unstoppable magic and cites
Mr. M.J. Lush
castles are unable to withstand magic attack to its
limit.
If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification
can withstand magical attack, that the only means of defence
is a good offence (ie meet the attacking army in the field)
and finally its troubled times as normal.
Would cites or even towns be possible?
My reasoning is that fortifications provide a force
multiplier allowing a small garrison to defend against a
much larger attacking force. Without the home turf advantage
a city would have to maintain a standing army large enough to
provide a deterrent and I would suspect this would be very expensive
(relative to a small force and wall maintainance). But without
a reasonable level of security I wonder if anyone would put
money into an area which could be easily plundered.
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
Steve Turnbull
'Mr. M.J. Lush' emerged to utter the unforgettable lines...
> As an experiment I'm going to try and take the castles are unable to
> withstand magic attack to its limit.
>
> If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification can withstand magical
> attack, that the only means of defence is a good offence (ie meet the
> attacking army in the field) and finally its troubled times as normal.
>
> Would cities or even towns be possible?
1) How common is this irresistable magic?
2) What about magic counter-measures?
3) Just because the magic to take down a town's protection exists does not
mean towns will not exist. There are other reasons, like trade. *Unless* you
are also suggesting a state of constant offense between forces in which any
force would automatically and immediately attack and wipe out any
accumulation of people.
The only logical result of what I think you're suggesting is a total anarchy
with relatively small mobile groups (attending the source of the destructive
magic) wandering around stealing from any farmer stupid enough to live in the
area.
With no protection you'd get a rapid diaspora of unpowered peoples being
chased by the ones with power in an effort to maintain their own lifestyle.
Nobody can settle down because as soon as they do someone comes along and
blows them up.
I have trouble conceiving such a thing because I just don't see how it could
work for any long period of time.
--
______________________________________________________________________
| |
| Steve Turnbull, Publisher publ...@visions-mag.com |
| |
| Visions Role-Playing Games Web-Mag http://www.visions-mag.com |
| Published by Tau Press http://www.tau-press.com |
| |
| Tau Press, Media House, Adlington Park, Macclesfield, SK10 4NP, UK |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Timothy J. Miller
> As an experiment I'm going to try and take the
> castles are unable to withstand magic attack to its
> limit.
>
> If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification
> can withstand magical attack, that the only means of defence
> is a good offence (ie meet the attacking army in the field)
> and finally its troubled times as normal.
>
> Would cites or even towns be possible?
Yes.
Under your asumptions, with the added caveat that such siege
magic is easily enough fielded to be useful in any arbitrary siege,
you would likely see the rapid rise of the nation-state, almost
completely skipping the historical period of city-states.
Mr. M.J. Lush
Steve Turnbull <publ...@visions-mag.com> wrote:
>After hacking through the undergrowth
> 'Mr. M.J. Lush' emerged to utter the unforgettable lines...
>
>> withstand magic attack to its limit.
argument
>> If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification can withstand magical
>> attack, that the only means of defence is a good offence (ie meet the
>> attacking army in the field) and finally its troubled times as normal.
>>
Just to clarify for a moment, It is sometimes contended (FX in the
Magic and tactics thread) that castles won't exist because they are
too easy to destroy by a magic using attacker. What I'm trying to do
is extend that premise to its (pseudo)logical conclusion. If castle
defences don't work then, any similar fortification won't work so cites
can't rely on a city wall for defence.
The question I'm trying to address is AD&D has lots of wall
killer spells and myriad methods of getting an army in to any defence
(fly tunnel etc etc) if this is true and taking a city is a relatively
trivial act, would cites exist in a recognisable form?
If the answer to the above question is no, then if there are
conventional cites in the game background some means to defend them
exists and by extension some means must exist to defend castles.
>1) How common is this irresistable magic?
I'm thinking highish magic here just about any invasion
force can get hold of a wall cracker class mage (to a first approximation
thats about 11th level (rock to mud does bad things to walls...)
>2) What about magic counter-measures?
AD&D is pretty short on published counter measures (please don't
prove me wrong on this I know its a very broad generalisation but
as an example..... ) Rock to mud is a nasty spell vs walls because
the mud slips before it can be countered with a dispel magic.
>3) Just because the magic to take down a town's protection exists does not
>mean towns will not exist. There are other reasons, like trade.
I think a trade only city may be a rather different animal
if people don't safe in investing their money in it
> *Unless* you
>are also suggesting a state of constant offense between forces in which any
>force would automatically and immediately attack and wipe out any
>accumulation of people.
I don't think it would need a state of constant offence to
discourage cities, barbarians coming over and looting and burning
it to the ground every 50 -100 years (because thats where the
money is) would put a crimp on a cites style.
If there is a perception that a city is not safe I think people
would be less keen the money into building in it and more keen to
keep their riches mobile.
>The only logical result of what I think you're suggesting is a total anarchy
>with relatively small mobile groups (attending the source of the destructive
>magic) wandering around stealing from any farmer stupid enough to live in the
>area.
I would stop short of that society could form into a semi-nomadic
existence with the clans gathering together to meet any external attacker
>With no protection you'd get a rapid diaspora of unpowered peoples being
>chased by the ones with power in an effort to maintain their own lifestyle.
>Nobody can settle down because as soon as they do someone comes along and
>blows them up.
>
>I have trouble conceiving such a thing because I just don't see how it could
>work for any long period of time.
I'd agree which is why I tend to think you can build a
castle which can withstand magical assault (if not all the time)
since the alternative is just too much of a headache to conceive of ;-)
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
> As an experiment I'm going to try and take the
>castles are unable to withstand magic attack to its
>limit.
>
>can withstand magical attack, that the only means of defence
>is a good offence (ie meet the attacking army in the field)
>and finally its troubled times as normal.
>
What happened in the real world once cannons became common was that no
old-fashioned fortress could withstand siege for very long - no wall
could stand up to a long-term battery of cannon balls. What happened
was that defense became more a question of counterattack than of
waiting out a siege. City walls gradually disappeared, and defense
works became more in the nature of earthen ramparts than stone walls.
I think something similar would happen in a fantasy world which had
common anti-wall magic: Defense would to a large degree be about
knocking out the enemy magicians, by magic or mundane means, before
they knock down your walls. You would probably still see walls thick
enough to hold off common soldiers and protect from mundane missile
attacks, even if just as a delaying measure (it will still take time
for magicians to bring down the walls).
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
klau...@get2net.dk
http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius
The Moving Finger writes, and having writ, Moves on
John R. Snead
: ml...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr. M.J. Lush) writes:
:> As an experiment I'm going to try and take the
:> castles are unable to withstand magic attack to its
:> limit.
:>
:> If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification
:> can withstand magical attack, that the only means of defence
:> is a good offence (ie meet the attacking army in the field)
:> and finally its troubled times as normal.
:>
:> Would cites or even towns be possible?
: Yes.
: Under your assumptions, with the added caveat that such siege
: magic is easily enough fielded to be useful in any arbitrary siege,
: you would likely see the rapid rise of the nation-state, almost
: completely skipping the historical period of city-states.
That's definitely one likely option. It is worth noting that even in
pre-modern times there were a number of cultures whose cities did not have
walls. The Minoans had the best navy in the region, so the cities in
Crete and Thera didn't need walls. Egypt had a unified state from *way*
back and few avenues for barbarians to invade, so they didn't have walled
cities. None of the cities built by the Aztecs or Mayas had walls, and the
same was true for numerous periods of Chinese civilization.
Medieval Europe was a mess of tiny warring states. That's the sort of
situation where walled cities are necessary. Change the politics and
walled cities no longer make sense regardless of the military magic or
technology in use. Given the power of much fantasy game magic tiny
warring city states would likely exterminate each other in a century or so.
Therefore, assume that the presence of powerful magic changes the
political dynamic. Medium to large empires, likely rules by priest or mage
queens or kings makes excellent sense in such a world. Such empires
would meet only on their borders, and cities which were some distance
from these borders would rarely be attacked. If a city was attacked, then
the empire's army (which is much larger than a single city could support)
would come to its defense).
Using the rules found in most fantasy games, a setting which in any
way resembled the politics and society of medieval europe would be almost
impossible to maintain. If you *really* want such an environment, then
the only way I can see it coming about is after the collapse of a large
empire. However, unlike our middle ages, such a situation would not last
for 100 years after this collapse. I'd give it more like 100 years, and
it would be a very ugly 100 years. Then one or several magician or priest
rulers would either unify the region or split it up between a couple or
large factions.
Think Rome, Persia, or China instead of the European middle ages and I
think things will be much simpler.
Comments?
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
John P. Raynor
: If one takes it as axiomatic that no fortification
: is a good offence (ie meet the attacking army in the field)
: and finally its troubled times as normal.
:
: Would cites or even towns be possible?
Sure.
Our world has irresistable technological methods of destroying
entire cities in minutes, yet the city as an institution shows
no signs of extinction. Granted, living in large, densely packed
groups *does* invite nuclear attack, but there are lots of
practical everyday reasons for ignoring this potential problem,
(particularly in the typical fantasy world, which lacks instant
communication and rapid transportation).
- J. Raynor
Jeremy Reaban
Klaus Ć. Mogensen wrote in message ...
<snip>
>And so on, and so forth. The cities in such a world probably wouldn't
>look a lot like medieval citities. AD&D isn't the only system where
>magic wouldn't have such an effect, just the most obvious.
<snip>
Very few people seem to realize this, though. Including game designers. When
I pointed this same point out several (?) months ago when someone posted an
article about using medieval city demographics in a fantasy game, I got
flamed quite a bit.
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
>
>Using the rules found in most fantasy games, a setting which in any
>way resembled the politics and society of medieval europe would be
almost
>impossible to maintain.
True, and military magic is not what would cause the greatest changes.
Take AD&D's Continual Light spell: A spell that a mediocre mage can
cast several times a day, and provides a _permanent_ light source that
lights an area within 60 yards as bright as daylight. Every city would
hire a mage to cast one on streets every 100 yards. Not to mention
inkeepers who wouldn't have to spend money on lamp oil and candles or
worry about drunken customers setting the place on fire. Sort of
removes some of the mood from the quaint fantasy setting, doesn't it?
Or take Charm Person. An amoral first level mage could go around
seducing innocent maidens or married women with this. If I was a
father or husband in such a place, I wouldn't let anybody looking the
least bit like a mage within mile of my home. This spell will also
make it next to impossible for anybody to stay rich for long, all the
riches will soon be carried off by "nice persons who obviously needed
the money far more than I".
Courts of law would be very fair, since each would obviously hire a
mage to cast ESP on the suspects to see if they are lying. And
diseases would be next to unknown, since anyone suffering from
anything more than a cold would go to a cleric to be healed.
And so on, and so forth. The cities in such a world probably wouldn't
look a lot like medieval citities. AD&D isn't the only system where
magic wouldn't have such an effect, just the most obvious.
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
Aaron Pound
"Klaus Ć. Mogensen" wrote:
> John R. Snead wrote:
> >
> >Using the rules found in most fantasy games, a setting which in any
> >way resembled the politics and society of medieval europe would be
> almost
> >impossible to maintain.
>
> True, and military magic is not what would cause the greatest changes.
[Snip magical innovations that would radically change society]
> And so on, and so forth. The cities in such a world probably wouldn't
> look a lot like medieval citities. AD&D isn't the only system where
> magic wouldn't have such an effect, just the most obvious.
And I've been saying very much the same things for the last few weeks in
the "Magic and Tactics" thread yet I've been accused of being unreasonable
by one poster. As I have said in that context, throw out much of what you
know, magic changes everything if it is present and a logical magic rich
society would be very different from any medieval society that existed in
our non-magic world.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
> Just to clarify for a moment, It is sometimes contended (FX in the
> Magic and tactics thread) that castles won't exist because they are
> too easy to destroy by a magic using attacker. What I'm trying to do
> is extend that premise to its (pseudo)logical conclusion. If castle
> defences don't work then, any similar fortification won't work so cites
> can't rely on a city wall for defence.
It boils down to how powerful and how common magic (and those that cast
it) are in your world. I have one world, Eisla, where magic is VERY VERY
rare....yet quite powerful. The highest level mage known (in about a 1200
mile radius) is "an almost unimaginable level"...he's 7th. Clerics?
Highest level one around the same area...6th.
So...in Eisla, towns, cities, fortresses, etc. are VERY popular. ;-)
In another world I run (Kingdoms of Kalamar), I use the
Skills&Powers&Spells&Magic&Combat&Tactics rules system. I also have
virtually no limits on what a character can/can't choose to be or learn. In
this world, I have a level limit based on three tiers (Common = max 10th
level ; Hero = 20th ; Mortal = 30th). There are quite a few wizards running
around, and a good portion of them could cast 'castle defeating' spells.
However, there are also spells that can "heal" walls and stuff that are
generally lower level (thus, it is easier to repair than destroy...in
general).
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Aaron Pound
Jeremy Reaban wrote:
> Klaus Ć. Mogensen wrote in message ...
> <snip>
> >And so on, and so forth. The cities in such a world probably wouldn't
> >look a lot like medieval citities. AD&D isn't the only system where
> >magic wouldn't have such an effect, just the most obvious.
>
> <snip>
>
> Very few people seem to realize this, though. Including game designers. When
> I pointed this same point out several (?) months ago when someone posted an
> article about using medieval city demographics in a fantasy game, I got
> flamed quite a bit.
Perhaps we should form a support group. Or at the very least try to come up
with a possible world model to present as a logical option.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Mr. M.J. Lush
Aaron Pound <ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Jeremy Reaban wrote:
>> Klaus Ć. Mogensen wrote in message ...
>> <snip>
>> >And so on, and so forth. The cities in such a world probably wouldn't
>> >look a lot like medieval citities. AD&D isn't the only system where
>> >magic wouldn't have such an effect, just the most obvious.
>> Very few people seem to realize this, though. Including game designers. When
>> I pointed this same point out several (?) months ago when someone posted an
>> article about using medieval city demographics in a fantasy game, I got
>> flamed quite a bit.
>
>Perhaps we should form a support group. Or at the very least try to come up
>with a possible world model to present as a logical option.
Hello My name is Michael Lush and.... <sob> I think magic would
massively change a cites structure.
Mailing list anyone? I don't think we should pollute the group
with this sort of filth!
StornC
inkeepers who wouldn't have to spend money on lamp oil and candles or
worry about drunken customers setting the place on fire. Sort of
removes some of the mood from the quaint fantasy setting, doesn't it?<<
Or heightens it. I love thinking how magic can impact the day to day life
of the people living it. To come over the hill and into a town with it all
lit up in the night would be magical, fantastic and definitely not run of the
mill fantasy campaign.
I had a small town with a retired mage who basically turned his barn into a
giant village refrigeration unit (covered with straw) for the town. One of my
players was pissed off because "mages don't act that way, it cheapens magic".
I was the gm, this mage did act that way, and the other players thought it was
(pardon the pun) cool.
--storn
Mr. M.J. Lush
StornC <sto...@aol.com> wrote:
>><>mage to cast one on streets every 100 yards. Not to mention
>inkeepers who wouldn't have to spend money on lamp oil and candles or
>worry about drunken customers setting the place on fire. Sort of
>removes some of the mood from the quaint fantasy setting, doesn't it?<<
>
> Or heightens it. I love thinking how magic can impact the day to day life
>of the people living it. To come over the hill and into a town with it all
>lit up in the night would be magical, fantastic and definitely not run of the
>mill fantasy campaign.
Not if every village was lit up like a Christmas tree :-} Though
I'd agree it doesn't make for a run of the mill game!
> I had a small town with a retired mage who basically turned his barn into a
>giant village refrigeration unit (covered with straw) for the town. One of my
>players was pissed off because "mages don't act that way, it cheapens magic".
>I was the gm, this mage did act that way, and the other players thought it was
>(pardon the pun) cool.
