I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[fanboy2000]

Why would, in a purely agnostic world, divine magic be constrained to believers?

Because magic is chaotic. If magic followed natural laws, it wouldn't be supernatural, it'd be natural.

You can do a belief-only cleric with the PHB 3.5 or 3e cleric. All the DM has to do is say "clerics get their magic from faith." If a player then asks why can't wizard's cast the same spells as clerics, sense it's the same magic, the DM just needs to say: "because that's not how magic works in my campaign world."

Really, it's not that hard.

Now, I can undersand if someone dosen't like that solution. But not likeing a solution is diffrent from it not being a solution.

 

[Turjan]

Because magic is chaotic.

In your campaign, maybe, but not in D&D. The standard D&D gods of magic reflect this: the main ones are either neutral or lawful.

If magic followed natural laws, it wouldn't be supernatural, it'd be natural.

What does this tell us? Though D&D uses the term "supernatural" in connection with magic, I don't really see the point in a high fantasy setting. More importantly, this does not distinguish between arcane and divine magic: they are both equally supernatural.

You can do a belief-only cleric with the PHB 3.5 or 3e cleric. All the DM has to do is say "clerics get their magic from faith."

Right, and then it's not an agnostic setting. In an agnostic setting, a base on faith does not make sense, which led to the question I was posing, and this question is not addressed by your answer.

If a player then asks why can't wizard's cast the same spells as clerics, sense it's the same magic, the DM just needs to say: "because that's not how magic works in my campaign world."

Really, it's not that hard.

Nobody is questioning rule zero here. Your answer just tells the player one thing: the arcane/divine divide is completely arbitrary .

Now, I can undersand if someone dosen't like that solution. But not likeing a solution is diffrent from it not being a solution.

This is not a solution, but a decree. A decree based on the rules, yes, but it does not answer anything .

 

[fanboy2000]

In your campaign, maybe,

That was my point. D&D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic.

but not in D&D.

Yes, in D&D.

...[clerics] meditate or pray for their spells, reciving them through their own strength or faith or as divine insiration.

The standard D&D gods of magic reflect this: the main ones are either neutral or lawful.

Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&D.

What does this tell us? Though D&D uses the term "supernatural" in connection with magic, I don't really see the point in a high fantasy setting.

Fantasy means that the world contains elements which are not explainable by natural law. D&D uses the term supernatural in connection with magic because that is the right term. Because D&D is a game, it has rules for magic. The rules are just a game construct, the setting can be anything.

More importantly, this does not distinguish between arcane and divine magic: they are both equally supernatural.

This is my point. Because they are both supernatural, the division can mean anything the DM wants it too.

Right, and then it's not an agnostic setting. In an agnostic setting, a base on faith does not make sense,

Wrong, in an agnostic setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people can belive in gods is through faith.

which led to the question I was posing, and this question is not addressed by your answer.

My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works.

Nobody is questioning rule zero here.

I'm not useing rule zero. Not a single line in any of the 3 core rulebooks was altered. Not a single rule was created, altered, or removed. This isn't a rule, this is an in-setting explainition for a game mechaninc.

Your answer just tells the player one thing: the arcane/divine divide is completely arbitrary .

My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic.

This is not a solution, but a decree. A decree based on the rules, yes, but it does not answer anything .

Every setting is a decree then. The statment, "in my setting, there is a city by the river," is equal to the statement, "in my setting, divine magic is brought about by faith in the gods."

 

[Turjan]

That was my point. D&D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic.

Sure it does. However, this has nothing to do with your previous statement that "magic is chaotic", which my answer referred to. That's a completely different thing, and I don't see any ground for such a statement.

Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&D.

I don't understand that either. Where do you take this connection from? My comment referred to your statement that magic is chaotic. In standard D&D, magic is a very predictable thing. If you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception.

Wrong, in an agnostic setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people can belive in gods is through faith.

How does "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" have any connection to faith? An agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods or a God or a divine principle, but does not principally exclude their existence. The only difference to an atheist is that an atheist actively denies the existence of gods. In both cases, there is no room for faith. Most people who call themselves atheists are in reality agnostics.

My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works.

The point is that this excludes agnosticism. If faith and only faith grants certain spells, this is a strong point for the existence of gods or a divine principle.

My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic.

That's fine, but is just an evasion from the problem we are discussing here.

 

[Storm Raven]

The problem with those is they don't interface with the rules, without a lot of effort on the part of the players.

