Low magic and INT requirements

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

> I have a problem with a bit of rules here - maybe its just the consistency of the rules with the world.
>
> It strikes me that the minimum requirements to be a wizard are not all that staggeringly high:
>
> Int of 9 or higher
> A bloodline
>
> I know there has been a staggering degree of arguments about the number of mages. I don't want to get into that. What I
> wonder is, if it is so simple, why aren't there so many more mages in human society? Your average Anuirean nation has at
> least 5 blooded families in it. Each family has many children, the better to ensure the progression of the line. Well, the
> firstborn usually gets the lands, while the low born are sent off to either be a mage or be a priest (this last very
> suitable for a lastborn son in the Middle Ages).
>
> Well, then, shouldn't there be a proliferation of mages?

Yes. Yes! YES!

I think the most damaging thing in the books that has screwed up the way mages are viewed in BR is the comment in the Rulebook
that says there is probably no more than "seven score mages in all of Cerilia." I think this comment was made only to
illustrate the relative rarity of Cerilian mages, not as a factual statement, nor with so much as a glance at the population of
the campaign setting. It was just a random guess made to make a point. I haven't actually done this but if you actually
counted the number of mages listed in the published materials I am sure it would add up to much more than 140. Unfortunately,
people have read that passage and used it as an absolute, and I really don't think that could possibly be the case.

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

> I have a problem with a bit of rules here - maybe its just the consistency of the rules with the world.
>
> It strikes me that the minimum requirements to be a wizard are not all that staggeringly high:
>
> Int of 9 or higher
> A bloodline
>
> I know there has been a staggering degree of arguments about the number of mages. I don't want to get into that. What I
> wonder is, if it is so simple, why aren't there so many more mages in human society? Your average Anuirean nation has at
> least 5 blooded families in it. Each family has many children, the better to ensure the progression of the line. Well, the
> firstborn usually gets the lands, while the low born are sent off to either be a mage or be a priest (this last very
> suitable for a lastborn son in the Middle Ages).
>
> Well, then, shouldn't there be a proliferation of mages?

Yes. Yes! YES!

I think the most damaging thing in the books that has screwed up the way mages are viewed in BR is the comment in the Rulebook
that says there is probably no more than "seven score mages in all of Cerilia." I think this comment was made only to
illustrate the relative rarity of Cerilian mages, not as a factual statement, nor with so much as a glance at the population of
the campaign setting. It was just a random guess made to make a point. I haven't actually done this but if you actually
counted the number of mages listed in the published materials I am sure it would add up to much more than 140. Unfortunately,
people have read that passage and used it as an absolute, and I really don't think that could possibly be the case.

Gary

[NYates7749@aol.co]

>>Yes. Yes! YES!

I think the most damaging thing in the books that has screwed up the way mages
are viewed in BR is the comment in the Rulebook
that says there is probably no more than "seven score mages in all of
Cerilia." I think this comment was made only to
illustrate the relative rarity of Cerilian mages, not as a factual statement,
nor with so much as a glance at the population of
the campaign setting. It was just a random guess made to make a point. I
haven't actually done this but if you actually
counted the number of mages listed in the published materials I am sure it
would add up to much more than 140. Unfortunately,
people have read that passage and used it as an absolute, and I really don't
think that could possibly be the case.

Gary

[Memnoch]

>I have a problem with a bit of rules here - maybe its just the consistency
of the rules with the world.
>
>It strikes me that the minimum requirements to be a wizard are not all that
staggeringly high:
>
>Int of 9 or higher
>A bloodline
>
>I know there has been a staggering degree of arguments about the number of
mages. I don't want to get into that. What I
>wonder is, if it is so simple, why aren't there so many more mages in human
society? Your average Anuirean nation has at
>least 5 blooded families in it. Each family has many children, the better
to ensure the progression of the line. Well, the
>firstborn usually gets the lands, while the low born are sent off to either
be a mage or be a priest (this last very
>suitable for a lastborn son in the Middle Ages).
>
>Well, then, shouldn't there be a proliferation of mages?
>
>Just a thought
>
>Tim Nutting


You are missing three things from your criterion: Talent, Dedication... and
a whole lot of money... Most of the individuals with a bloodline are minor
nobles that simply cannot afford to put their 2nd or 3rd sons/daughters
through the college of Sorcery or to an apprenticeship with a noteworthy
mage (by noteworthy I mean able to teach another)... and Most 2nd and 3rd
sons would probably rather have the instant gratification of Warriordom Vs
Magecraft due to the prevalence of wars and such in
Anuire ...

Just an Opinion

Memnoch

[Gary V. Foss]

NYates7749@aol.com wrote:

> Probably the best thing to do is say that this 140 represents "However many
> Magi of a particular level and above that you want in YOUR campaign."

