Magic and culture in D&D Lore

[Dwimmerlied]

I've browsed these boards for a long time, and it seems that the greatest response-pulling threads are those that have controversial ammunition or speculation on politics. Not surprising, I spose, because this was initially presented as a board for rumours and such (which is fun). However, the threads I love the most are those concerning ideas and theories on the rich in-game lore, both broad, genre spanning tropes as well as emergent properties of the sword and sorcery melting pot this game is, and the amazing new lore perculiar to these games.

I'm currently playing around with the idea of having cultural/racial magic tendencies, and I'm interested in what evidence there is in D&D lore for this sort of thing already. The obvious ones are gnome tendencies for illusion, and elven affinity for enchantment (and perhaps abjuration?). Concerning the latter, I personally was disappointed with 3rd edition treatment of (FR only?) High Magic as almost interchangeable with Epic magic, and not having anything else really distinguishing it. Has anyone found this, or come up with good alternatives? Have you used cultural tendencies toward specific types of magic in your campaign? How has it worked?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Dwarves <3 Artifice. That is, items imbued with magic. Rune-encrusted blades and ensorcelled suits of armor and glyphs scribed on surfaces like traps.

Halflings are sometimes noted as having a bardic tradition -- whistles, songs, riddles, etc. A love of the good life and a focus on the clever means they're at home with a subtle, musical magic and illusion tricks (though, of course, there's a contingent of halflings who view these vagabonds with no small amount of suspicion).

Elven High Magic to me has always seemed more like a DM Fiat Device than much of anything mechanically relevant. It does what you need it to do to stop the PC's from finding things that they want to find easily. It makes sense to me as Epic, as in the world it's supposed to be exceptionally powerful, but I don't think that's the only way to represent it.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Elven high magic only existed due to elven racial limits. They were the best casters in Forgotten Realms, especially in the Arcana Age, yet mechanically humans were. Here was the fix.

The kinds of effects that Elven High Magic covered were often worthy of being epic, and yet not. For instance, the mythal of Myth Drannor gave all elves in the city a large number of minor abilities, such as levitation. An epic spellcaster could have been casting spells like that for centuries, but an ordinary 1st-level elf would consider this a wondrous thing. It's not the kind of thing that an epic adventurer would care much about (although an epic wizard who is staying at home could and would). Most people using the Epic Level Handbook would be thinking of spells useful for adventuring, not that kind of "domestic" ritual.

Elves usedto be the only "bladesingers", although in some settings/editions anyone can be. I would still expect most bladesingers to be elves.

 

[howandwhy99]

Dwarves are one of the most interesting races to me because magic isn't available to them. They have clerics who can call on the power of their deities, but even magic item use is limited due to the race's inherent magical resistance. This is beneficial on the one hand, as dwarves are less likely to be hindered by magic, but it also takes away the potential benefits magic could bring.

This isn't about limiting player options with a race, but an enabling option to opt out of the magic-everything the game can sometimes lead to. I think a parallel idea to this is with Halflings who aren't amenable to war and have highly limited advancement as Fighters. They simply aren't a warlike people and the option of playing a Halfling let's players focus all of the elements of the game which aren't combat.

An interesting race inherently tied to magic would engaged in magic-use in every way they live. The difficult part is understanding what magic means and how it would be defined for a race like this. Elves are pretty magical and their religion shows it. They could conceivably create magic in every object they craft with soul binding. This would apply to every bond they forge to non-objects too, like people, places, even ideas.

 

[steeldragons]

What, I think, you're asking and people are getting at...is that the D&D Lore was initially (through 1e at least, 2e also maybe?) the cultural affinity for magic was built in to the classes available to races and racial level limits.

This got lost in the "I wanna, I wanna, and you can't tell me I can't" of later editions where everyone can be anything they like and advance unhindered by the [albeit intrinsically "bigoted" if fantastical elves and dwarves were real] limits of race. I applaud the sensibility...but at the same time, it alters/removes the inherent flavor of most of the races. Very few people complain that elves can be great wizards...but want to complain if their dwarf can't do/be the same or their gnome can be a great illusionist but can't be a [or as powerful a] necromancer or even a "general" wizard, etc...

I guess my point is there was something to the initial idea of racial class and level limitations, it was an automatic flavor to the culture if x race could be ABC class but only y level in D or B or A...which now seems to be the most heinous kind of restriction you could ever suggest to many players.

I fluctuate on the subject. I see the benefit/appreciate the fluff of the one side...but simultaneously appreciate the "everything open to everyone, race doesn't matter" options...

But the lore of what culture or race was good at which kind of magic was intrinsic to [and significantly more limited in] the Basic/B-X/BECMI/and, at least, 1e and UA versions of the game.

 

[Arkhandus]

2nd Edition AD&D also had racial class/level restrictions. Dwarves couldn't become bards or any kind of wizard, gnomes could only become illusionist wizards if they wanted any arcane spellcasting at all, only a few races could become druids, only humans (and maybe half-elves) could become paladins, etc. And each race was limited to a certain maximum level in each class based on how much affinity their race had for that kind of class. Only humans were unlimited in their class selection and level advancement, though half-elves had a better selection of options and levels than other demihumans.

The 3rd Edition books for the Forgotten Realms did include some kinds of magic favored by particular races to some degree, like elven high magic and dwarven rune magic, though fairly limited in use and function. Generally, 3.x did away with race/class restrictions and any significant affinity for particular types of magic among different races.

My homebrewed Rhunaria setting for 3.0 D&D has some racial class restrictions but mostly as a cultural matter; dwarves and lizardfolk shun and persecute arcane spellcasters (though there is one isolated dwarven mage-guild for the few dwarves with arcane talents who manage to escape, hidden at the edge of dwarven lands); gnomes hardly bother with religion and only have a few philosopher-clerics in their territory with no other divine casters; orcs and goblinoids are just too primitive and low on magical affinity to have more than a few paltry sorcerers and such, though they have some divine spellcasters; etc. There are still rare exceptions allowed, like that small dwarven mage's guild, but generally only as exiles in foreign lands. So they get treated as outsiders among their adopted country and are at some risk if they run into travelers from their homeland (or will just get mistreated by others from their homeland).

 

[SkidAce]

I guess my point is there was something to the initial idea of racial class and level limitations, it was an automatic flavor to the culture if x race could be ABC class but only y level in D or B or A...which now seems to be the most heinous kind of restriction you could ever suggest to many players.

I fluctuate on the subject. I see the benefit/appreciate the fluff of the one side...but simultaneously appreciate the "everything open to everyone, race doesn't matter" options...

But the lore of what culture or race was good at which kind of magic was intrinsic to [and significantly more limited in] the Basic/B-X/BECMI/and, at least, 1e and UA versions of the game.

I handle this via my campaign setting (which has been around since then).

I.e. culturally in my world the gnomes are the best at and have the highest % of illusionists. It's their natural inclination. But a PC character can be whatever they want. If their gnome is a necromancer...okay...if their human becomes the best illusionist in the land...the gnomes may show some respect and interest.

Best of both worlds for me...I get cultural flavor and cause and effect in the world, players play what they want. Another example. Culturally, dwarves are still NOT wizards (arcane casters). They use craft, runes, and talent to make things, but are generally not lightning bolt flinging mages. But a player can be. And the world would show interest (generally going "whaaa?").

Works great!

Lizardmen are shamans, goblins are witchdoctors, ogres are druids and shaman, elves are weather magic and enchantment, hobgoblins are battlewizards, etc etc.

And oddly enough, humans are strangely inclined to sorcery (fiend summoning in my campaign).

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Thats interesting, SkidAce; I've kind of assumed the same tendency for humans too; they are not inately magical, and show tendency to gain power through bargaining with fiends (the proper meaning of sorcery). Though humans are often wizards, Sorcery is the magic of humans in as much as enchantment is elven.

I think it fits that Dwarves' only arcane capabilities are manifest in their fantastical ability for crafting. I've considered disallowing as a rule dwarven arcanists of any type, but allowing the craft magic arms and armour feats accessible to dwarven experts with high enough ranks in relevent craft skills.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

TBH, I like the way older editions handled this thing. It adds a mythology to the game which I enjoy. Though with the most stringent of the rules, though I'm a conservative player, I'd have a few of my better character concepts trumped right off the bat!

I'm considering, when it comes time to run my own campaign, allowing most combinations and instead of posing restrictions offering some benefit for traditional (system and fiction) class combos.

 

[Kalontas]

The racial limitation on class levels were a terrible, terrible rule.

So hey, I'm a halfling and I've got to Xth level of fighter. I have all the necessary skills and abilities I need to advance to the next level, but I can't, the only reason being "the game tells me I can't". So what do we do then? Do we leave me as just weaker than every other character who can keep advancing, especially the superior master race of humans? Even forgetting the unfortunate implications of humans being plain better than everyone else, that still made for a terrible game. Every GM would just tell his players to forget this rule and keep on going.

Games are made to be fun. If you make an artificial barrier on a player's choice of classes, or limit his advancement in one, for "story", you'll making a terrible, railroading game. Setting can tell you anything it wants about CULTURES (not races) and their tastes in magic - like gnomes prefer Illusion, there are no known human druids because humans mostly cut down forests for cities and fields, while dwarves rarely use fire magic because beer-soaked beard + fire = bad idea - but limiting what players can do is just a way to scare away people from playing your game.