High-Level NPCs

[Celebrim]

...even though they really tried a lot.

Actually, there aren't 'several', there is just one that fits that whole list of capabilities - mine. And that statement about my country is a vicious and nasty lie, and I'm sorry but I just can't let that stand even in these forums. If my nation had tried even a little to rule the world, we would have. The full degree to which we had no interest in it is so amazingly apparent to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history, that it takes willful malice to hurl slanders like that.

 

[Nellisir]

2) Wizard tools enable them to avoid many of the problems you've outlined.

I'm not sure how simulcra help one avoid being petty, having human concerns, or generally care about things one doesn't care about, which was the majority of the "problems" I outlined. I am talking story; you're talking rules.

 

[Nellisir]

Actually, there aren't 'several', there is just one that fits that whole list of capabilities - mine. And that statement about my country is a vicious and nasty lie, and I'm sorry but I just can't let that stand even in these forums. If my nation had tried even a little to rule the world, we would have. The full degree to which we had no interest in it is so amazingly apparent to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history, that it takes willful malice to hurl slanders like that.

I think you're reading a bit more into it than is there.

I think he's referring more to NATO, of which his country is also a member, than to the US in particular. And his country did try a bit, actually. Although not as a member of NATO.

Anyways, I'm a bit surprised at the turn this thread has taken.

 

[Nellisir]

The point of my original post was not to say that mechanically, archmages aren't extremely powerful and couldn't potentially take over the world if unchallenged. It was to point out that, from a story standpoint, most of them have blindspots and weak points, including human emotions like ennui and apathy, that make them simply not care. And some of the wizardry powers, like a long life, can contribute to this negligence, as they are more likely to assume a problem will just go away if they ignore it long enough, and they don't need to stop researching the secret of the Oundipiladious Well of the Thurmian Regime on Quipinqui.

In other words, high-level wizards, even good-aligned ones, in a setting do not and should not invalidate lower-level heroes.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you're reading a bit more into it than is there.

I think he's referring more to NATO...

NATO doesn't have either stealth bombers or a GPS. Only the soviets/russians have an equivalent satellite navigation system in place, and no one but the USA has stealth bombers. Stealth bombers pick out the USA as distinctly as supercavitating torpedos would identify the Russians. And NATO is a defensive alliance, and there haven't been very many actions undertaken under NATO command and none of them can be remotely construed as trying hard to take over the world. No I think I'm not wrong in hearing the usual reflexive anti-Americanism that some people throw out because they've never heard anyone say any different.

Anyway, moving on to topics actually on topic...

In other words, high-level wizards, even good-aligned ones, in a setting do not and should not invalidate lower-level heroes.

I agree, but if and only if those human failings tend to lead them as you put it to "apathy". In other words, you can have high level NPC's in your campaign world and it not impinge on protagonist status of the PC's, provided that there are clear in world reasons why those high level NPC's remain uninvolved and as much as possible off stage. This could be apathy, self-imposed nuetrality, weaknesses that the NPC doesn't wish to reveal, or private projects that consume all of the NPC's time.

General human characteristics - pride, envy, greed, a sense of duty, fanaticism, etc. - don't all lead to uninvolvement, so its not enough to postulate that humanity itself is a barrier to the desire to either rule or control or protect the whole world.

The problem you get into is when you have NPC's that are DM pets or DM PC's, where the DM just wants to show off how great and spectacularly awesome his NPC's are. Then you have a situation where the NPC assumes protagonist status, and the PC is reduced to sidekick or observer. And that's not good for the game. Or even if you don't actually have the NPC on stage, if you put them in the setting and give them the motivation to be an active force for good (or evil) then the question becomes, why aren't they here already?

My homebrew world's backstory provides the in game explanation as to why high level wizards are less involved in the world. Early in the world's history, an empire ruled by wizards tried to make war on the gods - which forced a temporary alliance of all the gods and led to a magical apocalypse called the Iconoclasm. Since that time, Wizards have been on a fairly short leash - nobody wants to see the world almost destroyed again - and Wizards of great power tend to keep their heads down for fear of attracting divine intervention. A Wizard with the goal of world domination and the means to accomplish it would almost certainly end up with his head on a divinely ordained metaphorical (or not) chopping block. So while there are a couple of wizards that are in and of themselves as mighty as nations, they tend to be very very reclusive and circumspect in their dealings. There is a lot more, "No body sees the Great and Powerful Oz!!!", than Wizards ruling the world.

