TheRPGSite

There have been discussions of the inherent nature of magic (see 'Jedi Fascism'), and while it is probably not something that comes up at game tables all that often, what effect would that have if codified?  In 1e AD&D, psionics were incredibly rare, but also wildly underpowered.  

What character generation differences would there be in a game where 'mundane' magic use was as uncommon as psionics?

Oddly, D&D 3e inverts that dynamic.  Sorcerors are magic users whose talents are entirely innate, but are rather low on the social totem pole, as they're derided and distrusted by the populous as dangerous, and looked down on by the magic using community as not having earned their power.

Meanwhile, wizards tend to be more aristocratic, highly wealthy and powerful, and just generally a whole lot better off in society.

Even wildly underpowered magic is still bloody amazing.

Do you mean what would happen in a world where magic use was uncommon due to rarity, cost (in chargen as well as the cost to the character in play), societal pressure?

Quote from: J ArcaneOddly, D&D 3e inverts that dynamic.  Sorcerors are magic users whose talents are entirely innate, but are rather low on the social totem pole, as they're derided and distrusted by the populous as dangerous, and looked down on by the magic using community as not having earned their power.

Meanwhile, wizards tend to be more aristocratic, highly wealthy and powerful, and just generally a whole lot better off in society.

Which is odd, as pointed out elsewhere, since the Sorcerer has Cha for their stat.

So, what would justify the societal difference in opinion?  They can both fireball the local village into oblivion.

Quote from: PelorusEven wildly underpowered magic is still bloody amazing.

Do you mean what would happen in a world where magic use was uncommon due to rarity, cost (in chargen as well as the cost to the character in play), societal pressure?

Yeah, exactly.  On the one hand, what are the implications for the campaign, and on the other hand, what are the mechanics that would have to balance that out?  Clearly, no one much bothered with psionics in 1e, since the benefits were very small compared to the difficulty of getting them.  The Complete Psionics Handbook treated them as another kind of magic, which was continued in 3.x more or less exactly.  Psionics in the latest edition have been put off for a year, so a comparison is unlikely until then.  However, magic retained it's level of power and ubiquity through all the versions.  The overall power seems to have lessened in the latest version, but the ubituity is the same.

What would balance the decrease in ubituity of access to magic/magic users?

Quote from: StormBringerWhich is odd, as pointed out elsewhere, since the Sorcerer has Cha for their stat.

So, what would justify the societal difference in opinion?  They can both fireball the local village into oblivion.

I suspect the inspiration is a combination of Protestant work ethic, and too many X-Men comics.

Wizardry requires a lot of work and a lot of money.  Wizards tend to be aristocratic types as a result, and are liable to be both resentful of the Sorcerer for having it so much easier, as well as being in the social position to enforce that resentment.

Sorcerers are also, basically, mutant freaks.  Normal people aren't just born with magical powers.  Must humans and other non-monstrous humanoids, beyond the occasional neat trick, have to learn that shit, or get it from a god.  IIRC, the 3.0 class description also tied into the whole pubescent thing, with the sorcerer's powers often manifesting at a young age, but also being highly unstable or uncontrollable, often leading to accidents that left them homeless, orphaned, and/or exiled.

Quote from: J ArcaneI suspect the inspiration is a combination of Protestant work ethic, and too many X-Men comics.

Wizardry requires a lot of work and a lot of money.  Wizards tend to be aristocratic types as a result, and are liable to be both resentful of the Sorcerer for having it so much easier, as well as being in the social position to enforce that resentment.

Sorcerers are also, basically, mutant freaks.  Normal people aren't just born with magical powers.  Must humans and other non-monstrous humanoids, beyond the occasional neat trick, have to learn that shit, or get it from a god.  IIRC, the 3.0 class description also tied into the whole pubescent thing, with the sorcerer's powers often manifesting at a young age, but also being highly unstable or uncontrollable, often leading to accidents that left them homeless, orphaned, and/or exiled.

