Yrth's history and MAGIC - does it make sense

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by PhoenixPaw

Are you still finding the Megalan army, without the comforts it's always enjoyed, being able to reconquer a far off province that's employ guerilla tactics?

There's another consideration. The Megalan officer class are going to have magic items. Even though they aren't mass produced, they are treasures handed down through the generations so there are actually quite a lot of magic swords and amulets out there., almost none of which will work in Caithness.

[tantric]

My problem with Yrth was always this:

Magic is synonymous with religion. I just can't envision a human culture with secular magic and non-magical priests. It's silly. Does 4e Banestorm deal with this? Exclusive monotheism is also wildly incompatible with actually priestly magic.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by tantric

My problem with Yrth was always this:

Magic is synonymous with religion. I just can't envision a human culture with secular magic and non-magical priests. It's silly. Does 4e Banestorm deal with this? Exclusive monotheism is also wildly incompatible with actually priestly magic.

Some priests are magic users. The Jesuits in particular are renowned for having a high percentage of their priests be magic users, IIRC.

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by tantric

Magic is synonymous with religion. I just can't envision a human culture with secular magic and non-magical priests. It's silly.

Why?

Many fantasy settings have magic and priests. Most quasi-european, pseudo-historical settings do (A song of Ice and Fire, Ars Magica...)

"Arthurian" settings typically include both magic and non-magical (Christian) priests.

In Lord of The Rings religion doesn't exist but this isn't the only valid approach... generally speaking if you want to have an institution similar to the Church in the middle ages (which is very typical of that time period and of fantasy settings based on it), you'll need to have priests, who may be magical or not, and wizards.

[hal]

Originally Posted by trooper6

Wow...that is pretty judgemental...and as a simulationist I think that you are not only unfairly harsh on the other types, but you also artificially narrow simulationism.

Mostly not cool is your making simulationism about realism and non-simulation about non-realism.

To equate non-simulationism with hack'n'slash, over the top and no history is pretty unfair and inaccurate. I know lots of method actors or narrativists who are very invested in gritty, history filled, cerebral games with no combat and lots of angst. And I know hack'n'slashers who like to hack'n'slash in realistic worlds.

Similarly, one can be simulationist in a completely unrealistic world.

As a simulationist GM, I have no problem running simulationist games in Banestorm...or the space opera-y Traveller...or any number of fantastical settings. Somethings work in some ways in some worlds...then where you go from there is the simulationism at work.

Laddie,

;)

Don't be putting words in my mouth - I didn't say ALL non-simulationists. That you're touchy on the topic says more about your own sensitivities than anything else. The truth is, everyone is entitled to enjoy their own "brand" of role playing without having to worry that some snob out there deems them unworthy of respect. Trust me - I respect that right for everyone. So relax, and enjoy the discussion on its own merits - a discussion of where the holes are, and perhaps on how to fix them.

Ultimately? If the only people who care about the details can work the details out - those who don't care about the details won't even notice ;) Win win for everyone.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by hal

Laddie,

;)

Don't be putting words in my mouth - I didn't say ALL non-simulationists. That you're touchy on the topic says more about your own sensitivities than anything else. The truth is, everyone is entitled to enjoy their own "brand" of role playing without having to worry that some snob out there deems them unworthy of respect. Trust me - I respect that right for everyone. So relax, and enjoy the discussion on its own merits - a discussion of where the holes are, and perhaps on how to fix them.

Ultimately? If the only people who care about the details can work the details out - those who don't care about the details won't even notice ;) Win win for everyone.

To be honest, I took it the same way he did. You may need to re-evaluate whether what you said could have been offensive.

[StevenH]

Originally Posted by Lupo

Why?

Many fantasy settings have magic and priests. Most quasi-european, pseudo-historical settings do (A song of Ice and Fire, Ars Magica...)

"Arthurian" settings typically include both magic and non-magical (Christian) priests.

In Lord of The Rings religion doesn't exist but this isn't the only valid approach... generally speaking if you want to have an institution similar to the Church in the middle ages (which is very typical of that time period and of fantasy settings based on it), you'll need to have priests, who may be magical or not, and wizards.