Sounds like fun... Come to think of it Continual light has
agricultural applications I wonder if it would be possible to grow crops
under CL? grow fresh food all year round in caves or sheds with a magic
heat source.
Frank T. Sronce
>
> ><>mage to cast one on streets every 100 yards. Not to mention
> inkeepers who wouldn't have to spend money on lamp oil and candles or
> worry about drunken customers setting the place on fire. Sort of
> removes some of the mood from the quaint fantasy setting, doesn't it?<<
>
> Or heightens it. I love thinking how magic can impact the day to day life
> of the people living it. To come over the hill and into a town with it all
> lit up in the night would be magical, fantastic and definitely not run of the
> mill fantasy campaign.
>
> giant village refrigeration unit (covered with straw) for the town. One of my
> players was pissed off because "mages don't act that way, it cheapens magic".
> I was the gm, this mage did act that way, and the other players thought it was
> (pardon the pun) cool.
>
Yeah, one local GM ruled that Continual Light was NOT permanent, just
long-lasting, because he didn't like the idea of having it replace
candles everywhere, and it _would_ as written. I mean, you get a little
wooden ball with continal light cast on it, and a black hood of thick
cloth to drape over it when you want to turn it "off". Cheap, easy,
permanent- a town with a first level mage could have several in every
home after the first year, and it would be an easy way for a novice mage
to earn his living.
Kiz
Timothy J. Miller
> Yeah, one local GM ruled that Continual Light was NOT permanent, just
> long-lasting, because he didn't like the idea of having it replace
> candles everywhere, and it _would_ as written. I mean, you get a little
> wooden ball with continal light cast on it, and a black hood of thick
> cloth to drape over it when you want to turn it "off". Cheap, easy,
> permanent- a town with a first level mage could have several in every
> home after the first year, and it would be an easy way for a novice mage
> to earn his living.
Virtually every player I've ever played xD&D with does exactly
this, every game, every time. More fun-- take a piece of parchment,
roll it into a cone, and hold with the light source at the point.
Instant flashlight.
I had *one* GM who exploited things like this. There was
considerable magical technology laying about, and it was definitely
*not* a typical medieval-europe-with-magic world.
Psychohist
I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
you want to turn it "off".
Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the light were
coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as the sun.
If the ball were smaller, the temperature would be even higher.
Anything absorbing that radiation - such as a hood - would rise to solar
surface temperatures very rapidly. Better find a magical material, as anything
mundane would not survive long.
In my opinion, there are so many examples like this in AD&D that it's basically
impossible to extrapolate their effects on the economy and culture. When the
magic gets too high powered and common, there are just too many changes to keep
track of.
Warren Dew
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>
> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
> you want to turn it "off".
>
> Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
>
> If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the light were
> coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as the sun.
> If the ball were smaller, the temperature would be even higher.
>
> Anything absorbing that radiation - such as a hood - would rise to solar
> surface temperatures very rapidly. Better find a magical material, as anything
> mundane would not survive long.
>
Yeah, but it's "magic" light. It doesn't convert to heat when absorbed
by matter. :-)
Hey, if you'll buy a light source that uses up no energy whatsoever, why
would you have a problem with that?
Okay, the physics of it are ALL screwed up, I'll readily concede that.
:-)
Kiz
Alan Shutko
> Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
>
> If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the
> light were coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be
> as bright as the sun.
Well, the light would _look_ as bright as the sun looks in the sky.
But moving 60 yards closer to that ball wouldn't make it much
brighter. (Light intensity, inverse square relationship.) I don't
see any reason a cloak would get any warmer than it would lying on the
ground on a sunny day.
The energy that the 2' diameter ball has to release to give off light
as bright as the sun at 60 yards is nowhere close to the amount of
energy the sun has to give off to be as bright as it is from 8 light
minutes away.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Look afar and see the end from the beginning.
Aaron Pound
Psychohist wrote:
> Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>
> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
> you want to turn it "off".
>
> Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
>
> If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the light were
> coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as the sun.
> If the ball were smaller, the temperature would be even higher.
>
> Anything absorbing that radiation - such as a hood - would rise to solar
> surface temperatures very rapidly. Better find a magical material, as anything
> mundane would not survive long.
This would be fine, except that the spell description specifically describes
covering the light source with a hood to keep the light from shining. In addition,
when the spell is cast upon a living being it does no damage to them physically
other than a temporary blinding, when one would normally expect burning damage from
a bright light being placed into one's eyes. I can only conclude that the light
produced by Light and Continual Light cannot be subjected to non-magical physics
tests, because then the spells would operate quite differently from the way they
are described. In this case, I can only conclude that the spells produce light in
some way that does not cause heat or radiate energy (impossible, I know, but the
only way the spells can work as described).
> In my opinion, there are so many examples like this in AD&D that it's basically
> impossible to extrapolate their effects on the economy and culture. When the
> magic gets too high powered and common, there are just too many changes to keep
> track of.
So you should not even try? That seems very boring.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Rachel E. Taylor
>Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>
> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
> you want to turn it "off".
>
>Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
>
Not if it was *the* Continual Light spell. The spell description
specifies that the light can be covered up but doesn't mention any
destructive properties of that illumination.
>If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the light were
>coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as the sun.
>If the ball were smaller, the temperature would be even higher.
>
Brightness doesn't automatically equate with temperature, else
chemical light sticks wouldn't exist. You're applying a physicality to
something magical.
>Anything absorbing that radiation - such as a hood - would rise to solar
>surface temperatures very rapidly. Better find a magical material, as anything
>mundane would not survive long.
>
So it's OK for the object the spell is cast on, but not anything you
use to cover it up? So it's one-way radiation?
You have read the spell description........right?
>In my opinion, there are so many examples like this in AD&D that it's basically
>impossible to extrapolate their effects on the economy and culture. When the
>magic gets too high powered and common, there are just too many changes to keep
>track of.
>
I agree there are a lot of spells that defy current physics and could
produce knock-on physical effects as by-products of their existence,
but hey! that's magic for ya. But it's silly to assume that a spell
will have a physical effect based on physics alone. Otherwise it
wouldn't be magic.
Rachel Taylor
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
>
>Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
>> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
>> you want to turn it "off".
>
>Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
>
light were
>coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as
the sun.
>If the ball were smaller, the temperature would be even higher.
What if the CL only radiates in the visual range of light, rather than
giving off black-body radiation? Then it need not be terribly hot,
more like a flourescent tube. Also, the CL might be magically cooled,
after all there are other spells that produce cold.
But basically you are right, of course.
Brett Evill
>
> psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) writes:
>
> > Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
> >
> > If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the
> > light were coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be
> > as bright as the sun.
>
> But moving 60 yards closer to that ball wouldn't make it much
> brighter. (Light intensity, inverse square relationship.) I don't
> see any reason a cloak would get any warmer than it would lying on the
> ground on a sunny day.
>
> The energy that the 2' diameter ball has to release to give off light
> as bright as the sun at 60 yards is nowhere close to the amount of
> energy the sun has to give off to be as bright as it is from 8 light
> minutes away.
He isn't talking about total energy output, he's talking about the
amount of energy flowing through a unit area of the surface.
The Sun's flux of energy provides daylight over a sphere with a surface
area of about 2.7 * 10^17 square kilometres. A continual light spell
provides a similar intensity of light over a sphere with a surface area
of about 45 200 square feet. That is a lot less energy (or, strictly,
power). But if it shines out of an object that is much, much smaller
than the Sun, it can some to more Watts per square metre than the solar
output spread out over the Sun's colossal surface.
Earth's orbit is about 147 million kilometres in radius. The Sun is
about a 700 000 kilometres in radius. That puts the Earth 210 solar
radii from the Sun. And that means that the energy flux at the Sun's
surface is 44 100 times the solar energy flux at the distance of Earth's
orbit.
Suppose that continual light is as bright as sunlight at 60 feet. Then
at 60 ft/210 = about an inch and a half it will be 44 100 times as
bright as the sun, ie the energy flux per unit area will be the same as
that through the surface of the Sun. This is the inverse square law in
operation.
And before you ask, temperature and radiation flux are linked in a
one-to-one way, through the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Mr. M.J. Lush
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>
>> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
>> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
>> you want to turn it "off".
>
>
>If the light is as bright as daylight on earth at 60 yards, and the light were
>coming from a two foot diameter ball, the ball would be as bright as the sun.
>
>surface temperatures very rapidly. Better find a magical material, as anything
>mundane would not survive long.
Thats dangerous ground you walking on there!! Consider if
I cast CL on an arrowhead..... I leave the rest to you imagination.
>In my opinion, there are so many examples like this in AD&D that it's basically
>impossible to extrapolate their effects on the economy and culture. When the
>magic gets too high powered and common, there are just too many changes to keep
>track of.
I don't think thats an excuse not to try and keep track of
the implications it makes for an interesting background and one
that the Players can impact on sanity checking the world as they
go along (one would need a good sensible group to do this though).
Wayne Shaw
>Frank T. Sronce posts, in part:
>
> I mean, you get a little wooden ball with continal light cast
> on it, and a black hood of thick cloth to drape over it when
> you want to turn it "off".
>
>Except that the hood would vaporize almost instantly.
This is based on the assumption the magical light gives off
appreciable heat. Not a given.
Steve Turnbull
Personally I'd always assumed it didn't. Why should it? The magical effect
generates light, that a component of that is also a slightly warm red is
irrelevant. The heat in light bulbs is due to the incandescent filament.
Why should magic have to heat something up to produce light when it is
simpler just to produce the light?
(Of course this is pure rationalisation of an non-existent effect but it
makes sense to me.)
(And besides the "hood" doesn't have to be a combustible cloth, a thin
ceramic pot would be nice, then you could use glazes to get coloured light
effects.)
Timothy J. Miller
> Suppose that continual light is as bright as sunlight at 60 feet. Then
> at 60 ft/210 = about an inch and a half it will be 44 100 times as
> bright as the sun, ie the energy flux per unit area will be the same as
> that through the surface of the Sun. This is the inverse square law in
> operation.
> And before you ask, temperature and radiation flux are linked in a
> one-to-one way, through the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Just to put some numbers on it (I love physics. Don't you?):
Solar flux is a constant, roughly 1400 Watts/meter^2. This is the
energy incident at the Earth's orbit.
Atmospheric effects reduce this to about 50%, so the energy at ground
level (which is what we're interested in) is about 700 W/m^2. This is
the same flux we want from an object with continual light cast on it
at a distance of 60 feet (~18 m).
To make the math easier, we'll assume that the object is a sphere with
a radius of 1 meter. Atmospheric effects can be ignored for this
short a distance.
The flux of the continual light source itself is proportional to the
surface area of the 18 m sphere and the surface area of the sphere,
which reduces to the ratio of the squares of the radii.
So the flux of our 1 m ball of continual light is:
w = 700 W/m^2 * (18 m^2)/(1 m^2) = 226800 W/m^2
Now, flux and temperature are related:
S = K * T^4, where S is the flux in W/m^2, T is temperature in
Kelvin, and K is the Stephan-Boltzman constant, 5.67x10^-8 W/(m^2
K^4).
Solving for T:
T = (S/K)^-4
Pluggin ze in, crankin ze out (as my professor used to say):
T = ( 226800 W/m^2 / 5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4 )^-4
T ~= 1414 K ~= 1141 C ~= 2086 F
And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
about 20,000 F.
Ouch.
Mr. M.J. Lush
> And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
>large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
>about 20,000 F.
>
> Ouch.
Can I cast that on an arrowhead? please please Oh g'wan!!!!!
Timothy J. Miller
> Can I cast that on an arrowhead? please please Oh g'wan!!!!!
IIRC, thermite burns at about 5500 degrees F, so I'd say it's
much more useful to learn to cast it as a *ranged* spell.
Mr. M.J. Lush
When CL is unrestricted you made the temperature about
2000F it only hits 20000 when its restricted .... like when it
penetrates the body cavity :-) I think I'd cast it on a spear
tip though.
Aaron Day
>
> In article <87emfgh35z.fsf@eas_unclass133.afiwc01.af.mil>,
> > And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
> >large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
> >about 20,000 F.
> >
> > Ouch.
>
Dude, it would burn the shaft, fall to the ground and give you quite a
sunburn to boot. Besides, I can't see you aiming by looking down the
shaft of your arrow straight into the sun.
Nice try but I still haven't figured how to use this little sun-ball as
an effective weapon.
Aaron
Kent Enfield
> S = K * T^4, where S is the flux in W/m^2, T is temperature in
> Kelvin, and K is the Stephan-Boltzman constant, 5.67x10^-8 W/(m^2
> K^4).
This is almost right, but you forgot to include the temperature of the
receiver surface. Using a modification of your notation:
S12 = K* (T1^4 - T2^4)
S12 is the net radiative heat flux from surface 1 to 2, and T1 and T2
are the temperatures of surfaces 1 and 2.
> Pluggin ze in, crankin ze out (as my professor used to say):
>
> T = ( 226800 W/m^2 / 5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4 )^-4
> T ~= 1414 K ~= 1141 C ~= 2086 F
>
> And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
> large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
> about 20,000 F.
Using T2 = 300 K, for a 1 m radius spehere, I get T(sphere) = 1426 K =
2107 deg F, and for a 1 cm radius sphere T2 = 14,250 K = 25,200 deg F.
And at this point, I'd like to refer to the IJFM* principle to explain
why this doesn't happen.
--
Kent Enfield
Master's Student
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Oregon State University
enf...@engr.orst.edu
*IJFM is "It's Just ****ing Magic." If it acutally worked, it
wouldn't be magic.
Timothy J. Miller
> Using T2 = 300 K, for a 1 m radius spehere, I get T(sphere) = 1426 K =
> 2107 deg F, and for a 1 cm radius sphere T2 = 14,250 K = 25,200 deg F.
Thank you for the correction; but I was well within an order of
magnitude, so it's good enough for me. 8)
> And at this point, I'd like to refer to the IJFM* principle to explain
> why this doesn't happen.
Of course. But IMHO the spell description should say so.
Timothy J. Miller
> When CL is unrestricted you made the temperature about
> 2000F it only hits 20000 when its restricted .... like when it
> penetrates the body cavity :-) I think I'd cast it on a spear
> tip though.
I think I'd rather cast it on an entire ceiling. No more need
to heat the room by fire, anyway.
I've other things to do, but does anyone want to estimate how
large a surface area a wooden object would need that this spell
wouldn't set it on fire?
Thomas Bagwell
> Yeah, one local GM ruled that Continual Light was NOT permanent, just
> long-lasting, because he didn't like the idea of having it replace
> wooden ball with continal light cast on it, and a black hood of thick
> permanent- a town with a first level mage could have several in every
> home after the first year, and it would be an easy way for a novice mage
> to earn his living.
I never ran 'Continual Light' that way. I ran it as a radius of
illumination based on the target. You couldn't cover or block it. If
it was a point-source allowing such blockage, then it would have
illuminated whatever area it was in. A candle can illuminate a cavern
if there is no other source of light. No...I gave it a set radius, no
covering or blocking. Outside that radius, no illumination was
provided.
Tom B.
Blackberry
>
>Mr. M.J. Lush wrote:
>>
>> In article <87emfgh35z.fsf@eas_unclass133.afiwc01.af.mil>,
>> Timothy J. Miller <timothy...@afiwc01.af.mil> wrote:
>> <snip Evil physics>
>> >large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
>> >about 20,000 F.
>> >
>>
>> Can I cast that on an arrowhead? please please Oh g'wan!!!!!
>
>for long.
Not to mention that, when you draw it back, it'd vaporize the bow, your arm,
your head...
Nice. :) I always knew 1st level D&D spells were more useful than they sounded.
--------------------
"It's enough to make you wonder sometimes if you're on the right planet."
-- Frankie Goes to Hollywood
Brian -- le...@europa.com -- http://www.europa.com/~lepus
Aaron Pound
Thomas Bagwell wrote:
You are, of course, entitled to rule on how magic operates in your game world.
