Technological Progression of Ce

[Kenneth Gauck]

>Daniel McSorley wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't the Anuirean fighting have
>> encouraged technology's advance, if not its rapid spread?
>


There was very little technical innovation during the Hundred Years War.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> >Daniel McSorley wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't the Anuirean fighting have
> >> encouraged technology's advance, if not its rapid spread?
> >
>
> There was very little technical innovation during the Hundred Years War.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@earthlink.net

I'm with Kenneth on this matter. Generally, war is considered quite a boon to
technological advancement, but I would suggest that this is a VERY modern
association of cultural influences that started around the late 18th or early
19th centuries. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the association of
technological advancement with war is a sketchy one based upon largely
anecdotal evidence and a flawed method of looking at history. If you track
history by examining wars (which is the traditional method history is taught)
then it does seem as if war "creates" technological innovation.

Industrialization has had a huge effect on warfare and technological
advancement, and I'd argue it is that cultural influence that leads to
technological advancement both during periods of war and periods of peace. I
think that is a more apt cause of the rapid technological advancement noted in
the American Civil War, WWI and WWII, and in the periods in between. Jet
engines are a good example of this. Jets appeared late in WWII, but the theory
behind them was largely developed before WWII in the 1920's during the period
between the Double W's.... (Actually, primitive jet engines were
invented--like so many other things--over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks.)

I think one could even make an argument that wars end up slowing technological
advancement even in the modern era, because the additional effort put into
applying or developing technology is more than countered by the massive amounts
of resources, time, effort, lives lost, etc. lost to the war effort.

Gary

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

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

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> >Daniel McSorley wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't the Anuirean fighting have
> >> encouraged technology's advance, if not its rapid spread?
> >
>
> There was very little technical innovation during the Hundred Years War.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@earthlink.net

I'm with Kenneth on this matter. Generally, war is considered quite a boon to
technological advancement, but I would suggest that this is a VERY modern
association of cultural influences that started around the late 18th or early
19th centuries. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the association of
technological advancement with war is a sketchy one based upon largely
anecdotal evidence and a flawed method of looking at history. If you track
history by examining wars (which is the traditional method history is taught)
then it does seem as if war "creates" technological innovation.

Industrialization has had a huge effect on warfare and technological
advancement, and I'd argue it is that cultural influence that leads to
technological advancement both during periods of war and periods of peace. I
think that is a more apt cause of the rapid technological advancement noted in
the American Civil War, WWI and WWII, and in the periods in between. Jet
engines are a good example of this. Jets appeared late in WWII, but the theory
behind them was largely developed before WWII in the 1920's during the period
between the Double W's.... (Actually, primitive jet engines were
invented--like so many other things--over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks.)

I think one could even make an argument that wars end up slowing technological
advancement even in the modern era, because the additional effort put into
applying or developing technology is more than countered by the massive amounts
of resources, time, effort, lives lost, etc. lost to the war effort.

Gary


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

oooo, I usually don't disagree with Ken and Gary on historical matters, but I do here- at least in terms of military technology. Gary is right about tech in
general. The hundred years war saw important advances in military technology and technique. The longbow rose and fell during during this period (1330s-1450s),
artillery developed from virtually non-existent to viable field artillery pieces. With the rise of artillery comes the rise of nationalism. Small local lords can no longer afford the large fortifications to stand up to seige bombards and only the great lords (kings,dukes) have the warchest to put together an artillery seige train.

Randax

[Blastin]

In a message dated 1/8/99 5:49:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
prtr02@scorpion.nspco.com writes:

>

In general I agree that wars probably slow advancement in MOST fields. On
field that I can assure you that IS advanced more quickly by wars is
medicine.Having tons of wounded soldiers ta save tends ta lead to inovations
in surgery, triage, post op care, infection control, ect....
Course, we never had access to a cure light wounds spell either....
Blastin

[Gary V. Foss]

Blastin@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/8/99 5:49:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> prtr02@scorpion.nspco.com writes:
>
> I think one could even make an argument that wars end up slowing
> technological
> advancement even in the modern era, because the additional effort put into
> applying or developing technology is more than countered by the massive
> amounts
> of resources, time, effort, lives lost, etc. lost to the war effort.
>
> >>
>
> In general I agree that wars probably slow advancement in MOST fields. On
> field that I can assure you that IS advanced more quickly by wars is
> medicine.Having tons of wounded soldiers ta save tends ta lead to inovations
> in surgery, triage, post op care, infection control, ect....
> Course, we never had access to a cure light wounds spell either....
> Blastin

I'll grant that there was a lot of medical knowledge gained from the period of
the Civil War until WWII, but historically speaking that's really not a lot of
time. Less than a century, and it was in a period of massive technological
advancement, so it's kind of hard to point to the wars as being the deciding
factor in that change. Probably the biggest medical advance that effected WWII,
for instance, was penicillan. For some strange reason, however, people couple
the invention of penicillan with the war, when the reality is that it was
invented in 1928.

Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:

> oooo, I usually don't disagree with Ken and Gary on historical matters, but I
> do here- at least in terms of military technology. Gary is right about tech
> in
> general. The hundred years war saw important advances in military technology
> and technique. The longbow rose and fell during during this period
> (1330s-1450s),
> artillery developed from virtually non-existent to viable field artillery
> pieces. With the rise of artillery comes the rise of nationalism. Small
> local lords can no longer afford the large fortifications to stand up to seige
> bombards and only the great lords (kings,dukes) have the warchest to put
> together an artillery seige train.

OK, I'll agree that war is good for the advancement of technology items used IN
warfare. Longbows and artillery are things that very likely came about because
of wars.

I don't know much about the history of archery, but when I used to go bow
hunting we used recurves rather than long bows. My point is that I don't know
if the long bow was every anything except a weapon used in war. Does anyone
know if people actually hunted with them?

The point in all this, however, is whether the years of conflict in Anuire or
the militarily aspects of a culture are more likely to lead to more
technologicaly advancement. My argument is that warfare is not really the
driving force of technology that it is usually portrayed as being. I would
suggest that commerce really is. Wars come and go, but people always want to
make money. They constantly search for new and better ways to make money more
effectively by crushing their opponents. That's the real driving force of
technology if you ask me. To paraphrase Von Clauswitz, "War is commerce by
other means." :-)

I think this is pretty accurately reflected on Cerilia with the Brecht having
(arguably) the most advanced technology with Anuireans and the Khinasi behind
them, followed by the Rjurik and the last the Vos. Other races also have
similar attitudes towards commerce which I think also parallels their use of
technology. The dwarves probably have the highest trade potential. Everyone
wants to trade with dwarves to gain the benefits of their products. They
probably also have the best technology. Elves have a decidedly untrade like
attitude, and probably a similarly lax attitude towards technology. Goblins and
orogs... well, they kill things, though Thurazor has been making some strides.
Perhaps they have more technology than their hairy backed brethren?

Gary

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

Frankly I don't see the need for new technology.

#1 the smart and intuitive ones who would do the developing are
magicians/wizard/priest orientated fellows or regents who do not have the
time.
#2 The bow is an efficetive weapon, more so then any gun they could develop.
And which would have more effect, a loud pop of guns or the groud erupting
with flame.

I really think magic stops all advancements in the feild of weapondry. This is
not "the time of enlightenment." I think rifle development would be a
surperflous thing, since it would be ages before anything good came from them
(I mean look how long it took us without magic). Now cannons.... I can see
them... but not fireing cannon balls but maybe fire balls... I think the new
technology of Cerilia would be Magicaly-linked weapons. They would be easier
to produce and perfect then gun powder. I wuld also like them to be priestly
weapons not wizard weapons. Faith Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Holy Hand
Grenade of Antioch)

I see Cerilia turning into a battlepreist dependant society.

[Binagran]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> I'll grant that there was a lot of medical knowledge gained from the period of
> the Civil War until WWII, but historically speaking that's really not a lot of
> time. Less than a century, and it was in a period of massive technological
> advancement, so it's kind of hard to point to the wars as being the deciding
> factor in that change. Probably the biggest medical advance that effected WWII,
> for instance, was penicillan. For some strange reason, however, people couple
> the invention of penicillan with the war, when the reality is that it was
> invented in 1928.

Let's start getting philosophical.
As can be assumed the pace of technological advancement has been increasing at an
ever increasing rate since after the Dark Ages (yeah, it could have been before that
but we wont get into that). But as a corolary to that advancement is the fact the
number of wars (of big or small size, long or short duration) has also been
increasing at an ever increasing rate.

I guess this begs the question, does technological improvements facilitate war or
prevent war?