I think that what tantric is saying is that it is silly for there to be non-magical priests in a magical world. If magic exists, all of the priests will come from the mageborn. That doesn't mean that there won't be some secular mageborn, or even atheist mageborn (unless the gods demonstrably exist, in which case atheism is as nontenable as disbelieving in rocks.) But the religions will use the magic as one more reason for them to have the ear of god (and they will probably spin it as a "god-given gift", or "divine favor" or some such).

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think I agree with the concept. What would be the motivation for the nonmageborn to become priests, especially if there were priests already that had magic powers? How could they compete with that? I would think that the Establishment would discourage (actively or passively*) them from entering the priesthood.



*Actively by enacting rules/laws saying "No non mages allowed"; or passively by allowing them in but limiting the rank, pay, favors, size of parish, etc.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

To be honest, I took it the same way he did. You may need to re-evaluate whether what you said could have been offensive.

An observation on politically correct behavior:

Not too long ago, a certain public official lost his job after giving a public speech. His crime? He used, correctly as it turned out, the word Niggardly. Such a word has a definite meaning regards to money, and has nothing even remotely to do, with racial slurs. However. That man lost his job because of those amongst his audience, who perceived insult where none was offered. They successfully demanded his head at the altar of political correctness. My question is - to what end?

Trooper6 let his perceptions be known, to which I responded as kindly as I could while still getting across the concept that insult was taken where none was offered. That I had to say "Don't be putting words in my mouth - I didn't say ALL non-simulationists." should have laid the issue to rest not only with Trooper6, but with anyone else who may have taken insult where none was offered. Those who feel the need to continue this, are of course, invited to do so privately.

[StevenH]

Considering that there are hundreds of spells in the Magic book, there are dang few that are actually decent on the battlefield in the front rank. They are all too expensive, with the possible exceptions of the Create Fire/Shape Fire tactic, Summon Animal (Horses)...preferably cast while they are in the middle of a charge; Stench; and maybe a few others I can't remember right now.

I agree with those who said that putting the mages anywhere NEAR the front line is foolish. Magic is better for logistics, supply, communication, espionage, and medicine. And perhaps siegeworks and construction, if they have the time. Screw hurling fireballs. Nope. Have the mages spend their time making magic Cook Pots, Umbrella cloaks, Cleansing cloths and other cheap magic items that make a soldier's life less miserable, and healing the soldiers when they get wounded. Keep them in the general's tent where they can have Wizard Eye fly around getting recon data.

All that said, I can't believe a decent, well-trained army would be consistently stopped by having their magic stop functioning. The Roman army NEVER had any magic work very well, and they did all right, as did every other army in history. Even if they got used to having magic, I doubt it would stop them for long.

Yes, their morale would suffer a bit. Perhaps even a lot. But not forever. After being beaten up a couple of times, anger and pride will let them get past not having ready access to healing magic, dry shoes, and decent rations.

If Megalos really wanted Caithness, they would train an army to NOT be dependent on magic, and send them in. Or, if the Emperor is feeling stingy (and patient), just send in some operatives/assassins and destabilize the country, armed with a couple of enchantments at level 20 so they will still work. Eventually Caithness will run out of competent nobility. If I remember correctly, there are only a handful of Barons, and Caithness's nobility structure is rather abridged.

[hal]

Originally Posted by Lupo

By that reasoning, if in all Megalos there were 1600 Professional Swordsmen with Broadsword-17, only 16 could serve in the army? I bet many of them would be soldiers.
1% of the peasants are in the military, but if the Megalan army is supposed to be "magical", then Megalan officers aggressively find and recruit potential mages.
I'd say that up to 20% of Megalan professional mages could reasonably be employed in the army, with plenty of other, "civilian" mages. Or may be most of the mages serve in and are trained by the army.
I'd say the limit is not how many mages are available, but how much soldiers Megalos can afford, and how much "militaristic" you want wizards to feel in your campaign.

Actually, your analogy doesn't quite hold water. 1,600 swordsmen are by definition, specialists in the art of war. Clearly, all of them would rather be employed for their specialty than be unemployed, or employed in a lesser capacity outside of their specialty.

