Wizard Hypocrisy Towards Sorcerers

[MReav]

Wizards complain about sorcerers not earning their magic, but something struck me. Spellbooks are freaking expensive. Spells cost at least 50 GP per spell level, assuming you've got a friendly wizard letting you copy. And given how much you'll end up screwing up while learning, you're going to end up incurring a lot of expenses over your time figuring out how to cast spells. Which means, the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron. So, the idea that Sorcerers don't earn their magic when the only reason Wizards have magic is because they were rich enough to afford to take a few years to study magic, or because someone else footed the bill is pretty lacking in self-awareness. Unless they were poor/middle class and had to earn every GP that went into their studies (as opposed to doing it on their family's or some sugar-parent's silver), they don't get the right to stick their noses up at sorcerers.

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

I say this because I am doubtful they had anything resembling modern American perception of student loans back then.

[HolyDraconus]

I disagree. The vast majority of wizards begin with being able to study the works of a teacher well enough to emulate them, who then helps them with their first spellbook. The teacher is then able to help the young wizard learn through study before the acolyte commits ink to parchment. Tack in that if anything happened to that spellbook the wizard would need to start over and all that is a rough contrast to the sorcerer who pops a magic boner.

[Fyraltari]

Haley once earn 3D6 gold from scrubbing a shower. I don’t think those spellbooks are as expensive as you are making them to be.

[thereaper]

The bigger issue is the assumption that a Sorceror doesn't "earn" their magic. Just because someone didn't need a spellbook, doesn't mean they didn't earn something.

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic"), given that their magic comes from a spellbook in the same way a Cleric's magic comes from their deity. If the cleric's magic isn't real, then neither is the wizard's. Both receive magic from an external source. In that sense, Sorcerors, Psionic users, and Bards are the only "real" magic practitioners.

Technically, Elan is better at magic than V. :smallamused:

[Fyraltari]

The bigger issue is the assumption that a Sorceror doesn't "earn" their magic. Just because someone didn't need a spellbook, doesn't mean they didn't earn something.

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic"), given that their magic comes from a spellbook in the same way a Cleric's magic comes from their deity. If the cleric's magic isn't real, then neither is the wizard's. Both receive magic from an external source. In that sense, Sorcerors, Psionic users, and Bards are the only "real" magic practitioners.

Technically, Elan is better at magic than V. :smallamused:

As I understand it, the wizard's magic isn't inside the spellbook, per se, the spellbook is just where they write down their spells. They do all the actual magicking when they prepare their spells in the morning and casting a specific spell is just triggering the spell they loaded. So they don't take the magic from anybody or anything but themselves.

Meanwhile the Clerics' spells are prepared by the gods and handed to them.

[Kruploy]

I also find it interesting that wizards seem to consider divine magic beneath them (as V would put it, "not real magic")
Honestly, this is pretty dumb.
Divine magic is probably the closest you can get to the realm of true magic.

[The Pilgrim]

the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron.

Or by taking your first level as something else easier, like Bard or Rogue, then multiclassing to Wizard (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).

[Kruploy]

Or by taking your first level as something else easier, like Bard or Rogue, then multiclassing to Wizard (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).

Multiclassing? Preposterous.
That is no real Wizard.
Just a dumb faker.

[Jay R]

The attitude is one of earning something with hard work vs. getting it for free (or what looks like free from outside).

Consider a karate master who has spent years working on his technique so that he can break multiple boards with his feet. Imagine how he feels about a large, untrained brute who can do it without training out of sheer strength.

Or consider the person who worked all her life to work her way up in a corporation. On the day she is promoted to Vice President, the boss's son, who's been there for six months, is also promoted to that rank.

[dancrilis]

I suspect a bit of the wizards problem is jealousy - the wizard knows that if they prepare to fight a sorcerer of equal level they have a good shot at winning, possible a very good shot if they know a decent bit about the sorcerer's abilities, but they also know that for all their supposed mastery of arcane magic if they meet a sorcerer of equal level without preparation for that specific encounter that the sorcerer will likely win and even with preparation for the encounter they have a decent chance of losing.

When you think you are the master of arcane magic that has to be a bit annoying.

As for hypocrisy perhaps there is a bit of it, but it seems that Wizards have decent organisation for generating new wizards - apprenticeships, colleges, competitions etc this makes sense also as every new wizard is another person out there developing spells that other wizards might learn.
So less hypocrisy and more merely being organised.

[InvisibleBison]

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

More like two weeks. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/profession.htm)

[dancrilis]

More like two weeks. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/profession.htm)

That is more for PCs (the universe generally helps them out) for normal people who might be skilled carpenters they get 3sp+ per day (although they might be able to get much more - but whether much more is a 33% increase in wages or a 1000% increase in wages seems left to the DM).
Hireling, Trained. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices)

[Peelee]

Yeah, I'm with dancrilis on the thought that it's envy. Instead of "worked up the corporate ladder only for the CEO's son to get the VP job", I think of it more like "musician who went to music school and studied all sorts of music theory and practiced until their fingers bled can now compose amazing music meets music prodigy who could write operas since they were four years old and effortlessly produces masterpieces."

[InvisibleBison]

That is more for PCs (the universe generally helps them out) for normal people who might be skilled carpenters they get 3sp+ per day (although they might be able to get much more - but whether much more is a 33% increase in wages or a 1000% increase in wages seems left to the DM).
Hireling, Trained. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices)

Where in the rules does it say that NPCs can't use Profession?

[dancrilis]

Where in the rules does it say that NPCs can't use Profession?

NPCs don't use anything they are tools of the DM - the DM can use profession for them if they want but that is not the NPCs choice, and generally costs can assumed to be as given in the equipment section unless the DM changes it (which they are probably not going to do based on the roll of a dice).

[Darth Paul]

I suspect a bit of the wizards problem is jealousy - the wizard knows that if they prepare to fight a sorcerer of equal level they have a good shot at winning, possible a very good shot if they know a decent bit about the sorcerer's abilities, but they also know that for all their supposed mastery of arcane magic if they meet a sorcerer of equal level without preparation for that specific encounter that the sorcerer will likely win.


As we saw in the climax of Start Of Darkness.

I tend to agree with everyone who has said it's the same feeling a great master who has worked all their life gets when confronted with a prodigy to whom the same thing comes effortlessly. It's extremely annoying (I have to say), especially because the world is usually more amazed by the prodigy than by the great master.

I'd like to coin this "Harry Potter Syndrome", because I'm convinced that all the old wizards secretly hated the little punk's guts. I know I do. :smallamused:

[Goblin_Priest]

Wizards complain about sorcerers not earning their magic, but something struck me. Spellbooks are freaking expensive. Spells cost at least 50 GP per spell level, assuming you've got a friendly wizard letting you copy. And given how much you'll end up screwing up while learning, you're going to end up incurring a lot of expenses over your time figuring out how to cast spells. Which means, the only way a wizard is going to be able to learn magic is by either being incredibly rich, or having some patron. So, the idea that Sorcerers don't earn their magic when the only reason Wizards have magic is because they were rich enough to afford to take a few years to study magic, or because someone else footed the bill is pretty lacking in self-awareness. Unless they were poor/middle class and had to earn every GP that went into their studies (as opposed to doing it on their family's or some sugar-parent's silver), they don't get the right to stick their noses up at sorcerers.

A spellbook costs 15 GP. A typical carpenter would need to work almost 2 months nonstop to be able to afford one of those, assuming they didn't have to pay for anything else.

I say this because I am doubtful they had anything resembling modern American perception of student loans back then.

What!? Privileged people taking offense at seeing lower-born reach their class!? No real world analogies possible here, for sure. ;)

[Jason]

Yeah, I'm with dancrilis on the thought that it's envy. Instead of "worked up the corporate ladder only for the CEO's son to get the VP job", I think of it more like "musician who went to music school and studied all sorts of music theory and practiced until their fingers bled can now compose amazing music meets music prodigy who could write operas since they were four years old and effortlessly produces masterpieces."
Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus, only Salieri never gave away how he really felt to Mozart. He just let it fester and tried to destroy Mozart secretly.

Harry Potter is not that great a wizard in the books. His most notable talents are quidditch and bravery. His friend Hermione is the one who masters spells and potions at a much younger age than anyone else.

[hamishspence]

Harry Potter is not that great a wizard in the books. His most notable talents are quidditch and bravery. His friend Hermione is the one who masters spells and potions at a much younger age than anyone else.

There is the Expecto Patronum spell, which Harry masters before Hermione, but that may be because he was taught it before Hermione.

A point is made of how even fully trained wizards often have trouble with it, and that it's "well beyond OWL (5th year) level" and Harry is taught it in year 3.

However, it's possible that the DADA teachers have been poor at teaching that one in the past, since Harry teaches many of his students to do it in year 5 (and some of them were year 4 students).

Harry learned a few other "past his normal year level" spells in year 4 for the Triwizard Tournament.

[Jason]

There is the Expecto Patronum spell, which Harry masters before Hermione, but that may be because he was taught it before Hermione.

A point is made of how even fully trained wizards often have trouble with it, and that it's "well beyond OWL (5th year) level" and Harry is taught it in year 3.I would argue that Harry's unusual amount of bravery is largely responsible for his mastery of the Patronus, that and the fact that Lupin is an excellent DADA teacher.
He does work hard on some simple spells, like expeliarmus to the point that he develops a mastery of them. But Hermione is still the prodigy. The only skill that really comes easily to Harry is broomstick flying and Quidditch.


However, it's possible that the DADA teachers have been poor at teaching that one in the past, since Harry teaches many of his students to do it in year 5 (and some of them were year 4 students).
Lupin is the only good Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Harry had during his time at Hogwarts. Quirrel was sharing his soul and body with Voldemort, Lockheart was a charlatan, "Mad-Eye Moody" was Death Eater Barty Crouch in disguise, Umbridge wasn't interested in teaching Harry anything useful, and Snape despite having real motivation to teach him despised him too much to teach him much.

[hamishspence]

Lupin is the only good Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Harry had during his time at Hogwarts. Quirrel was sharing his soul and body with Voldemort, Lockheart was a charlatan, "Mad-Eye Moody" was Death Eater Barty Crouch in disguise, Umbridge wasn't interested in teaching Harry anything useful, and Snape despite having real motivation to teach him despised him too much to teach him much.

I would add
Moody/Crouch to the list of good teachers. Horrible person, but very good teacher.

[InvisibleBison]

NPCs don't use anything they are tools of the DM - the DM can use profession for them if they want but that is not the NPCs choice, and generally costs can assumed to be as given in the equipment section unless the DM changes it (which they are probably not going to do based on the roll of a dice).

So if there are two equally skilled carpenters, one of whom is a PC and the other of whom is an NPC, working together on various projects, the PC is going to earn several times as much money as the NPC? What's going on to cause this disparity?

Also, you haven't provided any evidence that NPCs aren't supposed to use the Profession skill, only that the amount of money PCs have to pay to hire them isn't determined by that skill.

[dancrilis]

So if there are two equally skilled carpenters, one of whom is a PC and the other of whom is an NPC, working together on various projects, the PC is going to earn several times as much money as the NPC? What's going on to cause this disparity?
There are two PCs on a job with the same modifer as each other one of them roles a 1 and the other roles an 20 - both do the job and get paid but one of them (assuming no modifiers) gets 5sp and the other gets 10gp.

If an NPC joins them then the NPC get whatever the DM determines - with a base assumption of 3sp as a minimum, if the GM wants to have them roll profession and give them money based on that that is up to the GM, but it is not the base assumption of what a skilled hireling gets.



Also, you haven't provided any evidence that NPCs aren't supposed to use the Profession skill, only that the amount of money PCs have to pay to hire them isn't determined by that skill.
Whether they use it or not is not immediately relevant to the cost of a skilled hireling and therefore not relevant to how long it takes a skill hireling to get the money to buy a spellbook - if you want to use if for your NPCs feel free.

[Peelee]

I'd like to coin this "Harry Potter Syndrome", because I'm convinced that all the old wizards secretly hated the little punk's guts. I know I do. :smallamused:
Not big in the HP fandom, but who was the prodigy in that? Snape, for his uncanny understanding of potions?

Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus, only Salieri never gave away how he really felt to Mozart. He just let it fester and tried to destroy Mozart secretly.

Wasn't Salieri a great fan of and friend to Mozart IRL?

[Dr.Zero]

Haley once earn 3D6 gold from scrubbing a shower. I don’t think those spellbooks are as expensive as you are making them to be.

Those were copper pieces. 2 orders of magnitude of difference.

On the main topic, I agree the usual justification given for the hate sorcerers get is hidden envy for wizards and fear for commoners.

[InvisibleBison]

There are two PCs on a job with the same modifer as each other one of them roles a 1 and the other roles an 20 - both do the job and get paid but one of them (assuming no modifiers) gets 5sp and the other gets 10gp.

If an NPC joins them then the NPC get whatever the DM determines - with a base assumption of 3sp as a minimum, if the GM wants to have them roll profession and give them money based on that that is up to the GM, but it is not the base assumption of what a skilled hireling gets.


Whether they use it or not is not immediately relevant to the cost of a skilled hireling and therefore not relevant to how long it takes a skill hireling to get the money to buy a spellbook - if you want to use if for your NPCs feel free.

Not all NPCs are hirelings, though. The hireling rules are explicitly only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them. Why do you think that they should be expanded to be the default income for all NPCs, as opposed to the Profession skill?

[dancrilis]

Not all NPCs are hirelings, though. The hireling rules are explicitly only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them. Why do you think that they should be expanded to be the default income for all NPCs, as opposed to the Profession skill?

You can have NPCs charge each other more then they charge PCs if you like - but I would not regard it as the default, however can you point out where you see it explicitely mentioned that 'hireling rules are ... only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them'.

[InvisibleBison]

You can have NPCs charge each other more then they charge PCs if you like - but I would not regard it as the default, however can you point out where you see it explicitely mentioned that 'hireling rules are ... only used when PCs hire NPCs to do something for them'.

I was thinking of the first sentence of the hirelings section on p. 195 of the DMG, but on further examination I think I've pushed my claims a bit beyond what the evidence can support.

On the broader issue of how much do NPCs earn, my opinion is that the rules are a reflection what happens in the game world, and the distinction between PC and NPC doesn't exist in the game world. Thus, PCs and NPCs should use the same rules when doing the same thing.

[Jason]

Wasn't Salieri a great fan of and friend to Mozart IRL?Yes. IRL there's no reason to think they disliked each other or that Salieri had anything to do with Mozart's death. It sure made a great movie, though. The stage play is great too.