That is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

Quote from: StormBringerThat is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

I think the issue is that they somewhat muddled what Charisma meant with 3E, originally it was personality, how likable you are--now its "force of will" plus, some remnants of personality still drug into the mess.

I'd simply change attributes, since its an inborn talent, I'd probably go with Constitution. (It still uses energy from somewhere, can you channel it well?), rather than Charisma.

 In a non D&D system, I'd probably examine how this is random--closer to psionics in AD&D1E or 2E's wild talents (Complete Psionics), and simply examine the nature of a society where some people are inborn with talents, and hone them (class/skills around it), and some people don't and just have a power or two that they can do occasionally.

As a setting, I might look into these people being chosen of a God, or some other force (Birthright's divine right to rule comes very close to what I'd see for an interesting campaign) the land itself is urging them to exist, either to heal ancient damage done by a Wizard's War, or to lead the people, or something like that.

Quote from: StormBringerThat is what I suspected as well.

So, what would be the easiest way to codify something like that?  Was basing the Sorcerer's powers on Charisma not the best idea in the first place?

Well, I think the Charisma thing is twofold:  1) it gave the game another class for which Charisma was something other than a "dump stat", and 2) it gives the Sorcerer the potential for that same "wandering con man" feel one gets from the Bard.

As for codifying the societal element, well, I wouldn't.  At least, not beyond the class description.  It seems to me more of a roleplaying thing, that would be better left to the individual players and GM to implement as they saw fit, than trying to codify it systemically.

Quote from: SilverlionI think the issue is that they somewhat muddled what Charisma meant with 3E, originally it was personality, how likable you are--now its "force of will" plus, some remnants of personality still drug into the mess.

True, Charisma is a bit of a goofy ability score in the first place.

QuoteI'd simply change attributes, since its an inborn talent, I'd probably go with Constitution. (It still uses energy from somewhere, can you channel it well?), rather than Charisma.

I would shoot for Wisdom, but that kind of overlaps the Cleric.  On the other hand, using Intelligence for Wizards and Sorcerers doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me.

 

QuoteIn a non D&D system, I'd probably examine how this is random--closer to psionics in AD&D1E or 2E's wild talents (Complete Psionics), and simply examine the nature of a society where some people are inborn with talents, and hone them (class/skills around it), and some people don't and just have a power or two that they can do occasionally.

That is the main question.  Should it be something random, kind of like a bonus, or should you be able to declare that you have them by choosing a class?  How would that be different than "I am a fighter, so I have 18 Str"?

QuoteAs a setting, I might look into these people being chosen of a God, or some other force (Birthright's divine right to rule comes very close to what I'd see for an interesting campaign) the land itself is urging them to exist, either to heal ancient damage done by a Wizard's War, or to lead the people, or something like that.

But wouldn't that lead to the 'Jedi Fascism' bit?  The few, the elect, the chosen to lead the common man with their superior genetics?

Good ideas, of course, but it's the ramifications of those ideas that I am pondering.

Quote from: StormBringerBut wouldn't that lead to the 'Jedi Fascism' bit?  The few, the elect, the chosen to lead the common man with their superior genetics?

Good ideas, of course, but it's the ramifications of those ideas that I am pondering.

Possibly, however, that's generally how that works--of course if they were chosen to sort of set things right, they might come off as more introverted, less "ruling" and more about doing good in secret.

The real problem "Jedi Fascism" comes from the fact that people with power tend to use that power to rise to control, the morals don't matter so much, because good or evil, power says they can influence MORE aspects of life. Which gives them an edge (like money now..)

If the nature of the power is somehow constrained or directed to more monastic sorts--that is the people chosen tend to be more interested in exploration/study/blah blah, rather than utilizing that power for control. It might make a difference.

The fact is your trying to avoid the fairly common human nature aspect, without some framework for why--either divine guidance, or simply a natural inclination that comes with the powers. (Which of course sort of makes the "random powers" point moot.)

Quote from: SilverlionPossibly, however, that's generally how that works--of course if they were chosen to sort of set things right, they might come off as more introverted, less "ruling" and more about doing good in secret.

