Let's talk about Lacrymas' homebrew fantasy setting where paladins are eunuchs

[Storyfag]

RE: Why can't we topple mages the same way we can the churches in my setting? Because the power (both political and magical) of mages comes from within, not from without (like the source of healing). Someone else can come and replace the churches to control the source of healing, you can't replace mages in this way.

If the only source of power is healing, why isn't the setting dominated by a healocratic totalitarian dictatorship ran by the Paladins, then?

What is the difference between mages and clerics who can't heal, if both are reduced to 6th circle tops?

 

[hell bovine]

RE: Why can't we topple mages the same way we can the churches in my setting? Because the power of mages comes from within, not from without (like the source of healing). Someone else can come and replace the churches to control the source of healing, you can't replace mages in this way.

You could not replace the genious of Einstein, or Oppenheimer, or Rutherford, or Curie, or the many others who have ultimately led to the invention of nuclear weapons either. So what?
Or to put it simple: it's not the source of healing (or any magic, really), it's the human mind that comes up with a novel way to use it.

(in the next episode: paladins are now also lobotomized, to ensure they don't get too clever with their healing spells)

 

[Lacrymas]

RE: Why can't we topple mages the same way we can the churches in my setting? Because the power (both political and magical) of mages comes from within, not from without (like the source of healing). Someone else can come and replace the churches to control the source of healing, you can't replace mages in this way.

If the only source of power is healing, why isn't the setting dominated by a healocratic totalitarian dictatorship ran by the Paladins, then?

What is the difference between mages and clerics who can't heal, if both are reduced to 6th circle tops?

It is not the only source of power, but it is the most obvious and sought-after. If there is any difference between divine and arcane spellcasters of up to the 6th circle, I'd say it's the potential for destruction and disruption. Mages have quite a repertoire of destructive spells that Clerics and Druids generally don't. Druids get stuff like Call Lightning, Wall of Fire, and Ice Storm, but that pales in comparison to the Wizard's spell list. Conveniences like teleport, fly, invisibility, knock, etc. solve a lot of narrative problems that I wish to not be solved as easily. And yes, I am seeing it from a narrative perspective, not so much a mechanical one. Settings are about the stories possible within it, not about d20s.

 

[Lacrymas]

RE: Why can't we topple mages the same way we can the churches in my setting? Because the power of mages comes from within, not from without (like the source of healing). Someone else can come and replace the churches to control the source of healing, you can't replace mages in this way.

You could not replace the genious of Einstein, or Oppenheimer, or Rutherford, or Curie, or the many others who have ultimately led to the invention of nuclear weapons either. So what?
Or to put it simple: it's not the source of healing (or any magic, really), it's the human mind that comes up with a novel way to use it.

(in the next episode: paladins are now also lobotomized, to ensure they don't get too clever with their healing spells)

You kind of can, though. If it wasn't Einstein, it would've been someone else, it's just a matter of time and possibility. The many inventions/discoveries that happened simultaneously by different scientists working independently points to that. Also, what happened when they invented nuclear weapons? The USA became the leading power in the world. They didn't hesitate to use it in order to ensure victory, I assume mages would be the same. It's just too optimistic and idealistic to think mages would be disciplined and virtuous enough for that not to happen.

 

[Storyfag]

Settings are about the stories possible within it, not about d20s.

Should I even comment on that one, seeing as how you castrate your own setting out of all the possibilities opened by the presence of arcane spellcasters and all the conflicts it invites?

Oh, I know what this thread needs.

S0rcererV1ct0r

 

[barghwata]

Oh, I know what this thread needs.

S0rcererV1ct0r

Oh god no, there is enough autism already.

 

[Reinhardt]

Should I even comment on that one, seeing as how you castrate your own setting out of all the possibilities opened by the presence of arcane spellcasters and all the conflicts it invites?

Actually removing mages is the only good thing he did with his setting.

 

[Lacrymas]

Settings are about the stories possible within it, not about d20s.

Should I even comment on that one, seeing as how you castrate your own setting out of all the possibilities opened by the presence of arcane spellcasters and all the conflicts it invites?

Oh, I know what this thread needs.

S0rcererV1ct0r

Any setting with arcane spellcasters generally devolves into stories about magic and mages. There are enough settings like that out there. Tolkien did manage to control himself and write a great, human story which wasn't ruined by the presence of Gandalf, though.

 

[Storyfag]

RE: Why can't we topple mages the same way we can the churches in my setting? Because the power of mages comes from within, not from without (like the source of healing). Someone else can come and replace the churches to control the source of healing, you can't replace mages in this way.

You could not replace the genious of Einstein, or Oppenheimer, or Rutherford, or Curie, or the many others who have ultimately led to the invention of nuclear weapons either. So what?
Or to put it simple: it's not the source of healing (or any magic, really), it's the human mind that comes up with a novel way to use it.

(in the next episode: paladins are now also lobotomized, to ensure they don't get too clever with their healing spells)

You kind of can, though. If it wasn't Einstein, it would've been someone else, it's just a matter of time and possibility. The many inventions/discoveries that happened simultaneously by different scientists working independently points to that. Also, what happened when they invented nuclear weapons? The USA became the leading power in the world. They didn't hesitate to use it in order to ensure victory, I assume CLERICS would be the same. It's just too optimistic and idealistic to think CLERICS would be disciplined and virtuous enough for that not to happen.

FTFY

 

[Lacrymas]

D&D Clerics as-written and having access to all spell circles, maybe. If their deities allow that to happen.

 

[Storyfag]

Mages have quite a repertoire of destructive spells that Clerics and Druids generally don't. Druids get stuff like Call Lightning, Wall of Fire, and Ice Storm, but that pales in comparison to the Wizard's spell list.

My Light cleric fireballed a dragon to death recently.

Conveniences like teleport, fly, invisibility, knock, etc. solve a lot of narrative problems that I wish to not be solved as easily.

Oh, I see. You're one of the xirs who appreciate on-rails corridor shooters?

 

[Storyfag]

D&D Clerics as-written and having access to all spell circles, maybe. If their deities allow that to happen.

Don't tell me you also removed the concept of deities yearning for world domination and pushing their followers thusly.

And even if you did, you ALSO said that clerics can use their powers for any goal they please, as long as nobody realises it. So divine disapproval isn't really a factor in your setting, is it?

 

[Reinhardt]

Fuck both mages and clerics. This shit shouldn't be available for players at all.

 

[DraQ]

That is why I said it's Barbarian as in the class/mechanics, not as a way of life. Well, it kind of becomes a way of life when a woman decides to join their school. The woman has to have lost a child (as in it died), however, in order to be allowed in the sisterhood.

Thrown into a wolf pit?

 

[DraQ]

Woman barbarian activates rage.
"what's wrong?"
"nothing!"
"come on, honey, i see you are angry"
"I SAID EVERYTHING OK!!!"

Should be once per month ability.

 

[Lambach]

Fuck both mages and clerics. This shit shouldn't be available for players at all.

The fuck is even the point of playing something in a fantasy (specially high-fantasy) setting if you're not going to play a magic-user of some kind?

 

[hell bovine]

You kind of can, though. If it wasn't Einstein, it would've been someone else, it's just a matter of time and possibility. The many inventions/discoveries that happened simultaneously by different scientists working independently points to that. Also, what happened when they invented nuclear weapons? The USA became the leading power in the world. They didn't hesitate to use it in order to ensure victory, I assume mages would be the same. It's just too optimistic and idealistic to think mages would be disciplined and virtuous enough for that not to happen.

No, you couldn't replace Einstein. And yes, you'd likely still arrive at the same scientific knowledge, only in different stages. That is the point. Once in a while you get someone with a keen, brilliant mind and the sort of curiosity that drives scientific progress.And yet it is not the scientists who become dictators, or who even wield the power.

Your reasoning is that this could not happen in your fantasy world because church controls healing, spirituality, nature and so on. But none of this would stop the progress of magical research, including your limited healing spells, unless your fantasy humans are only born mediocre, and no brilliant mind is ever born among them.

 

[Sweeper]

No, you couldn't replace Einstein

Einstein was a fraud and theoretical physics is bullshit.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Fuck both mages and clerics. This shit shouldn't be available for players at all.

The fuck is even the point of playing something in a fantasy (specially high-fantasy) setting if you're not going to play a magic-user of some kind?

Meh, it's a matter of personal taste. If the classes are relatively balanced, then whether you pick a caster or some vanilla fighter class makes no difference.

 

[Storyfag]

unless your fantasy humans are only born mediocre, and no brilliant mind is ever born among them.

Well, he is a leftist... never quite managed to grasp how can they at the same time believe everyone is unique and wonderful and at the same time believe everyone is born equal.

I guess doublethink IS best doubleplusgood think!

 

[Desiderius]

Belief functions differently for the left due to it's roots in religion. It is a creative (or more often destructive force) rather than a passive response to the the world as given.

 

[Lambach]

Meh, it's a matter of personal taste. If the classes are relatively balanced, then whether you pick a caster or some vanilla fighter class makes no difference.

Unless the setting is such that even a vanilla fighter is a mage-lite due to a plethora of supernatural abilities, it makes a huge difference.

 

[DraQ]

These kinds of settings aren't very, very, very rare. There is no reason for Wizards to not be limited by outside forces. People live in a society and it's better to be Kings's advisor with fully-stacked laboratory and 20 assistants rather than being an outcast researching spells somewhere in the swamps, wasting your time conjuring food and fending off alligators.

Also, limiting shit like conjuring food is trivial by simply enforcing rules that make for a consistent universe.

A lot of it is just applying certain laws of physics to magic.

 

[Cryomancer]

Mages have quite a repertoire of destructive spells that Clerics and Druids generally don't. Druids get stuff like Call Lightning, Wall of Fire, and Ice Storm, but that pales in comparison to the Wizard's spell list. Conveniences like teleport, fly, invisibility, knock, etc. solve a lot of narrative problems that I wish to not be solved as easily. And yes, I am seeing it from a narrative perspective, not so much a mechanical one. Settings are about the stories possible within it, not about d20s.

Wrong. Pick for eg, nwn1 implosion. It is a save of die AoE which IGNORES deathblock and immunity to insta death effects.

As for the versatility of casters :
1 - You are talking about wizards, sorcerers and warlocks has a far more limited spell selection.
2 - A lot of this spells has counters. Teleport is countered by dimensional lock.
3 - Even wizards needs a lot of scrolls to have that versatility. The power of an wizard is proportional to how often an DM allow then to buy scrolls.

Is entirely possible to make a setting where wizards needs to fully commit to a magic school. For eg, in this world, wizards needs to swear loyalty to a mage association which will give to then scrolls for that school. Can you name ONE "game breaking" spell if the wizard is restricted to be an water elementarist?

Also, limiting shit like conjuring food is trivial by simply enforcing rules that make for a consistent universe.

Or you summon an animal and kill him and get food. Anyway, spells like create food would have massive impact in the world. Mainly if they are low level ones...

 

[Harthwain]

Also, what happened when they invented nuclear weapons? The USA became the leading power in the world. They didn't hesitate to use it in order to ensure victory, I assume mages would be the same.

1) The USA was already one of the leading powers in the world at that point, nukes or no nukes. What nuclear weapons really did was putting direct wars between the major powers (the USA and the USSR) on hold and introducing wars by proxies, because neither side could afford the cold war going hot. It's also the reason why spies played a much larger role than ever before (even more so than during the WW2).

2) Nuclear weapons didn't ensure victory. The USSR attacking Manchuria did - it cut off Japan's resource base that was needed to fuel the industry. Very similar effect was achieved by Red Army capturing Silesia in Europe, because in severely reduced Germany's steel and coal output, meaning the front's requirements couldn't be reached physically, meaning soldiers wouldn't have the means to fight with.

To top it off, the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan made it virtually impossible for the Japanese to win for another reason: because they couldn't match two biggest military powers of that time. The USA was also supplying the Allies with equipment and still had a lot of manpower left to throw into the meat grinder, while the Soviet Union was by that point well both equipped and experienced after the long struggle with Germany.