# The Common Commoner



## I'm A Banana

There have been more than a few claims that the presence of magic forever and distinctly alters the game of D&D so that magic is no longer 'unique and special' to people. It's just another +2 doohickey, it's just another Wand of Fireball, sell it at the local Magical Wal-Mart, and we'll get a Charisma boost instead....

While I think certainly some of this problem is more in the hands of individual DM's than of the rules of the game, there still seems to be a misconception that for some reason magic is completely ubiquitous within a D&D world...

But such is not the case, when following the rules as they are written for generating towns, for the income of commoners, for finding out how common to the everyday commoner magic really *is* in D&D. So I present to you my findings, based on the Rules As Written. 

My thesis: Magic isn't common to the everyday person, but it is common to the PC's, who AREN'T everyday people.

As per the DMG, following the Rules As Written:
* "*Small communities are much more common than larger ones*. In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all. You might create a metropolis at the civilized center of the world with 100,000 people, but such a community should be the exception, not the rule."

* *70% of all communities have populations 2,000 and below*. Their markets don't sell anything over 800 gp at the highest end (a potion emporium, perhaps). 50% of all communities have populations 900 and below. Their markets don't sell anything over 200 gp at the highest end (getting so you can't even afford ARMOR in most towns...) 

* *There is precious little magical power in these towns*. In that 50%, the presence of spellcasters is minimal. At the highest end, they've got the following
--> ONE adept, bard, druid, or cleric of 2nd level
--> ONE sorcerer or wizard of 1st level
--> TWO bards, druids, or clerics of 1st level. Potentially another adept, but iffy.
Giving half the civilizations in existence exactly 13 spellcasters, of which the highest are 2nd level. 

* With this capacity, *half of the places in the entire world do not have access to 2nd level spells*. You'd be shelling out about 10-20 gp to get any spell cast -- still far beyond the limits of even your most industrious commoner, who makes 1 sp/day, maybe slightly more often for the aristocrat (but it's still a BIG investment.) He might be able to afford a _Cure Light Wounds_ once or twice a month. Same with _create water_. Assuming a good 700 people, that's enough to keep the local cleric, druid, or adept busy watering fields, healing wounds, giving good luck and bad luck, repairing an expensive peice of jewelry.

* Assuming a lot of the people can get a special discount on the spellcasting services (Would you charge your own mother for magic?), this still changes the world in no discernable fashion. So the druid's uncle never has to worry about a drought...*4 gallons of water a month isn't going to save the field of every commoner, or even most of them*. This is assuming 0 monsters...but....

* *Monsters raid your village about twice per day. *Now monsters enter the equasion. The random wilderness encounter table says that in verdant/civilized areas, there's a 10% chance per hour of having 'an encounter.' Which is extrapolated to once in every 10 hours, or about twice per day. This meshes up with the dungeon encounters, so it basically means that 'when the area's got critters, you'll meet 'em about twice a day'. This is why 'adventuring' exists as a profession after all...

* *The fuedal system protects you from monsters. *Assuming the place is a farm, the Plains will probably be a reasonable environment for the encounter table, ne? Using the table in the DMG, we'll normally have EL 4 encounters; some giant ant's nest is disturbed, some goblins pop over from their burrows, we get a swarm of locusts, an ankheg digs up the ground, a paladin comes around for a visit -- these things are not rare events in the lives of average, everyday D&D commoners...which is why you have Adventurers.  Probably also why the feudal system works so great for 'em...it's nice to have a king to go to for soldiers.

* *Commoners need BAB and HD too! *This is also where the people of the town gain their XP. People in D&D town aren't all pushovers...there's one ninth level commoner in over half of the communities on the earth, and that guy got his XP from someplace...namely, the anhkegs, the goblins, the proud and egotistical paladin (hey, no one said he was a GOOD commoner.  But chances are he is...). Even an 9th level commoner wielding a farming implement (-1 to hit and damage, based on the rules for inferior materials) has a nice chance to rough up a goblin or two, and he's backed up by his 4th level sons and the 4th level warrior he let marry his daughter and the 3rd level Fighter who the king sent to live there. It's why it makes sense that NPC classes advance in HD, BAB, saving throws, and skill points all at once -- most of even the most cloistered and protected wizards and clerics have had their lives threatened by something native to their homelands, often a few times per week. It's why despite the fields of the cleric and druid's kids not going dry, the town still barely hangs on...imagine what 1d3 gnolls can do to raize a field, and who'd have to go in there to stop 'em...more than twice a day....(almost 17 times a week!)

* *They've never seen a magic sword in their lives. *On to magic items...they have 200 gp as the most expensive item in the community, and that's not even enough for half-plate....the most expensive item in the community might be a scroll of _animal messenger_ that was sold by a party of adventurers passing through. None of the people in the community can even *cast* second-level spells, so they're hoping to recoup their losses by selling it to passersby. The PC's can't even sell a magic ring here (the village only has 700 gp in cash in the vacinity!). There's only three second-level spell scrolls in half the villages in the entire world (again, probably from adventurers who found them farther abroad). Your average person cannot buy any of these; even the noble (where most of that 700 gp is probably concentrated) will have trouble liquidating their assets for it. 

So, all that in mind...here's your life of your Average D&D Commoner
- Lives in a "Village"-level town
- Has seen the local bard cast _charm person_ on his daughter
- Knows what alchemical silver and cold iron look like; doesn't know what adamantine and mithral look like
- Is angry at the Cleric's nephew for surviving yesterday's ankheg infestation.
- Is affraid what comes from outside is either a monster, or someone who wants to charm his daughter
- Once a month, at the big festivals, he asks the druid to wish him good luck; the druid casts _guidance_.
- The only full plate he's ever seen is on that fighter that the king sent to deal with the gnolls.
- Knows Old Toothless Joe could knock the snot out of him like he did when he was a kid, and is a better farmer, and tougher than nails to boot. 
- Knows only wacky adventuerers wear buckles like that Hennet character...
- Has a potion of _cure light wounds_ tucked away in case of emergencies
- Watched his neice die when the pack of 4 worgs raged through the city last year (Toothless Joe and that fighter kid even sustained some pretty big injuries).
- Knows not to piss off the adept who lives in the hut and scribes scrolls if he doesn't want to fall asleep at the next festival
- Doesn't have a +1 sword...doesn't know anyone in the town who does...but knows that the bowyer sells sleep arrows by the single (and that the adept helps him make 'em).

So discuss! What's so common (or uncommon) about the D&D commoner? Do you like him? Think he knows too much about magic?

I'm thinking of running a campaign where the PC's start as NPC's....any great ideas for me evoking this bumpkin feel?


----------



## BiggusGeekus

A bit of a bump.

I love threads like these, but I can't reply just now.  More later.


----------



## dave_o

Dude, I'm stoked about this thread. I'm even more stoked at the author, the great Kamikaze Midget.

And I'd be the most stoked if said Midget decided to make this into a PbP.


----------



## Endur

I've been thinking about that too.  A campaign where the PCs start as 2nd level Commoners.  I was thinking of locating the campaign in Barovia (Strahd's small village in Ravenloft). 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a campaign where the PC's start as NPC's....any great ideas for me evoking this bumpkin feel?


----------



## nopantsyet

Very nice, KM. This is how I have felt about D&D for a long time, but have never articulated as such.

Another point is the tendency of power to concentrate. There is practical benefit to power, whether physical strength or magic. Those who cross the power threshold are likely to get picked up and pulled into the greater power structure. If that Cleric reached 4th level, he might be asked by the church to officiate over a larger congregation. The 4th level warrior might be brought into the King's standing army. There would not be much transience among the commoners, but every village would have it's stories about the few who have "made it." The children of those have greater opportunity and likely advance further than their parents, likely starting out with PC rather than NPC levels. But they've already been leeched away to the larger settlements and few of the villages are ever able to grow as a result.

I don't strictly follow the rules as-written. Cities tend to have fewer power bases unless they have achieved some type of balance, which is typically tenuous at best. Think of the relationships between Eurpoean kings and Catholic popes. There was constant tension. Imagine if the Catholic church was wielding divine spells. So there is the strong city, the pious city, the magical city. Each has a primary power base, and the other two elements are far weaker. In the strong city, there are lots of high-level fighter-types, but the high-level mages are few and try not to draw attention to themselves. Of course, this does not in any way preclude the sorceror advisor to the warrior-king. It just draws the balance.

Also, just as power concentrates, the wielders of power like to hoard it. In the magical city, magic is strictly regulated by an association of high-level arcane spellcasters. The strong city doesn't let its people run around with weapons. The pious city imparts the divine gifts, brings the willing gifted into the priesthood and brands the unwilling as heretics.

Letting power balance itself this way lets me use the full spectrum of D&D rules while still allowing me to adjust the feel of any particular locale. 



And then, the relationships between Kings and Popes were never


----------



## alsih2o

GREAT thread.


----------



## Khayman

Double bump. 

More after I get over this flu. 
*_bleargh_*


----------



## Chronosome

Right on!  Way to debunk the "common magic" myth!


----------



## Alzrius

I wish I had something more substantive to add beyond "that was great" but I don't.

But that extrapolation was great.


----------



## Dark Jezter

This thread needs to be added to the archive.  _Great_ post, KM.


----------



## GSHamster

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> * With this capacity, *half of the places in the entire world do not have access to 2nd level spells*.




Half of the *places* in the world, maybe.  However, these places collectively contain a very small number of *people*. (Certainly less than 50%.)

If the question is: "What percentage of the *people* do not have access to 2nd level spells?", I'd suggest that the answer is much lower than 50%.

If you have 9 hamlets with 11 people each, and one village with 900 people and a 3rd level cleric, you could say:

1. 90% of all places do not have access to 2nd level spells.
2. 10% of all people do not have access to 2nd level spells.

I think that option 2 is a more meaningful option, at least in the context of this discussion. (The numbers are made up to illustrate the argument. I don't have a DMG at the moment to give real numbers.)

That's the only flaw I see in your argument, though.  It was an interesting read.


----------



## Wombat

Very interesting thoughts.

Since there are so many marauding monsters, the lives of the peasants must be even more fatalisitic than in European peasant communities -- "We can't control 'em, we aren't given the weapons, and they keep the magic locked up in the towns!"  (Hmmm, might be some very serious resentment there...)  Raids twice a day would lead to a grossly high mortality rate, a very low crop yield (constantly tramelling over the fields), and a general sense of doom, unless we are counting a single wolf as a "raid".  Goblins and kobolds would be fairly commonly seen, at least.

This would suggest that the peasants are more seriously drilled as a militia than in a standard European community -- they would have to be able to drive off incursions on a more regular basis, thus the injunctions against peasants owning weapons would probably fall by the wayside.  The weapons might not be stellar, but the number of spears around the scatter would be much larger than a European community of, say, 1400 AD.

Every peasant would have seen magic actually working, often publically.  This would make for a very different attitude; of course this is already built into D&D, since there is no fear of witches, wizards, etc.  Low level potions, while not everyday, are available and kept in store; this makes for safer medicine than anything practiced prior to the mid-19th century, so maybe that helps balance out life expectancy from the raiding.

Another question that arises is that of race -- are most of these communities monoracial?  (e.g. all human, all dwarf, etc.)  This would make the most sense if one were trying to maintain a viable community, as being the lone dwarf in a community would lead to a lot of loneliness.  OTOH, we already see that humans and elves may intermarry, thus those sorts of communities would be at least somewhat common.  Half-orcs, conversely, would probably come about mainly due to **hem hem** post-raid activities.  But it appears that half-orcs breed oddly "true" (i.e. a half-orc and a half-orc produces a half-orc) if the species were to survive; barring that, orc males might be terrifically fertile or they are the major raiders.  In any case, the place of the half-orc in these socieities would be miserable and desperate.

**whew** lot of ideas here!  

I'll try to think of some more later.


----------



## Sado

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a campaign where the PC's start as NPC's....any great ideas for me evoking this bumpkin feel?




I have often wondered how a campaign would go with only NPC classes available (with maybe an arcane version of the Adept).  It seems like the PC's wouldn't get as powerful as fast, and the same types of enemies/monsters could be used for longer periods of time.

Has anyone tried this?


----------



## Li Shenron

This is the kind of article that I would like to see paired with the "rules of the game" on WotC website... Much more insightful! Thank you KM


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Excellent article!

It does raise one point that's always bugged me about D&D (especially in 3e):

PCs aren't just wealthy, they're _fantastically_ wealthy, wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, rich enough to become kings themselves.

At 5th level.

The DMG expects treasure from encounters to amount to 21,328 gp for a party of four 5th-level PCs.

With that money, the PCs could pay 2000 commoners (200 gp/day) for 105 days.  Assuming that each commoner's labor generated at least 1 sp/day worth of goods and services after day 52, the PCs could continue paying them indefinitely without 'losing' any further money.  They could dump the remaining 10,500 gp into land and construction costs and hiring mercenary Warriors to suppliment the militia.

Within a year, four 5th-level PCs could create a self-sustaining DMG 'small town' using only their personal wealth from adventuring.

If they could in that year continue to adventure enough to reach 6th level, they would acquire another 5,000 gp.  To 7th level, another 8,000 gp on top of that.  Their level progression is slowed by administrative duties, to be sure, but they are minor warrior chieftain/barons and can be expected to do their share of treasure hunting.

Let's say our landlord PCs reach 10th level five years after they founded their town.  They now possess about 55,000 gp worth of resources over and above what they had when they broke ground on it.  Enough to start two additional towns of the same type.

Now our PCs have 6,000 subjects, equivalent to a 'small city' by DMG standards.  Some of their original subjects probably leveled as commoners, warriors or experts.  Many of them probably produce more than 1 sp/day, and the initial town is probably turning a profit.

At this point, adventuring slows down even more.

But the PCs do reach 15th level in another ten years.  The half-orcs among them may be looking at retirement, but if they started out at about age 20-25, the now-40-year-old humans are still in adventuring trim, and the longer-lived among them are still mere lads.  And they control an additional 220,000 gp.  By now, some of the children of their initial hirelings are adults capable of producing in their own right, the initial town has probably swelled to 'small city' size, they may have taken Leadership to acquire more 'free' adherents, and they control up to a metropolis' worth of people.  Their frontier barony, carved out by their own hands, is now a decently-sized kingdom backed by its council of four 15th-level rulers who can singlehandedly turn aside small armies.

At the age of 40, with no hereditary income and no starting resources but the swords and staves on their backs, they control a small nation capable of butting heads with established kings.  Their wealth is so far beyond the limits of a commoner's understanding that he can no more wrap his head around it than a typical modern person can Bill Gates' financial resources.

If, by the age of 60 (probably losing their half-orcish companion), they reach 20th level... they will possess hundreds of thousands of gp, vast personal power, and the ability to literally conquer any nation in the world not backed by similarly powerful characters.  And if they manage their nation efficiently, they might actually be able to trump those established 20th-level-NPC-backed kingdoms as well.

This would lend itself to a political situation *far* more unstable than that postulated by core D&D, a much more Conan-esque world where high-level heroes trample the jeweled thrones of their retired predecessors beneath their feat almost on a generational basis.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Thanks for all the great replies....actually, I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been done before, heh. 



> Half of the *places* in the world, maybe. However, these places collectively contain a very small number of *people*. (Certainly less than 50%.)
> 
> If the question is: "What percentage of the *people* do not have access to 2nd level spells?", I'd suggest that the answer is much lower than 50%.



This is is refuted by my first point, quoted directly from the DMG:



> "In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all."



Which means that FIFTEEN TIMES as many people live in small settlements that can't afford half plate as live in all the places that can afford halfplate and more, combined. 1.5 million people who've never seen a spell over second level; compared to, say, 100,000 people who have. That's about 6% of the population, if my math is right. 

You tell me which one you're more likely to encounter as a Typical D&D Commoner. 6% of the population who've seen second level spells, or 94% who haven't. 
--------------

As for my own NPC campaign, it's officially a go (after a summer of high-ish-level play, they're interested in the low-level challenges). I'm starting them in a hamlet (half the world's in villages or less; half of that half is in hamlets), letting 'em choose the PC classes that the place has (not all of 'em...not a cleric or druid among 'em...but I added psi and OA and Complete and Eberron classes, too, using the same d4/5%d8 mechanic that the core uses for monks). OR, they can have two levels in an NPC class. OR they can have three levels in Commonner. As they meet more folks, they can get training in more classes...and I'll give 'em PC wealth, not NPC wealth, so they'll have nice 'trust funds' to start with. 
-----------



> This is the kind of article that I would like to see paired with the "rules of the game" on WotC website... Much more insightful!



I tend to agree, there should be more DM-oriented 'rules of the game.' 
-----------

PC's are OBSCENELY wealthy compared to NPC's, even those who make a living adventuring...and I see dungeons as D&D 'boom towns.' Once the dangerous monsters are cleared out, the NPC's move in, pick up what the wealthy PC's drop (which is a lot of gold, if the NPC's can offer them the right stuff), and channel the raw materials into the NEXT big dungeon...it's why after a few generations, ruins could have sprung up on top of each other, being inhabited by monsters, cleared out, become a boom town, and faded again, becoming once again home to dangerous monsters, in the course of 50-100 years.
---------------

Racial Demographics: These are...vague in D&D.  Basically, an "isolated" community (which is probably still in that 50% of civilizations) is 96% human, with the rest being halflings, elves, or 'other races.' In a 700 person village, this means there's 672 humans, 14 halflings (a family or three), 7 elves, and 7 half-elves, half-orcs, dwarves, and gnomes (maybe 2 half-elves, 2 dwarves, 2 gnomes, and 1 poor thug of a half-orc). Everyone is represented, but a lot of 'em are probably imports -- the half-orc could be an elite fighter brought from the kingdom to help protect the village, maybe the gnomes are the two bards the town has. 
---------------------

On Peasant Fear: My guess is that in a world with magic, that magic is REQUIRED to survive against the monsters that are fundamentally unnatural. They may only have one wizard, but that wizard better show up when the goblins come callin', or he's liable to be the one that the peasants DON'T protect the next time around. That _create water_? It's a *nessecity*, when half of your fields are basically raided for other creatures. You've gotta make sure that the town has enough. The same is true with things like the higher occurence of Lawful power centers -- it's a requirement, because if you don't work together, the gnolls come gitcha. It's also why Adventuring is not a rare profession....while the PC's may be one-in-a-million heroes, Adventurers (mostly NPC's) happen nearly everyplace.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

KM - nice article, and a great help to me in making a 'high magic' world but where I don't want magic to be ubiquitous.

However
1- That 2nd level cleric can cast 2 spells a day!  Is he really holding back from helping the needy just because they can't afford his fee.  What god of healing is going to stand for a priest that won't heal an injured child just cause the parents are poor farmers?  I know this doesn't change a big part of your point, but we shouldn't assume DMG based definitions of fees would apply to all... maybe priests charge like some pharma companies do - you in England can afford to pay so cough up, you in sub-Saharan Africa can't, I you can have it for a lot less.

2- on the raiding issue - the random encounters at 10% is just that - a random encounter.  That could be with a friendly farmer taking his produce to town, or with deer grazing in a forest...  no farmer is going to continue to live somewhere where gnolls attack as often as you say - he won't be able to produce food, which means the local knight/warlord/whoever is going to send in something to deal with those gnolls - otherwise there isn't any food for the warlord to buy, so his troops are going hungry as well.

Overall I do agree with your points, and particularly things like the prevalence of armour, even swords.  Magic for the majority of people are 0/1st level spells ONLY.  Most everyone will have faced or know someone who's faced some sort of beastie and someone who died doing the same.  But any town with a cleric is going to have decent healing - not enough to fend of plague, but enough to treat a few sick people over the course of a week, or heal the farmer after his accident with his scythe (not regenerate... just stop him from dying!)


----------



## I'm A Banana

> That 2nd level cleric can cast 2 spells a day! Is he really holding back from helping the needy just because they can't afford his fee. What god of healing is going to stand for a priest that won't heal an injured child just cause the parents are poor farmers? I know this doesn't change a big part of your point, but we shouldn't assume DMG based definitions of fees would apply to all... maybe priests charge like some pharma companies do - you in England can afford to pay so cough up, you in sub-Saharan Africa can't, I you can have it for a lot less.



Well, yeah, he is holding back...in the same way that just because the local commoner COULD give his 1 sp/day to charity, he instead keeps it for himself; or how the local expert COULD make more horseshoes, but he's feeling really tired from the wife and kids.  Basically, casting spells costs effort, and if he doesn't see a need, he won't make the effort.

Aside from that 'natural human instinct to take things easy', there's a few details. He might not serve a god of healing, for one.  But assuming he does, he's gotta have a reason to use those spells...to him, the stubbed toe or the scraped knee just doesn't require his attention...he doesn't want every wounded victim coming to him, and he doesn't want the people to forget how to make bandages and Heal checks. So he charges. Sure, if he's a Good Guy, he's around for emergencies and the like...and that's why he doesn't heal everyone who wants it.

But most importantly, think of the monsters. Those who fend them off need that healing, more so than Farmer John and his Scythe Accident...there's no way that he could, even with that magic, ever heal every wound caused...natural healing will have to do. And assuming the 2/day encounter rate, he's going to need to spend his spells (including most of the scrolls he's scribed) healing the most wounded victims of that.

He'll save lives...but those lives would definately be lost without magic. Natural healing only would mean that it's a war of attrition between the hp of the town and the damage the monsters can deal. The cleric's _cure light wounds_ (possibly free of charge as a 'perk' of being a member of the militia) ensures that those who defend the town can continue to do so. 

The price exists for those who want the convenience of doing it when the cleric isn't that interested...he'll help out his friends, he'll 'do his duty,' but he's not going to give broken bone a _cure_. The populous would get lazy, those who suffer in defense of the town wouldn't be hurt, and he needs some way to pay for those scrolls he's scribing for the emergency situations. In addition, it's 'work.' Rest assured that on his day off, he's not casting anything. 



> 2- on the raiding issue - the random encounters at 10% is just that - a random encounter. That could be with a friendly farmer taking his produce to town, or with deer grazing in a forest... no farmer is going to continue to live somewhere where gnolls attack as often as you say - he won't be able to produce food, which means the local knight/warlord/whoever is going to send in something to deal with those gnolls - otherwise there isn't any food for the warlord to buy, so his troops are going hungry as well.



True, not all encounters need to be hostile, but all encounters involve a 'challenge' of some sort. One of the random plains encounters is a 5th level paladin...he's not going to attack the town, but he is going to create a disturbance, and maybe his presence attracts something that *does* attack the town. A deer in a forest isn't an encounter (there's no EL, there's no XP for 'overcoming' it, etc.), so thousands of those happen regularly without a problem. That 2/day figure basically shows the 'challenges' the people of the town overcome.

In addition, the farmer farms that dangerous region largely because he has no choice. It's the best life he can lead. Either farm with the gnolls or sell trinkets in city squallor, and one of them his family's been doing for generations.  The gnolls weren't as bad in his pappy's day, etc. And the reason he can still survive is *because* there are more powerful beings than him in the world who can protect him, who can ensure food to eat, etc. D&D towns probably have great storage systems, because the chance that monsters will destroy everything you own is almost more of a 'when' than an 'if.' In addition, a _purify food and drink_ makes the storage not requiring complex cooling mechanisms or the like. "Gruel" is basically _purified_ stuff that rotted away last year into a paste.  

And aside from that, the king *definately* sends troops to help out...where do you think that cleric came from, or that fighter? Certainly not the town, they don't have enough to outfit such people...they've been sent from outside, from the castle, from the city, and they live in the town on a temporary basis. They probably teach the kids for a year or two, and leave at the end of their term back to the castle, being replaced with new people,too, and taking the 'promising youths' (those who've gained a lot of levels) into the larger cities. 

I imagine the Machiavellis of D&D definately have something to say about 'buffer farms.' You have commoners farming the lands around the central druids or clerics field; the commoners' farms can be lost in monster attacks, and as long as the main field stays operational, the town can still eat (because the yeild would have been increased by minor magic).


----------



## Piratecat

GSHamster said:
			
		

> 1. 90% of all places do not have access to 2nd level spells.
> 2. 10% of all people do not have access to 2nd level spells.
> 
> I think that option 2 is a more meaningful option, at least in the context of this discussion. (The numbers are made up to illustrate the argument. I don't have a DMG at the moment to give real numbers.)




Ithink I disagree. All those people in the city are insular. It is the people in the hamlets and villages are are creating food for all the city folks to eat. They are also who the PCs will run into 9 times out of 10 when travelling anywhere. When natural disaster or monsters strike, it's going to be the villages that have the most trouble resisting. . . and then what happens to the city folk next harvest-time?

Fantastic thread.


----------



## diaglo

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a campaign where the PC's start as NPC's....any great ideas for me evoking this bumpkin feel?





N4 Treasure Hunt

or the Greyhawk Adventures hardback by James Ward


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, he is holding back...in the same way that just because the local commoner COULD ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kamikaze Midget said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he isn't a cleric serving the community... and any cleric that isn't serving the community will soon be made unwelcome!
> 
> Any cleric that serves his divine lord, which he knows exists, is not going to be same as Joe Commoner...  his god gives him those spells to carry out his god's wishes... not just so he can take it easy when he feels like it, and carry out his own agenda.  Arcane magic maybe - divine magic NO.
> 
> If you were my cleric on this world and I saw you taking it easy when one of my worshippers needed MY assistance... well you'd hear about it!  That power isn't yours, it's mine, and you wield it on that world for ME, cause I gave it to you.  Damn straight on your 'day off' you're still going to use the special abilities I give you to further my cause, so whether I'm a god of healing, protection, sun, whatever it doesn't matter... my worshipper who seeks my aid has come to you... you get to do my bidding or you ain't getting nothing from me!
> 
> Granted any god of tyranny, death, disease, destruction, pain, suffering etc. is going to be a different kettle of fish, but how would a cleric of that deity make it in a tiny community like your hamlet... they just wouldn't be there (if only because there's more power elsewhere).
> 
> Of course he's going to hold back his healing for the truly needy and those that also help the community... but as he can only cast 2 spells per day, what happens if none of the guards have a sword stuck in them come sun-down... he's going to use those spells on whoever needs them.  Somedays that will be nobody, and I wasn't suggesting that he was going to cure every stubbed toe, or replace haling and herbalism skills, just that he isn't going to waste his spell and not cast it if he's not got anything better to cast it on.  But most people will suffer from an unpleasant disease, or serious injury at some point in their lives, so most people will have the benefit of magic at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kamikaze Midget said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, casting spells costs effort, and if he doesn't see a need, he won't make the effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kamikaze Midget said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What effort is involved in casting a spell?  CLW is a standard action, takes no real time at all.  The cleric doesn't lose anything for it other than the slot, and gains the gratitude of the commoner to his deity.  OK if there's a more important thing to do with that slot (bless the holy water, re-consecrate the chapel, whatever) then is he just going to let it go at the end of the day - what a waste would that be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Bigwilly

*Kings of the world*

In my homebrew campaign, there are only two major cities in the region where the campaign is set.These are the only places where the PCs can offload loot and buy magic stuff. Even then, the city that they actually live in doesn't always have the stuff they want. Outside of these cities, it's peasantville with each village having a few low level PC classes and the odd higher level NPC. 

Now that most of the PCs are 12th level, they are beginning to realise that they outclass pretty much everyone around them. Of course inhabitants of the region also realise this and now come to the PCs whenever there is a threat to deal with. 

Bigwilly, NSEDM


----------



## Belen

This thread is amazing.  Kudos, KM.


----------



## Belen

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> What effort is involved in casting a spell?  CLW is a standard action, takes no real time at all.  The cleric doesn't lose anything for it other than the slot, and gains the gratitude of the commoner to his deity.  OK if there's a more important thing to do with that slot (bless the holy water, re-consecrate the chapel, whatever) then is he just going to let it go at the end of the day - what a waste would that be.




Dude, channeling divine energy is exhausting!  Otherwise, the god would grant the person an infinite number of spells.  And you are discounting the fact that a cleric will have other things to do durning the day than heal.  She will have to prepare sermons, hear confessions, travel to outlying farms, teach, create scrolls or potions to help in times of need, study, pray etc.

A cleric will not have time to heal just anyone with a broken arm nor will he have money to make those potions etc without charging for non-life threatening spells.


----------



## Quasqueton

Re: cleric healing the masses.

I would think the cleric (assuming he is a good guy, serving/protecting the village) would reserve his spells for times when really needed. I could see even a cleric of healing refusing to _cure_ someone of an injury that is not life-threatening, and will heal on its own.

"Sure, that's going to leave a nasty scar, and I could fix it right up in a few seconds, but. . .

what if armed strangers come into town later today - I need my _detect evil_ available.

what if the gnolls attack and our militia gets roughed up - I need my _cures_ to get our warriors back on their feet."

With all the nocturnal monsters in the world, the cleric would even be wise to not blow his unused spells at night fall.

Quasqueton


----------



## Piratecat

Goblyns Hoard said:
			
		

> Then he isn't a cleric serving the community... and any cleric that isn't serving the community will soon be made unwelcome!
> 
> If you were my cleric on this world and I saw you taking it easy when one of my worshippers needed MY assistance... well you'd hear about it!




Well, I'd argue that very few cleric PCs end their day, every day, with no spells left because they've cast them all on villagers or cityfolk. It's a little tricky to mandate that every day. I suspect that like most English pastors, a small town cleric would make the rounds to everyone's house over the course of a week to check up on his flock. A city cleric would let people come to them.

This brings up the fascinating power of the church (and multiple churches) in a commoner's life. The church would weild phenomenal power. Think about it: not only can they damn your soul to hell, but if you have an argument with the cleric then your daughter might die while giving birth, just because the church has excluded you and a cleric isn't attending. No one wants to take the risk that their family will die of disease, so they'd be at church every time.

And in a town with two churches? I can definitely see "us vs them" social problems, and lots of intrigue when someone changes churches or marries a person from the other religion.


----------



## mmadsen

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> I would think the cleric (assuming he is a good guy, serving/protecting the village) would reserve his spells for times when really needed.



But spells per day aren't magical capital that you can save up; they're magical bandwidth you use or lose.  At dusk, or before going to bed, you use up your last few spells healing someone or creating water -- creating capital you _can_ use later.


----------



## diaglo

Piratecat said:
			
		

> And in a town with two churches? I can definitely see "us vs them" social problems, and lots of intrigue when someone changes churches or marries a person from the other religion.





reread the 1979 module T1 Village of Hommlet.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Then he isn't a cleric serving the community... and any cleric that isn't serving the community will soon be made unwelcome!
> 
> Any cleric that serves his divine lord, which he knows exists, is not going to be same as Joe Commoner... his god gives him those spells to carry out his god's wishes... not just so he can take it easy when he feels like it, and carry out his own agenda. Arcane magic maybe - divine magic NO.



A god certainly doesn't wish people to become dependant on one man, ne? He's serving the community, but nothing says he needs to spiritually drain himself nightly just to serve the community...it's a "feed a man a fish/teach a man to fish" kind of scenario. Yes, I could heal you right now. But then you wouldn't learn your lesson ("do not play with Alchemist's fire!"), or you wouldn't learn how to heal yourself ("I may not be around forever"), or you would come to me every time you needed it, when others may deserve it more.



> If you were my cleric on this world and I saw you taking it easy when one of my worshippers needed MY assistance... well you'd hear about it! That power isn't yours, it's mine, and you wield it on that world for ME, cause I gave it to you. Damn straight on your 'day off' you're still going to use the special abilities I give you to further my cause, so whether I'm a god of healing, protection, sun, whatever it doesn't matter... my worshipper who seeks my aid has come to you... you get to do my bidding or you ain't getting nothing from me!



It takes effort to get spells...these aren't free gifts from the gods, these are the reward for a pious supplication. On his "day off", he simply doesn't spend the effort to prepare his spells. Most priests perform mass only once a week, after all. 



> Granted any god of tyranny, death, disease, destruction, pain, suffering etc. is going to be a different kettle of fish, but how would a cleric of that deity make it in a tiny community like your hamlet... they just wouldn't be there (if only because there's more power elsewhere).



There's a fair chance that the leaders of the community are Evil. If they are, and they have enough friends, you're in a situation where a god of wickedness could rule your daily activities, and you supplicate out of fear, not out of hope. If you DON'T, you die. If you DO, you live. Even if they're not evil, every village has it's witches, it's outcasts, it's wierd mad scientists...if you've only got a cleric or three, it's not hard to imagine that those three serve a god that most of the populous is terrified of. 



> Of course he's going to hold back his healing for the truly needy and those that also help the community... but as he can only cast 2 spells per day, what happens if none of the guards have a sword stuck in them come sun-down... he's going to use those spells on whoever needs them. Somedays that will be nobody, and I wasn't suggesting that he was going to cure every stubbed toe, or replace haling and herbalism skills, just that he isn't going to waste his spell and not cast it if he's not got anything better to cast it on. But most people will suffer from an unpleasant disease, or serious injury at some point in their lives, so most people will have the benefit of magic at some point.



True, most people will at some point...those two spells are for emergencies like that.  But I'd say it's probably much more efficient and exhausting to heal the militia than it is to bother usually with the commoners...which is why a lot of commoners, at some point, join the militia and gain some XP. It's got a health plan, after all. 

When your neighbors are getting attacked twice a day, your healing spells will probably go for them, not for the clumbsy farmer who walked off the cliff following his flock of lemmings. 

So magic can help against emergencies, but 'survival of the fittest' still applies; but some extremes of chance are reduced. And clerics are people, too. 



> But spells per day aren't magical capital that you can save up; they're magical bandwidth you use or lose. At dusk, or before going to bed, you use up your last few spells healing someone or creating water -- creating capital you _can_ use later.



Most nights, at dusk, you either heal those who are near death from the nearest goblin attack, or you preside over their funeral and cast _bless_ on the corpse (no need for goblins AND undead...).

You create holy water. You perform a ritual to grant your brother luck (_guidance_, _bless_, _aid_, etc.). You maybe write a scroll if you have enough gold (that's why you're charging for the spell for most folks in the first place, after all. ). You don't bother touching the wierd stranger on the corner who stinks of alcohol....at least, most of the time. You instead set up a charity for them, while helping your Sunday Night poker game with a _guidance_. 

Clerics are people, too...there are so many things you could do with those powers, many of them still in your god's interest (if I'm richer after poker, I can make more scrolls!; If my brother has luck in the harvest, the town will be better fed!), without having to have everyone go frolick with lepers before bedtime. 