[dancrilis]

I was thinking of the first sentence of the hirelings section on p. 195 of the DMG, but on further examination I think I've pushed my claims a bit beyond what the evidence can support.
After checking it out I am assuming that was a typo and you meant 105 (or we are looking at different books) - but fair enough.



On the broader issue of how much do NPCs earn, my opinion is that the rules are a reflection what happens in the game world, and the distinction between PC and NPC doesn't exist in the game world. Thus, PCs and NPCs should use the same rules when doing the same thing.
I get this - if you wanted to square the two figures you could imagine the following.
Hireling: Full time private employee.
Profession: Contractor.

So effectively a hireling might be employed by 'Carpentry and You' where they gets 2sp (minus tax) a day whether they work or not and the company charge 3sp for the labour - so the carpenter has job security and a steady income but is not making what they would if they were independent.
Meanwhile if you hire a private carpenter you would be paying (1d20+Modifer)/2 gold pieces a week - but they would need to find their own work have no steady income, and competing with 'Carpentry and You' might not be reasonable so they might need to be inventive to remain employed - working for the local graveyard ghouls or other unsavoury characters that 'Carpentry and You' will not deal with due to potential reputational damage.

[Kamunami]

Hermione is still the prodigy.

I think she would take offense to that honestly. She's a "wizard" through and through, putting in more study, hard work, and practice than anyone else. She really doesn't have any talent in understanding or learning things more quickly or intuitively than others, she just puts in the hours that people like Harry don't bother doing.

If the existence of easygoing geniuses is infuriating to someone, imagine what it feels like for people to think they are one.

[Jason]

I think she would take offense to that honestly. She's a "wizard" through and through, putting in more study, hard work, and practice than anyone else. She really doesn't have any talent in understanding or learning things more quickly or intuitively than others, she just puts in the hours that people like Harry don't bother doing.

If the existence of easygoing geniuses is infuriating to someone, imagine what it feels like for people to think they are one.
I disagree. Hermione is both more talented than the other students in most areas and she works harder than any of them in order to acheive what she does. Many child prodigies in music IRL are both very talented and work incredibly hard.

[Quebbster]

I disagree. Hermione is both more talented than the other students in most areas and she works harder than any of them in order to acheive what she does. Many child prodigies in music IRL are both very talented and work incredibly hard.

Hermione was able to brew Polyjuice Potion in her second year, and that was supposed to be a very complex potion that was difficult to brew - even though it seems to be available on tap in later books.

[Jason]

There are a lot of passages where the activity of the day for a class is described with the note that Hermione got the best results of any member of the class, especially in the earlier books. It is not just a matter of having done the reading before hand: Hermione is also genuinely talented.

[thereaper]

As I understand it, the wizard's magic isn't inside the spellbook, per se, the spellbook is just where they write down their spells. They do all the actual magicking when they prepare their spells in the morning and casting a specific spell is just triggering the spell they loaded. So they don't take the magic from anybody or anything but themselves.

Meanwhile the Clerics' spells are prepared by the gods and handed to them.

The wizard still remains dependent on an external source for their ability to cast spells.

[Dr.Zero]

The wizard still remains dependent on an external source for their ability to cast spells.

We might almost say that wizards in D&D with their necessity to prepare "spells" to have ingredients (material components, which are not simply a focus, but real components related to the effect, like sulfur for fireballs) should be more correctly named "alchemists", therefore leaving the sorcerers (and later the psions) the only ones really able to shape reality using only their sheer willpower.

[Darth Paul]

Not big in the HP fandom, but who was the prodigy in that? Snape, for his uncanny understanding of potions?


Rowling, for making a ton of money writing what I consider mediocre books. But, to each their own. At least they're better than Twilight.

[Peelee]

Rowling, for making a ton of money writing what I consider mediocre books.
I'd agree on that, but I'd call her more lucky than prodigy.

[thereaper]

We might almost say that wizards in D&D with their necessity to prepare "spells" to have ingredients (material components, which are not simply a focus, but real components related to the effect, like sulfur for fireballs) should be more correctly named "alchemists", therefore leaving the sorcerers (and later the psions) the only ones really able to shape reality using only their sheer willpower.

Material components only apply to some spells, and the same issue applies to sorcerors. If we are to assume that "real" magic comes purely from the self, then spells requiring material components wouldn't qualify as "real" magic.

And don't forget Bards.

[Edea]

Talent and effort tend to feed each other.

If you're already talented at something, working to get better at it tends to produce results, and that feels good, so you keep training.

[Jason]

I'd agree on that, but I'd call her more lucky than prodigy.
Rowling is not a prodigy, just a decently skilled writer who had an excellent idea at exactly the right time. But then nearly all successful writers have a measure of luck in their story.
I think the books are quite good, but they are meant for juveniles, and the universe they describe is interesting and colorful, but not exactly logical. That is also part of their charm.

[KorvinStarmast]

Divine magic is probably the closest you can get to the realm of true magic. I am hoping that Katherine Kurtz arrives at that conclusion (I am finally reading the Deryni series and I suspect that she's headed that way ...)

I tend to agree with everyone who has said it's the same feeling a great master who has worked all their life gets when confronted with a prodigy to whom the same thing comes effortlessly. It's extremely annoying (I have to say), especially because the world is usually more amazed by the prodigy than by the great master.
Salieri and Mozart, Snape and Potter.
A note on the actual Salieri, rather than his portrayal in the film Amadeus:

Salieri was a pivotal figure in the development of late 18th-century opera

[Peelee]

I tend to agree with everyone who has said it's the same feeling a great master who has worked all their life gets when confronted with a prodigy to whom the same thing comes effortlessly.Snape and Potter.
I don't recall Potter being a great master. Pretty good eventually, but hardly "great master". At least, from what I've heard of how the series ended, didn't really read the last book/see the last movies. Regardless, he never really had any animosity towards Snape for Snape's innate talents.

[Jason]

Snape was hostile towards any student that didn't belong to Slytheran, regardless of their abilities. His exceptional hostility towards Harry Potter had nothing to do with Potter being unusually talented in magic and everything to do with Snape's relationship with Potter's deceased parents.

[KorvinStarmast]

Snape was hostile towards any student that didn't belong to Slytheran, regardless of their abilities. His exceptional hostility towards Harry Potter had nothing to do with Potter being unusually talented in magic and everything to do with Snape's relationship with Potter's deceased parents. OK, that's a fair point, though it seemed to me that Snape was consistently jealous of Harry's success and depth of "awakening" talent. Your take fits the story just fine.

Regardless, he never really had any animosity towards Snape for Snape's innate talents. The animosity was in the other direction.

[Peelee]

The animosity was in the other direction.

IIRC, Snape hated Potter because James bullied him and married the girl Snape crushed on, and Snape white-knighted for her to the end of his life. Nothing to do with hard work vs. innate talent (and the books depict Snape as being a prodigy at potions, given how while in school, he made corrections to his own textbook to the point that the book was later effectively the equivalent of a cheat-sheet while Potter never really shone in any classes through inborn talent or hard work.

So not really a "hard worker hates natural talent" type deal here.

[Jason]

OK, that's a fair point, though it seemed to me that Snape was consistently jealous of Harry's success and depth of "awakening" talent. Your take fits the story just fine.
He became resentful of Potter's seeming ability to constantly bend or break the rules and get away without consequence or even be rewarded for it, but that was also one of the traits he hated most in Harry's father.

[Fyraltari]

IIRC, Snape hated Potter because James bullied him and married the girl Snape crushed on, and Snape white-knighted for her to the end of his life. Nothing to do with hard work vs. innate talent (and the books depict Snape as being a prodigy at potions, given how while in school, he made corrections to his own textbook to the point that the book was later effectively the equivalent of a cheat-sheet while Potter never really shone in any classes through inborn talent or hard work.

So not really a "hard worker hates natural talent" type deal here.

Maybe this idea comes from the scenes where Snape berates Harry for not practicing his occlumency? Of course that’s in context of Harry sucking at it and not practicing it because Snape is horrible teacher and his private lessons consisted solely of daily humiliations, so not seeing the prodigy here. The only two disciplines Harry is genuinely talented in is quidditch and defense and, not coincidentally, these are also the only two he likes.

[KorvinStarmast]

IIRC, Snape hated Potter because James bullied him and married the girl Snape crushed on, Which it took how many books to reveal? I read the books from the first forward. That aspect of the Potter(parents) / Snape relationship took a while to be spelled out. (Fifth book? It's been so long since we took them all back to the Second Hand books store that I don't remember).

[Jason]

Which it took how many books to reveal? I read the books from the first forward. That aspect of the Potter(parents) / Snape relationship took a while to be spelled out. (Fifth book? It's been so long since we took them all back to the Second Hand books store that I don't remember).
Snape's true motivation and loyalties were issues that were only definitively resolved in the last book, though hints were given out in most of the books up to that point. Snape is by far the most complicated and no doubt some would say the most interesting character in the series. Rather like Gollum in The Lord of the Rings.

[Peelee]

Which it took how many books to reveal? I read the books from the first forward. That aspect of the Potter(parents) / Snape relationship took a while to be spelled out. (Fifth book? It's been so long since we took them all back to the Second Hand books store that I don't remember).

Whereas it still has not been revealed that Potter is a prodigy at anything other than maybe sports, and the only reason he is important is because Voldemort failed to kill him, due to absolutely nothing special about Harry. My point is that the Snape/Harry comparison does not fit here.

[KorvinStarmast]

Snape is by far the most complicated and no doubt some would say the most interesting character in the series. Hmm, a medium sized fish in a small pond. Works for me. :smallsmile: So it did take until Phone Book VII?

[Jason]

Whereas it still has not been revealed that Potter is a prodigy at anything other than maybe sports, and the only reason he is important is because Voldemort failed to kill him, due to absolutely nothing special about Harry. My point is that the Snape/Harry comparison does not fit here.
In fact it is revealed that Potter is the Chosen One precisely because Voldemort had a choice between two newborn boys that fit the conditions of a prophecy that said who would eventually defeat him, and he chose to try to kill the boy who had a mixed muggle ancestry like his own rather than the boy from an all-wizard family. Incidentally proving that he was a hypocrite, since a major point of his rhetoric was that pure-bloods always make superior wizards and should rule the world.

If anything, Snape is the naturally talented prodigy and Potter is the one who had to work hard to develop his skills in everything but Quidditch.

Edit: I've only actually read the Harry Potter books and seen the movies once each, but the series is a current favorite of my pre-teen daughter that she has read multiple times, and we're currently re-reading them together as a family. Hence my familiarity with the series.

[Peelee]

If anything, Snape is the naturally prodigy and Potter is the one who had to work hard to develop his skills in everything but Quidditch.

That's what I'm trying to say, yes. Although even with work, Harry is nowhere near Snape's level (or Hermione's for that matter - she would be a more appropriate stand-in for the mastery-through-work).

[Keltest]

That's what I'm trying to say, yes. Although even with work, Harry is nowhere near Snape's level (or Hermione's for that matter - she would be a more appropriate stand-in for the mastery-through-work).

I think it would be fair to say that Harry has the same capacity of Hermione, his interests just lay elsewhere. Whenever we see him actually putting in honest effort towards the same thing as Hermione, he generally either keeps pace with her or sees results first.

[Darth Paul]

He became resentful of Potter's seeming ability to constantly bend or break the rules and get away without consequence or even be rewarded for it, but that was also one of the traits he hated most in Harry's father.

I suppose what Harry is a real prodigy at is getting away with crap to an insane degree, and that's a truly annoying trait to anyone who spends their days slogging away through the bureaucracy, following the rules, being called on the carpet by the boss, being stabbed in the back in tiny ways by coworkers, suffering "the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely... the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes," while watching someone else end run around every rule and get away with it because they're popular and just so likeable.

I actually liked Snape (the little I saw of him in two movies, and not just because it's Alan Rickman, although that was reason enough). He's only an antagonist because he insists on Potter following the same rules as everyone else and doing the work, which Potter doesn't seem to think he should have to. That was my impression anyway. But the books and the films are written so that Harry, the protagonist, is of course right and the teachers are wrong- since it is a kids' series after all. But it grinds on anyone who thinks reality should ensue and see the little bugger kicked out on his ear.

[Jason]

I actually liked Snape (the little I saw of him in two movies, and not just because it's Alan Rickman, although that was reason enough). He's only an antagonist because he insists on Potter following the same rules as everyone else and doing the work, which Potter doesn't seem to think he should have to. That was my impression anyway. But the books and the films are written so that Harry, the protagonist, is of course right and the teachers are wrong- since it is a kids' series after all. But it grinds on anyone who thinks reality should ensue and see the little bugger kicked out on his ear.
Well, not really in the books. Snape there is an antagonist because he actively bullies students that do not belong to his favored house, like poor Neville, and promotes his favored students, like Draco Malfoy, at every opportunity. He is actively malicious, not just someone trying to follow the rules.
He hates Harry from the first sight of him. Later he also resents him for getting away with constant rulebreaking, but he was determined to never like Harry Potter, the son of his hated enemy and rival James, from the start.
That said, he is not a villain. He hates Harry and would love to see him be expelled, but he also saves his life on many occasions (and occasionally vice versa) and eventually accepts that Harry is necessary to defeating Voldemort.

[Quizatzhaderac]

So I think Mozart isn't the best example of a sorcerer of music; he was classically trained, familiar with European music theory , and was able to read and write sheet music. Those things all seem essential to being a composer, but aren't strictly so. I think the real wizard's prejudice is that other caster think about magic differently, which seems wrong to the close minded.

I'm reminded of a story about a Cape Verdian composer (his name escapes me) working with a European orchestra.

The composer never learned to read/write music and he never needed to: he simply had all parts memorized and and would teach the musicians their parts by demonstration.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm reminder of a story about a Cape Verdian composer (his name escapes me) working with a European orchestra.

The composer never learned to read/write music and he never needed to: he simply had all parts memorized and and would teach the musicians their parts by demonstration. Interesting example. I know a musician who has never learned how to read music; he's had numerous songs published.

[Darth Paul]

Well, not really in the books. Snape there is an antagonist because he actively bullies students that do not belong to his favored house, like poor Neville, and promotes his favored students, like Draco Malfoy, at every opportunity. He is actively malicious, not just someone trying to follow the rules.
He hates Harry from the first sight of him. Later he also resents him for getting away with constant rulebreaking, but he was determined to never like Harry Potter, the son of his hated enemy and rival James, from the start.
That said, he is not a villain. He hates Harry and would love to see him be expelled, but he also saves his life on many occasions (and occasionally vice versa) and eventually accepts that Harry is necessary to defeating Voldemort.