I think somebody counted up the number of wizards with sources in the published
materials throughout Cerilia and the number they come up with was 70 or 80. I
don't recall exactly. That's just the guys controlling sources. There are
supposedly a bunch of guys that are court mages, or are running around as the
magely equivalent of ronin.... And that's just the guys noted in the books....

The long statistical analysis I did led me to believe that Cerilian wizards
represented about 1 in 10,000 of the population, which sounds like very few, and
it is, but it still makes for 5-8 of them in a medium sized realm, and 10 in the
Imperial City (the College of Sorcery could be outside this analysis for
statistical purposes, and it not exactly something that would lessen the number of
mages in Cerilia. At any given time there is likely 50+ students there of level
1-3, and they probably crank out 25-30 3rd level mages a year according to the
information in the BoM.) Somebody else gave an approximate population for Cerilia
at 8,000,000. This sounds a little low to me, but even at that there are 800
mages, not 140.

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Memnoch wrote:

> You are missing three things from your criterion: Talent, Dedication... and
> a whole lot of money... Most of the individuals with a bloodline are minor
> nobles that simply cannot afford to put their 2nd or 3rd sons/daughters
> through the college of Sorcery or to an apprenticeship with a noteworthy
> mage (by noteworthy I mean able to teach another)... and Most 2nd and 3rd
> sons would probably rather have the instant gratification of Warriordom Vs
> Magecraft due to the prevalence of wars and such in
> Anuire ...

Wouldn't those three things be no more lacking in Cerilia than in any other
campaign setting? It's not as if Cerilians are less talented, less interested
in magic or poorer. They just have fewer opportunities to become mages as they
are restricted by requiring a bloodline.

As for 2nd & 3rd sons being more interested in the instant gratification of
warriordom, wouldn't the relative rarity and awe of being a mage offset that?
Surely it would for many, especially since Besides, I think being lesser
nobles is one of the things that would make wizards a higher percentage of the
blooded population than in other settings. First, they have the money to study
magic. Second, they have the time because they are nobles. Third, the study of
magic would really be a status symbol as only nobles would be able to perform
it. I've used 10% of the blooded population as the basis for the # of them that
would study magic, but I really think you could make an argument for 25% or even
as high as 40% in some of the Cerilian cultures. Though I grant you it could be
as low as 1-2% in Rjurik or Vos lands.

Gary

[Memnoch]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Low magic and INT requirements for wizards


>Memnoch wrote:
>
>> You are missing three things from your criterion: Talent, Dedication...
and
>> a whole lot of money... Most of the individuals with a bloodline are
minor
>> nobles that simply cannot afford to put their 2nd or 3rd sons/daughters
>> through the college of Sorcery or to an apprenticeship with a noteworthy
>> mage (by noteworthy I mean able to teach another)... and Most 2nd and 3rd
>> sons would probably rather have the instant gratification of Warriordom
Vs
>> Magecraft due to the prevalence of wars and such in
>> Anuire ...
>
>Wouldn't those three things be no more lacking in Cerilia than in any other
>campaign setting? It's not as if Cerilians are less talented, less
interested
>in magic or poorer. They just have fewer opportunities to become mages as
they
>are restricted by requiring a bloodline.
>
>As for 2nd & 3rd sons being more interested in the instant gratification of
>warriordom, wouldn't the relative rarity and awe of being a mage offset
that?

No, not really... It has parralels to something similar to an athlete in
today's society to that of a computer geek... think about it... who gets the
most girls? A strong warrior is much more famous, much more quickly
engaging in warfare than a wizard does sitting in his room studying...

In order to train for a warrior (and most noble son's in the mideval era did
this from age 10 on) takes very little time and money in relation to the
years and sheer amount of cash that are needed to put forth for someone to
become even a 1st level mage...

>Surely it would for many, especially since Besides, I think being lesser
>nobles is one of the things that would make wizards a higher percentage of
the
>blooded population than in other settings. First, they have the money to
study
>magic. Second, they have the time because they are nobles. Third, the
study of
>magic would really be a status symbol as only nobles would be able to
perform
>it. I've used 10% of the blooded population as the basis for the # of them
that
>would study magic, but I really think you could make an argument for 25% or
even
>as high as 40% in some of the Cerilian cultures. Though I grant you it
could be
>as low as 1-2% in Rjurik or Vos lands.


Actually, I would put it around 1-2% across the board... A low level mage
just doesn't have the prestige that a warrior does in a warrior-society...
one is a book-learner... the other is a prized part of the realm,
"protecting the realm against incursions of human-hating elves, goblins,
orogs, etc, etc, etc, ad-nauseum...
If you look at the relative abilities of a 1st level mage and a 1st level
fighter in a war-time context (sans battle spells), the warrior is much,
much, much more valuable mainly due to the 1-shot gun of the mage's arsenal,
... the warrior can fight throughout the day (provided he doesn't die) with
just a sword, shield and armor... whereas the wizard has no armor, can cast
only one spell, and is extremely frail in comparison... it is only at very
high levels where the Wizard outstrips the warrior in prestige... and it
literally takes years upon years of study (and adventure) to become a high
level mage...