Though I'm sure frolicking with lepers happens before bedtime, too...but on special holidays, or when he's feeling very generous, or when his god's been being reticent about that healing magic recently....I don't imagine in most towns ever really having the problem with "Well, I've got this _cure light_ I haven't used yet today..." Especially not with two attacks each day from monsters, and only two 1d8+2's to go around.


----------



## Quasqueton

> But spells per day aren't magical capital that you can save up; they're magical bandwidth you use or lose. At dusk, or before going to bed, you use up your last few spells healing someone or creating water -- creating capital you can use later.



And what happens when there's a goblin raid in the night -- oops, I used my spells to heal the simple accident victims at sundown. The wounded militiamen are screwed now.

Danger doesn't just happen in the daylight hours. There are plenty of threats that can come at night.

How many times have PCs been caught spelled-out at night because the cleric burned all his _cure_ spells before laying down to sleep in the wilderness?

Quasqueton


----------



## diaglo

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And what happens when there's a goblin raid in the night -- oops, I used my spells to heal the simple accident victims at sundown. The wounded militiamen are screwed now.
> 
> Danger doesn't just happen in the daylight hours. There are plenty of threats that can come at night.
> 
> How many times have PCs been caught spelled-out at night because the cleric burned all his _cure_ spells before laying down to sleep in the wilderness?
> 
> Quasqueton





as long as the DM and the players realize that there are costs to their spells per day when cast within 8 hours per the DMG.


----------



## GlassJaw

> PC's are OBSCENELY wealthy compared to NPC's




So true.  I've been trying to cut back on treasure but I _still_ think I give out too much "stuff".  I just feel guilty not giving the PC's some coins after they defeat soemthing.   :\   I need to get a backbone.


----------



## GSHamster

I see your point.  But then, don't these two points contradict each other?



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As per the DMG, following the Rules As Written:
> * "*Small communities are much more common than larger ones*. In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all. You might create a metropolis at the civilized center of the world with 100,000 people, but such a community should be the exception, not the rule."
> 
> * *70% of all communities have populations 2,000 and below*. Their markets don't sell anything over 800 gp at the highest end (a potion emporium, perhaps). 50% of all communities have populations 900 and below. Their markets don't sell anything over 200 gp at the highest end (getting so you can't even afford ARMOR in most towns...)




If 50% of communities have populations 900 and below, 50% have populations greater than 900.  That means that at least 50% (and probably much higher) of the population lives in small towns, directly contradicting your first point of only 1/15.

I'm not saying you're wrong.  I just think that there is something funny with your numbers.


----------



## mmadsen

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And what happens when there's a goblin raid in the night -- oops, I used my spells to heal the simple accident victims at sundown. The wounded militiamen are screwed now.



No matter what time a Cleric prays for new spells, there is a time just before that where he can use up his old spells.  It may be dusk, it may be right before bed, it may be first thing in the morning, but it obviously exists.


			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> How many times have PCs been caught spelled-out at night because the cleric burned all his _cure_ spells before laying down to sleep in the wilderness?



PCs are intentionally marching into the mouth of danger.


----------



## Brother MacLaren

Excellent post, KM.  I'm one of the guys usually complaining about the huge power levels assumed in the DMG demographics.  I see that I was being a bit chauvanistic - thinking that life in the towns and cities defined life for the "average person."  Probably a city-dweller's bias on my part, combined with the fact that much of what I know from ancient and medieval history I associated with cities (Ur, Nineveh, Babylon, Athens, Rome, London).

Looking at your conclusions, I'd have to say that one consequence would be that peasants are less powerful than the city dwellers even moreso than was true in history.  Once you get to the "large town" level, you really have the spellcasters capable of casting world-changing spells such as _teleport_.  

Now, a related question for you all - which low-level spells would have the greatest effect on a world like ours?  That is, which ones can do things that technology cannot yet do?  

I'd say _Comprehend Languages_ is something technology can't do (Linear B, for example) but it wouldn't be all that world-changing.  _Detect Lie_ (or whatever it's called now) is another one that technology can't do (polygraph is more like a +4 bonus to Sense Motive, because unlike _Detect Lie _ a skill check can give false positives), but it does allow a save.  _Cure Disease _ is probably the top low-level spell in this regard - imagine being able to cure any ailment even once per day.


----------



## Quasqueton

> as long as the DM and the players realize that there are costs to their spells per day when cast within 8 hours per the DMG.



I know this. 


> No matter what time a Cleric prays for new spells, there is a time just before that where he can use up his old spells. It may be dusk, it may be right before bed, it may be first thing in the morning, but it obviously exists.



See above - that time is 8 hours before prayer time.

Timing for spell preparation doesn't change the fact that it can be wise to save spells for possible night time trouble than to blow it before bed down.

Villages average two encounters each day -- but "day" does not necessarily mean "during sunlit hours".

Quasqueton


----------



## ph0rk

I followed those rules for the most part when I ran my last campaign, (town size, cash on hand, amount of magic around, etc).

It pretty much just resulted in the party getting the hell out of half the towns as quick as they could.

As for the starting as npcs or 2nd level commoners thing, whatever floats your boat, but I doubt I'd enjoy running or playing a game like that.  

Aren't fighters and bards common enough?





			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Ithink I disagree. All those people in the city are insular. It is the people in the hamlets and villages are are creating food for all the city folks to eat. They are also who the PCs will run into 9 times out of 10 when travelling anywhere. When natural disaster or monsters strike, it's going to be the villages that have the most trouble resisting. . . and then what happens to the city folk next harvest-time?




If you go by one of the lattice-like settlement patterns (http://mayagis.smv.org/settlement_patterns.htm has some nice examples using real data about Mayan culture), once adjusted for average mobility (everyone have horses) and of course for things like mountains, which suck to settle on, but don't matter much for figuring out what settlements the party runs into as they most likely aren't crossing the mountain just because its there (and if they are, well, thats a fun group!)  Then the party will never be too far from a big city, or at least a moderately sized one.

The idea is the small hamlets and such all surround big cities.  It is pretty rare for super tiny hamlets to be out in the middle of nowhere; most hamlets are where the farmers that feed the local city live, and obviously the farther from the big city market the harder it is to sell your crop.  

What's the point? Even when the party is in a one-horse town, they can still ask a villager where the nearest city market is, and there will likely be one less than a day away.  (Assuming no recent bridge destructions, hell-balls, etc)

Heck, there is even a real good chance they could see the big city, as most small-time hamlets have cleared nearly all the land for farming.  (And most big cities have done the same).


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A god certainly doesn't wish people to become dependant on one man, ne?




An Evil god does.  (You could also argue that a Lawful god might as well.)

If the church wants to increase its power, or reduce the power of a church with an opposing philosophy, the church is going to have to compete.  While the churches are competing with each other, there's no reason why they should charge for spells without valuable components.  (And I think that the church may not even force all the cost of a Raise Dead or similar spell onto the consumer.)  If they do start charging for spells, somebody else is going to come into town and do everything for free.  Or at a much lower price.


----------



## Alenda

Quasqueton wrote: 
"I would think the cleric (assuming he is a good guy, serving/protecting the village) would reserve his spells for times when really needed. I could see even a cleric of healing refusing to cure someone of an injury that is not life-threatening, and will heal on its own."

----

This sounds like it could be a REALLY interesting character to play. Just say the cleric was determined to "save" her spells in case of an overnight attack or raid. She has refrained from magically healing broken legs and cracked ribs all day long for this very purpose. Then the night passes uneventfully and her spells go unused. She would undoutedly feel guilty for "wasting" her spells. 

Also, just say there was a farming accident earlier in the day that required her to use all of her spell slots to save fatally wounded people. She will undoubtedly be worried all evening about the possibility of a raid and how she would be unable to magically heal anyone.

It's a real "Catch-22."


----------



## mmadsen

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But such is not the case, when following the rules as they are written for generating towns, for the income of commoners, for finding out how common to the everyday commoner magic really *is* in D&D. So I present to you my findings, based on the Rules As Written.



Of course, another question is whether the rules for communities, etc. follow from other assumptions of the game.  What could a single, industrious 2nd-level Cleric do to build and transform a community?


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> My thesis: Magic isn't common to the everyday person, but it is common to the PC's, who AREN'T everyday people.



I think that's a reasonable assumption and a reasonable way to play the game.  Of course, these assumptions lead to a game world where owning _any_ magic at all, for instance, means you're insanely wealthy -- and a target.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> With this capacity, *half of the places in the entire world do not have access to 2nd level spells*. You'd be shelling out about 10-20 gp to get any spell cast -- still far beyond the limits of even your most industrious commoner, who makes 1 sp/day, maybe slightly more often for the aristocrat (but it's still a BIG investment.) He might be able to afford a _Cure Light Wounds_ once or twice a month. Same with _create water_. Assuming a good 700 people, that's enough to keep the local cleric, druid, or adept busy watering fields, healing wounds, giving good luck and bad luck, repairing an expensive peice of jewelry.



I would assume that regular tithing takes the place of insurance and (some) local taxes.  The Cleric receives regular pay, and he cures the sick, etc.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *Monsters raid your village about twice per day. *Now monsters enter the equasion. The random wilderness encounter table says that in verdant/civilized areas, there's a 10% chance per hour of having 'an encounter.' Which is extrapolated to once in every 10 hours, or about twice per day. This meshes up with the dungeon encounters, so it basically means that 'when the area's got critters, you'll meet 'em about twice a day'. This is why 'adventuring' exists as a profession after all...



I think it's quite a leap to go from "adventurers wandering the countryside have a 10% chance of an encounter" to "monsters attack farms twice daily."  Even if a monster attack only had a 1% chance of killing one person, monsters would kill seven people per year.  Real raids, which you'd expect to kill multiple people, would wipe out a 1,000-person community in a few months.


			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *They've never seen a magic sword in their lives. *On to magic items...they have 200 gp as the most expensive item in the community, and that's not even enough for half-plate...



It's fair to say that no one in the community owns a magic sword or knows how to make one.  Unless no one passes through town and no one ever leaves town though, I'm sure they've seen a magic sword.  After all, their feudal lord probably has one -- he's not a 1st-level Commoner.


----------



## ph0rk

mmadsen said:
			
		

> I think it's quite a leap to go from "adventurers wandering the countryside have a 10% chance of an encounter" to "monsters attack farms twice daily."  Even if a monster attack only had a 1% chance of killing one person, monsters would kill seven people per year.  Real raids, which you'd expect to kill multiple people, would wipe out a 1,000-person community in a few months.




Any town like that would have a pallisade, never mind the fact that the local lord (if they have one, some royal troops if they don't, or insert other government military force here) would come and kick the crap out of the monsters. Why?  Dead villagers don't pay taxes.

Besides, most small hamlets are surrounded by farmland, what is the encounter table for cultivated farmland?


----------



## jmucchiello

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It takes effort to get spells...these aren't free gifts from the gods, these are the reward for a pious supplication. On his "day off", he simply doesn't spend the effort to prepare his spells. Most priests perform mass only once a week, after all.



Actually most Priests perform mass once a day, traditionally they would do it even more often. But that's a religious tangent we don't really need.


> True, most people will at some point...those two spells are for emergencies like that.  But I'd say it's probably much more efficient and exhausting to heal the militia than it is to bother usually with the commoners...which is why a lot of commoners, at some point, join the militia and gain some XP. It's got a health plan, after all.



You are overlooking how powerful Cure Minor Wounds is when used on commoners with d4 hit points. The 2nd level cleric has access to 2 CLW and 4 CmW. A CmW spell will stabilize someone who is dying. Thus the cleric could hit the guy run over by a horse with CmW and use normal healing to bring him back up to normal health. In a pinch, he can stabilize 6 wounded people till morning.

Also, this priest needs an 11 Wis to cast 1st level spells. Wouldn't a good percentage of 2nd level priest have a slightly higher Wis? Some of these thrope and hamlets have a 2nd level priest with a 12 Wis and thus he can do 3 CLWs a day.


> Most nights, at dusk, you either heal those who are near death from the nearest goblin attack, or you preside over their funeral and cast _bless_ on the corpse (no need for goblins AND undead...).



At the risk of a major tangent, why are you burying that corpse? Incinerate it so the next time some uppity necromancer comes to town, old farmer jones the zombie doesn't climb out of his grave and help the necromancer. I mean, no corpses, no zombies, no skeletons, no ghouls/ghasts.

Besides, _bless_ doesn't do what you are thinking it does. It's not an abjuration, it's an enchantment: "_Bless_ fills your allies with courage. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and on saving throws against fear effects. _Bless_ counters and dispels _bane_." You need a 7th level priest to _hallow_ the cemetary every year to avoid undead rising.


----------



## Evilhalfling

One thing that has'nt been addressed in this thread is the concept of XP for problem solving and meeting goals.  If this was awarded to NPC's in regular amounts, then you are looking at level inflation, espcially compared to the amount of money they would have on hand.  With this sort of system you could easily assume that most teenagers are first level, young adults are 2nd level and that established community members and craftsman are 3rd level at least.   Most of thier wealth would be tied up in property - simple house 1000 gp, grand house 5000 gp, peasents would never own their own property but I am not sure about your mideval craftsman or merchant. 
Having most adults be 3rd level means that the danger from raiders is significantly less.  A 3rd lvl famer can kill one goblin, but not 3.  Most likely he would be wounded, but survive, or fight long enough so his family could escape.

This assumption works well for campaigns that start at 3rd level, as many do, according to the last poll I saw here. 
If you are going stricly by the DMG demographics then this probably does happen in small towns but not in villages.  Which dosen't make a lot of sense. 


As for spell pricing the fact that adventures are heavily overcharged for healing services and the like is one of my base assumptions.  Healing would never be free, just as doctor visits aren't free.  An injured peasent must deciced if the injury is worth paying for the medical help, and with a lawful priest you probably have to have an appointment, and are charged a higher fee for emergency services.  However the fees have to be within reason - say 1 just over a weeks pay for a 1st level spell - 1 gp.
Most of the clerics in th hamlets of my world are either agriculture clerics or the temple of light (3 gods of good share a temple)


----------



## jmucchiello

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Dude, channeling divine energy is exhausting!



Right, because after casting a spell, or channeling energy the cleric is exhausted (-6 str/dex). Er, no, maybe fatigued (-2 str/dex), er no again. He has a penalty to his next action. Er, no, none whatsoever.


> Otherwise, the god would grant the person an infinite number of spells.



By the magic system, he just can hold any more spells in his head.


> And you are discounting the fact that a cleric will have other things to do durning the day than heal.  She will have to prepare sermons, hear confessions, travel to outlying farms, teach, create scrolls or potions to help in times of need, study, pray etc.



Confessions: I don't think so.
Sermons: Do the chaotic gods' priests have regular periodic (predictible) masses?
Create Scrolls: Why does a priest have this feat?
Create Potions: He's 2nd level, he can't have that feat.

I've always wanted to create a book of what does a lay priest do all day. But I haven't had the time. Each priesthood would prioritize "typical" priestly duties in unique ways.


----------



## GlassJaw

*create water is broken*

I posted this in the low-magic thread but I'll repost it here since I think it's more applicable to this thread:



> If you assume that there is a low ratio of number of casters to the general populace, even in a high-magic world, then many of the "survival" spells discussed previously will have an unbelievable social impact, nevermind the economy of health of the people.
> 
> Using the example above, we'll assume there is a 5th-level cleric in a town of 400. He can cast create water 5 times per day. That's 50 gallons. A human (according to the DMG) needs a gallon of water per day. So the cleric creates enough water per day for 50 people, assuming he uses all of his 0-level spells to do it. He could even use his higher level spells and create enough for whole town!
> 
> The social effects of this are twofold:
> 1. The people will no longer need to rely on themselves for sustenance. They know it will be created for them. Populations would boom (at least in the short-term).
> 
> 2. If there aren't enough clerics to go around, some people will go without. This would cause civil unrest and most likely rioting.
> 
> My point? Who cares. Even in a low-magic world, in which people run to avoid stuff like this, there can be major issues with even the most "minor" or spells. "Yeah, my world is low-magic, I only allow up to 2nd-level spells and casters are very rare. That way, magic won't have much affect on the world." Yeah, right. If that's the case, it will have MORE of an effect IMO since the people will know that there are those out there that can create water out of nothing. The clerics would probably rule the land. It would probably turn into some kind of Mad Max Beyond Waterdeep nonsense if you really wanted to do a social analysis.


----------



## Wombat

One other point we are not dealing with directly:  where you live vs. where you travel.

Now, high level characters are primarily found in cities, but is the city environment so much more dangerous, stressful, and exciting that it brings about the XP the produces higher levels?  Probably not.  Many of the high level individuals may well have city "homes", but travel widely to gain the XP.  This suggests that perhaps magical power might be more widely seen than simple population statistics show us.

Look at the published adventure out there -- most (just by quick glance at the FLGS stock) adventures take place out in the wilderlands far away from civilzation.  The adventurers would pass through many small villages on the way to the adventure-proper.  Perhaps they help out, perhaps they do not, but the people see them.  Perhaps the feeling of the villagers towards the adventurers is hopeful, perhaps jealous, perhaps angry, perhaps they see a potential career move away from villages.  And the amount of hard currency adventurers can dump on small villages (and would have to, for food if nothing else) could be quite staggering -- perhaps a few "entrepeneurs" in some of the more distant villages have set up "Adventurer Shoppes" to attract such individuals.  That is pure speculation, however.

There is also the question of character levels, XP, and demographics.  There have been some threads in the past arguing how quickly an average person raises in level with several different conclusions, but certainly common folks can, through simply living their lives, slowly rise in level.  But why are there more high level Commoners in cities as opposed to villages?  Again, are cities inherently more dangerous?  This doesn't appear to be the case.  Several of these Commoners in cities would be merchants, perhaps wandering merchants.  Perhaps they get their XP while wandering from village to village with their wares.  This would be fairly logical, as the road is a dangerous place.

But these wandering merchants are also interesting on an economic level -- do they only bring cheap merchandize to the villages?  Or do they bring more wondrous items, hoping to sell one or two along the way (perhaps to those wandering adventurers?) and thus introduce the concept of more magic to the villages?  This is pure speculation, but it is an interesting notion.

Just more food for thought


----------



## Arnwyn

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I've always wanted to create a book of what does a lay priest do all day. Each priesthood would prioritize "typical" priestly duties in unique ways.



Which is why I love my 2e FR _Faiths & Avatars_ series of accessories. Devotes an entire section called "Day to Day Activities" for each and every deity of the Realms.

Already done for me.


----------



## jmucchiello

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Which is why I love my 2e FR _Faiths & Avatars_ series of accessories. Devotes an entire section called "Day to Day Activities" for each and every deity of the Realms.
> 
> Already done for me.



I wanted something a bit more toolkit-ish. Not everyone uses the FR deities. I also wanted the results to be a bit more than the 3-4 paragraphs found in the F&A (awesome 2e book). Things like: when founding a new temple to so-and-so, what materials are required when building it, what layout is used, are there days on which building should/should not occur? Extend these idiocracies to all aspects of the priest's life. The other cool thing in F&A, that I wish was address in a core book somewhere, is the titles for clerics of specific deities. Clerics of some deities would not call themselves priests.


----------



## ssostac1

Here's a question:  If so much of the population is as poor as this thread assumes, where the heck do all the critters get all their magic items and treasure from?  Assuming you use the treasure tables in the DMG.  Surely they get that kind of treasure by raiding normal towns.  Are there that many adventurers that lose their stuff to the baddies?


----------



## mmadsen

ssostac1 said:
			
		

> Here's a question:  If so much of the population is as poor as this thread assumes, where the heck do all the critters get all their magic items and treasure from?  Assuming you use the treasure tables in the DMG.  Surely they get that kind of treasure by raiding normal towns.  Are there that many adventurers that lose their stuff to the baddies?



I agree that random, small-potato monsters shouldn't have much in the way of treasure, but I see raiding monsters as equivalent to human bandits or raiders.  Raiding doesn't build any wealth, but it's a good way to accumulate a lot of other people's wealth -- if you don't die in the process.

I see petty hobgoblin kings as analogous to big fish eating smaller fish, who eat smaller fish, who eat smaller fish, etc.  Eventually, the big fish accumulate a lot of mercury -- and the goblin king accumulates a lot of gold.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Wombat said:
			
		

> Very interesting thoughts.
> 
> Since there are so many marauding monsters, the lives of the peasants must be even more fatalisitic than in European peasant communities -- "We can't control 'em, we aren't given the weapons, and they keep the magic locked up in the towns!"  (Hmmm, might be some very serious resentment there...)  Raids twice a day would lead to a grossly high mortality rate, a very low crop yield (constantly tramelling over the fields), and a general sense of doom, unless we are counting a single wolf as a "raid".  Goblins and kobolds would be fairly commonly seen, at least.
> 
> This would suggest that the peasants are more seriously drilled as a militia than in a standard European community -- they would have to be able to drive off incursions on a more regular basis, thus the injunctions against peasants owning weapons would probably fall by the wayside.  The weapons might not be stellar, but the number of spears around the scatter would be much larger than a European community of, say, 1400 AD.
> 
> Every peasant would have seen magic actually working, often publically.  This would make for a very different attitude; of course this is already built into D&D, since there is no fear of witches, wizards, etc.  Low level potions, while not everyday, are available and kept in store; this makes for safer medicine than anything practiced prior to the mid-19th century, so maybe that helps balance out life expectancy from the raiding.




I have no idea why people think that all peasants were unarmed. Not true.

In at least one place in the medieval world, it was _illegal_ to _disarm_ a free man, _even his own lord _ was barred from disarming him. This was cited in Gary Kleck's book _Armed_, just to establish sources here.

With lots of nasty creatures around, I'm betting that a lot more peasants will have nice, sharp, billhooks, staves, slings, and even crossbows than their historical counterparts. 

As for magic, in that 200 person thorp, theres a bard and a wizard, with lots of spells that look pretty, and lots of feast days--40, according to a show on the History Channel, that means lots of displays of magical entertainment.


----------



## silentspace

I've always tried to make my worlds as "default" as possible, and I agree mostly with what KM has said.  

Let me share with you how I've reconciled some of the issues you guys are discussing.

First, I decided that the smaller communities are basically unsustainable on their own.  They simply cannot survive, as the first random hostile creature to pass through will wipe them out.  In addition to the physical danger posed by hostile creatures, there is the economic factor.  How can a thorp produce all the goods and services needed for long-term survival?  The inhabitants simply don't have the skills.

So each small community needs to be near a powerful protector, and near a strong economic center.  These are often the same place, but could be separate.  The thorp's protector could be a local keep, a feudal lord with a manor house, a local sheriff's station, a border watch tower, a larger walled town with a military force, etc.  The thorp's economic center will usually be another town, or perhaps a cluster of thorps, which will allow for some individuals to have the specialized skills necessary for survival (i.e. craft and profession skills).  Neither center should be further than a day's journey from the thorp.

While this doesn't have to be a feudal system, the typical European feudal system, as I understand it, fits the bill perfectly.

Additionally, there are more civilized, settled areas, that have been already cleared of most dangers.  In this case, the smaller settlements will still require close-by economic centers, but the military centers can be smaller or further in-between.

So the commoners weren't often facing the hostile creatures.  I agree they would be armed, at the very least with farming implements, but that's not much against a CR 4 encounter.  In areas that are especially dangerous, a small community would have a designated runner, someone with a mount or at least the Run feat, who could get away to call for help.


----------



## Arnwyn

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I wanted something a bit more toolkit-ish. Not everyone uses the FR deities.



Indeed. I was just thanking my lucky stars that I have that info (and have been using it for years) already.


> I also wanted the results to be a bit more than the 3-4 paragraphs found in the F&A (awesome 2e book). Things like: when founding a new temple to so-and-so, what materials are required when building it, what layout is used, are there days on which building should/should not occur? Extend these idiocracies to all aspects of the priest's life.



Good stuff - I'd think that'd be very valuable for any campaign; even an FR one with the F&A books available.

Based on this (and the entire thread), it shows just how little and not readily available information regarding the "every day life" of those in a D&D world. I've always felt that things like demographics, trade, and the economy has been horribly neglected. Ah well - people just keep telling me it "doesn't sell".


> The other cool thing in F&A, that I wish was address in a core book somewhere, is the titles for clerics of specific deities. Clerics of some deities would not call themselves priests.



Absolutely. We use that every single session.


----------



## VirgilCaine

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Based on this (and the entire thread), it shows just how little and not readily available information regarding the "every day life" of those in a D&D world. I've always felt that things like demographics, trade, and the economy has been horribly neglected. Ah well - people just keep telling me it "doesn't sell".




However, some of that information can be gotten on the 'Net for free. Or at least some base to start extrapolating from. 

The Domesday Book
http://rpglibrary.blackgate.net/utils/meddemog/

Medieval Demographics Made Easy
http://www.io.com/~sjohn/demog.htm


----------



## jasper

good thread. You forgot bows, slings, arrows and other simple weapons. 
Just because he uses a pitchfork everyday does not mean that he can't use without minus one simple weapon. sickle, dagge, mace,club, short spear etc. 
So what would happen is even the village is getting attack twice a day. There would be a bump in xp for all adults responsing to the goblin gong. And after a while it would have arguements or fights about who gets first shot at the goblin. Papa Piratecat would cry the teenagers and Astreix took more than their fair share last attack.
It a great begining.  and Does point the pcs and npc start out as the college grads of the universe and become the rock stars, donald trumps of the world. 
But as always once you support your arguement the logical Fallacies in the game start poking holes into it. Let someone pt out where does all these monster get their magic from.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Someone else mentioned that there is a big difference between where you live and where you travel to. That has an impact on this contention as well:



> * With this capacity, half of the places in the entire world do not have access to 2nd level spells. You'd be shelling out about 10-20 gp to get any spell cast -- still far beyond the limits of even your most industrious commoner, who makes 1 sp/day, maybe slightly more often for the aristocrat (but it's still a BIG investment.) He might be able to afford a Cure Light Wounds once or twice a month. Same with create water. Assuming a good 700 people, that's enough to keep the local cleric, druid, or adept busy watering fields, healing wounds, giving good luck and bad luck, repairing an expensive peice of jewelry.




Half the world does not have access to 2nd level spells _in the town where they live_. However, half the world does. And since it is not at all uncommon for villages to be a half-day's travel apart, you will probably find that most of the world knows where one might find 2nd level spells--maybe even 3rd level spells. So, I would expect that your average aristocrat (who represents what in this case? Obviously not landed nobility if there's a significant number in every village; perhaps the "aristocrats" are the wealthy farm-owners who have slaves or peasants toiling in their fields) may, at times when someone in his family is sick, make a pilgrimage to a nearby town where there is a priest or adept who can cast Remove Disease. Similarly, in the town unfortunate enough not to have a proper cleric, odds are good that there _is_ one who lives in the next village over and who may ride through town once a week on Godsday to teach the tenets of St. Cuthbert and cure the local militia. And when a militia member is wounded in the middle of the night in a skirmish with the goblin raiders, they stabilize him, pack him on a wagon and dispatch the wagon with guards to the neighboring village as soon as possible lest he die before the priest comes to town. (That would actually provide a good adventure hook for 1st level characters as long as there were no clerics in the party).


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, I'd argue that very few cleric PCs end their day, every day, with no spells left because they've cast them all on villagers or cityfolk. It's a little tricky to mandate that every day. I suspect that like most English pastors, a small town cleric would make the rounds to everyone's house over the course of a week to check up on his flock. A city cleric would let people come to them.
> 
> This brings up the fascinating power of the church (and multiple churches) in a commoner's life. The church would weild phenomenal power. Think about it: not only can they damn your soul to hell, but if you have an argument with the cleric then your daughter might die while giving birth, just because the church has excluded you and a cleric isn't attending. No one wants to take the risk that their family will die of disease, so they'd be at church every time.
> 
> And in a town with two churches? I can definitely see "us vs them" social problems, and lots of intrigue when someone changes churches or marries a person from the other religion.




I think this whole line of thought floes from transplanting social structures and ideas from monotheistic Christian cultures onto D&D religions. If nobody expects devotion to Heironeous to exclude prayers to Pelor and St. Cuthbert then there's not necessarily any problem with there being shrines to both deities in a town. 

The other change in dynamic that you might find is that there is no "pastor" and he has no "flock" to check on. I rather imagine shrines of Heironeous being similar to the Granges of St. Gird in the Deeds of Paksenarrion series--a combination martial arts school and Rotary club. The shrine of Pelor might well have rituals that people attend and a priest of Pelor might go from house to house, visiting people, but I doubt a cleric of St. Cuthbert would be so inclined. A cleric of Wee Jas would almost certainly be reclusive. If people came to his shrine to make offerings to the Stern Lady or to implore her for her gifts, he would answer, but the town is not his flock. A cleric of Boccob might well fill the role of a witch doctor.

The office of the village priest or pastor that you allude to seems to me to be a specifically Christian one. It is more likely that D&D clerics would _not_ follow this model than that they would.


----------



## VirgilCaine

THANK YOU! Just what I wanted to say.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I think it's quite a leap to go from "adventurers wandering the countryside have a 10% chance of an encounter" to "monsters attack farms twice daily." Even if a monster attack only had a 1% chance of killing one person, monsters would kill seven people per year. Real raids, which you'd expect to kill multiple people, would wipe out a 1,000-person community in a few months.



Not when there's 9th level commoners, 8th level warriors, a bard, a cleric, a druid, 2 fighters, and a barbarian to handle them. And that's if none of the others pop up.

These people have XP. These people have levels. They have healers. Much of the time, they wound the goblins, beat up the gnolls, and let them maybe raid a barn in exchange for their lives. They have losses, but at that 1% chance, those 7 people/year, those are more than made up for by the births in the community. 



> You are overlooking how powerful Cure Minor Wounds is when used on commoners with d4 hit points. The 2nd level cleric has access to 2 CLW and 4 CmW. A CmW spell will stabilize someone who is dying. Thus the cleric could hit the guy run over by a horse with CmW and use normal healing to bring him back up to normal health. In a pinch, he can stabilize 6 wounded people till morning.



The peasants fighting off the hordes don't have 1d4 hp. They've got 9d4 (still small, but significantly better). They've got 6d8. They've got the occasional 2d6. CmW is useful to stop death, CLW is useful during the thick of those nightly raids.



> Also, this priest needs an 11 Wis to cast 1st level spells. Wouldn't a good percentage of 2nd level priest have a slightly higher Wis? Some of these thrope and hamlets have a 2nd level priest with a 12 Wis and thus he can do 3 CLWs a day.



No, they wouldn't. 'average' NPC stats are 10's or 11's, plus racial modifiers. No race in the PHB has a bonus to Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom. All spellcasters, even those with PC classes, are limited to 1st level spells. A few (maybe 5%) might have 'elite' stats, but all those really do is make him better at keeping the militia alive. The real benefit is the scrolls of _cure light wounds_ that he can produce, since those give him extra castings of the spell for emergencies, for tough encounters, etc. 



> Right, because after casting a spell, or channeling energy the cleric is exhausted (-6 str/dex). Er, no, maybe fatigued (-2 str/dex), er no again. He has a penalty to his next action. Er, no, none whatsoever.



Well, weapon-weilders don't get those penalties either, but it's pretty exhausting swinging around a 6' hunk of sharp metal all day, isn't it? Just because there is no mechanical penalty doesn't mean that they're as hale and healthy as when they started...



> If so much of the population is as poor as this thread assumes, where the heck do all the critters get all their magic items and treasure from? Assuming you use the treasure tables in the DMG. Surely they get that kind of treasure by raiding normal towns. Are there that many adventurers that lose their stuff to the baddies?



They don't get treasure from towns, though they may get food...they get treasure from their lairs, namely, the dungeons. That's where the Ancient Cities kept their stuff, but if the Ancient Cities fell, then they're just chillin' there with all that magic waiting to be harvested...monsters collect this not to buy things, but to consoslidate power.



> First, I decided that the smaller communities are basically unsustainable on their own. They simply cannot survive, as the first random hostile creature to pass through will wipe them out. In addition to the physical danger posed by hostile creatures, there is the economic factor. How can a thorp produce all the goods and services needed for long-term survival? The inhabitants simply don't have the skills.



The little magic the town does have is 100% dedicated to making the town sustainable, I think....+1 to your Profession (farmer) roles isn't a bit of extra, it's a nessecity when beasts strike.



> Just because he uses a pitchfork everyday does not mean that he can't use without minus one simple weapon. sickle, dagge, mace,club, short spear etc.
> So what would happen is even the village is getting attack twice a day. There would be a bump in xp for all adults responsing to the goblin gong. And after a while it would have arguements or fights about who gets first shot at the goblin. Papa Piratecat would cry the teenagers and Astreix took more than their fair share last attack.
> It a great begining. and Does point the pcs and npc start out as the college grads of the universe and become the rock stars, donald trumps of the world.



Indeed, the militia will probably have clubs, spears, quarterstaffs....and the knights the king says in will be even better equipped.

And I don't think peasants (or anyone in the campaign world) are very aware of XP as a tangible effect. All they know is that Toothless Joe has survived more goblin attacks than any of the whippersnappers out there, has got the scars to prove it, and obviously isn't a pushover, even though he's never done anything but farm beets his entire life.


----------



## Umbra

A few points:

Payment for spells cast need not be in gold (cash) but in goods and services that can be provided for over time.  Borm the dairy farmer provides the local cleric with cheese every week for saving his wife; little Onka comes and cleans the shrine; etc.

The deity involved is crucial to how the cleric interacts with the village but any deity would want their representative to get involved in the community in ways which spread the faith and promote the deities causes.  For any good deity, this would be helping the people in times of need or helping people to help themselves.

Non-magical healing is available and the village will have many 'experts' with home remedies and a little healing skill.  Indeed, the cleric may be active in promoting these skills so the villages are self reliant and useful when a large emergency takes place.

The cleric will also have visitors - higher level clerics and other church personages, representatives of various powers that be.



			
				Silentspace said:
			
		

> So each small community needs to be near a powerful protector,




Or have a powerful protector regularly patrol the area.

Also, the DMG figures are for people who live in the town and doesn't take into account transients.  Adventuring parties will be passing through (your groups is) and the village urchins watch in awe as flaming arrows shoot from the rangers bow as he practices one afternoon.  The merchant caravan from gnome community in the nearby hills visits monthly with their prestidigitation performances.  The fantasy news service (bards) regularly drops by. Etc.

