Long statistical analysis for #

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter A de Jong wrote:

> At 09:52 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Erik wrote:
> >>Erik, the discussion is of true mages not magicians. Therefore unblooded
> >>humans don't qualify. Are you suggesting that the number of blooded
> >>humans exceeds the elven population (all elves have the ability to cast true
>
> >>magic and according to a variety of arguments on the net have the minimum
> >>intelligence to be a mage, int >= 9).
> >
> >No, I am not suggesting the number of Blooded Humans exceeds the elven
> >population - i am sorry for any misunderstandings :)
> >
> >what i am saying, is that not all elves have the calling towards true
> >magic. I follow Simon Hawkes book War, for the elven way of thinking, and
> >not many find that kind of calling towards Magic.
> >
> >But with humans, any minor noble (third or fouth son of a blooded noble)
> >who wants to make a name for himself, can enroll in the College of
> >Sorcery - and learn true magic. Sometimes, a blooded noble will SEND his
> >child to learn the arts of magic, to enhance his power and standing :)
> >
> >So with the number of Blooded Nobles and their sons running around, I DO
> >believe that they number more then the elven mages :)
> >
> >Just my humble opinion :)
> >Erik
> >>

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

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


> How many blooded humans are there in your campaign? Even if 1 in 1000 elves
> (this is very low IMHO) is interested in magic, there are 40-60 elves who
> are mages in one province in Sielwode alone. Assuming that 1 in 10 of these
> extra noble children have the inclination and ability to study magic, that's
> 400 to 600 such kids, just to match one elven province. How many blooded
> nobles are there in your campaign? Are the town mayors blooded? The figure
> I have heard tossed around for the blooded portion of the human population
> is .01%, which is to say 1 in 10000. If 1 in 10 of the blooded study magic,
> that is 1 in 100000 humans is a mage. That means that a size 7+ province
> may produce one mage! Assumptions like this push the human population of
> Cerilia to @ 12-14 million people. This seems approximately correct what
> with Cerilia being approximately the size of western Europe (England,
> France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Low Countries, and hope I haven't missed
> anybody really big), and having middle ages population levels.

In the demographics section of the Muden sourcebook on TSR's website it lists
population statistics that would suggest that around 1/1,000 people has a
bloodline. That is, of Muden's 259,500 citizens 258 can "claim to be blooded
representatives of noble lineage." I've seen a couple of other sourcebooks that
would support those numbers more or less.

The same sourcebook presents numbers that would suggest the level distribution
of the people goes something like this:

Total population: 259,500
Leveled characters: 6,479

Or around 2.5%



That means 1 in 10,000 people is a blooded mage. I don't have any total numbers
for the population of Cerilia, but in a realm like Muden that would make for 25
or 26 mages of various levels.

In the Roesone sourcebook's Demographics section, it says that nation has a
population of around 75,000 so they would probably have around 75 blooded
individuals and seven or eight mages. Of course, Roesone is a fairly
militaristic nation so those numbers might be shifted around a little, depending
on how you look at it.

Personally, I'm inclined to give class and level to all blooded individuals.
(It doesn't come right out and say that they have class and level anywhere that
I remember reading.) Maybe that's just my personal take on things, but I think
the blood of the gods should at least be powerful enough to give it's recipients
enough drive to become 1st level characters. I'd also put these blooded
characters outside the statistics for the aforementioned "commoners" of class
and level. Further, I'd say that the majority of them would conform to the 50%
per level for other leveled people in the realm that is provided in the Muden
sourcebook, but I'd reserve 10% of the blooded population for possible higher
level. Maybe this 10% should have levels up to 10th or should be treated on an
individual basis.

Anyway, in a realm like Roesone (which is the sourcebook I have handy) that


For elves, I can't come up with a reason why not to use some very similar
numbers. That is, 10% are mages. I actually think this percentage would be
closer to the 25% mark as elves have a cultural interest in magic and can be
multi-classed, which would mean they have no restrictions upon their magical
abilities, but again I'm going to stick to my metric math.

Tuarhievel, for instance, has a population of around 31,000 elves and 1,000
half-elves. If 2.5% of the population has class and level (you could argue a
higher percentage for elves, but I'm going with the numbers I have) that makes
for 800 leveled characters. 10% of which is 80 mages.

Again, there would be 32 blooded characters in elven lands according to the
1/1,000 rate already described, who would be outside this grouping.