For most (and this gets to the dedication part of my post) it just isn't
worth the time and money, especially considering the short-sightedness of
children (when the training must begin)... and also considering that your
ownership of your lands and title is at the whims of often capracious
regents that, for the most part, are only concerned with things at the
regent-level and make draconian laws to reflect that concern (check out most
pbem decrees... talk about tyranny...)

Memnoch

>Gary
>
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Jim Cooper]

Tim Nutting wrote:
> Well, then, shouldn't there be a proliferation of mages?<

Well, I would say because it takes a lifetime to master properly. And
that isn't even assured when you get there on your deathbed ... :D

(Which also supports why tech advancement would be more prevalent in BR)

Cheers,
Darren

[Gary V. Foss]

Memnoch wrote:

> No, not really... It has parralels to something similar to an athlete in
> today's society to that of a computer geek... think about it... who gets the
> most girls? A strong warrior is much more famous, much more quickly
> engaging in warfare than a wizard does sitting in his room studying...

Actually, I think that's kinda my point. The reason athletes get more girls in
our RL society (aside from the fact that they beat up the competition) is
because they are more rare than computer geeks. In Cerilia, a wizard walking
down the street catches stares and is revered. Warriors may get more short term
attention, but a smart noble 2nd son (who is not likely to get to command the
entire army in the first place because his older brother is already Captain of
the Football Team) would gravitate to an area where he could be assured a place
of importance.

Also computer geeks and wizards aren't really analogous (though I am sure many
of us wish they were.) Sure, they are both brilliantly funny, secretly
attractive, stunningly rakish types of grand wit and intelligence that are sadly
misunderstoon, but being a wizard has many more obvious and dramatic effects
than programming a computer. Wizards are, by their nature, flashy and
dramatic. They get to astound and bewilder everyone, while computer guys can
only do that if they can get someone to look at the monitor while that
Mandlebrot thingie is running.....

> In order to train for a warrior (and most noble son's in the mideval era did
> this from age 10 on) takes very little time and money in relation to the
> years and sheer amount of cash that are needed to put forth for someone to
> become even a 1st level mage...

The vast majority of those who can be mages are already in the noble classes.
(Or are the children of merchants or temple rulers or other wizards.) They
would have more money and be more apt to train their children in the magical
arts. The costs for training to become a mage are higher, but not unimaginably
so. A suit of plate mail is pretty expensive. So are horses and chariots and
new swords. Tuition at the CoS, if memory serves is 1,500GP for the first year
students. That makes one a 1st level mage. A suit of plate mail and a heavy
warhorse costs 1,000GP, and that doesn't include weapons, a shield, practice
equipment, fencing instructors, medical bills or the cost of a high calorie, big
protein, artery hardening diet.

As for the type of training you mentioned, I think the argument is a little
backwards. If BR fighters, like medieval warriors, started training at ten
years old and went through the long process of starting out as a page for a few
years and becoming a squire for a few more then possibly a low level knight,
etc. then I think a few years of relaxed study to become a wizard sounds all
that much more reasonable.

> Actually, I would put it around 1-2% across the board... A low level mage
> just doesn't have the prestige that a warrior does in a warrior-society...
> one is a book-learner... the other is a prized part of the realm,
> "protecting the realm against incursions of human-hating elves, goblins,
> orogs, etc, etc, etc, ad-nauseum...

Well, again, I'm going to have to argue that this doesn't really make sense
given the situation, or the text of the published materials. The books make it
very clear that some cultures are more interested in magic than others. The
Khinasi value it more highly than warriors, followed pretty closely by the
Brechts (who recognize that scarce=valuable=profitable) and then Anuireans.
Only the Rjurik and Vos have anything like the disparaging view towards wizards
that you suggest. I have argued that the percentage of mages in Khinasi lands
would be higher than the modest 10% of blooded characters I used in my example.
I really think it would be more like 20% or even 25%, and I think it would be
similarly high among elves.

Besides, there is prestige and then there is power. Whichever one pursues is a
matter of much individual taste. If one is interested in prestige, then being a
fighter is just as good a method as becoming a priest, it might be better than
becoming a mage (though I don't think so) and is probably better than a rogue.
But if it is power you're after (and what second son isn't deep down?) then
you've gotta go for the magic.

> If you look at the relative abilities of a 1st level mage and a 1st level
> fighter in a war-time context (sans battle spells), the warrior is much,
> much, much more valuable mainly due to the 1-shot gun of the mage's arsenal,
> ... the warrior can fight throughout the day (provided he doesn't die) with
> just a sword, shield and armor... whereas the wizard has no armor, can cast
> only one spell, and is extremely frail in comparison... it is only at very
> high levels where the Wizard outstrips the warrior in prestige... and it
> literally takes years upon years of study (and adventure) to become a high
> level mage...