Even if magic is not seen directly by every villager every day, the farmer who saw the Lord's Patrol blast the giant beetle out of existence will be telling the story in the local pub for the rest of his life.

Finally, the DMG provides averages.  It doesn't account for the semi retired sorceror who has comeback to her family's home for the twilight of her life and can toss out a 5th level spell or three if she needs to.

I think the common commoner has had a lot less experience than the PC's but I think they have had a lot more than is being suggested.

In regards to the encounters taking place twice per day. That's encounters scaled to the PC's.  Any good DM will have encounters of appropriate EL's.  The farmer's wife deals with the fox in the hen house, etc.


----------



## Al'Kelhar

A very interesting thread, but premised on the demographic rules as per _DMG_.  Nothing wrong with that, other than the demographic rules as per _DMG_ are designed to give the D&D game a pseudo-medieval Tolkein-esque fantasy world flavour.  In reality, access to 1st level spells would change the world in deeply fundamental ways within a century or two of their "discovery".

Let's take _cure light wounds_ as an example.  The argument seems ot have been that the local cleric won't cast his spells except in dire emergency, for special people, or for a price well above the capacity of most commoners to pay.  Let's take the "dire emergency" option.  Farmer's wife is having a difficult labour.  Farmer's son runs to local cleric asking for help.  Cleric consults his god's teachings and, assuming that his god is good-aligned, somewhere he'll undoubtedly find something about protecting/nurturing/caring for mothers and children.  Irrespective of whether the farmer has been attending church, the cleric will attend upon the stricken woman having a difficult labour.  Cleric uses a _cure light wounds_ plus a healthy dose of his heal skill and saves mother and child.  The cleric is responding to a real emergency and saving two lives - but of course, he wouldn't use one of his daily allotment of 1st level spells doing so, would he?  NOT!

In your typical medieval world, childbirth was the most dangerous thing a woman ever did.  Women in childbirth died in their droves.  Now, woo hoo, thanks to the miracle of 1st level spells, childbirth is as routine and life threatening as it is in the 21st century First World.

Now extrapolate a bit further.  Every life threatening injury is treated by a cleric provided one gets there in time.  So we have most babies being born alive to live mothers, and death by accident only occurs when the death follows closely (in time) upon the accident.  Populations start to creep upwards - actually, they increase exponentially.  What you have occurring is the exponential increase in population which occurred IRL from the end of the 18th Century.  Human capital increases exponentially.  With that additional human capital the human race progresses in all fields of endeavour exponentially - including magical capability - unless you place some artificial limitation on it, like "the gods wouldn't let that happen".  Without such a contrived limitation, "magic as technology" naturally occurs.  And pretty soon, those little hamlets with less than 100 people in which "most" of the population live disappear and "most" of the population live in highly urbanised environments surrounded by all of the benefits of magical transportation, communication, health care, defence, law enforcement etc.

So let's imagine your "commoner" 300 years after the first _cure light wounds_ is cast...  Little Johnny has just got _cursed_ by the evil outsider he was playing with through his magical Summon-o-tube (TM), so you call up "Clerics'R'Us" on your Sending-o-phone and they _teleport_ a 15th level Cleric specialising in removing curses from evil outsiders into your living room, who charges the reasonable fee of 150gp for the service.  Your annual salary from the world-spanning Government is, of course, around 50,000gp, less taxes, and the price is so low because of competition from "Heal-2-your-Door" and the effect of rulings of the Ecclesiastical Services Consumer Protection Tribunal...

P.S.  You also send the Summon-o-tube to the local service centre to have its Abjuration Circuit fixed, 'cos summoned evil outsiders shouldn't be able to _curse_ your children.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Turanil

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm thinking of running a campaign where the PC's start as NPC's....any great ideas for me evoking this bumpkin feel?




*1)* PCs adventurers must be honest, or have some obligation of being honest. They are poor thus must borrow money to buy their equipment. The first idea is that they owe a great deal of money to someone!

*2)* Then they go on adventure and find a useless magical item. At least useless to them, but useful to commoners or nobles in the vicinity. 

*3)* Now the second idea is to wait for players say "_Let's sell this magical item, after all, in the DMG it's told it costs 1500 gp!_"

*4)* Players quickly find someone willing to pay 1500 gp for the item. Ahem, not exactly that because he only has 1382 gp available. But being the only one available customer around, the PCs let him buy the item. (Then the NPC quickly *disappear...*)

*5)* The players are heading onto a new adventure, when they meet the king's soldiers led by the constabulary. The taxes that were recently collected were STOLEN by some brigands, exactly 1382 gp...  Of course, the explanation that the adventurers got it in selling a magical item is so absurd that they will be immediately thrown in jail. 

*6)* Conclusion: There is no such thing as a magic shop in your world...


----------



## Turanil

> Now extrapolate a bit further. Every life threatening injury is treated by a cleric provided one gets there in time. So we have most babies being born alive to live mothers, and death by accident only occurs when the death follows closely (in time) upon the accident. Populations start to creep upwards - actually, they increase exponentially. What you have occurring is the exponential increase in population which occurred IRL from the end of the 18th Century. Human capital increases exponentially.




On Earth maybe. Not in the typical D&D world where the common Ankegh, Dire wolves, Gnolls, and whatnot, will eat most of them continuously...


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Dude, channeling divine energy is exhausting!




This is an assumption - there is nothing anywhere to indicate this.  I don't deny it takes the clerics constant devotion - so involves his time, but he is a servant of his god... he isn't going to spurn the use of his devotion to his god in times of need.


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well, I'd argue that very few cleric PCs end their day, every day, with no spells left because they've cast them all on villagers or cityfolk. It's a little tricky to mandate that every day. I suspect that like most English pastors, a small town cleric would make the rounds to everyone's house over the course of a week to check up on his flock.




Absolutely right Piratecat... my point is that at some point most are likely to have benefited from the cleric's aid... not that he has a queue outside his door every evening with people waiting to see if he's got any magical energy left.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> A very interesting thread, but premised on the demographic rules as per _DMG_.  Nothing wrong with that, other than the demographic rules as per _DMG_ are designed to give the D&D game a pseudo-medieval Tolkein-esque fantasy world flavour.  In reality, access to 1st level spells would change the world in deeply fundamental ways within a century or two of their "discovery".
> 
> Let's take _cure light wounds_ as an example.  The argument seems ot have been that the local cleric won't cast his spells except in dire emergency, for special people, or for a price well above the capacity of most commoners to pay.  Let's take the "dire emergency" option.  Farmer's wife is having a difficult labour.  Farmer's son runs to local cleric asking for help.  Cleric consults his god's teachings and, assuming that his god is good-aligned, somewhere he'll undoubtedly find something about protecting/nurturing/caring for mothers and children.  Irrespective of whether the farmer has been attending church, the cleric will attend upon the stricken woman having a difficult labour.  Cleric uses a _cure light wounds_ plus a healthy dose of his heal skill and saves mother and child.  The cleric is responding to a real emergency and saving two lives - but of course, he wouldn't use one of his daily allotment of 1st level spells doing so, would he?  NOT!
> 
> In your typical medieval world, childbirth was the most dangerous thing a woman ever did.  Women in childbirth died in their droves.  Now, woo hoo, thanks to the miracle of 1st level spells, childbirth is as routine and life threatening as it is in the 21st century First World.




Well, let's assume that most real midwives had heal skill. So that's a wash. What you're claiming would make the difference is Cure Light Wounds. And it would--provided that deadly childbirth does 1d8+1 damage. If deadly childbirth sometimes does 2d8+2 damage, it may be that a cure light wounds doesn't save women from death in childbirth. Or maybe, a breach birth actually does 1 point of damage per minute of labor. When does the priest cast the CLW? If he casts it too soon it might not save her. If he waits too long she might die. Given that hit point costs for specific injuries are rather difficult to actually quantify, and there are no mechanics for childbirth complications, I don't think it's possible to tell how many childbirth deaths cure light wounds would avert. The exact quantity of lives saved will vary greatly from campaign to campaign.



> Now extrapolate a bit further.  Every life threatening injury is treated by a cleric provided one gets there in time.  So we have most babies being born alive to live mothers, and death by accident only occurs when the death follows closely (in time) upon the accident.  Populations start to creep upwards - actually, they increase exponentially.




Maybe and maybe not. This assumes that the dangers are roughly the same as IRL. It's quite possible, however, that rampaging orcs, manticores, magic and the sacrifices required by mens' dark gods will keep the population growth in check. It could also be that the preying of vampires and other creatures who specifically feed on humans would keep populations in check.

A D&D world is undoubtedly full of many things that are more dangerous than anything our ancestors faced. The existence of magic and the social instability it might cause (as explored earlier in this thread) would also serve to reduce populations. So there might be an increasing population and there might not be. It's trivial to change the assumptions of the world to match whatever kind of population trends you want.



> What you have occurring is the exponential increase in population which occurred IRL from the end of the 18th Century. Human capital increases exponentially.  With that additional human capital the human race progresses in all fields of endeavour exponentially - including magical capability - unless you place some artificial limitation on it, like "the gods wouldn't let that happen".




My, what a whiggish view of history we have here. Historical inevitability and all that rot. Again, maybe and maybe not. There have been a lot of times of great population expansion other than the end of the 18th century and in case you didn't notice, only the 18th century in Europe and North America produced the kind of Progress you see as inevitable. The culture and faith of 18th century Europe and North America had as much to do with that Progress as population growth. Even in Europe, some areas grew experienced more Progress than others. Population growth isn't even half the story.



> Without such a contrived limitation, "magic as technology" naturally occurs.




Dude, "technology as technology" didn't naturally occur just because populations reached a certain density. IRL, it occurred in western Europe in the 18th century, most particularly in England and later in the United States. There are innumerable times and places where it didn't occur for various and sundry reasons.

Heck, if technology (which, as philosophers like George Grant and Martin Heidegger, et al point out is dependent upon a particular way of looking at the world) were the inevitable consequence of population growth and "human capital" the Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans would have used the wheel for something more than a child's toy and the Chinese would have had effective firearms long before the europeans.



> And pretty soon, those little hamlets with less than 100 people in which "most" of the population live disappear and "most" of the population live in highly urbanised environments surrounded by all of the benefits of magical transportation, communication, health care, defence, law enforcement etc.
> 
> So let's imagine your "commoner" 300 years after the first _cure light wounds_ is cast...




At the end of this implausible paen to the inevitability of technological Progress, let's imagine the world 300 years after the first running water, flush toilets and showers were installed on the British Isles, massive roads were constructed, laws were formalized, etc. Oh, that's right. Three hundred years after all of that, this ragged guy (or clean-cut romanized celt) named Arcturos (or Arthur or something like that) was busy leading a group of warriors from Caer Camel or thereabouts to fight the saxon invaders on Mount Badon. Or at least, that's what the legends say. A thousand years after that, the saxons were standing around a hill at Hastings with shields and greataxes, waiting for the Norman knights to charge and break like water upon their shieldwall. Then a lucky arrow struck down their king. (Who, according to some reports, survived that arrow but was killed later in the battle). All the wonder and glory of Roman Britain turned to dust. History has been full of golden ages, conquering heros, progress and advancement. Most of thoe inheritors of the golden ages have descended into decadence and returned to barbarism. Most of those conquering heroes are food for the worms. Most of that ancient progress is forgotten only to be rediscovered in part by later civilizations at later times. We dig up Roman plumbing from the ruins of Hadrian's Wall. At present, we in the western world are fortunate to be living in one of the longest lasting eras of technical advancement and prosperity. However, there was no guarantee it would happen, no guarantee it would continue, and no guarantee it won't return to dust and fond memories like all of the empires before us.

Inevitable "Progress" is a myth. Our current situation is the result of divine favor or happy coincidence (depending upon how one looks at the world). Eithe way, its continuance is far from guaranteed.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Kamikaze midget said:
			
		

> No, they wouldn't. 'average' NPC stats are 10's or 11's, plus racial modifiers. No race in the PHB has a bonus to Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom. All spellcasters, even those with PC classes, are limited to 1st level spells. A few (maybe 5%) might have 'elite' stats, but all those really do is make him better at keeping the militia alive. The real benefit is the scrolls of cure light wounds that he can produce, since those give him extra castings of the spell for emergencies, for tough encounters, etc.




"Average" NPCs may have 10's or 11's in everything but that's no ground for supposing that most NPCs have 10's or 11's in everything. (It may be grounds for assuming that typical NPCs are 15 point buy but that's a different matter). Assuming a bell curve distribution traditional in D&D, while 10 or 11 may indeed be the average score for any given stat, it's more likely that any given person will _not_ have a 10 or 11 than that they will. One might further assume that people will tend to gravitate towards things that they do well. A blacksmith is likely to be stronger than a scribe. A scribe is likely to be smarter and more mentally developed than a nightsoil collector, etc, etc. So, reasoning from this, one might conclude that the cleric is likely to be wiser than most people, the wizard's apprentice is likely to be smarter, and the bard is likely to be more charismatic. I would expect the vast majority of clerics to have a 12 or 13 wisdom rather than an 11. (I assume that you don't expect 50% of clerics to have a 10 wisdom just because the average NPC score is 10.5)

Even if you don't buy that, aging modifiers and stat bumps for levelling will bring the clerics' wisdom up. A fair number of clerics will have advanced to middle age which gives them a wisdom bonus.

On a different subject, if you apply the same kind of population assumptions to the nearby goblin tribe, what does the constant skirmishing between the human village and goblin tribe look like? If they are subject to frequent raids that are frequently beaten back, it can't be raids by the goblin chief and his elite warriors, nor can it be any kind of scorched earth battling. What are the goblins after? How often do they get it and what are the typical casualty ratios between the men and goblins do you suppose? How many of those casualties die and how many are healed by the village priest/goblin shaman?


----------



## Goblyns Hoard

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A god certainly doesn't wish people to become dependant on one man, ne? He's serving the community, but nothing says he needs to spiritually drain himself nightly just to serve the community...it's a "feed a man a fish/teach a man to fish" kind of scenario. Yes, I could heal you right now. But then you wouldn't learn your lesson ("do not play with Alchemist's fire!"), or you wouldn't learn how to heal yourself ("I may not be around forever"), or you would come to me every time you needed it, when others may deserve it more.
> 
> It takes effort to get spells...these aren't free gifts from the gods, these are the reward for a pious supplication. On his "day off", he simply doesn't spend the effort to prepare his spells. Most priests perform mass only once a week, after all.
> 
> There's a fair chance that the leaders of the community are Evil. If they are, and they have enough friends, you're in a situation where a god of wickedness could rule your daily activities, and you supplicate out of fear, not out of hope. If you DON'T, you die. If you DO, you live. Even if they're not evil, every village has it's witches, it's outcasts, it's wierd mad scientists...if you've only got a cleric or three, it's not hard to imagine that those three serve a god that most of the populous is terrified of.
> 
> True, most people will at some point...those two spells are for emergencies like that.  But I'd say it's probably much more efficient and exhausting to heal the militia than it is to bother usually with the commoners...which is why a lot of commoners, at some point, join the militia and gain some XP. It's got a health plan, after all.
> 
> When your neighbors are getting attacked twice a day, your healing spells will probably go for them, not for the clumbsy farmer who walked off the cliff following his flock of lemmings.
> 
> So magic can help against emergencies, but 'survival of the fittest' still applies; but some extremes of chance are reduced. And clerics are people, too.
> 
> 
> Most nights, at dusk, you either heal those who are near death from the nearest goblin attack, or you preside over their funeral and cast _bless_ on the corpse (no need for goblins AND undead...).
> 
> You create holy water. You perform a ritual to grant your brother luck (_guidance_, _bless_, _aid_, etc.). You maybe write a scroll if you have enough gold (that's why you're charging for the spell for most folks in the first place, after all. ). You don't bother touching the wierd stranger on the corner who stinks of alcohol....at least, most of the time. You instead set up a charity for them, while helping your Sunday Night poker game with a _guidance_.
> 
> Clerics are people, too...there are so many things you could do with those powers, many of them still in your god's interest (if I'm richer after poker, I can make more scrolls!; If my brother has luck in the harvest, the town will be better fed!), without having to have everyone go frolick with lepers before bedtime.
> 
> Though I'm sure frolicking with lepers happens before bedtime, too...but on special holidays, or when he's feeling very generous, or when his god's been being reticent about that healing magic recently....I don't imagine in most towns ever really having the problem with "Well, I've got this _cure light_ I haven't used yet today..." Especially not with two attacks each day from monsters, and only two 1d8+2's to go around.




No the god doesn't want dependence on one man, but does want a flock (again assuming a good deity here) so is going to mandate that his/her magic is used for the benefit of that flock.  No the cleric won't drain himself every night, but he's also not likely to hold back every night.  Remember this cleric has direct access to a god, he has truly "seen the light"   and spends his life in the constant worship and service of his chosen deity... why on earth would he not drain himself to further his deity's goals - afterall he will be rewarded on the Planes.  No not every day... but enough of them that most commoners within his parish will have had the benefit of his abilities.  And as jmucchiello pointed out - mass once a week is a modern phenomenon... and also a Christian one...  In a world where gods palpably exist, and with 20 deities, mass should be a lot more frequent.

You're point on evil town leaders is well taken, and yes the cleric will use his magic for emergencies and won't squander it on twisted ankles, broken arms, etc.  Instead he will use it on child birth, serious farming accidents, and the really big killer - disease.  I can't see any cleric saying no to such an emergency because - well the goblins might raid tonight and one of the soldiers could die - when he's faced with someone dying right in front of them.  Just as doctor's won't refuse to use their medicine cause 'something worse could turn up in a minute'.

And I'm still not comfortable with this 2 attacks per day theory of yours.  I realise that it's well founded on the basis of the rule books, but I don't think that it is a realistic interpretation of what the average village would face.  I guess that is something that will depend on your world...  If you've got high monster levels then yes this is possible, but only really probable on the fringes of your kingdom.  Your average commoner that lives in an area that has been cultivated for years and is 'in the middle' of the country with less wild lands around for monsters to nest in, orcs to camp in etc. is going to have a much easier time... they just won't face your 2 attacks per day.  By comparison your frontier area village very probably could face two encounters a day but in exchange the population is going to very quickly become more experienced, including your cleric (XP for keeping people alive may not be mandated in the rule books but is certainly valid IMO).  So your healing goes up in power as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## Piratecat

A reminder: if you're quoting someone else's long post, please just quote the relevant part instead of the whole thing. Thanks!


----------



## snarfoogle

I agree with Raven Crowking -- two attacks a day means that the goblins are gonna get sick of losing men. Eventually they'll have formed an uneasy truce, making life that much easier.


----------



## maddman75

This is a fascinating thread.  I personally despise 'magic as technology'.  I don't see the point.  I mean first it isn't anything like the fantasy fiction that I'm trying to emulate.  Second, if I wanted a game with technology in it I'd play something modern.  Why play some convoluted version of D&D and go on about a crystal ball network and flying carpet expresses when I can just play something modern and have the internet and buses?

As for the cleric charging the townsfolk, I think there's likely a huge difference between what Farmer Joe gets charged when his leg gets broken and what they charge wandering vagrant tomb-robbers that blow through town and start ordering folks around (ie, adventurers).  I imagine a lot of it goes by barter - the cleric patches up the farmer's leg for a couple of chickens, etc.

On XP, commoners don't need to kill goblins and ankhegs for XP.  PCs do, because they're adventurers.  They get XP for adventuring.  Farmers I presume get XP for farming, bakers for baking, and cobblers for cobbling.  As this isn't Horseshoes & Homesteads I'm not overly curious as for the exact mechanics.

Two encounters a day?  Well, I'd accept that as the number of times something nasty goes lurking outside the village just in case someone decides to go wandering off by themselves, with occasional larger encounters.


----------



## D+1

maddman75 said:
			
		

> On XP, commoners don't need to kill goblins and ankhegs for XP.  PCs do, because they're adventurers.  They get XP for adventuring.  Farmers I presume get XP for farming, bakers for baking, and cobblers for cobbling.  As this isn't Horseshoes & Homesteads I'm not overly curious as for the exact mechanics.



Farmers get XP and levels because they are ASSIGNED to them by a DM.  Yes, NPC classes earn XP just as PC's do - but that only means that IF they go off adventuring they get an xp split and would get to level up in their choice of classes.  It does not mean that to get where they ARE they MUST have been off killing orcs or braving dangerous weather and monster incursions several times a month.







> Two encounters a day?  Well, I'd accept that as the number of times something nasty goes lurking outside the village just in case someone decides to go wandering off by themselves, with occasional larger encounters.



Somebody check me if I'm wrong but encounter frequency tables are written for PC adventuring parties.  They are not meant to be applied universally to every individual in the world, nor collectively to settlements.

It is quite easy and acceptible to suppose that monsters simply do not routinely attack or menace even small settlements, but that they are not far beyond the edges of the cultivated areas.  Farmer Ted can live and work his whole life on his farm on the edge of the village - but then he seldom if ever goes far beyond his fences.  Travelling to the next nearest village or to the nearest "big city" may be a routine task but he still doesn't do it every day - few people do.  PC adventurers on the other hand travel constantly over long distances and often not on the most heavily travelled and patrolled roads.  THEY are the ones who have the encounters.

The game does not presuppose any particular level of "encounters" for Farmer Ted because he's not the focus of the game - the PC's are.  It is perhaps assumed that the Farmer Teds of the world DO have encounters occasionally but the game does not concern itself with what they would be or how he would deal with it.  Virtually all of what you find in the rules is geared DIRECTLY towards how the PC's are affected and how the PC's affect the world around them.  GP limits and available cash can be calculated not so the DM knows how much trade a given village does with the next closest village - it can be calculated so he knows what trade can be done WITH PC'S.

The entire game has ALWAYS been constructed that way.  Dangerous pitfalls open up when this simple premise is overlooked and rules that are really meant to apply only to PC's are assumed to be universal rules for every individual in the world, and composes a weave that would/could/should accurately describe an entire game world.

That said, I think the original post is all but dead-on.


----------



## SpuneDagr

I love the personal touch. With this kind of detail, you could stat out the entire village (if, for some unfathomable reason, you actually wanted to do so).

I love that you listed specifics. "A bard once cast a spell on his daughter." That's great!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

This is a very enjoyable thread.  I'll take my stab at it now.  

The one thing that keeps coming to me is the two encounters per day thing.  I do not have the rules here at work (not even the SRD, they blocked it  ), but I am thinking; the random encounter rules just apply to PCs adventuring, don't they?  If the PCs are sitting in a bar in a city, do you roll for random encounters?  I don't.  I apply the random encounters to when the party is moving through an area or when camped for the night in the wilderness.  And this is really done to provide a mechanic for a DM to challenge PCs between the "planned" encounters and to show that the wilderness is, well...wild.  It does not make as much sense when applied to established settlements.

If there are five hamlets located in a 1 mile radius and they each get attacked twice a day, then there are ten attacks in one day.  If there is a single small town in a 1 mile radius there are only two attacks per day and there are more people to help out.   Eventually you would get to the point where the majority of the population would live in towns and cities than in hamlets and villages.

To me the mechanic does not make sense to apply to a static location.


----------



## kigmatzomat

I think people are looking at commoner existence from a city-first standpoint.  Reality is, cities survive on the excesses of the farmers so unless you know how much the farmers overproduce, you don't know how big your cities can be.  

So let's say that every individual in a family qualifies as a farmer, to eliminate the population age issue.  Then lets say that each farmer can produce enough food for 3 people for a surplus of 2 people.  That immediately means that 33% of the populace has to be farmers.  (FYI, I'm lumping meat producers in with grain and vegetable farming)

However that's staple food production only.  We also have to worry about cloth, lumber, hemp, and various cash crops (like grains for alchohols).  Using the same 3:1 ratio we are now at a 66% agricultural.  Assume that 4% of the population are non-producing rural types (nobility, administration, milling, hauling, smiths, priests, animal trainers, servants, etc) we are 70% rural. 

The size of a city is based on the travel radius.  A farmer won't travel more than 2 days in an ox-drawn wagon.  More than that and the odds of storms or accidents get too risky.  That limits you to a production radius of 16 miles (rough terrain, typical road) to 32 miles (flat terrain, romanesque highways) for total area of 500,000-2,000,000 acres.  Half of that will be non-arable due to soil type, rough terrain, too much/not enough water, location, etc which brings us to 250k-1 million arable acres.

For simplicity, half of the arable land will be staples and half will be cash crops, luxuries, or otherwise non-food producing land.  We're now at 125k-500k food producing acres.  

In general, a medieval farmer could work 1 acre.  Remember, I'm counting children as farmers so I really mean a family of 8 works an 8-ish acre plot.  

At maximum utilization you could have 125-500k farmers, 137-550k rural non-staple producers*, and 112-450k urban dwellers. 

With magic you can boost production by around 33%.  It isn't entirely 33% because plant growth doesn't impact meat production, a labor-restricted task, but I'll assume other spell-based improvements in production (weather control) make up the slack.  

We can now max out a city at 150-600k people.  

This super-city assumes there are no smaller cities within its production area.  Each one reduces the urban dwellers by an appropriate amount.  It also assumes no significant waterways or other non-agricultural resource.  You can have a big city if its on top of a gold mine and everyone can afford to have food hauled in.  

If you disagree with an assumption, change it and go through the process again.  Thank you, and good night.


----------



## kigmatzomat

I left out a few things.  

Military personnel and all exports count as urban people.  Every soldier you have in a "Keep on the Borderlands" sucks down supplies, as does every bushel of grain you sell to another city.  

One other assumption I made is that while magic increased production per acre, it did not increase production per person.  I.E. plant growth causes crops *AND* weeds to grow so it requires more manpower to control the weeds, keeping the manpower-bushel production the same.  

Now if you add a few hundred Combine Golems you'll get more bushels per farmer.  It doesn't change your total land area or total population, but it does reduce the rural population and let you have larger urban areas.

If you provide magical transportation (use those Combine Golems to pull massive wagons faster than oxen can) you increase the production radius, the overall land area, and the total population.  

I might turn this into a spreadsheet for ease of use, if I get the chance later


----------



## The Grumpy Celt

This is why I have feel that the Renaissance period is more interesting – and thus more interesting to game in – than is the medieval period. There was simply more going on during the Renaissance in terms of general social dynamics. Pity there are so few RPG set in that time, as compared to the plethora set in a (poorly executed version of) the middle ages.


----------



## Ferret

This thread is great, I only got half way up to page three before I caved in and had to post this (something it seems a few of you don't know): All divine  casters only take one hour of prayer to regain spells. It's in the DMG.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Size of hamlets & thorps will be based on reasonable distances and geography.  Most farmers won't walk want to be more than 20-30 minutes from home at any time, meaning there's a 1-mile radius from housing.  That's a default community size of 1 sq. mile, or 640 acres so it'll suport ~600 people, assuming fully arable land and ~40 acres lost to roads, housing, barns, etc.  

Since most areas won't be 100% arable, I'd say the typical community size is closer to 300 or so.  Likely 40% of the total populace live in these smaller communities.  That's roughly half the rural population and is reasonable based on either 50% non-arable land or the populace being situated on scattered water supplies.  

River vallies will likey make up the remaining 30% of the population, providing good soil, water, power for mills, and some travel.  I'd also wager that valleys house the bulk of the cities as well.  

By those assumptions, communities in highly arable regions (Kansasland) will only be an hour or so apart, while the more arid regions will be about a day apart.  

When I get home to my DMG I'll extrapolate out what that means as far as magic availability.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> At the end of this implausible paen to the inevitability of technological Progress, let's imagine the world 300 years after the first running water, flush toilets and showers were installed on the British Isles, massive roads were constructed, laws were formalized, etc.
> Oh, that's right. Three hundred years after all of that, this ragged guy (or clean-cut romanized celt) named Arcturos (or Arthur or something like that) was busy leading a group of warriors from Caer Camel or thereabouts to fight the saxon invaders on Mount Badon. Or at least, that's what the legends say. ...All the wonder and glory of Roman Britain turned to dust. History has been full of golden ages, conquering heros, progress and advancement. Most of thoe inheritors of the golden ages have descended into decadence and returned to barbarism. Most of those conquering heroes are food for the worms. Most of that ancient progress is forgotten only to be rediscovered in part by later civilizations at later times.
> We dig up Roman plumbing from the ruins of Hadrian's Wall. At present, we in the western world are fortunate to be living in one of the longest lasting eras of technical advancement and prosperity. However, there was no guarantee it would happen, no guarantee it would continue, and no guarantee it won't return to dust and fond memories like all of the empires before us.
> 
> Inevitable "Progress" is a myth. Our current situation is the result of divine favor or happy coincidence (depending upon how one looks at the world). Eithe way, its continuance is far from guaranteed.




Impressive. You have a most impressive base of knowledge and a most realistic view of the world.


----------



## Dwarf Bread

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Assuming a bell curve distribution traditional in D&D, while 10 or 11 may indeed be the average score for any given stat, it's more likely that any given person will _not_ have a 10 or 11 than that they will. One might further assume that people will tend to gravitate towards things that they do well. A blacksmith is likely to be stronger than a scribe. A scribe is likely to be smarter and more mentally developed than a nightsoil collector, etc, etc.




I forget...what's the primary stat for a nightsoil collector?    

When a thread causes a perennial lurker to reply, you know it's good.  Thanks, all.

DB


----------



## kigmatzomat

Using my previous explanations, we have the following :

Depending on the terrain, each city region ranges from 500k-2 million acres. Basic rule is 50% of the land is arable (250k-1million acres), and 50% of the arable land is for foodstuffs (125k-500k acres).  One third of the land has to lay fallow, which leaves us 84k-333k acres of staple foods.  

Without magic augmentation, each farmer can work one acre and produce enough food for 3 people, giving us populations of 250k-1 million people.   With magic augmenting the farming, 1.33 farmers can work each acre, each producing food for 3 people, giving us 336k-1.3 million total people.  

Remember, that is at maximum saturation, with all land in production.  Assuming you are at 50% max density and are halfway between the best and worst terrain, you have a "typical" region of around 400,000 people.  

70% of the populace is rural, 30% urban, giving us a 280k/120k rural/urban distribution.  Making a vague estimate that 15% of staples that would go to urban centers is used for trade or military supplies changes that to 280k/102k populations.  

Out of the rural population, the majority are living in communities only two miles in diameter, with populations of 300 or less (Hamlets or Thorps) and the rest are in communities unlikely over 1000 (villages).  I'd probably say about 60% are the smaller and 40% are the larger.  

Rural population of 280,000
1120 Thorps (20% = 56,000 people @ 50people/thorpe ) 
466 Hamlets (40% = 112,000 people @ 240 people/hamlet)
172 Villages (40% = 112,000 people @ 650 people/village)

Urban cities could, in theory, be as large as London.  It's more likely the urban population is broken up between the main city and multiple smaller cities.  Terrain will ultimately control city size since you can't have a city bigger than the water supply or if there isn't as much farmland.  As a general guideline, I'd suggest we follow the population system in the DMG: there are twice as many cities of the next smaller size.  So a baseline metropolis would have two large cities, 4 small cities, 8 large towns , and 16 small towns with a population of 99,431.  

Take your regional population and divide using the same ratios.  For our 102k population we have:
1x Metropolis: 25,647
2x Large City: 12,311 people/city x2=24,622
4x Small City: 5,130 people/city x4 =20,520
8x Large Town: 2,052 people/town x8 = 16,421
16x Small Towns: 924 people/town x16 =14,788

Using the DMG's PC/NPC distribution we know that:
Thorps (containing 14% of the total population) usually have at least one caster, usually a druid, cleric or adept and, with the rare exception of a high level druid or ranger, do not have spell casters above 3rd level.  Magic items, even potions and scrolls, are probably unavailable.

Hamlets (28% total population) are a bit better off, likely having both a divine and arcane caster present though neither reaches 5th level (again with the rare druids and rangers).  A few common potions or scrolls will likely be available, though they are most likely to be divine healing magics.  Expect to wait a day or two for them to be made.  

Villages (28% total population) still have arcane casters of 3rd level or below, but divine casters can reach 5th level.  Still, about 30% of the villages do not have any 5th level casters.  There's a 75% chance you can find the simplest arcane scrolls and the basic healing potions are likely on hand, though not in any bulk.  

At this point 70% of the populace is accounted for.  Something on the order of 40% of the populace does not have immediate access to 3rd level spells.  Less than 5% do *not* have casters in their community.  

Small towns (4% of the population) are guaranteed to have more than one arcane and divine caster.   Likely you'll have about 3 arcane casters and 10 divine casters.  The odds are good that a 5th or 6th level caster lives there.   Most low level scrolls and potions can be acquired.  There's a decent chance a low-level wand can be commissioned from one of the priests.  

Large Towns (4% of the total population) generally have more than a dozen arcane casters, one of which is 5th-7th level.  There will be more than 40 divine casters, likely with one 7th-9th level.  The majority of potions and scrolls can be had, though it may take a few days.  The odds are good you can acquire the simplest magic weapons and armors and the most common wonderous items.  Again, expect a wait.  

Small Cities (5% of the total population) have 100+ arcane casters and 150+ divine casters with at least one 11th level caster with access to 5th level spells somewhere.    Most magic armors can be acquired and a few special types of weapons can be acquired.  Virtually all potions and most wands can be acquired in a few days.  The vast majority of wonderous items can be had.  

Large cities (6% of the total population) will see 600+ arcane casters and 1,000 divine casters.  Expect a divine caster of 15th level and an arcane caster of 13th level.  A wide variety of magic weapons, virtually all magic armors, potions, wands, wonderous items, and more than a few staves can be found.  

The Metropolis (6% of the total populace) has around 2300 arcane casters (~15th level) and over 4,000 divine casters (~17th level).  Virtually all but the most legendary magic weapons and armors can be had.  All potions and wands can be had and only the most powerful scrolls prove hard to find.  Staves and wonderous items of all kinds will be found within the walls.  

So what's this mean to the commoner?  Most of them know magic armors and weapons are within a singe day's walk.  If you have the money, the bishop in one of the Cities can bring a murdered family member back to life.  Odds are he sees minor illusions a few times a year at the smaller fairs and if he makes it to the Metropolis for the Grand Fair he will see some spectacle or miracle performed by the archmage or high priest.  

On the flip side, the bulk of the populace will never visit someplace bigger than a Large Town more than once or twice since it would take several days away from work.  

Everything they need or could want can be had within the Metropolis' domain.  Out past the thorpes you reach the wilderness and the dangerous lands filled with monsters.   Stories of the horrors out there make you happy to live in such a civilized land.  Still, there are stories told by the old folks about the time something burrowed out of the ground and ate the town idiot or a bat-winged terror swooped down and stole an infant from a wagon.  

