Is Magic a Setting Element or a Plot Device

[Crazy Jerome]

In the 13th century, William of Okham (Occam, of Occam's Razor fame) predicted something very much like Newtonian mechanics, but said that he lacked the mathematics to prove (i.e. "test") it. He then predicted something very much like calculus as the mathematics he was missing.

So do an alternative history where Okham is genius enough to invent calculus. Then Okhamian mechanics are well developed and understood by the time the mini-Enlightenment is ready to spring on Europe, circa 1300. This leads to a greater understanding of the scientific method, and perhaps the printing press sooner. Perhaps it even leads to medical advances that help Europe mitigate the worst of the Black Death. In this happier timeline, the pressures aren't there that allow the religious wars to run rampant.

Now, that's a lot of ifs. But it isn't completely implausible. You can start with one change--Okham being a genius--and plausibly sketch out a late 14th century industrial revolution. But there is a flipside to this, too. Nothing about the 18th century industrial revolution was set in stone, either. You can go back to the 15th century and find all kinds of ways to short circuit it. Because that kind of advancement takes both key individuals and discoveries, as well as a critical mass of people and institutions.

So while I find the idea of, say, 5,000 years of roughly medieval technology stagnation unlikely in a fantasy game, you also have to take into account the ways that magic can really mess up a world. It can make the Black Death look tame. So it is not hard to get myself into the mindset where humans (and elves, dwarves, haflings, etc.) have been screwing things up at inopportune times, and thus so short circuiting any sizable advancement. I figure that for the guy who invents magical gunpowder, you've got several hundred that manage to blow themselves up before it gets recorded. The same goes for other magical effects.

 

[Hussar]

Bear in mind, using the phrase Industrial Revolution is really only referring to the larger technological steps humanity made during that time. In reality, it was a follow-on to the Rennaisance. The truth is, man's been pretty busy in the last 500 years, compared to the prior 1500 years or so.

I think enslaving the darkvision populace for a 24x7 workforce would be an evil act. Something the bad guy society would do. Probably one run by evil genius mindflayers. Who use Beholders to cut the underground city out with their Disintegration beam eyes.

On the good guy side, I suspect the city watch would be happy to employ darkvision'd folks for the night shift. They'd be mor effective at spotting crime.

By wholesale 24x7 workforce? Why assume that's needed. with lower population levels, there's longer shipping times and overall less demand.

Case in point, the humble Spinning Wheel. When it was invented, a wheel spinner could do the work of 12 women using drop spindles. The complaint was that it put those people out of work. There would have been no complaint if the owner of the shop had bought 12 wheels and got a x12 boost to his output. But he didn't need that, so instead he lays off 11 workers. This happened in most every shop. As such, in some countries there was a huge protectionist backlash to the adoption of the spinning wheel, where even the Church condemned it.

Having greater ability to produce does not mean it is needed or consumed.

the point is to consider that any of these innovations will need to satisfy a demand, usually so people can work less, not harder. thus lowering costs.

As a note, people change things to cut costs or increase revenue. Cutting costs has almost no risk. Buying a spinning wheel and laying off 11 workers was a no risk move. As compared to buying 12 wheels and hoping you can sell all the yarn.

So I'd rather hire 1 giant to move blocks for my pyramid, than have a workforce banging outside my castle 24x7 plus pay for people to supervise them.

Well, a 24/7 workforce means you can build public works that much faster for one. Again, imagine Roman roadcrews if they didn't have to work to the sun. Or building a castle or ships.

The other thing to remember though is that these things aren't "invented". They're part of the setting all the way along. It's not like someone comes along and dumps the weavers out of a job, it's that those weavers never had a job in the first place.

And, yes, you point about giants is very well taken. That's precisely what I'm talking about.

As far as slavery being good/evil, I don't want to open that can of worms too much but, let's be honest, there isn't much difference between indentured servitude, slavery and serfs. Take your pick. Most people wouldn't consider the Roman Empire to be an evil empire by and large.

