]

Destroying loot is a selfish move, full stop. Imagine a character like yours, who hated magic - would you be okay with him destroying every magic item the party came across?

[Mr.Kraken]

I usually don't do that. I only did it this time because the character believed it was too powerful and too dangerous. Like I said, he's okay with magic items, but he's an extremist. He deeply hates magic, which makes playing in a magic-filled world difficult, both for me and for my group. Nothing has happened for him to change his way of thinking, so I won't roleplay him differently, but these issues are hurting the fun. Should I just retire the character and roll another one?

[daremetoidareyo]

Talk OOC about what you're doing and why. If the mage is part of the same story style roleplaying, you two are gonna have to fight it out.


It doesn't have to be outright murder, however, (or you can resurrect) if you find that you're somehow thrashing the mage, just knock him out with an nonlethal blow. Further, remember your goal isn't to kill your compatriot, it is to destroy the book and avoid getting killed by your friend's wrath.


Keep in mind however, the other character's motivation is to squirrel away the book and then survive your wrath.

[Kid Jake]

Ask yourself this: Why would your friend's wizard keep travelling with your character? By attacking him and destroying a potent source of knowledge despite the fact you apparently owe him your life, your character is more trouble than he's worth.

"It's what my character would do." isn't a reason, it's an excuse. You've made a disruptive character and it sounds like it's time to retire him.

[The Glyphstone]

Ask yourself this: Why would your friend's wizard keep travelling with your character? By attacking him and destroying a potent source of knowledge despite the fact you apparently owe him your life, your character is more trouble than he's worth.

"It's what my character would do." isn't a reason, it's an excuse. You've made a disruptive character and it sounds like it's time to retire him.

Or as the Giant himself puts it,


When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

From Making Tough Decisions:
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

[Zanos]

Considering that your character travels with him partly out of feeling some manner of debt regarding his life, it would seem reasonable to me that allowing him to have a source of knowledge that character deeply desired would have gone a decent way to repaying whatever perceived debt there is. It might be dangerous, but the guy's already saved your life three times, I think he's got your back at this point.

In general, I'd avoid making characters who are going to end up situations where conflict is inevitable due to their backstories, if you truly feel it's unresovable. I mean, you probably wouldn't make a character who hates humans so much that they kill all humans on sight and break all their stuff. I would like to point out that it's your character that is problematic in this scenario. In a normal party, a wizard recovering a spellbook from a dungeon to learn from it is fairly typical.

[Sam K]

The whole "This is how my character would act" is usually bad RP, in my opinion. Human (or elven, or dwarven, or half-unseelie-fey necropolitan half-minotaurs) nature isn't a script or an "IF-THEN" loop. There are several ways your character could react, such as:

1. Re-considering if all magic is evil. After all, your wizard ally is saving your life; perhaps if the wizard had been present when your characters family was attacked, your characters daughter would be alive?
2. Considering magic-users as a tool to fight worse magic users. You're already using magic items and accept divine magic. Perhpas arcane magic can also be useful to fight worse arcane magic.
3. Being unable to reconcile the inner conflict between hating arcane spellcasters and having been repeatedly saved by one, and developing other neuroses to cope with this (seriously, this happens all the time - well, minus the spellcasting). Lots of people drink to escape these kind of inner conflicts, for example.

If you enjoy your character, I don't think you should retire it. But you should retire the notion that there is only one way for a character to act in any given situation, or that disruptive behaviour makes for good RPing.

[thecrimsondawn]

It depends from group to group, but this would be a great time for pvp. Like someone said earlier tho, you need not kill each other, merely cause one to submit, give up, or knocked down to a point where they are unable to fight.

If the group is heavy into RP, then situations come up where player conflict does happen, and this conflict can be part of the fun of the game "if" the group mentality is right for it.

With my old DM, it was nothing but highly experienced players who could draw up a concept, a build, or a backstory on a whim. As such, we ended up more then a few times on a fine line. Each of us has died to one another at some point over our many games, but we where always happy that there was always a great climax to it.

With my new group however, that would never fly, and I would have to force myself to find another way. The current group is all new players and a new DM, and such actions would scare new players away from the system. Knowing what your players want and dont want means a lot to having fun, and that is what we are all playing for in the first place :)

[Crake]

The whole "This is how my character would act" is usually bad RP, in my opinion. Human (or elven, or dwarven, or half-unseelie-fey necropolitan half-minotaurs) nature isn't a script or an "IF-THEN" loop. There are several ways your character could react, such as:

1. Re-considering if all magic is evil. After all, your wizard ally is saving your life; perhaps if the wizard had been present when your characters family was attacked, your characters daughter would be alive?
2. Considering magic-users as a tool to fight worse magic users. You're already using magic items and accept divine magic. Perhpas arcane magic can also be useful to fight worse arcane magic.
3. Being unable to reconcile the inner conflict between hating arcane spellcasters and having been repeatedly saved by one, and developing other neuroses to cope with this (seriously, this happens all the time - well, minus the spellcasting). Lots of people drink to escape these kind of inner conflicts, for example.

If you enjoy your character, I don't think you should retire it. But you should retire the notion that there is only one way for a character to act in any given situation, or that disruptive behaviour makes for good RPing.

Elaborating on this post, decent characters have good backstories and are played to the letter by the player. Great characters, do this, while also evolving and changing from their experiences. Your character may have once thought that magic was too great a power for mortals at one point, but it sounds like he's spent a great deal of time with this other magic user who has proven that magic is just a tool, it's how you use it that's the real potential threat.

If your character will forever hate magic and never grow beyond that, you've really just created a 2 dimensional character with that being the only thing to define him, no matter what happens around him. If I were the DM, I'd honestly be questioning your out of character as to whether you're sticking to this character concept, despite the events that have proven your character wrong, simply out of interest of character conflict? Because that's what it seems like. Shouldn't your character's real goal be to hunt down those who abuse magic of any variety? Though then that should really extend to, shouldn't your character resolve to hunt down those who use any tool for evil purposes, and finally, hunt down those who perform evil acts? Because hating and seeking to hunt down all magic users just because they use magic is straight up evil. What are you going to do when your character travels to a city where magic is the norm, and every child on the street can cast prestidigitation?

[Galen]

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No."


"Fine," said the warrior through clenched teeth. "You can have your grimoire of dark magic. But keep it away from me, for if I see it one more time, I will take an axe to it." He stepped to take his watch, then turned back to the robed man again, "One more thing, Sorcerer. With this, consider my debt to you paid. We are squared. I no longer have your back."