BTW, why does the list always get into such surreal topics as this (brings back
memories of the morality debat, but let's not go back there).

Binagran

[Jim Cooper]

Okay, I can't stand it any longer, I have to jump in briefly ... I can't
help it when I can actually use the knowledge I spent thousands of
dollars on (because my work has nothing to do with my degree!) So
consequently, you guys have to suffer! :P

Gary V. Foss wrote:
> The point in all this, however, is whether the years of conflict in Anuire or the militarily aspects of a culture are more likely to lead to more technologicaly advancement.<

In the specific case of Anuire I would argue that it would drive their
culture for three reasons: 1) Warfare is a large portion of the Anuirean
culture (2) Warfare (like commerce) is all about winning. And to win in
warfare one either has to a) have superior tactics/troops or (b) have
superior technology or (C) both (hopefully most societies will strive
for 'c'). Lastly, (3) Since (IMO) the warrior class predominates in the
Anuire culture (Haelyn after all - with the clergy giving the military
social class a good run for its money) where would the majority of
people go? To where the prestige, power, and & money is of course (ie
if Soccer was the force that drove a culture, that gave all the best
jobs to its citizens, paid the most wages, etc., the majority of people
in that society will grow up to learn some aspect of soccer, right?).

Thus, I will stake my History Degree on the belief that Anuirean has
largely (and even directly) benefitted from years of conflict and
warfare.

In fact, I would argue that Anuire is (if not already) poised to surpass
every other culture in Cerilia in technological advancement. Why? --->

People seem to think:
> My argument is that warfare is not really the driving force of technology that it is usually portrayed as being.<

Of course, after 4 years of having this next statement beat indirectly
into my head by my profs, I must say that nothing is ever absolute when
it comes to analysing human beings. While I don't say that warfare is
solely responsible for many technological achievements, neither has it
been a complete waste, if anything positive could be said about this
human evil. In fact, nothing ever is the ONLY factor when it comes to
sociology, history, science, or whatever. Whether directly or
indirectly, warfare and destruction has been a central force in driving
human societies around the globe, and nobody should completely dismiss
outta hand something that has so profoundly affected us to this very
day. And I believe Cerilian humans wouldn't come out much different
then we have, mainly because we Earthlings are invisioning them. That's
another thing I learned in History class - we carry a lot of unconscious
societal baggage around with us that is hard to elimnate (if at all)
which affects our perception of the world around us and the things we do
in our daily lives.

> I would suggest that commerce really is. Wars come and go, but people always want to make money. They constantly search for new and better ways to make money more effectively by crushing their opponents. That's the real driving force of technology if you ask me. To paraphrase Von Clauswitz, "War is commerce by other means." :-)<

Funny, I was just going to use that same perception to justify warfare
being the driving force behind Anuire. When somebody is on your
doorstep thirsting for your blood, are you going to sit around dreaming
about new ways to make money (hoping that a mountain of gold will bore
your bloodthirsty-ready-to-invade-neighbour, or are you going to find
some way of defending yourself? I don't know about the rest of you, but
I would first do the latter so that eventually I will be able to do the
former when no one can threaten me any longer.

Fortunately for the Brechtur, they have the leisure to do the former
because they have but a handful of places that really need defending;
they've got the water covered, so there only real concern are the few
mountain passes. All the Brecht have to do is wall up those few passes
and viola, they have nobody bothering them but each other.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what I see them doing, but the logical
extension of this is that the Brecht will become complacent in their
security.

However, Anuire is a classic example to the opposite. They CAME to this
contienent on this very principle of advance and expand, divide and
conqueor. "Man, just look at all that land just WAITING to be
exploited! Woo Hoo!" Of course, the elves were there first but what's
that to an expansionistic culture? Oh sure, there is plenty of land
for everyone, so do a little settling, learn new and interesting ways to
live in this new land (from the experts who have lived on this land for
millenia, naturally). Everything is great! Wait a minute ... what do
you mean we can't cross the river? Why not? We got too many people
over here - and you pointy ears have got ALLL that land over there!
Boom!: warfare Now we gotta find new ways of
beating this new enemy (because the Anuireans are not fighting the same
old Adurian humans anymore), find better weapons (perhaps iron instead
of bronze for example, as many people have voiced their visions of
Anuireans @ time of BoD). Anuireans win because they got numbers,
better tactics (clerics) and incidently better 'weapons' because
conflict propelled them to look for new and better ways to maintain
their culture. The elves lost cause they failed to advance fast enough
to keep up to the Anuireans.

