| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sourcemaster2 |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 18:09:30
There are many well-known wizards in the realms, but few famous sorcerers. Does anyone have a list of names, stats, ect, for some FR sorcs? |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 28 Sep 2018 : 15:48:40
Senior Scribe Sourcemaster2,
Here is a pretty comprehensive list of (198) sorcerers in the Realms:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Sorcerers
Best regards,
quote:
Originally posted by Sourcemaster2
There are many well-known wizards in the realms, but few famous sorcerers. Does anyone have a list of names, stats, ect, for some FR sorcs?
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 17:47:03
Probably so. Like Sage said, it's embedded in the language. |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 17:42:11
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
So, in short:
Sorcerer, witch, warlock: Nasty, power-hungry.
Mage, wizard: Wise, learned.
Beautifully summed up, Bookwyrm  I always thought it a strange thing when sorcerers turned up in 3rd ed. and whilst it states (in the PHB somewhere i think) that sorcerers are aligned towards chaos rather than law, I always thought of them as being evil, or neutral at a push..... but maybe im just going for the stereotype with that image. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 17:25:55
As well, the two 'nice' terms (wizard and mage) actually mean something else. Witch, sorcerer, etc., all mean people who mess around with natural forces like they're thinking their God Himself. Wizard comes from the English word for "wise," which is why slang used to refer to smart people as "wiz kids." (Wiz is actually the original word, as far back as I found it.) Mage, on the other hand, comes from the word magi, a scholar/philosopher/priest. And -- something I'd like to throw at idiots like Jack Chick -- it's in the Bible referring to a good guy. 
So, in short:
Sorcerer, witch, warlock: Nasty, power-hungry.
Mage, wizard: Wise, learned. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 06:19:03
I think it is probably a little bit of both, as well as the cultural trends and certain religious values that most of us were raised with which have shaped most our perceptions and attitudes to such supernatural issues. For a very long time throughout the darker periods of the Middle Ages, the use of 'Magic', and to a lesser extent 'Witchcraft' were considered tools of the Devil. These basic attitudes shaped some of the more conservative religious thinking that was too follow on from the early 1200's through to, and beyond the Reformation Era, and onto the stage of the early-to-mid 20th century.
|
| Ius |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 03:01:54
One fictional character that I can see as directly relevant to this discussion is Merlin. Merlin would in 3e rules definetly be a sorcerer since his blood is from that of a devil/demon. However if you read the different stories surrounding Arthur, Merlin is often described as a wizard. For me as a non native speaker of english I ahve a distinct feeling that the term sorceress would better describe Morgana than Merlin...
I would be really interesting if someone on this forum could write something about the historical conotations of these words, like the Sage did. As we all know the meaning of words change with time, and it would be really interesting to know why I find the word wizard less malicious sounding than the words sorcerer or warlock(bad language skills or to much B-film horrror?) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Feb 2004 : 02:18:55
I'm glad you said that Bookwyrm, because I was beginning to think it was just me...
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 11 Feb 2004 : 16:45:03
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Bookwyrm, isn't that just how it's been done? I don't like it because the sorcerer class was created as a sop to those who don't like the patience and forethought inherent in fully Vanceian magic (which the Realms had before D&D). In other words a world is being affected by an attempt at crowd-pleasing a different crowd from the one that likes the world.
I understand, and kind of agree. I say kind of because I'm not very experienced at this sort of thing; however, in NWN, the wizard's a lot better than the sorcerer. In game terms, the sorcerer also appears pretty redundant.
However, in story terms, the idea of near-unpredictable magical talent suddenly popping up here and there, without the time and training that wizards have to put in, is a very good one. I actually have a story like this that I started back in 2000, after 3e came out but before I ever picked up a rule book (which wasn't until after I came here).
In it, an alternate Europe is described, where power is shared by kings, Church, and the wizards. The Church is a bit weaker than in our own history, with the slack being taken up by the powerful mage guilds. You essentially can't be anything other than a hedge wizard without the consent (and, of course, control) of the mage guilds. So when storms of wild magic start rolling across the land, and people suddenly develop powerful magical talents, the wizards' collective power is threatened.
The wizards hold an emergency meeting of almost every mage guild in Europe, and agree that these wild talents must be stamped out if their power is to survive. They convince the Christian churches that anyone suddenly gaining magical power must have been consorting with the Devil. Since Church officials (of any denomination) have never been altogether pleased with the magic-users as a whole (magic isn't evil, it's just best left in the hands of Churchmen who can "withstand the temptations of power" -- go figure), this isn't hard to do.