If you think any of my numbers are off (or if you would just prefer to tweak
them for you campaign) it shouldn't be difficult to plug them in to the
demographics noted above. Personally, I'd like to see the percentage of elven
mages higher. I think 20% is reasonable, which would double the # of mages.
Plus, you have kind of an odd situation when it comes to elves with class and
level as they can be multi-classed so some modification of the statistics would
probably be in order there as well.

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

I've always use the 1% blooded and 5% leveled numbers suggested in the rulebook and in the
Ariyan domain sourcebook. I always found myself adjusting the numbers down. The .1% and
2.5% numbers sound more reasonable to me. Don't know why I couldn't figure that out on my
own. Guess I'm just a slave to the first published material I read on the subject.

In general your assumptions and conclusions are solid. They're reasonable and logical.
I'd gladly accept them except that they create far too many true mages and thus have to
be thrown out. We're forced into some type of deductive reasoning here. Here's what we
know:

1. There's 120-140 true mages in all of Cerilia
2. 84 (mostly regents) are accounted for in published material, exclusive of Tribes

In Havens, for example, Muden has no native sourceholders. Neither does Berhagen. I
reintroduced Dirk Kallenach, High Mage of Berhagen just to have one. As an aside, I played
Dirk in the RPGA Birthright Benefit at GenCon in '96. I don't know why he didn't make the
final cut for Havens. I thought he was a great character. Since I had all the info on him
and his holdings I just plunked him into our Great Bay Campaign when we played there. I
found him much more interesting than the great unknown R Greencloak.

Anyway, my point is I don't think we can justify 25 true mages in all of Brechtur, let alone
that number in Muden. Even though the inductive reasoning used for Muden/Roesone and for
the elves seems very reasonable to me, given what we know it can't be right. Here again
is the line of thought I followed yesterday, feel free to shoot holes in it if you can.

84 (published true mages) + 42 (half have one apprentice or associate)=126

I then allowed 15 for all of Vosguard and loiterers at the Temple of Rilni. This left me
with only 10 to allow for PC mages and wandering NPCs. So now I'm staring at the imaginary
faces of 150 true mages thinking "I've already have too many of you guys." while
believing a couple things about the Sidhe. Please join me for my daily affirmation with
Sidhewart Smalley.

"Elves are inherently magical"
"Elves are inclined toward magic."
"Elves live a long time."
"Ergo there should be a higher percentage of leveled elves"
"Ergo many of these leveled elves should be magic users"
"HIGH LEVEL magic users"
"I'm smart enough........

Thereupon I broke down sobbing and allowed for about 20 extra unblooded elven wizards. I
reasoned 2 for each of the 8 Sidhe kingdoms (I missed Rhoubhe) + an extra 25%. Why 20? I
wanted at least a couple extra in each kingdom and felt I had pushed the envelope I far as I
could. I was already well over the limit and I'd already increased the number of true magesin a "scarce magic" world by 'bout 15%. Hell, why stop there. Add 30, 40, 50....

"Thousands of Drow, boiling up from the underworld" Randax

[Gary V. Foss]

Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:

> I've always use the 1% blooded and 5% leveled numbers suggested in the rulebook and in the
> Ariyan domain sourcebook. I always found myself adjusting the numbers down. The .1% and
> 2.5% numbers sound more reasonable to me. Don't know why I couldn't figure that out on my
> own. Guess I'm just a slave to the first published material I read on the subject.
>
> In general your assumptions and conclusions are solid. They're reasonable and logical.
> I'd gladly accept them except that they create far too many true mages and thus have to
> be thrown out. We're forced into some type of deductive reasoning here. Here's what we
> know:
>
> 1. There's 120-140 true mages in all of Cerilia
> 2. 84 (mostly regents) are accounted for in published material, exclusive of Tribes

I know it says that in the Rulebook, but doesn't it seem like an incredibly, ridiculously, amazingly low number? If we were to use the same method of determining levels for a
population that is expressed in the Muden sourcebook (that is, dividing by half until you run out of people) you would end up with:
Total mages
1st level: 70
2nd level: 35
3rd level: 18
4th level: 9
5th level: 5
6th level: 3
7th level: 2
8th level: 1

That's for a total of 143 mages. I'm going to estimate the total population of humans on Cerilia to be around 25 million. (That's a really rough estimate. I have no real basis
for this estimate, aside from a casual reading of the books. Oh, and my brother worked for the U.S. Census in 1990, so some if it might have rubbed off....) But if that is the
case, then that means 140 mages represents .00056% of the population. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of one mage for every 200,000 people. In fact, if blooded characters
are 1 in a thousand, then true mages would represent 1 in 200 blooded characters. That seems amazingly light to me.