Even if you braved the horrors, the towns are few and far apart because there isn't enough water or decent land, otherwise it would be cultivated.  Why bother?


----------



## Umbra

Consider how much is known about magic in the real world, albeit with magic not being real.  How many people don't know you pull a rabbit out of a magician's hat?  That garlic is effacious against vampires?  That a silver bullet is needed against werewolves. Even now, a few nooks and crannies of the world have cultures that know more about magic than engineering.  Go back several hundred years and many cultures are steeped in 'magic'.  From some points of view, many religions are 'magical'.

And this is in a world where magic is (generally believed) not to be manifestly evident.

In a DnD world where the magic does manifest, the amount of knowledge about magic would be much greater although it would be laced with a lot of errors and the understanding would not be very deep.

On Earth, think how many people know of Excalibur - a magic sword that (probably  ) didn't exist.  Of course, in a DnD world where communication, particularly between cultures and over great distances, is poor, it would only be the local magic that is well known, if not understood.  Every dwarf commoner would know the King wields the mighty Mithril Axe of Gromm, the royal weapon and that it is particularly potent against giants.  Outside the dwarven kingdom, some commoners may have heard of the mighty weapon wielded by the dwarf king, but not the type of weapon or its name.

Then there is the magic of the Gods.  Thor has his hammer as every Scandanavian knew and much of the world does now.  In the DnD world commoners would also know the details of their Gods and their servants.  They probably also know some details about other gods from bordering regions.  They know the Evil Goddess Grantel whithers crops where ever she walks and her demons wield maces that can wither your arm.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe commoners know as much as PC's do about magic, but they certainly know more (if incorrectly) than is suggested.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Harry Turtledove has an epic series (The Darkness books) in which the amount of high-level magic is less than rarer than the typical D&D campaign.  However, the amount of low- to mid-level magic is MUCH higher than D&D standard.

Imagine, as he did, a world in which the equivalent of WWII was fought with magic and mythic beasts instead of bombs and airplanes.

Instead of single mages flinging fireballs, large groups of mages cooperate to sacrifice people to release a wave of pure magical destructive energy.

Instead of footmen being equipped with crossbows or longbows, etc., they have "Sticks" that fire magical bolts of energy.

And even so, the average person cannot do major magic.  In fact, the simple magic of D&D's "Change Self" is lost, only to be rediscovered by accident, and "Mending" and similar spells, while commonplace, is about as sophisticated as things get for the average craftsman...and is used sparingly, for special jobs.

Yet it is possible to buy a "still" box, a box in which time passes VERY slowly- used for both medical and food storage purposes.

Pervasiveness and knowlege of magic depends on how your world is designed.

But the knowlege of the practice of magic and a commoner's knowledge of magic would be 2 different things indeed.


----------



## Al'Kelhar

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Well, let's assume that most real midwives had heal skill. So that's a wash. What you're claiming would make the difference is Cure Light Wounds. And it would--provided that deadly childbirth does 1d8+1 damage. If deadly childbirth sometimes does 2d8+2 damage, it may be that a cure light wounds doesn't save women from death in childbirth. Or maybe, a breach birth actually does 1 point of damage per minute of labor. When does the priest cast the CLW? If he casts it too soon it might not save her. If he waits too long she might die. Given that hit point costs for specific injuries are rather difficult to actually quantify, and there are no mechanics for childbirth complications, I don't think it's possible to tell how many childbirth deaths cure light wounds would avert. The exact quantity of lives saved will vary greatly from campaign to campaign.




I agree with your argument, which simply boils down to "because D&D is not specific about real world effects of its spells, how can one conclude that a particular spell will have a particular effect".  This misses the point of my argument, which is that any world in which magic is as all-pervasive as it purports to be in D&D is exceedingly unlikely to look anything like some pseudo-medieval traditional fantasy world.



			
				Elder=Basilisk said:
			
		

> Maybe and maybe not. This assumes that the dangers are roughly the same as IRL. It's quite possible, however, that rampaging orcs, manticores, magic and the sacrifices required by mens' dark gods will keep the population growth in check. It could also be that the preying of vampires and other creatures who specifically feed on humans would keep populations in check.
> 
> A D&D world is undoubtedly full of many things that are more dangerous than anything our ancestors faced. The existence of magic and the social instability it might cause (as explored earlier in this thread) would also serve to reduce populations. So there might be an increasing population and there might not be. It's trivial to change the assumptions of the world to match whatever kind of population trends you want.




Of course, the most dangerous thing our ancestors faced was the humble disease-causing antigen.  It is naturally impossible to compare the demographic effects of smallpox or influenza to raiding goblins and assorted evil creatures extant in the "D&D world".  What is most important to realise is that the very existence of creatures at least as intelligent as humans and with access to magic would have dramatic and far-reaching effects on the structure of human society - if such a society could even exist.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> My, what a whiggish view of history we have here...
> [edited for space]
> Dude, "technology as technology" didn't naturally occur just because populations reached a certain density. IRL, it occurred in western Europe in the 18th century, most particularly in England and later in the United States. There are innumerable times and places where it didn't occur for various and sundry reasons...
> 
> At the end of this implausible paen to the inevitability of technological Progress, let's imagine the world 300 years after the first running water, flush toilets and showers were installed on the British Isles, massive roads were constructed, laws were formalized, etc. Oh, that's right. Three hundred years after all of that, this ragged guy (or clean-cut romanized celt) named Arcturos (or Arthur or something like that) was busy leading a group of warriors from Caer Camel or thereabouts to fight the saxon invaders on Mount Badon. Or at least, that's what the legends say. A thousand years after that, the saxons were standing around a hill at Hastings with shields and greataxes, waiting for the Norman knights to charge and break like water upon their shieldwall. Then a lucky arrow struck down their king. (Who, according to some reports, survived that arrow but was killed later in the battle). All the wonder and glory of Roman Britain turned to dust. History has been full of golden ages, conquering heros, progress and advancement. Most of thoe inheritors of the golden ages have descended into decadence and returned to barbarism. Most of those conquering heroes are food for the worms. Most of that ancient progress is forgotten only to be rediscovered in part by later civilizations at later times. We dig up Roman plumbing from the ruins of Hadrian's Wall. At present, we in the western world are fortunate to be living in one of the longest lasting eras of technical advancement and prosperity. However, there was no guarantee it would happen, no guarantee it would continue, and no guarantee it won't return to dust and fond memories like all of the empires before us.
> 
> Inevitable "Progress" is a myth. Our current situation is the result of divine favor or happy coincidence (depending upon how one looks at the world). Eithe way, its continuance is far from guaranteed.




"Dude", thanks for the history lesson.  It's always fun to extemporise from historical accidents - "turning points in history", so called - but then responding to the effect of "well that's bollocks because it's overly simplistic and makes unfounded assumptions" isn't very polite.  To say that "we're lucky to be here; the chances of life emerging on this planet and evolving to a degree where it is capable of realising how infintesimally small the chances of its very existence really are, are infintesimally small," is not particularly insightful.  To reiterate the central tenet of my argument, if magic is as prevalent in human society as the D&D literature suggests, the validity of that society remaining in some romanticised quasi-medieval state of development for any appreciable length of time needs to be seriously questioned.  The "magic as technology" example is simply one example of what might occur, and what might occur in a very short time frame.  The complication of the existence other intelligent life simply adds to one's reservations about the sustainability of the D&D "model".

Let me be clear on this.  I play D&D because it's escapism.  It's fantasy.  I've attempted to rationalise some of the more significant consequences of abundant magic by running low-magic campaigns.  Kamikaze Midget's view of the Average D&D Commoner and the classes and levels of the people around them is surprisingly similar to my own.  But I don't try to analyse the society on a deep level because you very soon start asking "why does it look like this and not something completely different?".

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## Numion

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> I agree with your argument, which simply boils down to "because D&D is not specific about real world effects of its spells, how can one conclude that a particular spell will have a particular effect".  This misses the point of my argument, which is that any world in which magic is as all-pervasive as it purports to be in D&D is exceedingly unlikely to look anything like some pseudo-medieval traditional fantasy world.




So we all agree that there is no certainty on the spells effects on the world. Thus several different worlds are possible with the D&D level of magic. Let's keep that in mind and continue:



> To reiterate the central tenet of my argument, if magic is as prevalent in human society as the D&D literature suggests, the validity of that society remaining in some romanticised quasi-medieval state of development for any appreciable length of time needs to be seriously questioned.  The "magic as technology" example is simply one example of what might occur, and what might occur in a very short time frame.  The complication of the existence other intelligent life simply adds to one's reservations about the sustainability of the D&D "model".




Magic as technology is just one example of what might happen, okay. Since it was pointed above that the exact effects of magic on the world are pretty vague, couldn't that mean that medieval world is one of the possibilities, given the numerical 'evidence' in this thread? 

Still, taking rules that mainly deal with dungeondelving with a party of four extraordinary heroes and extrapolating those to world at large is pretty dumb. Surely if ordinary life was the focus of the rules, more rules would've been provided do just that. Why would the majority of spells provided by gods be suitable mainly for adventuring when 99,99% any given gods followers are _not_ adventurers (sans gods of adventuring)?

My suggestion is that take the rules for what they are - rules for doing adventuring, not simulating the world at large. Thats what they're used for 99% of the time, at least. Assume that 99% of the comings and goings in the world falls outside the rules. (Example: there are no rules for having children, which is one of the most important things in a normal society).


----------



## kigmatzomat

> Raven Crowking]Things like curative spells would certainly make a difference to the average commoner's life. People would live longer, in general, and be healthier.




I will point out that according to the PHB, accidents & disease excluded, the average person will live to about 90.  In our world, old age claims people much closer to the 80s, so I think it could be said the default setting assumes magic has some impact on longevity.  Even though low level priests don't have remove disease, they can provide buffs to help people throw off diseases.




			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Still, taking rules that mainly deal with dungeondelving with a party of four extraordinary heroes and extrapolating those to world at large is pretty dumb. Surely if ordinary life was the focus of the rules, more rules would've been provided do just that. Why would the majority of spells provided by gods be suitable mainly for adventuring when 99,99% any given gods followers are _not_ adventurers (sans gods of adventuring)?




Depends on what you mean by "majority of spells."  If you buy the DMG's distribution of levels, the majority of casters are low levels.  For every 17th level caster there are more than 256 1st level casters.  That's actually in a given community, so worldwide there are probably closer to 1,000 1st level casters for each 17th.  

Even with each neophyte casting a single spell per day, they by far cast the bulk of spells.   And the 0th and 1st level spells are useful to the rank and file from a priestly standpoint.  Guidance + Resistance can give +2 to saving throws, useful against diseases and poisons.  Detect poison is very useful for identifying harmful spiders, snakes, and creatures.  Detect (alignment) gives you insight into people's natures, Deathwatch helps you know who is worst injured, Comprehend Languages lets you be the local interpreter, Endure Elements means you can tend your flock even under horrible conditions, and with Command and Cause Fear you can be sure of standing up to the local bullies without causing them physical harm.  

For services, Bless spell gives a nice warm, confident feeling and the Light spell is just generally spiffy for giving you that "spotlight" illumination.   And, of course, there are the cure spells to keep people alive.

The higher level spells are closer to wonderous boons and only the upper ranked priests can do that.  

I'd wager that about half the populace has seen at least a cure minor used to cause a cut to scab over or wipe out a serious bruise and most witness some form of magic on a monthly basis (be it a sermon or a show).  

As to the commoner's relationship with the clergy, I imagine the tithe comes into play as it becomes your medical insurance.  Tithe on a regular basis and the local priest (50% chance 1st level) will provide magical healing or ask for divine assistance against diseases and poisons.  Fail to tithe and expect to pay, either in up-front coin (evil and some neutral clerics) or with a form of penance and future tithing. 

The arcane casters (at least the bards and wizards) are more the local intellgentsia, providing information to the residents, a few minor parlor tricks, and probably getting by on the occassional sale of a scroll to travelers or during the fairs.  They lead an apparent life of luxury by the rural standards, earning 10+gp from writing on a sheet of paper!  (scribe scroll)

Odds are they also act as clerks and notaries during the harvest, calculating tallies and confirming tax payments.  Wizard Mark provides an excellent mystical notary seal.  He probably also gets commissioned to Wizard Mark stray animals and minor criminals.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> As to the commoner's relationship with the clergy, I imagine the tithe comes into play as it becomes your medical insurance.  Tithe on a regular basis and the local priest (50% chance 1st level) will provide magical healing or ask for divine assistance against diseases and poisons.  Fail to tithe and expect to pay, either in up-front coin (evil and some neutral clerics) or with a form of penance and future tithing.




I'd imagine pilgrimages are a fairly common form of penance. They also would provide an interesting assortment of NPCs for PCs to encounter along the roads and plot-hooks.



> The arcane casters (at least the bards and wizards) are more the local intellgentsia, providing information to the residents, a few minor parlor tricks, and probably getting by on the occassional sale of a scroll to travelers or during the fairs.  They lead an apparent life of luxury by the rural standards, earning 10+gp from writing on a sheet of paper!  (scribe scroll)
> 
> Odds are they also act as clerks and notaries during the harvest, calculating tallies and confirming tax payments.  Wizard Mark provides an excellent mystical notary seal.  He probably also gets commissioned to Wizard Mark stray animals and minor criminals.




I'm with you up to the stray animals and minor criminals. Notarizing taxes and harvest tallies is a wonderful use of Arcane Mark.

For stray animals, people really only care about livestock and for livestock, you need something that'll last longer than a month. Other strays either fit into the dangerous (wild dogs, wolves, etc) category which are killed and the mostly nondangerous category which meet with anything from adoption to benign neglect to conscious cruelty.

For criminals, arcane mark would only be used where it is intended to be temporary. Otherwise branding is cheaper, more permanent, and more painful, all of which are advantages when punishing criminals.


----------



## barsoomcore

Numion said:
			
		

> Still, taking rules that mainly deal with dungeondelving with a party of four extraordinary heroes and extrapolating those to world at large is pretty dumb.



Fair enough, but it's not stupid to assume that laws of reality apply to everyone in reality.

This is just hand-waving the problem away -- which is a fine response, no kidding, but that's what it is. Nowhere do the rules say "Oh, and other people in the world have a completely different set of rules about how magic works," so it's reasonable to assume that such rules as are detailed apply to NPCs as well as PCs.

For a DM who wants to create a consistent, believable world in which D&D rules apply, there are some significant decisions that need to be made, decisions that have massive implications on the nature of the world.

For example:


			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I will point out that according to the PHB, accidents & disease excluded, the average person will live to about 90.  In our world, old age claims people much closer to the 80s, so I think it could be said the default setting assumes magic has some impact on longevity.



Exactly. And any increase in average longevity will cause a corresponding increase in overall population. If people are living longer, there will be more people. Which will lead to a non-medieval setting.

Monster Attacks: Suggesting that your average settlement gets attacked twice a day by deadly monsters is insupportable. Who would live in such a place? The typical response from successful cultures throughout the world to such incursions is massive retaliation to stomp out the offenders once and for all. What good is it living near some defending lord if goblins walk in once a day and injure or kill people? By the time the lord's forces arrive the damage is already done. The way to make a place livable is to send out a party of tough guys to wipe out the enemy. Even encountering such creatures once a WEEK would be cause for panic and either immediate "pacification" of the region or abandonment.

Just the rumour of attack is usually enough in our world to send thousands of people fleeing for their lives.

If orcs were competing with humans for resources, history certainly suggests that humans at least would settle for nothing less than complete eradication of the orc race. And since orcs are actually the evil ones, presumably they wouldn't even settle for that.

There's just no way that people would live under those conditions. Either they would leave and live somewhere less incredibly dangerous, or they would organize a pre-emptive defense to make the area safe.

And if we assume that instead, the villagers would remain, and gain levels from successfully fighting off monsters, doesn't that put an end to the "commoners have no access to magic above 1st level" argument? A 9th-level adept has 3rd-level spells, and if Toothless Joe the commoner can be 9th level, why not Mumbling Fred the adept? I mean, either these are low-level people -- in which case they get wiped out by monster attacks consistently -- or they're higher-level people -- in which case they can resist the monster attacks but end up encountering higher-level magic as a matter of course.

Note that a band of 30-100 orcs includes 3 7th-level barbarians, 5 5th-level barbarians and a 3rd-level barbarian for every 10 orcs. These guys are going wipe your average village or thorp off the map. That's 30 orcs -- a force like that could cut a massive swath through any kingdom populated the way this thread suggests.

The point is that pretending that deadly incursions will keep populations levels down ignores typical responses IRL to such dangers -- either put an end to the danger, whatever the cost may be, or flee. In no case would most people accept living in such regions.

Withholding spells: Spellcasters in D&D have NO REASON not to use every spell they get every day of their life. None. Saying "It's exhausting" is just making stuff up. The rules don't impose any penalties for casting spells. You aren't fatigued because you just cast a spell. I guess a wizard might have something better to do daily than memorize a bunch of spells (but honestly, what wizard would ever take the chance that TODAY they won't need a spell ready?), but I find it unlikely. Or at least sub-optimal. And the other classes have even less rationale for not maximising their spell-casting.

This is part of where my "Paranoia Theorem" comes from. The Paranoia Theorem states that according to D&D rules of magic, the most successful method for a sorcerer is complete paranoia. Sorcerers do best by practicing complete paranoia -- trusting no one and arranging the destruction of everyone who might possibly be a threat. Of course many sorcerers won't be good enough at it, will get caught and recognized for what they are and destroyed before they can succeed, but the laws of probability suggest that sometime somebody's going to combine the lethal qualities of intelligence, charisma, and complete paranoia and be able to wipe out all threats to their existence.

Because the power of sorcerers depends on nothing outside of themselves. They cannot be stopped by social pressure -- not if they're sufficiently clever and cautious.

I'll grant you that "sufficient" is a very very large amount of cleverness and caution, but there exists an amount that if possessed would mean a sorcerer is literally untouchable and will be able to act at will. The only force that could stop such a character would be a god. In particular, a god in a campaign setting where mortals cannot make themselves into gods.

Sorcerers, therefore, who do not prepare new spells as soon as they can, will get eliminated by their more paranoid brethern -- who are watching for exactly those opportunities. They would do the same to wizards (the Paranoia Theorem applies less well to wizards because their spellbooks can be taken away from them), and anyone else that looked like a threat.

Eventually you have a world where a small number of extremely powerful sorcerers maintain constant vigilance, gathering as much power as they can and denying all resources to their rivals. They would simply wipe out entire civilizations if they could -- they have no use for peasants, and such resources might provide armies that would be turned against them. Better to kill them all.

It's interesting to me because it provides a rational explanation for the standard "destroy the world" ploy of BBEGs. It's actually the optimal path for a sorcerer to follow -- you best assure your own survival by killing every other being in the world. Barsoom is the campaign that grew out of this line of thinking -- it's a nasty place, that for most people is not only low-magic, it's NO-magic -- but what magic does exist is immensely powerful. It's just specifically targetted at wiping you out.

Where did I start all this? Huh.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt

Dwarf Bread said:
			
		

> I forget...what's the primary stat for a nightsoil collector?




Charisma. You know them thar' nightsoil collectors are a big bunch of mack-daddies.


----------



## I'm A Banana

*Monsters*

Yeah, the 2/day rule is an extrapolation from rules that give you a 10% per hour chance for an adventuring party. It's not exactly airtight.

That said, I still think it's an extremely useful situation to explain why the population *doesn't* skyrocket because of the availability of healing. Monsters are more than common; they're likely. People die every day, and the fields are always at risk. The exact number doesn't matter, as long as you realize that a settlement faces these risks very often.

Why don't they just move somewhere else? They can't. Anywhere they move, they will have encounters that they can earn XP from 2/day. You think they should move to a less dangerous area?* There isn't any less dangerous area.* Especially not that they can still farm and supply a city off of. You move to the urban area, you've got slimes in the sewers. You move to the arctic, you got remorhaz in the barn. You move to the jungle, you've got dinosaurs in the well. You move to the desert, you've got mostrous scorpions. Everyplace. In the entire world. Is this dangerous. And the desolate, uninhabited areas, where the chance for random encounter is effectively 0? You think you could feed a family, let alone a viallage in a place where the necromancer king doesn't even keep an outpost? There are scores of D&D creatures that don't even need food to live, a desolate, uninhabited area is a true anomoly, and likely the result of magical corruption itself, rather than anything natural. There is no place without monsters. Noplace.

Now about the XP. There are a few reasons that the less talented spellcasters gain XP slower than that 9th level commoner. And it hinges on the only thouroughly codified way of gaining XP in D&D: risking your life in encounters. Encounters that don't risk your life don't give XP, and it is assmued that encounters that *do* risk the lives of at least a few people in the town give XP to those who risk their lives happen about 2/day. That figure is very flexible, but it's based on the current rules...adjust it as you see reasonable. I, for one, see the 2/day figure as suggested by the rules to be *very* reasonable.

Now, not everyone in the town responds to a single attack. That 9th level commoner can handle a goblin or two without calling in the militia. He doesn't gain much XP for it anymore, but he did back in the day -- when he was 1st level, and he was meeting his first goblin, and he called in the militia, and he helped fight it off, and he gained the XP for the encounter. But 95%+ of the people in the town didn't bother with the encounter, so they don't gain the XP. Only the folks who did it gain it. That commoner gained XP. The rest of 'em didn't.

That 9th level commoner is one who has seen more than a few conflicts. But there are people just as old in the town who haven't seen even one conflict. The first level commoners, for instance. They've seen goblins, they've heard of them, but they've never faught one. That 9th level commoner, has.

Now, the spellcasters need to respond to a fight less than the militia. The warriors, the commoners, for the most part (maybe a few experts) and a handful of PC-classed protectors. Their spells are not nessecarily immediately useful in the fight, and even if they are, the spellcasters are generally much more frail and much less effective than warriors. In addition, the commoners have fields to protect; large expanses of food. The spellcasters, comparatively, only have their home, likely near the center of town, often publically protected (the militia will respond to a threat to the temple). This is because the service that they provide is rarer than the service the commoner provides...there are maybe three people who know _cure light wounds._ The town isn't going to risk these by putting them at the fringes and demanding they defend themselves. The adept who's lived in the town for a slong as that 9th level commoner has seen far less danger and action in his 60 years than Toothless Joe, because he doesn't have food to protect (he gets fed by serving the town), he is protected by others, and he is too vital a force in the town to risk (while commoners will be, well, more common. ). Not only that, but he'd be less useful in direct combat than the warriors, so there's no reason to call him to battle. Use him before to bless, or after to heal, but not during...this means that the adept doesn't risk his life, and so doesn't gain XP from the vast majority of those encounters. When emergencies happen, when he is surprised, when a powerful force penetratest to the heart of town, then he gains XP...but these are unusual, since most of the conflicts are not hard to drive off, even though they do take their toll on the populace. 

The second reason that we don't see 9th level Adepts, but we do see 9th level commoners, is migration. In this loosely feudal system, the capital sends their low-level folk out to the fringes (where they count as 'population') to help control the monstrous risk. This is where the fighter and the cleric and the bard come from -- the Kingdom, not the Locale. These folk in turn probably train a handful of alcolytes, and deal with a greater number of threats. After they've served their term in the realm, they go back home to the kingdom, and are replaced by new low-level folk. So the XP gained by the fighters is eventually negated, because the fighters leave before they gain many levels. They leave for the city, where they were born, and they take with them those who show impressive skill -- those who gained levels. The city attracts high-level people not because of the danger of living in a city, but because a lot of those high-level people originally came from the rurual areas, or at least served some time out there protecting them from the monsters. The same is true of PC and NPC classes, but, because of their frequency, commoners are often the last chose. Toothless Joe has probably seen more than a few scamps take up the sword and leave for the Kingdom, scamps which undoubtedly are higher than 9th level by now, but he's been passed over for one reason or another (those 'all 10's' statistics may be the reason). He may be one of the most experienced members of the town, but the town has a population that is not stagnant. Kids are born, youths are trained, protectors from the Kingdom come in, and promising kids who gain levels are taken away by the cities, the price the community pays for being beholden to a king. Potentially, the kid will come back later, as a higher-level fighter, to protect the land he once called home. In this system, spellcasters are going to be gathered up earlier than martial professions, because spells are more useful to a society as a whole than a strong sword arm (Which still is not to be discounted -- they need swords too, they just need spells more _badly_.) The adepts that reach 3rd or 4th level are taken back to the city by the cleric that was sent to help protect them, so that those who stay in the community are the low-levels, and those talented individuals are taken away to serve in the Kings's Own Mook Patrol. The warriors who reach 5th or 6th have the same thing happen to them. This Mook Patrol becomes citizens of the city, and maybe adventurers, and maybe raise children that come back to the home thorp and protect it once again. 

A reason we don't see high-level adepts, but we do see high-level commoners, is the same reason that the kobold sorcerer bites the dust before the kobold barbarian -- precieved threat. Magic-users are not only weaker than martial classes, they're also potentially more destructive, so those who raid the village concentrate on taking them out. It's hard to gain levels when you're dead, and the cleric is the target of the *smart* goblin warlord. So there are higher attrition rates, meaning they don't have as much of a chance to raise to high levels. Toothless Joe, on the other hand, became powerful while protecting his adept friends. By the time the goblins realized ol' Joe was a threat, he was beyond their ability to easily destroy. 

And this same reason is why we don't see 7th level orc barbarians crushing every village they come accross (though certainly they crush one or two). They're not involved in the fighting every day, they're living fat off the efforts of others. They're the leaders, they're the skillfull, they're too important to risk in the raids on a Podunk warrior getting a lucky crit. Not every 1st level party encounters these 7th level barbarians just because they're in orc land, it's a bit crazy to assume that the town nessecarily would.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> I agree with your argument, which simply boils down to "because D&D is not specific about real world effects of its spells, how can one conclude that a particular spell will have a particular effect".  This misses the point of my argument, which is that any world in which magic is as all-pervasive as it purports to be in D&D is exceedingly unlikely to look anything like some pseudo-medieval traditional fantasy world.




That may be your argument but when I reach your conclusions, they go a lot further than that: specifically, that it is not credible that a world with a DMG magic-level _could_ look like a pseudo-medieval traditional fantasy world. I don't buy that--well, I certainly don't buy it on the basis of magic. I might buy it on the basis that the technologies and social structures that developed from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment were a product of assumptions and worldviews that were only possible because of the legacy of widespread Christian belief and that a society based on a semi-polytheistic D&D-style pantheon would not be likely to follow the same trajectory. I might also believe that the pseudo-medieval traditional fantasy world is non-credible because its many concessions to modern idealism--particularly feminism--create social structures that are only plausible in an era when technology puts less of a premium on physical strength and size and medical technology makes childbirth easy and reduces infant and child mortality rates, and contraceptive and prophylactic technology has somewhat separated sex from reproduction. (And even with all that, the modern social assumptions that govern _pseudo_-medieval fantasy worlds may not be able to produce a stable _modern_ society--the jury is still out on that).

So, if you want to say that it's unlikely that a world in which magic is all-pervasive would produce a psuedo-medieval society, I can buy it. If you want to say it renders a pseudo-medieval society more implausible than the pseudo elements of pseudo-medieval society make it, I don't.



> Of course, the most dangerous thing our ancestors faced was the humble disease-causing antigen.  It is naturally impossible to compare the demographic effects of smallpox or influenza to raiding goblins and assorted evil creatures extant in the "D&D world".  What is most important to realise is that the very existence of creatures at least as intelligent as humans and with access to magic would have dramatic and far-reaching effects on the structure of human society - if such a society could even exist.




Actually, I would figure that non-humanoid and not necessarily intelligent creatures like wyverns, griffons, and undead would have a bigger impact. The difference between a neighboring tribe of orcs and a neighboring tribe of scythians or other barbarians may not be as great as is commonly supposed. After all, their raiding would hardly be anything our ancestors didn't experience and the significance of their non-humanity is belied by:

A. the fact that our ancestors weren't really so sure all humans were equal anyway. Greeks/Barbarians, House of Islam/House of War, and all that. Would anti-orc prejudice be stronger than anti-semitism? It's somewhat difficult to tell. (Especially since ancient caricatures of other races often made them sound like orcs anyway).
B. the fact that given the Star-Trek style sexual compatibility of standard D&D, there's not necessarily a biological distinction between races like orcs and humans anyway. If you can have a fertile half-orc, one of the arguments for humans and orcs being the same species is satisfied.

So, since our ancestors treated their enemies like monsters anyway and the racial distinction between humans and other humanoids isn't as great as is commonly supposed, I don't think the existence of rampaging humanoids is necessarily a greater challenge to the pseudo-medieval order than the existence of rampaging huns was to the real medieval order.

On the other hand, wyverns, dragons, dire bears, behirs, ankheg, etc all challenge the status of humanity (and demi-humanity) at the top of the food-chain in a way that RL animals never did. I don't think they have any analogue and that would certainly require an accounting.



> "Dude", thanks for the history lesson.  It's always fun to extemporise from historical accidents - "turning points in history", so called - but then responding to the effect of "well that's bollocks because it's overly simplistic and makes unfounded assumptions" isn't very polite.




And it might have been inappropriate of me to do so if you had actually been extemporising from historical accidents and saying that "this might happen which could lead to this" instead of saying that infant mortality rates _would_ go down and therefore technology _would_ develop and that therefore in a space of a couple hundred years, we _would_ have a modern magitech world. However, since your post was not exploring the possibilities left by historical accidents but rather asserting that the pseudo-medieval world was non-credible because such things _would_ inevitably happen, such a response is entirely appropriate.



> To say that "we're lucky to be here; the chances of life emerging on this planet and evolving to a degree where it is capable of realising how infintesimally small the chances of its very existence really are, are infintesimally small," is not particularly insightful.




Perhaps not if you stop there. However, if you go on to realize that it's perfectly plausible that Progress could have halted at any time or even have returned to barbarism, one would reach an insight that seems to have eluded you: that, it's not particularly more credible for the magic-saturated world to advance than to stagnate. A magic-saturated, decadent, stagnant, pseudo-medieval world in decline is just as credible as a magic-saturated world brimming with possibilities that is an unstoppable engine of Progress. That point vitiates the central tenet of your argument.



> To reiterate the central tenet of my argument, if magic is as prevalent in human society as the D&D literature suggests, the validity of that society remaining in some romanticised quasi-medieval state of development for any appreciable length of time needs to be seriously questioned.




I don't see why. IRL, society didn't remain in anything like the romanticised quasi-medieval state of development for that long either. 1300 AD was dramatically different from 900 AD and 1500 AD was dramatically different from 1300 AD. "Society" doesn't need to remain in the same state of development for a millenium in order for one to run a campaign in it.



> The "magic as technology" example is simply one example of what might occur, and what might occur in a very short time frame.  The complication of the existence other intelligent life simply adds to one's reservations about the sustainability of the D&D "model".




Your "very short" time frame is possible though certainly much faster than anything that happened IRL. Given the improbability of RL developments over a much longer time frame--and, more importantly, the dependence of RL technological developments on RL cultural, religious, and social developments (I can imagine a Magitech Max Weber writing "Capitalism and the work ethic of St. Cuthbert" but I doubt that a single member of a pantheon would have such a dramatic impact upon cultures)--I don't think your "magic as technology" example is credible enough to render the D&D "model" less sustainable than it needs to be.

And, of course, anything that happens significantly slower than your very short time-frame need not create any reservations about the sustainability of the D&D "model." It simply points to the need to describe D&D societies as societies in the midst of a slow transition to something else (what is uncertain--it could be anything) rather than as static societies. If ancient armor tops out at chain mail (or splint mail) and there are no ancient magical heavy crossbows and plate armor is a new development then the world is just less pseudo, not less medieval.



> Let me be clear on this.  I play D&D because it's escapism.  It's fantasy.  I've attempted to rationalise some of the more significant consequences of abundant magic by running low-magic campaigns.  Kamikaze Midget's view of the Average D&D Commoner and the classes and levels of the people around them is surprisingly similar to my own.  But I don't try to analyse the society on a deep level because you very soon start asking "why does it look like this and not something completely different?"




And, while you apparently think that's a pointless question because the answer is "it ought to look completely different, this is totally incredible," I think that's a question that can be answered and that the answers--incomplete and perhaps inconclusive as they may be since it's always possible that things _could_ have been different--can be very helpful to creating a believable and entertaining campaign.  If one answers, "my world is pseudo-medieval because, like Russia under the Tsars, it's a corrupt and unjust society where a peasant with no goat who is given a wish wishes that his neighbor's goat will die rather than wishing that he is given a goat himself," that can create a believable world that has an entirely different feel than a world where the answer is "my world is pseudo-medieval because King Edmund recently unified the territory of St. Cuthbertsburg and the Westmark and has abolished the blood feud and appointed Justicars to administer the King's Justice--a more or less uniform code of laws that replaces the patchwork of traditions and arbitrary pronouncements of the barons; if things go the way King Edmund wishes, the world will probably be pseudo-Renaissance in 200 years; if his reforms generate too much resistance, the necromancer king of Stromgald will capitalize on the the weakness of the king's lands and I can use Midnight for my next campaign." Both campaigns would use the DMG assumptions but there would be a dramatic difference to the feel of each campaign. That feel comes from asking the question: "Why does it look like this and not something completely different?"


----------



## kigmatzomat

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I'm with you up to the stray animals and minor criminals. Notarizing taxes and harvest tallies is a wonderful use of Arcane Mark.
> 
> For stray animals, people really only care about livestock and for livestock, you need something that'll last longer than a month.




I'm thinking marking livestock that have broken out of pens and are doing damage to their neighbor's property but the owner won't fess up.  The mage puts the invisible mark on the animal after it's been caught a second time, they wait for the animal to "wander" home and then the mage goes around looking for his mark.  The offender would be charged for the damages and fined for failing to come forward.  The mage would split the fines with the village/noble.  



> For criminals, arcane mark would only be used where it is intended to be temporary. Otherwise branding is cheaper, more permanent, and more painful, all of which are advantages when punishing criminals.




Think of the lagabout who isn't *quite* criminally shirking off or the farmer who didn't oil the communal plow poperly; this would be a temporary mark of shame.  Serious criminals would, of course, be properly punished.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> And it hinges on the only thouroughly codified way of gaining XP in D&D: risking your life in encounters. Encounters that don't risk your life don't give XP....




