mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/15/86)
<Nice line-eater, here, line-eater, I've got a present for you...> <WAP!>
One problem that has not received enough attention is the effect of the
existence of magic on a medieval society. It is unreasonable to assume that
a society wherein magic is common would be effectively identical to those
Earth-historical societies where it was not.
Motivation: Frequently in my campaigns, some rabid PC Priest will decide
to go forth and make money by performing healings, weather changes, exorcisms,
and similar services for pay. So what are the going rates? One must assume
that others have previously thought of this, and that the primary benefit to
a town or city of having a temple around is the availability of these
services. So I came up with a method for calculating standard prices for
magic items, spells cast, spells copied, and similar services.
Now that magic was considered "available", several effects became obvious:
*Plagues can only run wild among the poor, who can't pay for cures, and only
in areas where there's a dearth of the hard-core goody-2-slippers types.
*Castles are built in months, not decades, without peasant labor, but reek
of magic, and are well protected (especially from Dispel Magic spells).
*As no siege engine can equal the destructive power or flexibility of a large
golem or a dragon, armies do not utilize mechanical combat devices.
*Functions normally achieved by technology would more likely be implemented
using magic, like mechanics, navigation, medicine, construction,
communications, information, etc., leaving only mass-manufacturing.
So technology would not develop beyond a certain minimal level. The time
and resources necessary to achieve technical progress would be better spent
studying magic.
*Criminal activities must be carefully chosen to not make enemies among those
who have wealth (after the thefts, of course) for fear that they might call
in a soothsayer to find out who was behind it all. Of course, a truly
unscrupulous magicians guild will sell protection to the local mafia.
And of course, there are others.
It should be noted that this may not be true in all campaigns, or in all
game systems. For example, AD&D places spells outside of the price ranges
of mere mortals, which encourages fly-by-night temples to offer cut-rate
miracles. :-) Fantasy Hero makes the process of making magic items and casting
spells prohibitively expensive, causing prices to rise with difficulty.
The hidden assumption that most people simply cannot be taught to use magic,
and most others don't get a chance to learn, also keeps prices high. But
if one assumes a rich and powerful magicians guild, one can see a process
like the following: 1) guild offers services at high prices, with the guild
getting a lot of money in the process; 2) guild gets more business than it
can handle; 3) guild actively recruits apprentices; 4) number of magicians
increase; 5) reduction in prices leads to higher volume, and increased
revenue; go to 2. Eventually, prices will stabilize, either when more
apprentices cannot be found, or the market is saturated.
The social implications are outright staggering. In any society wherein
any person can become rich and powerful if only they can learn magic, rigid
castes can continue to exist only if one of the following conditions are met:
1) Few people can actually learn magic, given the chance;
2) Few people are given the chance to learn magic;
3) The guilds have a sort of caste system themselves, which cuts down on the
possible social progress that a magician can achieve;
4) Entering the guild cuts a person off from their old station in life,
so that entering a guild is a drastic move only taken by the desperate
or alienated.
1 is assumed in most games; 2 allows for "entry fees", tuition, taxes for
working for a guild, and other dirty tricks; 3 is interesting because it
would explain why there are all these weak, rebellious magicians running
around (they couldn't take the discipline); 4 seems natural in any event.
But even if a caste system is in place, the society will be a far cry
from the Earth-historical dark ages. Magic in large quantities would
produce a very different society; it would even allow for the maintenance
of a totalitarian state in a medieval technology, using magicians instead of
soldiers to prop up the government.