 

[Nellisir]

The problem you get into is when you have NPC's that are DM pets or DM PC's, where the DM just wants to show off how great and spectacularly awesome his NPC's are.

That's not the DM I'm talking to.

Honestly, I'm not sure how this turned into such an adversarial thread. It suddenly seems like a number of people are very invested in the ability of high-level wizards to dominate the storyline, and very threatened by the suggestion that they might not do so without divine intervention, demonic threats, or some other heavy-handed deus ex machina.

I posted an opinion. It's your right to disagree. I'm really, seriously not interested in arguing about it. I don't buy the argument that archmages are automatically superhuman, and I'm not going to. If your campaign operates in such a way that you need divine shackles on your archmages to justify the continued existence of your campaign, then so be it. I'm glad it works for you. Don't bother reading any of Glen Cook's books.

 

[Celebrim]

That's not the DM I'm talking to...Honestly, I'm not sure how this turned into such an adversarial thread.

Oh. OK, I can explain that.

It's because you said this: "I'm making general statements rather than specific, but specifically addressing high-level NPCs that are often a point of complaint (ie, what is there for PCs to do? Why doesn't Khelben/Elminster/Mordenkainen/Rary handle it?)"

At that point, it seemed like you were defending the existance and usage of Khelben and Eliminster, and people then responded, "Errr... yeah, but those points of complaint are legitimate."

It suddenly seems like a number of people are very invested in the ability of high-level wizards to dominate the storyline, and very threatened by the suggestion that they might not do so without divine intervention, demonic threats, or some other heavy-handed deus ex machina.

I would suggest that a lot of people have direct experience with badly thought out high level NPC's, and in particular with 2nd Edition Forgotten Realms and the way that the existance of large numbers of high level NPC's undermines D&D core story and core gameplay. I would suggest that a lot of players have seen high-level Wizard NPC's dominate the story line, and that a lot of DM's have seen high-level PC Wizards dominate game play and seemingly 'get out of control.

Particularly in 2e and 3e, there isn't a lot of reason why high-level PC Wizards can't do whatever they want. The problem is that Glen Cook's wizards aren't D&D wizards of arbitrarily high level, and your inference isn't really applicable if you are trying to say that Glen Cook's ideas are somehow universally applicable to all wizards or settings. For one thing, it really only takes one to break the mold of uninvolved, and then that's enough. For another, Glen Cook's narrative control as a sole author serves as heavier handed deus ex mechina than anything that happens in a RPG with multiple authors contributing to a story. Just because it works in a story, doesn't mean that it works in an RPG. There are a ton of story conventions that you better chuck out of the window if you are relying on them to occur in an RPG.

I don't buy the argument that archmages are automatically superhuman, and I'm not going to.

See, you say that, and I'm like, "How many 17th and higher level wizards have you seen played for an extensive period in the hands of a capable player? How much time have you actually spent playing in Greyhawk or Faerun, according to cannon, and particularly in 2e Forgotten Realms modules?" Because you know, archmages are superhuman in D&D - and that's not an opinion. I mean, wizards are already as powerful as many comic book superheroes when they are just slinging 6th level spells; by the time the 9th level spells are coming on line we are several orders of magnitude beyond mere superhuman.

Don't bother reading any of Glen Cook's books.

Huh? I'm sorry that your point wasn't as well recieved as you thought it was going to be, but how in the world does it follow that if I don't think a novels conventions are fully adaptable to an RPG with entirely different conventions, that I won't like the novel?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm not sure how simulcra help one avoid being petty, having human concerns, or generally care about things one doesn't care about, which was the majority of the "problems" I outlined. I am talking story; you're talking rules.

But rules impact story.

Many of the points you made could be addressed by that. You said they don't have time to do things. Well, now they do, since they've got a bunch of mini-mes going around.

Hiring staff, creating golems, and whatnot are all ways of handling an "intrigue" - it doesn't have to be "hands-on". At some point, the apprentice/spy/assassin/major domo has to report back and the wizard has to make a decision. There are only so many threads that one can pull and handle.

The archmage doesn't need to be "hands on". If he's making a golem, the apprentice/spy/assassin/major domo can report to a simulacrum instead.

It can get funny, as the simulacrum is not as competent as the archmage, or if someone manages to subvert the simulacrum.

Obvious personal flaws would hinder an archmage from "taking over the WORLD!" but many of the issues you brought up (eg admin) can be partially solved by the wizard's power. Almost completely trustworthy mini-mes are a great way of dealing with administrative problems, since they literally know how you think and can even temporarily replace you.

 

[Nellisir]

It can get funny, as the simulacrum is not as competent as the archmage, or if someone manages to subvert the simulacrum.

Exactly half as competent. Which can be interesting if the division of knowledge skills is randomly determined. It also means that the archmage is still the only one* casting 6th-level or higher spells (they're probably not as smart as the original either). There's one choke point.

Given that simulacrum are constructs and explicitly can't advance, I'd say they have no XP and can't make magic items, so that's another choke point.

Simulacra certainly can't make more simulacrum, and each one costs the caster 1000xp minimum.

An iron golem** costs 5,600xp, 80,000 gp, and takes almost 3 months of work; a stone golem 3,400xp, 50,000gp, and nearly two months. A swift strike to take out a golem seems like a worthwhile endeavor; it takes a lot more to replace one than it does to destroy one.

These aren't unlimited resources. I don't have my books in front of me, but it looks like above 18th level, a wizard has 17,000xp per level. That's only 3 iron golems.


*I realize that archmage status in the FR doesn't apply until you're 24th level or something, and you've bonked at least three quasi-deities, but i am old and like to pretend it still begins at 18th level, with the acquisition of 9th-level spells.

**I'm picking on iron golems because they do show up in Cook's book. The Star-Rider (bad guy) has a small army of them. Unfortunately, when he's not looking, Varthlokkur sneaks in and using his Secret Weapon (a weird evil ultra-powerful fetus creature) to telekinetically pick them up and drop them from a very high height.***

*** Yes, I'm aware that iron golems weigh 5,000lbs and there are spell resistance questions. However, Radeachar (sp) is a weird ultrapowerful artifact/creature/thingum, and his primary power is telekinesis, so as DM, I'd allow some leeway. Also it's not D&D. One could also assume that Varth spent 9 weeks and a little cash to create a lift iron golem spell. Way cheaper and faster than building an iron golem.

 

[Nellisir]

At that point, it seemed like you were defending the existance and usage of Khelben and Eliminster

Existence of archmages yes, usage of archmages to disrupt the storyline, no. Exactly the opposite.

I suppose in retrospect it's obvious that people would assume I was talking about Elminster and Khelben. Frankly, it didn't occur to me. I've spent exactly zero time playing or DMing canon FR or GH, and I've never played with a DM that used either of those settings. I haven't read the novels in years. I was thinking about DMs and house campaigns, and people who think archmages do nothing but sit around and build golems all day. While surfing their magic mirrors. And thus intentionally do not use them as NPCs or story elements, or allow them to dominate the game when they do use them, because "that's what archmages do".

Mea culpa.

...your inference isn't really applicable if you are trying to say that Glen Cook's ideas are somehow universally applicable to all wizards or settings

Well, I thought the beauty of Cook's setup was that a lot of the difficulties the uber-mages experienced were a result of their own nature, not their level of power.

in a RPG with multiple authors contributing to a story.

I don't co-DM. I'm talking about NPCs (says so first post), not PCs. Players don't determine NPC actions, so there's only one author on that side of the storyline.
If you're running a prewritten module, and the NPC is detracting from enjoyment of the game, then a) it's probably bad writing, and b) it's definitely bad DMing.

See, you say that, and I'm like, "How many 17th and higher level wizards have you seen played for an extensive period in the hands of a capable player?

Played and seen played, several. Generally the more powerful they were, the bigger their Achille's heel was. Usually lacked staying power. Also a different paradigm from the antagonist or "neutral" NPC archmage, which is the explicit subject of the original post.

Because you know, archmages are superhuman in D&D - and that's not an opinion. I mean, wizards are already as powerful as many comic book superheroes when they are just slinging 6th level spells; by the time the 9th level spells are coming on line we are several orders of magnitude beyond mere superhuman.

And yet, RAW, they still sleep 8 hours every night, eat 3 meals a day, require an hour to regain spells, and crap regularly. Iron Man, not Superman.