D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[pemerton]

Historically, monarchies almost always drew their legitimacy from the endorsement of the Church, who spoke for god. Divine Right of Kings and all that.

This isn't the whole picture. There is also the "bottom up" theory of kingship in mediaeval political thought - that the monarch owes their position to the support of the nobles whom they rule. Somewhat like a warband leader. The conflict between clerical endorsement and lay election drove a lot of political action.

Spinning off a bit from some discussion in the Dragonlance thread.

The biggest thing for me that comes out of that thread is that D&D relies on many non-modern, non-liberal moral tropes.

Many D&D campaigns involve paladin rulers of good kingdoms. The idea that it is possible to have good, admirable government by way of monarchy isn't reconcilable with liberal democratic values. It's the quintessence of reaction, though a very common fantasy trope (Arthur, Aragorn, even some versions of Robin Hood and King Richard).

A lot of fantasy motifs - whether taken from Homeric tales, or martial arts films, or less romantic mediaeval-type stuff - emphasise honour, loyalty, and similar values around personal charisma and personal standing. And consensual submission to violence (eg duelling; or the rather casual use of lethal violence against those who are themselves ready to use it, like bandits and hobgoblins and castle guards). There are also issues of hubris and humility. These sorts of values don't fit very well within a humanist morality.

Maybe with a bit of squinting and clever argument bits and pieces of this can be reframed to fit within a modern value system. But to me it makes more sense to acknowledge that when we play a fantasy RPG, we imaginatively project ourselves into a different, "mythic" or "romantic", moral universe.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The traditional trappings of D&D are post-christianization Western Europe (jarring polytheism notwithstanding).

Okay?

 

[pointofyou]

This isn't the whole picture. There is also the "bottom up" theory of kingship in mediaeval political thought - that the monarch owes their position to the support of the nobles whom they rule. Somewhat like a warband leader. The conflict between clerical endorsement and lay election drove a lot of political action.


The biggest thing for me that comes out of that thread is that D&D relies on many non-modern, non-liberal moral tropes.

Many D&D campaigns involve paladin rulers of good kingdoms. The idea that it is possible to have good, admirable government by way of monarchy isn't reconcilable with liberal democratic values. It's the quintessence of reaction, though a very common fantasy trope (Arthur, Aragorn, even some versions of Robin Hood and King Richard).

A lot of fantasy motifs - whether taken from Homeric tales, or martial arts films, or less romantic mediaeval-type stuff - emphasise honour, loyalty, and similar values around personal charisma and personal standing. And consensual submission to violence (eg duelling; or the rather casual use of lethal violence against those who are themselves ready to use it, like bandits and hobgoblins and castle guards). There are also issues of hubris and humility. These sorts of values don't fit very well within a humanist morality.

Maybe with a bit of squinting and clever argument bits and pieces of this can be reframed to fit within a modern value system. But to me it makes more sense to acknowledge that when we play a fantasy RPG, we imaginatively project ourselves into a different, "mythic" or "romantic", moral universe.

I agree with your last paragraph that we project ourselves into the setting but I think that is perhaps true to the extent we are the audience for the game. To the extent we are the authors of the game I think we are perhaps attempting to create a setting that is consistent with our values and our understanding of how the world works. I don't see much if any conflict between those.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Huh. Just last week I was doing the math on how 1st level magic would impact farming. So guess here is where my data dump goes:

Premise : A 1st level mage is equivalent to a modern 100hp utility tractor complete with implements and can effectively, and consistently, out-perform 4 adult farmers while barely breaking a sweat.

I was going to agree but quibble over details until I realized that a) unseen servant and floating disk don't take concentration, b) ritual casting is only 10 minutes, not an hour, c) active spells remain active while ritually casting another spell. Instead of harvesting 2 acres per day with a cradle scythe and a second person gathering, that could go to 6-8 acres per day with the farmmage and a helper. Depending on the commonality of magic, that could be family or village changing.

 

[David Howery]

Land. Who owns it? Who decides who owns it? There's a lot of Generic Wilderness in most D&D settings,

there's a lot of 'the wild west' in D&D campaigns, frontier places not really under anyone's control, independent groups can go out and find stashes of gold, etc....

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A level-1 spell that offered reliable contraception would change the world.

This would be a much better replacement for Ceremony (etc.).

I keep meaning to update my BoEF spells that do that kind of thing

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think these kind of things are great fun to consider and discuss!

The first thing in my mind is the commonality of magic. kigmatzomat makes a great point about how a first level magician can improve farming. But, it is irrelevant if there is only one guy in the county that can do it. How common do you all perceive formalized magic (i.e. PC level magic) in your campaigns?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think these kind of things are great fun to consider and discuss!

The first thing in my mind is the commonality of magic. kigmatzomat makes a great point about how a first level magician can improve farming. But, it is irrelevant if there is only one guy in the county that can do it. How common do you all perceive formalized magic (i.e. PC level magic) in your campaigns?

but if it is a learned skill that 1 guy can teach how many apprentices? and they can teach how many more? even an Int 8 commoner CAN learn it in theory without caster stat checks'

edit: and even in game worlds with rare casters (and that is a rare setting today) I don't know any that has 1 per kingdom, heck most have more then 1 per city

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think these kind of things are great fun to consider and discuss!

The first thing in my mind is the commonality of magic. kigmatzomat makes a great point about how a first level magician can improve farming. But, it is irrelevant if there is only one guy in the county that can do it. How common do you all perceive formalized magic (i.e. PC level magic) in your campaigns?

That depends on the world, but it makes zero sense to me that magic would be as rare as all that. PCs aren't special, and even if they were, where did  they learn magic from?

 

[Baron Opal II]

but if it is a learned skill that 1 guy can teach how many apprentices? and they can teach how many more? even an Int 8 commoner CAN learn it in theory without caster stat checks'

Well, I don't know.

For my campaign, magic requires talent. Sorcerers have an excess of it, and don't need any formal training. They often get by with a tragic backstory. Wizards have an average amount, and with proper training they are able to cast spells. Warlocks may or may not have talent. The pact allows them to use magic either with no training or no talent. Also, you need an Intelligence of 10 + spell level to understand a given spell. So you'll need to find peasants with an Intelligence of 11 or better (~45%, I think?). Again, IMC.

The farm mage being first level may not understand the techniques well enough to teach them. His friends an neighbors may not have the talent or be able to understand.