But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly not part of the rules. I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly not part of the rules. I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.

I don't know about you, but when I started roleplaying with the red box, with 16 years or so, I was damn happy for any little example of "fluff" in the books that helped me describe the rules mechanisms in words that weren't "You spend 120 XP and 10000 gold and get a magical potion." And I still love to think back on the introductory solo adventure they had in the Player's Booklet, and my first meeting with Bargle.

 

[fanboy2000]

Sure it does. However, this has nothing to do with your previous statement that "magic is chaotic", which my answer referred to. That's a completely different thing, and I don't see any ground for such a statement.

The statement "magic is chaotic" has noting to do with whether chaotic magic is completly compatable with the 3e or 3.5? I want you to think about that stament for a moment. I mean, I see what your saying, magic dosen't have to be chaotic in D&D, but my statement most definatly has someting to do with the rules.

I don't understand that either. Where do you take this connection from? My comment referred to your statement that magic is chaotic. In standard D&D, magic is a very predictable thing. If you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception.

To refute my argument about magic being chaotic, you mentioned that most gods were lawful or neutral. The problem with that logic is that most of the gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game and that's 2/3 or the law/chaos axis, not because magic is non-chaotic.

When I cast a spell, there's a posiblity (depending on the spell) that I'll have to make 3 seprate rolls, a consentration check to avoid AOO, spell penatration, and damage. Also, there's a possibility that the target will need to make a save. More rolls can be involved depending on the spell. That's four rolls. Hardly a case of "if you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception."

How does "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" have any connection to faith? An agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods or a God or a divine principle, but does not principally exclude their existence. The only difference to an atheist is that an atheist actively denies the existence of gods. In both cases, there is no room for faith. Most people who call themselves atheists are in reality agnostics.

Because a setting can be agnostic, but the characters that inhabit that setting can be Palor fanatics. Palor may never have given a single worshiper reason to belive in him, but that dosen't mean he dosen't have worshipers. It could be, in such a setting, that Palor dosn't actually grant spells, that would be telling. However, his clerics can cast them anyways because of their faith. The setting can be atheist, the gods don't exist at all, but people may have created their own gods and worship them. In that case, the only way a cleric would have any spells at all is through faith. The gods don't exisit, but the cleric can cast spells solely based on faith and nothing else. Wizards and sorcerers can't cast thouse spells because they lack the faith nessary.

If faith and only faith grants certain spells, this is a strong point for the existence of gods or a divine principle.

No it's not. Maybe magic, as a supernatural force, can grant spells to people with faith. Magic, being a supernatural force, may care whether there are gods or not. This is analagous to a hurricane that dosn't care how expencive your house is, or who you are, it's going to demolish it anyways.

That's fine, but is just an evasion from the problem we are discussing here.

Well, this whole discussion on agnosticism is off-topic from the them main point of the thread posted on the first post.

Magic in history and mythology started out as an explanation for things that defied a natural explation. It is mysterious and unknowable. It's hard to capture that feel in a game because, by defination, games need rules. I think this is why many people hate power gamers, rules-lawyers, and munchkins so much, because such slavish devotion to the rules seems to take the mysteriousness out what the rules are supposed to represent.

It's imparitive that people not mistake the rules of the game for the world the game is set in. Just because there are rules for magic, dosen't mean that magic isn't chaotic from the characters point of view. If Mouse casts a spell on Smaug The Great Wyrm, he dosen't know that he lacked the oomph to get through the Great Red Wyrm's spell penatration, it just looks like another random time a spell didn't work for some reason. Think about how many times a spell simply dosn't work, and it's pretty stagering.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't know about you, but when I started roleplaying with the red box, with 16 years or so, I was damn happy for any little example of "fluff" in the books that helped me describe the rules mechanisms in words that weren't "You spend 120 XP and 10000 gold and get a magical potion." And I still love to think back on the introductory solo adventure they had in the Player's Booklet, and my first meeting with Bargle.

I couldn't have cared less. I had the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Chronicles of Prydain, and Earthsea Trilogy to fill in those blanks for me. And they did a much better job than the slap-dash efforts made by Gygax and Co. on that score.

(I skipped Bargle, he wasn't yet in the examples contained in the books I got).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I couldn't have cared less. I had the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Chronicles of Prydain, and Earthsea Trilogy to fill in those blanks for me. And they did a much better job than the slap-dash efforts made by Gygax and Co. on that score.

