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

[Lacrymas]

Yes, because I don't know how you can justify them not being the ruling class always and forever, especially if their powers are as vague as in D&D (narratively, I mean).

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Priests can't will whatever magical effects they want, they are always limited.

But so are Wizards in almost every setting with wizards. I don't get how you got the notion that Wizards aren't limited.

The "altered spell list" is actually a huge deal in this case. You can't bless people to death.

But Priests have their own arsenal of deadly spells. Also, blessing is far more deadly for achieving political power than most low level Wizard spells. Who's gonna rise to the top, guy who can shoot a guy with a magic missile or someone who can boost performance of an entire company?

If I were to limit wizards to the 6th spell circle, bind their magic to something that can be controlled by others, create an elaborate self-regulating social/political system, invent strict ideologies they must follow, and remove their ability to make up additional spells, then maybe I won't be a restless when it comes to arcane spellcasters. But I choose to just focus on divine spellcasters. I'm also thinking of removing any direct damage spells when I inevitably create my own RPG system, but I digress.

Since there are no god's at this point it's just a matter of changing the class of a characters being members of the church. If the gods aren't enforcing the systems the humans are. You can just make different churches have members of different caster classes. The difference seems to be purely mechanical.

Yes, because I don't know how you can justify them not being the ruling class always and forever, especially if their powers are as vague as in D&D (narratively, I mean).

Maybe you should just bind their magic to something that can be controlled by others, create an elaborate self-regulating social/political system, invent strict ideologies they must follow, and remove their ability to make up additional spells.

 

[Storyfag]

Yes, because I don't know how you can justify them not being the ruling class always and forever, especially if their powers are as vague as in D&D (narratively, I mean).

Then you have shit imagination, my friend. Not-so-sorry to bring you the news.

 

[Lacrymas]

Priests can't will whatever magical effects they want, they are always limited.

But so are Wizards in almost every setting with wizards. I don't get how you got the notion that Wizards aren't limited.

They certainly aren't in D&D. Because they can create their own spells. It's also a game of proportions. How powerful and destructive are they compared to normal people (read: non-mages)? Let's take for example the Dragon Age setting, since it's a place where mages are, on the surface, controlled by an outside force, i.e. the Templars. They proved to be enormously superior in their might compared to the people who are supposed to control them. Even if they can't create their own spells (which I'm not sure about), their potential for overwhelming force makes them unlimited in the context of the setting, because no-one can actually stop them. Yeah, sure, if I wanted to add wizards in my setting, I probably could've inserted them in some non-story-destroying capacity, but I don't, and I'm not sure if anyone would want to play them in such a state. I find the more divine-oriented setting more compelling at this point in time anyway.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Maybe you should just bind their magic to something that can be controlled by others, create an elaborate self-regulating social/political system, invent strict ideologies they must follow, and remove their ability to make up additional spells.

Or simply justify it through the sheer numbers of non-magic users (for why they can't rule by force) and a culture which looks negatively upon mages (for why they can't rule by diplomacy). Case in point, Sapkowski's Witcher universe. A strong sorcerer is a force to be reckoned with, but they realize that it's in their best interests to guide politics through court intrigue rather than try to usurp the nobility's power and risk getting lynched.

And even if a homebrewed D&D setting still has mages that are much more powerful than the Witcher's low fantasy counterparts, just emphasize the social stigma of magic users and how a magocracy couldn't run a stable society for too long since the peasants would be getting uppity. And for all their glory, a mage elite would still need peasants toiling the fields (again working on the assumption that you remove spells that would either make them fully self-reliant and/or able to coerce the whole of society through collective mind control or what have you).

 

[InD_ImaginE]

This is going around in a circle honestly. A cursory glance at 5E Cleric Spell List, up to 5th circle:

1. Can nuke you with divine magical nuke
2. Can control the water. Make a whirpool. Make shits flood/
3. Can cause insect plague.
4. Can use Contagion and spells to cure them.

And the fact that divine magic in Lac setting is not given by divine power.

In a setting where Divine Magic can do the above, and the fact that they are governed by mortal no gods pretty much has the same issue you have with Arcane Magic. There is no reason they are not the ruling class forever as well. You can argue that relgion wise there are cultural restraint etc, but really, historically powerful head of religious institutions has never been constrained by their books as well. If anything having the masses believe in your religion means that it is even easier for Divine Magic dictatorship to happen.

 

[Desiderius]

Priests can't will whatever magical effects they want, they are always limited.

But so are Wizards in almost every setting with wizards. I don't get how you got the notion that Wizards aren't limited.

The "altered spell list" is actually a huge deal in this case. You can't bless people to death.

But Priests have their own arsenal of deadly spells. Also, blessing is far more deadly for achieving political power than most low level Wizard spells. Who's gonna rise to the top, guy who can shoot a guy with a magic missile or someone who can boost performance of an entire company?

If I were to limit wizards to the 6th spell circle, bind their magic to something that can be controlled by others, create an elaborate self-regulating social/political system, invent strict ideologies they must follow, and remove their ability to make up additional spells, then maybe I won't be a restless when it comes to arcane spellcasters. But I choose to just focus on divine spellcasters. I'm also thinking of removing any direct damage spells when I inevitably create my own RPG system, but I digress.

Since there are no god's at this point it's just a matter of changing the class of a characters being members of the church. If the gods aren't enforcing the systems the humans are. You can just make different churches have members of different caster classes. The difference seems to be purely mechanical.

Yes, because I don't know how you can justify them not being the ruling class always and forever, especially if their powers are as vague as in D&D (narratively, I mean).

Maybe you should just bind their magic to something that can be controlled by others, create an elaborate self-regulating social/political system, invent strict ideologies they must follow, and remove their ability to make up additional spells.

There are gods.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Also I read this and I will exact vengeance upon Hóngwèibīng for tagging me in the first place.

You are in the realm of Lacrymas here. Gotta transition in order to use your barbarian powers.

Nix, I'm not reading his stupid rules.

 

[Lacrymas]

Or simply justify it through the sheer numbers of non-magic users (for why they can't rule by force) and a culture which looks negatively upon mages (for why they can't rule by diplomacy). Case in point, Sapkowski's Witcher universe. A strong sorcerer is a force to be reckoned with, but they realize that it's in their best interests to guide politics through court intrigue rather than try to usurp the nobility's power and risk getting lynched.

And even if a homebrewed D&D setting still has mages that are much more powerful than the Witcher's low fantasy counterparts, just emphasize the social stigma of magic users and how a magocracy couldn't run a stable society for too long since the peasants would be getting uppity. And for all their glory, a mage elite would still need peasants toiling the fields (again working on the assumption that you remove spells that would either make them fully self-reliant and/or able to coerce the whole of society through collective mind control or what have you).

But you still run into the problem of them being just powerful enough to control events from the background and having stories written about them and revolving around them. Philippa Eilhart, Triss, Yennefer, Keira Metz. For such a rare sight, they sure do hog the spotlight a lot.

 

[Bara]

Philippa Eilhart, Triss, Yenefer, Keira Metz. For such a rare sight, they sure do hog the spotlight a lot.

Yes because the author is a horny son of a gun.

 

[Lacrymas]

In a setting where Divine Magic can do the above, and the fact that they are governed by mortal no gods

They don't know this, though. At least 99% of the clergy actually believe that their powers are governed by their objects of worship. And like I said, I'm not sure whether I should bind their powers to something else or leave it as is, I have to write some stories in this setting to know for sure.

 

[Ol' Willy]

It's so simple. First, no mortal magic users in setting whatsoever. People and other races can't bend nature's laws. Second, there are supernatural beings of higher order: gods, demigods, elder ones, etc, existing in their own dimensions. We have clerics with good alignment or such and cultists with evil one; both pray to their supernatural patrons, asking them to perform some kind of magical help. This way, mortals have no direct access to magic while higher beings lack awareness in mortal realm to completely fuck it up. Problem solved.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Or simply justify it through the sheer numbers of non-magic users (for why they can't rule by force) and a culture which looks negatively upon mages (for why they can't rule by diplomacy). Case in point, Sapkowski's Witcher universe. A strong sorcerer is a force to be reckoned with, but they realize that it's in their best interests to guide politics through court intrigue rather than try to usurp the nobility's power and risk getting lynched.

And even if a homebrewed D&D setting still has mages that are much more powerful than the Witcher's low fantasy counterparts, just emphasize the social stigma of magic users and how a magocracy couldn't run a stable society for too long since the peasants would be getting uppity. And for all their glory, a mage elite would still need peasants toiling the fields (again working on the assumption that you remove spells that would either make them fully self-reliant and/or able to coerce the whole of society through collective mind control or what have you).

But you still run into the problem of them being just powerful enough to control events from the background and having stories written about them. Philippa Eilhart, Triss, Yenefer, Keira Metz. For such a rare sight, they sure do hog the spotlight a lot.

Sure, but that's not something that troubles the average adventurer. Unless you are intent on DMing some sort of campaign which has your players' characters be part of the higher echelons of power, such courtly intrigues are beyond their concern (or notice).

 

[Lacrymas]

Sure, but that's not something that troubles the average adventurer. Unless you are intent on DMing some sort of campaign which has your players' characters be part of the higher echelons of power, such courtly intrigues are beyond their concern (or notice).

Let's imagine the hypothetical scenario of a Witcher tabletop RPG existing (does such a thing exist actually?) - what classes do you think people will want to play most?

 

[Efe]

witchers?

 

[Lacrymas]

witchers?

And after witchers?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Sure, but that's not something that troubles the average adventurer. Unless you are intent on DMing some sort of campaign which has your players' characters be part of the higher echelons of power, such courtly intrigues are beyond their concern (or notice).

Let's imagine the hypothetical scenario of a Witcher tabletop RPG existing (does such a thing exist actually?) - what classes do you think people will want to play most?

That's a non-issue. You can have much stronger magic users in-lore while gating the level which your casting classes can attain within your campaign. If you have standard adventures, you can easily justify that in-lore with the fact that ingenuity cannot compensate for a lack of formal education in matters of magic (which can be tied to a prestige class if you want to have high level adventures, while otherwise limiting the abilities of the base caster class which your players can pick for their characters).

 

[Oberon]

Why limit barbarians to females though?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Priests can't will whatever magical effects they want, they are always limited.

But so are Wizards in almost every setting with wizards. I don't get how you got the notion that Wizards aren't limited.

They certainly aren't in D&D. Because they can create their own spells. It's also a game of proportions. How powerful and destructive are they compared to normal people (read: non-mages)? Let's take for example the Dragon Age setting, since it's a place where mages are, on the surface, controlled by an outside force, i.e. the Templars. They proved to be enormously superior in their might compared to the people who are supposed to control them. Even if they can't create their own spells (which I'm not sure about), their potential for overwhelming force makes them unlimited in the context of the setting, because no-one can actually stop them. Yeah, sure, if I wanted to add wizards in my setting, I probably could've inserted them in some non-story-destroying capacity, but I don't, and I'm not sure if anyone would want to play them in such a state. I find the more divine-oriented setting more compelling at this point in time anyway.

In DnD they could easilly be stopped by divine casters, gods and other supernatural beings. DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

 

[Larianshill]

In DnD they could easilly be stopped by divine casters, gods and other supernatural beings. DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

What is the cure for such disorders?

Spoiler

Gym sessions accompanied by corny 1980s metal for maximum gains.

 

[Lacrymas]

That's a non-issue. You can have much stronger magic users in-lore while gating the level which your casting classes can attain within your campaign. If you have standard adventures, you can easily justify that in-lore with the fact that ingenuity cannot compensate for a lack of formal education in matters of magic (which can be tied to a prestige class if you want to have high level adventures, while otherwise limiting the abilities of the base caster class which your players can pick for their characters).

So, yeah, even if arcane magic users are rare like in the Witcher universe, you still need to further limit their power, and it doesn't prevent every adventuring party from having at least one sorcerer/ess. Which obviously takes away from their rarity. It's kinda like the tieflings in the Forgotten Realms - super rare in theory but every group has one.

In DnD they could easilly be stopped by divine casters, gods and other supernatural beings. DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

They could be stopped, hypothetically speaking, but they aren't. Part of the wizard domination has to do with nerd culture, that's why the Witcher example is so apt. People can't help themselves but play arcane spellcasters or at least insert them everywhere.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

That's a non-issue. You can have much stronger magic users in-lore while gating the level which your casting classes can attain within your campaign. If you have standard adventures, you can easily justify that in-lore with the fact that ingenuity cannot compensate for a lack of formal education in matters of magic (which can be tied to a prestige class if you want to have high level adventures, while otherwise limiting the abilities of the base caster class which your players can pick for their characters).

So, yeah, even if arcane magic users are rare like in the Witcher universe, you still need to further limit their power, and it doesn't prevent every adventuring party from having at least one sorcerer/ess. Which obviously takes away from their rarity. It's kinda like the tieflings in the Forgotten Realms - super rare in theory but every group has one.

Depends on how you construct those classes. Sorcerers don't have to be rare, but their level as a base class is limited by in-lore constraints. Same as being allowed to be a fighter, but not being as strong as some master swordsman prestige class which is tied to formal training.

Just as you won't allow a player to design a character based on some prestige knightly class which requires the PC to have attended the Palatinate School of X, you can likewise forbid another player to pick some prestige mage class which requires the PC to have attended the Magical Collegium of Y.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

In DnD they could easilly be stopped by divine casters, gods and other supernatural beings. DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

They could be stopped, hypothetically speaking, but they aren't. Part of the wizard domination has to do with nerd culture, that's why the Witcher example is so apt. People can't help themselves but play arcane spellcasters or at least insert them everywhere.[/QUOTE]

People insert them everywhere because magic is a huge part of fantasy genre. Outside of DnD and it's clones or things it directly inspired there's no such thing as divine magic. Take HoMM 3. There are 9 different kind of magic users but they all just use magic, no silly split into divine and arcane kind.

 

[Desiderius]

In DnD they could easilly be stopped by divine casters, gods and other supernatural beings. DnD settings are wizard-dominated not because it cannot be avoided, but because the people who write them are nerds.

Not easily. Blame the age, not the gamer.

The highest achievers in history haven't been particularly interested in the Divine, but their parents almost always were. There's even an identifiable cycle. The Cleric raises the Mage, the Mage begets (but neglects) the Thief, the Thief trains the Fighter, and the Fighter inspires the Cleric. We've just left the Age of the Mage and are now in the age of the Thief.