D&D General Wizards are not rational/scientists

[Bolares]

Even honorable knights are human. Abuse someone long enough and they get sick of it and snap back.

Sure, but Sturm abuse is constant, more often than not, if sturm is talking in the first book, he is passing judgment or worse.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure, but Sturm abuse is constant, more often than not, if sturm is talking in the first book, he is passing judgment or worse.

Yeah. It’s been a VERY long time since I read them, but IIRC Sturm came off more as “entitled bully” than honorable.

Which might explain some part of why Raistlin was so popular with some people at the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but Sturm abuse is constant, more often than not, if sturm is talking in the first book, he is passing judgment or worse.

Imagine you are very good and there's an evil(or close to it) jerk in the group. You don't have to be nice and it's not bad if he's passing judgement.

 

[Bolares]

Imagine you are very good and there's an evil(or close to it) jerk in the group. You don't have to be nice and it's not bad if he's passing judgement.

That'd be almost fair... if Strum did that only to Raistlin. And it's not just not being nice. Sturm repeatedly says they should leave Raistlin to die, or complains when someone saves his life. The mighty and honorable knight roots for a companion to die much more often then the villanous and selfish mage...

 

[Scribe]

Sure, but Sturm abuse is constant, more often than not, if sturm is talking in the first book, he is passing judgment or worse.

Almost like he's compensating.

Good arc though, or so my 12 year old self thought.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One thing I have enjoyed about 5e is thinking about the link between a spellcaster's mechanism and lore. A sorcerer, a wizard and a warlock are not the same thing, and it changes not only how they play mechanically, but also how they roleplay.

However, I have seen several opinions/comments lately about wizards and "how they are" that felt... wrong to me; so I though I would start a thread and see if others agree, or have insight.

So basically wizards are people who get their powers through study. They have spellbooks, they can learn spells from scrolls, and they are an intelligence dependent class. This creates an impression of a very scholarly, rational type. But is this true?

Consider this: A sorcerer has magic because of an inborn ability/ancestry. A warlock makes a deal with some entity, a cleric worships a god, a druid communes with nature.1

But what about a wizard? A wizard has NO HELP to master magic. NOTHING but sheer determination and their wits. Think about it. They must be obsessed with magic, in a way most other casters don't have to be. In what strange ways do they have to warp their mind to be able to grasp magic? What ritual must they do? Trepanation? Days of meditation? "Herbs"? Magic is not science. The mental habits and practices scientists develop (and try to apply, it's hard) may be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for wizards. There is no guarantee of rationality here.

View attachment 146426
All the other casters have "something" helping them. They don't have to devote every single moment of their lives thinking about magic. On a quest, the rogue is probably thinking about the fat loot and hmm that spot ahead looks like prime ambush spot, the fighter is also worrying about the ambush and how to keep her companions alive, the cleric is seeking guidance from their god and the wizard... probably thinking about how the conjunction of the 3 great planets last night would affect the length of web strands, and if he could sell the fighter's ears to a necromancer in exchange for a cool orb, and wondering why drawing that 5-cornered square on the ground made the children cry. These examples are not very good - I am not a wizard, after all. Their thought patterns, methods and priorities may be profoundly alien.

I mean just look at this guy. Look carefully.

View attachment 146427
(source: We are NOT taking the wizard. )

So next time you play a wizard, consider the strong possibility that by the standards of mere mortal, your PC may be utterly bonkers.

1 Yes, I didn't mention bards. Why would I though? I have better things to do with my intellectual energy, like pondering the colors of boogers for example.

While sanity and rationality are typically considered to be strongly correlated, I would say that in a world with magic they don't necessarily have to be.

A person can be rational or irrational, irrespective of their sanity. I would say that this has a significant basis in the premises they hold to be true.

It's akin to performing a mathematical computation. A rational person using an incorrect premise is like someone who does a perfect calculation with the wrong inputs. The steps they took were perfectly logical and correct, but because they used an incorrect input they'll get an incorrect output. Whereas the irrational person will perform the calculation incorrectly, and thereby end up with the wrong output irrespective of whether or not they started with the correct input.

To put it another way, imagine two people who believe that the Illuminati are real and have mind control satellites. The rational person might always wear a helmet specially constructed of insulating materials that could disrupt signals from such a satellite, were such a thing to exist. The irrational person might insist on periodically hitting themselves in the head with a wooden plank slathered with chicken salad to disrupt the signal. The first is arguably rational within the scope of the premise that the Illuminati are real and have mind control satellites, whereas the latter is quite illogical irrespective of whether or not that was their starting premise.

I think that, by default, wizards are rational. However, their premises might not be the same as most people. And, in fact, in a magical world the wizard's premises are probably not even wrong, even if they seem completely bananas by the standards of an average person.

 

[Blue Orange]

I think that, by default, wizards are rational. However, their premises might not be the same as most people. And, in fact, in a magical world the wizard's premises are probably not even wrong, even if they seem completely bananas by the standards of an average person.

Exactly! A common trope, especially in older fantasy, is the idea that certain times of year and alignments of celestial bodies have mystical power. ("The stars are right", in a later formulation.) We don't believe that now, but quite a few famous mathematicians in the premodern era made their living casting horoscopes. So if the planets really do affect the world in that way, it's totally rational to declare war and make major military movements on Tuesdays (associated with Mars in astrology, it's Mardi in French and Martes in Spanish).

I suspect this is part of the reason why the wizard class persists even though the sorcerer and warlock are mechanically better fireballers in many cases--it's just too attractive to science majors, or humanities majors with more 'Apollonian' than 'Dionysian' tastes.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Exactly! A common trope, especially in older fantasy, is the idea that certain times of year and alignments of celestial bodies have mystical power. ("The stars are right", in a later formulation.) We don't believe that now, but quite a few famous mathematicians in the premodern era made their living casting horoscopes. So if the planets really do affect the world in that way, it's totally rational to declare war and make major military movements on Tuesdays (associated with Mars in astrology, it's Mardi in French and Martes in Spanish).

I suspect this is part of the reason why the wizard class persists even though the sorcerer and warlock are mechanically better fireballers in many cases--it's just too attractive to science majors, or humanities majors with more 'Apollonian' than 'Dionysian' tastes.

'Apollonian''Dionysian' can you define these, please?

 

[Blue Orange]

'Apollonian''Dionysian' can you define these, please?

Me being too fancy.

Apollonian and Dionysian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically reason vs instinct, classical music vs rock n' roll.

It's a false dichotomy, as they all are, but it has some precedent in Western art. Other cultures have their own classification systems, of course.

 

[MarkB]

Wild mage is just corny and "lolrandom", not dark and dangerous. The problem is the worldbuilding. if magic is safe, predictable, and easy to learn (as demonstrated by the rules), why isn't EVERYONE a caster? Muh v-tude can't take it.

You could go with both sorcerers and wizards needing some innate connection to magic. Like, in the Discworld setting, wizards are people who have the special ability to see and manipulate magic, which must be honed through study, whereas sorcerers (actually, sourcerers) are themselves a source of magic, and can control it directly.