Wizard Hypocrisy Towards Sorcerers

[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?

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/showthre...h-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

[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

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?

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

[RatElemental]

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

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.

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, 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, 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.