 

[S'mon]

Most people wouldn't consider the Roman Empire to be an evil empire by and large.

? Romans-as-the-villains is practically a cliche! How many Boadicea novels are there? Have you never watched Xena?

 

[gamerprinter]

? Romans-as-the-villains is practically a cliche! How many Boadicea novels are there? Have you never watched Xena?

While many people consider Attila the Hun to be a villanous character of history, this is only the Roman point of view. Most of Celtic Europe, the Germanic countries and Eastern Europe at that time, considered Rome, the big bad guy. Many non-Roman peoples considered Attila a hero.

I've got ancestors from Scotland that fought the Romans in 200 AD, lost to them, then went to Norway to hide and bide their time to come back and fight the Romans once again. Envoys from Attila came to Norway and asked the peoples under Fergus (the Scots) to join them in fighting the Romans - relatives of my ancestors did precisely that, with Irwin family name noted as heroes and their line still exists in the Czech Republic.

Before Rome became Christian, there were a whole lot of Christians who considered Rome evil. In fact some say the Book of Revelation is about the Roman emperoer Nero as the beast - this would seem to inidicate Rome with rather bad connotations.

Those who think Rome wasn't considered an evil empire, by in large do not read much, because there are volumes to suggest they were...

 

[Pentius]

Can anyone name me an empire that wasn't considered evil? At least by some significant demographic?

 

[gamerprinter]

No doubt, all empires are considered evil by somebody.

However Hussar, suggested that Rome by in large was not considered an evil empire. I would reckon Rome would be considered foremost the most evil empire. I'm not saying that Rome was indeed evil necessarily, but many of those at that time believed this was true.

 

[Janx]

Well, a 24/7 workforce means you can build public works that much faster for one. Again, imagine Roman roadcrews if they didn't have to work to the sun. Or building a castle or ships.

The other thing to remember though is that these things aren't "invented". They're part of the setting all the way along. It's not like someone comes along and dumps the weavers out of a job, it's that those weavers never had a job in the first place.

And, yes, you point about giants is very well taken. That's precisely what I'm talking about.

As far as slavery being good/evil, I don't want to open that can of worms too much but, let's be honest, there isn't much difference between indentured servitude, slavery and serfs. Take your pick. Most people wouldn't consider the Roman Empire to be an evil empire by and large.

Bear in mind, I'm quibbling over certain implementation ideas. I don't want to work night shift. I don't want to manage night shift. The day shift doesn't want to try to sleep while the night shift is banging away (on a medieval construction site, odds are good you sleep near where you work, especially a road, the commute would get worse and worse).

Continual Light stones would solve the DarkVision need. Why trust those gold-bricking elves to build a road, when we can use trustable humans. Who can't see at night to runaway....

The 24x7 thing would only get used for a rush job (and lamps and light stones solve that). Otherwise, increasing the daily efficiency would be used BEFORE the romans bothered with working longer days.

Mud to Stone for instance, or Wall of Stone cast laying down to make roads.

As for Rome being evil? yeah. Watch Rome or Spartacus or Gladiator. Romans were not a nice culture.

And D&D has pretty much ruled that Slavery=Evil. So historically, a number of cultures get the Evil flag. Even the Good Ole US of A. Sure that sucks to think of our country as Evil, but if the shoe fits the Alignment system, you gotta wear it.

As for D&D having concepts like indentured servants or serfs, I would ask how many published campaign worlds or GMs have this in the "good" kingdoms? I would bet that if somebody isn't running a D&D = actual medieval society + fantasy tacked on that this whole threat is about, then you'll find the "good" countries have poor peasants who own or rent the land, but are not actually people owned by the land-holding lord.

 

[gamerprinter]

Most Commoner Japanese farmers actually owned the land they worked - they weren't serfs, and did not pay rents to their lord, however, most paid an annual rice tax of 40 - 70% of their annual crop. In this sense they were serfs, but as said, unlike serfs they actually owned their land...

 

[gamerprinter]

Regarding 24 hour - 2 or 3 shifts of workers - it's difficult for me to not fixate on industrial revolution.

In 15th century Europe, not a single day went by when there was not a state of war somewhere in Europe. Armorsmiths weren't small operations, rather there may have been as many as 15 different guilds each specializing in a different part of military armor - if Darkvision was an available capability, no doubt it might have been a boon to the armor industry. Still, this is not the normal situation. Most times in medieval and dark age history, armorsmiths were a master and an apprentice in a small shop and perhaps serving the king, as there weren't extensive needs for expensive armor production for the majority.

If a Dwarven stronghold is gearing up for an immediate upcoming war with the Drow (or whoever), I could see teams of workers in steady 12 hour shifts manufacturing armor, weapons, siege machines, defensive architecture and other activities whether it took a week or 3 months, depending on how much time they had before the start of hostilities. I could see it happening.

For most of the world, unless you're in a high fantasy, epic campaign where the world is in dire straits, and extreme measures are required to ready a nation or people for that event... most of the time a half dozen armorers might exist within a given kingdom - there is no need for a 24 hour shift for anything (or very little anyway - castle building?)

Ancient Egypt were less concerned with public works projects than to build pyramids - tombs for the pharoahs. They had the wealth and the control, plus skilled workers to perform in concentrated labor needs.

Most of a feudal emulating world has no needs for 24 hour shifts. Farming is labor intensive, but no matter how many field hands you work those fields - the crops aren't going to grow any faster. (Edit: now if you're doing plant growth on every corn plant, it's going in a direction I don't care for, almost an alien concept I can't even fit in my head...)

There is no general need to work 24 hours unless it serves an industrial revolution requiring endless production to serve global needs. 24 hour work schedules = industrial revolution.

I see a D&D world enhanced with awesome arcane solutions, but not something that should unduely alter the availability of goods and services, within an arcane feudal society - and because of the cost of arcane practice only the king (or other wealthy authority/trade leaders) can normally afford it. It shouldn't change the environment too extensively for the masses. It would help in times of war, catastrophe, or on provocative missions that require the attentions of adventurers - which fits the norm for D&D.

 

[Janx]

One of the different points of view is that Hussar mentioned that things weren't invented, the setting "just is" that way.

One reason I look at it as the invention path (ala Civilization) is that advances for society come from ideas. there's a momentum that has to build up, and ultimately "somebody" has to invent it.

You may not literally plot it out in your setting, but technically, 3000 years ago, the dark lich Evilgula decided to make his workers build 24x7 in order to complete his ever growing tower to the heavens using stone mined as part of digging a hole to the hells that he might truly bridge the two.

the point then, stuff builds on stuff, and until your brain is ready for it, you're not going to think of new stuff.

Take the craftsman concept. Back in the day, a craftsman built the entire Thing, whatever it was (ex. Armor). That means building one piece at a time and assembling it. The craftsman knew how to make all the parts.

Along comes Henry Ford with the Assembly Line. With this idea, each man is responsible for building or connecting 1 part. There's less time wasted switching from task to task for any given man. But each man has to spend all day doing the same repetitive task.

This idea isn't rocket science. But a part of my business is teaching this concept to business professionals that to make their workflow more efficient, they need to turn their work into assembly line patterns. It's only been like a hundred years, and people still can't grasp it.

So, much like the how I'm not embracing this idea of the setting being totally different than medieval + magic, the ability of humans to transform the world into what your talking is based on a chain of invention to get to that point.

Now I know a cliche of fantasy is that these kingdoms have existed for zillions of years, etc. Given that our own world has had a hard time maintaining longevity of nations in any reasonable quality (Rome got about 200 good years), I call BS on any fictional country pulling it off.