It holds less and less water as time goes on, and more people gain these powers, but that's the offical story. So, of course, any people with wild talents are considered witches and hellspawn by the superstitious populace. It's started a huge witch-hunt craze across Europe, with people being burned on flimsy evidence as they were in our history.
That's how sorcerers could be considered in a campaign setting. Not really in Faerun, since first, there's no one "evil being" to blame things on (which is more important than one might think), and second, the people are more tolerant of sorcerers, since most people can't tell the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. However, if there were a campaign setting where wizards had to join guilds to get passed level four, sorcerers could easily be used like this.
By the way, I'm sure that Sage's gears are ticking at the familiarity of the story; yes, it did start out as an X-Men-esque "mutant phenomenon."  I wasn't planing on publishing it anyway. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Feb 2004 : 13:09:31
Actually what I had meant by that was that through the earlier periods of the Middle Ages, 'sorcerers' (for lack of a more appropriate term) had often been seen as weavers of fate, messing with elements (considered Divine in origin) most thought they had no business dealing with - thus the interpretation of an 'evil' connotation with the actual title.
|
| EcThelion |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 18:20:04
quote:
The term Sorcerer has always been seen in a somewhat negative/standoff-ish light, originally derived from the vulgar Latin word sortiarius, literally "one who influences, fate, fortune".
Personally I'd be proud to have such a title! |
| Faraer |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 13:21:54
Bookwyrm, isn't that just how it's been done? I don't like it because the sorcerer class was created as a sop to those who don't like the patience and forethought inherent in fully Vanceian magic (which the Realms had before D&D). In other words a world is being affected by an attempt at crowd-pleasing a different crowd from the one that likes the world. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 08:13:35
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Speaking up for Ed's Realms: the introduction of 3E sorcerers is something of a retcon; though Sean Reynolds has argued that the new rules illuminate characters who were sorcerers all along, I'm not alone in believing that many such cases (such as the Simbul) are spurious changes to showcase the new rules.
On the other hand, Ed has said that something like sorcerers do exist in his Realms, in the form of very rare spontaneous magical 'wild talents'. But the word 'sorcerer' is used in (pre-3E, at least) Realmslore as a near-synonym of 'mage' and 'wizard' with an evil connotation.
Hmm...that's interesting, and also pretty much how I expected the justification between 2e and 3e to be. Still, it's always nice to know Mr. Greenwoods thoughts on Realmslore...thanks for that Faraer...
As for the term 'sorcerer' having an evil connotation, well that's something that's not just limited to the Realms, or TSR/WotC for that matter. The term Sorcerer has always been seen in a somewhat negative/standoff-ish light, originally derived from the vulgar Latin word sortiarius, literally "one who influences, fate, fortune".
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 18:22:46
If I had my druthers, I'd justify it by saying that while they've existed all along, they're getting more frequent; and, as the idea of sorcery becomes known, it would stand to reason that those with the ability (if not the inborn talent) would begin their own investigation into these powers. (Sort of a "What, you mean I don't have to study for it? Sign me up!" reaction.  )
As for rewriting existing characters, I don't mind that. I'm glad they didn't do it for Elminster, though. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 13:53:06
Speaking up for Ed's Realms: the introduction of 3E sorcerers is something of a retcon; though Sean Reynolds has argued that the new rules illuminate characters who were sorcerers all along, I'm not alone in believing that many such cases (such as the Simbul) are spurious changes to showcase the new rules.
On the other hand, Ed has said that something like sorcerers do exist in his Realms, in the form of very rare spontaneous magical 'wild talents'. But the word 'sorcerer' is used in (pre-3E, at least) Realmslore as a near-synonym of 'mage' and 'wizard' with an evil connotation. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 10:34:07
Another determining factor of 'High' Sorcerers would be that fact that 'sorcery' magic is still a relatively new discipline (at least in games terms) so the potential for High Sorcerers would definitely be lower than the potential for newer Archmage Wizards...
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 06:16:44
First, high-level characters are rare, and sorcerers are supposed to be the rarest of the core classes. I doubt there are more than a handful of high-level NPC sorcerers around.
And besides, Sage . . . you have far too much on your plate anyway. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Feb 2004 : 12:25:27
As far as I know, such a listing does not exist. However I would be interested in seeing one, should a scribe here feel so inclined in putting one together...
I would like to work up said listing, but I simply do not have the time to undertake another project.
|
|
|