This assumes a world where no XP is given for noncombat encounters. If the campaign awards story or roleplaying XP to the PCs, then it should also do the same for NPCs (following on our extrapolation of PC rules to the world at large).



> The second reason that we don't see 9th level Adepts, but we do see 9th level commoners, is migration.




I'm with you on this point. The cities would represent a major brawn- & brain-drain on the rural areas, just as they drain away the food. The payment for this drain would be, as you mention, protection.



> On the other hand, wyverns, dragons, dire bears, behirs, ankheg, etc all challenge the status of humanity (and demi-humanity) at the top of the food-chain in a way that RL animals never did. I don't think they have any analogue and that would certainly require an accounting.




I'm not so certain of this. I think this very much gets into the game mechanics vs. realism gap. What are 'hit points'? What is the real damage a tiger's bite would do?

To grab 1 quick example: MM lists the attack of a rhino as 2d6+12, which would be a max of 24hp. A 5th level NPC barbarian with average hp & no CON bonus could thus survive a full damage (non-crit) gore from a rhino, while no one IRL can survive a full damage (figuring the RL equivalent would be through the center of the chest, rather than a leg) goring by a rhino.

I think D&D rules severely underestimate the dangers of 'mundane' creatures of the sorts which our ancestors would've encountered; if you take this discrepancy into account the survival risks they faced are probably much closer to those encountered in a D&D world than what we might think.




I think quite likely our ancestors did face & survive dangers just as severe in the one-on-one theatre as occurs in D&D (though certainly nothing like a dragon's AE breath weapon).


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Snapdragyn said:
			
		

> I'm not so certain of this. I think this very much gets into the game mechanics vs. realism gap. What are 'hit points'? What is the real damage a tiger's bite would do?
> 
> To grab 1 quick example: MM lists the attack of a rhino as 2d6+12, which would be a max of 24hp. A 5th level NPC barbarian with average hp & no CON bonus could thus survive a full damage (non-crit) gore from a rhino, while no one IRL can survive a full damage (figuring the RL equivalent would be through the center of the chest, rather than a leg) goring by a rhino.
> 
> I think D&D rules severely underestimate the dangers of 'mundane' creatures of the sorts which our ancestors would've encountered; if you take this discrepancy into account the survival risks they faced are probably much closer to those encountered in a D&D world than what we might think.
> 
> I think quite likely our ancestors did face & survive dangers just as severe in the one-on-one theatre as occurs in D&D (though certainly nothing like a dragon's AE breath weapon).




Right but, if you look at the RL world, you don't find anything that specifically hunts people. Lions, tigers, and bears sometimes do but people aren't their primary prey and it's generally old and wek animals that go after people. Sharks go after people on a fairly regular basis (at least as I understand it, the last I read, the great shark debate had turned against the rehabilitators) but, since we're not really aquatic creatures, that mostly impacts the surfing community. In the D&D world, the bestiary includes a LOT of large land predators from Remorhaz and Frost Worms to Bullettes, Wyverns, Chimera, dragons, and sphynxes. It also includes things like vampires that specifically prey on people.

So, I'm not thinking we've only got tigers IRL, but in fantasyland, they've got chimeras and wyverns. Rather, my point is that we don't really have any natural predators IRL, but in fantasyland we do. That seems like it would make a huge difference. A rhino may be as dangerous as a chimera but rhinos don't generally go out looking for people to gore. Chimeras _do_ go out looking for people to eat. The world would, I think, be quite different if predators in the great white shark class roamed the land freely. That's what I'm getting at. It's not the individual threat level but rather the difference in behavior patterns that makes a difference.


----------



## der_kluge

The thing that gets me is this:

If you build a party of 4 characters (cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue) at 1st level, and take their starting gold: 5d4x10, 6d4x10, 3d4x10, and 5d4x10 and average that out, you get 125, 150, 75 and 125 gold pieces each.

Assuming that these individuals started in a village, hamlet, or even a thorp, where the heck did they get that kind of money?  A first level cleric in a thorp could buy the most expensive thing in the whole freaking town three times over.

The cost of a stay in a poor quality inn is 2sp per day.  A first level fighter could afford to put everyone in an 80-person thorp in an inn for over a week.  Why wouldn't a first level bard (with his 100gp) buy 2,500 mugs of ale for everyone in a large town?

I mean, jeez, a first level bard could, if he wanted, stand in the middle of town and yell out, "A free mug of ale on me, for everyone in the entire town!"  Who wouldn't love the guy after that?

A first level rogue could hire every laborer in a large town, pay them *more* than the standard 1sp piece per day, let's say 15cp per day (1.5sp), and could hire 833 laborer/hours.  If you assume that a hamlet of 200 people is 50% laborers, that's 100 laborers.  This rogue could hire them *all*, paying 150% wages for 8 solid days. Let's hope the local noble isn't trying to get a castle built or anything like that.

That's some serious economic power, folks.


----------



## der_kluge

D&D is a game of two worlds - the world of the NPC, and the world of the PC. The first world makes a lot of sense.  You've got commoners struggly to get by, hamlets and villages of farmers and laborers eeking out an existence of meager earnings, and a hard life.  This world makes sense, and we can relate to it.

Then you throw PCs in there with their unbelievable wealth and absurd proportions into this mix.  A 5th level PC could *easily* walk into a decent-sized hamlet and proclaim, "for my next action, I shall buy this town, and all that is in it."  I mean, the wealth scales absurdly.


----------



## Snapdragyn

> Rather, my point is that we don't really have any natural predators IRL, but in fantasyland we do.




Fair enough, though of course IRL we _did_ have natural predators -- we simply killed them all. Even today, those species which are capable of preying on humans survive only because we regularly kill those individuals who exhibit predatory behavior specifically targeting humans; a freak attack may be tolerated, but if a lion or tiger 'man-eater' appears, it is hunted down & killed. Thousands of years of such behavior on our part has changed things quite a bit from what we'd see if we considered the dangers faced by our more distant ancestors.

Perhaps, then, the development of the particular civilization which developed in medieval Europe owes more to the hunting practices of humans in that area over the previous 40 or 50 thousand years than we've previously considered!


----------



## VirgilCaine

> Right but, if you look at the RL world, you don't find anything that specifically hunts people. Lions, tigers, and bears sometimes do but people aren't their primary prey and it's generally old and wek animals that go after people. Sharks go after people on a fairly regular basis (at least as I understand it, the last I read, the great shark debate had turned against the rehabilitators) but, since we're not really aquatic creatures, that mostly impacts the surfing community. In the D&D world, the bestiary includes a LOT of large land predators from Remorhaz and Frost Worms to Bullettes, Wyverns, Chimera, dragons, and sphynxes. It also includes things like vampires that specifically prey on people.
> 
> So, I'm not thinking we've only got tigers IRL, but in fantasyland, they've got chimeras and wyverns. Rather, my point is that we don't really have any natural predators IRL, but in fantasyland we do. That seems like it would make a huge difference. A rhino may be as dangerous as a chimera but rhinos don't generally go out looking for people to gore. Chimeras do go out looking for people to eat. The world would, I think, be quite different if predators in the great white shark class roamed the land freely. That's what I'm getting at. It's not the individual threat level but rather the difference in behavior patterns that makes a difference.




Yeah...thats a problem. This thread is annoying because I like things to make sense. At this rate I'll have to find some system specifically made to make sense. Gah.

Here's a question. If there aren't many "big land predators" (that trophic level thing, you know), why COULDN'T you just wipe most of them out?

And how do more humanoids keep appearing with weapons and armor and all, after armies or mercenaries or adventurers wipe them out? 

I had the thought that they keep coming from the various cave openings to the GenericBigCaveSystem. Other than that, or they appear from the Lower Planes, I don't know.


----------



## BelXiror

Another thing to remember is FRIENDLY critters. There may be a unicorn living in the local forest, that may not specifically help the locals, does help to keep the goblins at bay just by existing nearby.

Maybe the village saved a wyrmling bronze or silver dragon, who, 500 years later, still keeps an eye on the village that saved it's life. Much like Gandalf and the Shire, maybe it passes through in human form to liven things up, to keep track of families, specially the decendents on the one's who saved it.

These friendly critters will be the ones to deal with the not-so friendly critters that are out of the villages league. Maybe a nomadic group of giants are passing, and the village sends a messenger to the local friendly critter to help, with the promise of reward. Of course, they may run into adventures first 

One metallic dragon living near a group of villages could make a world of difference on survivability. Of course, they may not be able to help regularly, as they may be busy dealing with chromatic dragons they may want to move in. The unicorn in the wood may have sway over the local fey (woot, rhyme!) and wild animals, cutting back on animal encounters. Also keeping track of lost children, as if there are woods to get lost in, sure enough they'll get lost, and the forest protectors could lead them out.

Petitioning local friendly critters for help would be another path to survival in the D&D world.


----------



## kigmatzomat

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> kigmatzomat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will point out that according to the PHB, accidents & disease excluded, the average person will live to about 90. In our world, old age claims people much closer to the 80s, so I think it could be said the default setting assumes magic has some impact on longevity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. And any increase in average longevity will cause a corresponding increase in overall population.   If people are living longer, there will be more people. Which will lead to a non-medieval setting.
Click to expand...



Not exactly true.  Natural lifespan and *average* lifespan are different.  The PHB says nothing about plagues or accidental death.  If you manage to duck the plagues, avoid the hungy things,  and not impale yourself on something sharp, you will likely live to 90 before your organs shut down.  

Second, some medieval periods were thick with people.  That's part of the reason the plagues were so effective; plenty of transit vectors.  



> Monster Attacks: Suggesting that your average settlement gets attacked twice a day by deadly monsters is insupportable.




It also goes against the DMG.  My 3.0 DMG says that civilized areas have the following encounters at CR1-6:
bandits           cats                 dogs            wild dogs              farmers
ghost             herders             hunters         merchants            minstrels
patrol             pilgrims             travelers        vampire

By this list, 12 out of 14 encounters are perfectly mundane and 8 of the 14 are harmless or beneficial.  2 encounters a day becomes 4 potentially dangerous encounters per week.  

Furthermore, I'll point out that even in a Thorp there are people who can deal with all but the ghost and vampire.  If it's a weak enough vampire or ghost, the local cleric might be able to at least keep it at bay until help arrives.

Here is the average level of each class for each community.  

........thorp.hamlet.village.s.town.ltown.scity.lcity..metropolis
Barbarian...0.....1.......2.....3.....6.....9.....12.....15
Bard.........1.....2.......3.....4.....7.....10....13.....16
Cleric........1.....2.......3.....4.....7.....10....13.....16
Druid........1.....2.......3.....4.....7.....10....13.....16
Fighter.....2.....3.......4.....5.....8.....11....14.....17
Monk........0.....1.......2.....3.....6.....9.....12.....15
Paladin.....0.....0.......1.....2.....5.....8.....11.....14
Ranger......0.....0.......1.....2.....5.....8.....11.....14
Rogue.......2.....3.......4.....5.....8.....11....14.....17
Sorceror...0.....1.......2.....3.....6.....9.....12.....15
Wizard......0.....1.......2.....3.....6.....9.....12.....15
adept......1.....2.......3.....4.....7.....10....13.....16
aristocrat.0.....1.......2.....3.....6.....9.....12.....15
commoner.7.....8.......9.....10....13....16....19.....20
expert......5.....6.......7.....8.....11....14....17.....20
warrior.....2.....3.......4.....5.....8.....11....14.....17

*5% chance of having a druid or ranger of >8th level




> And if we assume that instead, the villagers would remain, and gain levels from successfully fighting off monsters, doesn't that put an end to the "commoners have no access to magic above 1st level" argument?




Even if you don't agree with my population distribution, the description of the casters and magic items available in each type of community are straight from the DMG.  The simple fact is that the bulk of commoners know at least a divine caster, and likely two or three.  Admittedly, they really don't understand it more than most modern people understand their computers or TVs, but they are somewhat comfortable with it.  

The flip side is that unless you have a very urban setting, only communities that are Large Towns (pop 2000+) or bigger will have anything other than 1st or 2nd level spells.  




> A 9th-level adept has 3rd-level spells, and if Toothless Joe the commoner can be 9th level, why not Mumbling Fred the adept?




If you are going by the DMG, Fred can be a 9th level adept, but they are much less common.  Any community, even a thorpe, can have a 9th level commoner but it takes something the size of a large town to come up with your first 9th level adept.  



> Note that a band of 30-100 orcs includes 3 7th-level barbarians, 5 5th-level barbarians and a 3rd-level barbarian for every 10 orcs. These guys are going wipe your average village or thorp off the map. That's 30 orcs -- a force like that could cut a massive swath through any kingdom populated the way this thread suggests.




Maybe the way you suggest.  That 30 orcs is actually 75 orcs since a band consists of 30-100 orcs *PLUS* 150% non-combatants.  So that's 30+45 orcs. 

And that band is a CR11 if I'm doing the math right. A typical village could take them since it is about 5% 1st level warriors, meaning there are 45 1st level warriors in a typical village.  The orc leaders might escape, but the main force will get chewed up.  An orcish ambush will cause heavy losses in the village, but the village will still repulse the warband.  A Small Town with ~100 1st level warriors will handle the largest orc bands.  



> Withholding spells: Spellcasters in D&D have NO REASON not to use every spell they get every day of their life. None.




IMO, a caster should hope to *NOT* need to cast every spell. You know there is such a thing as thoughtful casting, a place between frivolity and paranoia.   Many spells are only useful in when used at the right time.   The right time is when they are needed, not "because they are there."  

Sometimes the right time is "tomorrow" or "when little Timmy's had time to realize that taunting the bull results in pain."  If someone's about to die you hit them with a spell right then, even if it's your last.  If they aren't at risk of dying and you're down to your last spell, you hold off until you've got more spells.  It's no different from an archer down to his last arrow; you have to evaluate the benefits and risks.


----------



## Umbra

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> ...since it's always possible that things _could_ have been different--can be very helpful to creating a believable and entertaining campaign.
> ...
> Both campaigns would use the DMG assumptions but there would be a dramatic difference to the feel of each campaign. That feel comes from asking the question: "Why does it look like this and not something completely different?"



Speculative Fiction is often the result of "What If..." questions.  Interesting campaign worlds and adventures are the same.  And it's what makes this thread interesting.

What if healing magic is readily available?  What are the consequences?  Are there magical diseases that can't be healed normally?
What if there is a special crop, the roots of which are a key component for spell casting?  What are the economic consequences for the common farmer? How well would that farmer be treated by wizards, clerics, etc?  Would he be enslaved or respected?
What if the church of the healing god(dess) has developed a 'tablet' with a single hp of curing on it that MUST be available to the 'faithful' free or for low cost?  How powerful does the chuch become among the commoners?  How do aristocrats react?
What if commoners have only suffered at the hands of magic (divine, arcane, both)? How do they treat spellcasters?  How do spell casters respond?

All questions that can be hooks for adventures and campaigns.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Yeah...thats a problem. This thread is annoying because I like things to make sense. At this rate I'll have to find some system specifically made to make sense. Gah.
> 
> Here's a question. If there aren't many "big land predators" (that trophic level thing, you know), why COULDN'T you just wipe most of them out?




I don't think there's any reason that you couldn't just wipe them out. In fact, doing so would make an interesting campaign that would fit really well within the spirit of D&D but would seem pretty original. "We're the extinction committee and we're coming for the worgs first, then for the hippogriffs (we'll keep the eggs to breed mounts for cavalry--so they get to be domesticated rather than exterminated), then for dire wolves, then for the winter wolves, then for the wyverns, then for the bulettes, then for the behirs, then for the Remorhaz, then for the dragons." You could even make "Great White Hunter" a prestige class. 

On another note, you might as a DM go through the Monster Manual and pick out a few of those "big predators" that have been hunted to extinction and put in-game references to their extinction into adventures. "In those days, dire bears/dragons walked the earth." The players will be expecting to find some dire bears/dragons then hiding in an obscure valley, ready to swoop down in tremendous groups and destroy civilization because that's what happens in fantasy stories. Dragons were a myth in Dragonlance then they came back with a vengeance. You could go along with this, knowing that there will be a payoff when they finally confront the insane wizard/druid who is resurrecting the monsters of the past or when, in the tropical valley in the midst of the distant ice-covered mountains they encounter the last of the dragons, or when they find the _undead_ dragon, or you could surprise them and stick to your guns. They find the bones of the last dragon inside its trapfilled lair, along with the remains of the hero of the ages past who slew it in single combat. Now, it is the age of men. The age of dragons is past and will not return.



> And how do more humanoids keep appearing with weapons and armor and all, after armies or mercenaries or adventurers wipe them out?




I've always assumed that adventurers, armies and mercenaries _don't_ wipe them out. In Greyhawk, Turosh Mak and the orcs of the Pomarj have a pretty good hold on their territory, the North Kingdom (and probably Ahlissa too) uses orcs as soldiers, gnolls and other humanoids conquered the Bone March, and other humanoid tribes under Iuz's banner have had quite a bit of success in the Shieldlands, Tenh, etc. So, the humanoid armies come from exactly the same place that the Carthigenian armies that kept menacing Rome came from: the empires and cities they control. If they were to be wiped out, they wouldn't come back but so far, nobody has wiped them out.



> I had the thought that they keep coming from the various cave openings to the GenericBigCaveSystem. Other than that, or they appear from the Lower Planes, I don't know.




That's entirely possible. If you ask why they keep coming out of the cave system, there's plenty of possibilities: an expanding empire keeps pushing more and more humanoid tribes out into the sunlit realms, the really big D&D predators (which everyone knows are worse in the GenericBigCaveSystem) are breeding too quickly and pushing them out, or perhaps, like the Goths, Visigoths, etc. they smell the blood of decadent and decaying surface civilizations in the water and have come to claim their share of the loot. (Of course that only works if the surface civilizations are actually decadent and decaying).


----------



## FreeTheSlaves

In regard to the magic as technology, the really big issue is distribution of wealth and freedom of opportunity.

When I did my history/politics studies 5 years ago, I was quoted some UN statistics that a majority of people have not touched a telephone, let alone a computer.

We live in an enlightened age, with solutions to most ailments and some 1/3 of the worlds population is in serious poverty. Something like a billion people don't have clean water. Ok I need to check the UN website for exactness but you get the point.

In a default D&D world the wealth is highly concentrated (high level characters) and society infrastructure is quite weak. There is no formal social security, healthcare or education provided out of taxes. Taxes are not based on needs of the government, instead they are based on how much can we take without ruining future trade. Governments are decentralized feudal fiefdoms dependant on the lords character. Corruption occurs at all levels of administration as there are no independant checks on powers. There is no UN Council, WTO, IMF to help struggling minorities, peoples and states. Instead there are kingdoms limited only by their strength at arms and internal power struggles.

If our modern real world has huge issues providing for our populations, how bad is the D&D default worlds situation. Fancy spells and magic items are just going to become dominated by the elite. Sure there may be do-gooder Clerics helping their fellows but I bet the majority will be providing services to the nobles and merchants for big $s. Furthermore most of the gods won't give a toot about that side of things.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Withholding spells: Spellcasters in D&D have NO REASON not to use every spell they get every day of their life. None.



Just like there's no reason for a fighter in D&D not to chop down every tree he sees in a day with his axes. NO REASON. None. Also, no one stubbs their toe or goes to the bathroom or has a scar that isn't either hideous or strangely alluring.

But it doesn't happen. Because people only put forth the minimal amount of effort nessecary to get things done and to help out those they care about, in general. Just because spellcasting doesn't fatigue you mechanically doens't mean it's effortless...just like chopping down a tree doesn't mechanically fatigue you, but it's certainly not effortless. For a low-level spellcaster, a _cure light wounds_ could be the equivalent of chopping down a tree. And would you go out every day an chop down a tree just because you had the ability to? Heck, even if you worship a God of Deforestation, would you? Think of how often a good Catholic is supposed to go to Confession and how often the ones you may know actually do. It's the exception that do, not the rule.

Just because you _can_ doesn't mean you _will_. And I think this needs to be applied to NPC's, though PC's generally overlook that fact (because to them, it's just a game, these are just powers, and they're there to be used...though their Characters certainly wouldn't think think that way). 



> Yeah...thats a problem. This thread is annoying because I like things to make sense. At this rate I'll have to find some system specifically made to make sense. Gah.



Try HARN. It does a good job from what I've heard. 



> Here's a question. If there aren't many "big land predators" (that trophic level thing, you know), why COULDN'T you just wipe most of them out?
> 
> And how do more humanoids keep appearing with weapons and armor and all, after armies or mercenaries or adventurers wipe them out?
> 
> I had the thought that they keep coming from the various cave openings to the GenericBigCaveSystem. Other than that, or they appear from the Lower Planes, I don't know.



You can't just wipe them out because there are so many of them, so well equipped to survive, and only so many of you. The closest anyone gets are adventurers (who are the Great White Hunters of the D&D world. ). And they have other things to do than eliminate every last orc....like stop the mad wizard from creating an apocalypse, or defending another thorp against an incusion of undead, or exploring that recently discovered tomb on the King's dime. These things happen pretty much every day in a D&D world. 

Manufactured weapons and armor are rare with monsters...and those that have them either grab them from raiding (kill the fighter, loot the corpse!), or can make them themselves from surrounding materials (why wouldn't orcs have the same forge technology that humans do?).



> [2/day monster attacks] also goes against the DMG. My 3.0 DMG says that civilized areas have the following encounters at CR1-6:
> bandits cats dogs wild dogs farmers
> ghost herders hunters merchants minstrels
> patrol pilgrims travelers vampire



I arrived at my figures by using the 3.5 DMG, the "10% rule" (there is a 10% chance every hour of a random encounter in a well-traveled area), and the encounter table for temperate plains. It is extrapolation. But it is based on the rules, and it holds up to scrutiny...it will vary on individual campaigns, but it is a good basis, with evidence, for supporting a very dangerous world.

If you'd like it not so dangerous, go for it. But then realize that your demographics will be screwy...without big predators striking every day, what is keeping people dead? You don't have to answer this question, of course, but I specifically entered this trying to show what a typical D&D commoner's life might be like in a way that makes sense for a typical D&D world. This makes sense, and is based on the rules, even if it is extrapolation. I had to answer the question. And the answer I came up with was "It's a world where people die frequently, and your resources are never just yours for long." And it works like that. 



> Assuming that these individuals started in a village, hamlet, or even a thorp, where the heck did they get that kind of money? A first level cleric in a thorp could buy the most expensive thing in the whole freaking town three times over.



Well, first of all assuming your average party of adventurers comes from a small town is a pretty big assumption...the PC's aren't average folks. They're significantly, in many ways, above average -- this is the assumption of the core rules. They are the creme de la creme of humanity, and by the time they finish training, they know it. Most adventurers probably come from bigger cities -- other adventurers certainly tend to gather there.

But even if they don't, it's still pretty easy to explain where they get this gold. They found their first treasure as apprentices, they were given expensive graduation gifts from their mentors (higher-level folk with the same class), the gear is the family's savings that they're giving to their promising daughter/son. 



> This assumes a world where no XP is given for noncombat encounters. If the campaign awards story or roleplaying XP to the PCs, then it should also do the same for NPCs (following on our extrapolation of PC rules to the world at large).



Right, the only problem is that there is no codified system for how much XP should be given for story or roleplaying...just life-threatening challenges. You could probably reward some age-based system of XP and reduce the threat of the world (many people would probably prefer that), and come out as a wash. 



> To grab 1 quick example: MM lists the attack of a rhino as 2d6+12, which would be a max of 24hp. A 5th level NPC barbarian with average hp & no CON bonus could thus survive a full damage (non-crit) gore from a rhino, while no one IRL can survive a full damage (figuring the RL equivalent would be through the center of the chest, rather than a leg) goring by a rhino.
> 
> I think D&D rules severely underestimate the dangers of 'mundane' creatures of the sorts which our ancestors would've encountered; if you take this discrepancy into account the survival risks they faced are probably much closer to those encountered in a D&D world than what we might think.



At the same time, I think you're underestimating a 5th level barbarian.  No human being IRL is as tough, as dedicated, as powerful as a 5th level barbarian. Heck, I'd go far enough to suggest that no human being IRL is as tough, as dedicated, as powerful, as a 2nd level Expert.  Though of course applying D&D-isms to real-life situation is always a dicey prospect, I think that people IRL are more like the 2-8 hp type, rather than the 12-24 hp type. And in that case, full damage from a rhino would kill anyone; but a glancing blow from a rhino might not. 



> Petitioning local friendly critters for help would be another path to survival in the D&D world.



*Yoink*.


----------



## Turanil

Well, I propose that a digest of this thread be made, keeping the best points. This would be turned into an article available for everyone at anytime. I think there is an Enworld section detailing articles. 

(Well, I cannot do that myself right now, being overloaded with work, but maybe much later).


----------



## kigmatzomat

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Here's a question. If there aren't many "big land predators" (that trophic level thing, you know), why COULDN'T you just wipe most of them out?




I think the words your looking for are "druids" and "rangers."  Remember that 1/20th of the thorpes and villages have an 8th-14th level druid and/or ranger.  Since Thorpes and Villages should be a large percentage of the communities out there, there are quite a lot of high level druids and rangers to protected the great-toothed carnosaurus.  And quite a lot more lower level druids and rangers.  

I'm sure the God of Nature(Generic) might not like it if the nice ecosystem was anhiliated and replaced by farmland.  While I generally don't recommend people watch Beastmaster, the notion of the semi-feral nature diety slaughtering those who impose on her children is a pretty good one.  



> And how do more humanoids keep appearing with weapons and armor and all, after armies or mercenaries or adventurers wipe them out?




I'd guess homelands.  I know in several stock settings, there were areas of rough terrain that homed the bulk of the humanoid populace.  The terrain is too rough and there are too many isolated pockets of individuals to ever eliminate them.   Treat them like the indians out of the old cowboy movies.  A few hundred get riled up by a warchief, burn a few villages and get driven back by the cavalry.  The survivors probably have more loot as a whole than when the campaign started and it thins out the weak.  It's a kind of darwinian event.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

I don't know about that. Watching the news (or reading it online) I fairly regularly come across stories like the Norwegian fishing boat captain who, seeing  rather large shark coming after his catch while the men were pulling it into the boat, jumped into the water, dragged the shark onto the beach and killed it with a knife. And then there are stories like the scottish regiment in Iraq who were surrounded by enemies who outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one, pinned down by enemy fire, and out of ammunition so they fixed bayonets, charged, and routed their enemies at the cost of only a couple minor injuries.

If you don't feel the need to assume that 100 hit points represents the abilitiy to take 10 full-strength blows from a greatsword and are willing to suppose that some of them represent minor damage, luck, etc, I don't find D&D characters to be as unrealistic as commonly supposed. Certainly, there are people as touch as a 2nd level expert.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> At the same time, I think you're underestimating a 5th level barbarian.  No human being IRL is as tough, as dedicated, as powerful as a 5th level barbarian. Heck, I'd go far enough to suggest that no human being IRL is as tough, as dedicated, as powerful, as a 2nd level Expert.  Though of course applying D&D-isms to real-life situation is always a dicey prospect, I think that people IRL are more like the 2-8 hp type, rather than the 12-24 hp type. And in that case, full damage from a rhino would kill anyone; but a glancing blow from a rhino might not.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I don't think there's any reason that you couldn't just wipe them out. In fact, doing so would make an interesting campaign that would fit really well within the spirit of D&D but would seem pretty original. "We're the extinction committee and we're coming for the worgs first, then for the hippogriffs (we'll keep the eggs to breed mounts for cavalry--so they get to be domesticated rather than exterminated), then for dire wolves, then for the winter wolves, then for the wyverns, then for the bulettes, then for the behirs, then for the Remorhaz, then for the dragons."
> 
> On another note, you might as a DM go through the Monster Manual and pick out a few of those "big predators" that have been hunted to extinction and put in-game references to their extinction into adventures. "In those days, dire bears/dragons walked the earth." The players will be expecting to find some dire bears/dragons then hiding in an obscure valley, ready to swoop down in tremendous groups and destroy civilization because that's what happens in fantasy stories.




Good solution...Seems too powerful? Thats okay, it's extinct. The wizards killed 'em a long time ago. 



> That's entirely possible. If you ask why they keep coming out of the cave system, there's plenty of possibilities: an expanding empire keeps pushing more and more humanoid tribes out into the sunlit realms, the really big D&D predators (which everyone knows are worse in the GenericBigCaveSystem) are breeding too quickly and pushing them out, or perhaps, like the Goths, Visigoths, etc. they smell the blood of decadent and decaying surface civilizations in the water and have come to claim their share of the loot. (Of course that only works if the surface civilizations are actually decadent and decaying).




Well, a certain country of my campaign world wouldn't have much problem with monsters...but several other countries are nearer an actual frontier, so goblinoids, giants, and Renegade wizards can pillage all they want. 
Of course, good giants keep things a bit under control, bit there isn't much stopping the hobgoblin empire or the frost giant jarls or the Renegades from raiding civilization, except the relatively barbaric border kingdoms. 

The GenericBigCaveSystem fits the bill for the rest of that subsection of the  continent (it's basically a big flat desert fading to plains fading south towards the sea into forest with small, scattered peaks or mountain ranges sprinkled throughout). 

All those unorganized goblinoids and chagmats and orcs and drow and duergar you find rampaging on the surface (or close to the surface)? Those are escaped slaves of the underground beholder/illithid empire. You've never seen _real_ goblin soldiers. Or _real_ drow warriors. Or, etc.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Bah. Give me real woodsmen rather than sissified eco-terrorists for rangers and druids. A ranger makes the perfect beast-hunter. Between Favored Enemy: Animals and Favored Enemy: Magical Beasts, he's the perfect person to take down those large predators.

Druids often are played as eco-freaks but don't need to be. A druid needs to respect nature. That doesn't mean he necessarily wants to preserve it the way it is. A druid might well work to "clean up" nature and make it useful for civilization. Another druid might fit the standard eco-freak mold but still could want to eliminate the large magical beasts that form the majority of the big predators. They are not natural animals but rather magical beasts which could indicate a different relationship with nature. For that matter, it's perfectly possible that the druids would see such a campaign to exterminate the great toothed carnosaurus as the inevitable struggle for survival of the fittest. That is nature's way: the carnosaurus will demonstrate his fitness by surviving and beating the hunters. The hunters will demonstrate their fitness by slaying the carnosaurus. It is a sacred struggle and not to be interefered with.

While one might well have druids in the campaign who would approve of, help, or at least not interfere with the great carnivore hunt. One could have druids who would interfere too. But that's a campaign choice rather than an inevitable consequence of the existence of the druid class.

While one could have a semi-feral nature deity avenging the poor widdle animals, one could also have nature deities that are exclusively gods of the harvest or goddesses of the hunt. Arguably, Artemis and Demeter fit those roles. One could also have the gods of civilization to oppose them. That would make an interesting twist to the Race to Extinction campaign. "The only good druid is a dead druid."



			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I think the words your looking for are "druids" and "rangers."  Remember that 1/20th of the thorpes and villages have an 8th-14th level druid and/or ranger.  Since Thorpes and Villages should be a large percentage of the communities out there, there are quite a lot of high level druids and rangers to protected the great-toothed carnosaurus.  And quite a lot more lower level druids and rangers.
> 
> I'm sure the God of Nature(Generic) might not like it if the nice ecosystem was anhiliated and replaced by farmland.  While I generally don't recommend people watch Beastmaster, the notion of the semi-feral nature diety slaughtering those who impose on her children is a pretty good one.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Druids often are played as eco-freaks but don't need to be.



Yeah. It's sad people impose such a modern view that doesn't make any sense at all seeing how many "natural" nasty predators there are in the MM.



> A druid needs to respect nature. That doesn't mean he necessarily wants to preserve it the way it is. A druid might well work to "clean up" nature and make it useful for civilization.






> They are not natural animals but rather magical beasts which could indicate a different relationship with nature. For that matter, it's perfectly possible that the druids would see such a campaign to exterminate the great toothed carnosaurus as the inevitable struggle for survival of the fittest. That is nature's way: the carnosaurus will demonstrate his fitness by surviving and beating the hunters. The hunters will demonstrate their fitness by slaying the carnosaurus. It is a sacred struggle and not to be interefered with.
> 
> While one might well have druids in the campaign who would approve of, help, or at least not interfere with the great carnivore hunt. One could have druids who would interfere too. But that's a campaign choice rather than an inevitable consequence of the existence of the druid class.




Yeah, those are called the various alignments druids can have--Lawful Neutrals might encourage the hunt as survival of the fittest, Neutral Good druids participate, Chaotic Neutral druids either don't care or oppose as NE druids will, True Neutral druids oppose it also but don't want to , and Neutral Evil druids vehemently oppose the hunt (by using the most lethal means possible). 



> While one could have a semi-feral nature deity avenging the poor widdle animals, one could also have nature deities that are exclusively gods of the harvest or goddesses of the hunt. Arguably, Artemis and Demeter fit those roles. One could also have the gods of civilization to oppose them. That would make an interesting twist to the Race to Extinction campaign. "The only good druid is a dead druid."




There's a Greyhawk deity called Phyton who is what you just described--a deity FOR development forests and fields and using resources, not "preserving nature" or whatnot like Ehlonna and Obad-hai blather on about.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I arrived at my figures by using the 3.5 DMG, the "10% rule" (there is a 10% chance every hour of a random encounter in a well-traveled area), and the encounter table for temperate plains.




I agree with the 10% rule and if you note my example had 14 encounters per week (2/day).  The difference is that I treat all the non-civilized territories as just that; *uncivilized.*  By definition, uncivilized territories are dangerous and you are pretty much on your own.  IMO, the bulk of the populace will live in civilization because it is safer and makes more sense.  



> If you'd like it not so dangerous, go for it. But then realize that your demographics will be screwy...without big predators striking every day, what is keeping people dead?




I agree with the others and say "plague."  In the Metropoli with the biggest temples you've got the best odds, with something like 1 _cure disease_ capable person per 100 people in the city.  In a flu-like disease with a long incubation and infection period, you'll easily have a massive die off.  insect-based plagues, like the Bubonic Plague, will invoke massive death tolls because it will be so hard to kill off the disease-bearing bugs.  And even if  a _cure disease_ kills the disease now but you are still vulnerable to re-infection in your weakened state (most diseases cause stat-loss).


----------



## WayneLigon

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Yeah...thats a problem. This thread is annoying because I like things to make sense. At this rate I'll have to find some system specifically made to make sense. Gah.