Hand up, confession, I did not pay that close attention to either of the first two films (which are the only ones I've seen), and it was years ago. In fact I may have dozed off and missed bits. That's what happens when you attempt to unwind and start your days off after a 16 hour shift by watching a movie.

[RatElemental]

I think Harry Potter is probably the worst place to look for a comparison between naturally gifted mages and ones who had to study, seeing as all wizards in Harry Potter are kind of a mix between D&D sorcerers and wizards. While shaping your magic is something you can do through study, the ability to do magic has at least somewhat of a genetic component It can be entirely impossible to do magic if you weren't "born right" even if both your parents are wizards themselves.

[MoiMagnus]

Honestly, this is pretty dumb.
Divine magic is probably the closest you can get to the realm of true magic.

There is a difference between divine magic as "you are a god shaping the world" and divine magic as "you are a cleric praying for your god to shape the world".

It's not unreasonable for wizards to compare cleric to magic-item users or scroll-users: someone who borrows power from someone else who does the real job. With this mindset, wizards would rather see them as equals to gods (though really young ones) rather than to clerics.

[Peelee]

There is a difference between divine magic as "you are a god shaping the world" and divine magic as "you are a cleric praying for your god to shape the world".

It's not unreasonable for wizards to compare cleric to magic-item users or scroll-users: someone who borrows power from someone else who does the real job. With this mindset, wizards would rather see them as equals to gods (though really young ones) rather than to clerics.

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

[dancrilis]

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

They can still prepare read magic....

[RatElemental]

At least until you take away their book and watch them flail around helplessly.

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart.

[Peelee]

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart.

And how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical wizard's belief in their superiority over a cleric based on the power source? Yes, if you take away the carpenter's saw, they cannot work, but the carpenter doesn't think they're better than the stonemason.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Harry Potter is probably the worst place to look True.

Remove any highly specialized professional's access to reference material and they'll run into something sooner or later they don't have memorized by heart. Also true, you are two for two! :smallsmile:

[RatElemental]

And how exactly does that relate to a hypothetical wizard's belief in their superiority over a cleric based on the power source? Yes, if you take away the carpenter's saw, they cannot work, but the carpenter doesn't think they're better than the stonemason.

What does your hypothetical have to do with it either? Remove the stonemason's tools and they cannot work, either. Remove the cleric's god and they're just a man in a funny hat, too.

But the cleric can't simply start working on a new book, using nothing but their own personal research to fill the pages if that happens. The wizard can.

[Peelee]

What does your hypothetical have to do with it either? Remove the stonemason's tools and they cannot work, either. Remove the cleric's god and they're just a man in a funny hat, too.

Yes, that is the point. The wizard looking down on the cleric when they're effectively in the same boat is foolish in the wizard's part.

"Remove the clerics God and they're just a person in a funny hat" is why the wizard is asserting superiority, but take the wizards spell book away and they're just a person in funny hat. You have indeed managed to get the exact point.

But the cleric can't simply start working on a new book, using nothing but their own personal research to fill the pages if that happens. The wizard can.

Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

ETA: Further, wizards can only fill a new spellbook with the spells they already have prepared, so that's actually worse.

[dancrilis]

Yes, that is the point. The wizard looking down on the cleric when they're effectively in the same boat is foolish in the wizard's part.

"Remove the clerics God and they're just a person in a funny hat" is why the wizard is asserting superiority, but take the wizards spell book away and they're just a person in funny hat. You have indeed managed to get the exact point.


Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

A Cleric can also take up the causes they associated with their old god and get their power back, a Wizard is much worse off as a new spellbook will cost a fortune for them to get back where they were.

[RatElemental]

Yes, because the cleric doesn't work off books. The cleric can worship a new God just as the wizard can write a new spellbook. Again, that is the point.

ETA: Further, wizards can only fill a new spellbook with the spells they already have prepared, so that's actually worse.

The rest of that is a fair point, but I think these aren't quite as good as you think they are. A cleric, should they lose their god, has to devote themselves to an entirely different god or completely change their outlook (becoming a philosophy cleric)

The wizard can jot down what they have memorized, true, but I was talking specifically about spell research. Wipe out all known magic, and all the gods. The wizards will be set back quite a bit, but they can reresearch all of the spells that were lost. The clerics will never recover those lost gods, and will have to make due without them, and depending on the setting may or may not be permanently reduced to MIAFH status.

[Peelee]

The rest of that is a fair point, but I think these aren't quite as good as you think they are. A cleric, should they lose their god, has to devote themselves to an entirely different god or completely change their outlook (becoming a philosophy cleric)

The wizard can jot down what they have memorized, true, but I was talking specifically about spell research. Wipe out all known magic, and all the gods. The wizards will be set back quite a bit, but they can reresearch all of the spells that were lost. The clerics will never recover those lost gods, and will have to make due without them, and depending on the setting may or may not be permanently reduced to MIAFH status.

Fair, but the wizard still needs a research laboratory, IIRC, and clerics can be clerics of causes.

All that being said, druids, rangers, paladins, and others all use divine magic without gods, so targeting clerics just because they're pious doesn't really give any brownie points either.

And it doesn't really seem ideal to say "in a setting where clerics need gods and all gods are removed clerics are SOL" when I can just say "sure and in a setting where arcane magic just goes poof wizards are SOL."

[RatElemental]

Fair, but the wizard still needs a research laboratory, IIRC, and clerics can be clerics of causes.

All that being said, druids, rangers, paladins, and others all use divine magic without gods, so targeting clerics just because they're pious doesn't really give any brownie points either.

And it doesn't really seem ideal to say "in a setting where clerics need gods and all gods are removed clerics are SOL" when I can just say "sure and in a setting where arcane magic just goes poof wizards are SOL."

And the cleric needs a temple, the fighter needs a forge, the ranger needs a fletcher, etc.

I think we've hit a fundamental difference in assumptions here. I have trouble envisioning a setting where arcane magic doesn't work but divine magic does, and always viewed a setting without magic as one where wizards and clerics both are SOL.

The other divine caster classes have always been a weird case, they seem to work more or less the same way cause clerics do but somehow end up being an entirely different class. Well, except for archivist, which can basically be summed up as "What if a cleric was a wizard?"

[Peelee]

And the cleric needs a temple

I don't recall that being necessary in RAW, no.

ETA: Actually, ignore that. I think were getting too bogged down in the details. My overall point is that it would be foolish for wizards to look down on clerical magic because of the source of that magic.

[Keltest]

I don't recall that being necessary in RAW, no.

ETA: Actually, ignore that. I think were getting too bogged down in the details. My overall point is that it would be foolish for wizards to look down on clerical magic because of the source of that magic.

Still not sure how you figure that. Wizards have their hands directly on the fabric of reality. Clerics ask somebody else to do it. The practical effects may be the same, or at least similar, but there is very much a "I am the power" versus "I work for the power" divide there.

[Peelee]

Still not sure how you figure that. Wizards have their hands directly on the fabric of reality. Clerics ask somebody else to do it. The practical effects may be the same, or at least similar, but there is very much a "I am the power" versus "I work for the power" divide there.

But the wizards are not the power. They still get their power from a book. No book, no power. They know how to get the power. If you want to look at it that way, it's sorcerers who espouse "I am the power."

So if wizards look down on clerics because they are not "I am the power", then surely wizards must respect sorcerers for embodying "I am the power". And yet wizards have disdain for sorcerers specifically because of this. It's as if wizards like this are hypocritical asses who just want to say "I'm better than those people" and just move the goalposts when those goalposts are inconvenient for their arguments.

[Fyraltari]

But the wizards are not the power. They still get their power from a book.

Where does the book come from?

[dancrilis]

Where does the book come from?

Bookmaker's shop.

[Fyraltari]

Bookmaker's shop.

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

Edit: because this video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AuZPou9Ebrs) states that wizards are the ones writing spells into their books. It’s about fifth edition, though, but if it’s true for 3.5, then the spellbooks aren’t so much an external source of power than a convienent place to put the stuff they made themselves and arguing that relying on a book is the same as relying on another creature for power is a bit like claiming the guy who came in by bike didn’t make a greater effort than the one who drove in because they both used a vehicle.

[dancrilis]

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html)

[Fyraltari]

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html)
Yeah, so it’s not an external source of power, then. It’s a tool.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, so it’s not an external source of power, then. It’s a tool.

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

[Fyraltari]

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

If that were the case, wouldn’t the ink bottle be enough? And wouldn’t the power run out of the book after a finite number of usages?

[RatElemental]

It could be argued that the magic is in the ink, much like with a scroll, where with a scroll you use up the ink with a spellbook you don't and you prepare to trigger the power at a later time - but with just regular ink (or if your spell book has been poorly formated) then no spells for you.

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.


Arcane Magical Writings

To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll.

This doesn't say anything about the ink being magical, just a complex encoded spell formula that describes the spell to be cast. If a wizard's book were like a scroll then anyone could just pick up a wizard's book and start casting.

Additionally, there's variant rules for scribing spells, allowing you to "scribe" individual spells as a figurine or runed bone, or even encode it in the geometric shapes of a building. These things are explicitly not magical as described, the spell is just 'written' in a very nonstandard way.

ETA:

That would normally be the wizard themselves - but using magic ink.

Here are some of the rules of scribing spells explained. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html)

That comic doesn't say the ink is magical either. Just expensive.

Edit 2, Arcane Boogaloo: I also believe the 350 GP quoted is because of this line in the scribing rules, which is the only place I can find a cost for scribing scrolls:


In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

[Peelee]

But who makes them? Who puts spells or magic energy or whatever in them?

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

[Doug Lampert]

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.



This doesn't say anything about the ink being magical, just a complex encoded spell formula that describes the spell to be cast. If a wizard's book were like a scroll then anyone could just pick up a wizard's book and start casting.

Additionally, there's variant rules for scribing spells, allowing you to "scribe" individual spells as a figurine or runed bone, or even encode it in the geometric shapes of a building. These things are explicitly not magical as described, the spell is just 'written' in a very nonstandard way.

ETA:


That comic doesn't say the ink is magical either. Just expensive.

There's also the Spell Mastery feat in the PHB, which allows a wizard to prepare some spells without a spellbook. And any wizard can prepare Read Magic without a book.

Basically, any claim that wizards get their spells from a magical book falls down on the facts that (1) the book is non-magical and (2) they don't necessarily need the book and (3) the wizards are the ones who write the books (in fact, since the encoding of a spell is personal, they each have to write their own) and (4) a wizard can write a book and research spells even if he does not have a spell-book.

[Fyraltari]

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

Look is the discussion about wizards vs clerics or wizards vs sorcerers, here?

[RatElemental]

The wizard scribes them, whether it be from other spellbooks (not the wizard), scrolls (not the wizard), or the wizard. Each new level gets the wizard two spells, so for a full spellbook, most of the spells are going to come from external sources.

And, again, no spellbook, no spells. Compare to a sorcerer, who... the wizards consider lesser, even thoigh they embody the power even more.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not seeing "wizards who think like that aren't elites jackasses who jump from argument to argument just to make themselves look the best".

An adventuring wizard's book will be mostly from levels, scrolls looted and books lifted from dead enemy wizards, yes. But for nonadventuring wizards (and adventuring ones who have some downtime):


Independent Research

A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.

All this costs the wizard is the time, space, and ink. Or they can scribe the spells into the foundations of their home, and prepare their spells from that. Or tattoo them onto their body. Or have a few back up books.

A wizard without a book is a fighter without a sword, or rogue without their dagger, or a sorcerer without their spell component pouch. Complaining that they need tools to do what they do and therefore they aren't the ones dealing more closely with the fundamentals of magic just doesn't make sense. The only ones tinkering with magic on that level other than wizards are the gods.

[dancrilis]

Fairly certain the ink isn't actually magical.


In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

This is a fair enough comment technically it is 100gp per page (which could be ink, fancy pens etc), my comment on magic ink was more adhoc then it should have been for the conversation.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#writingaNewSpellintoaSpellbook

The inner quote is what a wizard would charge you for the privilege of learning their spells.



Edit 2, Arcane Boogaloo: I also believe the 350 GP quoted is because of this line in the scribing rules, which is the only place I can find a cost for scribing scrolls:
The reason it is 350gp rather the 700gp is because 350gp would be a theoritical crafting price if only the ink accounted for the 700gp.


If that were the case, wouldn’t the ink bottle be enough? And wouldn’t the power run out of the book after a finite number of usages?

To me more blunt rather then adhoc.
A Wizard needs a tool to help them prepare for them it is a spellbook (normally) for a Cleric it is a God (normally) other such tools exist - but the point is effectively that Wizards and Clerics both need tools in a way that sorcerers and psions do not - as such wizards looking down on other casters is arrogance without firm justification rather then the natural order of things.
Wizards (some at least) believe that they are superior because they study and are able to follow arcane rules, rather then having innate understanding and so having 'unearned' arcane power, or being able to follow divine rules and so having 'unearned' divine power.



All this costs the wizard is the time, space, and ink.

So a wizard without access to ink is doomed if they lose a spellbook - where effectively every other caster has an easy enough time continuing without any tool (subject to not being overly reliant on material components).



A wizard without a book is a fighter without a sword, or rogue without their dagger, or a sorcerer without their spell component pouch.

A figher without a sword can use a rock (so can a rogue) and a sorcerer likely has spells without components (even ignoring the Eschew Materials/Ignore Material Components feats).


The only ones tinkering with magic on that level other than wizards are the gods.
'Other than wizards' imply that wizards tinker with magic on the level of gods - virtually every other caster can tinker with reality in the same way as wizards do (to a greater or lesser extent).

[RatElemental]

This is a fair enough comment technically it is 100gp per page (which could be ink, fancy pens etc), my comment on magic ink was more adhoc then it should have been for the conversation.
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#writingaNewSpellintoaSpellbook

The inner quote is what a wizard would charge you for the privilege of learning their spells.


The reason it is 350gp rather the 700gp is because 350gp would be a theoritical crafting price if only the ink accounted for the 700gp.


My point in those posts was that nowhere does anything say the ink inside of a spellbook is magical, and there's plenty to suggest it is not.




So a wizard without access to ink is doomed if they lose a spellbook - where effectively every other caster has an easy enough time continuing without any tool (subject to not being overly reliant on material components).

A figher without a sword can use a rock (so can a rogue) and a sorcerer likely has spells without components (even ignoring the Eschew Materials/Ignore Material Components feats).


