Low magic and INT requirements

[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