Good luck in your new hobby, then  There is no gaming system made that will make 100% 'sense'. I think you'd be lucky to find one that does that even 50% of the time, depending on what you want it to make sense about.


----------



## VirgilCaine

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Good luck in your new hobby, then  There is no gaming system made that will make 100% 'sense'. I think you'd be lucky to find one that does that even 50% of the time, depending on what you want it to make sense about.




I'm not asking for perfection, just something better. Something where I can just _game_ and not have to answer questions like those raised in this thread. Ah, well. Arguments are fun.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

There's no such system, nor can there be. Even IRL, there's plenty of situations where the kind of questions raised in this thread don't have easy answers. Why did it take so long for economic and social development to take hold in Russia but happen so rapidly in Britain? Why did the English give up their empire? Why didn't the Aztecs make anything useful with the wheel? Sociologists and historians debate the answers to these questions. So, even a perfectly "realistic" setting would not necessarily yield satisfactory answers to these questions. At a lot of points, the answer will be "because that's the way it happened."

As for games, any time you create your own setting or try to understand how a published setting works, asking these kinds of questions is how you go about it. In Shadowrun, you might ask why the multinational corporations were given sovereignty over their buildings or why they wanted it. You might ask why Lonestar doesn't keep a close watch on DocWagon (since so many of their customers are runners) and nab runners while they're recovering in the hospital. In the Forgotten Realms, one asks what life is like for farmers in the contested dales and why they continue to live in lands that are a constant battleground between the forces of Hillsfar and Zhentil Keep. One might ask how the hidden Lords of Waterdeep manage to keep their identities secret in a world full of scrying, divinations, Contact Other Planes, etc. One might ask how adventurers actually go about buying that +4 belt of giant strength--do they really just take some old guy in a Oldred's bazaar's word for it's powers? Answering all of these questions is what makes the campaign come alive and suggests plots and adventure hooks. Lonestar doesn't want to tick off DocWagon because DocWagon's high-level contacts and political power enable them to strong-arm any individual in Lonestar who ordered such an op.  That's why the ambitious LoneStar leader is hiring a group of runners to infiltrate DocWagon and deliver the UCAS's most wanted felon anonymously to a location where he can make the high profile arrest. Using runners rather than cops gives him the plausible deniability he needs to cover his ass. The farmers don't blithely continue to farm while the war is going on, nor do they share the resist to the death ethos of the combatants. That's why the zhents regularly find communities are willing to betray the Red Plumes and let them inside the palisade as long as the community itself is spared. It's also why there are more beggars in Shadowdale and Hillsfar than there used to be and why there seems to be a never-ending supply of brigands. The hidden lords of waterdeep really aren't that hidden; at any given time, a high level bard probably knows who 75% of them are and there's an assassination attempt every few years due to either internal or external politicking. Sometimes adventurers do buy phony magic items. Of course, cheated adventurers have a vengeful streak a mile long. That's why the Boon Companions hunted down every single cutpurse who ever swore allegiance to the Crook Street Lords thieves' guild and impaled them on stakes in the guildhouse's entry hall. Of course, they had to bribe the governer to keep from being punished but he didn't require a large bribe; as far as he was concerned, it was good riddance to bad rubbish and the Fishtown Sharks who own the governer are glad the rival guild is gone.



			
				VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> I'm not asking for perfection, just something better. Something where I can just _game_ and not have to answer questions like those raised in this thread. Ah, well. Arguments are fun.


----------



## Numion

The biggest question about the gamist impact on the fantasy reality (fantasy reality ..   ) is this: wouldn't it drive adventurers insane when everytime one of their close companions dies, another person with roughly the same capability pops up, wanting to join your team? Why does that new person share some of the sayings and knowledge of the departed adventurer? _Why did we accept him to the team when he said he didn't even know his name yet?_


----------



## VirgilCaine

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> There's no such system, nor can there be. Even IRL, there's plenty of situations where the kind of questions raised in this thread don't have easy answers. Why did it take so long for economic and social development to take hold in Russia but happen so rapidly in Britain? Why did the English give up their empire?






> As for games, any time you create your own setting or try to understand how a published setting works, asking these kinds of questions is how you go about it.
> One might ask how adventurers actually go about buying that +4 belt of giant strength--do they really just take some old guy in a Oldred's bazaar's word for it's powers? Answering all of these questions is what makes the campaign come alive and suggests plots and adventure hooks.
> 
> Sometimes adventurers do buy phony magic items. Of course, cheated adventurers have a vengeful streak a mile long.




Not in my campaign they don't. Any smart person would go to the Guild (thats _Wizards_ guild) to buy a magic item, not to some yokel in the market. Only fools buy magic without certifiers from the Guild present to assure honesty and truthfulness in negotiations and merchandise. 
Buying a magic item without Guild certification is like buying jewelry from a guy on the street--only an idiot does that.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Not in my campaign they don't. Any smart person would go to the Guild (thats _Wizards_ guild) to buy a magic item, not to some yokel in the market. Only fools buy magic without certifiers from the Guild present to assure honesty and truthfulness in negotiations and merchandise.
> Buying a magic item without Guild certification is like buying jewelry from a guy on the street--only an idiot does that.




Right but the world has plenty of idiots in it. Thats why guys sell watches on streetcorners. And there are always the kind of items that wizards' guilds don't sell (ie stolen or illegal items) that will sometimes tempt adventurers. In the real world, there's a market for stolen high price goods, likewise in the fantasy world.


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Just like there's no reason for a fighter in D&D not to chop down every tree he sees in a day with his axes. NO REASON. None.




Well, cutting down trees takes time and effort, and if that's all he does every day, he isn't going to be able to feed himself.  (Unless he sells the wood, in which case he's a woodcutter.  Hopefully he won't marry that mean woman who doesn't like kids.)  

Spellcasting takes very little time and effort.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Well, cutting down trees takes time and effort, and if that's all he does every day, he isn't going to be able to feed himself. (Unless he sells the wood, in which case he's a woodcutter. Hopefully he won't marry that mean woman who doesn't like kids.)
> 
> Spellcasting takes very little time and effort.



Says who? So chopping down a tree takes time, whereas spellcasting doesn't, I'll give you that. But in that one instance, casting a spell could be just as draining as cutting down a tree.

Similarly, anyone could swing around a greatsword all day, at no penalty. And there's NO REASON they can't. It even takes as much time as casting a spell. But swinging around a 6-foot hunk of sharpened metal takes time and effort, just like casting a spell. In fact, because casting a spell can be done less, one could say that it takes *more* effort, and the reason they *can't* cast more is because if they did, then they *would* experience mechanical penalties.

In my mind, something you only have the mental ability to do once per day is going to obliterate your body and mind so much so that it requires rest to heal. That's not effortless. That's considerably *more* effort than the time would indicate.



> Just as a side note, in Nyambe: African Adventures, diseases are given SR. An excellent idea, imho, and one which I use. Some things are just harder to cure, even using magic.



I use this rule too, and I'd encourage those who use disease instead of monsters as the mitigating factor to do so, lest _cure disease_ makes the first cleric with it into a saint. 



> I don't know about that. Watching the news (or reading it online) I fairly regularly come across stories like the Norwegian fishing boat captain who, seeing rather large shark coming after his catch while the men were pulling it into the boat, jumped into the water, dragged the shark onto the beach and killed it with a knife. And then there are stories like the scottish regiment in Iraq who were surrounded by enemies who outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one, pinned down by enemy fire, and out of ammunition so they fixed bayonets, charged, and routed their enemies at the cost of only a couple minor injuries.
> 
> If you don't feel the need to assume that 100 hit points represents the abilitiy to take 10 full-strength blows from a greatsword and are willing to suppose that some of them represent minor damage, luck, etc, I don't find D&D characters to be as unrealistic as commonly supposed. Certainly, there are people as touch as a 2nd level expert.



In any situation in D&D (exept maybe skill checks) there is a 5% chance of collossall, lucky success, and a 5% chance of collossall, unlucky fate. With how many millions of people in the world, how often do you think that 5% chance comes up daily? We have the Darwin Awards. We have that guy who cut off his own arm to save his life. These aren't _impossible_ for low-level mooks, but they are rare, special, and significant...just like the shark-wrestler and the scottish regiment. 

Certainly it's a matter of taste and there's no way either of us can be proven to be right.  But I generally veiw the entire world around us as 1st levelers in D&D terms...I don't personally know many folks who could survive getting a six foot hunk of metal embedded in their face, and those that do...well, they got lucky.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Right but the world has plenty of idiots in it. Thats why guys sell watches on streetcorners. And there are always the kind of items that wizards' guilds don't sell (ie stolen or illegal items) that will sometimes tempt adventurers. In the real world, there's a market for stolen high price goods, likewise in the fantasy world.




Yes, but adventurers risk their lives for a living. The ones who can afford magic items are smart enough not to buy anything without a guarantee--they bled for that gold, and their companions might have died for it. I think they'd pay a little more attention. You have a point though.


----------



## Umbra

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Just as a side note, in Nyambe:  African Adventures, diseases are given SR.  An excellent idea, imho, and one which I use.  Some things are just harder to cure, even using magic. RC



Great idea.
And I would think any cleric would make it a priority to cure such a disease to stop it spreading.  Look at the extra precautions taken by real world doctors with diseases resistant to treatment.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author


----------



## DarkMaster

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Certainly it's a matter of taste and there's no way either of us can be proven to be right.  But I generally veiw the entire world around us as 1st levelers in D&D terms...I don't personally know many folks who could survive getting a six foot hunk of metal embedded in their face, and those that do...well, they got lucky.



Well even a 20 level barbarian with 20+ Con would probably not survive. Most of the PC HP do not represent it's ability to withstand corporal damage. 

The same blow from the 6 foot hunk (Let's say it does 10dmg) of metal would have blown most commoner head, and they would have die a few seconds later and a very few lucky would have survived but barely (Stabilise).

but the 20 level barbarian with 230hp and a DR of 4 or 5 has been fighting for years, he knows all the trick, he will always position himself to reduce the effectiveness of every blown landed towards him, he anticipates his enemies move, he knows how to make each and every action count so that he waste as least as possible energy on each action, ect. So the same blow will not even touch him or make a small scrach on his nose. The lose of 5 HP will reflect more accumulated fatigue from this sudden action then real corporal damage. 

After receiving for 225 DMG he will then be exhausted probably bleeding from various injury but none would be major, but it's concentration and physical energy would be quite down from all these combat he went through, So he would be more prone to commit mistake or lack the appropriate reflex to dodge that last fatal blow. 

IMC my PC only receives a serious body blow when they reach 0 hp, a Coup de Grace (which I tend to allow more easily then described in the SRD), or massive damage.

If the 20 level Barbarian receives for 40 hp damage, his opponent pull out a maneuvre that would have kill any low level barbarian, but he managed to dodge, maybe getting a minor wound from it. Also notice how poison works they affect directly constitution and not hp. BAB is the offensive part of your fighting capability and HP AC and DR represent your own defensive capability.

All of them will make you a good fighter.


----------



## kigmatzomat

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Elder-Basilisk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right but the world has plenty of idiots in it. Thats why guys sell watches on streetcorners. And there are always the kind of items that wizards' guilds don't sell (ie stolen or illegal items) that will sometimes tempt adventurers. In the real world, there's a market for stolen high price goods, likewise in the fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but adventurers risk their lives for a living. The ones who can afford magic items are smart enough not to buy anything without a guarantee--they bled for that gold, and their companions might have died for it. I think they'd pay a little more attention. You have a point though.
Click to expand...



LOL!  You *really* need to meet the people I game with.  I don't mean this group, I mean *every* group I game with.  My {diety}, but they do some of the dumbest things!  Not all of them, but there are always a few where the phrase "the ones who can afford magic items are smart enough.." usually ends in laughter. 

Luck, a good sword hand, and staying near people who think can get you cash.  Using it wisely, feh.  

Besides, I can guarantee you that the keyboard you're using is magic.  Hold on I'll use my Arcane Sight spell......Yep, that's magic!  

Stupidity is there to be taken advantage of, and it is.  All the time, all over the world.


----------



## I'm A Banana

While I agree with the 'hp represents a form of endurance' idea, I don't know many folks who could turn a greatsword to the face into a glancing blow, either.


----------



## mac1504

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Would anyone be interested in sharing their work in a homebrew diseases thread?
> 
> RC




Whoa... if that doesn't get flagged by the office of Homeland Security...


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

You would think they would pay attention but I imagine many of them don't. IRL, athletes and entertainers are ripped off on a rather regular business. A fair number of adventurers probably fall into the same category. One day Galvan is fighting other low-life scum in the basement of the Mermaid's Smile to entertain the rubes. The next day, some low-mid level adventurers who just had their fighter die on them blow into town and say, Galvan, how about you come with us and kill some orcs and take their treasure. I'll spot you a bit of money for a breastplate and you can borrow this masterwork sword (it belonged to the last fighter but we won't tell you that). So Galvan goes with the adventurers and when they succeed and dole out the treasure, he's richer than he's ever been in his life. Now, supposing he doesn't blow all his money on ale and whores (despite the fact that his armor is in desperate need of repair), is he going to know enough to take the proper precautions when he goes to buy that cloak of resistance? 

It could happen just as easily with a wizard. Loren learned magic at the Academe' in Wintershiven. Everyone was scrupulously honest because the masters would assign them penance if they weren't. After completing his training, he leaves his sheltered life and goes out  with some companions from his home town. They guard a silver caravan from Eltison to Rel Mord and are attacked by brigands as soon as they leave the Pale. Nyrond isn't a safe place. Fortunately, they prevail, and the brigands were carrying good stuff. Loren, however, isn't very good with his crossbow and he can only master 4 1st valence spells a day. He wants a wand in case he ever runs out. So, he asks around a bit and a respectable looking wizard walks up to him with a wand. Loren hands over his money without even thinking that the wizard would be less than honest and walks off with a stick enchanted with Nystul's Magic Aura. (And it wasn't a real wizard who sold it to him either).

Sorcia was clever and canny. She learned early on that you always pay for a certificate of identification from the Nellix College of Sages and Sorcery when you're buying a magic item. And if you're really careful, you get your wizard friend to cast Identify on it too. She bought her periapt of wisdom +2 through the temple of St. Cuthbert--reliable fellows even if they've got too much of a stick up their but to serve Lydia. But, now that Lydia has seen fit to channel divine flame through her, Sorcia is starting to think she should get some better protection than the battered suit of banded mail that has served her since her days as a novice. She's been saving her money and she wants to buy some good fullplate, enhanced to the second circle and moderately fortified. Good stuff. So she examines the certificate of identification, gets her wizard friend to identify it, and hands over the money. It didn't occur to her that, when 16,650gp is at stake, you can pay for a really good forged certificate and it's worth casting both Misdirection and Nystuls Magical Aura. Heck, it's even worth investing in a rod of extension to make sure the magic vestment you put on it to simulate the enhancement bonus last for long enough that you're two dozen miles away before the victim finds out about it.

Skill in one area of life doesn't necessarily transfer well to another. Galvan is really good at fighting but, he needed a couple dump stats and since charisma is what gets him chicks, he chose wisdom and to a lesser extent int. He may well go his whole life without ever figuring out that people are using him and ripping him off and if he does figure it out, he won't figure out why people are able to rip him off. He'll wreak a bloody revenge on the person who he caught, probably get outlawed or pay a huge bribe and then fall right into the hands of the next con man to come along and say "you see, I'm not like them. I'll treat you right." Loren has led a sheltered life and can tell you the spell like abilities and vulnerabilities of type III-VI demons without consulting a book and quote the third answer to the fourth question of the Pholtan catechism of light without skipping a beat. However, it takes him a while to get the hang of his life on the edge. He'll make most of the mistakes in the book, but he'll only make them once each. He might even make fewer as soon as he realizes that there's a way business deals are done and follows that path strictly. Sorcia will probably learn from her experience too. Once you start looking at big ticket items, you want extra security. Dispellings "just in case." Escrow and waiting periods to make sure the magic is permanent. Maybe even an Analyze Dweomer spell instead of a mere identify. It costs more money to secure a big ticket transaction but people are willing to spend a lot more money making the con work so you need to be more careful. 

IRL, nobody goes through the kind of planning and investment seen in Ocean's Eleven to knock over the local 7-11. It's not worth it. So 7-11s can afford to have security that Mr. Ocean can beat with ease. On the other hand, banks and casinos have a lot more money and need to have a lot more security. They are worth Mr. Ocean's time. The trick is that adventurers have to know when they're 7-11s, when they're banks, and when they're casinos. Adventurers who don't figure out what game they're playing are going to get taken. Through foolishness, naivete' or simple misjudgement, a lot of them will make mistakes.



			
				VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Yes, but adventurers risk their lives for a living. The ones who can afford magic items are smart enough not to buy anything without a guarantee--they bled for that gold, and their companions might have died for it. I think they'd pay a little more attention. You have a point though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Withholding spells: Spellcasters in D&D have NO REASON not to use every spell they get every day of their life. None.




Sure there is- material spell components.

YOU might not use them in your campaign, but I do.

And sometimes, those casters just don't have the resources to find or purchase components to cast a particular spell as many times as they want.  Or at all.

There are other reasons, too.

Injury, spite, the law, fear, dead or wild magic zones, etc.

But component expense and scarcity are REALLY good brakes on spellcasting.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Lie To Your Players (A Little ....)*

If our benevolent thread founder wishes to adopt a "country bumpkin" (i.e., peasant) feel for his campaign, he might want to consider the following options:

1. Superstition
2. Heresy
3. Royal Thaumaturgy
4. Saintly Relics

After taking these components into consideration, one can produce a variety of cool scenarios ... for example:

Although most peasants have never seen a real magic item, they have access to plentiful _bogus magic items_.

Fake peasant fetishes [like the finger bone of a "wise" king that can supposedly heal the sick] can provide your PCs with an interesting wild-goose chase when they try to search for an expensive magic item in a small village.

When your PCs finally discover the fraud, it will be a good object lesson to them on the verisimilitude of your game AND you'll get the double-bonus of pulling one over on them.

Just don't forget to have the village undertaker make a few more pine boxes and start digging some yokel holes.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## mac1504

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hmmm....
> 
> Obviously, I meant a thread that deals with game statistics for diseases that don't exist in the real world.  Of course, game stats for real diseases might be useful too.
> 
> Needless to say, I don't mean anything to do with the manufacture of anything outside of game statistics.
> 
> We live in paranoid times.
> 
> RC




Uh... just meant it as a joke, not a social commentary.


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Similarly, anyone could swing around a greatsword all day, at no penalty. And there's NO REASON they can't.




Except for opportunity cost.  They can swing a sword around, but while they do that they aren't doing anything else.  So how will they afford to feed themselves?

Whereas spellcasting doesn't take much time at all.  Up to an hour to prepare your spells for the day, then a few minutes at most (for almost all spells).  So the opportunity cost of spellcasting is very low.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In fact, because casting a spell can be done less, one could say that it takes *more* effort, and the reason they *can't* cast more is because if they did, then they *would* experience mechanical penalties.




Except that's not how D&D works.  You just can't cast spells beyond your limit, period.  You can't even try.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In my mind, something you only have the mental ability to do once per day is going to obliterate your body and mind so much so that it requires rest to heal. That's not effortless. That's considerably *more* effort than the time would indicate.




It doesn't have anything to do with your body or mind; all spellcasting does is take away your ability to cast more spells.  So there's something expended there, in the amount of spells you can cast per day, but that's it.


----------



## Ferret

I just thought of _quite_ a good anology.

How many people in the real world know of technology? Loads know of it. 
How man people know specific technology and what it does specificly? Fewer.
How many people can work these modern wonders (Defibulators, C+, and other things.)

It seemed a better in my head.....


----------



## VirgilCaine

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> LOL!  You *really* need to meet the people I game with.  I don't mean this group, I mean *every* group I game with.  My {diety}, but they do some of the dumbest things!  Not all of them, but there are always a few where the phrase "the ones who can afford magic items are smart enough.." usually ends in laughter.
> ...
> Stupidity is there to be taken advantage of, and it is.  All the time, all over the world.




Gee, I never knew so many professional mercenaries, bodyguards and security experts were gamers! 
Yes, the people who you game with do stupid things--thats okay, we're playing a game. People make mistakes in games. 
But gamers aren't their characters. Not a valid comparison.



> Elder-Basilisk




Good examples and good points. 
And one reason why the Guild was created--to keep wizards from being feared and distrusted. Thats one of the functions of the Guild--stamp out dishonest confidence men (i.e. Bards) and Renegades and the like.


----------



## kigmatzomat

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Gee, I never knew so many professional mercenaries, bodyguards and security experts were gamers!




My gaming group does, or has, included people from all branches of the military, at least two professional body guards, a police officer, and several computer security experts.  

The police and computer security folks made the fewest mistakes, and oddly the military types some of the most; not paranoid that way, I guess.  (The most goes to certain people who consistently make poor decisions when they have less than a week to contemplate their actions.)  Though everybody has the occasional "D'oh!" moments.


----------



## barsoomcore

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Spellcasters in D&D have NO REASON not to use every spell they get every day of their life.





			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure there is- material spell components.



Excellent point. My argument SHOULD read -- Spellcasters in D&D have no reason not to use every spell that doesn't consume resources every day. If a spell's components are trivial, the point stands. If the components are not trivial, then casting the spell consumes resources, and obviously the casting is not a resource-free operation.

But for many spells there are either no material components or trivial ones (all the Cure spells, for example, or Remove Disease, or Plant Growth, or Purify Food and Drink -- pretty much all the spells that have been referenced here are devoid of material components), and so those spells are free to cast -- they consume zero resources on the part of the spellcaster and so the spellcaster has no reason to NOT cast them. He or she gains nothing by withholding those spells.

In contrast to the moron who spends all day swinging his sword in pointless circles around him -- he's NOT eating, NOT killing bad guys (or good guys), NOT making friends and influencing people, NOT putting away a little for a rainy day, NOT helping out his community -- he's just obviously a mental case. Casting spells accomplishes stuff AND costs nothing. We don't have anything like that in our world. In my life, the only way you can accomplish things is by expending resources. Spellcasters get spells for free. It's interesting. You start to wonder very seriously why EVERYONE doesn't learn magic. It's not like you need to be a genius -- even someone with an 11 Intelligence can cast first-level spells. And being able to cast one first-level spell every day for free is better than not being able to cast one first-level spell every day for free.

If I were king, I'd ORDER everyone to learn magic. Especially if even my big cities are getting attacked by deadly creatures on a daily basis. Your society could easily take the short-term effort of getting everyone at 11 or higher Intelligence or Wisdom casting spells for the long-term benefit of having thousands upon thousands of spell-casters available throughout the kingdom. It just makes sense.

It seems very likely to me that free power radically changes the way people organize themselves.

As would (and this is a related but tangential point) "religion" based on demonstratable truths. If you KNOW your god exists, is your religion really a religion the way we think of it? This is different from pagan beliefs that have existed on our world -- the priests of a D&D world can invoke miraculous powers reliably and repeatedly. There is no doubt that they possess that power. And so belief isn't a matter of faith anymore, it's a matter of picking sides.

I don't know if that's really "religion". I don't think that's how pagan systems worked. I mean, IRL, you can't easily tell a false priest (somebody whose view of the world is wrong) from a true priest (someone whose view is correct). But in D&D you can -- the guy who's just mad and running around making stuff up can't cast spells. The guy who is actually worshipping his god correctly can. So people can't just come up with crazy stuff and start convincing people through force of will, because those people will sensibly say, "Fine, cast your Cure Light Wounds, buddy."

Now of course a priest of some evil god might be able to fool people into thinking he's a priest of some other, less offensive deity (though I suspect Mr. Less Offensive would have something to say about that eventually), but that's not the same thing as people just making stuff up and turning it into religion.

Which is something that happens regularly in our world because religion isn't about picking the right side. It's about having faith in something bigger than what you can comprehend. And the D&D gods can be comprehended by man. Ergo, they will not fulfill man's (or elf's, or dwarf's) need for the religious experience.

Dunno what to do about that, but that's what I think. Religion is HARD to get right in a fantasy world. Not many authors get it convincingly, and even fewer DMs. I certainly never have.


----------



## Dyir

But Barsoomcore doesn't the Alignment-based cleric option take care of the "false deity" problem?  I mean, what if I'm a cleric that _really _ believes in a god of purity and goodness, which in fact, does not exist?  Wouldn't I then be worshipping Good (as in the alignment), if in a very unusual form?  I could do anything a cleric of Pelor could do, but my god doesn't really exist.  Basically, the only way that I could be proven wrong is for some really powerful celestial creature to tell me so whenever I summoned them, and by that point I'd have to be pretty high-level.  I'd have invested so much into worshipping that "deity" that I might still not believe him (even if he was a Solar).
Just a thought.


----------



## DarkMaster

In D&D beliving or not in the gods is not an issue you see their powers very often through at least the adept in your town. Also any Church should have a cleric able to plane travel (9 or 11 level don't remember if it's a 5 or 6 th level spell) This cleric can then go and verify by himself the existence of the god.


----------



## I'm A Banana

*Spellcasting*



> Except for opportunity cost. They can swing a sword around, but while they do that they aren't doing anything else. So how will they afford to feed themselves?
> 
> Whereas spellcasting doesn't take much time at all. Up to an hour to prepare your spells for the day, then a few minutes at most (for almost all spells). So the opportunity cost of spellcasting is very low.



Casting a spell takes the same amount of time it takes for a trained warrior to slash his 6-foot hunk of steel five or more times.

Grab a six foot hunk of steel, and swing it five times, as if you're hitting something, and tell me you're not a little fatigued. Bonus points if you can do it in 6 seconds, and still have time to run five feet. 

*Just because it only takes 3-6 seconds to cast the spell doesn't mean it's effortless*. Just like just because there is no penalty for swinging around a six foot hunk of steel for nearly days in a row under D&D rules. That doesn't mean it's effortless, though. That doesn't mean it's a wave of the hand. It's as mentally draining as, say, taking an exam.



> Except that's not how D&D works. You just can't cast spells beyond your limit, period. You can't even try.



Right, because your brain won't let you exhaust yourself...it's like how you can't hold onto a pot that's burning you, you can't even try...your body won't let you. Casting a spell is the equivalent of sticking your hand on a stove's burner. You don't WANT to do it. And your body won't LET you do it for more than a second.



> It doesn't have anything to do with your body or mind; all spellcasting does is take away your ability to cast more spells. So there's something expended there, in the amount of spells you can cast per day, but that's it.



I'd say this is too metagame to be the explanation for spellcasting. Think of what those spells represent, of why they have those limits, of what you're actually doing when you're casting the spell, and think of that as as much, if not more effort, than taking a test in 6 seconds, swinging a six foot peice of steel five times and then running five feet in the same time, or just sprinting 30 feet.

That's not effortless. That's not even close. Players may see them as just power to spend. The average NPC adept sees that as an extra 30 feet they have to sprint if they want to do it.

There's no evidence suggesting that it's effortless, that it's just a wave of the hand. In fact, if you think of why, in the world, this limit on spells per day exists, it suggests that it's considerably harder than spending the same amount of time doing anything else. Your body will let you thrust a hunk of steel more than once per day....it *won't let* you cast spells more often.



> they consume zero resources on the part of the spellcaster and so the spellcaster has no reason to NOT cast them. He or she gains nothing by withholding those spells.



You assume spells take no effort to cast. This is a pretty big assumption. If they take as much effort as I'm suggesting above, then there is a pretty obvious reason not to cast them. Whether they do or not seems particularly up to the campaign -- nowhere is it suggested that it's strenuous, but nowhere is it suggested that it's effortless, either. If you need a reason, there is one. If you don't need a reason, no one's trying to convince you. 



> In contrast to the moron who spends all day swinging his sword in pointless circles around him -- he's NOT eating, NOT killing bad guys (or good guys), NOT making friends and influencing people, NOT putting away a little for a rainy day, NOT helping out his community -- he's just obviously a mental case. Casting spells accomplishes stuff AND costs nothing. We don't have anything like that in our world.



The comparison was for effort. Only if you assume that spellcasting is as easy as wiggling your fingers does it suggest that they have no reason to use them. But then, it also suggests that they should be able to do it more often -- how many times can you wiggle your fingers each day? Why would casting a spell require any less effort that swinging a 6 foot hunk of steel within the same interval of time?

Your entire argument about this falls apart if you consider the option (not stated, but having evidence that could support it in the rules) that spells are not as easy as a wave of the hand. In that case, there is plenty of reason to not cast a spell -- it's hard work, and no one wants to do hard work when they don't have to.



> If I were king, I'd ORDER everyone to learn magic. Especially if even my big cities are getting attacked by deadly creatures on a daily basis. Your society could easily take the short-term effort of getting everyone at 11 or higher Intelligence or Wisdom casting spells for the long-term benefit of having thousands upon thousands of spell-casters available throughout the kingdom. It just makes sense.



Why would you order them to learn magic when you're having trouble feeding everyone? Just because monsters are attacking you doesn't mean you don't still have a population of hundreds or thousands to feed. If one village falls, there has to be enough food for the refugees, and for the rest of the people there.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

D&D religion is more like politics.

_Dragonlance_ actually captures this flavor fairly well, in the eras when its gods aren't popping in and out of availability.  You don't have to be much of a believer to know that one side of the pantheon grants miraculous power to the people, goblinoids, dragons and assorted nasties trying to conquer the world, and the other side grants it to those trying to stop them in their tracks.  It's us vs. them.  And it, basically, works.

Does this suffice for a religious experience?  Hard to say.  History seems to indicate that humans need more than secular nation-states or concepts to cling to and defend, but do they need more than demonstably immortal and nigh-all-powerful beings?  We have no way of judging from historical evidence, because immortal and nigh-all-powerful beings don't subject themselves to the kinds of rigorous pseudo-scientific testing D&D gods do.


----------



## barsoomcore

Dyir: Yeah, that'll work, as long as you're actually worshipping Good in such a fashion as to generate divine energy (or however that works). It still means you can identify people who are just wrong about the way the world works -- people whose behaviour does NOT generate such energy. You'd still have a distinction that we don't have in this world -- between folks who are "onto something" (even if they're misguided as to what it is) and folks who are just loonies.

You're pointing out what becomes another interesting distinction in a world where the former distinction exists -- but the former distinction still exists.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Casting a spell takes the same amount of time it takes for a trained warrior to slash his 6-foot hunk of steel five or more times.
> 
> Grab a six foot hunk of steel, and swing it five times, as if you're hitting something, and tell me you're not a little fatigued. Bonus points if you can do it in 6 seconds, and still have time to run five feet.




That's a spiffy Barbarian/Fighter/Shou Disciple build you've got going there, doing a flurry of blows with a greatsword.  But he'd be better off if he had at least 6 levels of monk - then he could use greater flurry and swing his 6-foot hunk of steel six times


----------



## I'm A Banana

*Church & Corruption*



> That's a spiffy Barbarian/Fighter/Shou Disciple build you've got going there, doing a flurry of blows with a greatsword. But he'd be better off if he had at least 6 levels of monk - then he could use greater flurry and swing his 6-foot hunk of steel six times



Yeah, I should've said swing it once and run 20 ft. in full plate. Still, the basic principle stands.



> still means you can identify people who are just wrong about the way the world works -- people whose behaviour does NOT generate such energy. You'd still have a distinction that we don't have in this world -- between folks who are "onto something" (even if they're misguided as to what it is) and folks who are just loonies.



You can believe in a philosophy. Or a force. Or an abstract concept. As long as you believe in *something*, divine magic works for you. You could believe you're the second coming of Christ, and you'd have spells that you grant yourself. 

That's how small-scale corruption can exist in churches. Just because two people share an alignment doesn't mean their goals and duties are the same, and they might not even share an alignment (actual clerics would, but adepts, the experts who serve as clergy....?). 

The line is drawn at large-scale corruption, which must happen from the 'top down' to be effective. It's easy to find the one evil cleric who's not part of the group. It's harder when they're all running the church, know they're evil, and don't really care...the peasants don't know any better, after all...

But when you could just go off and found your own Church of Big Badness, and have thousands of followers of various wicked peoples within a week or two, there's no real reason to corrupt -- if you can heal, power is yours for the taking, even if your heal because of your devout belief in nihilism.


----------



## barsoomcore

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As long as you believe in *something*, divine magic works for you.



Um, no. The rules do not say that, at any rate. They do say that there are clerics who, rather than devote themselves to a particular deity, but "to a cause or source of divine power". Not *something*. There's nothing to suggest that a guy who believes the world was created by sentient bananas gains spellcasting abilities simply because he REALLY believes it. I mean, if you want your world to work that way, great, but that's not what the rules say.

They say that there exist sources of divine power besides the gods. That doesn't mean that anyone can make up any source of divine power anytime they like, just by wishing really hard.

People will still see that some people's worldviews result in them getting free power, and some people's worldviews do not. This is different than anything that happens in our world, and it's unlikely that a world that demonstrates such behaviour would resemble ours. And I submit that such demonstrations of power will not supply the human need to believe in something greater than we can comprehend.

And what sort of moron joins a Church of Big Badness, anyway? Where's the fun in being bad if everyone else is bad -- they'll just be bad to you, and your badness won't give you any advantage. Being bad is only advantageous as long as most other people are being good.

It's like driving on the shoulder of the road. Sure, you can zip by all the suckers who are playing by the rules -- as long as they keep playing by the rules. Once everybody decides to break the rules, nobody gets ahead by breaking the rules, so there's no real incentive to breaking the rules. So what's the incentive to join up with a bunch of rules-breakers? Well, you might be stupid, I guess. Never been a shortage of stupid people around.


----------



## VirgilCaine

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Um, no. The rules do not say that, at any rate. They do say that there are clerics who, rather than devote themselves to a particular deity, but "to a cause or source of divine power". Not *something*. There's nothing to suggest that a guy who believes the world was created by sentient bananas gains spellcasting abilities simply because he REALLY believes it. I mean, if you want your world to work that way, great, but that's not what the rules say.




   



> People will still see that some people's worldviews result in them getting free power, and some people's worldviews do not. This is different than anything that happens in our world, and it's unlikely that a world that demonstrates such behaviour would resemble ours. And I submit that such demonstrations of power will not supply the human need to believe in something greater than we can comprehend.




Good point.


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Casting a spell takes the same amount of time it takes for a trained warrior to slash his 6-foot hunk of steel five or more times.