The wizard can pick up that rock and probably do about as well with it as the fighter would, unless that fighter had specialized in slings or thrown weapons before. Wizards also have several options to lessen the impact of losing their book. Aside form the ones I already mentioned, there's feats that let them internalize a small number of spells so they can prepare them completely from memory, and of course they can pick up practically any staff or wand and put it to use without even needing to roll UMD.



'Other than wizards' imply that wizards tinker with magic on the level of gods - virtually every other caster can tinker with reality in the same way as wizards do (to a greater or lesser extent).

I said tinkering with magic, not tinkering with reality. All casters warp reality to some extent, but wizards have it as their shtick that they are the ones who discover the rules of magic, and use them to invent new things. There's a reason a bunch of spells have the name of a wizard attached to them: That was the wizard who pioneered that specific spell, and in some cases invented entire lines of spells (see: Bugsby and his hands).

The spell research rules leave it as a possibility for sorcerers to discover new spells, but due to the nature of how their magic works it's nearly impossible for them to share, and they're limited in their arsenal anyway. Same for bards. Clerics are the odd man out here, the spell research rules for them have never made much sense, and how they do it has changed in practically every edition it's been possible for PCs to research spells.

[Peelee]

Look is the discussion about wizards vs clerics or wizards vs sorcerers, here?

Yes.

My argument is that wizards who think this way are goalpost-moving hypocrites and requires the totality of mage classes to be considered.

[dancrilis]

The wizard can pick up that rock and probably do about as well with it as the fighter would, unless that fighter had specialized in slings or thrown weapons before.
Not really no - even assuming equal stats the Fighter will be much better at hitting with the rock then the wizard and will also have a lot more hit points, and that is before their additional combat feats come into it.



Wizards also have several options to lessen the impact of losing their book. Aside form the ones I already mentioned, there's feats that let them internalize a small number of spells so they can prepare them completely from memory, and of course they can pick up practically any staff or wand and put it to use without even needing to roll UMD.
Sure if we kit out the wizard with magic items that are specifically geared to them they can compensate for the lack of spell casting - of course a sorcerer can use those items also and doesn't need any of those feats to retain spells.



I said tinkering with magic, not tinkering with reality. All casters warp reality to some extent, but wizards have it as their shtick that they are the ones who discover the rules of magic, and use them to invent new things. There's a reason a bunch of spells have the name of a wizard attached to them: That was the wizard who pioneered that specific spell, and in some cases invented entire lines of spells (see: Bugsby and his hands).

The spell research rules leave it as a possibility for sorcerers to discover new spells, but due to the nature of how their magic works it's nearly impossible for them to share, and they're limited in their arsenal anyway. Same for bards. Clerics are the odd man out here, the spell research rules for them have never made much sense, and how they do it has changed in practically every edition it's been possible for PCs to research spells.

Druids can research spells also (as can others).

As for spells Xykon seems fine with spell research and naming things after himself 'Xykon's Moderately Escapable Forcecage' for instance, he is also possible the most knowledgeable person around on knowing the rules of magic (high Spellcraft is a must for Epic Spellcasting), and Girard also seems to have had no real issue creating his own spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

My argument is that wizards who think this way are goalpost-moving hypocrites and requires the totality of mage classes to be considered. Go back to "Magic Users" and get rid of the Sorcerer class.

Still not sure how I feel about Warlocks. I have played a few. On the one hand, by making them a very different "thing" I kind of like them (absent Hexblade), but there may need to be a little more mechanical meat on the patron/lock relationship.

Reverting to just "Magic Users" per the original structure removes this kind nit picking. Under the Vancian model, one can only use magic the old fashioned way: one earns it! (Though from a playability perspective, it is understandable that other models are and have been explored).

[Peelee]

Go back to "Magic Users" and get rid of the Sorcerer class.
Never!

Reverting to just "Magic Users" per the original structure removes this kind nit picking. Under the Vancian model, one can only use magic the old fashioned way: one earns it! (Though from a playability perspective, it is understandable that other models are and have been explored).

And a wizard who learns to cast Magic Missile thorough rigorous study and research kills a few monsters suddenly learns how to cast Fireball. Let's ignore that the wizard earned Fireball just as much as the sorcerer earned it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Never!


And a wizard who learns to cast Magic Missile thorough rigorous study and research kills a few monsters suddenly learns how to cast Fireball. Let's ignore that the wizard earned Fireball just as much as the sorcerer earned it.

Under proto-Vancian system in Original D&D, you only got to add spells to your books when you found them on scrolls, in other MUs spell books, by doing a service for another magic user, or when you spent the money on research. You only started with a few (AD&D had a table to roll and one pick) and after that, you had to earn them. Obviously, that has since changed a bit for playability reasons.

Finding a scroll was a big deal.

I had a lot of DMs use "spell research" rules that way in those two editions. (Yet another money sink for gold found...)
If there was a spell that you'd been hoping to find, you could research it but that meant the MU may miss an adventure or two (so you used a back up character or subbed in for someone who could not make it that night ...).

I had other DMs in AD&D 1e use the Int table to roll up wether or not you got the spell. Sometimes, you failed. You'd not get another chance until you went up another level.

Anyway, I doubt the sorcerer's will be removed, they have {sadly} become a fixture in the game. They were once a 9th level Magic User, as Warlocks were an 8th level Magic User. (And that came from Chainmail's "how many points does this magic using unit cost" as well as Gygax' love for the Roget's Thesaurus)

[Fyraltari]

And a wizard who learns to cast Magic Missile thorough rigorous study and research kills a few monsters suddenly learns how to cast Fireball. Let's ignore that the wizard earned Fireball just as much as the sorcerer earned it.

Mechanically, the sorcerer has earned it just as much as the wizard, but in-universe, one just discovered even more potential they weren't aware of due to their special birth while the other progressed by studying/experimenting some more. It doesn't make sense for a wizard player to act like a sorcerer player didn't earn their ability, but for a character, it's more sensible (if just as rude).

[Peelee]

Under proto-Vancian system in Original D&D
If you want to argue the system should more more like Original D&D, then I suspect you would not appreciate my counter-arguments regarding races, classes, level caps, ability scores etc.:smallamused:

Mechanically, the sorcerer has earned it just as much as the wizard, but in-universe, one just discovered even more potential they weren't aware of due to their special birth while the other progressed by studying/experimenting some more.

Actually, I don't recall that being in the fluff in any of the books I have read (and Wizards certainly are not given any research/study/experiment equipment, even nominally, as starting equipment, so even with fluff like that, it's a very weak argument on the sourcebook's behalf).

[Fyraltari]

Actually, I don't recall that being in the fluff in any of the books I have read (and Wizards certainly are not given any research/study/experiment equipment, even nominally, as starting equipment, so even with fluff like that, it's a very weak argument on the sourcebook's behalf).
Really? I thought the wizards were supposed to be the « scientific » magicians, who study the nature of magic and devise tools and techniques to use it. If not, then what’s the explanation for their magical abilities?

[dancrilis]

Really? I thought the wizards were supposed to be the « scientific » magicians, who study the nature of magic and devise tools and techniques to use it. If not, then what’s the explanation for their magical abilities?

You can kindof think about wizards and sorcerers like programmers.
You do an interview where your requirement is 'I need someone who can code in java/throw a fireball'.
Sorcerer A: I don't know java/fireball, you will need someone else.
Wizard A: Sorry never even looked at java/fireball, could likely get up to speed fairly quickly though if you have the time and materials for me to do so.
Wizard B: I would need to refresh myself should be able to deliver for you tomorrow.
Sorcerer B: I can code in java/throw fireballs all day every day.

Effectively magic has a lot of rules and Wizards are jack of all trades in a lot of them (where sorcerers are more specialised).

In terms of where there magic comes from that varies by setting in the Forgotten Realms they (generally) tap into the weave for instance.

[Peelee]

Really? I thought the wizards were supposed to be the « scientific » magicians, who study the nature of magic and devise tools and techniques to use it. If not, then what’s the explanation for their magical abilities?

That is how they get it to start with, yes. The thing is, all the fluff written about wizards studying musty old tomes, debating magical theory with their peers, etc. are effectively more geared towards NPC, people in wizarding universities or wizard's towers with laboratories, things like that. It's also explicitly written that Wizards prefer to travel with other classes, so it's not like they would be able to get rousing debates over theory with, say, the druid or fighter in the party in the party.

Although I do have to give WOTC some credit here:
They may find members of certain classes (such as sorcerers, rogues, and bards) to be not quite serious enough, but they’re not judgmental.
I haven't read through that in so long I seemed to conflate how Wizards are commonly played with how they are presented in the sourcebook.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want to argue the system should more more like Original D&D, then I suspect you would not appreciate my counter-arguments regarding races, classes, level caps, ability scores etc.:smallamused: Actually, it is rooted in being one of those old farts who feels that the move to making Cha a spell casting stat was a fundamental mistake.
I grant you that this very much is a matter of taste.

I have also puzzled over the 5e DMG spell point system and wonder sometimes at why they didn't make that the default. After watching the 2014 (autumn) Q&A with Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson, I am now sure I have the answer. Not enough positive feedback during the play test since it's a bit too fiddly. The sorcerer being able to make spell slots out of sorcerery points (rather than use meta magic) is a neat feature, but I don't understand how that compares to 3.x sorcerers.

As to sorcerers as they are now in 5e, which seems to be similar to but different from 3.x, I think they need another meta magic at 7 and to have 21 spells at level 20. They ought to get one more spell known per level for every level advanced. I am sure that somewhere, there is a spread sheet or a powerpoint slide that shows why that isn't balanced somehow.

My last 3.x character was a favored soul (Complete Divine) and that campaign didn't last too long. (The FS used both Wisdom and Charisma in spell casting ... )

[Darth Paul]

If you want to argue the system should more more like Original D&D, then I suspect you would not appreciate my counter-arguments regarding races, classes, level caps, ability scores etc.:smallamused:


In those days, your race was your class, you young whippersnapper!! :smallamused:

[Peelee]

Actually, it is rooted in being one of those old farts who feels that the move to making Cha a spell casting stat was a fundamental mistake.
I grant you that this very much is a matter of taste.
Indeed; I don't even particularly care about the stat source so much as I prefer full casters that are spontaneous and not prepared.

In those days, your race was your class, you young whippersnapper!! :smallamused:
That was kind of my point (and level cap was tied into that as well, IIRC).

[Paleomancer]

That is how they get it to start with, yes. The thing is, all the fluff written about wizards studying musty old tomes, debating magical theory with their peers, etc. are effectively more geared towards NPC, people in wizarding universities or wizard's towers with laboratories, things like that. It's also explicitly written that Wizards prefer to travel with other classes, so it's not like they would be able to get rousing debates over theory with, say, the druid or fighter in the party in the party.

Although I do have to give WOTC some credit here:
I haven't read through that in so long I seemed to conflate how Wizards are commonly played with how they are presented in the sourcebook.

I would disagree... wizards functionally benefit from teamwork in a way no other class does (mainly due to their lack of direct combat prowess until later levels), and the recommended way of playing wizards I've seen and been advised on most often, is to be THE team player, by buffing their allies and dividing their foes, to facilitate conquest of said foes the rest of the party members. In fact, the infamous "healbot" aspect forced on clerics can be avoided by a wizard helping to ensure that foes don't get the chance to do damage in the first place. Moreover, the ability of two wizards to share magic and benefit them both dramatically increases the value of collaboration, so even though wizards are as subject to party loyalties as anyone (yes, that is a deliberate pun there :D), there is a justifiable reason for wizards to cooperate across political, religious, or alignment lines, or at least develop means to interact with one another. I could see a kind of clannish tendency there, but that is something other classes are just as prone to doing (fighter companies, rogue guilds, cleric temples...); some of those could be far more vitriolic (especially clerics...).

Nor in my playing experience is this generally the case. The recommended wizard is one that buffs allies and divides foes, so that the wizard's allies can better conquer them. Even a sorcerer is a valuable ally who can take care of spells one actually needs all the time, while the wizard can (much like clerics or druids) fill in holes and provide utility effects. A divine caster is the best countermagic friend who can also be buffed to rival anything a fighter can do in melee, and rogues are skill monkeys who can do ridiculous damage when given even minor buffs. If anything, my experience with people who play sorcerers has been much more negative; something about the "I am chosen to wield magic from birth because I am descended from dragons" aspect of D&D sorcerers brings out the absolute worse in people, I swear... Obviously restricted mostly to my own experience, but still... Xykon (main villain of the comic) and Samantha (bandit leader with... problematic views on consent) are far more typical of sorcerers I have played with than familicide-using Varsuuvius or "most irresponsible father of the century" Eugene Greenhilt have been of wizards.

I'm honestly curious, does Mr. Burlew just not like wizards? I can't recall any major wizard role in the comic that hasn't involved considerable jerkiness or at least callous apathy to the well being of others. At least we got paladins like O'Chull, Hinjo, Ho Thahn, and Lien to balance out Miko, even if sending her off to be someone else's problem was irresponsible and backfired horribly, and ignores that dogmatic "detect evil and immediately kill it" attitudes are very much Gary Gygax's own advice on how a LG paladin should act (Gygax very explicitly listed non-combatants and surrendered foes as acceptable smite evil targets in-game, so this isn't just an issue with bad players).


Indeed; I don't even particularly care about the stat source so much as I prefer full casters that are spontaneous and not prepared.

All a matter of taste. I personally like the scholarly aspect of wizards. Easier to imagine why a wizard would hang out with the typical oddball adventuring party or seek out adventure - too much to explore in one lifetime!

[Keltest]

I'm honestly curious, does Mr. Burlew just not like wizards? I can't recall any major wizard role in the comic that hasn't involved considerable jerkiness or at least callous apathy to the well being of others. At least we got paladins like O'Chull, Hinjo, Ho Thahn, and Lien to balance out Miko, even if sending her off to be someone else's problem was irresponsible and backfired horribly, and ignores that dogmatic "detect evil and immediately kill it" attitudes are very much Gary Gygax's own advice on how a LG paladin should act (Gygax very explicitly listed non-combatants and surrendered foes as acceptable smite evil targets in-game, so this isn't just an issue with bad players).

Given that Smite Evil was not a paladin ability while Gygax worked on D&D, that seems unlikely.

[Paleomancer]

Given that Smite Evil was not a paladin ability while Gygax worked on D&D, that seems unlikely.

