Comments on: Characters: Sorcerer

By: ChrisM

ChrisM — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:08:13 +0000

In my understanding, while Jim is giving very different definitions that sometimes does not fit the abilities of the Sorcerers he describes, a Sorcerer is a mortal practitioner that did not get White Council-training – that´s it! This MOSTLY resulted in evil Sorcerers, sure, but it does not have to. Victor Sells for example wasn´t evil because of his magical training, but of his goals.
So, every human dedicated enough to learn out of books can be a sorcerer. They are more brute as Wizards, for they are self-taught and not educated by a centuries-old Wizard who works in an even older tradition.

So in the RPG I would use the Sorcerer template for the dedicated occultist who developed real power. If he´s good or evil, knows the Council or not depends on the GM not on the template…

By: dante

dante — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:52:23 +0000

here’s an idea, take the boondocks saints, and mix it with a sorcceror

By: dante

dante — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:31:18 +0000

ooooooh, i like that idea thanks fred

By: fred

fred — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:25:24 +0000

@dante, maybe a sorcerer is an untrained, undiscovered wizard. We didn't want to shut out that possibility, after all.

By: dante

dante — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:16:18 +0000

i was looking over the classes again, and i am still starting out as a white court but i took a looksies at the sorcerers, and i realized that it said you can only take refinment twice without becoming a full fledged wizard, and i wondered if that ment you have the option to swap templates, which didnt make sense to me because arent wizards trained in their teens? i might have just missread it

By: fred

fred — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:27:13 +0000

@Carl, that's the White Council's biased perspective on sorcerers. Jim likes to write characters with imperfect knowledge and perspectives on the world; the definition of what a sorcerer is is one of those things, in the novels -- we get a lot of different, sometimes contradictory, definitions of it over the course of the series.

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:24:26 +0000

This is incorrect according to the books. In the book Blood Rites, Mavra is referred to (incorrectly) as a sorcerer by Harry at the IHOP, and Dresden and Kincaid explain to Murphy that a sorcerer is skilled at evocations, and can pull off thaumaturgy with the help of a book and some type of rite of power, but they aren’t as versatile as wizards because A) they aren’t as powerful, and B) they can’t utilize magics with finesse. It has nothing to do with being barred from the White Council or otherwise. Sorcerers can only be magical brutes, while wizards can do much more

By: Mesar

Mesar — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:16:27 +0000

Maybe Harry’s true Nature is a fierce independence and a penchant to protect women even when they’re trying to kill him.

By: Harry Raith

Harry Raith — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:31:54 +0000

In “Grave Peril”, they have an even simpler definition of a sorcerer. “The guy we’re after is a sorcerer. It’s sort of like being a wizard, only he spends all of his energy doing things that are mostly destructive. He isn’t good at anything that doesn’t fuck someone up.” Hence why even though Victor Sells “Shadowman” used thaumaturgy and alchemy along with evocation but all of it was something that would harm. So you could have a sorcerer that only hurts but is good because he only harms bad people.

By: Zach

Zach — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:50:03 +0000

@Cris lol you mean Ordo Lebes lol yeah I loved that name