(I skipped Bargle, he wasn't yet in the examples contained in the books I got).

Yeah, I had all those, too, but I still loved the background information they put into the D&D books. Made me feel less like playing a copy of some of the stories I read frequently, but play in "my own" world that I could share with my friends through playing. And it gave me a feel for what the designers thought the rules they wrote should look like, which was fun to read, too.

So you didn't need the integrated background info, and I loved it. 50:50 in the case of us two. How do you think does the relation look like on a larger scale?

 

[Turjan]

The statement "magic is chaotic" has noting to do with whether chaotic magic is completly compatable with the 3e or 3.5? I want you to think about that stament for a moment. I mean, I see what your saying, magic dosen't have to be chaotic in D&D, but my statement most definatly has someting to do with the rules.

But your statement is irrelevant. Of course you can insert Chaos Magic into your D&D. Nevertheless, in standard D&D, magic is not chaotic. It's mostly a scholarly discipline or handed down through hierarchy. Some people inherit it .

To refute my argument about magic being chaotic, you mentioned that most gods were lawful or neutral.

I never said anything like that. I said that "the standard D&D gods of magic" are neutral or lawful neutral. Magic, ok?

The problem with that logic is that most of the gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game and that's 2/3 or the law/chaos axis, not because magic is non-chaotic.

I hope you are understanding what you are saying there. Most gods are lawful or neutral because it's a game? And that's 2/3? Aaaa-ha!

When I cast a spell, there's a posiblity (depending on the spell) that I'll have to make 3 seprate rolls, a consentration check to avoid AOO, spell penatration, and damage. Also, there's a possibility that the target will need to make a save. More rolls can be involved depending on the spell. That's four rolls. Hardly a case of "if you do this, then the following will happen. Always. Without exception."

I hope you are aware of the fact that your examples have nothing to do with magic per se. A concentration check deals with influences from outside. Spell penetration deals with characteristics of the target. Damage rolls are a highly abstract measure for the whole bunch of factors included in the hitpoint dynamics. The target gets a save because of its trained ability to deal with an assault. This all does not change anything with the fact that if a wizard knows the spell, has prepared the spell, speaks the right words, makes the right movements and does not get a hammer over his head, he will get his magic missile out. The D&D magic system, which comprises a large part of the whole rules, is one of the most ordered parts of the whole game.

Because a setting can be agnostic, but the characters that inhabit that setting can be Palor fanatics. Palor may never have given a single worshiper reason to belive in him, but that dosen't mean he dosen't have worshipers. It could be, in such a setting, that Palor dosn't actually grant spells, that would be telling. However, his clerics can cast them anyways because of their faith. The setting can be atheist, the gods don't exist at all, but people may have created their own gods and worship them. In that case, the only way a cleric would have any spells at all is through faith. The gods don't exisit, but the cleric can cast spells solely based on faith and nothing else. Wizards and sorcerers can't cast thouse spells because they lack the faith nessary.

So you mean faith as a kind of mass hysteria, where wizards fail because they keep a cool head? Right, I can imagine that this could liberate some energy. I'm a bit amused that you haven't brought up the easiest argument yet: the notion that there is no such thing as the magic .

No it's not. Maybe magic, as a supernatural force, can grant spells to people with faith. Magic, being a supernatural force, may care whether there are gods or not. This is analagous to a hurricane that dosn't care how expencive your house is, or who you are, it's going to demolish it anyways.

If magic is a supernatural force that grants something, it's a god. Let's not go this road again .

It's imparitive that people not mistake the rules of the game for the world the game is set in. Just because there are rules for magic, dosen't mean that magic isn't chaotic from the characters point of view. If Mouse casts a spell on Smaug The Great Wyrm, he dosen't know that he lacked the oomph to get through the Great Red Wyrm's spell penatration, it just looks like another random time a spell didn't work for some reason. Think about how many times a spell simply dosn't work, and it's pretty stagering.

I think you are straining the meaning of "chaotic" in the game sense a bit. Chaotic does not mean lack of knowledge . Anyway, let's end this discussion, because it is lastly just a matter of taste. You like the magic system as it is, I don't. You are happy with D&D in its basic state, and I like to change some things. I am happy to live in the days of the OGL, because I have the solutions at hand. I can play AU and get rid of alignment (and discussions about alignment ) and the arcane/divine divide. Plus, I still have the "Green" ... whatever that is .