Fine... not "smite evil" targets. He still claimed they were all valid targets. Below is Gygax's own post from 2005 on the matter of LG paladins and non-combatants (he even uses a phrase involving "lice" which is very, very, very problematic in terms of its history. As in "forum moderates will shut this thread down if we go into why" problematic). Sure, it is possible that he may have changed views over time, but his claim here certainly matches how paladins typically get portrayed in D&D and strongly resemble Miko.

Pertinent link (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=75)

[Keltest]

Fine... not "smite evil" targets. He still claimed they were all valid targets. Below is Gygax's own post from 2005 on the matter of LG paladins and non-combatants (he even uses a phrase involving "lice" which is very, very, very problematic in terms of its history. As in "forum moderates will shut this thread down if we go into why" problematic). Sure, it is possible that he may have changed views over time, but his claim here certainly matches how paladins typically get portrayed in D&D and strongly resemble Miko.

Pertinent link (https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=75)

Im struggling to find the post where he says that a paladin walking into a bar, using detect evil on all the patrons, and then murdering one of them on the spot is acceptable conduct. I do see him saying that about prisoners taken, but Good is not obligated to show mercy to somebody simply because they gave up in a fight.

At any rate, in AD&D and OD&D, paladins were knights in the traditional sense, ie landowners (eventually) and legal operatives of some lord. He isnt speaking just in the context of "they are paragons of good and therefore can judge other people", he is speaking in the sense that they would be the literal judge and/or jury were a lawful trial to be held, and that they have had that power invested in them by whatever government figure they represent.

[Paleomancer]

Im struggling to find the post where he says that a paladin walking into a bar, using detect evil on all the patrons, and then murdering one of them on the spot is acceptable conduct. I do see him saying that about prisoners taken, but Good is not obligated to show mercy to somebody simply because they gave up in a fight.

At any rate, in AD&D and OD&D, paladins were knights in the traditional sense, ie landowners (eventually) and legal operatives of some lord. He isnt speaking just in the context of "they are paragons of good and therefore can judge other people", he is speaking in the sense that they would be the literal judge and/or jury were a lawful trial to be held, and that they have had that power invested in them by whatever government figure they represent.

My point is that Gygax is asserting in that post that it should be fine in-game for paladins and other LG characters to slaughter non-combatants on the basis that they "might" become enemies later (the phrase "nits beget lice" has a long and horrifying history, mostly involving children as military targets - its use has never, EVER, been a positive sign - and you need not take my word on it: (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/11/nits/) this source may not be peer reviewed, but its sources very much are.).

As for mercy, actually, yes, most medieval societies were required by law to show mercy to surrendering foes, or at least recognized the geopolitical value of doing so, and likewise sought to maintain at least a perception of impartiality in adjudication of crimes. Trust, legitimacy, and reputation are hard to gain and easy to lose; victory over the enemy is never assured and one may be at another's mercy next time. Now, religious wars tended to be far worse than what Gygax describes... but that goes into territory that gets threads locked and posters censured. Pity, tis a compelling subject.

This also digresses from the original topic a fair bit. Which is why wizards have such disdain for sorcerers in OotS. I admit, that confuses me for the reasons I listed in my first post, and as well as the fact that "Sorcerer" in most fantasy is a another term for arcane spellcaster, and historically derives from Roman priests who specialized in divination (etymology is the best thing, sometimes. So much history!). The animosity of wizards towards sorcerers in OotS really seems to come out of nowhere to me, and serves little narrative purpose that I can divine. It's not like Xykon was driven to villainy by oppression from wizards... twas made clear he was a bad egg from the start (itself a problematic claim, given the history of that trope). Sorry, got a bit whimsical there. It happens to the best of us :smallamused::smalltongue::smallredface:.

[dancrilis]

My point is that Gygax is asserting in that post that it should be fine in-game for paladins and other LG characters to slaughter non-combatants on the basis that they "might" become enemies later (the phrase "nits beget lice" has a long and horrifying history, mostly involving children as military targets - its use has never, EVER, been a positive sign - and you need not take my word on it: (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/02/11/nits/) this source may not be peer reviewed, but its sources very much are.).

In fairness 'the children of the enemy are the enemy of tomorrow' is fairly well documented in both fact and fiction, Redcloak himself could be an example of that.


The animosity of wizards towards sorcerers in OotS really seems to come out of nowhere to me ...
Seem clear enough to me 'they do the same thing I do but do it wrong' is fairly normal amongst professionals with different methods.


...and serves little narrative purpose that I can divine.
It gives us one of (few) Xykon's points of backstory (and allows for a few jokes).

[Paleomancer]

In fairness 'the children of the enemy are the enemy of tomorrow' is fairly well documented in both fact and fiction, Redcloak himself could be an example of that.


Seem clear enough to me 'they do the same thing I do but do it wrong' is fairly normal amongst professionals with different methods.


It gives us one of (few) Xykon's points of backstory (and allows for a few jokes).

One of the few things I do wholeheartedly agree on with Mr. Burlew on is that there is no valid basis for considering children to be military targets, in-game or in real life. It might also behoove someone worried about future enemies to consider whether they are engaged in activities that would justify future vengeance from those people, and thus maybe just not do that activity in the first place? The cycle of violence is a persistent and avoidable issue for a reason, y'know.

As for wizard/sorcerer... it just seems odd to me. I don't agree with everything Mr. Burlew writes on paladins, but at least I can see his argument. Same with Roy and fighters (though usually it seems like "fighters don't get a lot of useful class features" or "are overly dependent on magic items," which are fair critiques of the fighter class - I rather liked martial initiators for that reason. Why can't martial classes get nice things too?). But to have all wizards be so dismissive of sorcerers...? It's not clear why, and really doesn't add anything to the setting that I can see. Now, I could see it as a personal issue for a specific wizard, say Dorukon, as a means to oppose and thus develop Xykon's character (at least, what little he has... he's not terribly deep). But Varsuuvius... they seemed mostly fine, and definitely seemed to respect Durkon (and Roy and Haley, for that matter). I also didn't get the whole "divine magic isn't real magic" thing (not just because Spellcraft, the skill used to identify spells of any kind, is essentially arcane/divine transparent in the base rules). That also seemed to come out of nowhere for Varsuuvius, and since the soul splices explicitly do not impact alignment, apparently they were always dismissive of Durkon :smallconfused:?

[Deimosaur]

On Topic: I've never seen any actual merit in the various wizard's prejudice towards the other magic-users, I think it's just "classism". Heh. Feels like they're invoking a number of academy-related elitism tropes, with some Ivory Tower stuff in the mix as well.


In fairness 'the children of the enemy are the enemy of tomorrow' is fairly well documented in both fact and fiction, Redcloak himself could be an example of that.


In... fairness? Of murdering children? Of making sure there are no goblins left to rise up to be the enemy of tomorrow?

Let's be clear here, is that what you're saying?

"Let's be fair to this phrase that justifies the killing of children, it's got a point?"

.__.

Is the takeaway from Start of Darkness here,
"Man, if only they had been more thorough about things and killed Redcloak and anyone else who could've taken the Mantle including the kids, then all that other bad stuff wouldn't have happened"?
I'm pretty sure it's not, but that's where that line of reasoning is taking me.

Paleomancer's point (and the link they provided) was that this sort of reasoning has horrifying implications IRL and in fiction, it doesn't deserve defending.

[dancrilis]

It might also behoove someone worried about future enemies to consider whether they are engaged in activities that would justify future vengeance from those people, and thus maybe just not do that activity in the first place?


In... fairness? Of murdering children? Of making sure there are no goblins left to rise up to be the enemy of tomorrow?

If you are going to go into someone elses territory and kill them then it makes sense to kill the people who will avenge them or assist in avenging them - generally of course it would be better to stay out of someone elses territory.

Edit:

But to have all wizards be so dismissive of sorcerers...?
They are not.
Yydranna, Tsukiko, Pompey, Zz'dtri seemed fine working with (in many cases for) and getting along with sorcerers.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would disagree... wizards functionally benefit from teamwork in a way no other class does To survive early levels, they have usually had to. But I can't speak for 4th edition.

If anything, my experience with people who play sorcerers has been much more negative; something about the "I am chosen to wield magic from birth because I am descended from dragons" aspect of D&D sorcerers brings out the absolute worse in people, I swear... Obviously restricted mostly to my own experience, but still... Yep, but that varies quite a bit with the player's maturity, IME.

One of the few things I do wholeheartedly agree on with Mr. Burlew on is that there is no valid basis for considering children to be military targets, in-game or in real life. Please don't confuse anything in D&D with being anything military in the modern sense; and I'd be very careful about trying to port anything from D&D-OoTS into Real Life. There was a time long (centuries, and even millenia) before the Peace of Westphalia that conquering armies didn't just put people to the sword for a good and sufficient reason: labor was needed to keep the land that was just conquered productive. Agricultural based economy needed plenty of labor to create wealth. You can say, without being too greatly in error, that any altruism involved in not putting to the sword the conquered people was actually an act of self interest: someone's gotta get the next crop in. (Very simplistic explanation, of course).

As for wizard/sorcerer... it just seems odd to me. I don't agree with everything Mr. Burlew writes on paladins, O'Chul seems to be the kind of paladin he wishes he'd see played more often. And I like how O-Chul operates. Playing an LG paladin well is quite the challenge, even without a DM who plays Gotcha. (Heck, in an interview with kobold press Dave Arneson expressed that very thought: hardest to play (and very rewarding) was the paladin. (I have a link on that somewhere, not sure if that site's still up).
In... fairness? Of murdering children? Of making sure there are no goblins left to rise up to be the enemy of tomorrow? A rather grim parallel to "salting the earth" that Rome did in Carthage - not something that in modern times is acceptable. While there may have been a time or a circumstance where it was, one of the things that Keegan addressed very briefly in his attempt to describe war over the millenia was that captive, or conquered, enemy people being used as slaves / labor / breeding stock / other "is useful to keep around reasons" was a common practice across numerous cultures.

Back to the topic of Redcloak trying to change how the world works, and TDO likewise trying to effect change: it's an uphill fight. The terms that Durkon brought to the table were going to be a tough sell even if Redcloak had not previously battled the Order. Durkon could only speak for Thor (not all of the gods) and it is "all of the gods" that TDO has the issue with (as does Redcloak). He needs to hear a better offer than he got, I'd say.

And unfortunately for Redcloak, and for TDO, the high level arcane caster (Xykon) he needs to complete the ritual is a jerk sorcerer. The other fairly high level arcane caster he had access to for a time, Tsukiko, was as big of a jerk as Xykon. (Of course, if we look at the arcane caster in the OoTS, V, Bringer of Familicide, we don't see prizes won for decency). Perhaps the idea of "Absolute Power tending to Corrupt Absolutely" is on display when it comes to high level arcane casters.

[Darth Paul]

In... fairness? Of murdering children? Of making sure there are no goblins left to rise up to be the enemy of tomorrow?

Let's be clear here, is that what you're saying?

"Let's be fair to this phrase that justifies the killing of children, it's got a point?"


I think (although I can't speak for dancrilis) that part of the point behind the quote is, human history and especially mythology are full of examples where invaders put entire nations to the sword, down to infants, often with supposedly divine mandate to do so. That's not saying it's right, that's saying it happened. And I won't give examples, because then we'd be discussing IRL religions. I'm sure you can think of some yourself.

On topic once more- maybe some of the "hostility" comes from traditional wizard players' antagomism ("antagomism"? antagonism) to the very fact of introducing sorcerors into D&D in the first place. "It's a new kind of magic-user class? What's wrong with the old one? Magic-users have to have spell books! That's how it's meant to be! This 'sorceror' class is just a new set of rules to memorize!! It's taking the easy way out! There's no planning involved, you don't have to prepare spells, you get to play a magic-user without having to do any of the work of playing a magic-user!!"

And it wasn't helped by some players (at least in my group) asking why anyone would want to play a traditional wizard and be restricted to preparing spells in advance, when it's so easy to cast as you need; if you want to cast the same spell 5 times in a row, you can! (As we've seen with Xykon, in SoD.) So the needling from sorceror players resulted in some going back the other way; the people who play sorcerors are the ones who can't handle preparing spells, they just don't have a strategic grasp, their inferior intellects and lack of maturity mean they can't plan that far ahead. They're impulsive and unstable, you can't really trust them with magic in the first place. (As master Fyron said, though maybe not in those exact words.)

Now, maybe some of the wizard-sorceror hostility in the comic comes from Burlew's awareness of and acknowledgement of this kind of interaction between players in real life. After all, the comic began partly as a commentary on the game, and to some extent (although less as the years have passed) it remains so.

[KorvinStarmast]

Now, maybe some of the wizard-sorceror hostility in the comic comes from Burlew's awareness of and acknowledgement of this kind of interaction between players in real life. After all, the comic began partly as a commentary on the game, and to some extent (although less as the years have passed) it remains so. I will bet The Over on that. :smallcool:

[mjasghar]

Reading that thread with Gygax I saw a few things that stood out
One was that he thought that mercy tempered justice was neutral good. That’s pretty much not the case in d&d from the 2nd edition as Planescape defined Celestia as law tempered with good.
His knowledge of history was lacking - modern armies tend to take prisoners because soldiers who happily massacre prisoners tend to become trouble when demobbed.
And the stand out one - that LG and evil would both kill non combatants, just one would execute them and the other slaughter 🤷 Which begs the question what’s the difference between evil and good?
In game terms you have to say his opinion is no longer relevant to the game - it’s ironic that he mentions the forgotten realms which has eldath (total pacifist goddess) and Ilmater, and Torm as a contrast to Tyr.

[dancrilis]

One was that he thought that mercy tempered justice was neutral good.
Do you disagree?


That’s pretty much not the case in d&d from the 2nd edition as Planescape defined Celestia as law tempered with good.
How so?


His knowledge of history was lacking
I don't know his knowledge of history - do you think your own is better? If so how?


- modern armies tend to take prisoners because soldiers who happily massacre prisoners tend to become trouble when demobbed.

Source?


And the stand out one - that LG and evil would both kill non combatants, just one would execute them and the other slaughter 🤷 Which begs the question what’s the difference between evil and good?
From your own intrepreation one slaughters while the other executes.
However for the sake of arguement.
For instance:

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident.

Benevolence is for the harmless.

A paladin is qualified to be judge and jury--assuming he is acting according to the oath he took to gain his status.

Essentially a paladin can kill an enemy as easily as a LG fighter can - but should decide if they are actually lawbreakers, harmless and guilty.
Where a CE fighter (who is acting in the hero role) doesn't need to worry about any of those things.