Or, perhaps, the power only works in certain circumstances.

QuoteThe real problem "Jedi Fascism" comes from the fact that people with power tend to use that power to rise to control, the morals don't matter so much, because good or evil, power says they can influence MORE aspects of life. Which gives them an edge (like money now..)

Yes, but the random psionics of 1e only slightly addressed that, and the choosing to use magic in all editions didn't address that at all.  I suspect J Arcane is correct, trying to hard code that into a ruleset would be a disaster, but what would some sensible limits be?  While it would be in a meta-game context, some kind of restriction could simulate a divine limitation on power fairly well.

QuoteIf the nature of the power is somehow constrained or directed to more monastic sorts--that is the people chosen tend to be more interested in exploration/study/blah blah, rather than utilizing that power for control. It might make a difference.

That would definitely take some serious backstory for a particular race or class.  My concern is how easily that sort of thing could be ignored, or similarly, how difficult it would be to enforce fairly.  That is one reason why I was looking for something of a mechanical way to enforce adherence to a code or behaviour.

QuoteThe fact is your trying to avoid the fairly common human nature aspect, without some framework for why--either divine guidance, or simply a natural inclination that comes with the powers. (Which of course sort of makes the "random powers" point moot.)

So, one method might be to put a player in a different state of mind immediately, by making the 'powers' unavailable to humans or their stand-in race.

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm reminded of older editions of D&D where, if you think about it, it sort of embraced the concept of innate power leading to the ruling class, in that eventually, the players were just plain expected to take on a leadership role of some point.  This was an effect independent of class, by and large, as every class got it's own opportunity to build a personal empire.

In that scenario, I'd think that having some kind of divine mandate would potentially lead to MORE problems, because it seems to me that the sense of being justified by their divine inspiration was part of the problem with Jedi in the first place.  Top that off with them being the paramount military and police force in a single galactic government, and well, that's just problematic in all sorts of ways.

Better perhaps to leave it to the checks and balances of a more organic world, where a leader will live and die by how he managed his people and how he relates to his neighbouring kingdoms.  If you're an evil fascist bastard, then maybe your people rise up and gut you like a trout, or the neighboring wizard who's NOT an evil fascist bastard decides you need to be taken out.

Quote from: J ArcaneThinking about it a bit more, I'm reminded of older editions of D&D where, if you think about it, it sort of embraced the concept of innate power leading to the ruling class, in that eventually, the players were just plain expected to take on a leadership role of some point.  This was an effect independent of class, by and large, as every class got it's own opportunity to build a personal empire.

Back in the 'name level' days.  But that kind of power was still mundane, really.  The Thief still had to sneak around to stab people, the Fighter still had to stick their neck out to hack opponents, and so on.  While these kinds of power can be had in greater or lesser degrees among various people, magic is outside of that, really.  Is magic inherent to the person (Jedi/midichlorians) or is it something that anyone can learn (Earthsea/true names)?  What are the implications, and what is a reasonable method of limiting that power?

QuoteIn that scenario, I'd think that having some kind of divine mandate would potentially lead to MORE problems, because it seems to me that the sense of being justified by their divine inspiration was part of the problem with Jedi in the first place.  Top that off with them being the paramount military and police force in a single galactic government, and well, that's just problematic in all sorts of ways.

If the divine mandate is unchecked, certainly.  I think the idea was that these individuals are 'chosen of the gods' or 'divine champions' or some such, where the divinity in question is watching them more closely.

QuoteBetter perhaps to leave it to the checks and balances of a more organic world, where a leader will live and die by how he managed his people and how he relates to his neighbouring kingdoms.  If you're an evil fascist bastard, then maybe your people rise up and gut you like a trout, or the neighboring wizard who's NOT an evil fascist bastard decides you need to be taken out.

But in that case, isn't it just a power struggle among the elites?  It still relegates the average person to the background, especially if the ability to wield magic is some kind of genetic or divine anomaly.

