How do you prefer your tabletop spell casters?

[Agrippa]

So I'm now here to ask you this potentially very controversial question. Assuming you're playing a fantasy tabletop RPG how do you like your sorcerers/mages?

Perhaps they're nigh all powerful reality warpers who require the aid or blessing extradimensional beings. This is pretty self explanatory. Think of Doctor Strange or The Authorty's Doctor.

Maybe just potent but still mortal spell casters able to perform miraclous feats with great effort, skill and experience under their own power. Their powers could either inherent, awakened in them by a higher power or as a result of intensive study. Think every thing from Dresden Files wizards to D&D wizards and even Darker Than Black's contractors.

Possibly mortal spell casters who draw power from friendly or bound spirits or mystics who channel the very power of the planet or otherworldly realm? Imagine witches and sorcerer-priests in general. Basically they serve as living conduits for other entities or bargin with them for power, unless they either the willing aid or obidence of such spirits. Picture Schierke or Flora from the manga Berserk or Duke Prospero from Willaim Shaksepeare's The Tempest.

Last but not least are they universally foul degenerates hated by the populace at large who trafic in depraved acts? I'm talking about the sort who practice human, especially adult virgin and or child, sacrifice and cannibalism to maintain their powers. These mages are the kind of people who are basically power hungry sociopaths or psychopaths with supernatural power or the mystical equivalent of drug addicts.

Just tell me what you honestly think.

[Yirrare]

I like all the types you have listed here. Which one I prefer depends alot on what kind of world the story is taking place in. (eg. high or low magic)

I do, however, kind of dislike the third approach, since it makes less sence to me. In a world where magic is all powerful, and can be achieved through studies, why are there not more magicians? Truly, magicians should be the fittest in a world such as this, since not much can quell them and balance their growth.
The limitation that the comes with the need of vile sacrifices, aid/blessing by a higher creature, external powersource to channel magic or outherworldy assistance is better in my opinion, since it means not everyone can be a powerful magician. You need to be the chosen one, in possession of a powersource or ready to do some really tabu shit to get the powers.
I must, however, admit that magic is free approach, illogical as I may find it, is the easiest one to use for a high magical campain.

Also: it amuses me that the caster type mentioned last (but not least) was also the first mentioned. 

Best Regards
Yirrare

[Agrippa]

That was a copy-paste error. I just forgot to delete the first paragraph after I pasted it towards the end. But personally I'm okay with the idea of magic from study or inherent talent, it just that the vast majority of people will never reach the hieghts of the truly great warriors or mages. Though I'm still okay with the idea of human/humanoid conduits as magicians.

[veekie]

Personally I prefer one of the following setups:
-Intense study and learning of rituals passed down in their magical tradition. You know which rituals do what, and which parts of them can be applied differently for new effects. Sort of like early science, where mysticism blends with experimentation as you try to link causes with effects, and are still mostly guessing as to the WHY.  Maybe the rituals actually work directly with the underlying reality or maybe spirits do all that in accordance with the rite, heck if you know for sure.

-A service-for-service exchange with a supernatural entity. You do something for it, and in exchange it supplies the mystical muscle(subject to your personal limits of channeling said power). Faith magic and contract magic basically works the same way. The specific relation of course, can vary. This can be a business exchange type of thing, or it can be more like a feudal/familial chain of responsibility.

-Embodiment of the Power. Somewhere along the line, you became similar enough to one of the mystical foundations of magic(whether to a powerful magical creature by blood, by exposure to potent forces, or maybe just the stars aligned right), that you can perform it as easy as breathing. In this sense, you yourself are a manifestation of the magic, it's just that you happen to be also human-ish.

All of these of course, are focused caster concepts. True generalist casters have no role in the universe.

[Unbeliever]

...
All of these of course, are focused caster concepts. True generalist casters have no role in the universe.

Pretty much this.  I think all casters, really all characters, need themes and bailiwicks.  I'm pretty flexible along what those would be, but I like the idea of limiting by theme rather than cherrypicking based on mechanics.  Within that theme, they can do spectacularly powerful things.  If you're an earth mage (e.g., D'riss from the Malazan books) you can raise islands or do whatever, presuming you're powerful enough. 

Stylistically I am  personally drawn towards the otherworldly entity and Malazan warren approaches.  But, that's a personal preference that I wouldn't want to impose on a game or setting generally. 

I also like magic to have some rules, as I find that adds to the flavor of the world.  This has been discussed in various other threads.  Settings like the Witcher or even the Dresden Files are good for that way.  Although the latter naturally tends towards magic = world domination b/c a wizard is the main character.  But, there are things magic can do and can't do, and things it does well and things it doesn't. 

Finally, I think the mechanical supremacy of magic is just a game artifact.  I can easily conceive of games and they do exist where the magic in the system is not as much of an "I win" button as it is in D&D. 

[Dkonen]

With reason, history and/or backstory.

I've played the country bumpkin reluctant wizard, the natural progression, the tainted bloodline awakened, the pact for power, the long line of wizarding tradition, the seeker of power (no pacts), the relic of a bygone era, the natural, the blessed one, the historian, and probably more that I'm forgetting.

They all have their charm, in different ways, in different settings. Only about half of them were actually focused casters, but our (house)rules allow for more leeway on builds* so some of the more general sorts wouldn't work as well "by the book".

I have never however, just played a caster who has no real backstory as to why and how they are able to wield magic. If it's started that way, it's entirely in character, there *is* a reason that both the GM and I know, we just don't necessarily have it come up, and the character may not necessarily know. I love high fantasy and the concept of casters, but part of my mind refuses to not build in some sort of rationale...too much scifi as a child, I expect.

*all builds, not just casters, generally the melees benefit more, but all of the classes get something out of it-mostly for variety's sake, since our rules allow suboptimal classes/PrCs to see more playtime.

[Agrippa]

With all this said would anyone here consider this character an acceptable mage sort, let alone as a PC?

[SolEiji]

Since I run a lot of Eberron-esque magitek campaigns, spellcasters (namely wizards) are basically the scientists of fantasy earth.  Many are employed by the government or schools, exploring science from "going to the moon" and "blowing up the nation's enemies" to "determine what cheese mice like best" and "does this shampoo make rabbit's eyes burn?".  The mad scientist is your rogue necromancer or forbidden cultist type.

Clerics take on both religion rolls (preaching) and the rolls of modern medical doctors, from dentists, nurses, to brain surgeons.

Druids are hippies and religious leaders of more cult-like origins.

Sorcerers are an interesting deal.  They're seen as talented as "scientists" but lack both the training and the respect from the established wizards.  Joe Commoner doesn't know the difference though, so they mostly go without persecution except by "the elite".  Sorcerers are savants; they seem to have talent without training.

Warlocks are the creepy occult sorcerers.  They usually don't call themselves warlocks and pass as sorcerers themselves, lest Joe Commoner happens to be a crazy fundie type who doesn't trust them.  Binders tend to be in the same boat.

And bards?  Bards are just pop stars.  They don't get the sorcerer's disrespect since they've turned their talents to making themselves famous, which overrides any animosity.

[veekie]

With all this said would anyone here consider this character an acceptable mage sort, let alone as a PC?

This seems to be exactly that guy

[Amechra]

Where is that image from?

[Agrippa]

Where is that image from?

Just click on it and you'll see. It leads right to the page on it's artist's gallery.