Makes of a better story than "I cut the book and then we outright murderize each other", doesn't it?

[Sam K]

What are you going to do when your character travels to a city where magic is the norm, and every child on the street can cast prestidigitation?

Change your characters name to Anakin Skywalker and the campaign name to "Revenge of the Sith"?

[Mr.Kraken]

Elaborating on this post, decent characters have good backstories and are played to the letter by the player. Great characters, do this, while also evolving and changing from their experiences. Your character may have once thought that magic was too great a power for mortals at one point, but it sounds like he's spent a great deal of time with this other magic user who has proven that magic is just a tool, it's how you use it that's the real potential threat.

If your character will forever hate magic and never grow beyond that, you've really just created a 2 dimensional character with that being the only thing to define him, no matter what happens around him. If I were the DM, I'd honestly be questioning your out of character as to whether you're sticking to this character concept, despite the events that have proven your character wrong, simply out of interest of character conflict? Because that's what it seems like. Shouldn't your character's real goal be to hunt down those who abuse magic of any variety? Though then that should really extend to, shouldn't your character resolve to hunt down those who use any tool for evil purposes, and finally, hunt down those who perform evil acts? Because hating and seeking to hunt down all magic users just because they use magic is straight up evil. What are you going to do when your character travels to a city where magic is the norm, and every child on the street can cast prestidigitation?

Let me elaborate on this topic. He has been traveling with the wizard apparently as a ways of repaying him for saving his life, but there are other matters at hand. He has found out what the wizard who killed his daughter is trying to do: a ritual involving the death of a thousand people in a single night and the sacrifice of a gray elf in order to bring an evil entity to the world. He reached my character telepathically and literally said "bring me the elf you are traveling with and I shall give you your revenge". So, he is also using the elf as a means to an end. He merely tolerates him because he is useful, but that is a really fine line.

Besides that, he questions himself why he just doesn't kill him like he did other spellcasters in the past. Other characters have questioned him this as well, and he couldn't find an answer. The real answer is because he can't. He often says he lost his humanity when his daughter died and he transformed into a cause. But, in truth, all he wishes is to go back, so he subconsciously wants to be wrong and proven wrong, so he is using the elf for that as well.

It doesn't help proving magic use isn't irresponsible when the big bad evil wizard is disseminating chaos through the world, and it doesn't help when the elf wants to use the tome of an evil beholder mage, the tome of a dark necromancer and whatever other source of dark magic he finds.


"Fine," said the warrior through clenched teeth. "You can have your grimoire of dark magic. But keep it away from me, for if I see it one more time, I will take an axe to it." He stepped to take his watch, then turned back to the robed man again, "One more thing, Sorcerer. With this, consider my debt to you paid. We are squared. I no longer have your back."

Makes of a better story than "I cut the book and then we outright murderize each other", doesn't it?

I like this, I really do.

[Fotta]

Wait. So the guy who murdered your family is now asking for a favor, and you're helping him? I guess the fighter dumped Wisdom...

[lytokk]

What was the passcode to remove Belkar's mark of justice? Wasn't it along the lines of "Evolve or Die"? Characters need to change otherwise they remain pretty one dimensional. Your character for some reason can't kill this mage, as you said. He could be holding onto that one part of humanity thats left, the one thing left in pandora's box, hope. He may be hoping that maybe he's wrong about magic, that maybe there are people responsible enough for it. This mage has used magic to save your life not once, not twice, but three times. It may be time to change a few world views.

Just another line of thinking that can keep the character acting according to his backstory and justify the mage keeping the book.

[Mr.Kraken]

Wait. So the guy who murdered your family is now asking for a favor, and you're helping him? I guess the fighter dumped Wisdom...

Really, dude? He's blind when it comes to his daughter's killer. He yearns for revenge, and to be fair, he doesn't even think there's something he can't do when it comes to mage killing. So, he plans on giving him the elf, killing the evil wizard and stopping the ritual. It's stupid, I know, but that's the character.

[Sam K]

Really, dude? He's blind when it comes to his daughter's killer. He yearns for revenge, and to be fair, he doesn't even think there's something he can't do when it comes to mage killing. So, he plans on giving him the elf, killing the evil wizard and stopping the ritual. It's stupid, I know, but that's the character.

So the guy who saved your life wanting to use evil magic for (possibly) good ends, and that's bad.

But the guy who killed your family wants your help to sacrifice the guy who saved your life for OBVIOUSLY bad ends, and you're going to give him the chance. Instead of, say, having the powerful mage who (obviously against better judgement) is keeping you alive help you track down the evil wizard and get your revenge that way?

Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again: retire the "It's just how the character would act" thing. It's not good RP. It's a worn-out cliche from shows like "Supernatural" where every season the characters have to pick the most retarded, self destructive way to pursue their goals because THAT'S JUST THE WAY THEY ARE!

Even worse in a collaborative game like D&D.

[Mr.Kraken]

Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again: retire the "It's just how the character would act" thing. It's not good RP. It's a worn-out cliche from shows like "Supernatural" where every season the characters have to pick the most retarded, self destructive way to pursue their goals because THAT'S JUST THE WAY THEY ARE!


Please, do elaborate. How is acting the way the character should act bad roleplaying? Should we just forget our characters personalities and act as a player who's watching things develop from afar?

[Kurald Galain]

The whole "This is how my character would act" is usually bad RP, in my opinion.

I agree. I've frequently seen it used by players who were acting like a total jerk, to justify their behavior because their character is a total jerk.

[atemu1234]

I agree. I've frequently seen it used by players who were acting like a total jerk, to justify their behavior because their character is a total jerk.

Same. I once kicked a player out of a game because his half-minotaur barbarian (with INT 3) decided to try and A) kill the rest of the party
And
B) take the loot for himself.

[Flickerdart]

Please, do elaborate. How is acting the way the character should act bad roleplaying?
There are no ways the character should act - only ways that he could. Recognizing that you are playing a game with other people and picking an action that is not disruptive is part of what makes a good roleplayer.

[Sam K]

Having decided that a character should act in a certain way no matter what (as in, claiming the way you act is the only way your character could act) is bad RP more often than not. I'll refer you to what Galen quoted earlier in the thread. Personalities are not set in stone, and real people have more than one driving force. Disrupting a game or sabotaging for other characters because that's "what your character would do" isn't normally what I consider good RP.