Your original argument compared chopping down trees all day to casting all your spells.  That argument doesn't make sense because you can't cast spells all day (unless you're casting one of the few spells with longer casting times).  There's no opportunity cost to casting spells, except the hour or so it takes you to prepare them in the morning.  The same doesn't go for chopping down trees all day.

If we go by the rules, there is no effort involved (except for the fact that there's nothing else you can do).  If you want to extrapolate from the rules, for either physical actions (save for movement) or for spell casting, that's fine; but it isn't in the books.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Right, because your brain won't let you exhaust yourself...it's like how you can't hold onto a pot that's burning you, you can't even try...your body won't let you. Casting a spell is the equivalent of sticking your hand on a stove's burner. You don't WANT to do it. And your body won't LET you do it for more than a second.




Haven't read Dune lately, have you?   "What's in the box?"  "Pain."



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'd say this is too metagame to be the explanation for spellcasting. Think of what those spells represent, of why they have those limits, of what you're actually doing when you're casting the spell, and think of that as as much, if not more effort, than taking a test in 6 seconds, swinging a six foot peice of steel five times and then running five feet in the same time, or just sprinting 30 feet.




So casting a spell is about as effortless as swinging a baseball bat.  Cool. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> There's no evidence suggesting that it's effortless, that it's just a wave of the hand. In fact, if you think of why, in the world, this limit on spells per day exists, it suggests that it's considerably harder than spending the same amount of time doing anything else. Your body will let you thrust a hunk of steel more than once per day....it *won't let* you cast spells more often.




There's no evidence to suggest that it takes any sort of effort, either.  There is some kind of limit on casting spells that seems to come from nowhere - you can increase your spells per day by doing things like killing goblins, or sneaking back home past curfew, or winning the hand of Snow White.  There's nothing to suggest that the number of spells you can cast per day is tied to anything except the number and difficulty of challenges you've faced in your life.

Extrapolating is good for the game, but if you want to get all anal retentive (and apparently I do), that's what we're left with.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

LostSoul said:
			
		

> There's no evidence to suggest that it takes any sort of effort, either.  There is some kind of limit on casting spells that seems to come from nowhere - you can increase your spells per day by doing things like killing goblins, or sneaking back home past curfew, or winning the hand of Snow White.  There's nothing to suggest that the number of spells you can cast per day is tied to anything except the number and difficulty of challenges you've faced in your life.




Technically, your ability to swing a greatsword really, really fast is also tied to killing goblins, and, if your DM is generous with non-combat XP, sneaking home past curfew and/or winning the hand of Snow White.  Greatsword-swinging ability just advances slower than the spellcasting limit.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Um, no. The rules do not say that, at any rate. They do say that there are clerics who, rather than devote themselves to a particular deity, but "to a cause or source of divine power". Not *something*. There's nothing to suggest that a guy who believes the world was created by sentient bananas gains spellcasting abilities simply because he REALLY believes it. I mean, if you want your world to work that way, great, but that's not what the rules say.
> 
> They say that there exist sources of divine power besides the gods. That doesn't mean that anyone can make up any source of divine power anytime they like, just by wishing really hard.



Well, since the final call is up the the DM as to what qualifies as a cause or a source of divine power, you're right. But I like to encourage even wacky creativity, so I'm inclined to judge that if someone devoted themselves to advancing the word of their hand puppet, that's enough to qualify as a cause.

It's remarkably ambigious, and is left up to DM definition (as it should be, I feel). The rules don't forbid getting divine power from a handpuppet, as long as the DM sanctions that puppet as a source of divine power.



> People will still see that some people's worldviews result in them getting free power, and some people's worldviews do not. This is different than anything that happens in our world, and it's unlikely that a world that demonstrates such behaviour would resemble ours. And I submit that such demonstrations of power will not supply the human need to believe in something greater than we can comprehend.



You're extrapolating based on the real world. This thread is about 10% rationalization based on the rules that exist, and about 30% speculation on what might be.

Of course it wouldn't resemble ours. That's like imagining aliens have the same definate 'intelligence' that humans do. Of course they won't. It's absurd to think that extraterrestrial life will even have eyes. But that doesn't make it easy to play an alien in a sci-fi RPG. It's like trying to analyze the psychology of elves. You can only go so far based on the loose information presented. I think speculation on the nature of religion, which isn't even in consensous as existing in the real world, could be usefully applied to a fantasy world.  Find out what you want, make sure it makes sense, and that's about all ya need, right?



> People will still see that some people's worldviews result in them getting free power, and some people's worldviews do not.



Doesn't it require training to develop the rituals needed to summon divine energy for a mere instant? Or is it truly free to you? Because it doesn't have to be that way, and I think you'll find some of the problems evaporating if it's not. These are areas that the rules don't codify, only suggest, so there's lots of room for interpretation. But the world seems to make more sense if it requires as much training to summon the healing powers of the gods for a mere instant, rather than being "huh, my hands glow and heal wounds, ain't that a kick in the pants?"



> If we go by the rules, there is no effort involved (except for the fact that there's nothing else you can do). If you want to extrapolate from the rules, for either physical actions (save for movement) or for spell casting, that's fine; but it isn't in the books.



Yup, it's extrapolation based on what the rules suggest. The rules suggest that spells are more than just things that happen with some fancy words. They suggest they're more than effortless. Or at least, there is nothing to suggest that they are any less effort than running 20 ft. in plate mail, as a for instance. If you'd like to suggest that running 20 ft. in plate mail is effortless because someone could do it all day without a penalty, go for it.  But I find the world makes more sense if you decide that spells aren't effortless...and it makes magic seem far less trivial. Trivial is OK, but it's hardly implied, just because you take no penalty for doing it. 



> There's no evidence to suggest that it takes any sort of effort, either. There is some kind of limit on casting spells that seems to come from nowhere - you can increase your spells per day by doing things like killing goblins, or sneaking back home past curfew, or winning the hand of Snow White. There's nothing to suggest that the number of spells you can cast per day is tied to anything except the number and difficulty of challenges you've faced in your life.



Challenges hone your body and your mind more than sitting in your room reading scrolls all day, in D&D. Higher levels mean you can handle more mental stress, and thus use more mental powers than those who have not endured such challenges. You simiply do not know mental pain until you've seen the horrors of a goblin up close. Until then, no matter how much you read in your tower, you are ignorant to the way the world truly works. Until you have lived life on the edge, you have never truly lived.

You only have the energy to harnass the divine powers a few times per day. No more -- your mind simply won't let you overwhelm it like that.

OR

I wave my hands and stuff happens. I got this power, mostly just 'cuz I really like the gods and believe in them and they like me. Need a cure? No sweat! The gods listen to me...at least, for a few times each day.

Both are valid interpretations of the rules as written. Which one you prefer is largely up to you. I think the world is more interesting with the first option, though. Miracles are not something that just happen with the twinkling of fingers, and to assume that spellcasting is effortless is to dismiss the hours of preparation and years of training that go into even harnassing the minor powers of the mind, the spirit, and the will.

You like the second better? Sure. But then, why don't the clerics heal every broken toe that comes to them? That question remains, if magic is effortless. It is dealt with if it is not.


----------



## Wombat

Ever wonder what a Sunday-Go-To-Meetin' Evil person is like in these worlds?

"Oh, yeah, th' wife likes t'go t'temple nouw an' agin, but I'm no' tha' much in'trested in the sacreefisses an' all tha'"


----------



## Klaus

One reason for a spellcaster not to spend all his spells is that he might have an early errand the next morning and can't afford to:

A) Rest for 8 hours;

B) Spend an entire hour preparing his spells;

Also, spells with material components mean that the caster has to buy spell component pouches (this hurts arcanes more than divines but still...).

BTW, this is my favorite thread in a while! Kudos to all!


----------



## Storminator

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> They say that there exist sources of divine power besides the gods. That doesn't mean that anyone can make up any source of divine power anytime they like, just by wishing really hard.



IMC, belief creates divine power. So yeah, you can make up divine sources by wishing really hard! 

Of course it takes a lot of people wishing the same sorts of things, but it's possible. 

PS


----------



## kigmatzomat

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But such is not the case, when following the rules as they are written for generating towns, for the income of commoners, for finding out how common to the everyday commoner magic really *is* in D&D. So I present to you my findings, based on the Rules As Written.
> 
> My thesis: Magic isn't common to the everyday person, but it is common to the PC's, who AREN'T everyday people.




I disagree, based on the RaW.  I think magic is common, but not understood, much like televisions and microwaves.    



> As per the DMG, following the Rules As Written:
> * "*Small communities are much more common than larger ones*. In
> * *70% of all communities have populations 2,000 and below*. Their




I agree with this and from my previous posts I go so far as to say that 70% of the populace live in communities under 1,000.  



> * *There is precious little magical power in these towns*.
> In that 50%, the presence of spellcasters is minimal.




Aaaaand now I start disagreeing.  

Using a Thorpe (-3 modifier) there is a 50% chance of a bard, 50% chance  of a cleric, 50% chance of druid, 50% chance adept, 25% chance wizard, and 25% sorceror.  This means:

87.5% chance of a divine caster
93.75% chance of a caster who can use CLW
71.875% chance of an arcane caster
96.485% chance of there being *any* caster in the community
plus the 5% wildcard chance of having a >8th level druid

The quickly start approaching 100% at the village level.   With less than 5% of communities not counting a caster as a neighbor, I can't see the commoner not being familiar with seeing it.  It maybe like fireworks and laser light shows drawing oohs and aahs, but it isn't screams of terror and people panicking.  



> * With this capacity, *half of the places in the entire world do not have access to 2nd level spells*.




Each thorpe has a 33% chance of 2nd level spells. Assuming each thorpe is within easy access of 2 other communities, more than 70% of the population can get 2nd level spells.   (See post 103  http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1710259&postcount=103)




> * Assuming a lot of the people can get a special discount on the spellcasting services (Would you charge your own mother for magic?), this still changes the world in no discernable fashion. So the druid's uncle never has to worry about a drought...*4 gallons of water a month isn't going to save the field of every commoner, or even most of them*. This is assuming 0 monsters...but....




I agree.  The amount of spells available (several hundred people vying for maybe three dozen spells/day) and cost (even after discounts) means there isnt' much magic to go around.  



> * *Monsters raid your village about twice per day. *Now monsters enter the equasion. The random wilderness encounter table says that in verdant/civilized areas, there's a 10% chance per hour of having 'an encounter.' Which is extrapolated to once in every 10 hours, or about twice per day.
> * *The fuedal system protects you from monsters. *Assuming the place is a farm, the Plains will probably be a reasonable environment for the encounter table, ne?




Agree and disagree.  Yes, 10%/hour roughly equates to 2 encounters/day.  *BUT* I think it should be off the "Civilized" region table, not the wilderness tables.  Commoners don't live in the wilderness; they hide behind the wall of soldiers and pay taxes. 



> * *Commoners need BAB and HD too! *This is also where the people of the town gain their XP. People in D&D town aren't all pushovers...there's one ninth level commoner in over half of the communities on the earth, and that guy got his XP from someplace




The average level in a thorpe is 7th and it goes up to 13th!  See my previous posts about how an orc band will wipe out on a village.  



> * *They've never seen a magic sword in their lives. *




Nahh, they probably see one every year at the regional fair.  A glowing sword makes for a handy item of rank so the Baron probably has one as a sign of office.  Touched one?  Maybe as a child, but probably not.  



> So, all that in mind...here's your life of your Average D&D Commoner
> - Lives in a "Village"-level town



or smaller.  Likely smaller. 



> - The only full plate he's ever seen is on that fighter that the king sent to deal with the gnolls.




Probably sees it at the fair on the magic-sword weilding Baron.  

So IMO, the common man knows at least one caster by name (and vice versa) and knows the names of a couple more that live in nearby communities.  There's a couple of older farmers and some militia members who are able to keep most of the wandering toughs (bandits and adventurers) from getting uppity when the patrols aren't around.  

Most encounters are smaller wild animals,  people (including bandits) or people with templates (ghosts, vampires, etc).  (See post 103  http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1710259&postcount=103)
 Maybe every other day there's something that *could* go badly but usually there's enough resources in the community to slow the threat down until help can be summoned.  

Of course, that means help must be close enough to be summoned so communities tend to be close, likely only a few hours away to the nearest small community and definitely no more than 2 days oxen-travel away from a town which is 1 day's hard ride by horse.  The close proximity also makes regular patrols possible.  

Out past the perimeter the world immediately turns to "there be monsters" and most anyone who lives beyond the patrol zone is considered crazy or tough as nails.


----------



## Rhialto

I quite like this thread.

Of course, it should be mentioned that if an NPC lives in or near a kingdom dominated by a secretive evil wizard guild his attitude towards magic is likely going to be quite different then what you're writing about here.  At this point, your 1st-2nd level wizard/sorcerer is probably either: a) a lowly emissary from the Guild whose wiling away the hours in this outpost, probably on punishment duty, b)a spy for the Guild operating undercover to dig out info, or c) a good or neutral Obi Wan type who is probably hiding out and looking over his shoulder for a) or b).

Also, evil wizards are probably not going to allow too many magic items, friendly priests, and anything that can cause the populace to think there's any chance of taking down said evil wizards...

(And let's be honest here--there are enough of them to trouble adventurers and the world at large,  so they must be affecting things...)


----------



## VirgilCaine

Rhialto said:
			
		

> I quite like this thread.




I like it also.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Rhialto said:
			
		

> Of course, it should be mentioned that if an NPC lives in or near a kingdom dominated by a secretive evil wizard guild his attitude towards magic is likely going to be quite different then what you're writing about here.




I tried to avoid discussing the like/dislike and more the amount of knowledge they have.  There is a difference between "She's a witch, burn her!" and "She's a black Sorceror of Mum-Ra!  Burn her!"  



> Also, evil wizards are probably not going to allow too many magic items, friendly priests, and anything that can cause the populace to think there's any chance of taking down said evil wizards...




True, but that's region specific and detailed to a given setting.  I'm of the opinion the High Council of Evil Wizards probably made deals with the Grand Convention of Evil Clerics to take over the area.  Clerics are just too useful *not* to have them.  And dark wizards tend to be impatient and not fond of the time it takes to heal naturally.  

I do have a region IMC where the populace is generally not allowed to be armed and priests can only be of the official religions.  Ironically, there are *more* priests and wizards because they are agents of the state.    The players are just arriving so we'll see how they deal.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So IMO, the common man knows at least one caster by name (and vice versa) and knows the names of a couple more that live in nearby communities. There's a couple of older farmers and some militia members who are able to keep most of the wandering toughs (bandits and adventurers) from getting uppity when the patrols aren't around.



Right, but this means that "every peasant has a +5 sword for sale at the closest shop in normal D&D", as hyperbolically suggested, really is out of the water.

People in D&D have seen magic. But people in the real world have seen UFO's. Magic is no less mysterious than that.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Right, but this means that "every peasant has a +5 sword for sale at the closest shop in normal D&D", as hyperbolically suggested, really is out of the water.
> 
> People in D&D have seen magic. But people in the real world have seen UFO's. Magic is no less mysterious than that.




Part one, definitely.  I've rarely seen a campaign where +3 or better weapons were available outside of maybe the capital city of each country, if that.

Part two... ehh, not quite.  While the number of people who've seen/claimed to have seen UFOs may be equivalent to the number of _practitioners_ of magic, the number of people in a standard D&D world who've seen magic used is much, much greater.  And while enough doubt exists about UFOs that well-informed people can make logical arguments against their existence, anyone with any kind of knowledge of the world can't logically deny the existence of magic in a D&D world.


----------



## Remathilis

One last thing to consider: Caster Alignment. Not all clerics or wizards are going to be the kind willing to cast thier spells for altrustic purposes. Only LG, NG, and maybe CG/LN will be willing to perform civic duty. So even if the town has 15 wizards in it, you can sure bet a fair number won't be offering their services, except to the highest bidder.


----------



## nopantsyet

Remathilis said:
			
		

> One last thing to consider: Caster Alignment. Not all clerics or wizards are going to be the kind willing to cast thier spells for altrustic purposes. Only LG, NG, and maybe CG/LN will be willing to perform civic duty. So even if the town has 15 wizards in it, you can sure bet a fair number won't be offering their services, except to the highest bidder.




And people of that power are likely to derive their sustanence from more sophisticated means than subsistance. The high-level wizard may run a school. The high-level bard commands large commissions for performances. Let's face it, nobody wants to spend their days churning out wish after wish. There naturally could be professional wizards, but you can be sure they'd rather be spending their days on the golf course. As for clerics, would the flock accept the monetization of spiritual acts?

Also, power has a way of removing itself from the mainstream. Even celebrities and politicians, though visible, live in a basically untouchable world. There may be 15 wizards in a given city, but they don't all involve themselves in local affairs. At any given time, half of them are probably traveling, with an equal number of non-local wizards taking their place in the city. Still lvl15 wizards, but unlikely to be making their abilities widely available.

And those that do, probably are not at the grass-roots level; they're organizing or funding, not walking around offering resurrections to the murdered.

Just because it's there, doesn't mean everybody gets access to it. Not everything is bought or sold. Not everything is available for the asking. There are a lot of resources out there, but most of them are controlled by a very few people.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Part two... ehh, not quite. While the number of people who've seen/claimed to have seen UFOs may be equivalent to the number of _practitioners_ of magic, the number of people in a standard D&D world who've seen magic used is much, much greater. And while enough doubt exists about UFOs that well-informed people can make logical arguments against their existence, anyone with any kind of knowledge of the world can't logically deny the existence of magic in a D&D world.



True, it was hyperbolic...perhaps a better equivalent might be "People in the real world have seen heart surgery." or "People in the real world have seen complex physics equasions." 

Sure, they exist, and people believe in them (or those that don't are considered wierd). But that doesn't make them well-understood or even accepted by individuals at all...average cleric explaining casting a _cure light wounds_ may be like a doctor explaining how, exactly, antibiotics works on a chemcial level. Just take the pill, give me the gold, and make way for the next laughing boy. 

In fact, the clerics = doctors and wizards = scientists comparison can be perhaps quite useful...high-level magic has impacted the world like quantum physics and open-heart surgery. That is to say, it definately has, and it has reprocussions for everyday folk, but there are still many parts of the world that would simply ascribe it to being a miracle, and even in the "enlightened world," it's not well understood or even bothered about on an everyday basis. But you know a doctor can help make you feel better. And you know that your scientists have made inventions that make life easier. In fact, something like a Hippocratic Oath may be very similar accross faiths for those gods of healing that exist...and yet doctors, even with that oath, which they are to cling to as doctrine, don't work for free. Neither do scientists. 

Hmm....health insurance and 'quality of living' in D&D....? Naaah, pretty sure those concepts haven't entered their minds yet...


----------



## D+1

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> One other assumption I made is that while magic increased production per acre, it did not increase production per person.  I.E. plant growth causes crops *AND* weeds to grow so it requires more manpower to control the weeds, keeping the manpower-bushel production the same.



You might want to read that again because you're thinking of the older versions.  Plant Growth has two seperate effects.  First is Overgrowth which would do what you say in a smaller area.  Second is enrichment which only increases the plants productivity over time but over a much wider area and longer period of time.  That is, a plant is producing its nuts, fruit, grains, etc 1/3 over normal for the next year.  Weeds won't be affected.


----------



## D+1

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> If our modern real world has huge issues providing for our populations, how bad is the D&D default worlds situation.



Well, we _don't_ have a huge problem providing for our populations as a rule.  Look at what living at "poverty level" generally really means in a country like the US.  You have housing, food, TV, telephone, etc. and a spectacular ability to improve your lot in life.  It's quite easy to show that government assistance is often counter-productive in trying to eliminate the remaining stigma and tribulations of poverty by encouraging dependancy - but that's another thread.

The D&D world is arguably little different.  Where you have an active, beneficial but nonetheless even minimal caste of clergy you easily combat injury, disease, and so forth just as modern medicine, modern farming practices, etc. do IRL.  That's actually part of the problem.  We generally WANT to see our D&D worlds as pseudo-medieval or at least pre-renaissance, but examining the  "logical" consequences of D&D rules tends to suggest that these real-world stages of development have been easily surpassed.

Personally, my approach is largely handwaving it.  Although my D&D worlds could and even SHOULD be more advanced the various factors that would contribute to major advances in areas such as political theory, agriculture, economics, higher education, etc. simply have not yet done so - but they very well COULD and even MIGHT as the campaign unfolds.  I think it makes for a more exciting, dynamic campaign world when it is perpetually on the cusp of great leaps forward even as it teeters on the brink of collapse.


----------



## D+1

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I use this rule too, and I'd encourage those who use disease instead of monsters as the mitigating factor to do so, lest _cure disease_ makes the first cleric with it into a saint.



But...  The first cleric with Cure Disease SHOULD be a saint.  That's the whole point, IMO.

Just because the D&D rules CAN extend up into epic levels doesn't mean that every campaign can and MUST do so.  While you can fill your world with megalopolis fantasy cities you can also fill it only with thorps and small towns, thereby forcing the "world leaders" to be very low level.  When the PC's and their nemeses come along they at least CAN be breaking new ground that the world has never before seen or possibly even imagined.


----------



## silentspace

D+1 said:
			
		

> Well, we _don't_ have a huge problem providing for our populations as a rule.  Look at what living at "poverty level" generally really means in a country like the US.  You have housing, food, TV, telephone, etc. and a spectacular ability to improve your lot in life.  It's quite easy to show that government assistance is often counter-productive in trying to eliminate the remaining stigma and tribulations of poverty by encouraging dependancy - but that's another thread.
> 
> The D&D world is arguably little different.  Where you have an active, beneficial but nonetheless even minimal caste of clergy you easily combat injury, disease, and so forth just as modern medicine, modern farming practices, etc. do IRL.  That's actually part of the problem.  We generally WANT to see our D&D worlds as pseudo-medieval or at least pre-renaissance, but examining the  "logical" consequences of D&D rules tends to suggest that these real-world stages of development have been easily surpassed.
> 
> Personally, my approach is largely handwaving it.  Although my D&D worlds could and even SHOULD be more advanced the various factors that would contribute to major advances in areas such as political theory, agriculture, economics, higher education, etc. simply have not yet done so - but they very well COULD and even MIGHT as the campaign unfolds.  I think it makes for a more exciting, dynamic campaign world when it is perpetually on the cusp of great leaps forward even as it teeters on the brink of collapse.




Poverty exists in the real world, despite our technological and economic ability to house, feed, clothe, and educate the world.

Poverty exists in the D&D world, despite magic's ability to house, feed, clothe, and educate the world.


----------



## LostSoul

Remathilis said:
			
		

> So even if the town has 15 wizards in it, you can sure bet a fair number won't be offering their services, except to the highest bidder.




While this may be true for Wizards, it doesn't need to hold true for Clerics.  Clerics have different motivations, and that may mean that Chaotic Evil Clerics will be willing to cast Cure Disease and even Raise Dead for free.


----------



## D+1

silentspace said:
			
		

> Poverty exists in the real world, despite our technological and economic ability to house, feed, clothe, and educate the world.



And always will.  The point is that while poverty is no fun, it is largely not as debilitating or long-lasting a social condition as it was even only a matter of decades ago and that needs to be understood.  One of our greatest governmental initiatives to eliminate poverty actually ended up making aspects of it worse.







> Poverty exists in the D&D world, despite magic's ability to house, feed, clothe, and educate the world.



Well, I'll buy the feed part, but there isn't much (any?) practical D&D magic devoted to housing, clothing, or education of the masses.  Feed only gets credit because of Create Food & Water and Plant Growth.  When was the last D&D campaign where the clerics went about casting yearly Hand-me-down-clothing spells for a village?  Or a Bard Builders Brigade that travels the countryside with an orchestra of lyres of building to turn mud farm huts into wood and stone mansions?  Or a Mass Instruction spell?


----------



## VirgilCaine

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I do have a region IMC where the populace is generally not allowed to be armed and priests can only be of the official religions.  *Ironically, there are *more* priests and wizards because they are agents of the state.* The players are just arriving so we'll see how they deal.




Well, duh. 



> Second is enrichment which only increases the plants productivity over time but over a much wider area and longer period of time. That is, a plant is producing its nuts, fruit, grains, etc 1/3 over normal for the next year. Weeds won't be affected.




Why is it so hard for people to understand this? 
Enrichment says "plants"--not "crops", "plants" production is enriched. AFAIK, weeds were plants.



> While this may be true for Wizards, it doesn't need to hold true for Clerics. Clerics have different motivations, and that may mean that Chaotic Evil Clerics will be willing to cast Cure Disease and even Raise Dead for free.




Maybe not Raise Dead (Note: Material component is 5,000 gp of _*diamonds.*_), but it certainly is possible, maybe even probable. You just have to corkscrew your way into thinking of a plot that would spread massive pain and suffering and that requires evil clerics to heal and cure people. 
Good idea for an adventure, that. Why are the Hextorites suddenly curing the lepers?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Just because the D&D rules CAN extend up into epic levels doesn't mean that every campaign can and MUST do so. While you can fill your world with megalopolis fantasy cities you can also fill it only with thorps and small towns, thereby forcing the "world leaders" to be very low level. When the PC's and their nemeses come along they at least CAN be breaking new ground that the world has never before seen or possibly even imagined.



*That's* the kind of low-magic game I'm a fan of.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Wombat said:
			
		

> Ever wonder what a Sunday-Go-To-Meetin' Evil person is like in these worlds?
> 
> "Oh, yeah, th' wife likes t'go t'temple nouw an' agin, but I'm no' tha' much in'trested in the sacreefisses an' all tha'"




Not quite evil but I think this may be how a lot of people in fantasy worlds feel about evil gods:



			
				Wulf Ratbane's Story Hour said:
			
		

> Wulf stuck his head inside and was greeted by an oracle who tended the shrine. Wulf would have guessed her a druid, though her presence in such a shrine confused that assessment somewhat.
> 
> "Mornin, woman! May we enter?"
> 
> "Of course." She smiled sweetly. "All are welcome here." Wulf noticed for the first time the small monkey-like pet on her shoulder. It hopped off and ran circles around the room, stopping at various donation boxes.
> 
> The party moved inside, and while Keldas grilled the druid, Henwen, about the goings on of the area and the town, Wulf made the rounds of the donation boxes. He was thankful he'd kept some travelling money in his purse.
> 
> Pelor! Wulf made the fist. Like brothers still, right? Sun's up again today-- nice work. Wulf dropped a few gold coins into Pelor's donation box.
> 
> Heironeous! Ahh... Keep an eye on me today, got a feelin' I'm gonna be valorously whippin' evil arse. For justice! A few more gold coins tinkled into the collection box.
> 
> Kord! Oh mighty, mighty Kord! Right. Ach... ferkit... Here. Wulf made another contribution, equal to the others, and moved on to the next shrine.
> 
> It seemed that all philosophies were present, from law to chaos, good to evil. Wulf contributed to each in turn-- growing a bit nervous when he reached Nerull, _*but taking a guilty pleasure in his contribution to Hextor. Sorry about that business back in Brindinford. Pals? He made the fist, just in case. *_




Of course for a rather gruesome perspective on how it works in real life, see here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=553679
A few hundred pounds, get your luck, and try not to think too hard about where it came from. Sure, it was wicked but the kid was already dead right. I mean, even if you hadn't bought the stuff, he wasn't coming back so you might as well get some good fortune out of it. That's ordinary, run of the mill evil for you. (And it's not at all distant from us westerners either--we just substitute scientists in white coats for the witch doctors and pretend not to notice what goes on behind the laboratory doors.).


----------



## Umbra

D+1 said:
			
		

> Well, I'll buy the feed part, but there isn't much (any?) practical D&D magic devoted to housing, clothing, or education of the masses.  Feed only gets credit because of Create Food & Water and Plant Growth.




As soon as food is secure and in surplus, it allows people to focus on other things with their 'free' time.  Historically, it was improvements in agriculture that freed people to become craftsmen, etc, thus leading to improvements in all areas of life.


----------



## Umbra

I think the early decades of telephones is a reasonable comparison with magic in this instance.  At first, very few people had a phone and it was concentrated in a few locations.  Over time, the phone network was extended with the wealthier members of society and large cities having access to it the most. The village only has access to a single public phone box (if they were lucky).  Many people knew about telephones but few had access to them or used them only in emergencies.

Magic, of course, is not as easily replicated as technology is, so the spread is constrained by the number of practitioners which will never be as high as the number of devices (telephones) which can be continuously produced.

Which brings up the question of magic items.  As a general rule their cost and the desire of the powerful to own them would mean they will not be concentrated with the commoner.  But would this always be the case?

Personally   if I was a high level cleric of a healing god who is trying to extend the influence of civilisation and the faithful, and knowing that without the powerbase of the commoner that influence is at risk, I would want to help ensure the survival of the community.  I would create non-portable (cannot be stolen) items to help those villages and thorpes further out from the power centres - a fountain, an altar, a stature, etc.  Think of a Lourdes every 50 miles  .  Or I would provide those who perform pastoral care (the village cleric), the wand with cure disease, etc, for emergencies.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Or, to put a different spin on it...

Imagine, like the feudal lords of Japan, you have a stronghold of highly respected and revered people every 50-100 miles.  We are speaking historically of the Shao Lin Monestaries, but in this here fantastic setting, the strongholds of powerful clerics and or mages who cast spells benevolently, if not without ulterior motives...

Just by existing, they threaten your power base, because they represent another powerful heirarchy outside of your own.  They have armies at their disposal.

If, at any time, they deem you a threat to their religion, followers or power, not only will THEY be against you, but a good number of commoners will flock to their side to help remove you from power.

The answer (historically): destroy the monestaries.

If you don't subjugate the religions to secular power by restricting their military power, you might find yourself in a theocracy.  Examine the Arabic world, where religion has so much say in the culture that EVERY aspect of life is touched by religious edicts- many of those countries were monarchies, democracies or dictatorships before they were virtual/actual theocracies.

Oops!  Gotta go watch Godzilla vs Hedorah on Sci-Fi!


----------



## I'm A Banana

*On Evil Gods*

I'd imagine in most D&D worlds the evil gods aren't surpressed and alienated and driven away like they would be in a typical Judeo-Christian inspired setting. They are accepted authorities of everything they govern, and ignoring even a god you're not a fan of could result in very unpleasant consequences...

...think of the story of the ancient Greek prince, who dedicated himself so lovingly to the virgin goddess Artemis that Aphrodite felt jilted -- and he wound up cursed.....

Similarly, Hextor will have a personal vendetta if you jilt him. You may donate to his church just ensure that he *doesn't* bug you...after all, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and if Hextor notices you being lax in your donations, you could find all the evil he represents beating down your doorstep. You don't have to *like* Hextor, or even *condone* him, but if you don't sacrifice to him, you, your family, your friends, and folks you don't even know might end up crushed beneath his fist. Of course, you might give plenty *more* to Heironeous, but you want good just as much as you don't want bad.


----------



## Remathilis

LostSoul said:
			
		

> While this may be true for Wizards, it doesn't need to hold true for Clerics. Clerics have different motivations, and that may mean that Chaotic Evil Clerics will be willing to cast Cure Disease and even Raise Dead for free.



I'm going to disagree, but try to do so without getting into an alignment debate.

Using the Core D&D Deities and excluding racial deities, the evil gods are Nerull, Vecna, Hextor, and Erythinul. (One could reasonably clump Wee Jas in here as well.) 

Three of those deities deal in aspects of death, so I really can't see their priests offering healing except to thier servants/lackeys. Almost all of them cannot organize in typical settings (cities, etc) unless the city is extremely tollerant (Sigil) or evil. That adds a risk of danger to these priests operating in view, and selling their services would make them targets. 

Thus, evil priests cannot reliably depend on money from healings because its against thier ethos or dangerous to advertise. (Why do most evil priests sack helpless cities and rule over goblin tribes? make money.) 

Except when its in the best interest of the deity, church or priest, I don't expect many will be willing to sell thier services. So, if you keep that in mind, you can safely subtract them from the "total spellcasters" number when firguring out who can help the PCs heal or make magical items. 

Lastly: This IS assuming a typical mostly good adventuring party, of course.


----------



## Buttercup

Bumping this thread, because it's too good to die.  I'll go back and read carefully, and if I have something worth adding, I'll just edit this post.


----------



## VirgilCaine

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'd imagine in most D&D worlds the evil gods aren't surpressed and alienated and driven away like they would be in a typical Judeo-Christian inspired setting. They are accepted authorities of everything they govern, and ignoring even a god you're not a fan of could result in very unpleasant consequences...




Riiight. Whatever happened to the idea that you don't sacrifice or even say the name of evil gods?

It's one thing when it's Wee Jas, deity of Death and Magic [thats funeral rites that is] or even when the kingdom is in the grip of a terrible plague, and you sacrifice to Incabulos, bringer of plagues, but _all_, say, Erythnul lives for is slaughter and such. 
Thats public rampage killings, _slow_ torture, killing parents in front of the kids, etc. etc.
Not someone you want to attract the attention of.


----------



## d4

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
> Enrichment says "plants"--not "crops", "plants" production is enriched. AFAIK, weeds were plants.



the spell specifically says it increases the _productivity_ of plants in the area of effect; not size, not quantity.

the productivity of a weed = zero, because by definition a weed doesn't produce anything useful -- no fruits, no nuts, no edible material.

thus, you can surmise that enrichment does not increase the number or size of weeds.


----------



## VirgilCaine

d4 said:
			
		

> the spell specifically says it increases the _productivity_ of plants in the area of effect; not size, not quantity.
> 
> the productivity of a weed = zero, because by definition a weed doesn't produce anything useful -- no fruits, no nuts, no edible material.
> 
> thus, you can surmise that enrichment does not increase the number or size of weeds.




www.dictionary.com

pro·duc·tiv·i·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (prdk-tv-t, prdk-)
n. 
The quality of being productive. 

Weeds do produce something--seeds (or whatever) that increase the amount of weeds. So if you don't get all the weeds, you'll have more next season.