[hamishspence]

Mercy is NG. Justice is LN. Balancing mercy with justice, is LG. At least from 3e onwards, and possibly from 2e onwards.

[Worldsong]

Mercy is NG. Justice is LN. Balancing mercy with justice, is LG. At least from 3e onwards, and possibly from 2e onwards.

If Mercy is NG, Justice is LN, and Vengeance is NE... What's CN? Turnabout?

[Darth Paul]

If Mercy is NG, Justice is LN, and Vengeance is NE... What's CN? Turnabout?

Jutice is vengeance, but following the rules of society. You stole from somebody, you murdered somebody, now you have to pay the established penalty. That's Lawful. That's basically a justice system.

Personal vengeance is, IMO, Chaotic. "They wronged me, I'm getting even. That's all there is to it." Even if the system says you personally should not be involved (in The Once And Future King, for instance, Arthur was not allowed to champion Guinevere because he had a personal stake in the outcome of her trial).

Neutral Good is, I suppose, when one accepts that sometimes you have to go outside the system to fix the system. Like in just about every cop show ever.

[mjasghar]

Well he says benevolence is for the harmless then turns around and says killing non combatants is lawful good
And when this sort of stuff is called out he says I don’t want to get involved with a discussion.
Like I said he doesn’t reflect the game in the Oots era in terms of the lore - Eldath was a perfectly acceptable goddess to follow despite her absolute pacifism which he regards as something to be despised.
In fact I’d say his attitude is what the Oots comic parodies and comments upon, especially SoD.

[hamishspence]

Personal vengeance is, IMO, Chaotic. "They wronged me, I'm getting even. That's all there is to it." Even if the system says you personally should not be involved (in The Once And Future King, for instance, Arthur was not allowed to champion Guinevere because he had a personal stake in the outcome of her trial).

Up to a point, yes. But duels (one way of having personal vengeance against someone who has wronged you) can be Lawful, as The Giant points out:


To think that Lawful always means "obeying the written law" is a gross misunderstanding of the D&D definition of the term.

For example, think of formal duels—the "pistols at dawn" kind. Such events are undoubtedly Lawful affairs—they have strict codes, elaborate rules, and concern themselves mostly with symbolic honor. All hallmarks of Lawful behavior when contrasted with, say, a drunken brawl. However, at the time Aaron Burr shot Hamilton, they were illegal in the United States. People who participated in such duels were abiding by a formal code of ethics and behavior that was in opposition to democratically passed law. Lawful behavior can be made illegal in a given jurisdiction, but that doesn't spontaneously change the nature of the act in a cosmological sense.

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

I've often said that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if they had simply called it Ordered instead of Lawful. "Ordered Good" leaves a lot less room for misinterpretation.

[Keltest]

Well he says benevolence is for the harmless then turns around and says killing non combatants is lawful good
And when this sort of stuff is called out he says I don’t want to get involved with a discussion.
Like I said he doesn’t reflect the game in the Oots era in terms of the lore - Eldath was a perfectly acceptable goddess to follow despite her absolute pacifism which he regards as something to be despised.
In fact I’d say his attitude is what the Oots comic parodies and comments upon, especially SoD.

Frankly, i think he has a point. If youre an adventurer, and youre trying to be a pacifist, you either have a really poor grasp of what your life will entail, or youre insane. If you dont like that kind of violence, actively avoid being an adventurer. Be a farmer, or a temple servant, or join the local government, or something else along those lines. Dont swing a sword for a living and then complain about how you have to use it so often.

Also, again, where does he say that its Lawful Good to go around killing random people because they ping as evil?

[KorvinStarmast]

We see yet again that attempts to gamify various moral systems with this two axis alignment tool fall short ...

[mjasghar]

I’d say it’s more a difference in how some people view certain classes
Is a paladin simply a high born knight with all the impunity to do what he wants? Gygax seemed to argue that (the first quote was about being able to kill a dwarf for a slight to his honour) and then extrapolated that to mean that since a paladin is good that behaviour is also good
Whereas the modern era has defined good and then applies to Paladins (btw I’m not a fan of the whole evil paladin oaths - just have a blackguard class and be done with it)

[Worldsong]

Is a paladin simply a high born knight with all the impunity to do what he wants? Gygax seemed to argue that (the first quote was about being able to kill a dwarf for a slight to his honour) and then extrapolated that to mean that since a paladin is good that behaviour is also good

Wait, are you serious?

[mjasghar]

Wait, are you serious?

That is wasn't the paladin's warhorse makes the matter less serious, but only marginally so. the paladin's honor was besmirched by the dwarf, and as the DM I would call that to the attention of the player of the paladin if there was less than great umbrage taken. To allow the incident to pass without punishing the offending dwarf would be a dark stain on the honor of the paladin.

That’s a direct copy of the post
I’ve not included the next sentences as it would likely be against forum rules - even more so when he goes back to the repellent phrase and adds a racial swear.

[Keltest]

For context, the dwarf had just murdered the Paladin's horse specifically to impede him on both staying in the party and pursuing his quest to help some town elsewhere.

[hamishspence]

Dwarf's attitude is basically "You murder one of my prisoners, I kill your horse and give you a stern warning". And yeah, by real-world standards, I'd call that murder - no trial of any kind, even an informal one, was held.

Even in Gygax's heyday, not every D&D writer would have agreed with him. In Eric Holmes's Basic D&D rulebook "killing prisoners" is called out as being out-of-character behaviour for Good aligned characters.



Even setting morality aside, and looking at it purely as a player/player issue, IMO the paladin player is fundamentally in the wrong.

When another player has taken a prisoner, you do not kill that prisoner without their permission. It's discourteous and high-handed in the extreme.

Even if it's "the party took the prisoner, and the dwarf only had responsibility for interrogating the prisoner" - so what? Again - not the sort of thing to do until the whole party has agreed it should be done.

[Edea]

IMO, no wizard worth their salt would get their panties in a twist over sorcerers having innate magic, any more than they would a fiend or fey having innate spell-like abilities. They would approach that realization the same way they would any other 'rule' in their world; ask tons of questions, make empirical observations, experiment, and approach the resulting knowledge with a goal of practical application and 'bending' said rule (or breaking it entirely).

"How are they doing this? From where does this power originate? When does it usually manifest? Why does it require a forceful personality? DOES it require a forceful personality? Is it possible to distill that spontaneity into prepared magic? Can we use sorcerous casting methods to extrapolate how to hold onto the echo of a prepared spell in order to cast it repeatedly? Can we extend that extrapolation further and learn how to transmute prepared knowledge of one spell into another within a reasonable time frame? Is it possible to do the reverse for a sorcerer? Does preparing magic really require analytical finesse, or is it just because that's the way we've always done it and gotten complacent?"

My absolute favorite prestige class from 3.5 was the Ultimate Magus; it's not the most powerful PrC in the world, but lord I loved its flavor (I fully admit to using Beguiler to get in over Sorcerer, but really even a straight Sor/Wiz entry piques my interest).

[Keltest]

Dwarf's attitude is basically "You murder one of my prisoners, I kill your horse and give you a stern warning". And yeah, by real-world standards, I'd call that murder - no trial of any kind, even an informal one, was held.

Even in Gygax's heyday, not every D&D writer would have agreed with him. In Eric Holmes's Basic D&D rulebook "killing prisoners" is called out as being out-of-character behaviour for Good aligned characters.

What kind of trial are they supposed to do? They were attacked. The post explicitly said they didnt have the resources to deal with him in any way between letting him go and killing him, and since he's functionally a big, stupid dangerous bandit, letting him go isnt acceptable.

At the absolute worst, this is a problem of communication between players, which has nothing to do with the alignment until the dwarf starts dragging completely innocent animals into it and murdering them.

I fail to see how the paladin is the bad guy in this scenario.

[hamishspence]

Killing an animal is never murder. It might be unjustified, it might be cruel, but it's never murder.

A "informal trial" amongst themselves, in which they decide together whether or not the bandit deserves to die, and where the bandit gets a chance to defend themselves and explain why they do banditry, is IMO the absolute minimum.

As The Giant pointed out a while back, those who "raid the civilised nations" aren't necessarily even Evil:


I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them. Let alignment be something assigned by the DM when he places that creature in his campaign. If he wants them to be amoral slavers, he gives them and Evil alignment; if he wants them to be scrappy survivors making the best out of their lot in life, he might give them True Neutral or even Chaotic Good (especially if the civilized nations are Evil Empires). DMs already do that for every human that appears, is it so difficult to imagine doing it for the other races, too? Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.


And Robin Hood is the classic CG bandit.

So yeah, I'd call one player executing a party-captured bandit without any trial, and without discussing it with the other players beforehand, "in the wrong" . Them being a paladin makes no difference whatsoever.

And, as those who've read How the Paladin Got His Scar will know:

O-Chul, of all people, was a bandit once. An underage bandit who did what his parents told him - but a bandit.

He got shown mercy - and it paid dividends.


I’d say it’s more a difference in how some people view certain classes
Is a paladin simply a high born knight with all the impunity to do what he wants? Gygax seemed to argue that (the first quote was about being able to kill a dwarf for a slight to his honour) and then extrapolated that to mean that since a paladin is good that behaviour is also good


Since all this is something of a thread derail though - shall we move back to discussing Wizards and Sorcerers and how they see each other?

[Keltest]

I had a big, drawn out response written up, but about two thirds of the way it occurred to me that i dont actually want to have a conversation with somebody who takes the stance that its acceptable or non-immoral to kill innocent and unrelated animals to spite another person, whether its "technically" murder or not. So if you want to clarify that remark to show thats not your stance, please do and i might continue to engage with you (time permitting), but otherwise i dont see any way that talk is going to continue.

[Worldsong]

I think he more means that killing an innocent animal ranks below killing an innocent person (aka murder) in the ranking of things you shouldn't do.

Anyway, back to the actual topic of the thread... Haven't read the entire thread but my perspective is that wizards see themselves as working hard for their magic (lots of studying) while sorcerers just wave their hands and stuff happens. Not entirely surprising that wizards would be a bit miffed at the idea that what takes them years of studying a sorcerer achieves by being born lucky, and that their response is to look down on sorcerers.

EDIT: also as Vaarsuvius and Eugene have both so nicely demonstrated wizards just tend to be elitist snobs who look down at non-wizards regardless of whether it's justified or not (leaving alone the question whether it's ever justified...).

[dancrilis]

Killing an animal is never murder. It might be unjustified, it might be cruel, but it's never murder.


Dragons likely feel the same way about humans - but the fact remains that Speak with Animals is a spell you can use to communicate with animals who do have different personalities so there is no real difference between killing one and killing a person from a different culture who you can't understand.
A Druid might have a point when they kill a hunter's children after the hunter kills a bear's cubs.

[Worldsong]

I'm not really a fan of the eye for an eye mentality. It's the kind of thing which causes blood feuds which result in odd dance routines and couples committing mutual suicide.

[Keltest]

Irrespective of the usefulness of eye for an eye as a moral code, if I, as a lawful good character, see somebody going around killing animals to antagonize other people, this guy is probably a menace. If i, as his (soon to be former) party member see him doing this, im going to know he is absolutely a dangerous and violent individual, and apparently indiscriminate in his choice of victims. If i, as a paladin, am playing in AD&D, im actually forbidden by my code to continue traveling with him at this point due to the offenses against my morals he has committed here unless there is some extreme circumstance that necessitates his help in particular.

[Fyraltari]

Just so I'm clear, the hypothetical here is that a party captured a bandit after a battle, the pladin summarily executed said bandit and in resposne the dwarf killed the paladin's horse? My reaction to that would be asking what's wrong with both of these people!

Also, in the post linked above, Gygax said that a Paladin could freely executed prisoners of an Evil alignment that had just reounced said alignment in favor of LG so that they could enjoy their reward in the afterlife before backsliding. What the hell? People can renounce alignment? So a corrupt tyrant bleeding out on the floor can jsut say "I am Lawful good now" and go to Celestia? And the paladin can kill Lawful Good people because they were evil just before? What?

[Worldsong]

Irrespective of the usefulness of eye for an eye as a moral code, if I, as a lawful good character, see somebody going around killing animals to antagonize other people, this guy is probably a menace. If i, as his (soon to be former) party member see him doing this, im going to know he is absolutely a dangerous and violent individual, and apparently indiscriminate in his choice of victims. If i, as a paladin, am playing in AD&D, im actually forbidden by my code to continue traveling with him at this point due to the offenses against my morals he has committed here unless there is some extreme circumstance that necessitates his help in particular.

I mean, apparently he is discriminate in his choice of victims, since he's only killing animals.

Also there's a multitude of options which don't involve killing him. Such as, for example, leaving the party.

And aside from that it's a bit inaccurate to say he's killing the horse just to antagonize people. He specifically killed the horse of the paladin because, from his perspective, the paladin went over the line first by killing the captured bandit. We're not talking about a character whose behaviour can be described as "Well, it's 5 o'clock, time to chop some horse heads."

Also, as a wise (or just very stubborn) man once said: "It was only one king! It wasn't a habit!"

And to make matters worse, the way you guys explained it the justification the paladin had for attacking the dwarf wasn't killing the horse: it was the fact that it was the paladin's horse, which made killing it an attack on his honour. Regardless of our opinion on whether the lives of animals are equal to the lives of people the explanation ignores all that in favour of an interpretation of Lawful Good which is very egotistical.

Not that killing the horse is OK but I'm going to oppose the idea that the valid response to every bad deed is murder.


Just so I'm clear, the hypothetical here is that a party captured a bandit after a battle, the pladin summarily executed said bandit and in resposne the dwarf killed the paladin's horse? My reaction to that would be asking what's wrong with both of these people!

Also, in the post linked above, Gygax said that a Paladin could freely executed prisoners of an Evil alignment that had just reounced said alignment in favor of LG so that they could enjoy their reward in the afterlife before backsliding. What the hell? People can renounce alignment? So a corrupt tyrant bleeding out on the floor can jsut say "I am Lawful good now" and go to Celestia? And the paladin can kill Lawful Good people because they were evil just before? What?

I believe the correct term for these people is murderhobos.

Also the more I hear about Gygax the more I think he and I wouldn't have agreed on very many things alignment-wise. From what I heard he also had a hand in promoting Lawful Good as the best and Chaotic Evil as the worst.

[Dr.Zero]

Just so I'm clear, the hypothetical here is that a party captured a bandit after a battle, the pladin summarily executed said bandit and in resposne the dwarf killed the paladin's horse? My reaction to that would be asking what's wrong with both of these people!