A long period of Anuirean expansion follows, as they absorb new lands
and push out the old established local cultures who can't compete.
Eventually, they reach the limit of expansion when they encounter the
other human cultures. And we all know what happens next; Anuire beat
the panties off of Brechtur and Khinasi cultures. Cultures mix, the
Anuireans getting the lion share of the benefit as the absorb new ideas
from the conqueored cultures and bring these ideas *home* - note that
the reverse wouldn't necessilarly happen, especially if the colony
culture refused to adapt to their overlord's cultural paradigms and
mores. I especially believe this holds true in the Khinasi case, to a
lesser extent in Brechtur.

If I've lost everyone to this point, here is another example: if
Vosgaard suddenly took over Brechtur like the Anuireans did 500 years
ago, who do you think will benefit the most? The Vos of course (only
if, of course, they deigned to actually settle down and absorb the
resident Brecht culture's more 'advanced' ideas, ideology, and
technology. Like what has happened in Koslovnyy - the overlord Vos have
greatly benefitted from their master/servant relationship with the
native Khinasi, while the Khinasi there have received little value added
in return).

> I think this is pretty accurately reflected on Cerilia with the Brecht having (arguably) the most advanced technology with Anuireans and the Khinasi behind them, followed by the Rjurik and the last the Vos.<

The problem I see is that Brechtur is too insular to be very effective
when it comes to technological innovation, as are the other races except
the Anuireans. Commerce certainly is a motivator in regards to looking
for new and better ways to make more money - but its not quite as
immediate as when you are faced with the possibility of extinction that
warfare makes you answer for.

Moreover, Brecht are too heavily invested in their pursuit of profit
(the way I read their culture), to think about setting up establishments
to learn the more esoteric pursuits like philosophy or medicine (which
others have already acknowlegded being a great incentive to study when
the focus comes from warfare), or religion - all which are very
necessary to a society needing to be inventive. Sure, in the *future*,
when the Brecht society has created enough wealth that a middle class
arises and all that entails, then yes, I can see them advancing ahead of
the other cultures. But the problem is that Anuire will get there (a
middle class) first ...

Anuire is much more anal about religion (which leads to theology and new
ways of thinking about the universe you live in). They are also much
more interested in finding (or taking from others) better ways to stay
one step ahead of the seething hordes (or the 'enemy' or 'threat' to
Anuire, if you like) that live next door. This means getting better
weapons or magic 'tech' to stay ahead of the 'threat' for continual
existence. And lastly, Anuire has a seeming cosmopolitan culture (I can
see varied and more of the other races & cultures in Anuire than in, say
Brechtur).

After all, Anuire has: the College of Sorcery (the greatest single
location for learning, IMO, with the exception of the Temple of Rilni in
Khinasi); the Head Temple of the Greatest Faith in Cerilia (Haelyn -
which I believe has, in terms of temple levels, the most of any god.
And to boot, the Anuireans are His People); the Imperial City itself
(which is a cultural mecca for all the races of Cerilia); not to mention
Haelyn knows how many other Imperial Wonders; an extensive agricultural
base with access to plentiful and varied resources (Brechtur has
mountains or water - take your pick; Khinasi has desert or water - take
your pick; Rjurik has trees, fish or water - tack your pick; Vos has ...
well they've just got water, solid or liquid, but mostly solid, which is
a bummer for tech advancement - just ask the Inuit. :P).

Other races also have similar attitudes towards commerce which I
think also parallels their use of technology. The dwarves probably have
the highest trade potential. Everyone wants to trade with dwarves to
gain the benefits of their products. They> probably also have the best
technology. Elves have a decidedly untrade like attitude, and probably
a similarly lax attitude towards technology.<

Even here, I would say dwarves are the extreme example of what Brecthur
could be. The dwarves (IMO) are even MORE insular than any of the other
races (except elves - and they don't advance much). Societal
advancement comes much from new ideas being able to spread to enough
brains in the hopes that one of those brains is the lucky one who knows
how to take those new ideas and make them reality. Being an insular
society doesn't help much with the spread of new ideas (just take a look
at everybody's favourite 20th century technological success story -
Japan (that's my specialty in History!) I'm not saying the Japanese were
culturally stagnant, but its a good popular analogy that I think
everyone will instantly grasp).

> Goblins and orogs... well, they kill things, though Thurazor has been making some strides.
> Perhaps they have more technology than their hairy backed brethren?>

Actually, I think goblins have gotten the short stick in again. I've
been toying with (or wouldn't mind seeing) the idea of making the
goblins & orogs a little more advanced than the vast majority of people
perceive them to be ... almost advanced as dwarves ... hmmm ... I see
great potential (and would make them much more nasty and evil baddies)
if they were cunning and intelligent rather than bestial and crude ...

Anyway, to sum up: No direspect to Mr. Von C's little phrase there, but
I don't think that "War is commerce by other means". IMO, commerce is
just another form of warfare! :D

Convince me its the other way around I dare you! :P

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim Cooper]

One Lister spake:
>Frankly I don't see the need for new technology.<

Actually, I would disagree with this statement. For starters, I LOVE
that BR is technologically orientated. That's part of what
distinguishes it from any of the other TSR milieus. Two, because of the
background material already given us, it is practically inevitable that
a least *one* of the cultures of Cerilia would strive ahead
technologically. Any one of them *has* to just to stay ahead in this
awnsheghlein invested, elf ridden land!

> #1 the smart and intuitive ones who would do the developing are
> magicians/wizard/priest orientated fellows or regents who do not have the time.<

Why is it magicians and priests are always the ones doing the
inventing?!? Warriors have INT stats too! For starters, as a Regent,
(who is a warrior), why would I beholden myself to someone whom I can't
even begin to understand of their power - such power in a single
person's hand would (or should) frighten any intelligent warrior. Like
the teeps in Babylon 5, I have never understood why wizards are so
widely accepted! In BR I would have expected things to be different, but
no luck. Anyway, I've naturally changed the rules ...

In short, if I was playing a fighter regent I wouldn't be shy about
using the Research action at all, even as one of my own actions (at the
very least, I would commmand my senior artillerist, for example, to get
cracking on new & better seige engines - gun powder anyone!?! :P).

> #2 The bow is an efficetive weapon, more so then any gun they could develop. And which would have more effect, a loud pop of guns or the groud erupting with flame.<

Except for 500 years down the road, those bombards are now very new
cannons booming out 20 pound cannonballs through things. Believe me,
flames can be put out, but cannonballs can't be stopped very easily.
Eventually, you start adding artillery to the picture and warfare
changes completely ...

> I really think magic stops all advancements in the feild of weapondry. This is not "the time of enlightenment." I think rifle development would be a surperflous thing, since it would be ages before anything good came from them (I mean look how long it took us without magic).<

Except for the VAST majority of unblooded, unwashed people even early
firearms would be a HUGE improvement over anything they have had before.
10000 musketeers vs. 1 fire-ball shooting wizard - who is going to win
this stand off? Not only that, but its such a great improvement within
their simple daily lives, if only that it makes hunting much easier!
Which would a peasant choose - a wizard's fireball scroll, or a musket?

> I see Cerilia turning into a battlepreist dependant society.<

Really? I can only see priests of any level (who can actually cast even
ONE spell) being very small - on the order of maybe 10,000 to 1.
Unless, BR became another FR, than I will stand corrected ...

NOT! :D

(In fact, I would stop buying BR at that point, just like I did AD&D
stuff when FR came out).

Man - who started this "Gunpowder is taboo in AD&D" taboo, anyway? I
don't believe it was Gygax, 'cause I remember all those tables in the
first AD&D DM guide that had conversions into Boot Hill, Gamma World,
Top Secret ...

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim Cooper]

Binagran wrote:
> I guess this begs the question, does technological improvements facilitate war or prevent war?<

Neither - humans do. Unfortunately. :(

> BTW, why does the list always get into such surreal topics as this (brings back memories of the morality debat, but let's not go back there).<

Usually, but what else is there to talk about?!? This is the fun part
of mailing lists! :D

Cheers,
Darren

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> One Lister spake:


> > I really think magic stops all advancements in the feild of weapondry. This is not "the time of enlightenment." I think rifle development would be a surperflous thing, since it would be ages before anything good came from them (I mean look how long it took us without magic).<
>
> Except for the VAST majority of unblooded, unwashed people even early
> firearms would be a HUGE improvement over anything they have had before.
> 10000 musketeers vs. 1 fire-ball shooting wizard - who is going to win
> this stand off? Not only that, but its such a great improvement within
> their simple daily lives, if only that it makes hunting much easier!
> Which would a peasant choose - a wizard's fireball scroll, or a musket?
>

Except when that one wizard casts a battle spell like "rain of magic
missiles" or changes the ground under the musketeers in mud or summons
thousend ogres behind the musketeers or transports them all into the
Shadow World. I know I am talking about some powerfull wizards in these
cases, but there are a lot of powerful wizards in positions that place
them in battles. Currently I am DM'ing a PBEM in the Western Reaches of
Brechtur. Here we have Erik Danig, the Fae and the Gorgon. All three are
wizards who by them selves can replace complete units!