----------



## d4

productivity in the economic sense means producing something that's _useful_ to the consumer. weeds are obviously not useful to people, so they aren't considered productive.

no farmer is going to call a field full of dandelions productive, just because they are all producing seeds. in fact, that's exactly opposite of a productive field.

since the _plant growth_ spell is being cast (and was presumably created by) a person, it is more likely that this is the definition of productivity that is being used. it doesn't help the caster at all if the spell increases the quantity of weeds in the fields.

while we're quoting dictionaries, here's what Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/) gives as one of the definitions of productive:



> 3 a : yielding results, benefits, or profits
> b : yielding or devoted to the satisfaction of wants or the creation of utilities



again, weeds don't fit that definition.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Using the Core D&D Deities and excluding racial deities, the evil gods are Nerull, Vecna, Hextor, and Erythinul. (One could reasonably clump Wee Jas in here as well.)
> 
> Three of those deities deal in aspects of death, so I really can't see their priests offering healing except to thier servants/lackeys. Almost all of them cannot organize in typical settings (cities, etc) unless the city is extremely tollerant (Sigil) or evil. That adds a risk of danger to these priests operating in view, and selling their services would make them targets.




I believe there would be small (heavily monitored) public temples to the evil gods even in neutral and good-aligned cities simply to sell indulgences and protections from the evil god's domain.  Think of them as bribes, if you will.  To Nerull may prevent untimely death, Hextor for fortune in battle, and Vecna  for a boon when searching for lost knowledge.  

These would be the public faces for the religions.  In reality they are probably little more than a socially-acceptable sources of funding for the well-concealed and actively evil temples. 

This naturally excludes theocracies.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Don't know where you're writing from, d4, but while dandelions aren't native to North America, we've certainly got a lot of them.  This is because dandelions were brought over from Europe as a hardy, fast-growing food crop.  Heck, dandelions are still eaten in many places.  I can go to my local grocery store and buy dandelion greens today.




Here in the US south, dandelion salads aren't unheard of.  They aren't exactly common, but I heard of 'em.   

"Weed" is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Riiight. Whatever happened to the idea that you don't sacrifice or even say the name of evil gods?



You're thinking monotheism. You're thinking exclusionary religion. That's not classic polytheism as it is represented in D&D.

The idea that a Everything can also = Good as represented in Judeo-Christianity is a relatively recent and strange idea. The most powerful being in existence is benevolent -- that's frickin' radical, and goes against what most people would consider common experience ("if he's all-powerful and good, why do bad things happen?"....it takes impressive theological philosophy to wrap your mind around that, not something that a lot of societies can really afford the time for...people today even struggle with that Problem of Evil).

So if Everything is not Good, if all power is not also all benevolent, it makes sense that Evil would have some power. You can't banish Evil from the world, because Good doesn't encompass It All. As represented in the PHB, there's no Good Tyranny. There's no Good Undeath. There's no Good Assassin Deity. These are things Evil has power over, and Good has no power over...

So if you want to avoid those things, it makes sense to not only make those gods happy, but also the gods opposing them happy. For instance, if you wanted to make sure your grandma wasn't re-animated as a zombie, you'd sacrifice to Nerull (so that he doesn't hate you for not sacrificing to him, and re-animate your grandma out of spite), and Pelor (so that if Nerull wants to animate her, her can help lay her to rest again). If you want to avoid tryanny, you sacrifice to Hextor ("please do not empower your servants to rule over us") and to Heironeous ("please give all our leaders divine guidance"). 

Just because you don't like the god doesn't mean you can ignore them...they have a real and measurable power in the world.

There are, of course, exceptions. No high elf of goodness prays to Lolth, becauase she has been excommunicated, so to speak. The elves have disdained all use of spiders, poison, dominatrixes, etc. that Lolth represents. They have no use for a god of that because as far as they are concerned that does not exist; it's not part of their world, and it's not part of reality, and to note it is to give it power. They don't pray to Lolth to not sick spiders on them, because in their mind, Lolth has no power over spiders.

But Nerull isn't an outcast from the pantheon. He may not be nice, but he governs a force that really is in the world. And powerful figures will destroy those they don't like, if they can. They can destroy you. You stop that only by making sure Nerull doesn't hate you -- by sacrificing to him.

Of course, this is in the view of the commoner. The cleric probably has a very different view of the situation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*Weeds*

I'd like to weigh in on the weeds/plant growth question.

Weeds ARE in the eye of the beholder, as I found out from the farm my family has, as well as from a stay in Kansas in my early teens.  A crop is a uniform, cultivated field of plants that are meant to be harvested by sentient beings for their purposes.  ANY plant not part of that cultivation plan is, at some level, a weed to THAT farmer because it uses resources that he would rather have going to his crop.

So, as my alfalfa farming teacher in Kansas pointed out, the marijuana that grew alongside it symbiotically was a weed.  

So, a stalk of corn in a vinyard would be a weed, as would the grapevine in the cornfield.

As for things that many people consider to be weeds outright...Dandelion salads can be quite tasty, as can tea made from that plant.  And Kudzu, scourge of the South, has recently been discovered to be appetizing to sheep and goats.  If that doesn't detrimentally affect their flavor, we may see an increase in both of those creatures on the menu.

Like the man said- weeds produce seeds, flowers, leaves, etc.  They may even produce fruit, like the nightshade plant (a family, which, BTW includes potatoes and tomatoes)- but it may not be of use to THAT person.

So, by a strict reading, the plant growth spell would increase the productivity of both crop and weed.

However, since the first thing a farmer does is remove unwanted plants from his field, and repeats the action on a regular basis, a crop would be_ relatively_ weed free.  So, if the farmer & his hands had JUST performed a good weeding before the hired spellcaster laid some carefully targeted spells like plant growth, etc., he would get a much higher level of food production from his crop- which is exactly what a smart farmer would do.

While there may still be weeds present even after the labors of the farmer & his crew, the tradeoff would probably be worth it.

On the other hand, ticking off a spellcaster might also get your crops devoured by creeping doom or a giant locust.

Or turned into a Shambling Mound.

Or just fireballed.

Probable High-Tech vs Magical food production ratio-  1:1

(Besides, if I properly recall, earlier interpretations (1st and 2nd Ed) of plant growth allowed the spell to be used to increase the HD or heal things like Shambling Mounds and other sentient plants.)


----------



## MavrickWeirdo

And now the question that just makes it worse

What about Elven population?


----------



## kigmatzomat

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> And now the question that just makes it worse
> 
> What about Elven population?




This bugged me too until I stopped and did the math.  The "eternal" races stay away from humanity because the side-effects of humanity slaughter them.   Wars and plagues screw with the long-lived races far more than it does the humans.  

Let's look at pretty much any period in earth history.  There's been a significant plague every 2-3 human generations (50-60years) for virtually ever.  Every 1-2 human generations (20-50years) you have a war (or worse, a multigenerational war like the Hundred Years War or the War of the Roses).    

The magic we've seen at the commoner level may help them survive individual infections, but plagues will overwhelm the available magics in no time flat.  

In the century it takes elves to reach maturity there have been 2 plagues and 2-5 wars (we'll say 3).  With a 10% mortality rate for each event, an elven child raised in close proximity to humans will only have a 60% chance of reaching adulthood, which ignores the rigors of childbirth.  

Assuming elves take 50 years on average before they have their first child, and only 43% of elves reach child-rearing age.  *This ignores the elven frailty and the fact the elves are more susceptible to diseases and have few hps than humans!*

The only way the elves and halflings can survive is to pull back.  Dwarves and gnomes are tougher than humans (high con, bonus to saves) so they probably fare better in mixed communities, though war is equally devastating since humans will have 2+ generations for every long-lived generation to repopulate.  

Overall, the long-lived races will have boom/bust type populations where it slowly swells, suffers a plague/war, then swells again.  Elves and dwarves probably rely heavily on long-running mystical defenses of their territories to make their borders seem more fordible than their population could justify.  (golems, summonings, area effect mind-affecting enchantments, permanent *symbols,* etc) Elven skirmishers with bows can harry much larger forces in their forests while the shoulder-to-shoulder dwarves can generally defeat opponents due to superior tactics and competence.  

The one advantage the elder races possess is superior historical information.  Old elves and dwarves have more exposure to wars than any human so even an elven commoner will be a more than competent tactician.  

But this means the long-lived races are in a holding action, waiting to gain territory when humans are weak and expecting to lose it when a nasty bug gets through their borders.  

The baelnorn starts looking like a very logical maneuver since it creates a plague-proof continuum of knowledge that can help the long-term survival of the race vs. the high-speed breeders.


----------



## VirgilCaine

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> This bugged me too until I stopped and did the math.  The "eternal" races stay away from humanity because the side-effects of humanity slaughter them.   Wars and plagues screw with the long-lived races far more than it does the humans.
> 
> The only way the elves and halflings can survive is to pull back.  Dwarves and gnomes are tougher than humans (high con, bonus to saves) so they probably fare better in mixed communities, though war is equally devastating since humans will have 2+ generations for every long-lived generation to repopulate.
> 
> Overall, the long-lived races will have boom/bust type populations where it slowly swells, suffers a plague/war, then swells again.  Elves and dwarves probably rely heavily on long-running mystical defenses of their territories to make their borders seem more fordible than their population could justify.  (golems, summonings, area effect mind-affecting enchantments, permanent *symbols,* etc) Elven skirmishers with bows can harry much larger forces in their forests while the shoulder-to-shoulder dwarves can generally defeat opponents due to superior tactics and competence.
> 
> The one advantage the elder races possess is superior historical information.  Old elves and dwarves have more exposure to wars than any human so even an elven commoner will be a more than competent tactician.
> 
> But this means the long-lived races are in a holding action, waiting to gain territory when humans are weak and expecting to lose it when a nasty bug gets through their borders.
> 
> The baelnorn starts looking like a very logical maneuver since it creates a plague-proof continuum of knowledge that can help the long-term survival of the race vs. the high-speed breeders.




So this equates to halflings and elves being the reclusive sylvan types, Dwarves and Gnomes being somewhat mixed with humans, and half-orcs probably being the most common non-human PCs.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed


----------



## kigmatzomat

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> How does this align with the short-lived races (i.e., goblinoids)?  Are you suggesting (as I imagine) that humans should just stay away from them, apart from the occasional adventurer, in order to maximize their breeding potential?  And, like humans to elves, those pesky orcs keep pushing into our territory....!




Basically, yeah, but less so.  

Orcs likely have 15-year generations (just guessing based on the age reduction of Half-orcs vs humans) so orcs have 4 generations to ever 3 human ones.  4:3 isn't nearly the same as the 5:1 elf:human or 2:1 halflings:human ratios. Humans might not notice the birthrate advantage of orcs if they live in a mixed community.  It's not like your orcish neighbor's newborn will grow old and die in the time it takes you to go from middle-aged to old.   That kid will have a (natural) lifespan of 50-70 vs your kids 70-110 and most of the age difference will be at the "Venerable" level.  

Orcs don't have any particular advantage compared to humans on the plague front, but their high strength might increase their odds of surviving battles.  I toss it out as a wash, given their chaotic-evil society and say orcs and humans have the same general mortality.  

Now the orc:elf generation ratio is 7:1, giving orcs a significant advantage.  This could be why the orcs target the elves; in a half dozen generations the orcs could actually wipe out an elven community and take their land.  Of course, this would require orcs maintaining a plan for more than a century, but what the heck, it could happen somewhere.


----------



## D+1

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
> Enrichment says "plants"--not "crops", "plants" production is enriched. AFAIK, weeds were plants.



What I understand is that the purpose of the Enrichment effect is NOT to exacerbate the proliferation of weeds.  As you yourself point out the net effect of enhancing the output of weeds along with "crops" is ZERO.  Pretty spiffy effect for a 3rd level spell - one which is going out of its way to provide very seperate effects, one for "attack" and one for general BENEFIT.

If you insist on your interpretation of the spell, by all means go ahead.  After all, from a real-world botanists POV you are undoubtedly correct.  But it sure does seem to make it a thoroughly pointless effect, and from the D&D spellcasters POV, IMO you're just plain wrong in how it ought to, and does work.

D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules.  At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality.  That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general.  That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Even his version of the Plant Growth spell does actually provide benefits. It allows land that could not be productively farmed to be productively farmed and allows more production per unit of land. Neither of these are an issue in open and fertile land but where arable land is at a premium, they are a significant benefit. Even if the spell doesn't change the amount of labor necessary per unit of food, it would change the amount of food producable per unit of land. And that would be very significant in any number of situations from medieval Japan which supported a lot of people on a small amount of land to areas where farming is not normally viable.



			
				D+1 said:
			
		

> What I understand is that the purpose of the Enrichment effect is NOT to exacerbate the proliferation of weeds.  As you yourself point out the net effect of enhancing the output of weeds along with "crops" is ZERO.  Pretty spiffy effect for a 3rd level spell - one which is going out of its way to provide very seperate effects, one for "attack" and one for general BENEFIT.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules. At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality. That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general. That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.



Which is why it's a bit risky, but I thought puzzling out the life of a common commoner was worth it, since there seemed to be some pretty big misconceptions about 'em. 

I'd say, yeah, a pre-weeded field would produce more crops as a result of _plant growth_. But _plant growth_ is a third level spell -- the only fields that would benefit from it are the fields of larger cities, which would require the extra yield to feed people on a lot less land (since more of the land is dedicated to living space), for instance.

And as for other races......hoo boy, that's a whole 'notehr can of worms.


----------



## Fieari

I wish people would stop chiming in with "D&D rules aren't SUPPOSED to make sense!"

It's been said.  All you who believe this, you are welcome to it, please be on your way.  For the rest of us, we're fascinated by this stuff.  I've been following this thread since it was 4 pages.  I'm currently embarking in some world building, so all this debate is proving wonderfully useful.  I'd -love- to be able to create a world at least marginally internally consistant, and that's what I'm going for.

That comment on longer lived races is quite neat as well... fits in spectacularly I think.  It -is- a whole nother kettle of worms, of course.


One of the things my group has been considering for our collaborative homebrew is making the majority of magic users in the realm artificers instead... we haven't worked out class specs exactly yet, but the thought is that they spend more time building and making stuff than going around casting spells... if in fact they can cast spells directly at all.  I (and my group) personally think that this does wonders towards keeping levels low.  All that xp spent on making stuff!  On the other hand, it does make magical items slightly more common, but only slightly... it's still bloody expensive as far as your regular joe is concerned.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*More Weeds*

Just reread the 3.5Ed version of the spell Plant growth.

Plant Growth has 2 different effects, chosen by the spellcaster at the time of casting.  It either causes normal vegetation ("grasses, briars, bushes, creepers, thistles, trees, vines") in the targeted area become overgrown and thick enough to hinder movement or causes plants to increase their potential productivity 33% above normal in the next year.

Now, we could get all lawyer-y about the distinction between the use of "normal vegetation" or "plant" in the text, but it wouldn't get us anywhere, since a crop could be a grass, bush, vine, tree, etc.

It is more useful to distinguish based on the 2 effects.  The first effect only enhances GROWTH, the other, PRODUCTIVITY.  The former is just a simple measurement of plant size, the second would be a measure of fruiting, seeding, leafyness, and other measurements of lushness of the foliage.

Basically, by a straightforward reading of the spell, it should affect any plant in the area of the spell.

Thus, if the second version is cast upon a well-tended field, the result is a net increase in the harvest from the crop.  If cast upon an ill-tended field, the weeds would benefit just as much, and the farmer's neighbors would be P-Oed as the weeds spread their increased seed production over the area.

(And, unlike certain previous interpretations I recalled, it does not affect plant creatures.)

As for:


> D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules. At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality. That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general. That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.




That is just a cop-out.  The magic system must have an internal logic.  If there is insufficient internal logic in the magic system, the game breaks down because it is no longer able to model effects consistently.


----------



## Fingol

D+1 said:
			
		

> D&D is NOT meant to have too much reality applied to it at virtually ANY point in the rules.  At every turn it is in fact attempting to dodge the un-fun and brutality of reality.  That's something that should be kept in mind throughout a thread like this - D&D rules are NOT structured to withstand the scrutiny of extended application of real-world physics, or sociology, or even logic in general.  That's why it's fantasy roleplaying, not hard SF.




I don't necessarily disagree with the above; but how do you 'play smart' in a game world where players can not draw links between cause and effect? For if the rules can not withstand scrutiny of logic how can the world make sense? How can a player avoid appearing like a bull in a china shop? What does a player do if his DM insists that his players should play smart but that the relationships between cause and effect are such personal opinions in any game world? If your DM keeps on insisting where does the fun go?


----------



## kigmatzomat

D+1 said:
			
		

> What I understand is that the purpose of the Enrichment effect is NOT to exacerbate the proliferation of weeds.  As you yourself point out the net effect of enhancing the output of weeds along with "crops" is ZERO.




Not zero in total, but zero from a *manpower* standpoint.  

It works out perfectly from a *druid's* point of view.  Enrichment means every 3 acres produces 4 acres worth of food.  It just means you need 4 acres worth of farmers on the 3 acres.  So if you have 400 farmers working 400 acres, you can now put them to work on 300 acres producing the same food but freeing up 100 acres to be returned to nature.  

The farmer has a potent ally in a 5th+ level druid, has less perimeter to deal with, and probably cuts off a hundred yards worth of walk each day.  That may not seem like much but slogging through the rain or carrying bushels of grain a hundred yards is a real pain.  It also means they won't pay as much for ploughing; one of the biggest expenses.  Net wealth increases for the same effort and more convenience.  

Odds are the farmers and the druid split the difference so if the farmers get an extra 25 acres of pasture land they can keep animals on or plant a cash crop so they've just increased their total potential wealth.  Especially when that 25 acres produces the equivalent of 33 acres; they just need an additional 33 acres worth of manpower to capitalize on it.


----------



## Rhialto

My own take on the evil god matter is it's an alignment/focus matter that determines if they can rank a formal church in a good or neutral community--generally, churches that can produce priests who will fit into the community will have them.  Those that can't generally won't...

Let me give you a quick example, using the PHB gods...

HEXTOR will often have a church in an area.  Many of these will be LN churches that attempt to sell him as a sort of uber-disciplined war god, while the others will be vile-tempered LE churches which basically demand that people pay Hextor tribute, or else...  Relationships with other, more-hardline churches and priests of Hextor are going to depend on hierarchy and philosophy--for example, the Order of the Iron Fist is a largely LN organisation that sees itself as a monastic tradition training hard warriors to face a grim world.  It does not get along with the LE Orthodox Church of Hextor, which is largely backed by the Empire of Asir, a gigantic, partially theocratic dictatorship.  The Order sees the Church as giving into worldly politics and losing sight of Hextor's spiritual significance--the Church sees the Order as air-headed fools whose philosophing has obscured Hextor's practical message, which is of course, the Church of Hextor running the show.  Still, they can manage an uneasy coexistance, while neither of them can get along with various NE cult leaders who, gathering followers together, proclaim themselves the 'Chosen of Hextor' and proceed to either cut a bloody swath through the land until some hero stops them, or plot in secret to unleash ancient evils/free devils/kick puppies, etc...

NERULL might have a LE church in the area, one that will claim to have given up all the human sacrifice and undead creation parts of the religion, and that is probably lying, though you won't catch them at it.  It's quite possible that they have come to some formal relationship with the city government, allowing them to worship their grim god and yet still be functioning members of the community-- serving as executioners for criminals, to give an example.  Most of their worship is in the form of 'Please Lord Nerull, don't kill my spouse', 'Oh, mighty Reaper, don't let my children come back as zombies', and the occasional, half-guilty 'Oh Lord of Bones--if Hew the Milner could drop dead--of natural causes, I'd be ever so thankful...'  The church is probably willing to shelter less social members of the religion, as long as they don't start any trouble, and move out quickly.  It should be pointed out that Nerull's cult has a rival in Wee Jas, and so they aren't always going to have a church.

VECNA will have LE or NE churches that attempt to set themselves up as information brokers, possessers of mystical secrets, and sellers of magical items.  They also claim to have given up the human sacrifice and undeath stuff, and some of them might be telling the truth, because these guys are aiming at bigger game.  Your local church of Vecna will try to put on a friendly front as they make themselves indispensable to the residents and government--and gather blackmail material.  They are very likely to try to come to arrangement with the local criminal element, and meddle frequently in local politics.  Naturally, the church is always in danger of being raided by the local authorities, forcibly disbanded or arrested, so they spend a lot of time greasing wheels, and making sure they have allies.  They're perfectly willing to channel support to the more extreme members of the religion, but like the Nerullites, don't want them around sullying their home turf.  And once again, rivalries and problems with the local authorities mean you're not always going to have a church.

ERYNTHUL usually does not have a local church, since his priesthood are basically serial killers.  Usually, his faith is represented by secretive cult cells meeting in basements and sewers, and scheming to kill people.  Erynthul is the sort of god that your more civilized sort doesn't like to talk about, or even give money to.  I mean, the other evil gods have--some variety.  Some ambivelance. Hextor is lord of Force, as well as Tyranny, Nerull is god of Death in general, not just Undead Things That Will Not Rest in the Earth, and Vecna's Secrets don't have to be Vile Secrets That Man Was Not Meant To Know.  You can do your business with them and come out unsullied.  Erynthul's God of Murder and Slaughter.  You maybe toss out a quick prayer to him in fear and anger every once and while, but you don't worship him.  It just leaves you feeling--dirty.  It takes a special something to get involved in Erynthul's church, a sort of cold disregard for other people that many people lack, at least in the quantities needed to join the church.  The closest thing you're going to find to an accepted Erynthul worship in a neutral community is the Chaotic Neutral raiders who call on Erynthul to let their enemies blood flow like wine, and that's hardly an organized religion...

Of course, this is all opinion, I freely admit, and if any wish to dispute me--please do!  I enjoy a good discussion!


----------



## D+1

Fieari said:
			
		

> I wish people would stop chiming in with "D&D rules aren't SUPPOSED to make sense!"
> 
> It's been said.  All you who believe this, you are welcome to it, please be on your way.



Yes it's been said before, but people seem to keep forgetting it - and I will NOT go away.

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm not saying that there is no use to this thread.  It's _wonderfully_ useful and a fun exercise.  I tend to play devil's advocate though, and they ARE rules for roleplaying, not for worldbuilding and that's why certain extrapolations just kinda bug me.

Take the random town generation tables in the DMG.  People put a LOT of stock into those tables - but why?  They're not MEANT for reverse engineering an entire campaign worlds demographics.  That first sentence of the town generation section says, "When the PC's come into a town and you need to generate facts about the town quickly you can use the following material."  While it does quite well at laying out a working demographic model it doesn't pretend to be the last word.  Nor should it.  The ENTIRE section on world building is a paltry 8.5 pages.

World building is an art; not a science whose formulae can be derived from three pages of impromptu data generation and text.

Of course, that's just my opinion.  But be careful about telling too many people that their opinion isn't wanted.  It is by constant, endless defense of ideas against detractors, or newer (and potentially better) views, that we avoid stagnation and regression.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Take the random town generation tables in the DMG. People put a LOT of stock into those tables - but why? They're not MEANT for reverse engineering an entire campaign worlds demographics.



All true, but they've proved quite useful here.......seems like even if they weren't meant for it, some world-building thought went into 'em. And they make for a surprisngly coherent world.  

They're not the final word. For instance, a lot of people didn't accept the 2 attacks/day idea, and instead decided that plague and disease was the great threat. But they are quite suggested by the rules.....

Now applying an economy to this might be a further exercize in futility.  But I've never felt a need for that.  Feeling out what the baseline, everyday life is in a D&D world is a worthy use of the extrapolation, I feel. 

More on the Evil Cults:
I think it's more common than that -- the D&D gods work together to define the forces that govern the world, and it's ignorant folly to ignore these forces, even when they aren't particularly pleasant ones. I find myself reaching back to Greece a lot to compare....a creature like Dionyssus isn't exactly *constructive* for society, with revelry, excess, gender-bending and whatnot....but he was still honored and respected with the rest of the gods, and in some cases more so (because it dealt with the forces he had control over).

Similarly, Erythnul *is* violence. Violence is part of everyday life. You don't just sacrifice to him to encourage  violence, you also sacrifice to him to prevent it...a happy god doesn't come down hard on you, after all. 

So in most communities, there will be festivals, sacrifices, and common prayers to Erythnul. He could be muttered in the same prayer as Heironeous: "Let Heironious infuse our allies with honor, and let Erthynul take the enemy." Every June 20th, the feast of Slaughtersday is held, and a sacrifice of animals and captured enemies is made to placate the god (people are doused in the blood). It is common to dedicate the bodies of those killed in hostile action to Erythnul by chopping them into a fine paste. These aren't weird or frightening. Indeed, NOT doing these things (and thus incurring the god's wrath) could get one punished by the law, because the god could take out his anger on the entire town that sheltered such an individual. And what would you rather have, one person punished, or an entire town slaughtered?

Who is a priest of Erythnul will vary with the town...in some small communities, adepts or experts will serve that role, and there is no adpet oath.  In larger communities, where there is a cleric, they won't nessecarily be serial killers -- though they would undoubtedly *like* serial killers. Because in addition to the private, violent, unpleasant face of Erythnul, there is also the socially accepted side. The everday side. And it is just as extreme to dedicate one's life to needless slaughter as it is to ignore it completely. Though that's why other gods exist -- as checks and balances on the power of others. If a cleric of Erythnul gets to be a serial killer, Erythnul will love him -- but Pelor? Heironeous? They're going to work against him, bring him to justice, etc.


----------



## Rhialto

What everyday side is there to mass murder?   Erynthul isn't the god of simple violence--hell, Hextor, Hieroneus, St. Cuthbert and Kord could be said to have that under their portfolios as well--he's the god of _Slaughter_.  Of killing because you _like_ it.  Most societies are not going to feel comfortable with them hanging around.  (I mean, Olidammara's bad enough, but at least you don't have to check for missing persons once his holy days passed...)  What's more I'd say some gods really are _persona non gratas_ in their little pantheons--Seth comes to mind--and while a person may mention them in prayers and oaths, they aren't going to worship them directly.  Erynthul strikes me as a Devil sort of god--you don't pray to him, you don't talk about him, you don't do anything to attract his interest, because he's evil, nasty, and unpredictable.  You don't try to get his favor, because when you've got his attention on you, you don't know if you can keep his favor.

As for his priests--these guys aren't standing around discussing the ramifications of murder--well, not all the time anyway--they're going out to commit murder.  An Erynthul worship ceremony isn't meeting in a hall and reciting a liturgy--it's knifing a man in a back alley and then muttering a short prayer to Erynthul over the body.  Then its on their way, because people aren't going to kill themselves, you know.  At least not in the numbers to keep Erynthul happy.  

Now I'm not saying that Erynthul won't have organized temples in some evil and dark neutrality dominated lands, and these might operate under the rationale you mentioned.  But Erynthul's speciality is not only anti-social, it's actively destructive.  You don't pray to Erynthul to protect you from violence--you pray to Pelor to protect you from Erynthul.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> What everyday side is there to mass murder? Erynthul isn't the god of simple violence--hell, Hextor, Hieroneus, St. Cuthbert and Kord could be said to have that under their portfolios as well--he's the god of _Slaughter_. Of killing because you _like_ it. Most societies are not going to feel comfortable with them hanging around. (I mean, Olidammara's bad enough, but at least you don't have to check for missing persons once his holy days passed...) What's more I'd say some gods really are _persona non gratas_ in their little pantheons--Seth comes to mind--and while a person may mention them in prayers and oaths, they aren't going to worship them directly. Erynthul strikes me as a Devil sort of god--you don't pray to him, you don't talk about him, you don't do anything to attract his interest, because he's evil, nasty, and unpredictable. You don't try to get his favor, because when you've got his attention on you, you don't know if you can keep his favor.



Well, the possible 'flaw' with this agrument (which is really just a differnece of opinion -- there's nothing WRONG with your idea. ) is that you're thinking of it as Monotheism, not Polytheism. Erythnul may be evil, but in the everyday lives of most people, there is evil. It's not something you ignore and pretend doesn't exist, because it's illogical to pretend violence, slaughter, etc. doesn't exist. You do pray to him -- to avoid slaughter, or to wish it on your enemies. He's evil, nasty, and unpredictable, but so was Dionysus, for instance.  Yet people payed him homage in the right circumstances.

Same thing with Set. He's evil and destructive, but he ws an everyday part of the world, and you had to pray to him if you wanted to avoid that destruction, just as if you wanted to inflict it on your enemies. Because unlike in most Monotheisms, Good doesn't include Everything. There are things that exist that aren't good at all. But they still exist, and gods still have power over them, and they are still a part of everyday life, even if they aren't particularly desirable elements of it. 



> As for his priests--these guys aren't standing around discussing the ramifications of murder--well, not all the time anyway--they're going out to commit murder. An Erynthul worship ceremony isn't meeting in a hall and reciting a liturgy--it's knifing a man in a back alley and then muttering a short prayer to Erynthul over the body. Then its on their way, because people aren't going to kill themselves, you know. At least not in the numbers to keep Erynthul happy.



There are a few ways to go about this.

#1: They kill people, but who cares? If they kill the evil witch, or the greedy, lonely miser, or the diseased who will succumb to the plague anyway, they're nearly doing society a service.

#2: They don't need to kill people, they just need to _advocate_ it. According to the PHB, the only thing a cleric of Erythnul has to do to get spells is pray to him once per day and be Chaotic Evil. Someone who wants slaughter, even if they never actually involve themselves, is probably Chaotic Evil, right? So Erythnul likes him for advocating his philosophy, even if he doesn't live as a personification of the god. Indeed, emulating the deity by enacting mass slaughters could be hubristic. Know your place, mortal. 

#3: They kill people, but society accepts it. They turn a blind eye to the occasional murder in the street and death of a member, because if they don't, they'll get it worse in the end. Eradicating the church doesn't solve this problem, because the churches in other cities would destroy you, or Erythnul would send monsters to destroy you. Instead, you allow the sacrifice of the individual to preserve the function of society. Most people are Neutral after all, and this doesn't make the church-members nessecarily above the law. Those who commit the murders can still be brought to justice. It just means that the practice is not likely to stop. It's likely to continue, as long as both sides accept the continuing cycle.



> Now I'm not saying that Erynthul won't have organized temples in some evil and dark neutrality dominated lands, and these might operate under the rationale you mentioned. But Erynthul's speciality is not only anti-social, it's actively destructive. You don't pray to Erynthul to protect you from violence--you pray to Pelor to protect you from Erynthul.



Why can't you do both?

In polytheism, generally speaking, each god has a sphere of life it has control over, and it has no power beyond that sphere. And there is also an uncrossable gap between the gods and the mortals. Erythnul is the god of slaughter. That's what he does, that's all he does. He is defined and absorbed in this practice. You can't possibly live a full life *just* praying to Erythnul. Living life like Erythnul would like you to would mean turning a blind eye to the moderation required for life - you would never heal, you would never raise a family, you would just kill, mindlessly, for eternity, just like Erythnul does, and you would be killed when you do, because *people aren't supposed to live like the gods do*. Even a devoted Chaotic Evil cleric of Erythnul would pull back and raise a family. He's not a madman -- he just loves bloodshed. He doesn't have to live his life as a constant whirlwind of terror, and no one would expect him to, and he would meet an untimely end if he did. Instead, he's supposed to live as a functional member of society, and serve as the intermediary between Erythnul and mortal life, being as much like the god as any mortal can. Erythnul has power over a definate aspect of life, one that any logical mind can realize is part and parcel of life. And whenever that aspect of life is encountered, Pelor has no power to help you -- only Erythnul can, as unpleasant as that prospect is. Pelor has 0 power over slaughter and violence. Neither does Heironeous. Or Hextor. Or Wee Jas. If you are dealing with savage, bloody violence, Erythnul is the only creature in existence that can aid you, either by summoning it up, or by dismissing it. Erythnul may be evil, but the aspect of life he has control over doesn't only happen to evil people. Slaughter is a daily fear for many, and only by making sure Erythnul isn't irked at you can you avoid it. If Erythnul is irked at you, Pelor can't save you. Pelor can help you heal in the aftermath, maybe. But Erythnul's domain is slaughter, and there's nothing Pelor can do to stop him in his dominion. 

In comparison, in Christianity, you can live without the Devil. Because the One God is All, you don't need a force of evil with control, and you don't need to placate the force of evil to get it to relent, because Good has power over Evil. Good trumps Evil. So if you just pray to Good, Good will give you good things, and save you from Evil, all at the same time.

In polytheism, though, Good doesn't trump Evil. Good doesn't control Evil. Good exists. Evil exists. To protect yourself from Evil, you need to make both Good and Evil happy. Because if you don't make Evil happy, there's no garuntee Good will win against it....indeed, Good is almost garunteed to fail, because it has no power over those things that Evil has power has over.

Of course, the reverse is true, too. To get Good things to happen, you have to make both Good and Evil happy, because if you don't make Good happy, there's no garuntee it will overpower the Evil...indeed, Evil is almost garunteed to fail, because it has no power over those things that Good has power over.

So you want to protect yourself from a hobgoblin army? You pray to all the gods. You say "Pelor heal the wounded," and you pray to the sun. You say "Kord give our warriors Strength," and you hit your chest. You say "Heironeous give our leaders courage," and you raise your right fist. You say "Hextor give our leaders power," and you raise your left. You say "Erythnul, take my blood instead of our heroes'," and you pour a bit of your blood on the ground. You say "Nerull, may our fear keep us strong," and you spread some earth aronud. You say "Vecna, keep our tactics silent," and you burn a book. 

Because if you don't, your tactics will be blabbed, your blood will be taken, your leaders will be weak, cowardly, or too gentle, and your wounded will die. Because to deny a god it's rightful honors is to affront it, and is to attract it's attention -- for better, or for worse.


----------



## Creamsteak

If your the most common commoner, more common than any other commoner... the most common...

Would that make you less common?

Stupid question...


----------



## Raven Crowking

Removed by author.


----------



## Rhialto

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, the possible 'flaw' with this agrument (which is really just a differnece of opinion -- there's nothing WRONG with your idea. ) is that you're thinking of it as Monotheism, not Polytheism. Erythnul may be evil, but in the everyday lives of most people, there is evil. It's not something you ignore and pretend doesn't exist, because it's illogical to pretend violence, slaughter, etc. doesn't exist. You do pray to him -- to avoid slaughter, or to wish it on your enemies. He's evil, nasty, and unpredictable, but so was Dionysus, for instance.  Yet people payed him homage in the right circumstances.





Umm, no I'm not.  Even in polytheistic religions there were "gods" that pretty much amounted to the boogeyman--"gods" that maybe you set out a loaf of bread for on dark nights, "gods" that the other gods were seeing as holding in check.  



> Same thing with Set. He's evil and destructive, but he ws an everyday part of the world, and you had to pray to him if you wanted to avoid that destruction, just as if you wanted to inflict it on your enemies. Because unlike in most Monotheisms, