Rarity of Magic?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

That's the B&D model, but there's no reason why it *has* to be that way. Just because those guys divide magic into "Arcane" and "Divine" and say that "Clerics" and "Druids" can use healing magic but "Wizards" and "Sorcerors" can't, doesn't mean that's the way all fantasy RPGs have to be. And BTW, it isn't even the way most fantasy literature is.

 

Even the magic used by a priest doesn't *have* to come from the gods, or that he even has to use magic at all.

 

This is true, but this falls back into the same vein as the Elves thread: this is what is expected (by many gamers, if not most) so it's the easiest way to go when setting up a game world. It's fairly easy to imagine an alchemical process that will revive a body, but you don't often see this, because it steps on the priests' schtick.

 

I tried to avoid the tricky issue by divorcing divine magic from the priesthood and taking full control away from its practicioners. This way, the experiment I showed above will give ambiguous results at best, as miracles only happen when the gods want them to. Also, the most powerful priest in the land might never manifest a miracle, but some simple country girl might gain a reputation for saintliness. This also opens up the opportunity to place crass politicians as priests, climbing the ecclesiastical ladder for temporal power rather than out of faith, or even to place a truly evil individual in the priesthood of a good god. In the standard fantasy model, all of this is impossible, as a priest's status is reflected in the magic bestowed by the gods...it's hard to imagine why a good god would grant magic to a serial killer or pedophile just because they're a priest.

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I'm not sure how you can first say this

 

Exactly. In the real world' date=' any of these manifestations can be interpreted in other ways. It's the faith that makes the difference.[/quote']

 

and then this

 

Pratchet's works are rarely meant to be taken seriously, at least IME. Even so, this illustration isn't too far out in left field. A lightning bolt isn't a rational argument. (Although, I'd say that faith isn't really meant to be discussed in an entirely rational manner.) However, it could be demonstrated to any citizen of a fantasy world who cared to carry out the experiment that when a priest casts a spell, he's not using any arcane gestures or words of power. He calls on the gods, and maybe makes some ritual motions common to the religion, and the miracle happens. Anyone could do the exact same things, but without the priest's faith and devotion to the gods, nothing happens. If the golem were truely rational, and carried out this experiment, in addition to not being very funny, it would prove that the gods exist.

 

It doesn't prove the Gods exist. It just proves that the priest of Io can call down lightning.

 

Oh, and while Pratchett is very funny indeed, I do NOT think that means his work can't or shouldn't be taken seriously. But that's another topic.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Then again, I take the palindromedary seriously.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I can say that because in the first case, it is a matter of applying faith to a single circumstance. It's really not possible to prove one way or the other.

 

In the latter, it is a case of performing an experiment, and isolating that the only difference between those who can call down the lightning bolt and those who can't is the faith in Io or lack thereof. And faith that is that verifiable really isn't faith any more than faith in the law of gravity.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

And faith that is that verifiable really isn't faith any more than faith in the law of gravity.

 

The Dark God of Typing does not approve of this notion of gravity! Heresy!

[Springald Jack]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

 

Divine magic, as usually represented in fantasy roleplaying, makes it very difficult for anyone to disbelieve in the gods.

 

or that this possession by a god is actually a sign of a mental disturbance.

 

It's hard to say that when a religious figure calls on the power of the gods to raise your neighbor from the dead, and then your neighbor goes around telling everyone what the afterlife is like.

 

A couple of points

1. Western Science actually tells us that "possesion" states are trainable techniques that anyone can learn rather than a sign of mental abberation.

 

2. My point was that people of real faith in the real world where there are no unambiguous signs still experience "incontrovertible" proof. Before the Enlughtenment, nobody claimed that other people's supernatural experiences weren't real. THey said that your god is either A. Weaker than our god, or B. is Evil and trying to decieve you.

[Kristopher]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Pratchet's works are rarely meant to be taken seriously, at least IME. Even so, this illustration isn't too far out in left field. A lightning bolt isn't a rational argument. (Although, I'd say that faith isn't really meant to be discussed in an entirely rational manner.) However, it could be demonstrated to any citizen of a fantasy world who cared to carry out the experiment that when a priest casts a spell, he's not using any arcane gestures or words of power. He calls on the gods, and maybe makes some ritual motions common to the religion, and the miracle happens. Anyone could do the exact same things, but without the priest's faith and devotion to the gods, nothing happens. If the golem were truely rational, and carried out this experiment, in addition to not being very funny, it would prove that the gods exist.

 

Of course, this effect lessens in those worlds where the gestures and incantations are more difficult for the layman to repeat, until you reach a point where divine magic is as arcane as secular magic. Then it gets more difficult to prove the existence of the gods, except that some who study for the priesthood are never able to cast spells, for their lack of faith.

 

I hate the effect that D&D has had on the genre.

 

Who says that there's a visible difference in how the casting takes place?

 

What if none of the casters need gestures or incantions?

 

What if all of them do?

 

What if all casters have access to the same spell effects?

[Markdoc]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Before the Enlughtenment' date=' nobody claimed that other people's supernatural experiences weren't real. THey said that your god is either A. Weaker than our god, or B. is Evil and trying to decieve you.[/quote']

 

Not really - doubt about whether a god or gods actually exist goes back a long, long way. We don't know exactly when, but by the time the ancient Greeks got groovin' on the topic, discussion had already covered most of the finer points we discuss today. Protagoras spent his whole career examining the idea of whether or not the gods really existed before concluding that there was no way to tell. Further East, Siddhartha specifically rejected the concept of gods and he was building his philosophy on much older traditions.

 

The argument about whether gods exist, probably goes back to shortly after the concept of "god" was invented.

 

cheers, Mark

[Kristopher]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

The idea that there were no agnostics or athiests before 1900 or 1800 or whenever is really popular with certain types, but it's also patently untrue.

[Springald Jack]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Not really - doubt about whether a god or gods actually exist goes back a long' date=' long way. [/quote']

 

Agreed. I overstated my point. However when not aimed at intellectuals, weaker or evil was probably more common.

 

Further East, Siddhartha specifically rejected the concept of gods and he was building his philosophy on much older traditions.

 

The Buddha did not reject the existence of the gods, but rather their place in the Upanishadic Hindu cosmology. For Buddha they were just as much prisoners in Samsara as us, and because of their lives of pleasure in the Heavens, were less likely to embrace the Eightfold path which is the release from suffering. IMO this falls under the "your gods are weak" umbrella.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

A couple of points

1. Western Science actually tells us that "possesion" states are trainable techniques that anyone can learn rather than a sign of mental abberation.

 

2. My point was that people of real faith in the real world where there are no unambiguous signs still experience "incontrovertible" proof. Before the Enlughtenment, nobody claimed that other people's supernatural experiences weren't real. THey said that your god is either A. Weaker than our god, or B. is Evil and trying to decieve you.

 

1. Really? Interesting to know. I'll have to look that up.

 

2. I agree. But the difference in a fantasy world is that it is possible to prove incontrovertibly to unbelievers that the gods exist.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

2. I agree. But the difference in a fantasy world is that it is possible to prove incontrovertibly to unbelievers that the gods exist.

That depends on the definition of "god". If there's a huge guy with a beard who throws lightning bolts around the sky, and he shows up and introduces himself and says, "I'm a god," is that proof? What's the difference between a god and an extremely powerful wizard? Likewise, if someone's religion worships trees, he can also easily prove that gods exist. "There's three of them right there in the yard!"

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

What's the difference between a god and an extremely powerful wizard?

I guess the main difference there, in this context, would be that a god has worshippers who he takes care of by granting miracles to those most faithful when they're in need. Whenever a wizard reaches the point where he can sense the pain of his followers and get them out of their fix without losing concentration on what he's doing, he can be called a god fairly legitimately.

 

Likewise' date=' if someone's religion worships trees, he can also easily prove that gods exist. "There's three of them right there in the yard!"[/quote']

I'm not sure why I'm going to argue against this, because I've been saying all along that it's easy to prove the gods exist in a typical fantasy world. But unless those trees can do something more than grow and wave in the breeze (not impossible in a fantasy world), no outsiders will believe they are gods.

 

Of course, in a typical fantasy world where the gods grant perceivable powers to the faithful, it doesn't make sense to give your devotion to something that won't give back in return. Those who are able to have true faith in a god will get a return from a true god, and nothing from an inanimate object. Those who aren't able to have true faith probably aren't the sort to use a lot of energy on it, and probably worship like their neighbors do, if at all. But it's hard to disbelieve in them altogether, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.

 

Of course, believing in their existence isn't the same as believing in their worthiness for worship. Augustine never said that the Roman gods didn't exist, but he said that it was silly to worship them, because, since their lesser part (the body) was perfect and immortal and their higher part (the soul) was base and vulgar (due to all the sleeping around they seemed to do), that it was if they were dangling by their heels...silly things. (Well, maybe he did say they didn't exist, but he made the argument as if they did anyway) While I can't accept an atheist in a game where the gods are this blatant, I can accept a skeptic as to the worthiness of the gods.

[Kristopher]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

One could say that in a setting with incontrovertable proof that the gods exist -- and there's nothing about a setting with priestly magic that automatically requires the existence of that proof -- that the question of faith is different. It is, after all, one thing to say that something exists, and another thing entirely to have faith in it.

[psychoticbarber]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I think (now I haven't read all 10 pages, so I might be reiterating someone else's comments) that it has something to do with psychology. If you've watched Babylon 5, and their accounts with Telepaths, you know what I mean. A magic user is quite frightening to someone who isn't. My worlds are often rather strongly based on the real one, because that's what people understand, and it's much easier for players to be "in character" without having to worry about odd philosophies based on things that are completely foreign to them. In the real world, large changes in a species (like gaining the ability to use magic) happen slowly. As a direct result of this, the magic-user to normal ratio is very much in the favour of normals. To my mind, this will often result in magic-users being kept very few by the normals (who rule by power of numbers)...fewer magic-users means less magic. Actually the game I plan to begin in a few weeks is based on a mage's war, brought about by some mages who cloaked themselves in religion and used angry normals to fight the other mages. The campaign begins 500 years or so later, where the regular mages have been beaten back so far that they've been ignored, and are now looking for normals of their own to plan a counterstrike...

[Manic Typist]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

So.... what about the rarity of magic?

[Lemurion]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

So.... what about the rarity of magic?

 

I just ordered Valdorian age, so my next FH game is likely to have pretty rare magic. However I'm setting up the Pulp Supers I'm running now for the long haul so it may have to just be something for one-offs.

[Vondy]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Okay, I have to ask.

 

What exactly makes religion more problematic in fantasy than in, say, a superhero game or an espionage or western or space opera or modern-psychics-and-weird-conspiracy game?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Enquiring palindromedaries want to know

 

 

Sorry, I tend to fade out of threads when I get busy, or lose interest. In theory, religion is the same in any setting. However, in practice, it poses a greater problem in a Fantasy RPG because fantasy has unique assumptions in play the other genres don't (see below).

 

The other genres you mentioned generally take place in a version of world and therefore have real world religions that are just cultural elements of the environment; or take place on other worlds, but do not have magic or miracles as a significant (or even extant) part of the genre.

 

And in a supers game where you have Thor running around, the general tack the industry has taken is : "Well, people worshipped me once, but that doesn't make me divine; asgardians are really extradimensional aliens... blah, blah, blah."

 

Fantasy, however, operates with some very different genre assumptions. First, its almost always an entirely different world and, as a result, the designers need cultures with new religions (this could occur in sci-fi as well, but sci-fi doesn't generally have magic and miracles as a genre element). Second, this is coupled with the genre trope of *functioning* ceremonial magic or a *religious nature,* and miracles.

 

Since those ceremonies work, and miracles do occur in the game, game designers (and game masters) tend to make substantive decisions about how those things work - and when you make a substantive decision you impact the actual cosmology of the world. And the general method is: the gods in the pantheon exist, clerics download spells from the great server in the sky. The human experience of religion doesn't exist. Proofs are given, all is known, there is no faith.

 

You could make other decisions, but again, most of them have serious implications for dealing with religion as we understand the religious experience. If its "just the belief of the believer" that makes things happen then it can be deduced by watching miracles flow forth from all manner of incompatible beliefs, that its not the thing believed in producing the miracle. That to removes an aspect of faith. The best a GM can do in this regard is to say: the priests have ceremonial magic and state it comes from their gods. Does it?

 

And there is one other aspect to this: fantasy games generally dump one religion into their games, and exclude all other - just like they have swaths of mono-cultural non-humans. In the real world there were all manner of religions in existance at one time, just as they are today. In fantasy worlds there tends to be one flavor. Its usually a pantheon that many cultures worship, due to the decision that THOSE ARE THE gODS AND THEY ARE REAL.

 

If you have more than one style of religion in your world you have to make hard choices. Is one of them right? If so, are they the only ones with miracles; perhaps the others have magic they call miracles? Do any of them have miracles. Maybe they all just have ceremonial magic that isn't divine. Or maybe there are *levels of truth.* If so, will your players be uncomfortable or not like your decision?

 

These are issues that don't exist in most other genres because these decisions don't have to be made; and because most of them reference a world much closer to our own - if not our own. In those genres its not a huge plot element - its just background noise. And if the PCs are asking religious questions, the answers are normally left to them and not the game designer, or GM. In fantasy games, while those answers don't have to be given - they almost invariably are. A contemplative GM would do well to religiously avoid those answers, and to provide a diverse world with more than one religion (not just more than one god in the pantheon).

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Now that I think of it, the Champions forum and the "Other Genre" forum are the only ones here where I have seen the topic of religion in gaming addressed.

 

Frankly, I think it would be if anything even more problematic in the superhero genre than in fantasy - but in either case, it depends on what you do with it.

 

I think you are saying that fantasy does not HAVE to be the way we have described it - with a "big server in the sky" from which you download spells like programs for example - but your point, Von D-Man, is that it often IS that way.

 

I wonder why?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary and I are pondering other points, and may post about them later.

[assault]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I think you are saying that fantasy does not HAVE to be the way we have described it - with a "big server in the sky" from which you download spells like programs for example - but your point, Von D-Man, is that it often IS that way.

 

I wonder why?

 

"Why" of course is rather obvious: that was the way it was done in the first and most popular RPG. While it isn't necessary for Fantasy Hero campaigns to take the same approach, it seems quite a lot of them do.

 

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that - fun is fun. But more sophisticated approaches can work as well.

 

Going back to the source material is a good start. And no, I don't mean Dragonlance novels and similar game-derived twaddle.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

I guess the main difference there' date=' in this context, would be that a god has worshippers who he takes care of by granting miracles to those most faithful when they're in need. Whenever a wizard reaches the point where he can sense the pain of his followers and get them out of their fix without losing concentration on what he's doing, he can be called a god fairly legitimately.[/quote']

That's one possible definition of "god", but there are others.

 

I'm not sure why I'm going to argue against this, because I've been saying all along that it's easy to prove the gods exist in a typical fantasy world. But unless those trees can do something more than grow and wave in the breeze (not impossible in a fantasy world), no outsiders will believe they are gods.

 

Of course, in a typical fantasy world where the gods grant perceivable powers to the faithful, it doesn't make sense to give your devotion to something that won't give back in return.

But trees do give something to their worshippers: fruit, lumber, shade, beauty, oxygen, paper, recreation, prevention of soil erosion, etc. It the real world, there have been (and in a sense still are) people who worship trees. One of the most commonly worshipped "gods" throughout history is the sun, from which we get a great deal. It is easily observable and you can prove that it exists, but can you prove that it's a god?

 

It all goes back to defining what is a god. Just because there's another game system that meticulously and formally defines what is a god and what isn't a god, doesn't mean that's the way all fantasy worlds have to be. And it certainly doesn't correspond to the majority of the source material.

 

Possible definitions of "god":

1) Anything/Anyone that is worshipped.

2) Anything/Anyone that is significantly more powerful than ordinary people.

3) Anything/Anyone that grants some benefit to people, perhaps in exchange for worship or obedience or some other behavior.

4) Anything/Anyone that meets all of the above criteria.

etc.

 

In these cases, yes, it is easy to prove that these "gods" exist, but not everyone will accept this as the complete definition of "god".

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

"Why" of course is rather obvious: that was the way it was done in the first and most popular RPG.

 

 

That doesn't answer the question; that pushes it back.

 

However, it may be the best answer we can get, unless Gygax or Arneson or someone wants to stop by and explain the rationale for including the Cleric class when the game was first designed. And for that bizarre magic system they used.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks it would be interesting to have a game where there IS a priestly class with genuine miracles - until the players discover that the miracles, the dogma, and the priesthood are all actually fraudulent....

[assault]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

That doesn't answer the question; that pushes it back.

 

However, it may be the best answer we can get, unless Gygax or Arneson or someone wants to stop by and explain the rationale for including the Cleric class when the game was first designed. And for that bizarre magic system they used.

 

The origins of DnD were in miniatures wargames, specifically Chainmail. Chainmail was a lashup of wonky mechanics that none the less provided something like a balanced game. (I personally modified it heavily when I was playing it back in the day.) Amongst its other features was a magic system in its Fantasy supplement in the back.

 

That fantasy supplement was the precursor of DnD, after being processed through and expanded in Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk campaigns. Judging from Arneson's accounts in various places, this expansion had a distinctly ad hoc flavour.

 

The Cleric class was absent in Chainmail, but present in original DnD, so it must have been one of these expansions. It seems to have been intended as something of a compromise class, possessing some of the attributes of both the Fighter and Magic User classes. Its magic, unsurprisingly, is essentially a variant form of Magic User magic.

 

So, basically, that's the answer. DnD Clerical magic was derived from a clunky magic system that was bolted onto the back of a set of equally clunky "historical" miniatures rules.

 

There was no master plan.

 

It is quite possible there may be a better way of doing things...

[Lucius]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

The origins of DnD were in miniatures wargames, specifically Chainmail. Chainmail was a lashup of wonky mechanics that none the less provided something like a balanced game. (I personally modified it heavily when I was playing it back in the day.) Amongst its other features was a magic system in its Fantasy supplement in the back.

 

That fantasy supplement was the precursor of DnD, after being processed through and expanded in Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk campaigns. Judging from Arneson's accounts in various places, this expansion had a distinctly ad hoc flavour.

 

The Cleric class was absent in Chainmail, but present in original DnD, so it must have been one of these expansions. It seems to have been intended as something of a compromise class, possessing some of the attributes of both the Fighter and Magic User classes. Its magic, unsurprisingly, is essentially a variant form of Magic User magic.

 

So, basically, that's the answer. DnD Clerical magic was derived from a clunky magic system that was bolted onto the back of a set of equally clunky "historical" miniatures rules.

 

There was no master plan.

 

It is quite possible there may be a better way of doing things...

 

Hm. So basically, they wanted a "compromise" class between fighter and mage, and somehow decided that that class would be defined as the "religious" class.

 

Why so? Gygax certainly knew Jack Vance's stories; why not a "rogue" class patterned after some of Vance's characters who could fight, cast spells, or resort to talk and trickery to get out of a situation?

 

And if that was the case, why give the clerics a completely different spell list? Why put healing strictly in the hands of religious figures, and forbid it to magicians? Although I'm reminded of, of all things, what I've been told about African "witch" beliefs - that "witchcraft" (as the various African language words are usually translated) is always inherently harmful, and can never be of benefit even to the witch.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Designing a Palindromedary Rider Class

[Lemurion]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

Hm. So basically, they wanted a "compromise" class between fighter and mage, and somehow decided that that class would be defined as the "religious" class.

 

Why so? Gygax certainly knew Jack Vance's stories; why not a "rogue" class patterned after some of Vance's characters who could fight, cast spells, or resort to talk and trickery to get out of a situation?

 

And if that was the case, why give the clerics a completely different spell list? Why put healing strictly in the hands of religious figures, and forbid it to magicians? Although I'm reminded of, of all things, what I've been told about African "witch" beliefs - that "witchcraft" (as the various African language words are usually translated) is always inherently harmful, and can never be of benefit even to the witch.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Designing a Palindromedary Rider Class

 

Well if you go back to the source, the old D&D rogues had scroll use abilities at higher levels. So they could do spell-casting. We won't even talk about the original Bard.

 

I think a big part of it is that in those days they were literally creating the genre from scratch. I don't think they did a perfect job, but what they did create was more than good enough to create the hobby. You have to give them that. It had never been done before. They did it.

 

Every game system since then has their example (and those that followed) to draw on. They had nothing. Sure the ideas may seem clunky now, but they were a logical and workable transition from what had gone before.

 

Wargames.

[Cantriped]

Re: Rarity of Magic?

 

My mother always complains about the decline of Bards in DnD.

Despite all of DnD's flaws one has to admit this, Gygax did his homework for the most part, aside from minor changes most of his material for Dieties and Demigods was pretty tue to the actuall myths.