Also, in the post linked above, Gygax said that a Paladin could freely executed prisoners of an Evil alignment that had just reounced said alignment in favor of LG so that they could enjoy their reward in the afterlife before backsliding. What the hell? People can renounce alignment? So a corrupt tyrant bleeding out on the floor can jsut say "I am Lawful good now" and go to Celestia? And the paladin can kill Lawful Good people because they were evil just before? What?

This scenario reminds me of a movie, "Nell'anno del Signore" (literally: "In the year of our Lord...") where, near to the end, a friar was trying to convert two revolutionaries... so that they didn't end up in hell once executed. And the execution couldn't happen before conversion. Funnily enough, the friar, as the paladin here, was totally in good faith about that. And obviously the two revolutionaries refused conversion as long as they could, still in some way respecting the friar. (Spoiler: the authorities got fed up by the whole thing and the two ended up executed anyway, with the friar trying, when they were already on the scaffold, to absolve them from their sins anyway even if they didn't convert, to save their souls, saying: "I take personal responsibility of this before our Lord!")

If one thinks about it, it makes sense, logically speaking.

[Fyraltari]

snip

Forcing conversions of people to "save their souls" before killing them is a historical practice, yes. And really not one you would expect from someone cosmologically recognized as "good".

EDIT: Yes, it makes sense "logically" but the problem with logic is that you nedd a good premisse to reach a good conclusion, if you think logically but start with garbage you'll still end up with garbage.

[dancrilis]

Also, in the post linked above, Gygax said that a Paladin could freely executed prisoners of an Evil alignment that had just reounced said alignment in favor of LG so that they could enjoy their reward in the afterlife before backsliding. What the hell? People can renounce alignment? So a corrupt tyrant bleeding out on the floor can jsut say "I am Lawful good now" and go to Celestia? And the paladin can kill Lawful Good people because they were evil just before? What?

Consider it like this - Gygax seemed to regard the Paladin is not merely someone who is blessed with powers by the gods, they are 'The Law' in the sense that there are actual laws that they are bound to uphold.
So when the Paladin encounters a kidnapper who is sacrificing children to a demon lord to bring about eternal darkness - if the party captures the cultist alive the paladin can kill them and it is not vigilante justice because the Paladin is 'The Law' and assuming that the crimes committed allow for the death penalty (within the legal framework).
Now the paladin cannot work as 'The Law' for corrupt or evil laws the laws they uphold must be fair - but they are not out of line for killing good, neutral, lawful, chaotic or evil people who break those laws if the laws allow for death as a punishment.
As for our child killer - they could be offered atonement before death, which would absolve them of their sins (and shift the alignment) but that does not mean they get to escape mortal justice - the paladin has now saved their soul - but their crimes must still be paid for.

[Keltest]

Consider it like this - Gygax seemed to regard the Paladin is not merely someone who is blessed with powers by the gods, they as 'The Law' in the sense that there are actual laws that they are bound to uphold.
So when the Paladin encounters a kidnapper who is sacrificing children to a demon lord to bring about eternal darkness - if the party captures the cultist alive the paladin can kill them and it is not vigilante justice because the Paladin is 'The Law' and assuming that the crimes committed allow for the death penalty (within the legal framework).
Now the paladin cannot work as 'The Law' for corrupt or evil laws the laws they uphold must be fair - but they are not out of line for killing good, neutral, lawful, chaotic or evil people who break those laws if the laws allow for death as a punishment.
As for our child killer - they could be offered atonement before death, which would absolve them of their sins (and shift the alignment) but that does not mean they get to escape mortal justice - the paladin has now saved their soul - but their crimes must still be paid for.

Exactly this. In AD&D, fighters (including paladins) had actual literal ranks and holdings as a class feature at higher levels, and even at low levels Paladins were still beholden to and agents of some authority (or authorities, as they were, like clerics, powered by the Good gods). 3.0 changed this to have paladins be just fighters with some cleric powers, and took away the holdings and titles as class features. The implicit assumption was that the DM would play the authority they served straight instead of using it as a Gotcha for the paladin, and they would genuinely be a bastion of order and goodness to the extent that they were capable of.

[hamishspence]

I think he more means that killing an innocent animal ranks below killing an innocent person (aka murder) in the ranking of things you shouldn't do.
Indeed. Or even a "guilty but helpless person who hasn't been given any kind of hearing".


Anyway, back to the actual topic of the thread... Haven't read the entire thread but my perspective is that wizards see themselves as working hard for their magic (lots of studying) while sorcerers just wave their hands and stuff happens. Not entirely surprising that wizards would be a bit miffed at the idea that what takes them years of studying a sorcerer achieves by being born lucky, and that their response is to look down on sorcerers.

EDIT: also as Vaarsuvius and Eugene have both so nicely demonstrated wizards just tend to be elitist snobs who look down at non-wizards regardless of whether it's justified or not (leaving alone the question whether it's ever justified...).

The other notable "Wizard who sneers at sorcerers" is Xavion in SoD. Though we only have a sample size of 3 at the moment.

[Worldsong]

That all just makes it sound like Gygax wasn't a big fan of the separation of powers and the trias politica since he assigned both judiciary and executive powers to paladins as a class feature.


The other notable "Wizard who sneers at sorcerers" is Xavion in SoD. Though we only have a sample size of 3 at the moment.

I haven't actually read SoD but I believe that even outside the Stickverse it's a common trope that wizards are elitist pricks.

[Keltest]

Indeed. Or even a "guilty but helpless person who hasn't been given any kind of hearing".

What, exactly, would a hearing accomplish? They dont have the resources or time to turn him over to anybody else, so their options are either "kill him" or "let him go" (im counting "leave him tied up as a subset off killing him). If they let him go, he's going to go back to banditry, so what else can they do with him?

[hamishspence]

That all just makes it sound like Gygax wasn't a big fan of the separation of powers and the trias politica since he assigned both judiciary and executive powers to paladins as a class feature.


Thankfully D&D's moved beyond that.

What, exactly, would a hearing accomplish?

It gives the whole party a chance to hash it out amongst themselves. And not have one party member acting unilaterally in a noncombat situation.

When it comes to player groups, consensus matters.

[Fyraltari]

Consider it like this - Gygax seemed to regard the Paladin is not merely someone who is blessed with powers by the gods, they are 'The Law' in the sense that there are actual laws that they are bound to uphold.
So when the Paladin encounters a kidnapper who is sacrificing children to a demon lord to bring about eternal darkness - if the party captures the cultist alive the paladin can kill them and it is not vigilante justice because the Paladin is 'The Law' and assuming that the crimes committed allow for the death penalty (within the legal framework).
Now the paladin cannot work as 'The Law' for corrupt or evil laws the laws they uphold must be fair - but they are not out of line for killing good, neutral, lawful, chaotic or evil people who break those laws if the laws allow for death as a punishment.
As for our child killer - they could be offered atonement before death, which would absolve them of their sins (and shift the alignment) but that does not mean they get to escape mortal justice - the paladin has now saved their soul - but their crimes must still be paid for.

Yeah, so when someone tells me "judge, jury and executioner" I don't see a pillar of all that is good, I see a rabid cop or a dystopian comic book.

[Dr.Zero]

Forcing conversions of people to "save their souls" before killing them is a historical practice, yes. And really not one you would expect from someone cosmologically recognized as "good".

EDIT: Yes, it makes sense "logically" but the problem with logic is that you nedd a good premisse to reach a good conclusion, if you think logically but start with garbage you'll still end up with garbage.

Don't forget, though, that in D&D Good, afterlife and Good Gods are actually something real and proved.
So much that Good and Evil can be detected, like a normal physic attribute.
The whole problem is not the Paladin, he acts kinda consistently with the premises[1], is the whole system around it.

[1] Technically a force of Good should not snuff life, this is an evil act. But putting in danger your own soul to save another soul is not the most Good act one can think of? :D

[Worldsong]

What, exactly, would a hearing accomplish? They dont have the resources or time to turn him over to anybody else, so their options are either "kill him" or "let him go" (im counting "leave him tied up as a subset off killing him). If they let him go, he's going to go back to banditry, so what else can they do with him?

Have we reached the point where we resort to murder out of convenience? Because that's generally the point where I feel like the argument starts falling apart.

Also, option number three: take the bandit's armour and weapons and tell him that he's better off heading for the nearest town and getting himself a job or something.

Also, as Hamish pointed out, part of the issue is that the paladin apparently acted on his own and didn't bother to get the rest of the party to agree with him first. If you can't convince the rest of your Good-aligned party that murder is the best option maybe that's a sign that murder isn't the best option.

[Keltest]

Have we reached the point where we resort to murder out of convenience? Because that's generally the point where I feel like the argument starts falling apart.

Also, option number three: take the bandit's armour and weapons and tell him that he's better off heading for the nearest town and getting himself a job or something.

Also, as Hamish pointed out, part of the issue is that the paladin apparently acted on his own and didn't bother to get the rest of the party to agree with him first. If you can't convince the rest of your Good-aligned party that murder is the best option maybe that's a sign that murder isn't the best option.

"Leave him in the wilderness with nothing" is also something i consider to be a subset of "kill him", because thats the result youre going to get if you do that. The nearest town was explicitly far enough that they could not readily make their way there with the captive without a drain on their resources they could not afford.

And "not consulting the party" is absolutely a player courtesy issue, not an alignment issue.

[Worldsong]

"Leave him in the wilderness with nothing" is also something i consider to be a subset of "kill him", because thats the result youre going to get if you do that. The nearest town was explicitly far enough that they could not readily make their way there with the captive without a drain on their resources they could not afford.

And "not consulting the party" is absolutely a player courtesy issue, not an alignment issue.

Fine, try to calculate how much he needs to survive getting to the nearest town.

And no, going off on your own and killing anyone you think you should be allowed to kill without getting input from the rest of your party is definitely an alignment issue.

[dancrilis]

Yeah, so when someone tells me "judge, jury and executioner" I don't see a pillar of all that is good, I see a rabid cop or a dystopian comic book.

That is the bit where the laws have to be fair (i.e Good) - the paladin cannot uphold unfair (evil) laws.

Law: Let any who without legal authority take a life be put to death.

Paladin upholding the Law:
Child Murderer - can be killed.
Child who kills a child killer in self defence - cannot be killed.

Because in the first case it is fair to kill the 'child killer' where in the second case it is not fair to kill the child (although a LN or LE character might very well kill them).

[hamishspence]

Maybe make another thread for it if you like - this thread is supposed to be the Wizards/Sorcerers attitude one.

[Fyraltari]

Don't forget, though, that in D&D Good, afterlife and Good Gods are actually something real and proved.
So much that Good and Evil can be detected, like a normal physic attribute.
The whole problem is not the Paladin, he acts kinda consistently with the premises[1], is the whole system around it.
If one can just "renounce their evil alignment" in a way that allows for backslide later and yet be considered good by cosmological forces, I have to ask what kind of Willy Wonka good these forces alledgedly represent. Also, killing good people, isn't that the opposite of the paladin's missions statement? If not, shouldn't he be killing every good person he sees to help them into Heaven?


[1] Technically a force of Good should not snuff life, this is an evil act. But putting in danger your own soul to save another soul is not the most Good act one can think of? :D

I mean, if the afterlife is fair and just and good, then a good act couldn't endanger your soul.

[Keltest]

Fine, try to calculate how much he needs to survive getting to the nearest town.

And no, going off on your own and killing anyone you think you should be allowed to kill without getting input from the rest of your party is definitely an alignment issue.
So now youre letting a known bandit and attempted murderer go free and kind of just hoping he changes instead of going out and attacking more travelers. (in the given example, it was also an ogre, so the odds of him joining civilization are even more slim than a human bandit.) And this is the Good option?

"The law of the land says the penalty for banditry is execution. He also attacked us with intent to kill. We dont have the resources to imprison him or hand him over to any other authorities, and im an agent of the law. Im going to follow the law and execute him."

Where is the alignment issue in this?

Also, im pretty sure Gygax was being tongue in cheek about securing the person's eternal reward before they can backslide. Even D&D's cosmology has never been as convoluted as that.

[hamishspence]

OOTS has had Prisoner Dilemmas before. Killing them is consistently portrayed as very much a last resort:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html



"The law of the land says the penalty for banditry is execution. He also attacked us with intent to kill. We dont have the resources to imprison him or hand him over to any other authorities, and im an agent of the law. Im going to follow the law and execute him."


They didn't do any of that though. They just killed, without bothering to ask the interrogator whose custody the prisoner was in, first.

Can we take this digression to the main Roleplaying Games section, if we want to carry on?

[Fyraltari]

Maybe make another thread for it if you like - this thread is supposed to be the Wizards/Sorcerers attitude one.
When has a thread ever stayed on topic in this forum? :smalltongue:

That is the bit where the laws have to be fair (i.e Good) - the paladin cannot uphold unfair (evil) laws.

There's a world of trouble between a just law and the just application of a just law. People get **** wrong, a lot. That's why there are courts, and appeals and juries and investigation and witnesses and right to a defense and all that. Because a single guy is about the most abusable and prone to error system imaginable. Even with the best of intention a guy like that is going to mess up somewhere down the line or they wouldn't be human. And by mess up, I mean killing an innocent.

[Keltest]

They didn't do any of that though. They just killed, without bothering to ask the interrogator whose custody the prisoner was in, first.

The post in question doesnt make it clear how much of the thought process was explained to the party, but the dwarf's actions make it pretty clear he was upset about having anybody else decide anything about the prisoner, not that he found the specific act of execution to be inappropriate.

[hamishspence]

That's not my reading. Mine is of an arrogant paladin player riding roughshod over the others, and the others, with the dwarf as their spokesperson, united in the belief that the paladin player needs a hard lesson.

If the others felt the dwarf player had crossed a line - it would have been brought up.

Sounds to me like a problem player running to Dragonsfoot, to whine to Gygax.

[Keltest]

That's not my reading. Mine is of an arrogant paladin player riding roughshod over the others, and the others, with the dwarf as their spokesperson, united in the belief that the paladin player needs a hard lesson.

If the others felt the dwarf player had crossed a line - it would have been brought up.

Sounds to me like a problem player running to Dragonsfoot, to whine to Gygax.

The fact that the dwarf specifically calls out the problem as being "you touched my prisoner" and not "execution was totally out of line" (and then responds by killing an innocent animal) pretty strongly undermines the idea that the dwarf had any sort of moral issue with the paladin's actions.