This is too long already, so I'm quitting.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Reason is Peace;
Fanaticism is Slavery;
Tolerance is Strength.ccastkw@gitpyr.UUCP (KENNETH E. WALKER) (03/17/86)
In article <9865@ucla-cs.ARPA> mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP writes: > The social implications are outright staggering. In any society wherein >any person can become rich and powerful if only they can learn magic, rigid >castes can continue to exist only if one of the following conditions are met: >1) Few people can actually learn magic, given the chance; >2) Few people are given the chance to learn magic; >3) The guilds have a sort of caste system themselves, which cuts down on the > possible social progress that a magician can achieve; >4) Entering the guild cuts a person off from their old station in life, > so that entering a guild is a drastic move only taken by the desperate > or alienated. >1 is assumed in most games; 2 allows for "entry fees", tuition, taxes for >working for a guild, and other dirty tricks; 3 is interesting because it >would explain why there are all these weak, rebellious magicians running >around (they couldn't take the discipline); 4 seems natural in any event. I would suggest you read Barbra Hambley's (i think) Darwath Trilogy (it begins with "The Time of the Dark"). Although the situation in that case is a little different from the Classic FRP one, the class implications of magic are well thought out. Consider a world where magic is well-known (it exists, specifics of how/why whatever are not). There is also a church that is well respected by the people, that considers magicians a competitor, and agents of the devil. For this reason, they are all excomunicant, and trafficing with them is dangerous to one's soul. So the mage-born have no loyalty to any government on the world, only to each other (this is because no one wants to deal with them, and if they were to step out of line, the entire population would rise up and toast-em). There's a lot more.... the books are well done, and I'd recomend them to anyone anyway... -- KENNETH E. WALKER Office of Computing Services Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccastkw
corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) (03/18/86)
*** EAT HOT ELECTRONS LINE EATER SCUM *** Consider a world where magic and technology both exist. Magic may not always be easier to perform than technology. For example, assume that some of the basic principals of physics apply, such as conservation of matter and energy. Under that assumption, while one spell can theoreticaly trash an entire castle, including defending army (or optionaly, just the defending army), the energy required to do so may be prohibitivly expensive. (See River of the Dancing Gods, et al) Alternativly, consider that the people who are both willing and able to learn magic is very small. Most reasonable explanations assume that magic is not unlike high-level mathamatics, or computer science. (see the Lord D'Arcy and Myth-adventures series') If this is true, The number of people who could learn magic is limited (when was the last time that you tried to teach an end user about computers), As is the number of people willing to study that long. Also consider that there may be Social prejudices against the practice of magic, like there are here. -corwin ucbvax!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!corwin
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Mr. Berry) (03/18/86)
Might I make a recommendation for "your reading pleasure" as well? The book "Master of the Five Magics", by Lyndon Hardy, has an excellent and well thought out theory of magic, in addition to a believable social structure built around its existence. (The sequel is also quite good, though it centers more on the theory of (meta) magic, and less on the social implications.) ========================================= "Even though he's COMOTOSE, he must have activated his ability to project a mucous extradimensional substance into this reality." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
anich@puff.UUCP (Steve Anich) (03/20/86)
In article <168@hope.UUCP>, corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) writes: > Consider a world where magic and technology both exist. Read _Riding a Pale Horse_ by Pieres Anthony for a world were magic and science coexist. On this earth, Issac Newton's work in alchemy an interest in the occult allowed him to also produce the laws of magic (to go with those of gravitation). steve anich
robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (03/20/86)
The biggest problem with D&D-style magic is that Clerics are as
common as dirt. You don't need much in the way of stats to become a
Cleric, and you certainly don't need much in the way of
faith---most PC clerics don't have much!
If the average person can become a Cleric (and he can), and being a
Cleric looks like a good deal (and it is), you'd expect a society of
Clerics! I don't find the idea very appealing.
Now, assuming for the moment that you want to use D&D rules in a
fantasy campaign that is more or less medieval, you need to do
something to keep the number of spell-casters to a workable number. A
simple guideline would be:
INT or WIS MAX LEVEL
15 1
16 3
17 6
18/01-18/50 9
18/51-18/75 12
18/76-18/00 unlimited
This allows only 9% of the population to be spell-casters, half of
them limited to first level. Only 0.11% of the population even has
the POTENTIAL to go beyond 12th level. This would tone down the
magic level quite a bit, but still leave lots of low-level
spell-casters in the game.
If you don't put some kind of limits on spell-casters, things get
wierd fast. Castles simply aren't suitable for defense against
airborne attack, teleportation, large monsters, etc., so they
wouldn't logically be part of the landscape. Men-at-arms aren't
enough to guard towns, so SWAT teams of mages (or something even
stranger) would be necessary. Armored knights would (by and large) be
dogmeat when they encountered their first medium-level mage, so
armored chivalry as the dominant force is highly unlikely.
My own campaign is a medieval campaign with custom rules, which (like
PENDRAGON from Chaosium) has no PC spellcasters, and few NPC
spellcasters. There IS magic, and it IS powerful, but very few people
have the ability to use it. You have to be in the 99.5th percentile
just to have measurable aptitude, but only with 99.99 is the ability
very powerful.