...and, thus, people who pursue that study would be all that much more revered.
Its only stands to reason that it would work that way.

Besides, you framed this comparison on the battlefield, which is the natural
habitat of the fighter, and really not the best forum for comparing these two
classes when seeing how they would be viewed by the society as a whole. Of
course, a fighter is going to be able to FIGHT better on a battlefield. It's
kinda in the name of the character class.... But I suggest that a mage even
holds up better on a battlefield than a fighter would hold up in a spell-casting
contest....

Even in AD&D, however, relatively little time is spent on the battlefield. Put
them in a royal court and see who fares better. A mage who can Detect Lie,
Hypnotize, Charm Person or Friends, or the guy who can hack an Orog apart in 3-4
rounds.... Who is going to fare better in the majority of other situations, the
guy with the sword or the one with more non-proficiencies due to high
intelligence and class? Most nations spend the majority of their time
peacefully, and as the Defense Department is finding out in the present time,
warriors are rather less important to people when enemies aren't threatening....

Even on that battlefield, however, who are all the fighters responsible to
protect? The wizard. Sure, he is weaker, but he is also a more valuable
commodity on the field. Not so much at first level, of course, but at 5th he
can cast Fireballs and that ups the ante quite a bit. If such a character we're
not viewed as more important than the average fighter, would the mage not stand
in front of the fighter? One never protects the fodder rather than the cannon.
Nor do many people revere the fodder over the cannon....

> For most (and this gets to the dedication part of my post) it just isn't
> worth the time and money, especially considering the short-sightedness of
> children (when the training must begin)... and also considering that your
> ownership of your lands and title is at the whims of often capracious
> regents that, for the most part, are only concerned with things at the
> regent-level and make draconian laws to reflect that concern (check out most
> pbem decrees... talk about tyranny...)

Trust me. At thirteen, if I had seen a guy cast a Fireball spell, I'd want to
be that guy. At sixteen, if I saw him charm a barmaid and have her bring him
his ales for free while he read a book with his feet up in the corner of the
tavern, I'd want to be him even more.... :). Granted, I'm a geeky type, but I
don't think that puts me in the 1-2% of the population. Given the course of
study that the BoM implies are required to become a wizard, I don't think it is
all that expensive or out of reach of any 2nd-5th son of a minor noble,
especially since the payoffs can be so high.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss

>As for 2nd & 3rd sons being more interested in the instant gratification of
>warriordom, wouldn't the relative rarity and awe of being a mage offset
that?
>Surely it would for many, especially since Besides, I think being lesser
>nobles is one of the things that would make wizards a higher percentage of
the
>blooded population than in other settings. First, they have the money to
study
>magic. Second, they have the time because they are nobles. Third, the
study of
>magic would really be a status symbol as only nobles would be able to
perform
>it. I've used 10% of the blooded population as the basis for the # of them
that
>would study magic, but I really think you could make an argument for 25% or
even
>as high as 40% in some of the Cerilian cultures. Though I grant you it
could be
>as low as 1-2% in Rjurik or Vos lands.
>
WHAT! 40% of blooded nobles are mages. That's crazy. I can't believe
it.
First, warriorship is a way of life for these people. In medieval Europe,
there were three groups: those who farm, those who fight, and those who
pray. The nobles, the warriors of the society, didn't even contribute
anything useful in times of peace, they just trained to fight, and were
supported by the people and ruled because of it. That was a noble's whole
purpose in life, to fight! So I'd say that this would hold true in BR as
well. The vast majority of the nobles would train, eat, sleep, and live to
fight.
Now, what makes you think that even a small portion of people are
adventurous in class? Isn't it something like 90% of people are 0 level,
according to the DMG? I have no clue, it's something high like that. Even
if you allow that blooded nobles are going to have a slightly higher percent
of adventurous types because they have the opportunity, there is still only
going to be like 2% at the most that would study to become wizards. By far
most of the leveled people would be warriors, because that's what the nobles

do. There might also be some priests rogues there, and then coming in last
would be the wizards.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Tim Nutting]

I have pointed out innumerable times and will continue to do so until the
point is got:

EVERY piece of information in the "Atlas of Cerilia" is SUSPECT.

It was written in persona, all words are from the pen of the Imperial
Chamberlain, and as such are his thoughts and his opinions. They are not
canon. They are not law. To insinuate such is to pick up a history book
that, say, denies the Holocaust in W.W.II, and say that "THIS text is the
ONLY history book, and only IT may be trusted to show the light of this
world!"

There are great leads in the book, but little else.

This test of the torqed GM rant meter is now concluded (hehehe)... you may
resume your normal lives.... I think. Wait... that can't be... we spend
an average of 5 hours a week congregated away from society and not
watching TV in the presence of friends... WE'RE FREAKS!!!! ARGH!!!!

Tim Nutting

[Gary V. Foss]

Daniel McSorley wrote:

> >As for 2nd & 3rd sons being more interested in the instant gratification of
> >warriordom, wouldn't the relative rarity and awe of being a mage offset
> >that? Surely it would for many, especially since Besides, I think being
> lesser
> >nobles is one of the things that would make wizards a higher percentage of
> >the blooded population than in other settings. First, they have the money to
>
> >study magic. Second, they have the time because they are nobles. Third, the
>
> >study of magic would really be a status symbol as only nobles would be able
> to
> >perform it. I've used 10% of the blooded population as the basis for the #
> of them
> >that would study magic, but I really think you could make an argument for 25%
> or
> >even as high as 40% in some of the Cerilian cultures. Though I grant you it
> > could be as low as 1-2% in Rjurik or Vos lands.
> >
> WHAT! 40% of blooded nobles are mages. That's crazy. I can't believe it.

Well, the 40% that I was talking about is in the elven culture, where not only
is there a long standing magical tradition, but everyone can become a mage
because they are not restricted by bloodline, plus they can multi-class. I
think 20-25% could easily be argued for the Khinasi, however.

> First, warriorship is a way of life for these people. In medieval Europe,
> there were three groups: those who farm, those who fight, and those who
> pray. The nobles, the warriors of the society, didn't even contribute
> anything useful in times of peace, they just trained to fight, and were
> supported by the people and ruled because of it. That was a noble's whole
> purpose in life, to fight! So I'd say that this would hold true in BR as
> well. The vast majority of the nobles would train, eat, sleep, and live to
> fight.

I think this is the fundamental flaw in your argument. You are basing
everything on the example of medieval Europe, where everything you may be true
(though see the next paragraph) but is also inapplicable to the campaign
setting. The simple existence of real magic (even the limited magic of BR) and
real gods changes everything. Isn't it obvious that the very existence of mages
and magic would completely alter the society in question? The BR society would
be drastically different from any RL culture, because no RL culture had magic in
it at all. I don't agree that in RL a noble's sole purpose was to fight, but
even if that were true there could be a similar ideal in BR, the classes of the
characters would just be different. A mage might focus upon battle and
offensive magic, preferring to become an important force in battle rather than
the weak, useless liability that you have painted wizards to be.

As for the sole purpose of a noble being to fight, I have to disagree. This is
just the only purpose of nobles that they preferred to think about, and that
made it into their heroic tales, but a noble was a member of the government and
had many political duties. You have to differentiate between the historical
realities and the historical mythology. Nobles would have to oversee those who
were under them, effectively acting as managers and supervisors, insuring that
the harvest was brought in and that they received their half of the goods (which
I seem to remember from somewhere was often the amount taken from peasants.)
They would have to administrate their realm, judge crimes and arbitrate civil
matters, engage in politics, etc.

In addition, one of the largest organizations in medieval times was the church.
The monastic orders of the time were incredibly significant and literally filled
with the "second" sons of the nobility who would not inherit land and turned
towards monasticism as a way of life, rather than remain on the family estate
and fall under the dominion of a sibling. These men and women left behind their
noble titles and engaged in many diverse pursuits, especially scholarly ones, as
the Church was involved in keeping knowledge alive during those times. In a
world in which magic exists, wouldn't many of these same sons turn to the study
of it?

> Now, what makes you think that even a small portion of people are
> adventurous in class? Isn't it something like 90% of people are 0 level,
> according to the DMG? I have no clue, it's something high like that. Even
> if you allow that blooded nobles are going to have a slightly higher percent
> of adventurous types because they have the opportunity, there is still only
> going to be like 2% at the most that would study to become wizards. By far
> most of the leveled people would be warriors, because that's what the nobles
> do. There might also be some priests rogues there, and then coming in last
> would be the wizards.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. I think you're right about the 10%,
though I believe it is UP TO 10%, which is a little more vague.... As for the
number of actual adventurers, I remember reading that that is a different
percentage. Like only 2 or 3 out of a hundred people (it may have been 1-2)
would be willing to risk their lives in an adventure.

The existence of nonblooded characters, however, doesn't help your argument
much. These guys are definitely going to be fighters, thieves, priests or
magicians. In a world where commoners can be all these things, wouldn't a noble
seek out the class that would differentiate him from them? Especially if that
class were something that was revered and held in awe, and served as a nice way
to keep the common people aware of who was in charge?

As for blooded nobles, I have assumed (and stated before) that all of them are
of class and level. As for your 2%, being wizards, you're going to have to give
me some basis for that percentage. I can't understand why there would be any
fewer mages among blooded humans that there would be among leveled characters in
any other campaign setting. The class isn't any harder to get into if you have
a bloodline than any other class. A 9 Intelligence is a pretty easy ability
score requirement.