ETA: To be clear, i do think theres an argument to be made about inter-party conduct that paints the paladin and dwarf both in a bad light here. I dont think theres really any way to paint the paladin's behavior here as an alignment issue, if we accept the circumstances we were given.

[hamishspence]

We should take it to another thread. I'll make one, if that'll make you happy.


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618515-In-party-conflict-how-do-we-tell-which-player-s-in-the-right-and-which-in-the-wrong

[dancrilis]

There's a world of trouble between a just law and the just application of a just law. People get **** wrong, a lot. That's why there are courts, and appeals and juries and investigation and witnesses and right to a defense and all that. Because a single guy is about the most abusable and prone to error system imaginable. Even with the best of intention a guy like that is going to mess up somewhere down the line or they wouldn't be human. And by mess up, I mean killing an innocent.

And when that happens the paladin may lose their powers and needs an atonement spell to regain them after their terrible mistake (with potentially some assorted punishment from the body providing the atonement - possible even death depending on the laws in place).

Paladins are often adventurers - they don't really have the option of arresting everyone and providing them with a full trial, they can make the reasoned assumption that the children in cages are innocent and the guys in robes with the symbol of Tharizdun and the sacrified bodies of other children in front of them are not innocent, is it possible that one of the cultists is actually an agent of Pelor who was infiltrating the cult to free the children and end its evil and the cultist claiming that should perhaps be listened to, but it is still a balance of probabilities if they are lying or not and whether killing them for cult related activity is both fair and legal (it is also possible that there is an illusion in place and everything the party sees is not real and the children are devils trying to have the paladin kill a bunch of innocent villagers etc).

[Worldsong]

So now youre letting a known bandit and attempted murderer go free and kind of just hoping he changes instead of going out and attacking more travelers. (in the given example, it was also an ogre, so the odds of him joining civilization are even more slim than a human bandit.) And this is the Good option?

"The law of the land says the penalty for banditry is execution. He also attacked us with intent to kill. We dont have the resources to imprison him or hand him over to any other authorities, and im an agent of the law. Im going to follow the law and execute him."

Where is the alignment issue in this?

Also, im pretty sure Gygax was being tongue in cheek about securing the person's eternal reward before they can backslide. Even D&D's cosmology has never been as convoluted as that.

Do we actually have any evidence of this guy being a murderer?

That aside, since we're trying to minimize the damage and not resort to murder I can definitely think of worse actions to take. Such as, you know, murder.

Well, you see, the problem there is that with those additional lines suddenly the paladin is actually communicating with the rest of the party instead of just stepping up to the captured bandit and shanking him. So far as it has been explained to me the paladin's behaviour could be summed up as him thinking "We can't bring this captured evildoer back to town so far as I'm aware, so homicide it is!" and then stepping up to the captured bandit and shanking him.

The alignment issue being that this paladin is way too quick to resort to murder to solve his problems. If he was actually being reasonable he'd at the very least ask the rest of the party whether they had any ideas, because he'd be aware that murder is a last resort.

And no, we're not doing the 'well maybe he did and that just wasn't in the record' because that way lies madness and in that case I could just as easily say 'Well maybe the dwarf was also appalled at the paladin's murderous tendencies and he mentioned the indignity of his prisoner being slain first because it happened to be the first thing that crossed his mind. Which in no way diminishes his ethical objections because a person's first objection to a shocking turn of events tends to be somewhat irrational.'

[hamishspence]

I've made a new thread for this - see the link above.

[Keltest]

Yeah I noticed, I just don't know how to delete posts.

If you go into the edit window, there should be a button near the top.

[hamishspence]

Yeah I noticed, I just don't know how to delete posts.

You could also copy-paste the whole thing for the new thread :smallbiggrin:

[Worldsong]

If you go into the edit window, there should be a button near the top.

Ah, there we go. Thanks.


You could also copy-paste the whole thing for the new thread :smallbiggrin:

Eh, probably better if we just start from the top.

[hamishspence]

Fair enough.

Wizards disdaining Sorcerers is a pretty common thing since 3.0 introduced the Sorcerer class as a Charisma-dependent class separate from the Wizard. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting in particular, had lots of that. Maybe that's where The Giant got the idea - from the data he already had?

[Keltest]

I mean, its not all that uncommon for different methodologies in the same discipline to have rivalries with each other. Heck, i think the art world is especially prone to this, so it may not even be something from D&D, and its just a coincidence that he landed on an existing rivalry in canon.

[mjasghar]

The Oots word is strange in itself - since you have adventure classes as college options
This is a bit difficult as Brit to understand since I don’t really get the way the USA education system works. But wizards seem to be focused for the whole of their life on academic ways of using magic, restricting their social life in some ways etc. So it’s like a post graduate being shown up some garage mechanic who is a savant.
At the same time, because it’s a fantasy parody the flexibility of wizards is less obvious because the fastest way to level is to adventure.So a sorcerer can just take blaster options and zoom up the levels. Worse, once they get more spell slots they can spam certain spells until their opponent fails a save.
Add all that and no wonder they don’t like sorcerers.

[Darth Paul]

When has a thread ever stayed on topic in this forum? :smalltongue:

I'm actually surprised we've gone 6 pages without it turning into a debate over Star Wars. :smallamused:

[RatElemental]

I'm actually surprised we've gone 6 pages without it turning into a debate over Star Wars. :smallamused:

Speaking of Star Wars, Jedi (force sensitives in general) would be another example of an archetype that splits the difference between wizards and sorcerers.

[mjasghar]

The Jedi refused those who were too old to go into their academy though - they had to essentially beg an apprenticeship and each master was only allowed one at a time. And they looked down on all other light side traditions

[Fyraltari]

Speaking of Star Wars, Jedi (force sensitives in general) would be another example of an archetype that splits the difference between wizards and sorcerers.

Is it because they have nothing to do with D&D? I think it is because they have nothing to do with D&D.

[dancrilis]

I'm actually surprised we've gone 6 pages without it turning into a debate over Star Wars. :smallamused:
Well if you insist.

Effectively the Jedi are an Order of Sorcerers - the talents come to them fairly naturally and are then honed along the part of the order with no real room for divergence, hard work moves people from low level to high level (as with DnD) and some might develop different powers and focuses but untimately they are fairly restricted.
The Sith on the other hand are an Order of Wizards - but one where there is an entry criteria of having a single level of sorcerer - they experiment and adapt and seek to master all the secrets of the force.

Yoda was effectively the ultimate sorcerer - powerful but ultimately when his personal power wasn't up to a task he ran away to hide until he died and encouraged others to do the same, because he wasn't able to understand that for all his power he wasn't equal to a prepared Sith of equal level.
Bane was effectively the equivalent for the Sith (although not the most powerful of them) - when his people were wiped out he just put his head down and started learning and planning, expanding his knowledge and recruiting an apprentice to learn from him and continue the tradition learned.

The Jedi look down on the Sith for using the force in 'Unnatural Ways' and tried to wipe them out for this, where the Sith look at the Jedi as stuck in the past and unable to embrace the full possibilities of the force.

I do wonder if in DnD the first Wizards were Sorcerers also who just started to review their magic more academically (possible to make up for not having the most forceful personalities).


Is it because they have nothing to do with D&D? I think it is because they have nothing to do with D&D.

You may find in time that everything is about D&D/Star Wars.

[Darth Paul]

Well if you insist.

Effectively the Jedi are an Order of Sorcerers - the talents come to them fairly naturally and are then honed along the part of the order with no real room for divergence, hard work moves people from low level to high level (as with DnD) and some might develop different powers and focuses but untimately they are fairly restricted.
The Sith on the other hand are an Order of Wizards - but one where there is an entry criteria of having a single level of sorcerer - they experiment and adapt and seek to master all the secrets of the force.

Interesting. I look at it the other way around, but for almost the same reasons.

The Jedi stress a calm, rational approach to using their powers, taking years of study and self-control, usually from childhood. To me, that's nothing if not a wizardly order. In the original West End Star Wars RPG, the first power a Jedi apprentice learned was Control. I think they had it right on the money.

The Sith, on the other hand, rely on their passions to power them and drive them. They accept a master as a coach figure, a guide to unlocking their innate powers, but not as their "superior", at least, not once the master shows a sign of weakness. That seems more like a sorceror to me.

Plus, of course, the Jedi had a humongous library. That's a sure sign of wizards. If only it had been managed by an orangutan, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseen_University) we would have been sure...

[dancrilis]

Interesting. I look at it the other way around, but for almost the same reasons.

The Jedi stress a calm, rational approach to using their powers, taking years of study and self-control, usually from childhood. To me, that's nothing if not a wizardly order. In the original West End Star Wars RPG, the first power a Jedi apprentice learned was Control. I think they had it right on the money.

The Sith, on the other hand, rely on their passions to power them and drive them. They accept a master as a coach figure, a guide to unlocking their innate powers, but not as their "superior", at least, not once the master shows a sign of weakness. That seems more like a sorceror to me.

Plus, of course, the Jedi had a humongous library. That's a sure sign of wizards. If only it had been managed by an orangutan, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseen_University) we would have been sure...

I see where you are coming from - but I would put that down mostly to alignment.

The Jedi are a lawful Order - bound in tradition etc, but not looking at expanding or researching the force in any way, in the library they learn spellcraft and knowledge arcana, but they don't research new powers etc.
Effectively Jedi should learns feather fall not fireball, jump not control undead etc - if one of the Jedi/Sorcerers breaks from the chosen spells they are deemed to be on the wrong path.
The Sith on the other hand are a chaotic Order - other then expanding their knowledge, power and not picking fights they can't win they have no real rules, but that expansion requires them to learn everything they can, jump and control undead, ritual magic etc.

[Emanick]

Yeah, the Jedi seem to behave more like wizards but mechanically function more like sorcerers, whereas you could say that the opposite seems to be true for the Sith.

[Peelee]

I wonder when would be a good time to bring up that the Jedi explicitly always used the Force proper, while no small part of the Legends talked about Sith Magic, Sith Sorcery, and Sith Sorcerers (including the still-running MMO The Old Republic, in which Sorcerer is an actual advanced class for the Sith Inquisitor.

[dancrilis]

I wonder when would be a good time to bring up that the Jedi explicitly always used the Force proper, while no small part of the Legends talked about Sith Magic, Sith Sorcery, and Sith Sorcerers (including the still-running MMO The Old Republic, in which Sorcerer is an actual advanced class for the Sith Inquisitor.

But they don't really use the term Sorcerer in the same way that DnD uses it - they use it more in a sense of 'master of arcane secrets'.

We could say that Jedi Order are some kind of multiclass combo involving limited magic and warrior training - where the Sith are much more varied, but that is kindof off topic from the sorcerer/wizard discussion.

[hamishspence]

Plus, of course, the Jedi had a humongous library. That's a sure sign of wizards. If only it had been managed by an orangutan, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseen_University) we would have been sure...

The closest thing we saw to an orangutan in Star Wars was working for darksiders, to reforge Kylo Ren's helmet:
:smallamused:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Albrekh

To be fair, he's a bit more chimp-ish than orang-ish :smallbiggrin:

[Fyraltari]

See, this is exactly the problem, you people are so focused on fitting round Star Wars orders into square D&D classes that you miss the main point: Sith and Jedi are religious orders, they don’t approach the Force as something to study or experiment with, they see it as the ultimate truth that holds the universe together.

[hamishspence]

Sith and Jedi are religious orders, they don’t approach the Force as something to study or experiment with, they see it as the ultimate truth that holds the universe together.

True dat. Though some, especially in the Legendsverse, do study, and experiment, with it a lot.

"Clerics of an ideal" (rather than clerics of a deity) might be the closest approximation, and even then it's never going to be a perfect fit.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wonder when would be a good time to bring up that the Jedi explicitly always used the Force proper, while no small part of the Legends talked about Sith Magic, Sith Sorcery, and Sith Sorcerers (including the still-running MMO The Old Republic, in which Sorcerer is an actual advanced class for the Sith Inquisitor. Trying to shoehorn Lucas's Force into D&D's system is IMO a mistake. That said, I saw a neat build that tried to make a 5e monk (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/171410/22566) (it was homebrew) into something closer to a force user. It wasn't a bad effort.

But narratively The Force and Ki are the same thing.
The Jedi are monks - psions. (EDIT: weird autocensor is weird)
The ultimate difference is that Lucas's Force is OP (game-wise) :smallbiggrin: because he needs it to be for the story that he wanted to tell.
Game balance isn't in his priority matrix. (See also pod racing)

[Fyraltari]

True dat. Though some, especially in the Legendsverse, do study, and experiment, with it a lot.

"Clerics of an ideal" (rather than clerics of a deity) might be the closest approximation, and even then it's never going to be a perfect fit.

This misses the fact that the Force has a will.

[Darth Paul]

Darths & Droids (https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0004.html) summed it up quite aptly in terms of two D&D players trying to fit the idea of "Jedi" into terms they understood. For those who don't feel like clicking the link, the conversation is below.


GM: Jedi is your character class. You're sort of warriors with arcane abilities—
Qui-Gon: Like fighter/mages?
GM: — fighting for justice.
Obi-Wan: Ah, paladins.
GM: No. You draw upon the power of the Force—
Qui-Gon: "The Force"?
GM: The Force is an energy field—
Obi-Wan: Energy? But energy is force times distance.
Qui-Gon: And "power of the force" would be distance times the derivative with respect to time.
GM: <sigh> You're monks.
Qui-Gon: Got it.
Obi-Wan: But monks can't wield—
Qui-Gon: Shut up. He'll take away our laser swords!

[KorvinStarmast]

Darths & Droids (https://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0004.html) summed it up quite aptly in terms of two D&D players trying to fit the idea of "Jedi" into terms they understood. For those who don't feel like clicking the link, the conversation is below.
Laser swords are monk weapons. :smallbiggrin:
(Way of the Kensei? D&D 5e reference there, not a 3/x ref)

[Darth Paul]

Laser swords are monk weapons. :smallbiggrin:
(Way of the Kensei? D&D 5e reference there, not a 3/x ref)

But at the time I believe we were only up to 3 point whatever.

You have learned much, young one, but you are not a Jedi yet. :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

This misses the fact that the Force has a will.

So the Jedi believe. That doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near as interventionist as the average D&D deity is. And after all, it’s not like the Jedi can travel to where The Force lives, and have an argument with it (and get beaten up by it) the way that can happen with a D&D cleric and their deity.

[Jason]

Thematically speaking, Jedi are Paladins and Sith are either Anti-Paladins (Maul and Kylo Ren) or Sorcerors (the Emperor).