However, note that your ruling is in direct contradiction to the specific language
of the spell description, which does state that if the target for the Continual
Light is covered, or hooded, it will be blocked. Just pointing out that your
interpretation is different from the write-up for the spell..
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Klaus Ę. Mogensen
>
>S = K * T^4, where S is the flux in W/m^2, T is temperature in
>Kelvin, and K is the Stephan-Boltzman constant,
>5.67x10^-8 W/(m^2K^4).
You assume that the light is a result of black-body radiation. As has
been mentioned before, if the CL only emits in the visual spectrum (no
UV or IR radiation), the temperature will be much lower. How much
lower, I can't say without making more calculations than I really care
to do.
Timothy J. Miller
> You assume that the light is a result of black-body radiation.
If it isn't black-body, it wouldn't be "like daylight", now
would it?
> been mentioned before, if the CL only emits in the visual spectrum (no
> UV or IR radiation), the temperature will be much lower. How much
> lower, I can't say without making more calculations than I really care
> to do.
Ok, I will:
According to:
http://sd.znet.com/~schester/facts/solar_energy.html
the solar flux that the human eye can see is ~600 W/m^2.
Again, if roughly half that flux reaches the ground, we get ~300
W/m^2. Plugging through my previous calculations gives us a 1 meter
ball giving off 97,200 W/m^2 of light in the visual spectrum. Since
the 1 m ball has just over 12.5 m^2 surface, this little beast is
emitting over 1,221,451 watts.
That's quite a lot.
Since it's not a black-body radiator, we can't figure a
temperature per se. But the kinetic energy equivalent of each
second's output of our light source would be a 1 kg projectile moving
at 1105 m/s.
Each.
And.
Every.
Second.
... Forever.
I still wouldn't want to be near it.
Carl Perkins
}Brett Evill <b.e...@tyndale.apana.snipthis.org.au> writes:
}
}> Suppose that continual light is as bright as sunlight at 60 feet. Then
}> at 60 ft/210 = about an inch and a half it will be 44 100 times as
}> bright as the sun, ie the energy flux per unit area will be the same as
}> that through the surface of the Sun. This is the inverse square law in
}> operation.
}
}> And before you ask, temperature and radiation flux are linked in a
}> one-to-one way, through the Stefan-Boltzman law.
}
} Just to put some numbers on it (I love physics. Don't you?):
}
}Solar flux is a constant, roughly 1400 Watts/meter^2. This is the
}energy incident at the Earth's orbit.
}
}Atmospheric effects reduce this to about 50%, so the energy at ground
}level (which is what we're interested in) is about 700 W/m^2. This is
}the same flux we want from an object with continual light cast on it
}at a distance of 60 feet (~18 m).
You just made the critical mistaken assumption.
Yes, it is this bright at 60'. It is also this bright at 30'. 10' too.
The brightness is the same as full daylight *everywhere* in the area
of effect. It does not vary with distance. (Well, I didn't look the spell
up, but this is how I remember it. If you are 30' from the central point
you don't have to deal with being lit up twice as bright as full daylight.
If the spell is cast on your eye(s) they don't burst into flaming vaporized
chunks of eyball, it just makes things too bright for you to see - presumably
because your retinas are now directly illuminated with bright white light
in addition to any light coming in from outside, or alternately because
the magic of the spell is designed to make it impossible to see in such
a case.)
So much for real-world physics...
--- Carl
Carl Perkins
}"Mr. M.J. Lush" wrote:
}>
}> In article <87emfgh35z.fsf@eas_unclass133.afiwc01.af.mil>,
}> Timothy J. Miller <timothy...@afiwc01.af.mil> wrote:
}> <snip Evil physics>
}> > And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
}> >large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
}> >about 20,000 F.
}> >
}> > Ouch.
}>
}> Can I cast that on an arrowhead? please please Oh g'wan!!!!!
}
}sunburn to boot. Besides, I can't see you aiming by looking down the
}shaft of your arrow straight into the sun.
}
}Nice try but I still haven't figured how to use this little sun-ball as
}an effective weapon.
}
}Aaron
Heating an object from room-temperature to 20,000F in a metter of
moments has another name. It's "vaporization". The arrowhead
would cease to exist, instead you'd have a rapidly expanding could
of vaporized metal. Actually, since it wouldn't be heated uniformly
due to the non-uniform shape of the arrowhead it would probably be a
rapidly expanding could of vaporized metal, molten metal, and hot metal
fragments. Boom!
(The highest boiling point for any pure element is Tungsten's, which is
a bit over 10,000F - it's melting point is a bit over 6,000F.)
If it were a touch ranged spell, it would probably pretty much blow the
caster's hand clean off and cause searious burns, lacerations, and concusive
injuries to various other body parts if he cast it on anything that small.
If were a ranged spell, it would be a good way to kill your target dirtectly.
If you can target pieces of a whole with this spell, then you could just
target the victim's head, which would burst into flames and then explode
shortly after it passed the boiling temperature of water. If you can't
pick a part, then casting it on a human sized opponent would probably
result in an equilibrium temperature at, or over, the boiling point of
water too - but it would take longer to get there (resulting in a slower,
more agonizing death), probably taking several seconds.
Everybody within a few yards would get sunburned in a matter of moments, not
to mention the ability to fry any egg within several feet (not to mention
the non-egg things).
"Fireball, shmireball - I know the Light spell, a.k.a. the Blazing Inferno
of Death spell. I also know the Continual Light spell, a.k.a. the Permanant
Vaporizing Hellfire spell."
--- Carl
Brett Evill
>
> In article <87emfgh35z.fsf@eas_unclass133.afiwc01.af.mil>,
> Timothy J. Miller <timothy...@afiwc01.af.mil> wrote:
> <snip Evil physics>
> > And it gets worse as the continual light ball gets smaller. A
> >large marble (~2 cm diameter) would have 10 times the temperature, or
> >about 20,000 F.
> >
> > Ouch.
>
> Can I cast that on an arrowhead? please please Oh g'wan!!!!!
Knock yourself out. But don't expect them to stay attached to the shafts
for long.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Bob
>
> Yeah, one local GM ruled that Continual Light was NOT permanent, just
> long-lasting, because he didn't like the idea of having it replace
> candles everywhere, and it _would_ as written. I mean, you get a little
> wooden ball with continal light cast on it, and a black hood of thick
> cloth to drape over it when you want to turn it "off". Cheap, easy,
> permanent- a town with a first level mage could have several in every
> home after the first year, and it would be an easy way for a novice mage
> to earn his living.
>
> Kiz
>
A question:
Int the AD&D system, at least, is it in fact possible (as the spell is
written) to simply cover the object that the spell is cast upon in order
to temporarily negate the spell?
I don't have my books in front of me right now, but if I recall, the spell
produced a 10' sphere of light centered upon the point chosen at casting,
but the actual light produced did not seem to emanate from any given point
within that sphere, but rather just magically existed within its defined
boundaries. If this is the case, then simply covering the center point of
the spell effect should not have any effect upon the spell. YMMV
-Bob
Alea iacta est! -Caesar, 49 BCE
Bob McCann
rmc...@mesastate.edu
Mike Harvey
> Nice try but I still haven't figured how to use this little sun-ball as
> an effective weapon.
Cast it in somebody's eyes. Imagine two little blobs of 20,000 F plasma
implanted in the front of your face...
Mike
Mike Harvey
> Heating an object from room-temperature to 20,000F in a metter of
> moments has another name. It's "vaporization".
Well, that *would* solve the problem of how long a CL spell lasts when
you cast on on a gp. A few microseconds?
Mike
Mike Harvey
> You are, of course, entitled to rule on how magic operates in your game world.
> However, note that your ruling is in direct contradiction to the specific language
> of the spell description, which does state that if the target for the Continual
> Light is covered, or hooded, it will be blocked. Just pointing out that your
> interpretation is different from the write-up for the spell..
This was a change in 2nd edition. I believe in 1st edition it was just
defined as filling the volume, with no mention of covering it. I have
interpreted it this way myself to make it less useful as an adventuring
light source: nothing like announcing yourself everywhere you go with a
60' ball of sunlight that cannot be turned off!
In any case, I don't believe that even the 2nd edition version
explicitly says that you can *direct* the light. If you completely cover
it, it disappears, but if you let any leak out it fills the entire 60'
radius. Sounds wierd, but it is a possible interpretation.
Mike
Thomas Bagwell
>
> Aaron Pound wrote:
> > You are, of course, entitled to rule on how magic operates in your game world.
> > However, note that your ruling is in direct contradiction to the specific language
> > of the spell description, which does state that if the target for the Continual
> > Light is covered, or hooded, it will be blocked. Just pointing out that your
> > interpretation is different from the write-up for the spell..
>
> This was a change in 2nd edition. I believe in 1st edition it was just
> defined as filling the volume, with no mention of covering it. I have
> interpreted it this way myself to make it less useful as an adventuring
> light source: nothing like announcing yourself everywhere you go with a
> 60' ball of sunlight that cannot be turned off!
Hmmm...I didn't see Aaron's response directly. You're right, though.
We were using AD&D at the time.
Tom B.
Henry Penninkilampi
(Mr. M.J. Lush) wrote:
> The question I'm trying to address is AD&D has lots of wall
> killer spells and myriad methods of getting an army in to any defence
> (fly tunnel etc etc) if this is true and taking a city is a relatively
> trivial act, would cites exist in a recognisable form?
>
> If the answer to the above question is no, then if there are
> conventional cites in the game background some means to defend them
> exists and by extension some means must exist to defend castles.
I'll tell you one way:
ASSASSINS
Sure, you've got your footloose and fancy-free death-dealing mages
prancing around the countryside, but all it takes is one bow shot from 360
yards away (in a hidden location, of course) and your average punk
assassin has just sacked a few hundred thousand XP worth of mage with a
dose of type D poison.
If (somehow) magic became an unbalancing force in a world, then the nobles
who had power and authority (by virtue of the fact that they *owned* the
cities that were under threat) would simply outlaw magic, hire every
single assassin they could get their hands on, and do a bit of culling.
It is *not* logical to think that they would fight fire with fire, and
come up with bigger and better ways to defend their cities, and by doing
so, create this wonderfully bizarre world where magic was king. The
logical solution is to eradicate the problem at the source. Ostracise and
then eliminate.
I assume you people have heard of witch hunts?
Henry.
PJS
> Sounds like fun... Come to think of it Continual light has
>agricultural applications I wonder if it would be possible to grow crops
>under CL? grow fresh food all year round in caves or sheds with a magic
>heat source.
-----------------
I wouldn't have thought that it would be any more feasible than growing
crops by torchlight.
---
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
may be happy.
- H.L. Mencken
PJS
In that case the light should go straight through walls as well . . .
red
> I wouldn't have thought that it would be any more feasible than growing
> crops by torchlight.
... except that it lasts forecer, uses no fuel, and does not pollute.
In fact, it solves all the problems associated with torches.
-=+ Pieter +=-
> Everybody within a few yards would get sunburned in a matter of moments, not
> to mention the ability to fry any egg within several feet (not to mention
> the non-egg things).
>
> "Fireball, shmireball - I know the Light spell, a.k.a. the Blazing Inferno
> of Death spell. I also know the Continual Light spell, a.k.a. the Permanant
> Vaporizing Hellfire spell."
Hmmm... if continual light produces a lot of heat, doesn't
having continual /darkness/ generate cold? Or maybe it creates
a black hole to suck the light into?
--
Shade & sweet : Apart from the well-known Y2000 bug, we will soon be
water! -Pieter : struck by the Islamite Y1420 bug, the Japanese Y2660
: bug, the Roman Y2752 bug, the Chinese Y4636 bug, the
www.wi.leidenun : Yewish Y5760 bug and finally the Byzantian Y7508 bug.
iv.nl/~psimoons : Since all are scheduled this year, we must be doomed.
Marc
>Hmmm... if continual light produces a lot of heat, doesn't
>having continual /darkness/ generate cold? Or maybe it creates
>a black hole to suck the light into?
>
Continual light does not produce heat, as far as I recall.
Marc
Marc
The point was that you CANNOT grow crops by torchlight, not that it is
expensive too. You need full spectrum light to do so. Continual light,no,
globe of Daylight, however, would do it.
Marc
Mr. M.J. Lush
I would concur and suggest that its fortunate that it does
not (given the temperature calculations elsewhere in this thread!)
Gullans
>castles are unable to withstand magic attack to its
>limit.
Or something like that....
Here's a thought as to why castles and fortifications abound in realms with
wizards and priests powerful enough to turn solid stone to liquid lava -- the
quarried stone itself is enchanted. Perhaps the Masons, a mysterious group who
are employed by the various nobles to build their castles, are able to work
some sort of stone-strengthening magic, which causes offensive magic to wash
right off the rock like water. Only the Masons know this closely guarded
secret, however....or maybe it is common knowledge among the eldritch. It
would make sense in high-magic world where such powerful offensive magic is
relativly common that there would be equally powerful defensive magic to render
the former ineffective against permanant (and properly prepared and enchanted)
fortifications....
::Gullans::
red
>
> The point was that you CANNOT grow crops by torchlight, not that it is
> expensive too. You need full spectrum light to do so. Continual light,no,
> globe of Daylight, however, would do it.
Fair enough
John P. Raynor
: If (somehow) magic became an unbalancing force in a world, then the nobles
: who had power and authority (by virtue of the fact that they *owned* the
: cities that were under threat) would simply outlaw magic, hire every
: single assassin they could get their hands on, and do a bit of culling.
:
: It is *not* logical to think that they would fight fire with fire, and
: come up with bigger and better ways to defend their cities, and by doing
: so, create this wonderfully bizarre world where magic was king. The
: logical solution is to eradicate the problem at the source. Ostracise and
: then eliminate.
:
: I assume you people have heard of witch hunts?
I doubt it.
In a world in which (some) magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
difficult to see would-be witch hunters having much luck. I can see
several obstacles. First of all, every non-magicial noble would be sorely
tempted to spare a few friendly magicians, with the understanding that
they would serve as secret weapons in the next big war. Secondly, if
the magicians faced extermination, some of them probably wouldn't meekly
place their heads upon their executioner's block. Would-be witch hunters
would face a horrific campaign of assassination and terrorism -- up to,
and perhaps including, the sudden magical obliteration of cities and towns
in the most oppressive countries. After the first city goes up in a burst
of infernal magic, there would be rioting and rebellion (nobody would want
to be next). Witch hunting is *much* harder when the witches can fight
back *effectively*.
Nope...
The magicians and the aristocrats would become the best of buddies, and
each would adapt to serve the other, rather like the military/industrial
complex and the politicans during the Cold War period. Magic would become
an integral part of balance-of-power politics. Full-scale warfare between
"magically advanced" countries would be unthinkable. State-sponsored (and
regulated) wizardly academies would spring up, and magicians would occupy
positions of power and privilege, but would also be closely watched
("divide and conquer" would be the rule, with respect to handling them).
Exporting tomes of magical lore to "magically backward" lands would be a
*very* serious offense, and "non-proliferation" treaties are plausible...
- J. Raynor
red
>
> I assume you people have heard of witch hunts?
>
Yes I have. And I suspect that in a worled with REAL magic, they would
only happen once. It's as good a reason as any for a preemptive coup.
Henry Penninkilampi
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
>: If (somehow) magic became an unbalancing force in a world, then the nobles
>: who had power and authority (by virtue of the fact that they *owned* the
>: cities that were under threat) would simply outlaw magic, hire every
>: single assassin they could get their hands on, and do a bit of culling.
...
> I doubt it.
> In a world in which (some) magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
> difficult to see would-be witch hunters having much luck.
That's because you have in mind a stereotypical assassin - one with d6/d8
hit points, a shortsword, a few poisoned daggers and arrows, a pathetic
armour class and all the rest of that crap. The most *effective*
assassins would be multi-class assassin/wizards. Heck, even a pure
wizards could be an effective assassin, but it helps if you have some
training from the pros.
In a world where some magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
difficult to see why one or more of those wouldn't be hired by the highest
bidder to quiety go around, tracking down all the other wizards, and
destroying their towers, keeps, castles, pocket-dimensions (or whatever)
while they slept.
Open warfare is for idiots, or those that don't have a choice. Good
assassins are intelligent, and always leave themselves options.
> Secondly, if
> the magicians faced extermination, some of them probably wouldn't meekly
> place their heads upon their executioner's block. Would-be witch hunters
> would face a horrific campaign of assassination and terrorism -- up to,
> and perhaps including, the sudden magical obliteration of cities and towns
> in the most oppressive countries.
It makes absolutely *no* sense to waste energy killing a bunch of peons or
destroying cities and towns - that's just plain stupid. The problem is
the wizards, thus assassins would focus their energy on the surgical
removal of that problem. No warning, no invitation - wizards just
suddenly die in their sleep. Assassins don't waste their time burning
down farmhouses and slaughtering chickens - well, not *my* assassins,
anyway.
> Witch hunting is *much* harder when the witches can fight
> back *effectively*.
That's why the element of surprise is so important. And what class makes
it's living by *always* having the element of surprise - you got it: the
ASSASSIN. You can only fight back if you're not dead. You can only
defend against an attack if you know it's coming.
> Nope...
> The magicians and the aristocrats would become the best of buddies, and
> each would adapt to serve the other, rather like the military/industrial
> complex and the politicans during the Cold War period. Magic would become
> an integral part of balance-of-power politics. Full-scale warfare between
> "magically advanced" countries would be unthinkable. State-sponsored (and
> regulated) wizardly academies would spring up, and magicians would occupy
> positions of power and privilege, but would also be closely watched
> ("divide and conquer" would be the rule, with respect to handling them).
> Exporting tomes of magical lore to "magically backward" lands would be a
> *very* serious offense, and "non-proliferation" treaties are plausible...
Absolute rubbish. You're mapping the 20th century concepts onto the
middle-ages - that's a mistake. You're also ignoring human nature -
that's another mistake. You also seem to demonstrate a lack of clue about
power politics - that's your third mistake.
It's really, really simple, so I'll go slowly:
Magicians only have power because they know something that other people
don't - the art of wizardry. That's what gives them the edge.
If they share that knowledge with others, then they are effectively giving
away their edge. The more people that know wizardry, the less of an
advantage each individual wizard has.
People like power. They like accumulating power. They oppose any measure
which would undermine their power base.
Thus wizards would oppose the setting up of Wizard Academies because it
would undermine their power base.
Interference (regulation) by government also undermines a power base.
Wizards would thus oppose regulation by government. They would not
cooperate. They would seek to remain outside the law. That's why wizards
were, are, and probably always would be: loners, iconclasts, exiles,
hermits, and so-on.
A noble's power comes not from the one or two powerful wizards that he may
have on his side, but from the hundreds, thousands, or millions of
peasants that occupy his kingdom, build his castles, pay their taxes, and
form his armies.
If a noble ignores the views of his subjects, he will end up a dead noble.
No noble likes being dead.
The choice is then obvious when it comes time to deal with wizards that go
around destroying towns and cities, killing peasants, and hence
undermining the noble's power base: Since the wizards refuse to cooperate
and be regulated, the noble has no choice but to ostracise them.
If the wizards continue being a pain in the arse, the noble has no choice
but to kill them.
The LAST thing a noble will do is *share power* with someone that is
dangerous and, more importantly, uncontrollable.
The essence of this question boils down to this: Would a class of people
(the nobles) be willing to undermine their own power base, which has taken
centuries to establish, and admit a dangerous and uncontrollable element
into their ranks?
In a sane world, the answer to that question is a resounding NO $#@%ING WAY!
If, however, you're plaing a 'high-fantasy' campaign, then all bets are
off because common sense and reality don't have a place in high-fantasy.
Henry.
Psychohist
In a world in which (some) magicians can eliminate entire cities, ...
The magicians and the aristocrats would become the best of buddies
I'd go even further: I think the aristocrats would be displaced entirely. Or
to put it another way, the magicians would themselves be the aristocrats.
This would seem particularly appropriate for D&D, which uses Vancian magic: in
Vance's fantasy, the magicians are clearly in charge.
Warren Dew
red
> assassins would be multi-class assassin/wizards. Heck, even a pure
> wizards could be an effective assassin, but it helps if you have some
> training from the pros.
In which case it is not so much Assasins vs. Wizards as Wizard War, with
all the attendant atrocities.
>
> In a world where some magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
> difficult to see why one or more of those wouldn't be hired by the highest
> bidder to quiety go around, tracking down all the other wizards, and
> destroying their towers, keeps, castles, pocket-dimensions (or whatever)
> while they slept.
Because when you have that kind of power, money is an irrelevance?
> the wizards, thus assassins would focus their energy on the surgical
> removal of that problem. No warning, no invitation - wizards just
> suddenly die in their sleep. Assassins don't waste their time burning
> down farmhouses and slaughtering chickens - well, not *my* assassins,
> anyway.
And after the 2nd time this happens, the wizards crack open the dusty
tome of Forensic Magic, and in short order your assasin has been been
psychically identified, cursed, fried, and their name handed to the
biggest demon the wizards know.
> That's why the element of surprise is so important. And what class makes
> it's living by *always* having the element of surprise - you got it: the
> ASSASSIN. You can only fight back if you're not dead. You can only
> defend against an attack if you know it's coming.
Unfortunatelty, wizards are that class that make their living Knowing
Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know. This may include Knowing That An
Attack Is Coming. What else is divination magic for? What else are
guardian demons/whatever for? Magic armour, sundry invulnerabilities
blah blah blah...
> People like power. They like accumulating power. They oppose any measure
> which would undermine their power base.
>
> Thus wizards would oppose the setting up of Wizard Academies because it
> would undermine their power base.
Not necessarily. Establishing a college in which YOU get to teach the
Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know, then YOU get to determine WHICH
Things get taught, and HOW they get taught. Establishing a magical
college which projects your ideology may be a better way to become more
powerful than being a hermit in the woods.
> A noble's power comes not from the one or two powerful wizards that he may
> have on his side, but from the hundreds, thousands, or millions of
> peasants that occupy his kingdom, build his castles, pay their taxes, and
> form his armies.
Yes
>
> If a noble ignores the views of his subjects, he will end up a dead noble.
>
How? What are the peasants going to do - throw vegetables? There have
been many, many revolts against feudal lords - only a tiny percentage
have been succesful. And those are inevitably crushed by the
neighbouring lords. This is not democracy of any stripe, it is the rule
of the weak by the strong, and no bones about it.
> If the wizards continue being a pain in the arse, the noble has no choice
> but to kill them.
Ahem. You ommitted the word 'try'.
>
> The LAST thing a noble will do is *share power* with someone that is
> dangerous and, more importantly, uncontrollable.
Which I suspect is pretty much a wizards opinion of a noble.
John P. Raynor
Distribution:
Henry Penninkilampi (spam...@metropolis.net.au) wrote:
: In article <7tfik6$8fp$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, jra...@pantheon.yale.edu
: (John P. Raynor) wrote:
: > In a world in which (some) magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
: > difficult to see would-be witch hunters having much luck.
:
: That's because you have in mind a stereotypical assassin - one with d6/d8
: hit points, a shortsword, a few poisoned daggers and arrows, a pathetic
: armour class and all the rest of that crap. The most *effective*
: assassins would be multi-class assassin/wizards. Heck, even a pure
: wizards could be an effective assassin, but it helps if you have some
: training from the pros.
Uh...you're suggesting that the non-magical nobles would hire magic-using
assassins to serve as front-line troops in a war of extermination against
wizards? That's insane. If these assassins are that bright and capable,
they would quickly realize that their aristocratic patrons will, sooner or
later, inevitably turn against them, and would plan accordingly. If these
nobles hate and fear wizards so much, wouldn't they regard the "cure"
(hordes of deadly magic-using killers of questionable loyalty) worse
than the "disease?"
: In a world where some magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
: difficult to see why one or more of those wouldn't be hired by the highest
: bidder to quiety go around, tracking down all the other wizards, and
: destroying their towers, keeps, castles, pocket-dimensions (or whatever)
: while they slept.
While they slept? You're kidding, right?
Surely, if these wizards are that powerful, they would have a variety of
scrying spells, and both ordinary and magic-using guards and servants.
Furthermore, if these wizards are capable of inflicting vast quantities of
sudden death at a distance, they would have established rules for
negotiating and resolving conflicts (to prevent petty squabbles between
individual wizards from escalating into world-scorching disasters). As
soon as the first couple of towers go up in smoke, the world's wizards
would be having frantic Crystal Ball Conference Calls, to figure out's
been casting powerful destructive spells without (for example) first
formally challenging the victims to wizardly duels. Remember, in addition
to scrying spells, wizards also have communication spells, and would thus
be at least as capable of coordination of action as that horde of paid
assassins...
: Open warfare is for idiots, or those that don't have a choice. Good
: assassins are intelligent, and always leave themselves options.
Yeah, like turning down the contracts offered by short-sighted
power-hungry lunatics.
: > Secondly, if the magicians faced extermination, some of them probably
: > wouldn't meekly place their heads upon their executioner's block.
: > Would-be witch hunters would face a horrific campaign of assassination
: > and terrorism -- up to, and perhaps including, the sudden magical
: > obliteration of cities and towns in the most oppressive countries.
:
: It makes absolutely *no* sense to waste energy killing a bunch of peons or
: destroying cities and towns - that's just plain stupid. The problem is
: the wizards, thus assassins would focus their energy on the surgical
: removal of that problem. No warning, no invitation - wizards just
: suddenly die in their sleep. Assassins don't waste their time burning
: down farmhouses and slaughtering chickens - well, not *my* assassins,
: anyway.
No, no, no!
The *wizards* would be using terrorism, not the assassins!
: > Witch hunting is *much* harder when the witches can fight
: > back *effectively*.
:
: That's why the element of surprise is so important. And what class makes
: it's living by *always* having the element of surprise - you got it: the
: ASSASSIN. You can only fight back if you're not dead. You can only
: defend against an attack if you know it's coming.
Surely, assassins are not all-powerful and unstoppable in the world you're
describing. There must be effective precautions which the non-magical
nobles can, and do, take to preserve their own hides (trustworthy guards,
food-tasters, and so forth). Well, if the ordinary nobles can take such
precautions, so can the wizards. If a king's bodyguard can foil an
assassination attempt by diving to take the poisoned crossbow bolt
intended for his master, so can a wizard's bodyguard. And the wizards
have the further advantage of scrying spells, enchantments (to ensure that
the household guards really *are* loyal), and so forth.
: > Nope...
: > The magicians and the aristocrats would become the best of buddies, and
: > each would adapt to serve the other, rather like the military/industrial
: > complex and the politicans during the Cold War period. Magic would become
: > an integral part of balance-of-power politics. Full-scale warfare between
: > "magically advanced" countries would be unthinkable. State-sponsored (and
: > regulated) wizardly academies would spring up, and magicians would occupy
: > positions of power and privilege, but would also be closely watched
: > ("divide and conquer" would be the rule, with respect to handling them).
: > Exporting tomes of magical lore to "magically backward" lands would be a
: > *very* serious offense, and "non-proliferation" treaties are plausible...
: Absolute rubbish. You're mapping the 20th century concepts onto the
: middle-ages - that's a mistake. You're also ignoring human nature -
: that's another mistake. You also seem to demonstrate a lack of clue about
: power politics - that's your third mistake.
I'm mapping twentieth century concepts onto a quasi-medieval fantasy world
because we've already introduced one such concept: the ability to suddenly
destroy entire cities from a distance (an ability unique to our century).
I don't, by the way, like your patronizing and high-handed tone. I find
it particularly offensive because you clearly didn't read what I wrote
with care (go back and re-read my thoughts regarding wizardly terrorism,
above).
- J. Raynor
John P. Raynor
Distribution:
Henry Penninkilampi (spam...@metropolis.net.au) wrote:
: A noble's power comes not from the one or two powerful wizards that he may
: have on his side, but from the hundreds, thousands, or millions of
: peasants that occupy his kingdom, build his castles, pay their taxes, and
: form his armies.
In a world with magic capable of quickly destroying entire cities, that
just isn't the case. If a magician can bright down castle walls with a
word, for instance, how much political power does possession of a castle
confer? Not very much. (you'll notice that, in today's world, with
artillery and high explosives, castles are just quaint places for tourists
to photograph).
: If a noble ignores the views of his subjects, he will end up a dead noble.
Uh...why?
Our modern world is filled with dictators and tyrants who freely ignore
the views, desires, and aspirations of those they rule. The key to
aristocratic survival is to have reliable allies with weapons and the
ruthlessness to use them, and to keep *these* people happy. The happiness
of peasants with pitchforks, clubs, and sharpened sticks can be freely
ignored, as long as the knights (the Secret State Police, the Praetorian
Guard, whatever) remain satisfied.
: No noble likes being dead.
I'll grant that this point is valid.
: The essence of this question boils down to this: Would a class of people
: (the nobles) be willing to undermine their own power base, which has taken
: centuries to establish, and admit a dangerous and uncontrollable element
: into their ranks?
You're obviously assuming that the nobility was established before
magicians began developing their dark arts. Why? If I was designing a
fantasy world, I'd assume that magic *always* existed, in some form or
another, and that world's social institutions always made room for its
practitioners. I can easily envision the practice of magic being a
time-honored profession *within* the aristocracy. If you assume that the
nobility practices primogeniture, for example, the younger sons of nobles
might become magicians (just as, in the historical Middle Ages, they often
joined the Church). Young peasants with signs of magical talent might be
taken away from their biological parents, educated in noble households
with strong traditions of magical scholarship, and eventually given "petty
gentry" status (loyal to their benefactors, rather than to the low-born,
uncultured biological parents they can barely recall). If wizards tended
to be of noble birth, are related to the great noble houses by marriage,
and share the sensibilities of the nobility, cooperation would make more
sense than conflict.
: If, however, you're plaing a 'high-fantasy' campaign, then all bets are
: off because common sense and reality don't have a place in high-fantasy.
Rubbish.
- J. Raynor
Brett Evill
>
> This would seem particularly appropriate for D&D, which uses Vancian magic:
Note that the magicians in 'The Dying Earth' and the Cugel books, who
used the system of magic borrowed by Arneson and Gygax for D&D are wimps
and degenerates. The magicians in 'Rhialto the Marvellous' etc. do not
have to memorise spells, and do not fire & forget. They understand magic
well enough to extemporise spells as a performing art. (These are the
guys for whom many of the spells used later in 'The Dying Earth' etc.
are named for.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Henry Penninkilampi
<r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
> > assassins would be multi-class assassin/wizards. Heck, even a pure
> > wizards could be an effective assassin, but it helps if you have some
> > training from the pros.
>
> In which case it is not so much Assasins vs. Wizards as Wizard War, with
> all the attendant atrocities.
Hey, call it what you like - I don't mind. What's happening is the
methodical elimination of individuals. That's called assassination. The
people who do it are called assassins. Makes no difference if they wear a
pointy hat.
> > In a world where some magicians can eliminate entire cities, it's
> > difficult to see why one or more of those wouldn't be hired by the highest
> > bidder to quiety go around, tracking down all the other wizards, and
> > destroying their towers, keeps, castles, pocket-dimensions (or whatever)
> > while they slept.
>
> Because when you have that kind of power, money is an irrelevance?
Wizards progress through research. Research costs money. I would think
it obvious, then, that money is still quite relevant.
> > the wizards, thus assassins would focus their energy on the surgical
> > removal of that problem. No warning, no invitation - wizards just
> > suddenly die in their sleep. Assassins don't waste their time burning
> > down farmhouses and slaughtering chickens - well, not *my* assassins,
> > anyway.
>
> And after the 2nd time this happens, the wizards crack open the dusty
> tome of Forensic Magic, and in short order your assasin has been been
> psychically identified, cursed, fried, and their name handed to the
> biggest demon the wizards know.
And, I'll just use your *next* paragraph as a defense:
> Unfortunatelty, wizards are that class that make their living Knowing
> Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know. This may include Knowing That An
> Attack Is Coming. What else is divination magic for? What else are
> guardian demons/whatever for? Magic armour, sundry invulnerabilities
> blah blah blah...
Don't assume that assassins (especially wizard/assassins) will be easy to
find. Their livelihood, more than any other profession, depends on not
being able to be found.
> > People like power. They like accumulating power. They oppose any measure
> > which would undermine their power base.
> >
> > Thus wizards would oppose the setting up of Wizard Academies because it
> > would undermine their power base.
>
> Not necessarily. Establishing a college in which YOU get to teach the
> Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know, then YOU get to determine WHICH
> Things get taught, and HOW they get taught. Establishing a magical
> college which projects your ideology may be a better way to become more
> powerful than being a hermit in the woods.
We're talking about academies here, aren't we? Academies need *many*
teachers. Getting *many* wizards to agree on one ideology would be
nigh-on impossible.
Granted, a single wizard could teach (if he was so inclined) - this
already hapens with the master/apprentice model - and you could have a
trickle of new wizards coming through the system on a regular basis.
Not exacly the same as "wizardly academies" popping up all over the place.
> > If a noble ignores the views of his subjects, he will end up a dead noble.
>
> How? What are the peasants going to do - throw vegetables? There have
> been many, many revolts against feudal lords - only a tiny percentage
> have been succesful. And those are inevitably crushed by the
> neighbouring lords. This is not democracy of any stripe, it is the rule
> of the weak by the strong, and no bones about it.
Don't think about a direct revolt, think more along the lines of a coup or
other political takeover executed amongst the upper ranks of the
nobility. Social pressure is brought to bear which results in a new
contender for the throne playing politics in the court. Then, one day,
the ruler dies under mysterious circumstances and the new contender takes
the throne (after a little civil war, perhaps).
> > The LAST thing a noble will do is *share power* with someone that is
> > dangerous and, more importantly, uncontrollable.
>
> Which I suspect is pretty much a wizards opinion of a noble.
Absolutely. I think it would be far, far, FAR more likely that, if
wizards developed to the stage where they were more powerfult than the
lords, then the wizards would take over the kingdoms in toto - and turn
them into magocracies.
No "best buddies" garbage - just a complete takeover.
Henry.
Henry Penninkilampi
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
> Uh...you're suggesting that the non-magical nobles would hire magic-using
> assassins to serve as front-line troops in a war of extermination against
> wizards? That's insane. If these assassins are that bright and capable,
> they would quickly realize that their aristocratic patrons will, sooner or
> later, inevitably turn against them, and would plan accordingly.
This is not a new 'problem' for assassins - they've always had to deal
with the possibility of being betrayed by an employer. That's why one of
their most important abilities is that of not being able to be found after
the deed is done. Assassins who are confident in their ability to detect
and avoid a betrayal would therefore have no qualms getting in while the
going's good, doing the job, getting paid, and then retiring to a sunny
island somewhere if they think there's too much heat in the kitchen.
> If these
> nobles hate and fear wizards so much, wouldn't they regard the "cure"
> (hordes of deadly magic-using killers of questionable loyalty) worse
> than the "disease?"
You might think differently if your empire is being decimated by a bunch
of psychopathic loons wearing pointed hats and brightly coloured frocks.
I would even dare to say that, under that sort of pressure, the ends
justifies the means.
> Furthermore, if these wizards are capable of inflicting vast quantities of
> sudden death at a distance, they would have established rules for
> negotiating and resolving conflicts (to prevent petty squabbles between
> individual wizards from escalating into world-scorching disasters). As
> soon as the first couple of towers go up in smoke, the world's wizards
> would be having frantic Crystal Ball Conference Calls, to figure out's
> been casting powerful destructive spells without (for example) first
> formally challenging the victims to wizardly duels. Remember, in addition
> to scrying spells, wizards also have communication spells, and would thus
> be at least as capable of coordination of action as that horde of paid
> assassins...
In this scenario, are all of your wizards on the same side? It sounds
like it. You make it sound like there would be a *reason* for wizards to
cooperate.
The way I see it: Only a fraction of the wizards would be actively
employed by military forces and waging war. Noe *all* - just a fraction.
Thus if someone decided to start assassinating the 'troublemakers', the
remaining 90%+ of wizards, back in their towers doing reasearch, wouldn't
really care. Why should they?
> : > Secondly, if the magicians faced extermination, some of them probably
> : > wouldn't meekly place their heads upon their executioner's block.
> : > Would-be witch hunters would face a horrific campaign of assassination
> : > and terrorism -- up to, and perhaps including, the sudden magical
> : > obliteration of cities and towns in the most oppressive countries.
> :
> : It makes absolutely *no* sense to waste energy killing a bunch of peons or
> : destroying cities and towns - that's just plain stupid. The problem is
> : the wizards, thus assassins would focus their energy on the surgical
> : removal of that problem. No warning, no invitation - wizards just
> : suddenly die in their sleep. Assassins don't waste their time burning
> : down farmhouses and slaughtering chickens - well, not *my* assassins,
> : anyway.
>
> No, no, no!
> The *wizards* would be using terrorism, not the assassins!
Oh, so professional assassins would be on one side, trying to surgically
remove warlike wizards, whilst those wizards responded with acts of
terrorism that inflict massive amounts of collateral damage (ie. dead
peasants by the score)?
You said something before about the cure being worse than the disease?
If you were a noble, and you had to choose one ally, which would you
choose? The professional assassin that does his job quietly and then
disappears, or a terrorist wizard???
> : > Witch hunting is *much* harder when the witches can fight
> : > back *effectively*.
> :
> : That's why the element of surprise is so important. And what class makes
> : it's living by *always* having the element of surprise - you got it: the
> : ASSASSIN. You can only fight back if you're not dead. You can only
> : defend against an attack if you know it's coming.
>
> Surely, assassins are not all-powerful and unstoppable in the world you're
> describing. There must be effective precautions which the non-magical
> nobles can, and do, take to preserve their own hides (trustworthy guards,
> food-tasters, and so forth). Well, if the ordinary nobles can take such
> precautions, so can the wizards. If a king's bodyguard can foil an
> assassination attempt by diving to take the poisoned crossbow bolt
> intended for his master, so can a wizard's bodyguard. And the wizards
> have the further advantage of scrying spells, enchantments (to ensure that
> the household guards really *are* loyal), and so forth.
Hang on, didn't you even read what I wrote? I suggested you stop thinking
in terms of a mundane AD&D assassin and start thinking in terms of
assassination as a profession, which can be practiced by any class
combination. Thus assassin/wizards would probably make the most potent of
assassins. Thus any level of power that you give to your own wizards,
give to the assassins as well.
Stop limiting assassins to this poisoned arrow shit, and start thinking of
an assassin/wizard that can cruise around with disintergrate, timestop,
chain lightning...
> : Absolute rubbish. You're mapping the 20th century concepts onto the
> : middle-ages - that's a mistake. You're also ignoring human nature -
> : that's another mistake. You also seem to demonstrate a lack of clue about
> : power politics - that's your third mistake.
>
> I'm mapping twentieth century concepts onto a quasi-medieval fantasy world
> because we've already introduced one such concept: the ability to suddenly
> destroy entire cities from a distance (an ability unique to our century).
> I don't, by the way, like your patronizing and high-handed tone. I find
> it particularly offensive because you clearly didn't read what I wrote
> with care (go back and re-read my thoughts regarding wizardly terrorism,
> above).
I don't really care if you find my tone patronizing and high-handed. Stop
projecting stupid scenarios and maybe you'll end up getting more warm
fuzzies than cold pricklies.
As for not reading what other people wrote: I actually did read what you
said, I just misinterpreted it (got the assassins/wizards around the wrong
way). You, on the other hand seem to have completely missed a whole slab
of what I wrote (about non-mundane assassins). I suggest the pot should
stop calling the kettle black.
As for 20C concepts: You seem to think that "give them a weapon of mass
destruction" and somehow they will instantly develop the associated morals
and ethics that appeared post WW2. This is complete tripe. You can't
just sqeeze the wisdom accrued over a thousand years of history onto a bit
of parchment, and slip it inside the cover of every Level 9 Spell Book and
expect it to make a scrap of difference.
All that aside, I think that you are actually talking about a high-fantasy
world where none of these sort of arguments (my arguments) are valid at
all.
Anything goes in high-fantasy.
If you want nuclear proliferation treaties, go for it. If you want
WizNet, go for it. If you want nice, neat academies, churning out
well-behaved little wizards, go for it. If you want to introduce a
stock-exchange, go for it. If you want to have wizards offering a shuttle
service using teleport spoells, go for it. If you want 50 channels of
WizTV using projection spells and the like, go for it. But realise that
what you are describing is the 20th century with a fantasy theme - which
bears absolutely NO resemblance to the middle ages as chronicled in
Earth's history.
You may as well call it D&D-2000.
Henry.
Brett Evill
Hear! Hear!
In any RPG, the players have to make decisions as to what their
characters are going to do about problems and opportunities in the game
environment. If the environment doesn't make sense, then either the
players will be unable to succeed in their effort, or the PCs will
devastate the setting by doing sensible things that the NPCs haven't
anticipated.
So, whatever may be true in literature and drama, it is certainly the
case that in RP it is best that the setting make sense.
Regards,
Brett Evill
Henry Penninkilampi
>>: If, however, you're plaing a 'high-fantasy' campaign, then all
>>: bets are off because common sense and reality don't have a place
>>: in high-fantasy.
Scenario 1: Party rounds the corner and come face-to-face with a massive
(hungry-looking) dragon.
High-fantasy: "Charge!"
Common-sense: "Run away!"
Scenario 2: DM to players: "I'm sorry, but the dragon's treasure horde
is so vast that it would take approximately six months just to count and
sort all the coins. If you want to start estimating the value of the
miscellaneous items, you can add another two months to that."
High-fantasy: "Say what?"
Reality: "Fair enough."
Common sense and reality are both firmly grounded in low-fantasy
campaigns. The closer you get to high-fantasy, to more your heroes do
things that would be just too risky for a *common* man to even consider.
And it is the *common* man's views which are used as a benchmark to decide
what is (or isn't) 'common sense' - not heroes. Hence high-fantasy defies
common sense.
It has been my experience with high-fantasy campaigns that the emphasis is
more on style than substance. The higher it gets, the less time the GM
and the players spend on details (like cleaning armour, finding
provisions, feeding pack animals). The mundane stuff (reality) is cast to
one side because the players want to get into the swashbuckling hero
stuff. Hence reality (or, at least, most of it) has no place in
high-fantasy.
This is not to say that the world shouldn't be *consistent*, or that
players shouldn't behave *intelligently*. Nor does it mean that common
sense and reality are totally devoid in a high-fantasy campaign. All it
means is that in a high-fantasy campaign, the emphasis is on something
other than common sense and reality. I would say that 'style' is where
the emphasis would be for most high-fantasy campaigns - *your* emphasis
may, of course, be different.
Henry.
Mark Baker
particularly the Camber of Culdi trilogy, but they portray a medieval
setting embroiled in just this type of conflict.
--
Mark Baker
Web Pages: http://www.lange.demon.co.uk/Index.html
red
ll the attendant atrocities.
>
> Hey, call it what you like - I don't mind. What's happening is the
> methodical elimination of individuals. That's called assassination. The
> people who do it are called assassins. Makes no difference if they wear a
> pointy hat.
It does, in the sense that these are no longer mundane assasins as a
counterpoint to wizards - its a warv among wizards. So your problems
come back to the intrenal complexities of wizards.
> > Because when you have that kind of power, money is an irrelevance?
>
> Wizards progress through research. Research costs money. I would think
> it obvious, then, that money is still quite relevant.
>
Well, maybe in YOUR campaign. In some games, wizards progress through
initiation, or revelaed wisdom, or slaying monsters. And in a lot of
magic systems, somehting like Lead to Gold is not that hard to do. I
still say money is an irrlevance - they are magi who wield the power
cosmic.
> Don't assume that assassins (especially wizard/assassins) will be easy to
> find. Their livelihood, more than any other profession, depends on not
> being able to be found.
Yes. SOP we are just back to wizard war again, but the point ofd hiring
assasins in the first place was to bypass th epolitical power of
wizards. Now all you have doine is entrench their power.
> We're talking about academies here, aren't we? Academies need *many*
> teachers. Getting *many* wizards to agree on one ideology would be
> nigh-on impossible.
Its called "religion".
> Granted, a single wizard could teach (if he was so inclined) - this
> already hapens with the master/apprentice model - and you could have a
> trickle of new wizards coming through the system on a regular basis.
>
> Not exacly the same as "wizardly academies" popping up all over the place.
No it isn't. And which one happens will have a lot to do with the
mechanics and metaphysics of magic in a particular world. But there is
no absolute reason not to have colleges of wizards - quite a lot of
fiction uses this model.
> Don't think about a direct revolt, think more along the lines of a coup or
> other political takeover executed amongst the upper ranks of the
> nobility. Social pressure is brought to bear which results in a new
> contender for the throne playing politics in the court. Then, one day,
> the ruler dies under mysterious circumstances and the new contender takes
> the throne (after a little civil war, perhaps).
Fine. But you specifically mentioned that this would occur because a
noble ignored the pleas of their subjects. A coup among the aristocracy
has nothing to do with an unhappy populace. The feudal peasantry HAS no
mechanism to apply political pressure - thats why they ended up staging
revolutions for democracy.
> Absolutely. I think it would be far, far, FAR more likely that, if
> wizards developed to the stage where they were more powerfult than the
> lords, then the wizards would take over the kingdoms in toto - and turn
> them into magocracies.
Agreed :)
John P. Raynor
Distribution:
Henry Penninkilampi (spam...@metropolis.net.au) wrote:
: You might think differently if your empire is being decimated by a bunch
: of psychopathic loons wearing pointed hats and brightly coloured frocks.
: I would even dare to say that, under that sort of pressure, the ends
: justifies the means.
I don't understand why you assume that:
<A> the magicians ar prone to violence, and dangerously unpredictable
("psychopathic loons")
and
<B> the magicians are all extraordinarily eccentric ("in pointy hats and
brightly colored frocks")
Your first assumption only makes sense if the magicians are drawing their
supernatural powers from an intrinsically evil, or corrupting, source
(worshipping infernal spirits, for instance, or using the Dark Side of the
Force). That's a *very* big assumption to make -- in many (perhaps most)
fantasy games, it's just *not* the case. Your second assumption is even
weaker. Magicians might wear "brightly colored frocks" during the ritual
casting of certain spells, but I strongly suspect that it would be hard to
pick the magician out of a crowd if he's just walking down the street to
buy some groceries. If the magicians are organized in some way, "brightly
colored frocks" might serve as uniforms, but uniforms don't automatically
make their wearers the object of fear and suspicion (a magician's
"brightly colored frock" might be akin to a medical doctor's white coat).
: In this scenario, are all of your wizards on the same side? It sounds
: like it. You make it sound like there would be a *reason* for wizards to
: cooperate.
Magic is, first of all, probably such a *big* topic that no individual
magician can know everything. Yes, esoteric information is very valuable,
and would be guarded closely and distributed reluctantly, but sometimes,
limited collaboration would just be an unavoidable necessity. Magicians
might not attend conventions and conferences, but they wouldn't ignore one
another entirely. Think of scientists. For scientists, knowledge is also
important, and there are some incentives to be secretive (competition for
government research grant money, for instance, can be brutal), but there's
still plenty of collaboration. If nothing else, magicians are human
beings, and human beings like to be respected and praised (or at least
envied) by their peers. Yes, there are undoubtedly individual magicians
who retreat to their towers and never come out, but I suspect most
magicians do one another (carefully measured and counted) favors, brag
about their accomplishments, and generally act like members of any other
exclusive profession.
: The way I see it: Only a fraction of the wizards would be actively
: employed by military forces and waging war. Noe *all* - just a fraction.
: Thus if someone decided to start assassinating the 'troublemakers', the
: remaining 90%+ of wizards, back in their towers doing reasearch, wouldn't
: really care. Why should they?
Uh...
Here is's just *one* possible reason:
If you and your friend Bob studied together as apprentices (before you
decided to pursue a career in advanced scrying and applied astrology, and
Bob decided to study military magic), and you suddenly found out that your
old school buddy was being hunted by ruthless agents of a tyrannical
government, wouldn't you be a bit upset? Yes, many magicians might just
shrug and say "serves them right for dabbling in politically-sensitive
magic", but quite a few would say "hey...we could be next!"
: If you were a noble, and you had to choose one ally, which would you
: choose? The professional assassin that does his job quietly and then
: disappears, or a terrorist wizard???
<A> The wizards wouldn't turn to terrorism until *after* the nobles
decide to exterminate them.
<B> Why should the professional assasin "do his job quietly, and then
disappear?" If the assassin is good enough to liquidate military
magicians, who undoubtedly surround themselves with scrying and
warding spells, as well as ordinary guards, why shouldn't he think
about dabbling in ordinary, non-magical politics? If this is a
*magic-using* assassin, then he's *already* betraying his fellow
magicians, so betraying his current non-magical patron shouldn't
be a very big step for him...
: I don't really care if you find my tone patronizing and high-handed. Stop
: projecting stupid scenarios and maybe you'll end up getting more warm
: fuzzies than cold pricklies.
You're walking dangerously close to the edge of my kill-file.
I'm not projecting *stupid* scenarios, I'm *rationally* looking at the
military and political implications of the availability of extremely
powerful destructive spells, and the feasability of the plan which *you*
suggested (killing the wizards, for fear of a coup).
: As for not reading what other people wrote: I actually did read what you
: said, I just misinterpreted it (got the assassins/wizards around the wrong
: way). You, on the other hand seem to have completely missed a whole slab
: of what I wrote (about non-mundane assassins). I suggest the pot should
: stop calling the kettle black.
I only used "taking the poisoned crossbow bolt" to illustrate my point,
because I assumed it would be clear and easily understood. I conceed that
it was an ill-chosen example. The point I was trying to make, however,
stands. In a world with magic-using assassins, the nobility would have to
take precautions to protect themselves effectively (crowns, perhaps, with
powerful warding spells to protect their wearers, or trusted guards with
scrying devices). If non-magical nobles can protect themselves from
magic-using assasins, the magicians can do so just as well (if not
better).
- J. Raynor
Eric Stevenson
: Don't assume that assassins (especially wizard/assassins) will be easy to
: find. Their livelihood, more than any other profession, depends on not
: being able to be found.
If assassins are impossible to find, they will never make any money. The
only type of assassins I'm familiar with are the the ones employed by
modern organized crime. They are known by members of their organizations.
A little scrying or magical kidnapping and torture would locate many of
them.
I'd think that large scale governments of any type would be impossible in
a world with a significant number of elite, free agent,
super-hard-to-find assassins. All leaders would be dead, not just mages.
Frank T. Sronce
>
> Common sense and reality are both firmly grounded in low-fantasy
> campaigns. The closer you get to high-fantasy, to more your heroes do
> things that would be just too risky for a *common* man to even consider.
> And it is the *common* man's views which are used as a benchmark to decide
> what is (or isn't) 'common sense' - not heroes. Hence high-fantasy defies
> common sense.
>
> It has been my experience with high-fantasy campaigns that the emphasis is
> more on style than substance. The higher it gets, the less time the GM
> and the players spend on details (like cleaning armour, finding
> provisions, feeding pack animals). The mundane stuff (reality) is cast to
> one side because the players want to get into the swashbuckling hero
> stuff. Hence reality (or, at least, most of it) has no place in
> high-fantasy.
>
> This is not to say that the world shouldn't be *consistent*, or that
> players shouldn't behave *intelligently*. Nor does it mean that common
> sense and reality are totally devoid in a high-fantasy campaign. All it
> means is that in a high-fantasy campaign, the emphasis is on something
> other than common sense and reality. I would say that 'style' is where
> the emphasis would be for most high-fantasy campaigns - *your* emphasis
> may, of course, be different.
>
> Henry.
Good points all; I'd just like to mention that some people use 'High
Fantasy' to mean that the magic is very prevalent, and would consider a
gritty, realistic game with lots of magical items to be 'High Fantasy'.
So you may be having a communication problem, not a disagreement. :-)
Kiz
-I'd generally refer to what you're talking about as 'Epic Fantasy',
myself, but that's just me.
John P. Raynor
<spamfree-081...@d4.metropolis.net.au>:
Distribution:
Henry Penninkilampi (spam...@metropolis.net.au) wrote:
: In article <37FC590A...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net>, red
: <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
: > Because when you have that kind of power, money is an irrelevance?
:
: Wizards progress through research. Research costs money. I would think
: it obvious, then, that money is still quite relevant.
It depends upon how magical research works in your world. In many worlds,
progress would depend upon, say, prolonged periods of meditation and/or
prayer, the reviewing magical and/or sacred texts for coded messages
(don't laugh, people have been doing it with the Bible for centuries),
making pacts with spiritual beings for knowledge, casting rune-stones, and
so forth, and so on. None of these activities have to be particularly
expensive. And...what if turning lead into gold isn't very difficult?
: > Not necessarily. Establishing a college in which YOU get to teach the
: > Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know, then YOU get to determine WHICH
: > Things get taught, and HOW they get taught. Establishing a magical
: > college which projects your ideology may be a better way to become more
: > powerful than being a hermit in the woods.
:
: We're talking about academies here, aren't we? Academies need *many*
: teachers. Getting *many* wizards to agree on one ideology would be
: nigh-on impossible.
Why so?
You might as well say that "getting many *religious* authorities to agree
on one credo would be nearly impossible" -- yet the world has quite a few
religious hierarchies with millions of members.
- J. Raynor
Henry Penninkilampi
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
> : > Not necessarily. Establishing a college in which YOU get to teach the
> : > Things That Man Was Not Meant To Know, then YOU get to determine WHICH
> : > Things get taught, and HOW they get taught. Establishing a magical
> : > college which projects your ideology may be a better way to become more
> : > powerful than being a hermit in the woods.
> :
> : We're talking about academies here, aren't we? Academies need *many*
> : teachers. Getting *many* wizards to agree on one ideology would be
> : nigh-on impossible.
>
> Why so?
> You might as well say that "getting many *religious* authorities to agree
> on one credo would be nearly impossible" -- yet the world has quite a few
> religious hierarchies with millions of members.
Indeed, but have you noticed that they all teach/promote their *own* style
of faith, especially at the very lowest of levels. To the best of my
knowledge, no-one promotes, and cetrainly no-one teaches, generic
Christianity (for example) - you've always got to choose the Seventh Day
Adventist / Mormon / whatever... angle.
I was in a position, may years ago at Uni, where there was a very real
possibility of our having to merge 10 different Christian clubs. So, I
called all the reps to a meeting, gave them the worst-case scenario, and
asked whether or not this could be done. I mean, they were all Christian
groups, right? Should be easy - I thought.
After much discussion, their response: They could bring 10 down to 7, but
further merging was simply not possible, due to critical differences in
their faiths.
Now, I must admit that I am not a religious person, and hence I have no
insider knowledge on this topic (I also have no bias, which is a nice
side-effect), but if these Christian clubs were unwilling to merge into
any less than 7 distinct groups, each promoting and teachine *their* brand
of Christianity in their own way, then I don't see how there can be any
chance of getting cooperation on a much larger scale.
The important point here, I think, is to realise that whilst Christianity
might have started as a single coherent faith, it has fractured over time
because people have disagreed in the interpretation of the core 'writings'
and also on the method of spreading gospel to the masses. The
'hierarchies' (as you call them) exist not because the members *agree* on
something, but because they *disagree* - a very, very important
distinction.
This fracturing can also be seen in mundane academies that teach Science,
Humanities, and the Arts. Go back a few hundred years and a lot of the
teachings would happen under a single roof, but now they have all split
apart - first into different rooms, then into different buildings, finally
onto different campuses. Now there is hostility between schools, not only
because they all think that *their* work is more important, but because
they must compete against each other for funding.
This does not bode well for a wizard academy. Even if you started off
with only a single wizard, it wouldn't be long before you had enough
teachers (ex-pupils), with enough different opinions on *what* is
important, and *how* it should be taught, that rifts would start
appearing. Maybe these would be along the lines of the different "Schools
of Magic" (Conjuration, Invocation, Necromancy, etc.) - who knows. But
this is when words like 'diametrically opposed' creep into the language.
Entropy is a natural thing. The breakdown of power-structures is a
natural thing. Nothing lasts forever. The more energy (power) there is
in a system, the greater the rate that breakdown will occur. And you
propose to put a bunch of powerful, headstrong wizards under a single roof
and ask them to put aside their differences and work together as a
team??? In a high-fantasy campaign - no problem, but anywhere else - I
don't think so.
Henry.
Henry Penninkilampi
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
> : You might think differently if your empire is being decimated by a bunch
> : of psychopathic loons wearing pointed hats and brightly coloured frocks.
>
> I don't understand why you assume that:
>
> <A> the magicians ar prone to violence, and dangerously unpredictable
> ("psychopathic loons")
Aren't we talking about wizards who walk around, destroying cities with
unstoppable magic???
In *my* book, that's a psychopathic loon.
> and
>
> <B> the magicians are all extraordinarily eccentric ("in pointy hats and
> brightly colored frocks")
I was just adding flavour and trying to lighten the tone a bit. Evyone
knows I was talking about wizards, and not trying to critique their dress
sense, or judge their sexuality. (Well, almost everyone ;^)
> : In this scenario, are all of your wizards on the same side? It sounds
> : like it. You make it sound like there would be a *reason* for wizards to
> : cooperate.
...
> Magicians
> might not attend conventions and conferences, but they wouldn't ignore one
> another entirely. Think of scientists.
I've yet to see a biologist attent a protest march denouncing the
government's cutting of an astrophysics project. I've yet to see a
chemist weigh in on the side of a theoretical mathematicians in a public
debate about the value of chaos theory. I've yet to see a geneticist
getting down and dirty on an oil rig with a geologist.
Yes, let's think about scientists.
Science is such a fractured field that 99% of scientists are not even
aware of each other's existence, let alone aware of each other's work, let
alone understand it enough to care, let alone willing to sacrifice their
own valuable time to help.
Cooperation *within* a field is exraordinary, agreed, but each field
encompasses less than a percent of the scientific community as a whole (or
certainly only low, single-digit percentages, even for the largest
fields).
If we use scientists as an analogy (and I think it is a pretty good one)
then I think it's pretty clear that wizards *would* ignore each other.
They are all caught up in their own field, and would have little interest
in anything outside that field. All militant wizards would probably be
aware of each other's existence, sure. All invokers would know each
other, sure. But ask a summoner to name the three most important diviners
in the kingdom, and you think he's gonna know the answer? I think not.
You think he's gonna rush to their aid? No way.
> : The way I see it: Only a fraction of the wizards would be actively
> : employed by military forces and waging war. Noe *all* - just a fraction.
> : Thus if someone decided to start assassinating the 'troublemakers', the
> : remaining 90%+ of wizards, back in their towers doing reasearch, wouldn't
> : really care. Why should they?
>
> Uh...
> Here is's just *one* possible reason:
> If you and your friend Bob studied together as apprentices (before you
> decided to pursue a career in advanced scrying and applied astrology, and
> Bob decided to study military magic), and you suddenly found out that your
> old school buddy was being hunted by ruthless agents of a tyrannical
> government, wouldn't you be a bit upset? Yes, many magicians might just
> shrug and say "serves them right for dabbling in politically-sensitive
> magic", but quite a few would say "hey...we could be next!"
That's a fair-enough example. The only problem is that it is a single,
solitary case, that would be applicable to a minutely small percentage of
the population. It would amount to little more than a rounding error.
Anyway, the point is that not *all* of the wizards would be targetted -
only the ones going around destroying cities. If this encompassed all
"militant wizards" for example, then that would be only about 10% of the
wizard population. Only 10% would be targets.
One militant wizard dies, then another militant wizard dies, then another
one, then another one... Do you think anyone with 15+ Intelligence isn't
going to notice the pattern? The cause? "Militant wizards are being
assassinated because they are destroying cities. Well, I'm not doing
anything that *stupid* so I may as well get back to my research..."
If wizards (from all schools) were being arbitrarily assassinated, then I
would agree with you 100% and say that the wizards would rally together to
oppose a common foe - and the shit would then really hit the fan (as
you've described previously). But that's *not* the scenario that has been
presented thus far in this thread. We've been talking about wizards with
unstoppable magic destroying cities - militant wizards - and as I've said
all along, assassins would try to surgically take out the cause of the
problem, as quetly as possible, with as little collateral damage as
possible. Any non-militant wizard who somehow misses the obvious, and
thinks that he could be next, obviously has such a low intelligence that
he deserves to die anyway. No loss to the gene pool.
> : If you were a noble, and you had to choose one ally, which would you
> : choose? The professional assassin that does his job quietly and then
> : disappears, or a terrorist wizard???
...
> <B> Why should the professional assasin "do his job quietly, and then
> disappear?" If the assassin is good enough to liquidate military
> magicians, who undoubtedly surround themselves with scrying and
> warding spells, as well as ordinary guards, why shouldn't he think
> about dabbling in ordinary, non-magical politics? If this is a
> *magic-using* assassin, then he's *already* betraying his fellow
> magicians, so betraying his current non-magical patron shouldn't
> be a very big step for him...
You're not serious, are you? If an assassin keeps killing off his
patrons, then it won't take very long before no-one offers him a job -
then he's out of business. Simple as that. Nobles aren't *that* stupid
(and the ones that are deserve to die anyway).
As for whether or not he wants to dabble in politics on the side: Well,
everyone needs hobby! If that's what an *individual* assassin wants to
do, then fine. You can't generalise it to *most* assasins, though, so I
don't know why you even bothered to bring it up.
As for why professional assassins do their job quietly, and then
disappear: Well, that just seems to be the way it happens. I'm not an
assassin, so I don't know the real reasons. I would suspect, however,
that if an assassin hung around after the job was done, accepting flowers
from the crowd and making speeches, that he would get killed. That might
have something to do with it.
> : I don't really care if you find my tone patronizing and high-handed. Stop
> : projecting stupid scenarios and maybe you'll end up getting more warm
> : fuzzies than cold pricklies.
>
> You're walking dangerously close to the edge of my kill-file.
Ooooh, a threat. Excuse me while I change my underwear.
> I'm not projecting *stupid* scenarios, I'm *rationally* looking at the
> military and political implications of the availability of extremely
> powerful destructive spells, and the feasability of the plan which *you*
> suggested (killing the wizards, for fear of a coup).
Well, maybe it's just that you haven't presented a single, solid reason
why assassination of the militant wizards wouldn't work. You have given a
couple of ancilliary reasons which are sound, but most of your effort has
been spent describing methods which only belong in a high-fantasy setting,
and in that sort of setting *anything* goes - so arguing about what is or
isn't realistic would be pointless.
> The point I was trying to make, however,
> stands. In a world with magic-using assassins, the nobility would have to
> take precautions to protect themselves effectively (crowns, perhaps, with
> powerful warding spells to protect their wearers, or trusted guards with
> scrying devices). If non-magical nobles can protect themselves from
> magic-using assasins, the magicians can do so just as well (if not
> better).
Are you telling me that you believe 100% security is possible? That a
*perfect* defence exists???
The US President has the best protection that money can buy. How many
have been shot? Q.E.D.
Henry.
Henry Penninkilampi
> Henry Penninkilampi <spam...@metropolis.net.au> wrote:
> : Don't assume that assassins (especially wizard/assassins) will be easy to
> : find. Their livelihood, more than any other profession, depends on not
> : being able to be found.
>
> If assassins are impossible to find, they will never make any money.
There's a difference between not being able to be found, and not being
able to be contacted.
> The only type of assassins I'm familiar with are the the ones employed by
> modern organized crime. They are known by members of their organizations.
> A little scrying or magical kidnapping and torture would locate many of
> them.
And you think that smart assassins don't invest in anti-detection
measures? Sure, you can catch the stupid ones, but the stupid ones aren't
dangerous.
> I'd think that large scale governments of any type would be impossible
> in a world with a significant number of elite, free agent, super-
> hard-to-find assassins. All leaders would be dead, not just mages.
This is a common misconception as well. What you have to remember is that
most people (even assassins) need a stable surrounding in order to lead a
contented life. You can't feel safe and relax if you always have to be
patrolling the walls looking for intruders. This is one reason for not
killing all the heads of state and plunging your own country into anarchy
and civil war.
Another reason is that stable societies result in strong economies.
Strong economies result in rich people. And rich people are the ones who
hire assassins. Thus the more stable the economy, the higher the price
that an assassin can charge, and the better a life he can lead.
It comes down to "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Henry.
red
> One militant wizard dies, then another militant wizard dies, then another
> one, then another one... Do you think anyone with 15+ Intelligence isn't
> going to notice the pattern? The cause? "Militant wizards are being
> assassinated because they are destroying cities. Well, I'm not doing
> anything that *stupid* so I may as well get back to my research..."
Yes, we DO think they would notice, but we think they would FIGHT BACK.
Why is this so difficulkt to understand? And once two sets of wizards
start slugging it out, then you are back to the very situation you were
trying to avoid - wizards nukling cities for military goals, in thise
case, to kill that murderous assasin. So your mundane noblkes end up
cowering and hoping the wizards will go away, ruing the day they ever
imagined they could contract one set of wizards to kill anotrher without
getting caught in the fallout.
> unstoppable magic destroying cities - militant wizards - and as I've said
> all along, assassins would try to surgically take out the cause of the
> problem, as quetly as possible, with as little collateral damage as
> possible. Any non-militant wizard who somehow misses the obvious, and
Which would only exxagerate the miltant wizards tempo - you dont need to
track assasins if you can casualyl wipe out cities. And after a certain
point, that option becomes self defense. You have just provoked the
atrocities you sought to avoid.
> As for whether or not he wants to dabble in politics on the side: Well,
> everyone needs hobby! If that's what an *individual* assassin wants to
> do, then fine. You can't generalise it to *most* assasins, though, so I
> don't know why you even bothered to bring it up.
Becasue you are ASSUMING on particular miondset, despite the fact that
much argument has been made to point out that the circumstances do not
meet your assumptions.
> Are you telling me that you believe 100% security is possible? That a
> *perfect* defence exists???
>
> The US President has the best protection that money can buy. How many
> have been shot? Q.E.D.
And so there is a Secret Service, the FBI, the NSA etc. - all of which
potentially root out would-be presidential assasins. And the president
stands to be assasinated because they are politically powerful - but
your claim was that wizards WOULD NOT become politically powerful
because the mundane nobility would have them assasinated.
red
> This does not bode well for a wizard academy. Even if you started off
> with only a single wizard, it wouldn't be long before you had enough
> teachers (ex-pupils), with enough different opinions on *what* is
> important, and *how* it should be taught, that rifts would start
> appearing. Maybe these would be along the lines of the different "Schools
> of Magic" (Conjuration, Invocation, Necromancy, etc.) - who knows. But
> this is when words like 'diametrically opposed' creep into the language.
Nobody said you could not have multiple schools, ala Ars MAgica. The
hermist mode of magic is only ONE possible mode. You are still unable
to defend the strength of your statement.
red
>
> There's a difference between not being able to be found, and not being
> able to be contacted.
What?
> And you think that smart assassins don't invest in anti-detection
> measures? Sure, you can catch the stupid ones, but the stupid ones aren't
> dangerous.
And wizards don't?
> This is a common misconception as well. What you have to remember is that
> most people (even assassins) need a stable surrounding in order to lead a
> contented life. You can't feel safe and relax if you always have to be
If that isd there goal. Maybe they don't like the standing order -
maybe they feel it would be better if they were in charge. If everyone
sees this drive to stability as rational, why was the feudal period
filled with so many wars?
> patrolling the walls looking for intruders. This is one reason for not
> killing all the heads of state and plunging your own country into anarchy
> and civil war.
What if you think the current heads are WORSE than anarchy?
> Another reason is that stable societies result in strong economies.
20th century thinking. In the feudal era, they are only just
discovering that something as abstract as economy exists.
Henry Penninkilampi
<r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
> > One militant wizard dies, then another militant wizard dies, then another
> > one, then another one... Do you think anyone with 15+ Intelligence isn't
> > going to notice the pattern? The cause? "Militant wizards are being
> > assassinated because they are destroying cities. Well, I'm not doing
> > anything that *stupid* so I may as well get back to my research..."
>
> Yes, we DO think they would notice, but we think they would FIGHT BACK.
> Why is this so difficulkt to understand? And once two sets of wizards
> start slugging it out, then you are back to the very situation you were
> trying to avoid - wizards nukling cities for military goals, in thise
> case, to kill that murderous assasin.
So, you think it is logical for supposedly *intelligent* wizards to nuke
entire cities on the off-chance that they will bag an assassin at the same
time?
Or are you imagining that a 'showdown' will occur with two wizards drawing
wands of fireballs at thirty paces, and missing so much that they take the
town out before they manage to hit each other?
'Fantasy Westerns' - never thought I'd see the day.
> your claim was that wizards WOULD NOT become politically powerful
> because the mundane nobility would have them assasinated.
Hey, look: If I were a noble ruler of a kingdom in a fantasy world I
wouldn't even let it get to the point where the mages pose a threat -
hence this entire argument would be moot. It seems, however, that in
*your* fantasy world, your mundane nobles are so stupid that they would
allow wizards to develop to the point where they are uncontrollable and
unstoppable.
Congratulations. You've just failed "How to be a Ruler 101".
Henry.
Henry Penninkilampi
<r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
> > There's a difference between not being able to be found, and not being
> > able to be contacted.
>
> What?
Are you having problems with an individual word, or the sentence as a
whole? I don't think the concept can be explained any clearer.
> > And you think that smart assassins don't invest in anti-detection
> > measures? Sure, you can catch the stupid ones, but the stupid ones aren't
> > dangerous.
>
> And wizards don't?
You've just created a circular reference - well done - that was productive.
> > This is a common misconception as well. What you have to remember is that
> > most people (even assassins) need a stable surrounding in order to lead a
> > contented life. You can't feel safe and relax if you always have to be
>
> If that isd there goal. Maybe they don't like the standing order -
> maybe they feel it would be better if they were in charge.
Maybe they don't want to be in charge. Maybe they do like the standing
order. Maybe that *is* their goal.
In your world, are most assassins wannabe politicians?
> > patrolling the walls looking for intruders. This is one reason for not
> > killing all the heads of state and plunging your own country into anarchy
> > and civil war.
>
> What if you think the current heads are WORSE than anarchy?
What if they are? All I was sayng that stability was *one* reason not to
deep-six the nobility. If you want to speculate on the competence of the
nobility, then go right ahead (but count me out).
> > Another reason is that stable societies result in strong economies.
>
> 20th century thinking. In the feudal era, they are only just
> discovering that something as abstract as economy exists.
Rubbish. The late Medieval economy was based on banking and international
trade. Venture capitalists were mostly small, family companies which
incorporated temporarily, and then dissolved when the venture was over.
Modern banking developed local loans (at 12-15%) and foreign loans (at
30-35%). Cheques and credit marked the sophistication of the economic
system.
One could argue on solid ground that as soon as a culture accepts currency
as a medium of exchange, that they have a grasp of what an economy is.
That would date the concept of economics back *thousands* of years.
Henry.
Henry Penninkilampi
<r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
Could you please rewrite that last sentence so it makes sense?
Much gooder enlesh be liked.
And what's a 'hermist mode of magic' anyway?
Henry.
Nana Yaw Ofori
spam...@metropolis.net.au says...
> In article <3801B509...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net>, red
> <r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> wrote:
>
> > > There's a difference between not being able to be found, and not being
> > > able to be contacted.
> >
> > What?
>
> Are you having problems with an individual word, or the sentence as a
> whole? I don't think the concept can be explained any clearer.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with red on this one. If these
Assassins can be contacted in any way at all, this is a hole in their
security that an enterprising mage with enough power and free time can
trace back to them.
You're essentially proposing Assassins who are completely uncapturable
and incorruptible, part of a completely incorruptible organization, using
magicks against which there are no defenses, and based in places that
they cannot be tracked to or scried on by any means.
If there's enough reason, enough time, and enough power (perhaps
because they're going around slaughtering mages), they /will/ be found.
Henry Penninkilampi
<mal...@flashmail.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with red on this one. If these
> Assassins can be contacted in any way at all, this is a hole in their
> security that an enterprising mage with enough power and free time can
> trace back to them.
>
> You're essentially proposing Assassins who are completely uncapturable
> and incorruptible, part of a completely incorruptible organization, using
> magicks against which there are no defenses, and based in places that
> they cannot be tracked to or scried on by any means.
>
> If there's enough reason, enough time, and enough power (perhaps
> because they're going around slaughtering mages), they /will/ be found.
I never, at any point, proposed or even suggested assassins who are
completely uncaptuarble, and incorruptible, part of a completely
incorruptible organization, using magicks against which there are no
defenses, and based in places that they cannot be tracked to or scried on
by any means. You must have mistaken me for someone else.
As I said in a different post - there is *no* 100% defence, and that's
what makes militant wizards vulnerable. Assassins would exploit that
vulnerability - that's what they do. One-by-one the militant wizards
would die.
Assassins also excel at creating things like ambushes, so even if the
ex-militant wizard's pals do divine his location and form a posse to hunt
him down, whether or not any of *them* survive is also debatable.
I consider an intelligent assassin/wizard to be *the* most dangerous
character that can possibly be created. Their job is to kill - period.
Their lives depend on not being found (unless they want to be found) -
period. This puts them at the top of the food chain where *they* are the
ones that dictate terms.
I present, as I did in my very first post on this thread, the ASSASSIN as
*one* possible obstacle to a kingdom's domination by psychopathic loons
wearing pointed hats and brightly-coloured frocks.
It seems, however, that those that argue against me are of the opinion
that pure wizards are all-powerful, and unstoppable. Elephants are
unstoppable - until you place a mouse in their path. Humans are
unstoppable - until a tiny airborne virus enters their system and then
kills them in a matter of hours. If you want your wizards to be
unstoppable - go right ahead and campaign in a high-fantasy world. But if
you've already made up your minds, and are not even willing to entertain
the notion that your 'pet class' has a weakness, then what's the point of
arguing about it?
Henry.
Aaron Pound
Henry Penninkilampi wrote:
This assumes that the ruler of a kingdom in a fantasy world somehow acquired
power *before* magic became powerful. Unless you postulate that magic is
something brand new to your world I just don't see how a ruler in a world with
magic as a potential economic and military resource would be able to secure power
in the first place without the cultivation and assistance of mages. Groups of
people, families, and/or individuals must first rise to power at some point
before they can set about making mages not a threat.
Look at it this way. At some point in pre-history, people were disorganized and
structureless. Most of humankind lived in small family groups or tribes.
Evetually these tribes began working together, either as a result of mutual
benefits to be gained, or through force and aggression. Kingdoms were formed,
and a social elite arose. In our world many times this social elite were
warriors or religious figures who provided the rest of the populace with
'products' they could not really produce for themselves. Why do you think that
wizards (in the form of shamans and witch-doctors and so on) would not become
this sort of social elite? They wield powers that no one else can emulate, they
have obvious military and hunting value. You seem to assume that the
tradintional "warrior-leader' would emrge on the top of the heap and then say
"Wow! These mages are so powerful I cannot hope to contain them, let's get rid of
them!" I find this implausible and unlikely. More likely the mages establish
themselves as a social elite, and rule themselves from the get go.
In addition, what about the competitive nature of rulership? If you set about
killing off all your mages and your neighbor, who has come to a better
understanding with his (or perhaps is a mage himself) does not, then sooner or
later you are going to be facing a nation with power you cannot hope to match.
Furthermore, if your neighbor makes his realm a safe haven for refugee wizards
attempting to escape from the campaign of homicide you have instituted, where do
you think they will go, and who do you think they will be well-disposed towards.
Your model makes virtually no sense when evaluated at any sort of depth at all.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Henry Penninkilampi
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> > Hey, look: If I were a noble ruler of a kingdom in a fantasy world I
> > wouldn't even let it get to the point where the mages pose a threat -
> > hence this entire argument would be moot. It seems, however, that in
> > *your* fantasy world, your mundane nobles are so stupid that they would
> > allow wizards to develop to the point where they are uncontrollable and
> > unstoppable.
> >
> > Congratulations. You've just failed "How to be a Ruler 101".
...
> Look at it this way. At some point in pre-history, people were
disorganized and
> structureless. Most of humankind lived in small family groups or tribes.
> Evetually these tribes began working together, either as a result of mutual
> benefits to be gained, or through force and aggression. Kingdoms were formed,
> and a social elite arose. In our world many times this social elite were
> warriors or religious figures who provided the rest of the populace with
> 'products' they could not really produce for themselves. Why do you
think that
> wizards (in the form of shamans and witch-doctors and so on) would not become
> this sort of social elite? They wield powers that no one else can
emulate, they
> have obvious military and hunting value. You seem to assume that the
> tradintional "warrior-leader' would emrge on the top of the heap and then say
> "Wow! These mages are so powerful I cannot hope to contain them, let's
get rid of
> them!" I find this implausible and unlikely.
Then you're thinking in terms of a high-fantasy campaign.
> More likely the mages establish
> themselves as a social elite, and rule themselves from the get go.
Absolutely! I don't disagree with this, and in fact I even suggested this
scenario in response to another post along the same lines (which,
obviously, you didn't read).
Yes, if there are *enough* wizards with *enough* power to actually form a
'class' then I think it would be very likley - almost inevitable - that
they would set themselves up as the ruling class and turn their state into
a magocracy.
BUT
When your entire ruling class consists of wizards, then you campaign is
*without question* a HIGH-FANTASY campaign - and the normal rules of
common-sense and realism DO NOT APPLY. Anything goes in a high-fantasy
campaign. You can have wizards as a ruling class. Hell, you can have
*turnips* as a ruling class if that's what gets you off. Go crazy!
In medium- and low-fantasy campaigns, however, which account for roughly
two thirds of all settings, the mere concept of having an entire social
class capable of casting spells is ludicrous - and it is in those settings
that I maintain that magicians would not be allowed to accumulate such
power that they posed a threat to the existing, more mundane ruling
classes.
Got it?
It's really simple: If you're talking about a high-fantasy campaign, then
I'm NOT arguing against you; if you're talking about a medium- or
low-fantasy campaign, then I am.
> In addition, what about the competitive nature of rulership? If you set about
> killing off all your mages and your neighbor, who has come to a better
> understanding with his (or perhaps is a mage himself) does not, then sooner or
> later you are going to be facing a nation with power you cannot hope to match.
> Furthermore, if your neighbor makes his realm a safe haven for refugee wizards
> attempting to escape from the campaign of homicide you have instituted,
where do
> you think they will go, and who do you think they will be well-disposed
towards.
This is actually a really neat idea <scribble> - I think I'm going to
<scribble> write it up <scribble> and turn it into a proper <scribble>
scenario <scribble, scribble>.
Thanks!
:)
> Your model makes virtually no sense when evaluated at any sort of depth
at all.
The model makes perfect sense when you place the argument in the right
context. You have not done so because it looks like you have missed out
on reading more than a few posts of this thread. Either that or you are
simply being argumentative.
Dump high-fantasy. Dump the concept that 10% of the population is capable
of casting spells. Only then do you start to approach the realms of
medium-fantasy, and only then will you see that magicians are not the
absolute power that you seem to think they are.
Crikey! All this fuss over a few assassins!
I wonder what sort of silly arguments you people would have dug up if I
had simply said: GODS - and suggested that a 1st Level Priest could stop
all of your psychopathic loons by merely praying to Him and asking that
they all be smitten!
Anyone care to try defend your pointed-hat and coloured-frock
'unstoppable' mages from the powers that created the universe??? No, I
didn't think so.
Henry.
Mr. M.J. Lush
There are Gods of magic too you know and Godwars are way worse
than Wizard wars :-]
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
red
> Anyone care to try defend your pointed-hat and coloured-frock
> 'unstoppable' mages from the powers that created the universe??? No, I
> didn't think so.
Godkilling is a perfectly respectable occupation for wizards. A number
of mythologies include godkillings by heroes - arguably the whole of
LOTR was aimed towards that kind of conflict. It sometimes features in
the elevation of human to god.
red
> Could you please rewrite that last sentence so it makes sense?
>
> Much gooder enlesh be liked.
>
> And what's a 'hermist mode of magic' anyway?
Sorry, "hermit" mode. Magicians do not ALWAYS become loners - there are
plenty of literary examples. There was rumoured to be a school of magic
in southern france taught by (presumably) the devil. A huge hairy hand
would come out of the walls of the mages cell and feed them and teach
them. They learned in isolation, but it WAS a school.
Eric Stevenson
: In article <37fd...@news.cc.umr.edu>, Eric Stevenson <es...@umr.edu> wrote:
: > The only type of assassins I'm familiar with are the the ones employed by
: > A little scrying or magical kidnapping and torture would locate many of
: > them.
: And you think that smart assassins don't invest in anti-detection
: measures? Sure, you can catch the stupid ones, but the stupid ones aren't
: dangerous.
They would do what they could to hide. The wizards would do what they
could to find them. Some assassins would be found, some wouldn't. Some
wizards would be assassinated, some wouldn't.
I don't disagrre with your thesis that governments would try to kill
undesirable wizards. My point is simply that they would not succeed in
all cases. After all, real history is full of people who governments
wanted dead, but couldn't kill.
: > I'd think that large scale governments of any type would be impossible
: > in a world with a significant number of elite, free agent, super-
: > hard-to-find assassins. All leaders would be dead, not just mages.
: This is a common misconception as well. What you have to remember is that
: most people (even assassins) need a stable surrounding in order to lead a
: contented life. You can't feel safe and relax if you always have to be
: patrolling the walls looking for intruders. This is one reason for not
: killing all the heads of state and plunging your own country into anarchy
: and civil war.
So we have assassins with a grand social vision now? It is not as though
one assassin is going to wipe out all government leaders with a single
act. But if we have a large number of the perfect and unstoppable
assassins that you seem to like, no one is safe. Any undesirables,
whether wizards or leaders, will be killed as soon as they become a
problem. I suppose, though, if you want to have these perfect killers in
your world, you might as well have them in an organized group, deciding
what contracts to take on, so as to ensure maximum long term profit.
But then your have a government by assassins. With more realistic
assassins, we can have some irritating or even dangerous wizards
surviving just because no one has successfully killed them. Depending on
the power and intelligence of the wizards relative to the assassins, we
end up with different types of societies.
John P. Raynor
<38019C87...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> <spamfree-111...@d4.metropolis.net.au> <3802B132...@bellatlantic.net> <spamfree-121...@d5.metropolis.net.au>:
<38032F90...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net>
Distribution:
red (r...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net) wrote:
Furthermore:
Even if we assume that the gods can *not* be slain, it's a big stretch to
assume that the gods would turn against powerful magicians, just because
some of their followers would like them to. It's entirely possible (to
lay out an extreme, but still plausible, example) that the God-of-Peace is
really an *enthusiastic supporter* of powerful military magicians, because
the availability of city-killing destructive spells promotes
balance-of-power politics, and thus *discourages* open warfare! Priests
don't always know what their deities really want. The priests of the
God-of-Peace might pray for the downfall of those frightening military
magicians, but their divine patron (preferring to work, as gods often do,
in mysterious ways), would just ignore them...
- J. Raynor
Henry Penninkilampi
> : > I'd think that large scale governments of any type would be impossible
> : > in a world with a significant number of elite, free agent, super-
> : > hard-to-find assassins. All leaders would be dead, not just mages.
>
> : This is a common misconception as well. What you have to remember is that
> : most people (even assassins) need a stable surrounding in order to lead a
> : contented life. You can't feel safe and relax if you always have to be
> : patrolling the walls looking for intruders. This is one reason for not
> : killing all the heads of state and plunging your own country into anarchy
> : and civil war.
>
> So we have assassins with a grand social vision now?
You conveniently failed to quote the last line which, I thought,
summarised it quite nicely: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Nothing to do with a grand social vision at all - purely selfish, in fact.
> But if we have a large number of the perfect and unstoppable
> assassins that you seem to like, no one is safe.
Never said perfect. Never said unstoppable. You're the second person in
the last 24 hours that has misrepresented my position. What is it - the
weather up there snap-frozen everyone's comprehension skills?
<rest of paragraph snipped because it was based on a false assumption>
> But then your have a government by assassins. With more realistic
> assassins, we can have some irritating or even dangerous wizards
> surviving just because no one has successfully killed them. Depending on
> the power and intelligence of the wizards relative to the assassins, we
> end up with different types of societies.
Personally, I don't think government by assassins would work (ex- perhaps,
but not CPAs ;) - but nonetheless, there's a nugget in the above
paragraph, but I just can't put my finger on it. Could you elaborate on
the 'different types of societies' that you speculate could evolve?
Henry.
Aaron Pound
Henry Penninkilampi wrote:
> In article <3802B132...@bellatlantic.net>, Aaron Pound
> <ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
Not necessarily. You do not need a large percentage of mages for them to be able to
rule over their lesser bretheren.
> > More likely the mages establish
> > themselves as a social elite, and rule themselves from the get go.
>
> Absolutely! I don't disagree with this, and in fact I even suggested this
> scenario in response to another post along the same lines (which,
> obviously, you didn't read).
>
> Yes, if there are *enough* wizards with *enough* power to actually form a
> 'class' then I think it would be very likley - almost inevitable - that
> they would set themselves up as the ruling class and turn their state into
> a magocracy.
>
> BUT
>
> When your entire ruling class consists of wizards, then you campaign is
> *without question* a HIGH-FANTASY campaign - and the normal rules of
> common-sense and realism DO NOT APPLY. Anything goes in a high-fantasy
> campaign. You can have wizards as a ruling class. Hell, you can have
> *turnips* as a ruling class if that's what gets you off. Go crazy!
No, it doesn't have to be high fantasy. It can be low fantasy, and probably works
better there, since you don't have swashbuckling mundane heroes able to perform
stupendous feats of strength, dexterity and fortitude in order to overcome your
magical powers.
> In medium- and low-fantasy campaigns, however, which account for roughly
> two thirds of all settings, the mere concept of having an entire social
> class capable of casting spells is ludicrous - and it is in those settings
> that I maintain that magicians would not be allowed to accumulate such
> power that they posed a threat to the existing, more mundane ruling
> classes.
Why? Do you have any idea how big an elite social class in the preindustrial world
was? Tiny. A handful of percentage points. Using AD&D, GURPS or several other
published rules sets and settings you generally get a figure of between 1 in 100 and
1 in 1000 members of the populace who are mages. In most of the medieval world the
social elite, the ruling class, were a more select group than that.
> Got it?
No.
> It's really simple: If you're talking about a high-fantasy campaign, then
> I'm NOT arguing against you; if you're talking about a medium- or
> low-fantasy campaign, then I am.
Okay, we're arguing, because you haven't really thought about the facts here.
England at the time of the Norman Conquest had about 1,000,000 inhabitants. Harold
Godwinson fielded an army to defend England that was about 5,000 strong. Even if
you assume that this army was composed entirely of members of theEnglish ruling
class (Thegns and Huscarls), that is still only one-half of one percent of the
population. Those who ruled over nations were very few in number, and mages are
more than capable of taking over the job, with population to spare.
> > In addition, what about the competitive nature of rulership? If you set about
> > killing off all your mages and your neighbor, who has come to a better
> > understanding with his (or perhaps is a mage himself) does not, then sooner or
> > later you are going to be facing a nation with power you cannot hope to match.
> > Furthermore, if your neighbor makes his realm a safe haven for refugee wizards
> > attempting to escape from the campaign of homicide you have instituted,
> where do
> > you think they will go, and who do you think they will be well-disposed
> towards.
>
> This is actually a really neat idea <scribble> - I think I'm going to
> <scribble> write it up <scribble> and turn it into a proper <scribble>
> scenario <scribble, scribble>.
You are welcome.
> > Your model makes virtually no sense when evaluated at any sort of depth
> at all.
>
> The model makes perfect sense when you place the argument in the right
> context. You have not done so because it looks like you have missed out
> on reading more than a few posts of this thread. Either that or you are
> simply being argumentative.
No, not even in the context you are arguing does the model make much sense. You
have to assume that mages are 1 in 10,000+ to make your argument make sense, and if
they are that rare, then there isn't that much point in getting rid of them, since
their power is so small that they would not be much of a threat. Given that the
costs that could be incurred in the attempt to take powerful mages out, I find it
implausible that rulers would go to the trouble if they are that few in number.
> Dump high-fantasy. Dump the concept that 10% of the population is capable
> of casting spells. Only then do you start to approach the realms of
> medium-fantasy, and only then will you see that magicians are not the
> absolute power that you seem to think they are.
I don't assume 10%, I assume more like 1/2% or maybe even less, and I still find
your assertion that a non-magically endowed elite would rise to power to be
implausible. It requires very, very few people to constitute a ruling class.
> I wonder what sort of silly arguments you people would have dug up if I
> had simply said: GODS - and suggested that a 1st Level Priest could stop
> all of your psychopathic loons by merely praying to Him and asking that
> they all be smitten!
>
> Anyone care to try defend your pointed-hat and coloured-frock
> 'unstoppable' mages from the powers that created the universe??? No, I
> didn't think so.
Why would He care. He created the universe after all. He created magic and endowed
certian individuals with the power to wield it. He is omniscient, and therefore
could predict that the mages would behave in whatever manner they behave in. If He
could predict this from the get go, why would He think it a great idea to stop
things just because someone asked Him to?
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Henry Penninkilampi
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
< a bunch of stuff which all got snipped because he doesn't seem to be
able to differentiate high-fantasy from anything else - I'm not arguing
against people who are thinking in terms of high-fantasy, even if they
don't realise it themselves >
>> Anyone care to try defend your pointed-hat and coloured-frock
>> 'unstoppable' mages from the powers that created the universe???
>
> Why would He care. He created the universe after all. He created
> magic and endowed certian individuals with the power to wield it.
> He is omniscient, and therefore could predict that the mages would
> behave in whatever manner they behave in. If He could predict this
> from the get go, why would He think it a great idea to stop things
> just because someone asked Him to?
And that makes three.
At this point I think I'll leave you guys to your "godkilling is a
perfectly reputable profession" wizards who are "enthusiastically
supported by the God of Peace" and who take no action to protect their own
worshippers and representatives from being slaughtered - "why would He
care" after all?
You folks seem to have such fertile imaginations and seem to be willing to
stretch all the bounds of common sense to a point where I'm afraid I
cannot follow.
May your campaigns be good ones.
Henry.
red
> As I said in a different post - there is *no* 100% defence, and that's
> what makes militant wizards vulnerable. Assassins would exploit that
> vulnerability - that's what they do. One-by-one the militant wizards
> would die.
Why is it than one-by-one wizards would die, rather than one-by-one
assasins would die?
> Assassins also excel at creating things like ambushes, so even if the
> ex-militant wizard's pals do divine his location and form a posse to hunt
> him down, whether or not any of *them* survive is also debatable.
Your wizards are this weak? Then why bother assasinating them - why not
just send a couple of heavies around.
> I consider an intelligent assassin/wizard to be *the* most dangerous
> character that can possibly be created. Their job is to kill - period.
Why?
> Their lives depend on not being found (unless they want to be found) -
> period. This puts them at the top of the food chain where *they* are the
> ones that dictate terms.
Not at all - Gods incited by priestly prayer can squish them flat.
Maybe you shoudl try playing a few more magic systems and see if your
argument still holds - try Mage: the Ascension and see what you think.
> I present, as I did in my very first post on this thread, the ASSASSIN as
> *one* possible obstacle to a kingdom's domination by psychopathic loons
> wearing pointed hats and brightly-coloured frocks.
And I re-present my objection, that if wizards can be bumpoed off by
assasins, then they are not politically powerful. And if they are not
politically powerful, then assasins would not be employed to kill them.
Your argument still makes no sense.
red
>
> You conveniently failed to quote the last line which, I thought,
> summarised it quite nicely: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
>
> Nothing to do with a grand social vision at all - purely selfish, in fact.
You are assuming:
a) that your opinion of the relationship is objectively true
b) that every right-thinking person sees that too
c) nobody is sufficiently disenchanted to be nihilistic.
> Personally, I don't think government by assassins would work (ex- perhaps,
> but not CPAs ;) - but nonetheless, there's a nugget in the above
> paragraph, but I just can't put my finger on it. Could you elaborate on
> the 'different types of societies' that you speculate could evolve?
I understood your claim to be that assasins would PREVENT a radical
change in society, as per paragraph above.
John P. Raynor
<38019C87...@spamblok.redflag.force9.net> <spamfree-111...@d4.metropolis.net.au> <3802B132...@bellatlantic.net> <spamfree-121...@d5.metropolis.net.au>:
<3803D28B...@bellatlantic.net> <spamfree-131...@d4.metropolis.net.au>
Distribution:
Henry Penninkilampi (spam...@metropolis.net.au) wrote:
: At this point I think I'll leave you guys to your "godkilling is a
: perfectly reputable profession" wizards who are "enthusiastically
: supported by the God of Peace" and who take no action to protect their own
: worshippers and representatives from being slaughtered - "why would He
: care" after all?
Please do not distort my words through selective editing.
You seem to be working on the assumption that just because the magicians
*have* the ability to destroy entire cities means that they *will* do so,
fairly routinely. You also seem to be assuming that magicians always
behave as individuals, with very few restraining ties to the rest of
society. Give *those* assumptions, there would be no reason for the
God-of-Peace to support military magicians.
I, however, am working with different assumptions. I am assuming that
most magicians are (in some sense) members of non-magicial society. They
have non-magicial friends and relatives, about whom they are concerned.
Many (perhaps most) enjoy positions of power and prestige within
non-magicial society. Magicians are regarded with a touch of awe, and
perhaps even fear, but society recognizes that their gifts are valuable,
and has always made room for them within its ranks.
Answer me this: Given *my* assumptions, why would magicians *want* to
destroy the world? They wouldn't. They would be aware that they would be
among the first to be vaporized if a war broke out between
magically-sophisticated countries. They might not have *meant* to have
given their world the anxious peace that goes with Mutually Assured
Destruction, and might even regret being bound by restrictive
Balance-of-Power politics, but they would still do their best to preserve
that uncomfortable peace (and thus, the God-of-Peace *might* secretly
smile upon them, much to the puzzlement of his well-meaning priests).
- J. Raynor