Quote from: StormBringerSo, one method might be to put a player in a different state of mind immediately, by making the 'powers' unavailable to humans or their stand-in race.

Alternately you could make it unavailable to anyone who has the mindset to be an adventurer :D

"You have vast magical ability...and you..grow crops?"

"Uhuh."

"Why you could..."

'The crops won't grow themselves.."

"I..."

This might be a little left field but a friend of mine is using a magic system where the spells are tatoos on the skin. Each single tatoo is a spell. The colour of the tatoo gives the type of spell - green generally are nice spells (heal etc), red are blow shit up spells and black ones are to do with the dead. If you go up against a bloke covered in huge black tatoos, you know you're in trouble. I think his player group have really enjoyed that.

Quote from: Silverlion"You have vast magical ability...and you..grow crops?"

Of course, historically in societies which believed in a hereditary talent for magic, that's just what the power was for: protecting crops and curing cattle, which isn't exactly the stuff of high fantasy. In Finland, one particular kind of a witch even used to specialize in taking care of the fields, maajumala or "earth god".

Quote from: GrimGentOf course, historically in societies which believed in a hereditary talent for magic, that's just what the power was for: protecting crops and curing cattle, which isn't exactly the stuff of high fantasy. In Finland, one particular kind of a witch even used to specialize in taking care of the fields, maajumala or "earth god".

Did she have to be eaten by a giant to get that spell? :D

I love Finnish myths. Anyway, but yeah, I think that be an interesting way--make magic a talent that is random, inborn but with a focus on something not very "adventure friendly."

That means adventurers who can figure out a good use for their magic will be extremely rare. (Maybe seen as mad, which is in general a good way to balance them.)

Quote from: SilverlionDid she have to be eaten by a giant to get that spell? :D

I love Finnish myths. Anyway, but yeah, I think that be an interesting way--make magic a talent that is random, inborn but with a focus on something not very "adventure friendly."

That means adventurers who can figure out a good use for their magic will be extremely rare. (Maybe seen as mad, which is in general a good way to balance them.)

Cure Cattle Blight doesn't have quite the same ring as Fireball.  :)

Quote from: StormBringerCure Cattle Blight doesn't have quite the same ring as Fireball.  :)

No, and that's the point--fireball is big flashy, impressive--the kind of magic and adventurer would use--the type of people who WANT to be upwardly mobile and change their fats, hence Jedi Facism! (or more Sith facism but still.)

Quote from: SilverlionDid she have to be eaten by a giant to get that spell? :D

He, actually: most witches have traditionally been men around here, and they were fundamentally opposed to the idea of working together in any kind of a "coven". Also, unlike in many other countries, those accused during the witch trials in Finland generally were guilty of at least attempting to harm others through sorcery.

Quote from: Rob LangThis might be a little left field but a friend of mine is using a magic system where the spells are tatoos on the skin. Each single tatoo is a spell. The colour of the tatoo gives the type of spell - green generally are nice spells (heal etc), red are blow shit up spells and black ones are to do with the dead. If you go up against a bloke covered in huge black tatoos, you know you're in trouble. I think his player group have really enjoyed that.

I do rather like differing magic systems like that, and it would lend itself to 'X times per day' better than the Vancian bastardization D&D uses.  It makes more sense to 'charge' your tattoos every day than 'forgetting' how to cast a spell.

Quote from: SilverlionNo, and that's the point--fireball is big flashy, impressive--the kind of magic and adventurer would use--the type of people who WANT to be upwardly mobile and change their fats, hence Jedi Facism! (or more Sith facism but still.)

So, how would you categorize them?  Utility vs Combat?  Hedge magic vs Wizardry?

Quote from: SilverlionAlternately you could make it unavailable to anyone who has the mindset to be an adventurer :D

"You have vast magical ability...and you..grow crops?"

"Uhuh."

"Why you could..."

'The crops won't grow themselves.."

"I..."