That being said, I do think that a good RP character is often quite different from a good book or movie character. RPG characters need to be able to advance the plot and (generally) work with the other party members. Hanibal Lecter might be a great movie character, but I can see that he would have some problems hanging with most D&D parties.

[Mr.Kraken]

Having decided that a character should act in a certain way no matter what (as in, claiming the way you act is the only way your character could act) is bad RP more often than not. I'll refer you to what Galen quoted earlier in the thread. Personalities are not set in stone, and real people have more than one driving force. Disrupting a game or sabotaging for other characters because that's "what your character would do" isn't normally what I consider good RP.

That being said, I do think that a good RP character is often quite different from a good book or movie character. RPG characters need to be able to advance the plot and (generally) work with the other party members. Hanibal Lecter might be a great movie character, but I can see that he would have some problems hanging with most D&D parties.

I guess that's my case. I treat my RPG characters the same way I treat my drama roles, so I play them like I would in a theatre play. It was never a problem, until now.

[Deadline]

I guess that's my case. I treat my RPG characters the same way I treat my drama roles, so I play them like I would in a theatre play. It was never a problem, until now.

But there's a difference. Your theatre roles are scripted, their decisions already made for them, and you are acting out the pre-scripted events in a manner that attempts to make them make sense. You don't control the story, and for the most part you don't control the drama. All you control is your portrayal of said character.

In an RPG, that isn't the case. You make the script up as you go. So trying to lock yourself into a single, unwavering path that conflicts with the party in an unproductive manner doesn't make for good drama, or good story. You have those additional responsibilities when RPing, you don't just act out a pre-scripted role. Which is why folks have been saying that "it's what my character would do" is a poor excuse. As others have pointed out, there are tons of different ways to approach the situation that are totally consistent with the character AND don't involve being a jerk.

It may be more helpful to consider RP "roles" as improv, given your theater experience.

[lytokk]

It may be more helpful to consider RP "roles" as improv, given your theater experience.

I always thought of RPGs like D&D to be more like writing than acting. Sure, you need to play your role, but you also have to write it at the same time. And writers will have characters change their personalities quite often, sometimes slow gradual changes, and sometimes quick changes in personality based upon some sharp event.

[Kid Jake]

I guess that's my case. I treat my RPG characters the same way I treat my drama roles, so I play them like I would in a theatre play. It was never a problem, until now.

You don't come off as a real person. The whole 'Grr, magic!' mentality, to the detriment of other PCs, is a 1-dimensional copout in lieu of a personality. You're just manufacturing drama.

Your character seems to need the wizard far more than the wizard needs him, so outside of the other player actually attempting to play the game it doesn't seem like there's any reason for the wizard not to just leave you to die the next time you get in over your head. If you're so gung-ho about playing errand boy for the man who killed your family, then it seems like you should be able to suppress your feelings to keep from driving off your bargaining chip.

[icefractal]

Please, do elaborate. How is acting the way the character should act bad roleplaying? Should we just forget our characters personalities and act as a player who's watching things develop from afar?I don't know if it's bad roleplaying, but it's kind of bizarre. Is the character supposed to be highly gullible?

Like, if it was a different evil character making the offer to you, like a demon, it would make perfect sense. "Bring me the elf, and I'll make sure you get your revenge" - evil, but easily understandable why this character would do that.

But (unless I'm misunderstanding you), the guy making the offer is the one you want revenge against! "Give you your revenge" would mean letting you kill him. Do you seriously think he's going to fulfill that? That is isn't a blatant trap? And if he was telling the truth, then he considers this ritual worth dying for - why would you assist someone you hate that much in their life's goal?

Now maybe your plan is just to pretend you're bringing him the elf, so that you can discern his location, but that isn't what you said.

[Flickerdart]

I don't know if it's bad roleplaying, but it's kind of bizarre. Is the character supposed to be highly gullible?
Between "let's destroy the super powerful weapon for no reason" and "let's betray my reliable ally because my worst enemy asked me to" it seems that this character just isn't very bright, in general. I'm thinking Int 4, maybe?

[Kid Jake]

Between "let's destroy the super powerful weapon for no reason" and "let's betray my reliable ally because my worst enemy asked me to" it seems that this character just isn't very bright, in general. I'm thinking Int 4, maybe?

Or just super awesome roleplaying. Because, you know, real roleplaying is all about doing the exact opposite of what you think is a good idea in any given situation because otherwise you're metagaming.

[Anlashok]

Your character has basically built his life around revenge and hatred and wanting to destroy a certain evil wizard and the "only thing that makes sense" is for him to become that same wizard's gofer?

Honestly from what little you've described about him that sounds like the exact opposite of playing the character how he would normally act. I mean, obviously it's your character, but I can't fathom how a character who's built themselves so heavily on a singular hatred would ever agree to do their enemy's bidding.

Unless, yeah, we're going with the ultra low intelligence and wisdom angle, then it makes some sense.

[Sam K]

I guess that's my case. I treat my RPG characters the same way I treat my drama roles, so I play them like I would in a theatre play. It was never a problem, until now.

Well, you need to consider the fact that in your plays, you have maybe an hour to get a character across. If you're going for angry, you need to be angry. If you hate wizards, everything you say and do need to convey the hate. Otherwise it's hard to get across. If a theatre character makes one comment about hating magic, most people won't pick up on it.

In a RPG, you may have days, even weeks, to get your character across. If you're constantly pushing your main personality trait, that will get tiresome pretty quickly. McBeth doesn't run around usurping thrones every day!

[dascarletm]

The problem here lies not with the portrayal of the character, but the failure to create a character that will work for the collaborative story. You have to think of DnD (and TTRPGs in general) as a group story. You are providing one of the main protagonists and his/her decisions to the story, the other players are other protagonists, and the DM is the rest. You need to ensure you made a protagonist that will be interesting and has some believability in working with the other protagonists. Having conflict, disliking or even downright hating anther player for whatever reason can work and can be very interesting. A story would be rather dull if the situation/something about the character didn't force them together despite this, and instead they just killed each-other. That sort of thing does happen in media, but I have two points about that:

1. Different types of media need different things to make it "good." What is good for a play or a book may not, for example, work well in film. In fact this is why books tend to get changed a lot when they are adapted to film.

2. This isn't a story about one protagonist, it is about multiple. They all need to make it to the end, or if they don't their death or leaving needs to be suitably spectacular. The example in the OP from how I read it does not seem this way.

