Wizard Hypocrisy Towards Sorcerers

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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!!

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

[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

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: 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 .

[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: 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 ?

[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,

Spoiler

Show

"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.

[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.