I rather quite like this idea -- magic is almost exclusively the province of practical wielders.  This especially makes sense if magic is ultimately derived from specific deific sources.  Thus, the god of agriculture grants crop-oriented magic, the god of the smithy grants metal- and forge-based magic, etc.  Thus, the main corpus of any magical domain is very pragmatic and, frankly, kind of boring in nature.  However, every magical domain has a couple of real wow-spells that, with some imagination and the right circumstances, can take the day.

Now, maybe, just maybe, there's some clever Promethean god or hero out there who has been stealing the best spells from their rightful domains and granting them to clever, adventurous sorts like him/herself.  So there's this school of flash-bang adventuring magic out there, probably eternally on the lam due to the "stolen" nature of the magic, and probably in the hands of rogues, thieves, and tricksters. Kind of gives magicians like this a good reason to be adventuring and always on the road (and maybe to not be too showy with their powers).

Quote from: StormBringerI do rather like differing magic systems like that, and it would lend itself to 'X times per day' better than the Vancian bastardization D&D uses. It makes more sense to 'charge' your tattoos every day than 'forgetting' how to cast a spell.

I enjoy the meta-gamey proposal that someone posted here a while back, wherein magic is performed essentially by contract law.  Spellbooks and scrolls are, in reality, binding contracts with the various and sundry powers that can provide a desired magical effect.  The contract is binding only for a very specific number of uses or length of time, after which the contract must be renewed.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI rather quite like this idea -- magic is almost exclusively the province of practical wielders.  This especially makes sense if magic is ultimately derived from specific deific sources.  Thus, the god of agriculture grants crop-oriented magic, the god of the smithy grants metal- and forge-based magic, etc.  Thus, the main corpus of any magical domain is very pragmatic and, frankly, kind of boring in nature.  However, every magical domain has a couple of real wow-spells that, with some imagination and the right circumstances, can take the day.

Now, maybe, just maybe, there's some clever Promethean god or hero out there who has been stealing the best spells from their rightful domains and granting them to clever, adventurous sorts like him/herself.  So there's this school of flash-bang adventuring magic out there, probably eternally on the lam due to the "stolen" nature of the magic, and probably in the hands of rogues, thieves, and tricksters. Kind of gives magicians like this a good reason to be adventuring and always on the road (and maybe to not be too showy with their powers).I enjoy the meta-gamey proposal that someone posted here a while back, wherein magic is performed essentially by contract law.  Spellbooks and scrolls are, in reality, binding contracts with the various and sundry powers that can provide a desired magical effect.  The contract is binding only for a very specific number of uses or length of time, after which the contract must be renewed.

!i!

Fantastic.

I am hereby appropriating both of those ideas.

Have I directed anyone to the Wiki recently?  :)

Quote from: StormBringerFantastic.

I am hereby appropriating both of those ideas.

Thank you.  Please do.

In thinking on my previous proposal, I realise that it rather messes with a number of the accepted principles of D&D.

For one thing, if all magic has a divine source, and no arcane source, then clerics and wizards are essentially the same thing.  Presumably clerics minister to the adherents of the faith, while the wizards contemplate magical articles of faith in their libraries.  Also, not all clerics necessarily have healing spells, as that would be the domain of a healing god, though perhaps these spells could be shared with closely allied dieties.

The sorcerer, on the other hand, logically falls under the rubric of the rogue.  Always on the move, they might very well fall in to thievery, entertainment, what-have-you.  It's possible this might bring the bard into the equation as well.  I'd almost envisage the sorcerer and the bard as prestige classes of the rogue, much as Unearthed Arcana cast rangers and paladins as prestige classes.  Anyway, sorcerers are "spell-theives", clever rogues who serve their god by pilfering choice spells from the tomes and scrolls of the more socially upright clerics and wizards.  Once the spell is stolen, the sorcerer's god grants the power to cast it effectively.  This could conceivably include stolen healing spells, too.

So here's another reason for sorcerers to go adventuring -- plundering the lost libraries of long-forgotten magicians and their half-forgotten gods. Everyone else gets the gold and the jewels -- the sorcerer/rogue gets the scrolls and the books.  They'd almost become the de facto leaders of dungeon-delving expeditions, acting as the patrons who assemble teams of doughty warriors and mercenaries to accompany them on their quests.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI rather quite like this idea -- magic is almost exclusively the province of practical wielders.  
...
Now, maybe, just maybe, there's some clever Promethean god or hero out there who has been stealing the best spells from their rightful domains and granting them to clever, adventurous sorts like him/herself.  So there's this school of flash-bang adventuring magic out there, probably eternally on the lam due to the "stolen" nature of the magic, and probably in the hands of rogues, thieves, and tricksters.
!i!

This reminds me of Runequest, certainly the game we're playing. It's certainly a high-magic setting but we've encountered mostly magic used by hunters, gatherers, midwives and crop growers.

And not a sunspear among them.

Quote from: PelorusThis reminds me of Runequest, certainly the game we're playing.

And thusly do my roots reveal themselves.

Last night I started thinking to myself, hey, this would be a really cool backdrop for a campaign to run myself.  What system would I use?  Well, there's RQ...

Yeah, I honestly didn't intend it, but the bleed from one to the other is undeniable in retrospect. The moment I wrote about healing spells being "the domain of the healing god" I started thinking of Chalana Arroy and Xiola Umbar.

!i!

Quote from: GrimGentHe, actually: most witches have traditionally been men around here, and they were fundamentally opposed to the idea of working together in any kind of a "coven". Also, unlike in many other countries, those accused during the witch trials in Finland generally were guilty of at least attempting to harm others through sorcery.

Hrms, I thought you said something that indicated "she", but I must have misread somewhere. My mistake (I recognize that witches are he's in a lot of places.) Funny enough the Viking were a bit afraid of Finns for their "sorceries." which I find very interesting and telling.

I think Ian's ideas are great


(But admit I think I might like to see the inverse--God's had power, humans developed diety envy, so found magic through study and tracing particularly potent natural bloodlines--then the god's contrived a way to steal magic from men to put themselves back on top...)

Just odd..I know.

Quote from: SilverlionHrms, I thought you said something that indicated "she", but I must have misread somewhere. My mistake (I recognize that witches are he's in a lot of places.)

Well, Finnish is a gender-neutral language, so there's really no way to tell that, in any case, unless someone specifically uses words like noitanainen for "witch woman".

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThank you.  Please do.

In thinking on my previous proposal, I realise that it rather messes with a number of the accepted principles of D&D.

For one thing, if all magic has a divine source, and no arcane source, then clerics and wizards are essentially the same thing.  Presumably clerics minister to the adherents of the faith, while the wizards contemplate magical articles of faith in their libraries.  Also, not all clerics necessarily have healing spells, as that would be the domain of a healing god, though perhaps these spells could be shared with closely allied dieties.

The sorcerer, on the other hand, logically falls under the rubric of the rogue.  Always on the move, they might very well fall in to thievery, entertainment, what-have-you.  It's possible this might bring the bard into the equation as well.  I'd almost envisage the sorcerer and the bard as prestige classes of the rogue, much as Unearthed Arcana cast rangers and paladins as prestige classes.  Anyway, sorcerers are "spell-theives", clever rogues who serve their god by pilfering choice spells from the tomes and scrolls of the more socially upright clerics and wizards.  Once the spell is stolen, the sorcerer's god grants the power to cast it effectively.  This could conceivably include stolen healing spells, too.

So here's another reason for sorcerers to go adventuring -- plundering the lost libraries of long-forgotten magicians and their half-forgotten gods. Everyone else gets the gold and the jewels -- the sorcerer/rogue gets the scrolls and the books.  They'd almost become the de facto leaders of dungeon-delving expeditions, acting as the patrons who assemble teams of doughty warriors and mercenaries to accompany them on their quests.

!i!

Excellent.  Posted in the discussion area.  Drop on by and register, we can't afford to have these great ideas sitting around unused!