I would suggest instead that the "six or seven score true mages" talked about in the Rulebook (12) is more a statement of tone than a statistical analysis. Hell, I live in Los
Angeles--I know more transvestites than that! In the character description for mages, they were trying to impress upon the reader how rare true magic is. I don't think they'd
really thought it out when they gave those numbers, so I'd be more willing to discount them.

> In Havens, for example, Muden has no native sourceholders. Anyway, my point is I don't think we can justify 25 true mages in all of Brechtur, let alone that number in Muden.

True. But I don't think the lack of native sourceholders is really a problem. Becoming a regent isn't quite the same thing for a mage as it is for a priest, thief or fighter.
There was an argument a while back on this message board comparing the strength of priest regents to mage regents. To me, priests win hands down. Priests get an organization of
NPCs that are basically under his control, he can raise troops, he gets to cast realm spells, his holdings generate money and he's a more effective political force because he
gets a free agitate action every domain turn. Aside from that stuff, he goes up in levels faster, fights better, gets to wear armor, has hit dice twice as large as a mage, a
wisdom bonus to his number of spells, does not need to spend time researching to learn spells, and he doesn't creep everybody out that he meets on the street because priests are
considered friendly and approachable when compared to dark and mysterious mages.... It takes him a little longer to create magic items, but he gets to do so sooner and he can
use his already existing temples rather than have to construct a building and spend money on a laboratory. Lastly, if a mage want to have any influence in a heavily populated
area he is going to have to create ley lines, which requires him to maintain them by spending RPs. No other character class has to spend RPs simply to maintain his domain.The
only real reason to become a sourceholder is to cast realm spells and almost all the realm spells are political. Why would a mage want to cast a demagogue spell? The only
interest in doing so is political and mages are at the back of the bus politically speaking.

Essentially, I can see a lot of reasons why no one would step up to become a source holder in Muden. It's more profitable to be a "court wizard" casting spells for money or
simple patronage.

Whew! Time to rest my little fingers.... I really should take up a hobby that makes me rant less. Knitting or macromay (SP?) or something.

- -Gary

[Tim Nutting]

Last thing when considering elves for the status of Wizard (or True Mage)
is that Sidhelien do NOT require a bloodline to attain the status. ANY elf
can cast True Magic. The bloodline is only required amongst the elves so
that they may cast Realm Spells

my 2 bits

Tim

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 05:11 PM 6/25/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:
>

>
>I know it says that in the Rulebook, but doesn't it seem like an
incredibly, ridiculously, amazingly low number? If we were to use the same
method of determining levels for a
>population that is expressed in the Muden sourcebook (that is, dividing by
half until you run out of people) you would end up with:
>Total mages
>1st level: 70
>2nd level: 35
>3rd level: 18
>4th level: 9
>5th level: 5
>6th level: 3
>7th level: 2
>8th level: 1
>
>That's for a total of 143 mages. I'm going to estimate the total
population of humans on Cerilia to be around 25 million. (That's a really
rough estimate. I have no real basis
>
This is an interesting approach to level distributions. Lets look at this
from the opposite end. We know high mage Aelies is one of the most powerful
available mages at 17th level (various sources). (We aren't going to
consider Rheulan Greencloak, the 24th level, completely undetailed wizard
mentioned in the Brecht Sourcebook, because he is an import from another
plane, and we are talking about native Cerilian mages). Assuming Aelies
represents the anuirean region only, this implies the following mages in Anuire,
17th level : 1
16th level : 2
15th level : 4
14th level : 8
13th level : 16
12th level : 32
11th level : 64
10th level : 128
...
1st level : 2^16 = 65536

I would suggest that using this level distribution with mages at least
implies *far* to many mages. Also note, that this is in Anuire alone.
Therefore the level distribution curve for mages needs to be *much* flatter.
Rather than multiplying by 2 for every level you go down, I might suggest
multiplying by root 2 (1.4142) or even 1.2. Using 1.2 results in only 19
1st level mages. Using root 2 results in 256 1st level mages.

