Clarke's principle on its head

[Pbartender]

Of course, that just happens to be another example of the technology-social change dynamic.

Intellectual property and Non-Disclosure Agreements are outgrowths of social changes brought about by the invention of the printing press. The ability to mass-produce works that used to be laboriously copied by hand made it hard for the original authors to get paid properly when any enterprising sleaze could go, typeset a copy, and sell it.

Copyright laws were the result.

The direct result of creating a "copy" spell (as was done at one point in 1st/2nd Edition) would be that societies would adapt... and copyright laws would be created.

Magic, having the same function as technology, would have the same effect as technology.

Well, even though I made the example a little silly the NDAs and such, I was thinking more of the type of behavior we saw during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages with any type of written knowledge.

Often, only a single copy of a written manuscript existed. It 'lived' in a particular place (usually the library of some monestary), and the knowledge contained therein was jealously guarded. Why? Because you could charge people favors for access to that knowledge. And also, if you are the only one with that bit of knowledge, you have a very big advantage over every one else.

So, my idea is less about Tenser getting a royalty check every time someone casts Tenser's Transformation, but more about Tenser never giving out the secret of the spell at all, so that he has a distinct and suddenly surprising advantage over other wizards when it comes to combat.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Assuming that all other things are equal. But they aren't. The key difference is that technology is impersonal. A gun works perfectly well for anyone who picks it up. A light switch works every time someone flicks it on and if the guy at the light bulb factory quits, he can be replaced too. Magic, OTOH, is personal. A noble can hire a wizard to fireball his rioting peasants. But if the wizard decides not to (maybe because he has a pang of conscience or maybe because he wants to wait until the chaos really starts and loot the whole treasury, who knows), the noble can't grab his fireball wand and start doing it himself. Nor can he (generally) tell his other wizard to magically deal with the traitor. The magical power is intimately connected to the wizard or sorceror and can't be transferred to someone else. If the wizard decides to stop making continual flame torches, you can't just hire someone off the street and tell them to do the wizard's job.

Divine Magic has another dimension--it's generally conditional (if granted by a god as it usually is). So, not only is it personal, its use is restricted by the need for agreement between two people: the cleric and his deity.

So, while the magic of the D&D world should have social effects, those will necessarily be different than they would be if technological innovations produced the same effects. And, for that matter, technology has not followed any set path of effecting society in our world either. The introduction of gunpowder to China, Japan, and western Europe had dramatically different social reprecussions. There are very significant differences between the ways in which the various tribal peoples of South America have adapted their societies to modern technology as well. So, just because they have cheap efficient lighting would not turn the inhabitants of D&D-land into modern Europeans or Americans. They could develop in different and surprising ways or appear not to change at all.

Magic, having the same function as technology, would have the same effect as technology.

 

[Thotas]

"I suspect magic ceases to feel magical as soon as it's used in recognizable ways by the common man and for the common man's good."

I always thought that's what Clarke meant by his remark -- you and I don't see home computers as magical, but resurrect Isaac Newton and show it to him. The word "sufficient" is vague, but that's reflecting the sliding scale between the tech and the experience of the person making the statement as to whether what he's seeing is magic.

The collary is Gregory Benford's? I read that line just a few weeks ago in Terry Pratchett!

 

[Snoweel]

Well, even though I made the example a little silly the NDAs and such, I was thinking more of the type of behavior we saw during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages with any type of written knowledge.

Often, only a single copy of a written manuscript existed. It 'lived' in a particular place (usually the library of some monestary), and the knowledge contained therein was jealously guarded. Why? Because you could charge people favors for access to that knowledge. And also, if you are the only one with that bit of knowledge, you have a very big advantage over every one else.

So, my idea is less about Tenser getting a royalty check every time someone casts Tenser's Transformation, but more about Tenser never giving out the secret of the spell at all, so that he has a distinct and suddenly surprising advantage over other wizards when it comes to combat.

Bingo!

In the same way that regular people aren't given access to cutting-edge technology (iirc, there was a Pentium processor on the 1979 space shuttle), any but the most good-hearted and philanthropic masters of magic would do their best to keep the availablity of magical knowledge limited to an elite few, given the undeniable fact that

a thing's value is directly proportional to exclusivity.

And really, said philanthropists would be challenged by their peers for devaluing the very commodity that is the basis of their social power.

It doesn't suit anybody in power to provide free access to magic/technology "for the betterment" of the world, since the basis of any competitive system is that one person's misfortune = an opportunity for somebody else.

Take away the misfortune (including the misfortune of lowly birth) and you take away an opportunity that you could otherwise exploit for your own gain.

The existence of people so poor and unfortunate that they will debase themselves in order to have their needs met suits people in power.

So ruling classes (and barring any other checks or balances, the ruling classes in a D&D world will be the ones with the greatest access to magic), if they want to remain the ruling class, will make sure that they do not provide unrestricted access to magic to their lessers.

Even if they do "make things easier" for the lower classes, they will never allow them enough free time to truly "better themselves" in any way that might make them a threat to the rulers' power.

 

[Humanophile]

Snoweel, I beg to differ. In the real world, there are plenty of people who work to make a difference. Many of them with some sort of wealth. (Think how many celebrities make a goal of do-gooding.) Granted, there are many complex forces that keep us from remaking ourselves into a utopia, and one of them is the fact that these forces are complex and thus not easily bypassed by a simple solution, but I don't think that an evil conspiracy of moustache-twirlers is that much of an issue. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer because the rich have more ability to redirect wealth and hoarde, not because the rich make an active effort of keeping their "lessers" down.

Now, what bothers me about magic is the fact that what spells do is often so predictable. Most PHB spells can have their effects predicted down to the second, especially when you ignore spells that deal hit points or require a save. And a convenient, predictable magic doesn't feel properly magical at all, really.

It's not that an unpredictable magic system would turn off players; games with skill-based magic exist, magic-users who have to roll to pull of their spells are played alongside fighters who have to roll to hit with their sword. The idea that your spell won't necessarily work as well as you like, as well as the possibility of backfire, are part of what give magic its charm, though; The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a lot more fantastic than most anything The Lab Assistant gets into, and The Sorcerer has to be far warier with what he relies on than The Researcher.

I understand that magic has to be balanced to work within the rules. But a little more variance (especially since most combat-based spells are already the most variable, and also given how most catastrophic failures have been nerfed) would be nice, while avoiding the very technological micromanaging-to-the-minute many current spells use.

 

[Gez]

If that thread is in reference to Eberron's supposed magitech theme, then it's wrong.

Magic in D&D isn't technology. Magic doesn't pollute.

Except in Dark Sun. There, on Athas, magic is technology.

 

[Gez]

(iirc, there was a Pentium processor on the 1979 space shuttle)

I was about to react to this ridiculous claim, when doubt rear its skeptical head, and I scrolled up to see who was saying that.

 

[Silveras]

Well, even though I made the example a little silly the NDAs and such, I was thinking more of the type of behavior we saw during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages with any type of written knowledge.

Often, only a single copy of a written manuscript existed. It 'lived' in a particular place (usually the library of some monestary), and the knowledge contained therein was jealously guarded. Why? Because you could charge people favors for access to that knowledge. And also, if you are the only one with that bit of knowledge, you have a very big advantage over every one else.

So, my idea is less about Tenser getting a royalty check every time someone casts Tenser's Transformation, but more about Tenser never giving out the secret of the spell at all, so that he has a distinct and suddenly surprising advantage over other wizards when it comes to combat.

Well, that's part of my point. The ability to make copies of things easily would break that model. The TECHNOLOGY (easy mass production) would force a SOCIAL CHANGE (abandoning the practice of jealously guarding knowledge).

I chose the printing press as my example because it was the technology in the real world that led to the abandonment of the jealous guarding you mentioned. A magical equivalent of the printing press would have a similar effect on a D&D world. In both cases, it is not like the change occurred "the next day". It would take time, but given that Europe went from the dark ages to the modern day in around 800 years, the long histories of many D&D worlds allow ample time for magic to have had similar effects.

Certainly, in the year or so after its discovery, any new spell is worth a lot. Collecting big favors for access to the knowledge is expectes. However, gradually, those people will record the spell, and re-sell the knowledge. That is part of what makes capturing a Wizard's spellbooks in D&D so attractive, after all.

I played a Birthright PBeM game a few years ago. The FIRST thing I did was to research a new battle spell (spell scaled to affect military units instead of individuals). It proved quite helpful in defending my Dwarf ally's stronghold from the hordes of Goblins that invaded on the THIRD turn. Their evil mage leader had no defense, and was defeated (I polymorphed him into a fish to ruring the rout of his forces).

 

[Silveras]

Assuming that all other things are equal. But they aren't. The key difference is that technology is impersonal. A gun works perfectly well for anyone who picks it up. A light switch works every time someone flicks it on and if the guy at the light bulb factory quits, he can be replaced too. Magic, OTOH, is personal. A noble can hire a wizard to fireball his rioting peasants. But if the wizard decides not to (maybe because he has a pang of conscience or maybe because he wants to wait until the chaos really starts and loot the whole treasury, who knows), the noble can't grab his fireball wand and start doing it himself. Nor can he (generally) tell his other wizard to magically deal with the traitor. The magical power is intimately connected to the wizard or sorceror and can't be transferred to someone else. If the wizard decides to stop making continual flame torches, you can't just hire someone off the street and tell them to do the wizard's job.

A gun certainly works just as well for anyone who uses it. So do wings of flying. So does an everburning torch.

A person able to use a gun is not necessarily a person able to create or implement an improved design. That requires specialized knowledge and skills. Likewise, a Fighter capable of using wings of flying does not know how to make them. That requires specialized knowledge and skills.

If the Wizard decides to stop making everburning torches, you cannot hire just anyone off the street to replace him/her. Likewise, if a skilled munitions designer quits, you cannot expect to pull someone off the street to do that job, either.

Magic, as far as Wizards go, is training-based. In the core rules, any character with sufficient Intelligence can learn the rudiments. Likewise, any person in the modern world can be educated to be able to operate and even fabricate technology.

Divine Magic has another dimension--it's generally conditional (if granted by a god as it usually is). So, not only is it personal, its use is restricted by the need for agreement between two people: the cleric and his deity.

Divine magic is, indeed, a somewhat different "kettle of fish". It does have more non-training related limitations. However, while an individual practicioner may "fall from grace", it is fairly that doesn't stop healing potions from being the penicillin of the D&D world. The social changes may begin with one person, but they become independent of that person fairly quickly.

So, while the magic of the D&D world should have social effects, those will necessarily be different than they would be if technological innovations produced the same effects. And, for that matter, technology has not followed any set path of effecting society in our world either. The introduction of gunpowder to China, Japan, and western Europe had dramatically different social reprecussions. There are very significant differences between the ways in which the various tribal peoples of South America have adapted their societies to modern technology as well. So, just because they have cheap efficient lighting would not turn the inhabitants of D&D-land into modern Europeans or Americans. They could develop in different and surprising ways or appear not to change at all.

I am not saying they would be exactly the same. I am saying that the closer the parallel in the discovery, the more likely it is that the results would be same. Certainly, existing cultural situations, the order in which things are discovered, and the method of dissemination would all play a role. However, given that core D&D is loosely modeled on "medieval Europe", it is my contention that magic-as-technology would long-since have caused enough social changes that the core D&D setting cannot plausibly still exist with magic as it is presented in the core rules.

Even the 3.5 designers hint at this, when they admonish people that having peasants who do not readily recognize magic is "a mistake." (DMG 3.5, Chapter 5: Campaigns, Heading: Magic In Your World) I happen to despise that particular part of the 3.5 DMG; I dislike being told I am making "a mistake" in wanting magic to be unfamiliar to the common folk.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Perhaps, Silveras, but you're minimizing what is a massive and fundamental difference between magic and technology when you minimize the personal nature of magical power.

People with technology can design bombers capable of flattening cities. Wizards, sorcerors, and druids can BE capable of flattening cities. In the US, we don't have to pay our jets or aircraft carriers, we don't need to worry about their loyalty, and they don't get delusions of grandeur (or maybe they wouldn't be delusions) because they're inanimate technology. In the magical society, wizards, druids, and clerics, would expect rewards, they could be loyal or betray, and they could become arrogant.

That seems to be a fundamental difference that would lead to very different developments in a magical society from a non-magical one.