Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[Sepulchrave II]

That would explain why the sorcerer needs a high charisma, to deal with occult entities, though that's not part of the class as presented in the PHB.

Sorcerers do work best as summoners, at least in 3e. And planar binding benefits from a high Cha. I think the niche-protection is built in.

 

[Celebrim]

I didn't know that was the original meaning of the term 'sorcery'.

If you go 'way back', the term is closest in meaning to the actual meaning of the word 'shaman'. Sorcery refered to the practice of taking a narcotic/halucegenic agent and then becoming possessed by a spirit which would the reveal hidden information or perform magic. Just like 'shaman' broadened to include pretty much any animistic priest, sorcerer has broadened to include pretty much any arcane practice.

Hasn't that move occurred in magic also over the last few hundred years?

It's been brewing for at least the last 1000 years. Historically magic has always been 'priestly', in that it involved the worship, appeasement, and occasional command of unseen spirits. I think you are correct to say that ancient wizards are always priests of some sort commanding spirits of some sort, and that the idea of the wizard doing magic directly by force of will (rather than using his force of will to command spirits to perform it) is comparitively modern. But the shift away from magic being the mystery element of a religion first occurs under monotheism, which renders such practices anathematic. So the would be magician who wants to ply his trade or research how the world works has to come up with an explanation for what he is doing which doesn't depend on commanding forbidden unseen spirits. In the West, this created a number of vying and overlapping traditions and the attempt to distinguish between 'natural philosophy', 'theurgy', and the stuff that was officially forbidden.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

But the shift away from magic being the mystery element of a religion first occurs under monotheism, which renders such practices anathematic.

In the West, maybe, to an extent. This is a kind of Frazerian evolution that I'm sceptical about. Modern Christianity contains many elements which might be deemed 'magical' - Orthodox Easter Rite, Transubstantiation etc. I think in the East, no hint of this progression exists.

I move towards forbidden territory. I apologize. But it's hard to talk about magic without invoking religion.

 

[Celebrim]

In the West, maybe, to an extent. This is a kind of Frazerian evolution that I'm sceptical about.

I don't think I've ever been so amused by a categorization of my thought since I was called a 'Trotsykite' by an outraged communist when the path of my argument suddenly took a trajectory they didn't expect. Certainly I've never been called Frazerian before, and if your skeptical of Frazer's thesis then I'm down right hostile to it.

Modern Christianity contains many elements which might be deemed 'magical' - Orthodox Easter Rite, Transubstantiation etc.

I don't think I have to wholly reject that assertion. Certainly Christianity retains alot of mystical rites and elements and has central mysteries and in some cases even a priestly caste. I personally would site different areas than you just did if I wanted to look at examples of modern Christian ritual that retained a magical element, but the general thesis that some is retained I wouldn't reject.

I think in the East, no hint of this progression exists.

I agree, but as you say, forbidden territory there lies.

 

[Doug McCrae]

the wizard doing magic directly by force of will (rather than using his force of will to command spirits to perform it) is comparitively modern.

Does this get to the heart of your problem with psionics? That there is a clear distinction between divine magic, which has an external extraplanar spiritual entity as its source, and arcane, which doesn't, but there is no such clear distinction between arcane and psionics? Both derive their power from 'natural' forces on the Prime Material. No external entities are needed.

The presence of VMS components or spellbooks are just surface and not important. Likewise spells per level per day versus power points aren't particularly important. Those are just the controls, whereas the difference between arcane and divine is like the difference between petrol-powered and nuclear-powered. Even though in terms of D&D mechanics, arcane and divine are very similar.

 

[Mallus]

But it's hard to talk about magic without invoking religion.

This reminds my of the approach I took in my old 3e homebrew setting. All "magic" was just different, equally valid, and readily-weaponizable belief systems.

One culture's magicians used psychic/psionic powers, which they claimed were the product of their insights gleaned from their people's migration across different planes of existence towards Paradise.

Another culture had alchemists who used batty, baroque steampunk technology and gleefully pseudo-scientific terminology, which, courtesy of my friend John, often had a wonderfully Vancian ring to it.

Another school of magic exclusively used teleportation gates to create effects. Practitioners viewed this ability as an innate ability shared by all living souls. What they were actually doing was exploiting the path the dead took to the afterlife/God. Since God was omnipresent, by opening a path to His presence they could transit any other point in the material universe.

Yet another bunch were mumbo-jumbo spouting black magicians working for a fallen angel who paid them in the (minor secrets) of the universe.

On a trip to the Land of the Dead the PC's met arms dealers from (nearly) the end of time who mixed traditional fantasy magic with present-day technology and super-science. Which fit them, since the outfit was part evil cult, part Gallifreyian Halliburton/Blackwater, whose employees came from every location and era.

Mainly all of this was an excuse for me to parody the language and conventions of F/SF fiction.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Great ideas, Mallus!

 

[Desdichado]

Breaking up the labels in D&D with cultural traditions discrete to eras in Western history isn't really very helpful, though, in some ways, because a core conceit of D&D is that it all works. Understanding of magic didn't "evolve" from sorcery to psionics as our understanding of the world change; they're just two different and equally valid takes on supernatural F/X.

The other core conceit is that magic by any other name in D&D is only useful if it's been weaponized. The conceit of the wizard in his tower doing magic experiments, or the psion guru sitting on the top of the mountain seeking enlightment, or whatever other stereotype works well in fiction, doesn't really work in the game, because other than as NPC sages or whatever, what do you do with that concept? So all the powers need to be weaponized and turned into something that can be quickly and easily used in combat. That leads--unfortunately--to a convergence of divine, arcane, psionic, and any other power source you could come up with in game. A game like D&D is not the game to explore the deeper mysteries behind the philosophies of wizards, sorcerers, psions, wilders, wu-jen, or whatever other class that has the ability to demonstrate F/X in game.

 

[SkidAce]

A game like D&D is not the game to explore the deeper mysteries behind the philosophies of wizards, sorcerers, psions, wilders, wu-jen, or whatever other class that has the ability to demonstrate F/X in game.

I disagree and have used DnD for this since we started playing it.

However I may not be articulate enough to present good counterpoints other than it worked for us.

The divide between arcane/divine/psionic and the resulting philosophies have been very integral to the growth and exploration of our settings.

I will concede that it may not be the best vehicle for it, but it is not incapable of it.

P.S. On your other thought about "weaponization" I agree that this has become a factor recently with the focus on combat, but would state that it was not always the case, i.e. raise dead impact on campaign, psions treated as witches (BURN THEM!), long distance teleportation effect on borders and wars between kingdoms etc.

 

[Desdichado]

I will concede that it may not be the best vehicle for it, but it is not incapable of it.

Fair enough. It's not impossible, it's just also not designed to serve that goal, and offers very little in the way of support for it.

P.S. On your other thought about "weaponization" I agree that this has become a factor recently with the focus on combat, but would state that it was not always the case, i.e. raise dead impact on campaign, psions treated as witches (BURN THEM!), long distance teleportation effect on borders and wars between kingdoms etc.

Recently? Which versions of D&D have you been playing? My experience going back at least to 1e and BD&D was that the game was primarily about combat, and the magic system was designed to facilitate combat. Anything else it might have done was an afterthought at best.

I don't really recall my early experiences with OD&D, but I'd be surprised if that were not the case for that edition too.