[Kenneth Gauck]

Technological progress occurs during peace time. The advances which occur
during peace are applied to wartime situations once war comes. War itself
retards technological development with the exception of unusual niches where
there are no peace time equivalents. To take medicine (because someone
mentioned it earlier) only catastrophic repair has benifited from war time
experience. Many of the more important advances were peace time advances
(notably germ theory) made war time better, but not because war itself aided
advancement.

What makes war time *appear* to create technological advances is 1) the
application of recently developed technology to the latest war, and 2)
spending of all sorts increases dramatically (creating a huge debt). If
number two is the effect your looking for, you don't need a war to raise
your taxes to "severe" and spend 5 GB on a single research action every
season. Measured in "science per dollar" dollars spend during war time are
less effecient than dollars spent in peace time. Part of this has to do
with the security which war time reasearch requires, while normal (peace
time) science benefits from the free distribution of science.

That war is good for progress or the ecnonomy (another similar thesis) have
been disproved. War creates artificial re-direction of resources and large
increases in spending. You can redirect those resources without war, and
you can spend the GB's without war.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

On Saterday, January 09, Jim Cooper wrote:

>When somebody is on your doorstep thirsting for your blood, are you going
to sit
>around dreaming about new ways to make money (hoping that a mountain of
gold
>will bore your bloodthirsty-ready-to-invade-neighbour, or are you going to
find
>some way of defending yourself? I don't know about the rest of you, but
>I would first do the latter so that eventually I will be able to do the
>former when no one can threaten me any longer.
>

Actually that is what the winningest regents do do. Money is the sinews of
war. The history of successful wars is actually the history of successful
finance. Gary demonstrated a profound insite by quoting Clauswitz as he
did. While war does not (directly) advance technology, it does clearly
advance administration, whose purpose is to collect more taxes from a
broader portion of the population, and to manage those resources it does
have better. As far as I am concerned, administrative development, not
technological, is the real drama of BR. I am probably not in a crowd on
that point, but our period (the Rennaisance) saw the shift from Medieval
government (originating in so many of its essentail features with
Charlemagne) to Modern government (which in its essentials lives today
throught the "western" world).

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Jim Cooper]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:
>Here we have Erik Danig, the Fae and the Gorgon. All three are wizards who by them selves can replace complete units!<

Good point. However, inventors wouldn't be making these advances in
technology solely for these three alone - its the other 99.9% of the
population who they make them for ...

Cheers,
Darren

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Pieter Sleijpen wrote:
> >Here we have Erik Danig, the Fae and the Gorgon. All three are wizards who by them selves can replace complete units!<
>
> Good point. However, inventors wouldn't be making these advances in
> technology solely for these three alone - its the other 99.9% of the
> population who they make them for ...

Magic and technology are usually viewed as opposing forces. Technology is seen as a response to magic, or something that
non-magical people will employ to allow them to compete with wizards on a more equal basis. There are a couple of reason
for this that I can see. Because we live in mundane world we view magic as the antithesis of technology. If it wasn't how
can we explain its absence from our world? Some people feel that technology "kills" magic because it has been demonstrated
to work that way in so many sci fi/fantasy novels. Writers who do that in their work are (thematically speaking) almost
always describing technology as a dehumanizing force, however. It's a literary convention in the sci-fi/fantasy genre that
often trickles into AD&D.

In RPGs, however, I'm not sure it needs to work that way. There are a couple of options that are really up to the DM on
how magic and technology function and interact.

1. The most common way magic and technology are viewed is that the AD&D world is technologically somewhere in the middle
ages with magic is a static force in the universe. Technology can progress from there. Magic remainst a constant. (New
spells might be added but they obey rules and require abilities that do not change.)

2. Magic and technology could be competing forces, a la the sci-fi/fantasy genre. I've never actually heard someone
turning the tables on this competition to make magic the dominating force. It's happening now in literature a little bit
with the rise of what has been called "magical realism" but that's a pretty new thing.

There are a couple of other options. There are "no magic" worlds in a lot of RPG's, where technology replaces magic for
all intents and purposes. "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Sometimes magic is a
redefined as an individual power and almost completely internalized, making technology an external thing, blah, blah,
blah. #1 & #2, however, are the most common ways magic is viewed.

What's point? Well, I think that most people are looking at an AD&D world where magic and technology are not competitive
forces but exist side by side as in #1, and assume that they are actually opposing forces as in #2. In a traditional AD&D
world, I think technology and magic would progress together. Often one would use magic to advance technology and vice
versa. If steam engines ever were invented there would probably be a spell "Stoke the Fire" that was a mage spell or one
invented by a priest of Laerme that would power the engine. Maybe disgruntled fire mephits would be the source of heat in
a steam engine?

You'd end up with sort of a quasi-spelljammer type situation with mechanical steam engines built of dwarven steel were
powered by summoned fire elementals and ran on tracks that were conjured up by a vesion of the Wall of Iron spell....

Gary

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/9/99 6:05:51 AM Central Standard Time,
Jim_Cooper@bc.sympatico.ca writes:

>

I like gunpowder in AD&D. (love Boothill too : ) ) I have arbeques allowed in
all my games of non BR. I am just saying I don't see the regents going for
something like that, or even imagining that. I think spells are powerful
enough to in utilization to be deadly enough to quell any Regents desire for
more. Remember, put a powerful weapon in a peasents hand and he is more
powerful when he rebels. Keep them having swords and you having magic and any
regent will sleep a lot sounder.

[Jim Cooper]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:
> I like gunpowder in AD&D. (love Boothill too : ) ) I have arbeques allowed in all my games of non BR. I am just saying I don't see the regents going for something like that, or even imagining that. I think spells are powerful enough to in utilization to be deadly enough to quell any Regents desire for more. Remember, put a powerful weapon in a peasents hand and he is more powerful when he rebels. Keep them having swords and you having magic and any regent will sleep a lot sounder.<

Hmmm ... but the regent doesn't have the power in his hand in the latter
case either - its in the resident wizard's hand. Wouldn't a spell in
one wizard's hand be more of a threat to a regent than one peasant with
a musket. We can't assume every wizard regent is going to be friendly
to the regent who controls the land they live on. In fact, they are in
direct competition for the resources of that land. If I was Regent in
Cerilia seeing a person chuck a fireball would scare the socks off of
me. If he didn't swear fealty to me, I would consider him a threat.

Moreover there are but a handful of people in all of Cerilia who have
access to power of magic - this just begs exploitation. Hasn't history
in Cerilia taught regents (of Anuire at least) that that kind of power
is too much for too few to wield? The Old CoS was destroyed because of
this situation I thought. If anything, if I was an Anuirean regent I
would be very leary of letting any wizard have that kind of power again.
In fact, I would sanction them until they proved that each and every one
of them would work for the benefit of the land. If I was really nasty,
I would form a witch hunt and persecute them so that they could never
hold that kind of power over me or anyone else every again.
Interesting. Which side would win out in the end? ~150 wizzies to
thousands upon thousands of unwashed ...? But this situation in Anuire
doesn't exist does it? Well, maybe it does ... I'll have to figure out
which wizzies are loner's and how many are actually under the thumb of
prov. regents in Anuire ...

Note, priests are alright, I can't see Cerilian people having (too many)
problems with priests, so they of course would be brought on board. And
since we already have seen demonstrated that wizard power is little
match for godly magic (elven holocaust), I don't think wizards are in
much of a bargaining position ... right?

Yea - I can't see how the human priests beat the elven wizards! How did
they win? What battle spells did the priests use against the elves to
have kicked their butts so soundly?

Cheers,
Darren

[Binagran]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Yea - I can't see how the human priests beat the elven wizards! How did
> they win? What battle spells did the priests use against the elves to
> have kicked their butts so soundly?
>
> Cheers,
> Darren

Doesn't have to be anything too impressive. Just consider that there were probably a whole lot more human priests of the five(?) faiths and almost all of them had access to the healing sphere. What can an elven army do against a human army which is constantly being healed.

Remember most priestly magic deals with protection or enhancement (few directly do damage, at least they shouldn't). Pit that against wizards (mainly offensive arsenals) and you have elven wizards attempting to fry the priests but hitting protection spells, all the while the human army (enhanced in #hits, attack values, etc and the ability to be healed) is decimating the elves.

Any one have any problems with this argument.

Binagran

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Binagran wrote:
>
> Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> > Yea - I can't see how the human priests beat the elven wizards! How did
> > they win? What battle spells did the priests use against the elves to
> > have kicked their butts so soundly?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Darren
>
> Doesn't have to be anything too impressive. Just consider that there were probably a whole lot more human priests of the five(?) faiths and almost all of them had access to the healing sphere. What can an elven army do against a human army which is constantly being healed.
>
> Remember most priestly magic deals with protection or enhancement (few directly do damage, at least they shouldn't). Pit that against wizards (mainly offensive arsenals) and you have elven wizards attempting to fry the priests but hitting protection spells, all the while the human army (enhanced in #hits, attack values, etc and the ability to be healed) is decimating the elves.
>
> Any one have any problems with this argument.
>
> Binagran

Do not forget that nice sanctuary spell which effectively negates the
archers.

[Sindre Berg]

Binagran wrote:

> Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> > Yea - I can't see how the human priests beat the elven wizards! How
> did
> > they win? What battle spells did the priests use against the elves
> to
> > have kicked their butts so soundly?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Darren
>
> Doesn't have to be anything too impressive. Just consider that there
> were probably a whole lot more human priests of the five(?) faiths and
> almost all of them had access to the healing sphere. What can an
> elven army do against a human army which is constantly being healed.
>
> Remember most priestly magic deals with protection or enhancement (few
> directly do damage, at least they shouldn't). Pit that against
> wizards (mainly offensive arsenals) and you have elven wizards
> attempting to fry the priests but hitting protection spells, all the
> while the human army (enhanced in #hits, attack values, etc and the
> ability to be healed) is decimating the elves.
>
> Any one have any problems with this argument.
>
> Binagran
>
> ********
> ************************************************** ****************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> I think it is a lot simpler than that...The Elves weren't enough...It's
exactly the same thing you see in the Baruk-Azhik PS book about the
dwarfs vs orog conflict. The orogs are winning because they can a lot
easier stomach heavy losses. For every elf that died...let us just for
the sake of the argument assume that he took with him 4 humans....Then
the humans would spend some time killing elves but after all the humans
had "endless" numbers while the elves couldn't get reinforcements
through new warriors...After all the first to join in the war on the
elven side was in many cases the same that died in the end... The elves
couldn't win...time was agaisnt them..

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[Jim Cooper]

Sindre Berg wrote:
> The elves couldn't win...time was agaisnt them..

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/10/99 2:39:21 PM Central Standard Time,
Jim_Cooper@bc.sympatico.ca writes:

>

Seems like this can be applied to the Landed Regents, the Guilder Regents, and
the Priest Regents too.

A Universal Regent problem if peasents start thinking at all.

[Pieter A de Jong]

Binagran wrote:
>
> Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> > Yea - I can't see how the human priests beat the elven wizards! How did
> > they win? What battle spells did the priests use against the elves to
> > have kicked their butts so soundly?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Darren
>
> Doesn't have to be anything too impressive. Just consider that there were probably a whole lot more human priests of the five(?) faiths and almost all of them had access to the healing sphere. What can an elven army do against a human army which is constantly being healed.
>
> Remember most priestly magic deals with protection or enhancement (few directly do damage, at least they shouldn't). Pit that against wizards (mainly offensive arsenals) and you have elven wizards attempting to fry the priests but hitting protection spells, all the while the human army (enhanced in #hits, attack values, etc and the ability to be healed) is decimating the elves.
>
> Any one have any problems with this argument.
>
> Binagran
>
I do. consider that because the elves are immortal, individual elven
mages are much higher level than human priests, who on average die off
at 70 or so. Also note that the humans are initially a relatively
small population, being refugees from Aduria, whereas the elves are a
continent wide civilization that dominates most of Cerilia except the
dwarven controlled mountains. This suggest (at least to me) that there
is less of a gap in numbers than you might expect. My personal
suggestion as to why the humans won that war is direct divine
intervention. Given that this is pre-deismaar, it is entirely feasible
for the human gods to manifest on the material plane to influence the
war against the godless elves.