--
Robert Plamondon
UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert
FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon
"How about a little fire, Scarecrow?"laneg@ulowell.UUCP (Dromio) (03/24/86)
In article <1559@gitpyr.UUCP> ccastkw@gitpyr.UUCP (KENNETH E. WALKER) writes: > >I would suggest you read Barbra Hambley's (i think) Darwath Trilogy (it >begins with "The Time of the Dark"). Although the situation in that case is >a little different from the Classic FRP one, the class implications of magic >are well thought out. > > Or, for those lesser minds who prefer science fiction, there's 'Magic, Inc.', a novelette by Robert Heinlein, which deals with a contemporary society (actually, around early 1950, but that was contemporary when the story was written) in which magic is an industry on roughly equal footing with other industries. The hero of happens to be a building contractor specializing in magical construction and subcontracting, who has a curse put on him by the Mob for not paying protection-well, I won't give out the good parts, but-- a lesser Power of Darkness
showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) (03/24/86)
In article <386@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: > >The biggest problem with D&D-style magic is that Clerics are as >common as dirt. You don't need much in the way of stats to become a >Cleric, and you certainly don't need much in the way of >faith---most PC clerics don't have much! > >If the average person can become a Cleric (and he can), and being a >Cleric looks like a good deal (and it is), you'd expect a society of >Clerics! I don't find the idea very appealing. Well, the average person can become a cleric, if he's willing to invest the time, money, effort, and risk in training. Being a cleric looks like a good deal until you realise that a cleric is described as a servant and emissary (read 'pawn') of his/her deity(ies). For these reasons there probably won't be too many people who want to be clerics. And if there are too many who want to be clerics, the gods and their temples will start to be more selective about whom they accept as trainees. If you think of the world as a market economy, the producers of clerics (the gods and high-level clerics who train them) will attempt not to flood the market. There will not be more clerics in a society than that society could reasonably support. >If you don't put some kind of limits on spell-casters, things get >wierd fast. Castles simply aren't suitable for defense against >airborne attack, teleportation, large monsters, etc., so they >wouldn't logically be part of the landscape. Agreed, to a certain extent. Remember that the builders of the castle will have just as much access to magic as the attackers. In the official D&D/AD&D rules, there aren't a lot of large-scale defensive spells, but there are: wall of force, anti-magic shell, protection from evil/good, globe of invulnerability, as well as lots of magic items which could be used, like the magic of a ring of spell turning or certain ioun stones. > Men-at-arms aren't >enough to guard towns, so SWAT teams of mages (or something even >stranger) would be necessary. Agreed, again. But what's wrong with that? If there is magic available, why wouldn't cities and armies use it to their advantage? While we're on the subject, why should city watchmen always be untrained rabble? Sure, they were in the real world, but this isn't the real world we're talking about. A city's militia should have trained military (read 'high-level fighters') in command of it, or the city won't last long. > Armored knights would (by and large) be >dogmeat when they encountered their first medium-level mage, so >armored chivalry as the dominant force is highly unlikely. No they wouldn't. The armored knight is in all probability a medium-level fighter or cavalier. His retainers might be in trouble, but I'll play a 7th level fighter against a 7th level MU (or the other way around) and give you even odds any day of the week. > >My own campaign is a medieval campaign with custom rules, which (like >PENDRAGON from Chaosium) has no PC spellcasters, and few NPC >spellcasters. There IS magic, and it IS powerful, but very few people >have the ability to use it. You have to be in the 99.5th percentile >just to have measurable aptitude, but only with 99.99 is the ability >very powerful. That sounds interesting, and plausible. But how do the players feel about being unable to use magic? Let's face it, being able to decimate those pur- suing orcs with a fireball is fun! "On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It's a silly place" -- Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!showard or {boulder, cires, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!showard
dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) (03/25/86)
Ih his article, Eric McColm points out that the social and societal-evolutionary implications of magic are staggering. He goes on to point out that techonology probably wouldn't evolve. Here's something I've been dying to do in a campaign, I just haven't found the players that could handle it. It's a neet thing to think about: Current (1980's) society, based on magic instead of techonolgy. I would like other people's opinions on what the world would be like... Please post (or mail and I will summarize). I would like to get a table of differances between the two cultures. If it really gets interseting and complete, I may publish (giving full credit where due). I await your replies. Thanx. Gryphon
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (03/25/86)
[...] For a relatively contemporary world that has both science and magic, see "Operation: Chaos" by Poul Anderson. Examples: the narrator is a werewolf who was in the lycanthrope corps in World War II. The group carried photoflash lights around their necks that gave off exactly the same colour and intensity of light as the full moon, so they could make the change any time they wanted. His beloved was in the witch corps. Other tidbits: university professors are put under a geas not to get romantically inclined with students. Hell is built with non-Euclidean geometry, and the heroes summon the ghost of Lobachevski to show them around... Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/26/86)
> For a relatively contemporary world that has both science and magic, > see "Operation: Chaos" by Poul Anderson... Randall Garrett's "Lord Darcy" books are also relevant: they are mysteries set in a magic-based 1960. There is one novel, "Too Many Magicians" (murder by black magic at a magicians' convention), and two or three collections of short stories. Good stuff. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (03/27/86)
In article <722@puff.UUCP> anich@puff.UUCP (Steve Anich) writes: >In article <168@hope.UUCP>, corwin@hope.UUCP (John Kempf) writes: >> Consider a world where magic and technology both exist. > > Read _Riding a Pale Horse_ by Pieres Anthony for a world > were magic and science coexist. On this earth, Issac > Newton's work in alchemy an interest in the occult allowed > him to also produce the laws of magic (to go with those > of gravitation). > > steve anich > Also try "Operation: Chaos" by Poul Anderson about a world where science discovered how to degauss "cold iron" and thereby allowed magic and science to co-exist. "The Goblin Reservation" by Clifford D. Simak and the novellette by Robert A. Heinlein called "Magic, Inc." and usually found bound with the novelette "Waldo", as "Waldo and Magic, Inc." are also both excellent stories on this theme. -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes." ---"Never appeal to a man's "better nature". He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."
berry@tolerant.UUCP (David W. Berry) (03/28/86)
In article <386@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: > Armored knights would (by and large) be >dogmeat when they encountered their first medium-level mage, so >armored chivalry as the dominant force is highly unlikely. This by and large depends on who sees whom first. Ever try to get a spell off when 3 burly dudes are pounding on your poor robe clad body. Makes concentration very difficult. The mage had better take the knight out on the first try, he may very well not get a second chance. >My own campaign is a medieval campaign with custom rules, which (like >PENDRAGON from Chaosium) has no PC spellcasters, and few NPC >spellcasters. There IS magic, and it IS powerful, but very few people >have the ability to use it. You have to be in the 99.5th percentile >just to have measurable aptitude, but only with 99.99 is the ability >very powerful. But the reason I play fantasy games is to escape from the boring realities of this world. I want to do something different. Thus I want to become a beautiful hobbit cleric, or perhaps an unwise mage. Why should I have to settle for reality? Sure it's unrealistic, that's why I like it! -- David W. Berry dwb@well.UUCP Delphi: dwb {ucbvax,pyramid,idsvax,bene,oliveb}!tolerant!berry I'm only here for the beer.
rcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Random) (03/28/86)
In regards to the magic being used in battle, city siege, etc. I would think that both magic and muscle would be used. I was recently playing in a campaign where the city I lived in (Irongate) was attacked by a well organized humanoid army. The party of about 12 characters levels 4..6 broke up into about 4 or 5 groups to play this. Some of the fighter types went on attack missions. Either defending the city directly or on a special mission, like to destroy a column of catapults known to be moving toward the city. (no trees in area, they had to be built elsewhere) My task as a 4th level mu with help from a 5th level paladin was to locate and exterminate a group of doppelgangers that had infiltrated the city and were getting into positions of power. In general I think that magic would not affect a battle too much as both sides will have the magic users and they will be concentrating on each other while the fighters go out there and bash. In modern terms, I think the best analog to magic in a battle is long range artillary and aid in some covert operations and intelligence gathering. -- Random (Randy Buckland) Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (03/29/86)
> >[me] > >If the average person can become a Cleric (and he can), and being a > >Cleric looks like a good deal (and it is), you'd expect a society of > >Clerics! I don't find the idea very appealing. In article <1249@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: > Well, the average person can become a cleric, if he's willing to invest > the time, money, effort, and risk in training. Being a cleric looks like > a good deal until you realise that a cleric is described as a servant and > emissary (read 'pawn') of his/her deity(ies). In a medieval society (which the D&D universe claims to be), most people are peasants, living a precarious, impoverished, powerless existence. Being a D&D Cleric would be preferable, no? > And if there are too many who want to be clerics, the gods and their > temples will start to be more selective about whom they accept as trainees. > If you think of the world as a market economy, the producers of clerics (the > gods and high-level clerics who train them) will attempt not to flood the > market. There will not be more clerics in a society than that society could > reasonably support. All of which is distinctly different from medieval society and the way things are presented in D&D. My point is: D&D's rules and the D&D universe don't go together. > Remember that the builders of the castle > will have just as much access to magic as the attackers. In the official > D&D/AD&D rules, there aren't a lot of large-scale defensive spells, but there > are: wall of force, anti-magic shell, protection from evil/good, globe of > invulnerability, as well as lots of magic items which could be used, like > the magic of a ring of spell turning or certain ioun stones. But the fact remains that a society with widely available magic would never develop the elaborate castles of medieval Europe: the things you are defending against are entirely different. In spite of this, D&D is presented with medieval-style walled cities and castles, as if they were useful against the real threats. > > Men-at-arms aren't > >enough to guard towns, so SWAT teams of mages (or something even > >stranger) would be necessary. > > Agreed, again. But what's wrong with that? If there is magic available, > why wouldn't cities and armies use it to their advantage? While we're on > the subject, why should city watchmen always be untrained rabble? Sure, they > were in the real world, but this isn't the real world we're talking about. > A city's militia should have trained military (read 'high-level fighters') > in command of it, or the city won't last long. Militia *ISN'T* always untrained rabble; but that's not the point. The point is that city guards as they existed in the middle ages or as they are described in D&D are inappropriate to a world with D&D magic and characters in it. > > Armored knights would (by and large) be > >dogmeat when they encountered their first medium-level mage, so > >armored chivalry as the dominant force is highly unlikely. > No they wouldn't. The armored knight is in all probability a medium-level > fighter or cavalier. His retainers might be in trouble, but I'll play a 7th > level fighter against a 7th level MU (or the other way around) and give you > even odds any day of the week. You'd lose your money. The imporant thing about armored chivalry is that they have no missile weapons, and the imporant thing about medium-level mages is that they have long-range high-damage spells. If the fighter lived long enough to get close, the mage could simply ride away on his less encumbered, faster horse. In any event, the point is that armored chivalry was dominant because they were virtually unbeatable by the arms of the day. With a high level of magic, this is patently not true. If the reasons for armored knights dominating society don't exist, they probably won't dominate the society. Ancient Rome, for example, was dominated by unarmed, unarmored civilians. > >My own campaign is a medieval campaign with custom rules, which (like > >PENDRAGON from Chaosium) has no PC spellcasters, and few NPC > >spellcasters. > That sounds interesting, and plausible. But how do the players feel about > being unable to use magic? Let's face it, being able to decimate those pur- > suing orcs with a fireball is fun! It's even more fun to decimate them with sword and lance! -- Robert Plamondon UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert FidoNet: 143/12 robert plamondon "How about a little fire, Scarecrow?"
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (04/01/86)
>In article <386@weitek.UUCP> robert@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) writes: >> ... There IS magic, and it IS powerful, but very few people >>have the ability to use it. You have to be in the 99.5th percentile >>just to have measurable aptitude, but only with 99.99 is the ability >>very powerful. In article <1249@udenva.UUCP> showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes: > That sounds interesting, and plausible. But how do the players feel about >being unable to use magic? Let's face it, being able to decimate those pur- >suing orcs with a fireball is fun! But you could still role-play that .5% of the population if you wanted. Assuming 8 people to a party in its lifetime, only about 4% of all parties would contain any mages at all over their lifetime, and only about .07% would contain more than one. For the sake of the play, you could assume that you were playing the *interesting* 4% of parties, and allow one "free" mage per party lifetime. But if a mage entered the party at any point and were killed, you would have to roll to see if another interested mage were around to join -- 02 or less on percentile dice would be being generous. One consequence of this would be that mages would be well protected and respected in the party, and might only join if there were a good deal of benefit in it for them. Depending on the dungeon setup, the mage might be able to stay in town most of the time, being brought in only for tough jobs. I think this would be closer to the legendary concept of magic than these parties where first-level mages are as common as rats and just about as expendable. --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "It's just a rumour that was spread around town"