I've already argued that their nobility would make them MORE likely to become
mages rather than less, and that the relative scarcity of that character class
would make it more attractive to them then their counterparts in other campaign
settings. I really don't think your comparison to RL medieval Europe is a good
one, because by default wizards did not exist. Elves, halflings, dwarves,
orogs, goblins, dragons, awnsheghlien and gods didn't exist either. You have to
factor these things in whenever you try to use an example from real life.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss
>> Now, what makes you think that even a small portion of people are
>> adventurous in class? Isn't it something like 90% of people are 0 level,
>> according to the DMG? I have no clue, it's something high like that.
Even
>> if you allow that blooded nobles are going to have a slightly higher
percent
>> of adventurous types because they have the opportunity, there is still
only
>> going to be like 2% at the most that would study to become wizards. By
far
>> most of the leveled people would be warriors, because that's what the
nobles
>> do. There might also be some priests rogues there, and then coming in
last
>> would be the wizards.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your point here. I think you're right about the
10%,
>though I believe it is UP TO 10%, which is a little more vague.... As for
the
>number of actual adventurers, I remember reading that that is a different
>percentage. Like only 2 or 3 out of a hundred people (it may have been
1-2)
>would be willing to risk their lives in an adventure.
>
>The existence of nonblooded characters, however, doesn't help your argument
>much.
I didn't say anything about nonblooded characters. I was stating in
general, that only 10% or less of the population was going to be leveled
adventurous types (I personally would go for less than 1%, but that's my
campaign).

>As for blooded nobles, I have assumed (and stated before) that all of them
are
>of class and level.
OK, that's where we disagree then. I didn't see that in this post, so
that's why I thought that your numbers were really high.

>As for your 2%, being wizards, you're going to have to give
>me some basis for that percentage. I can't understand why there would be
any
>fewer mages among blooded humans that there would be among leveled
characters in
>any other campaign setting. The class isn't any harder to get into if you
have
>a bloodline than any other class. A 9 Intelligence is a pretty easy
ability
>score requirement.
>
If you look at it as being 2%, with only 10% being adventurers, that is,
1/5 of adventurous blooded people are wizards, then it doesn't seem so low.

>I've already argued that their nobility would make them MORE likely to
become
>mages rather than less, and that the relative scarcity of that character
class
>would make it more attractive to them then their counterparts in other
campaign
>settings.
But the scarcity would also make it extremely difficult to find a tutor
to study under. If you are your average third son, you might know of
stories of two wizards, probably one that holds sources nearby, though you
don't know about those kinds of things, and maybe another one that wandered
through when your father was a pup. Wizards don't _do_ things that the
regular people notice. Temples, Law holdings, and Guilds, those have
substance, their agents can be dealt with. If a wizard contests another's
source, how much of that would a regular guy even perceive? So the crows
circle clockwise instead of counterclockwise before landing, wink three
times at them and go about your business, it doesn't affect you.

>I really don't think your comparison to RL medieval Europe is a good
>one, because by default wizards did not exist. Elves, halflings, dwarves,
>orogs, goblins, dragons, awnsheghlien and gods didn't exist either. You
have to
>factor these things in whenever you try to use an example from real life.
>
But for the common person in Anuire, dragons, wizards, and the gods
don't have a day-to-day impact either. The elves are secluded in their
forests, unnoticed unless you border that forest. The dwarves are
mysterious, the halflings more so, the goblins and orogs are the ones that
the armies fight. BR is darn close to real medieval times, more so than
other settings at any rate.
That, and I just prefer a low magic setting.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Jim Cooper]

Daniel McSorley wrote:
> The nobles, the warriors of the society, didn't even contribute
anything useful in times of peace, they just trained to fight, and were
supported by the people and ruled because of it.

[Jim Cooper]

Tim Nutting wrote:
> I have pointed out innumerable times and will continue to do so until the point is got:
> EVERY piece of information in the "Atlas of Cerilia" is SUSPECT.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Jim Cooper

>Daniel McSorley wrote:
>> The nobles, the warriors of the society, didn't even contribute
>anything useful in times of peace, they just trained to fight, and were
>supported by the people and ruled because of it.
>GAH! As a proud owner of a history degree I must speak up at this
>statement! I will not sit idly by while people _malign_ a *minority
>group*! :D This statement is simply not true!
>
>By St. George! By whom do people think the arts and humanities where
>practiced by?!? The LOWER classes?!? Where would
>we be without philosophy, the myriad of artistic endeavors people now
>pursue, the scholars who have advanced human understanding to its
>present lofty peaks?!?
>
>HERETIC!!! REBEL!!!! BURN THIS MAN ON THE STAKE!!!!
>

But why did they support the arts? Because, being warriors, and
therefore ruling, they had money. They also knew that there weren't wars
going on at all times, so they had to spend some of this money somehow.

>Cheers,
>The Grand Vizier aka That Unemployed Dude with a History Degree!
>
Oh, right, that's why my engineering teachers told me to stay away from
history classes...

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Tim Nutting]

> > I have pointed out innumerable times and will continue to do so until
the point is got:
> > EVERY piece of information in the "Atlas of Cerilia" is SUSPECT.
> Which post where you refering this statement to, Tim?

Several times throughout the last 1.5 years or so... If you mean what the
above is specifically referring to, it is referencing the belief that the
six and seven score mages in all of Cerilia statement is "canon".

Later

Tim

[Outlawfntm@aol.co]

Ah Gary... The Whole reason behind the Birthright campaighn, is to play in a
world thats gritty and survivable more by wits and brute strength, not by
being able to whip out a plethora of magical items and spells to deal with
problems. Magic is ment to be scarce and awe-inspiring. If the designers
messed up with making that way, just fix it!


Paul

[Jim Cooper]

Outlawfntm@aol.com wrote:
> Ah Gary... The Whole reason behind the Birthright campaighn, is to play in a world thats gritty and survivable more by wits and brute strength, not by being able to whip out a plethora of magical items and spells to deal with problems. Magic is ment to be scarce and awe-inspiring. If the designers messed up with making that way, just fix it!

[Gary V. Foss]

Outlawfntm@aol.com wrote:

> Ah Gary... The Whole reason behind the Birthright campaighn, is to play in a
> world thats gritty and survivable more by wits and brute strength, not by
> being able to whip out a plethora of magical items and spells to deal with
> problems. Magic is ment to be scarce and awe-inspiring. If the designers
> messed up with making that way, just fix it!

I thought the whole point behind the Birthright setting was to play in a world
in which the characters were rulers of domains and could engage in political
conflicts and the epic struggles of nations and against forces of vast evil.
Magic is incidental to that. Bloodlines are good color for that concept--as the
existence of a birthright and the divine rights that it implies go along well
with the political emphasis of the game--and the low-magic emphasis also puts
the focus more on role-playing rather than hack 'n slash adventuring, but I
don't think that makes them definitive of the setting.

Gary

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----

>Daniel McSorley wrote:
>> The nobles, the warriors of the society, didn't even contribute
>anything useful in times of peace, they just trained to fight, and were
>supported by the people and ruled because of it.
>GAH! As a proud owner of a history degree I must speak up at this
>statement! I will not sit idly by while people _malign_ a *minority
>group*! :D This statement is simply not true!
>
>By St. George! By whom do people think the arts and humanities where
>practiced by?!? The LOWER classes?!? Where would
>we be without philosophy, the myriad of artistic endeavors people now
>pursue, the scholars who have advanced human understanding to its
>present lofty peaks?!?
>
>HERETIC!!! REBEL!!!! BURN THIS MAN ON THE STAKE!!!!
>

But why did they support the arts? Because, being warriors, and
therefore ruling, they had money. They also knew that there weren't wars
going on at all times, so they had to spend some of this money somehow.

>Cheers,
>The Grand Vizier aka That Unemployed Dude with a History Degree!
>
Oh, right, that's why my engineering teachers told me to stay away from
history classes...

- ----- End Included Message -----

Hey, I would have loved to have gotten a history degree instead of one in EE.
Well, I wouldn't make as much money, but I would be happier- I think. :)

Randax

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----
> > I have pointed out innumerable times and will continue to do so until
the point is got:
> > EVERY piece of information in the "Atlas of Cerilia" is SUSPECT.
> Which post where you refering this statement to, Tim?

Several times throughout the last 1.5 years or so... If you mean what the
above is specifically referring to, it is referencing the belief that the
six and seven score mages in all of Cerilia statement is "canon".

- ----- End Included Message -----

This statement, which I base much of my feel for the rarity (not power) of magic
in BR on, is in the Rulebook. I don't consider it optional at all. I did
break down (sobbing if you recall) and allow for more elven/halfelven wizards.
This brings the estimated total to around 190. I rounded up to 200. It's
easier to remember.

It storytelling terms, this means one or two (or no) true mages per kingdom.
Each elven stronghold would contain about five. Lest FRophiles find that too
few, read the BR novels. M Roele didn't have 2 or 3 wizards by his side, and
he was Emperor of Anuire! Grabentod and Muden don't have any sourceholders-
as per Havens and the Hag's contract. Even to the elves of the Seiliwode in
Greatheart (the best BR novel IMO) magic was rare. They depended on their
skills as warriors and woodsfolk to defend their land- not a contingent of
wizards.