What is lacking here is the big picture of what makes a society tick. During medieval times - which by definition, is what TL3 denotes, the ratio of food producers to non-food producers was 9:1. It took 90% of the population to engage in industry not only geared towards growing the food, but also in processing it, transporting it, storing it, and ultimately, distributing it throughout to the land's people. The remaining 10% of the population not engaged in food production, are engaged in specialist work such as soldiers, plumbers, administrators (Lords and nobility), merchanting, craftsmenship, etc. When you take 1% of the kingdom's population and make them soldiers (magical or otherwise), that leaves you with 9% of the overall population that you can dedicate towards civilized craftsmanship, services, etc. Since the nobility are a fixed percentage of the general population who take a dim view towards being reduced in numbers, taking 1 % out of the population has to come from either the non-noble non-agrarian producing population, or it has to come from the food producers themselves. For every person you take off line from food production, some one else is losing roughly 11% (1/9th) of the food they need that they would have gotten from that food producer you took off line.

Doubling the food yield in a medieval environment does not come without a price. Harvesting the food takes twice as much labor (assuming twice the yield). It requires twice as much transport capacity (meaning more carts and cart drivers). It requires twice the graineries. If you are supporting twice the population with that food, that means that you will need to have twice the specialists who produce and distribute processed foods (bakers, inns, taverns who turn barley into ale, etc). So, yes, you can make the claim that the use of magic can increase the food yields. No you may not state (without thinking of how it may be possible) that magic will also reduce the labor involved to process the food produced.

In any event, lets look at what the ramifications are of using 20% of the mageborn in the military. As a psuedo-feudalistic society, we have the issue of what the social status values are for those mageborn. If 3 out of 4 people in medieval Megalos (to follow that of historical England for example) are serf born, then 75% of your mageborn force will be of social status "serf". What "society mechanisms" will evolve regarding the mageborn? Does being born a son of a serf, but with Magery mean that the individual is automatically (by Emperor's decree) freed of all serf obligations? Given human nature, might not most lords make it a point to demand compensation for the loss of their rightful labor owed by the serf? Does the Emperor have some sort of law or decree stating that "runaway serfs who join the Legions become free after 20 years service"? (works for me by the way!)

Each thing that you as a GM decides, will have ramifications further down the line. Even if you as a GM do not see those ramifications, there may come a time when having run your game world with the 20% figure, someone in your gaming group is going to figure out the issues and raise them to you. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've had a player realize the significance of certain things in my game world, only to show me how I could have perhaps changed it to avoid the pitfall that presented itself.

As for myself? I've played with miniatures to see what happens when a mage wants to be a battlemage and takes on the task of fighting in the battle lines. I've also tried to counter some of the behaviors of mages, and have even figured out how mages can counter the issue of fatigue depletion (a solution that is not unique to my gaming style - as I'm sure other GM's have used it as well).

While no longer true in GURPS MAGIC for 4e, it used to be that if a person drank healing potions while being unwounded, the healing energies of the potion would remove 2d6 points of fatigue. For spells that deplete a mage of his energy, the use of healing potions makes him all the more effective in battle to a limited degree.

The number one BIGGIE that I've been able to find as a GM when it comes to magic and melee combat is this:

Healing spells and healing potions make for a bigger deal than at first realized.

Imagine if you will, having two opposing units facing each other in combat - both with 160 men to their unit (A civil war between romans for example). The front two ranks have engaged the enemy's line, and the remaining 6 lines are waiting their turn to be fed into the meat grinder. At 10 men per rank, with a file of 8 men - that means that the front two ranks can have up to six fresh replacements per file during combat before they start recycling wounded men or tired men. Now, what if the last row were to contain men whose job it was to carry 4 healing potions apiece. By the time they get to the front (ie 7 others have retired to the back ranks) rank, four others will have drunk the healing potions, granting them longer duration at the front. Would this not have the same potential effect as increasing the file depth by four additional men?

In theory, yes. In reality, no. The average number of hit points healed by a healing potion is 3.5 points. There will be times when it only heals 1 point - not hardly worth considering. In addition, nothing ever goes according to plan (a murphyism that everyone should remember). Those four potions may be broken by the time they can be used (rendered useless), or those four potions may be poison (A crit failed alchemy roll?), or it may even happen that a stray spear flung at the warriors might hit one of those in the back with the four potions.

There are more things to consider, but I figure I'll stop here as I am rambling :)