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

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter A de Jong wrote:

> At 05:11 PM 6/25/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >I know it says that in the Rulebook, but doesn't it seem like an
> incredibly, ridiculously, amazingly low number? If we were to use the same
> method of determining levels for a
> >population that is expressed in the Muden sourcebook (that is, dividing by
> half until you run out of people) you would end up with:
> >Total mages
> >1st level: 70
> >2nd level: 35
> >3rd level: 18
> >4th level: 9
> >5th level: 5
> >6th level: 3
> >7th level: 2
> >8th level: 1
> >
> >That's for a total of 143 mages. I'm going to estimate the total
> population of humans on Cerilia to be around 25 million. (That's a really
> rough estimate. I have no real basis
> >
> This is an interesting approach to level distributions. Lets look at this
> from the opposite end. We know high mage Aelies is one of the most powerful
> available mages at 17th level (various sources). (We aren't going to
> consider Rheulan Greencloak, the 24th level, completely undetailed wizard
> mentioned in the Brecht Sourcebook, because he is an import from another
> plane, and we are talking about native Cerilian mages). Assuming Aelies
> represents the anuirean region only, this implies the following mages in Anuire,
> 17th level : 1
> 16th level : 2
> 15th level : 4
> 14th level : 8
> 13th level : 16
> 12th level : 32
> 11th level : 64
> 10th level : 128
> ...
> 1st level : 2^16 = 65536
>
> I would suggest that using this level distribution with mages at least
> implies *far* to many mages. Also note, that this is in Anuire alone.
> Therefore the level distribution curve for mages needs to be *much* flatter.
> Rather than multiplying by 2 for every level you go down, I might suggest
> multiplying by root 2 (1.4142) or even 1.2. Using 1.2 results in only 19
> 1st level mages. Using root 2 results in 256 1st level mages.

Aelies is one of those guys that I specifically included the 10% exception rule in
the original post regarding blooded characters. That is, 10% of the blooded
characters are outside the standard level distribution to provide for such
"aberrant" individuals as Aelies.

Besides, nobody ever suggested that the reverse of the method was a means of
determining population statistics. (Man, I can't remember what the name of that
logical fallacy is. You know, when you have a logical argument, and somebody tries
to assert that the reverse is true.... My logic prof would be so annoyed. I got an
A in that class....) That's like determining the average income of people in the
U.S. using Bill Gates as the standard.

The only way the method would work is if you start at the bottom. It makes sense
that way, as each level requires twice the total experience points as the previous
level did. That is, until you reach their "max" experience point/level at whatever
9th, 10th, 11th or whatever level it is.

- -Gary

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 07:35 PM 6/26/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
>Aelies is one of those guys that I specifically included the 10% exception
rule in
>the original post regarding blooded characters. That is, 10% of the blooded
>characters are outside the standard level distribution to provide for such
>"aberrant" individuals as Aelies.
>
>Besides, nobody ever suggested that the reverse of the method was a means of
>determining population statistics. (Man, I can't remember what the name of
that
>logical fallacy is. You know, when you have a logical argument, and
somebody tries
>to assert that the reverse is true.... My logic prof would be so annoyed.
I got an
>A in that class....) That's like determining the average income of people
in the
>U.S. using Bill Gates as the standard.
>
>The only way the method would work is if you start at the bottom. It makes
sense
>that way, as each level requires twice the total experience points as the
previous
>level did. That is, until you reach their "max" experience point/level at
whatever
>9th, 10th, 11th or whatever level it is.
>
>-Gary
>
>
Gary, what I am trying to get to is that such a level distribution for mages
is highly skewed away from the data we have available (there are far too
many high level mages in our sample to suggest such a distribution without
*hordes* of low level mages). So unless that 10% you are talking about are
*all* the described characters in the sourcebooks that are greater than 9th
level (there are lots, at least 20), a simple doubling distribution is
innapropriate.
PS. the doubling of experience points for mages stops between 6th and 7th
level, the increase in experience/level flattens completely at ~11th level.

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

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter A de Jong wrote:

> At 07:35 PM 6/26/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >
> >Aelies is one of those guys that I specifically included the 10% exception
> rule in
> >the original post regarding blooded characters. That is, 10% of the blooded
> >characters are outside the standard level distribution to provide for such
> >"aberrant" individuals as Aelies.
> >
> >Besides, nobody ever suggested that the reverse of the method was a means of
> >determining population statistics. (Man, I can't remember what the name of
> that
> >logical fallacy is. You know, when you have a logical argument, and somebody
> tries
> >to assert that the reverse is true.... My logic prof would be so annoyed. I
> got an
> >A in that class....) That's like determining the average income of people in
> the
> >U.S. using Bill Gates as the standard.
> >
> >The only way the method would work is if you start at the bottom. It makes
> sense
> >that way, as each level requires twice the total experience points as the
> previous
> >level did. That is, until you reach their "max" experience point/level at
> whatever
> >9th, 10th, 11th or whatever level it is.
>
> Gary, what I am trying to get to is that such a level distribution for mages
> is highly skewed away from the data we have available (there are far too
> many high level mages in our sample to suggest such a distribution without
> *hordes* of low level mages). So unless that 10% you are talking about are
> *all* the described characters in the sourcebooks that are greater than 9th
> level (there are lots, at least 20), a simple doubling distribution is
> innapropriate.
> PS. the doubling of experience points for mages stops between 6th and 7th
> level, the increase in experience/level flattens completely at ~11th level.

Well, I still don't see why you think the cart should pull the pony. The method
seems to work just fine, despite your objections. In fact, it works with your
objections. If the total population of Cerilia is around 25 million (my
aforementioned guess) and 1 in 10,000 humans is a blooded mage, that makes for a
total population of 2,500 mages running around. That means the 10% "exclusion"
guideline I gave would yield 250 mages of high level to deal with, substantially
more than the 20+ you note, or even all the mages described in all the published
materials. That's excluding elves who, despite their magical nature, don't
really have that many more mages if you use the numbers I presented. Even if I'm
completely overestimating the total population of Cerilia, it still works. If my
guess is five times the "real" number, then there would be 50 "excluded" mages.

I know there are plenty of people who think that 2,500 is an unreasonably high
number of mages, but I really think the alternative is to come up with population
statistics that are unreasonable. You have to make blooded characters 1 in
10,000 or make mages represent 1% of the blooded population. If you choose the
former method, then there are seven or eight blooded characters in Roesone with
its population of 75,000. There are nearly that many noble, blooded families
listed in the sourcebook.... If you choose the latter method then only one in
one hundred characters who are eligible to become mages would choose to do so,
despite their ability scores, and the relative scarcity of mages in the setting
that would tend to drive demand up. That just doesn't make sense to me. But
even if you did either of these things, you would still have 25 "excluded" mages
to work with....

As for the leveling off of the the XP requirements for advancement in levels,
you'll note that using the "halving" method you would need a population of around
140,000 to get a single blooded characters of 7th level, so such methods will
rarely ever get to the point where XP requirements level off. Even if they did,
you're talking about seven guys for a nation with a population of over half a
million. Determining character level this way is based upon the population of a
country rather than the population of the continent as a whole, and not a lot of
nations have populations that high. So the shift in the XP requirement should
hardly have an effect.

This method does make for a quite a few lower level mages, but I don't see what
the problem is in that. There are a couple schools of magic around Cerilia (one
in the Imperial City and probably another at the Temple of Rilni) without these
numbers there are a lot of chiefs and not many Indians running around these
campuses. There are at least ten higher level mages at the College. Surely
these guys have more than two or three students each. If the student to
instructor ratio is just 4:1 that makes for fifty wizards running around on that
campus alone. (Which is still pretty paltry for the setting's foremost college
of magic.) 80% of whom would be low level.

Plus, many practitioners are in the upper classes, studying magic out of casual
interest or boredom. These pampered folks would probably not be so dedicated to
the profession that they would gain levels like mad.

I always thought it made more sense that there would be more lower level
characters than higher level ones. That's what I liked about the Birthright
setting. Every barkeep wasn't a barbarian lord, every mage was not a Raistlin.

- -Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter A de Jong wrote:

> At 07:35 PM 6/26/98 -0700, Gary V. Foss wrote:
> >
> >Aelies is one of those guys that I specifically included the 10% exception
> rule in
> >the original post regarding blooded characters. That is, 10% of the blooded
> >characters are outside the standard level distribution to provide for such
> >"aberrant" individuals as Aelies.
> >
> >Besides, nobody ever suggested that the reverse of the method was a means of
> >determining population statistics. (Man, I can't remember what the name of
> that
> >logical fallacy is. You know, when you have a logical argument, and somebody
> tries
> >to assert that the reverse is true.... My logic prof would be so annoyed. I
> got an
> >A in that class....) That's like determining the average income of people in
> the
> >U.S. using Bill Gates as the standard.
> >
> >The only way the method would work is if you start at the bottom. It makes
> sense
> >that way, as each level requires twice the total experience points as the
> previous
> >level did. That is, until you reach their "max" experience point/level at
> whatever
> >9th, 10th, 11th or whatever level it is.
>
> Gary, what I am trying to get to is that such a level distribution for mages
> is highly skewed away from the data we have available (there are far too
> many high level mages in our sample to suggest such a distribution without
> *hordes* of low level mages). So unless that 10% you are talking about are
> *all* the described characters in the sourcebooks that are greater than 9th
> level (there are lots, at least 20), a simple doubling distribution is
> innapropriate.
> PS. the doubling of experience points for mages stops between 6th and 7th
> level, the increase in experience/level flattens completely at ~11th level.

Well, I still don't see why you think the cart should pull the pony. The method
seems to work just fine, despite your objections. In fact, it works with your
objections. If the total population of Cerilia is around 25 million (my
aforementioned guess) and 1 in 10,000 humans is a blooded mage, that makes for a
total population of 2,500 mages running around. That means the 10% "exclusion"
guideline I gave would yield 250 mages of high level to deal with, substantially
more than the 20+ you note, or even all the mages described in all the published
materials. That's excluding elves who, despite their magical nature, don't
really have that many more mages if you use the numbers I presented. Even if I'm
completely overestimating the total population of Cerilia, it still works. If my
guess is five times the "real" number, then there would be 50 "excluded" mages.

I know there are plenty of people who think that 2,500 is an unreasonably high
number of mages, but I really think the alternative is to come up with population
statistics that are unreasonable. You have to make blooded characters 1 in
10,000 or make mages represent 1% of the blooded population. If you choose the
former method, then there are seven or eight blooded characters in Roesone with
its population of 75,000. There are nearly that many noble, blooded families
listed in the sourcebook.... If you choose the latter method then only one in
one hundred characters who are eligible to become mages would choose to do so,
despite their ability scores, and the relative scarcity of mages in the setting
that would tend to drive demand up. That just doesn't make sense to me. But
even if you did either of these things, you would still have 25 "excluded" mages
to work with....

As for the leveling off of the the XP requirements for advancement in levels,
you'll note that using the "halving" method you would need a population of around
140,000 to get a single blooded characters of 7th level, so such methods will
rarely ever get to the point where XP requirements level off. Even if they did,
you're talking about seven guys for a nation with a population of over half a
million. Determining character level this way is based upon the population of a
country rather than the population of the continent as a whole, and not a lot of
nations have populations that high. So the shift in the XP requirement should
hardly have an effect.

This method does make for a quite a few lower level mages, but I don't see what
the problem is in that. There are a couple schools of magic around Cerilia (one
in the Imperial City and probably another at the Temple of Rilni) without these
numbers there are a lot of chiefs and not many Indians running around these
campuses. There are at least ten higher level mages at the College. Surely
these guys have more than two or three students each. If the student to
instructor ratio is just 4:1 that makes for fifty wizards running around on that
campus alone. (Which is still pretty paltry for the setting's foremost college
of magic.) 80% of whom would be low level.

Plus, many practitioners are in the upper classes, studying magic out of casual
interest or boredom. These pampered folks would probably not be so dedicated to
the profession that they would gain levels like mad.

I always thought it made more sense that there would be more lower level
characters than higher level ones. That's what I liked about the Birthright
setting. Every barkeep wasn't a barbarian lord, every mage was not a Raistlin.

- -Gary

[JD Lail]

Random Thoughts

1)Here's a notion to consider when looking at the number of Mages. Because
of the fact that there is very little room for a new human blooded mage
(wizard) to acquire sources except in Rjurik or Vos territories there should
be an impetus for a wizard to emigrate south. Obviously to some extent this
is true of every class but not every race ! The elves can not do this. AFAIK
they did not exist anywhere else in the known parts of Aerbynnis.

Given human breeding patterns and rates you need something like this to
partially explain why every human in Cerilia is not blooded. Actually
you need a lot more than this but that is another thread. :)

2)Some of you seem to saying that because all elves can cast true magic that
huge numbers of them should. If they were faced with imminent, overt,
extinction that might make more sense but that is is not the case*. If you
turned this around and applied it to the humans then all blooded non regents
should be wizards or priests. And of course any one with the intelligence to
be a simple mage would have to do so. This is not a scenario favorable to
the elves IMHO.

*Simply put what the humans did was to breed real fast. By the time they
started to crowd the elves it was too late.

3)Another point, Realm Magic, how did the elves learn to cast it ? The humans
had a God of Magic and his Priesthood to help them in their efforts to
learn. The Elves had nada and likely had to pick it up the old fashioned way
(i.e., steal it).

L8R