Randax

[Tim Nutting]

> ----- Begin Included Message -----
> > > I have pointed out innumerable times and will continue to do so until
> the point is got:
> > > EVERY piece of information in the "Atlas of Cerilia" is SUSPECT. >
> > Which post where you refering this statement to, Tim?
>
> Several times throughout the last 1.5 years or so... If you mean what the
> above is specifically referring to, it is referencing the belief that the
> six and seven score mages in all of Cerilia statement is "canon".
>
> ----- End Included Message -----
>
> This statement, which I base much of my feel for the rarity (not power) of
magic
> in BR on, is in the Rulebook. I don't consider it optional at all. I did
> break down (sobbing if you recall) and allow for more elven/halfelven
wizards.
> This brings the estimated total to around 190. I rounded up to 200. It's
> easier to remember.
>
> It storytelling terms, this means one or two (or no) true mages per kingdom.
> Each elven stronghold would contain about five. Lest FRophiles find that too
> few, read the BR novels. M Roele didn't have 2 or 3 wizards by his side, and
> he was Emperor of Anuire! Grabentod and Muden don't have any sourceholders-
> as per Havens and the Hag's contract. Even to the elves of the Seiliwode in
> Greatheart (the best BR novel IMO) magic was rare. They depended on their
> skills as warriors and woodsfolk to defend their land- not a contingent of
> wizards.
>
> Randax

I myself really enjoy the low magic aspect of BR. I'm running a group of 5th
level characters about, and all the magic they have is a half-elven
multi-classed fighter/wizard who prefers his fighter side, and 2 longswords +1.

However, the elves should have more mages than humankind (percentage) for one
reason, an elf does not need to have a bloodline to cast true magic. Granted,
those individuals can't cast realm spells, but that isn't the be all and end
all of magecraft. Accurate or not, the map of Tuarhievel has at least 15
towers scattered across the realm that are referred to as "wizards' towers"

I do not support the concept that any elf over 1000 years cannot be a
dual-class character. Doesn't make logical sense (but then, neither does D&D,
so I counter myself)

Tim

[Gary V. Foss]

Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:

> This statement, which I base much of my feel for the rarity (not power) of magic
> in BR on, is in the Rulebook. I don't consider it optional at all. I did
> break down (sobbing if you recall) and allow for more elven/halfelven wizards.
> This brings the estimated total to around 190. I rounded up to 200. It's
> easier to remember.

Actually, I don't recall reading this estimate.... What was it based on? How did
you come up with those numbers?

Gary

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

- ----- Begin Included Message -----
Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:

> This statement, which I base much of my feel for the rarity (not power) of magic
> in BR on, is in the Rulebook. I don't consider it optional at all. I did
> break down (sobbing if you recall) and allow for more elven/halfelven wizards.
> This brings the estimated total to around 190. I rounded up to 200. It's
> easier to remember.

Actually, I don't recall reading this estimate.... What was it based on? How did
you come up with those numbers?

- ----- End Included Message -----

I reposted some stuff on elves/mages/immortality. There's a lot more in June. 200
true mages would put you toward the higher end- in the "about 8 elven mages per
country because that's halfway between the Taur sourcebook's 14 towers on the map and
those that can be justified by reason" catagory. The number of human mages stands at
0-3 per country.

Randax

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 11:07 AM 9/3/98 -0500, Randax wrote:
>
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:
>
>> This statement, which I base much of my feel for the rarity (not power)
of magic
>> in BR on, is in the Rulebook. I don't consider it optional at all. I did
>> break down (sobbing if you recall) and allow for more elven/halfelven
wizards.
>> This brings the estimated total to around 190. I rounded up to 200. It's
>> easier to remember.
>
>Actually, I don't recall reading this estimate.... What was it based on?
How did
>you come up with those numbers?
>
>----- End Included Message -----
>
>I reposted some stuff on elves/mages/immortality. There's a lot more in
June. 200
>true mages would put you toward the higher end- in the "about 8 elven mages per
>country because that's halfway between the Taur sourcebook's 14 towers on
the map and
>those that can be justified by reason" catagory. The number of human mages
stands at
>0-3 per country.
>
>Randax

Yes Randax, we have had this argument before. I recognize a few of my own
words in your accumulated posts. What it basically comes down to is you
prefer to treat the 120-140 wizards total statement as dominant, and chuck
the elven immortality statement. I prefer to limit the 120 -140 wizards
total statement to apply to blooded wizards only, and keep the immortality
statement intact, cause it's cool.

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

[Tim Nutting]

You guys know how many wizards there are in Birthright on the continent of
Cerilia?

How many the DM says there are.

hehehe

just MHO (which it really isn't all that stinking humble, is it?)
Tim Nutting

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Tim Nutting

>You guys know how many wizards there are in Birthright on the continent of
>Cerilia?
>
>How many the DM says there are.
>
>hehehe
>
Thank you, Tim :)
I try to stay out of this debate, since I'm more totalitarian than most.
As far as my players ever know, there are around 5 wizards in the world,
'cause they've met those, and the rest may be just rumors :)

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu