What books describe a good magical world?

[Thyrwyn]

I can't recomend Jim Butcher's "The Dresden Files" series highly enough. The first novel is entitled Storm Front, and while the setting is modern day Chicago (and perhaps a better fit for d20 modern) it's a great series to read for anyone interested in Wizards, Paladins, or the Feywild. I read them all from the library, but they're so good I'm going to have to buy them. Not only do I want to read them again, they simply must be a part of my collection.

Just don't form an opinion of them based on the short-lived SciFi Channel series.

They are great books. The 11th in the series comes out next week.

Butcher also has a fantasy series - the Codex Alera, the first of which is "The Furies of Calderon". Loads of fun if you like Roman Legions and Elemental Magic. The first book is OK, the series gets better as it goes.

Not that either of them have anything to do with Raise Dead. . .

The Codex Alera is relevant because in that world, all humans can use magic - except the main character. So the first books do a fair job of showing how the easy availability of magic can shape a society.

 

[Tenbones]

The "issue" is because D&D doesn't tell players HOW magic is supposed to be used. We're talking about two different things - personal vs. cultural imperatives.

Magic is "everywhere" in D&D only if the GM allows it to be everywhere. The reasons you don't see it running rampant in novels (good ones anyways) is because there are societal controls that prevent it. Someone mentioned Raymond Feist's Riftwar. It's a perfect example. The magicians there were enormously powerful - but to the average person on the street - it was rare and mysterious and feared.

D&D should be like that. Magic, even powerful magic should be there, but it should be mysterious. If you make things like Raise Dead, Wish, among other very powerful magics readily available... for GOLD no less (which really has no meaning since very few GM's ever attempt to explain away their economy) - then it does cheapen the game. But then, I feel this has more to do with the maturity of the players.

Jesus, Osiris, Odin and other powerful mythological figures in our cultural history didn't just "get raised" on a whim. If so, then how does it not cheapen those myths?

 

[kennew142]

In Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series, everyone who dies is resurrected at a random point on the planetwide river. The inhabitants use it for teleportation. But it's science (kind of), not magic.

Lots of fantasy fiction has wizardly protagonists whose personal world is very magical, but the rest of the world isn't - Elric, Earthsea.

Harry Potter's universe is highly magical, as is Vance's The Dying Earth and the second series of Amber. But I don't think any of these works explore the consequences of 'rule breaking' magic on a large scale.

I had forgotten Riverworld when I said I'd never read a novel in which resurrection was a easy as D&D. But I was thinking mainly of fantasy novels, not SF. It is a great series, one of my favorite, and I can't believe I missed it.

I still prefer a fantasy setting where resurrection isn't commonplace.

 

[Ydars]

The reason most books etc don't deal well with this issue is because most of how we define ourselves as humans is bound up with the fact our lives are transient.

For example, the traits that human civilisations have generally thought of as worthwhile are about facing death and coming through without flinching or compromising yourself. Look at bravery and selflessness. Neither has meaning if death is not permanent. If you are not risking all through your actions then "the ultimate sacrifice" no longer has any meaning or (from a story PoV) drama. Similarly, most suffering arises because we believe in the limits of time and death.

The psycological consequences of removing death would be profound if such a thing were widespread and it would be hard for us, as normal humans, to relate to this new race.

Hence, most writers don't try and go there because it wouldn't "feel" right to a human audience.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Someone mentioned Raymond Feist's Riftwar. It's a perfect example. The magicians there were enormously powerful - but to the average person on the street - it was rare and mysterious and feared.

That's because Greater Path magicians were only a 1/1,000,000 fraction of the population. The entire Kingdom of the Isles (which seems about half the size of the Roman Empire at its height) had ONE Greater Path magician (Macros) before Pug and only a couple dozen once Pug opened up education. Even the Lesser Path magicians seems like 1 in 100,000 or thereabouts. There was only one (AFAIK) in all of the Duchy of Crydee. His nearest colleague (that was mentioned) was in one of the Free Cities.

That is worlds different from the expected demographics of the DMG 3.5. We'll have to see if the 4E DMG changes that at all.

D&D should be like that.

Your opinion is noted, and you can certainly make your campaign like that if you wish, but it ISN"T like that. And the OP was looking for examples for how to deal with how D&D IS, not how you want it to be.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Look at bravery and selflessness. Neither has meaning if death is not permanent. If you are not risking all through your actions then "the ultimate sacrifice" no longer has any meaning or (from a story PoV) drama. Similarly, most suffering arises because we believe in the limits of time and death.

First off, death is usually permanent in D&D. RD/Res is pretty rare. Maybe not for high-level play, but then you're already well outside the mainstream of D&D society. IRL, some people think Lear Jets are rare and mysterious, others own more than one. It really depends on which social circles you find yourself in.

Secondly, there are things worse than death. Especially in world with undead, evil cultists and demons. Someone who risked death (and it's always a risk) rather than succumb to the Dark Side or take some other easy way out is still an admirable person. Heck, even if RD/Res was guaranteed, I bet getting killed still really hurts . Those aren't love taps those Frost Giants are dealing out. Anyone who's willing to put up with that kind of pain to purchase someone else's safety is a hero in my book. Were the soldiers who came back from war "merely wounded" less heroic for not having died out there?

The psycological consequences of removing death would be profound if such a thing were widespread and it would be hard for us, as normal humans, to relate to this new race.

I still think the word "removing" overstates the case. From Levels 1 to 10, you stay dead. From levels 11 to 20, coming back if "possible but hard." "Possible" is another way of saying "Not guaranteed." As for Epic, well, you're Hercules at that point, so different rules apply anyway. And even when you're Epic, Epic level enemies know how to keep you dead.

Hence, most writers don't try and go there because it wouldn't "feel" right to a human audience.

It's not that it wouldn't "feel" right, it's that the author would have to spend so much time explaining how it all works and how society has adapted, that it would read more like A History of the English Speaking Peoples, from Antiquity to the 19th Century rather than the light novel it's supposed to be. Most authors don't write that way because they know the audience that's willing to do all the slogging is much, much smaller than the general audience. It's just hard to make a living writing for a niche.

 

[Tenbones]

That's because Greater Path magicians were only a 1/1,000,000 fraction of the population. The entire Kingdom of the Isles (which seems about half the size of the Roman Empire at its height) had ONE Greater Path magician (Macros) before Pug and only a couple dozen once Pug opened up education. Even the Lesser Path magicians seems like 1 in 100,000 or thereabouts. There was only one (AFAIK) in all of the Duchy of Crydee. His nearest colleague (that was mentioned) was in one of the Free Cities.

/sigh Well other than the fact that you cherry picked my general point - I'll bite. You're talking a specific period in the Riftwar. What about the later years? There's Greate Path Magicians ALL OVER THE PLACE. So many that the Kingdom of the Isles fears them as an unregulated power (they police themselves). In Great Kesh - there are several Greater Path magicians - capable of leveling mountains with their power.

BUT you miss the entire point. That is - magic is regulated in novels, through social function and form. It's not a simple matter of "I'm a magician as a vocation, and go buy a book on how to be one and buy my spells from the spell-store. Which is how it could technically be in D&D". I used the Riftwar as a good novel example of how magic is very much a part of the world - but it doesn't interefere with the day-to-day transactions of life for the commoner.

Unless you do the work to make a "realistic" stab at creating a world where magic is rampant - things like commerce, government, everyday life, religion has to be factored into it. it's a *lot* of work if you want to make it seem realistic. And I'm not saying it can't be done - I'm saying most GM's don't do this. Especially new GM's for whom 3e might be their first experience playing. The system does nothing to regulate magic - it just presents it at something that exists. Let'er rip 'tato-chip. That IS how D&D is. It can be anything.

Your opinion is noted, and you can certainly make your campaign like that if you wish, but it ISN"T like that. And the OP was looking for examples for how to deal with how D&D IS, not how you want it to be.

And since you missed my point altogether - I'll pretend you didn't just do to me what you accused me of doing... heh.

 

[Scrollreader]

The problem I think he had with your example, is that it /is/ a variant. Sure, lots of DMs can run magic that way. But use the DMGs rules for statting up a decent sized city, sometime. There /are/ people who can cast raise dead. So why should merchant princes fear death? Why should death worry me, when I can pay to come back from it?

Even in the Vlad Taltos novels (Which I dearly love) and which are possibly the closest thing to a 'default' D&D ressurection world, you have morganti weapons /all over/ the place, such that real death can remain a threat. Sure, they're technically illegal. But they're commonplace. Default D&D has issues with ressurection. A good DM, or good storyteller can work around them, houserule them, etc. But saying that 'magic should be rare' flies /directly in the face/ of the guidelines in the DMG for making NPCs.

 

[Mallus]

That is - magic is regulated in novels, through social function and form

Magic in novels is regulated by authorial intent, usually with regard to plot-utility, though sometimes for characterization, exploration of themes, and symbolic/metaphoric purposes.

Just sayin'...

 

[Tenbones]

Magic in novels is regulated by authorial intent, usually with regard to plot-utility, though sometimes for characterization, exploration of themes, and symbolic/metaphoric purposes.

Just sayin'...

Authorial intent... which is what? To use magic? Obviously. I think some of the responses to my post are over-analyzing what I'm getting at. I'm not saying that magic is impossible to come by. Heck if you want it peddled out of shopping carts in the streets - more power to you! I'm merely pointing out that by and large - the game in and of itself doesn't do this regulation for you at ALL. It is something that has to be learned through experience - and preferably with different players.

But when one reads a book, or plays a campaign - one isn't simply reading/playing for the satisfaction of the GM. One plays for immersion. Mallus - you're really just saying the same things I'm saying you're just wording it rather narrowly. Books don't write themselves. If you have an author that chooses to use magic in their book - obviously they *intend* on its use. The difference is that they must create rules of use to it for the book to be plausible - to give their readers an immersive experience.

GMing is the same thing. But just like everyone that tries to write typically suck, not all GM's are great at GMing. Experienced GM's already have a good handling on how they want to handle magic in their games regardless of setting. As posted by others earlier - you home-rule it, you limit and expand to your own tastes. I've rarely seen campaign freewheel with their magic that didn't eventually get boring - or so overpowered they imploded.