Galen had it perfectly in his example. You should use the conflict to create drama that will serve a purpose. Perhaps it will lead to a "final conflict" at the end of the campaign, perhaps it will serve to eventually drive your character to except them. Either way use it for a purpose, because you are not just playing a character, you are part of the script-writing.

[Mr.Kraken]

I'd appreciate it if some would stop the bashing, I didn't come here for that...
Anyways, the character didn't agree to bring the elf to the evil wizard, but since he knows the wizard is interested in him, it became one of the reasons he is traveling with the elf. He is not his errand boy, gofer or whatnot. The elf has his own motivations to go after the evil wizard and he knows of my character's hatred for him, so it's a relationship based on interest on both sides.

I've come to the conclusion that I won't retire the character. Last session ended after the two characters' conflict and they were attacked by the beholder mage and the drow. We'll take it from there tomorrow, and if we survive the encounter, I'll change my character's personality a bit. He truly shouldn't act like an impulsive stupid magic-hating troll so much and start thinking a bit more.

[atemu1234]

I'd appreciate it if some would stop the bashing, I didn't come here for that...
Anyways, the character didn't agree to bring the elf to the evil wizard, but since he knows the wizard is interested in him, it became one of the reasons he is traveling with the elf. He is not his errand boy, gofer or whatnot. The elf has his own motivations to go after the evil wizard and he knows of my character's hatred for him, so it's a relationship based on interest on both sides.

I've come to the conclusion that I won't retire the character. Last session ended after the two characters' conflict and they were attacked by the beholder mage and the drow. We'll take it from there tomorrow, and if we survive the encounter, I'll change my character's personality a bit. He truly shouldn't act like an impulsive stupid magic-hating troll so much and start thinking a bit more.

Using the elf as bait sounds like a decent, in-character method of sticking around. The moral ambiguity of your quest for revenge would be fun to watch.

[Threadnaught]

Your character has been saved by the character you're wanting your character to fight, I'd think your character would be able to get some character development from that and grow into someone who wouldn't stab one of their trusted allies in the back after they had proven to be decent.
If your character feels indebted to the other player's character, then why not just let them have the Grimoire, and have your character declare that they now owe the other PC nothing, without attacking?


Perhaps their relationship could change so that, rather than your characters not fighting because one of them feels a sense of debt to the other, they actually become friends, or at the very least are able to mutually respect each other.


It's the way your character would act. :smallcool:

[Crake]

I'd appreciate it if some would stop the bashing, I didn't come here for that...
Anyways, the character didn't agree to bring the elf to the evil wizard, but since he knows the wizard is interested in him, it became one of the reasons he is traveling with the elf. He is not his errand boy, gofer or whatnot. The elf has his own motivations to go after the evil wizard and he knows of my character's hatred for him, so it's a relationship based on interest on both sides.

I've come to the conclusion that I won't retire the character. Last session ended after the two characters' conflict and they were attacked by the beholder mage and the drow. We'll take it from there tomorrow, and if we survive the encounter, I'll change my character's personality a bit. He truly shouldn't act like an impulsive stupid magic-hating troll so much and start thinking a bit more.

I think the main problem everyone in this thread has is that you seem dead set on keeping this "magic hating" side to your character, no matter what circumstances occur in the meantime. Personally i've never understood players who go down the "i hate magic" character path. To me, that's the equivilent of a character saying "I hate anyone who wields a sword" or "I hate any blacksmith that uses a hammer". It makes no sense, because magic is a tool, it's but a means to an end. People have done atrocious things in real life without ever needing magic, so using the excuse that magic enables people to do horrible things isn't entirely accurate, since horrible people will find a way to do horrible things no matter what.

I mean, I can understand a quest of revenge, and that's all well and good, you may do horrible things on your quest to kill this mage. But extending that hatred to all people who use the same tool as him? All I can think of is tumblr blogs: magic? #triggered #rage #killallmagicusers

Replace magic in your story with swords. My daughter was killed by a swordsman, I now hate all people who wield swords. It's rediculous.

[dascarletm]

It's quite a bit different from swords, and the logic doesn't follow. It is a false equivalence.

Magic is a tool
Swords are a tool
Therefore magic is equivocal to swords.

While they both are used as tools they are vastly different, in both mechanics and as a literary element.

Magic has mystique, and allows a single person to do many many more things. A swordsman cannot drain the life out of someone to extend their own for example. To equate the two is ludicrous.

In literature it is not uncommon to make magic "come with a price" or be inherently evil, or at least seem that way to many of the common folk. Perhaps you have never seen any of this media, and that is where you are failing to understand this concept. If you want to understand why the hatred/misunderstanding of magic is a utilized I suggest seeking out some of these.

There is also real world religious and philosophical biases against magic. I won't delve into that, you can look at that on your own, less we wish to stray from forum regulation.

[kellbyb]

Magic has mystique, and allows a single person to do many many more things. A swordsman cannot drain the life out of someone to extend their own for example. To equate the two is ludicrous.

I beg to differ. If someone is about to murder you, pulling out your sword and draining the life (blood) out of them with it does indeed extend your life.

[The Glyphstone]

Also, what if it's a magic sword of life-drinking?

[Nibbens]

Thought:
Mage saves Mage killer's life.
Mage killer follows mage to repay the debt.
Mage saves life of Mage killer several times over.
Mage killer continues following mage to repay the even higher debt.
Mage and Mage killer come across contested item...

Instead of coming to blows, how about using the item to repay the debt.

Ahem...

Mage killer allows mage to keep contested item on account that one of those "debt points" are cleared.

This creates an even more interesting story as the mage killer is now traveling with the mage trying to "clear his debt" and actively doing so. The Mage now has an added stressor to try and keep you in debt so you won't destroy the items he's seeking.

So now, the PCs can continue traveling and a new story element is added. :)

[Crake]

It's quite a bit different from swords, and the logic doesn't follow. It is a false equivalence.

Magic is a tool
Swords are a tool
Therefore magic is equivocal to swords.

While they both are used as tools they are vastly different, in both mechanics and as a literary element.

Magic has mystique, and allows a single person to do many many more things. A swordsman cannot drain the life out of someone to extend their own for example. To equate the two is ludicrous.

In literature it is not uncommon to make magic "come with a price" or be inherently evil, or at least seem that way to many of the common folk. Perhaps you have never seen any of this media, and that is where you are failing to understand this concept. If you want to understand why the hatred/misunderstanding of magic is a utilized I suggest seeking out some of these.

There is also real world religious and philosophical biases against magic. I won't delve into that, you can look at that on your own, less we wish to stray from forum regulation.

Ive read many of those kinds of literature. When talking about magic requiring some kind of sacrifice, the act of which itself would be evil, if we're talking living sacrifice, then the actions required to use the tool themselves are evil, so it cant be helped. But in all other respects, it doesn't matter what magic enables you to do, it simply matters how it's used, at least from a moral standpoint. It's one thing to regulate magic, and maybe seek to have a unified center to govern the use of it, just as there are for weapons in the modern age, but otherwise, just because one person used magic to kill your family, that's no reason to hate all magic users; that's a reason to hate evildoers.

What about replacing magic with science, say your family was killed by, I dunno, some kind of chemical warfare or something. Do you suddenly start hating science? No, you start hating the people who used the stuff.

Just because magic has more potency, doesn't mean it's any less of a tool. A hammer can be used to build, destroy and kill, all in a single tool, does that mean it couldn't be equated to a sword in the right context?

Anyway, point of my meandering ramble is, unless evil is an inherent requirement in the use of magic, it is still just a tool like any other and can be equated to a sword in this context. And hell, even if evil were an inherent requirement of maigc, you still aren't going after the magic user because of the magic, you're going after them because what they're doing is evil. That's the crux of it, you go after people because of what they do, not what they use to do it.

[Mr.Kraken]

People have different opinions and this is the case. If it happened with you, you wouldn't blame magic, only the wizard. But in the case of the character, he became blind with hatred and sees his daughter's killer in every magic user. He realized that magic is too powerful to be wielded by mortals. A swordsman cannot control your mind and make you do things you don't want to, raise hordes of the undead or burn people with but a gesture of his hands. To him, magic should be used only by gods or the like, or at least, in a controlled fashion and for the benefit of society (healing magic, for example). You have to accept that characters (and people) have different opinions and differing world views makes for a beautiful roleplaying game.

[Flickerdart]

You have to accept that characters (and people) have different opinions and differing world views makes for a beautiful roleplaying game.
There is a distinction between differing opinions and destructive antagonism that everyone except for you seems to have grasped.

[Galen]

I'm with dascarletm here, and I think Crake has the wrong of it. Magic is not just a tool, like a hammer. Magic is magic. I know after years of D&D 3.5 magic may look like it's just a tool to achieve goals, because a Fireball is just 10d6 damage, and Knock is just a very good Open Lock check, isn't it, and a Wizard is just a class in the PHB, next to Barbarian and Rogue. But narratively, "do it with magic" and "do it with a hammer" are almost always presented as very much different, and never equated. As it should be.

[Grand Poobah]

People have different opinions and this is the case. If it happened with you, you wouldn't blame magic, only the wizard. But in the case of the character, he became blind with hatred and sees his daughter's killer in every magic user. He realized that magic is too powerful to be wielded by mortals. A swordsman cannot control your mind and make you do things you don't want to, raise hordes of the undead or burn people with but a gesture of his hands. To him, magic should be used only by gods or the like, or at least, in a controlled fashion and for the benefit of society (healing magic, for example). You have to accept that characters (and people) have different opinions and differing world views makes for a beautiful roleplaying game.

Yes that's true but your characters shouldn't be immune to their experiences altering their world view over time.

Han Solo went from being a self serving rogue to a hero of the Rebellion.

Jamie Lannister went from being a despicable person who cared for nobody outside his own immediate family to saving the life of his erstwhile prison guard.

Legolas and Gimli who were full of enmity toward each other on racial grounds become the best of friends through their travels together.

Walter White went from being a middle class school teacher to a drug dealer capable of numerous counts of murder and acts of compassion.

Most memorable characters have a story arc where they change and evolve over time. Yours needn't be any different.

[Crake]

I'm with dascarletm here, and I think Crake has the wrong of it. Magic is not just a tool, like a hammer. Magic is magic. I know after years of D&D 3.5 magic may look like it's just a tool to achieve goals, because a Fireball is just 10d6 damage, and Knock is just a very good Open Lock check, isn't it, and a Wizard is just a class in the PHB, next to Barbarian and Rogue. But narratively, "do it with magic" and "do it with a hammer" are almost always presented as very much different, and never equated. As it should be.

The point is that magic is the how, not the why or the what. For many things the how is irrelevant, it's the what and the why that actually matter.

I realise that magic is meant to be mysterious and mystical, but that doesn't stop it from being a tool for someone to enact their agency on the world. Sure, it's a powerful tool, but ultimately, it's simply a means, not an ends to itself, people don't just do magic just to do magic.

[DMVerdandi]

The thing about DND magic, is it isn't mysterious, or even difficult.
Staying a muggle is a personal choice, and often an unintelligent one. Within at LEAST greyhawk, magic is a technological application of superNORMAL forces into codified macroinstructions (spells).

It IS academic, creative, and intuitive/emotional, but it is NOT mysterious or unattainable.


While I wouldn't say that someone who couldn't use magic wouldn't go on to hate magic users if they were indeed done some great wrong one of them. Think about the real world. There are people that hate guns because a loved one was killed by a criminal wielding one. Now, most people that own guns NEVER are placed in the situation where they need to actually use it, but that person can still take that trauma and internalize it, and become activists against it's use.

Or think about partisans/terrorists. One nation/state could make war on another, and the ensuing carnage can force people who never thought of picking up a weapon into a struggle between them and a whole state.



Now, back to the OP.
Yes, you can have a character that unequivocally hates one type of person or another. Hate is a real phenomenon and for as long as humans have been alive there have been people who never let go of their hate. Dying as old, miserable hateful SOB's.

Does that make for a good character to play in a ttrpg? Depends on a few things.

1. What that character hates (Magic)
2.Is that thing prevalent (YES!!!)
3.In the party, is there anyone that triggers that hate (Yes)
(So no. It's not a good concept for teamwork.)


The problem with your character is he hates something that the world runs on. It's like someone in our world hating college students to a homicidal level. There are so many that it would take a LARGE amount of time, energy, and hate to even attempt to kill them all. Or a better example. Someone who hates police/military, because they use guns, but hates guns so much that they try to kill every one they see with a machete.

Even if they have family members or friends that join the forces, they will try to kill them, or at least make their lives worse by passive aggressive shenanigans.

That is who you are playing, and that is why everyone is against the character from a fundamental level.
It is at best, annoying to the highest degree, and at worst, completely foolish (as in having information, but disregarding it intentionally).

You are playing a luddite.
Pray that your DM doesn't get tired of the shenanigans and sends a magical guild hit squad to kill you.
It would be easier than you believe.

Next time, hate something that isn't so prevalent in contemporary society. Hate a foreign nation, religion, or monster species, that doesn't live so close to you, or an individual.

[Mr.Kraken]

I should have explained things a bit better in the OP.


There is a distinction between differing opinions and destructive antagonism that everyone except for you seems to have grasped.

Did you read the post in which I said I would change the character's personality?


Yes that's true but your characters shouldn't be immune to their experiences altering their world view over time.

All of the examples you gave took years or months for those characters to change. I've had a few sessions. Five or six, a matter of a in-game month. Nothing has happened for the character to change, yet. He hasn't developped any kind of friendship with the wizard, they are only using each other. He owns him his life? Technically yes, but that was something I came up with in order to make them travel together, because in-character, they would be enemies. My character is borderline genocidal when it comes to magic-users, but I want that to change in time. And it is changing. He's becoming increasingly tolerant with the elf, and even allowed an artificer to enchant his weapon. It was working out, until the situation in the first post happened.

From the beginning, I intended for his personality to change over time. Most of you think I'm probably roleplaying the character in a way that prevents teamwork, but I'm not. Nothing of the sort has happened before, this situation was exceptional. While we do argue in-character sometimes, we always do it in a fun and interesting way. We, as players, work as a team, even if that makes it seem unintentional, in-character. Like I said, this was an exceptional situation, and since it has happened, I'll have to make his personality change faster to avoid any future problems.

Regarding the magic-hating theme, I don't want to be stubborn or anything, just wanna continue the conversation since I think this is an interesting topic. Think of a paladin or a ranger in a similar situation. The paladin is traveling with a demonic character, or the ranger is traveling with a favored enemy. If you would be in control of the paladin or the ranger, how would you roleplay him?

[Crake]

Regarding the magic-hating theme, I don't want to be stubborn or anything, just wanna continue the conversation since I think this is an interesting topic. Think of a paladin or a ranger in a similar situation. The paladin is traveling with a demonic character, or the ranger is traveling with a favored enemy. If you would be in control of the paladin or the ranger, how would you roleplay him?

Rangers don't necessarily hate their favoured enemy, they're just exceptionally good at hunting them. I frequently take favoured enemy human for my elven rangers, but my elf doesn't hate humans, he merely knows where to shoot them for maximum pain.

As for the paladin and demon, the paladin wouldn't hate the demon for being a demon, he would hate the demon for being evil. That's the distinction. Were the demon to somehow be lawful good (not impossible, see the succubus paladin), then only a bigot of a paladin (who, if you ask me, wouldn't have made it very far as a paladin in that case) would refuse them the same courtesy they would any other lawful good creature.

[Occasional Sage]

I say ratchet up the tension.

Make a deal with the other player that you'll get distracted for a minute. The wizard pockets the book and replaces it with an illusion.

Party saved, personalities maintained, character growth and clashes still possible.

[Mr.Kraken]

Oh, but what if they ranger does hate his favored enemy? It's not impossible, actually I think it's more than likely. Like DMVerdandi said, there's no problem in creating a character based on hate, see the Scar Enforcer, for example. The thing is it's problematic to hate something very common, like magic or humans.

How much time would pass until the paladin comes to trust the demon? Do you think he would call him a "friend" in weeks? Months? The paladin fights for the cause of Good against the forces of Evil. Thing is, in DnD Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are basic forces of the universe. In real life, though, evil is what you say it is. If you're a terrorist who says the West is evil, then that represents evil to you. In this character's case, magic-using (not magic itself) is evil, and it should take a while for him to change his mind.

Edit: Good idea, Occasional Sage. :smallbiggrin:

[MyrPsychologist]

Your character doesn't HAVE to travel with the party. If you are so uncomfortable by magic and the people who practice magic then it seems like a strained relationship to begin with. It seems like the concept of "life debt" isn't even a strong binding agent and you yourself mentioned that your character has a lax perception of honour and whatnot. So it seems like natural character progression for said extremist fanatic to take the opportunity to find a group of travelers that are more to his liking.

But really. This is why I don't make any character that is too fanatically opposed to something that is integral to the party.

If you're trying to tinker with the character a little to try to keep him true to form I would have him define his hatred a little more. You have him as a very bland and 2 dimensional being that just HATES but doesn't really direct it. If you hate magic so much that you want to destroy a book that you know very little about, what is to stop you from wanting to destroy other magical artifacts? I hear paladin orders have some really strong relics in their hands. Perhaps taking this character concept and directing it and shaping it into something that is less of a protagonist in a story and one of many in a party. Dig deeper into what about magic makes him uncomfortable and use that as a guide for how to act in the future. Does the book make him mad because it was used in heinous rituals? Well, maybe he would agree to figure out its properties before blindly destroying it. Or maybe he would be okay with it being inspected by a cleric/paladin since he respects them.

If it were a character in one of my games I would urge you from blind hatred towards mistrust and hostility. That way you aren't always on edge with fighting the rest of the party and the casters don't have to contemplate teleporting you straight into the sky. And from this vantage point you could tell the story of him softening due to the kindness and good deeds of the caster in your party and the character evolution that comes about when one puts aside hatreds and becomes stronger for it.

[Mr.Kraken]

If it were a character in one of my games I would urge you from blind hatred towards mistrust and hostility.

That's where I'm taking him, slowly but surely. As I saw in a forum the other day, he'll become more of a surgeon than a butcher - worse cases first. The elf is probably the least of his enemies and so is the book. Eventually, he'll only target those who use magic for evil and selfish goals. He was Neutral Good before his daughter's death, now he's CN. When he manages to reconcile with what happened, I plan on making him Good again, at least CG and be hunting evil mages wherever they may be.

I've talked with the other player, and we've come to the conclusion that for the time being, it's better to fight it out. Nothing will justify my character to change his personality this fast, so it's better to have an all-out fight and whoever wins gets bragging rights. "I'm right, you're wrong", kind of thing. I fully expect to get my *ss kicked though, but depending on luck, I have a chance. :smallsmile:

[dascarletm]

Ive read many of those kinds of literature. When talking about magic requiring some kind of sacrifice, the act of which itself would be evil, if we're talking living sacrifice, then the actions required to use the tool themselves are evil, so it cant be helped. But in all other respects, it doesn't matter what magic enables you to do, it simply matters how it's used, at least from a moral standpoint. It's one thing to regulate magic, and maybe seek to have a unified center to govern the use of it, just as there are for weapons in the modern age, but otherwise, just because one person used magic to kill your family, that's no reason to hate all magic users; that's a reason to hate evildoers.
That is a very-very modern way of thinking. Logic and reason in the formal sense is not necessarily common. There are many people today in the real world who hate groups of people due to something that isn't "they are evil." We could get into details, but I'm sure you have heard of such people.
This is the basis of racism/religious wars/etc.


What about replacing magic with science, say your family was killed by, I dunno, some kind of chemical warfare or something. Do you suddenly start hating science? No, you start hating the people who used the stuff.
It's not equivalent as I said so trying to draw equivalency is not going to work. The fact is that magic gives you power, and as the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Somebody's loved one dies at the hand of a firearm. It may not be logical, but people have crusaded against firearms because of something like that. It happens in the real world, and it isn't necessarily a stretch to think that in a world where people can wield a force


Just because magic has more potency, doesn't mean it's any less of a tool. A hammer can be used to build, destroy and kill, all in a single tool, does that mean it couldn't be equated to a sword in the right context?
No, it can't. Swords are not some force that the general populace doesn't have a good understanding of. It also is something to be feared because it isn't understood, and because of its potency. Fear leads to hatred and all that yoda sort of stuff.


Anyway, point of my meandering ramble is, unless evil is an inherent requirement in the use of magic, it is still just a tool like any other and can be equated to a sword in this context. And hell, even if evil were an inherent requirement of maigc, you still aren't going after the magic user because of the magic, you're going after them because what they're doing is evil. That's the crux of it, you go after people because of what they do, not what they use to do it.
Another fantasy setting where this sort of thing happens. Avatar: The Legend of Korra season 1. People rally against benders (if you are unfamiliar with the show it is basically magic), because they have this power. There are people with different reasons behind why they despise it...
One of the big bad guy's wife was killed by a bender. That is his motivation for hatred. Love transcends reason, and and it isn't that hard to understand.

[Crake]

I suppose it's fair enough to hate a tool (there would surely be people out there who have a dislike for things like swords, because of their capacity to be used as a killing device), but the point I'm trying to make is that those people hate the tool, not the wielder of the tool. Someone who hates swords does not necessarily hate everyone who USES a sword, though it might impact their initial disposition toward it.

The OP's case though is that anyone who uses said tool (in this case, magic) is deserving of a death sentence in his eyes.

[Karl Aegis]

Your character went from a neutral good farmer to one who would like to regularly engage in acts of genocide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're actually chaotic evil. If you can go through three alignment shifts before you hit middle age from your thirties, you can change how your character crusades against knowledge.

[Mr.Kraken]

Your character went from a neutral good farmer to one who would like to regularly engage in acts of genocide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're actually chaotic evil. If you can go through three alignment shifts before you hit middle age from your thirties, you can change how your character crusades against knowledge.

He hasn't killed anyone who didn't "deserve" it, so far, so no, no chaotic evil. It took a traumatizing event such as watching his daughter being killed for him to go from NG to CN. He didn't went full CE because he's still clinging to his humanity somewhat and tries to find a reason to justify his actions as much as he can. This is reflected in his animal companion - a fox, which he found almost dead in the wild. He nursed it to full health because it reminded him of his daughter (because she used to like these "little things"), and of happier times in general. Now, the fox became his link to his humanity, and it always stops him from doing something evil. And like I said a hundred times, I will change how he crusades against magic in time.

[Occasional Sage]

I say ratchet up the tension.

Make a deal with the other player that you'll get distracted for a minute. The wizard pockets the book and replaces it with an illusion.

Party saved, personalities maintained, character growth and clashes still possible.



Good idea, Occasional Sage. :smallbiggrin:




I've talked with the other player, and we've come to the conclusion that for the time being, it's better to fight it out. Nothing will justify my character to change his personality this fast, so it's better to have an all-out fight and whoever wins gets bragging rights. "I'm right, you're wrong", kind of thing. I fully expect to get my *ss kicked though, but depending on luck, I have a chance. :smallsmile:


...

:confused:

...



So, what's happened in-game?

[Mr.Kraken]

We still haven't done anything about it because, uhm... our DM has gone missing. Seriously. I think I scared him away. :smalleek:

[Calimehter]

Especially given the raw power achievable via magic in D&D 3.x, a better analogy to magic would be atomic energy.

Sure, atomic energy is *just* at tool in our world. It is, however, a tool with vast potential for evil as well as good, and the possible downsides (absurdly long-lived hazmat, absurdly destructive weaponry) are so colossal that it is generally considered a good idea to heavily regulate it at the very least . . . and the notion that people would think that *any* level of that power being placed in the hands of mere human beings [see several thousand years of stupidity found in human history for reasons why] isn't a good idea is hardly considered strange, even if you don't happen to personally agree with it.

Or, to put it another way, do you think it is wholly unreasonable to *not* want to give some wide-eyed low level teenage science prodigy (wizard) the keys to the atomic arsenal (magic)? How about another? Or another?? Sure, they might do some good with all that power . . . but . . . all it takes is one bad apple or even simple misstep to cause colossal mayhem. How many fingers do you want in that pie? How big a group do you want in charge of that stuff?

-------------------------------------

[Two warriors in a bar are approached by a teenage NPC]

NPC: I'm studying to be a great wizard someday, and I intend to use my powers for good!!! Wanna adventure with me so I can get stronger?

War1: [poleaxes kid with glaive]

War2: What the **** did you do that for? He said he was going to use his (eventual) crazy powers for good??!!

War1: Eh, the odds were in my favor. You really want yet another kid with his finger on that kind of trigger roaming around? Or have you forgotten about all those shadesteel golems we had to fight last week?

War2: . . .



You may not agree with War1, but you must at least agree that his logic is a bit better than "killing all warriors with swords or all blacksmiths with hammers" or something like that.

[Anlashok]

Atomic Energy would just be a school of magic.

Science would be a better analogy, given their broad bases.

So in this hypothetical all science is banned and warriors go around murdering kids who want to be scientists on the off-chance a high school physics student accidentally invents an atomic bomb.

[Mr.Kraken]

I was checking Weapons of Legacy today, mainly the Hammer of Witches session. According to the weapon's backstory, a cleric of Pelor had an epiphany and came to the conclusion that arcane magic is the origin of all harmful, destructive magic, while divine magic is the origin of all helpful, restorative magic.

That's probably a flawed concept, but it's a different way on viewing the subject.

[Crake]

Especially given the raw power achievable via magic in D&D 3.x, a better analogy to magic would be atomic energy.

Sure, atomic energy is *just* at tool in our world. It is, however, a tool with vast potential for evil as well as good, and the possible downsides (absurdly long-lived hazmat, absurdly destructive weaponry) are so colossal that it is generally considered a good idea to heavily regulate it at the very least . . . and the notion that people would think that *any* level of that power being placed in the hands of mere human beings [see several thousand years of stupidity found in human history for reasons why] isn't a good idea is hardly considered strange, even if you don't happen to personally agree with it.

Or, to put it another way, do you think it is wholly unreasonable to *not* want to give some wide-eyed low level teenage science prodigy (wizard) the keys to the atomic arsenal (magic)? How about another? Or another?? Sure, they might do some good with all that power . . . but . . . all it takes is one bad apple or even simple misstep to cause colossal mayhem. How many fingers do you want in that pie? How big a group do you want in charge of that stuff?

-------------------------------------

[Two warriors in a bar are approached by a teenage NPC]

NPC: I'm studying to be a great wizard someday, and I intend to use my powers for good!!! Wanna adventure with me so I can get stronger?

War1: [poleaxes kid with glaive]

War2: What the **** did you do that for? He said he was going to use his (eventual) crazy powers for good??!!

War1: Eh, the odds were in my favor. You really want yet another kid with his finger on that kind of trigger roaming around? Or have you forgotten about all those shadesteel golems we had to fight last week?

War2: . . .



You may not agree with War1, but you must at least agree that his logic is a bit better than "killing all warriors with swords or all blacksmiths with hammers" or something like that.

See, that's more the equivilant of killing everyone who works in atomic physics because they MIGHT one day put together an atomic bomb. Sure they know how to do it, and it might take some effort to gather the resources (in this case, leveling up, which is a very high mortality rate activity), but killing someone because of what they might do is still definitely evil. After all, a low level wizard/sorcerer is hardly capable of atomic levels of power. As someone said, atomic physics would be like a school of magic (probably evocation, since it deals with raw energy), as it is a subsection of science. But even then, being able to wield that equivilent of power would require an incredibly high level. And yes, regulation may be required, and likely enforced by other high level mages, but killing someone because of their potential to be destructive is even more evil. Especially considering when you eventually screw up and dont manage to kill one of the mages, and your actions end up being what turns them toward that destructive path.

Note that justifying something to yourself doesn't change the morality of your actions, just lets your character sleep better at night.

[Karl Aegis]

I still find it weird that given the choice between the Order of the Stick characters Elan and Malack you would attack the chaotic good Human Bard/Dashing Swordsman over the evil Albino Lizardman Vampire Cleric of Nergal even though Elan has arcane magic that helps people rather than destroy things.

[dascarletm]

The whole science/atomic physics vs magic falls short on one thing.

It takes little to no time/effort to have world destroying power with magic.

For a scientist to build a weapon capable of what magic can achieve would take a lot of time, effort, money, and/or man-power. For a wizard to ready destruction on such a magnitude takes... an 8 hour sleep and 1 hour of studying.

The fact that it is so easy to access that power is what makes it feared. Having the power at your fingertips changes the dynamic greatly. I'd go so far as to say it is better analogized as hatred towards organizations with access to WMDs.

[Flickerdart]

For a scientist to build a weapon capable of what magic can achieve would take a lot of time, effort, money, and/or man-power. For a wizard to ready destruction on such a magnitude takes... an 8 hour sleep and 1 hour of studying.
You forget the years of life-threatening training that a wizard would need to get anywhere close to world-shaking power. A scientist might take a few years to build a bomb, but unless someone sends soldiers to stop him, he's not going to have a huge chance of spontaneous death every day of the process.

[dascarletm]

You forget the years of life-threatening training that a wizard would need to get anywhere close to world-shaking power. A scientist might take a few years to build a bomb, but unless someone sends soldiers to stop him, he's not going to have a huge chance of spontaneous death every day of the process.

I didn't forget that in fact; it just isn't relevant to my point. Lethality of gaining said power doesn't really matter in terms of if people will fear/hate it.

Once they have attained their level of understanding they can then decide to ready world shaping power in 9 hours, or ~6 seconds if they have it prepared for the day.

[Flickerdart]

I didn't forget that in fact; it just isn't relevant to my point. Lethality of gaining said power doesn't really matter in terms of if people will fear/hate it.

Once they have attained their level of understanding they can then decide to ready world shaping power in 9 hours, or ~6 seconds if they have it prepared for the day.
It's completely relevant. Because it takes so much work, most people will never meet the world-exploding guy, and given that the world explodes very rarely, most that do meet the world exploding guy won't know he can explode the world. To a random villager or craftsman, a wizard is the crook-nosed guy down the street who can cloudkill the rats in his basement, not a Tippyesque worldshaper.

[dascarletm]

It's completely relevant. Because it takes so much work, most people will never meet the world-exploding guy, and given that the world explodes very rarely, most that do meet the world exploding guy won't know he can explode the world. To a random villager or craftsman, a wizard is the crook-nosed guy down the street who can cloudkill the rats in his basement, not a Tippyesque worldshaper.

I suppose that depends on the campaign world. However, simply because a world which magic is unknown by most can exist, that does not preclude one that has magic more widely known, nor does it diminish the idea that people could hate magic as a concept due to its ability to give singular people massive power in the palm of their hands, relatively unchecked.

[Occasional Sage]

I was checking Weapons of Legacy today, mainly the Hammer of Witches session. According to the weapon's backstory, a cleric of Pelor had an epiphany and came to the conclusion that arcane magic is the origin of all harmful, destructive magic, while divine magic is the origin of all helpful, restorative magic.

That's probably a flawed concept, but it's a different way on viewing the subject.

This cleric of Pelor has led a very sheltered life and read no books on comparative theology. Epiphanies based on shockingly-limited information are worse than useless.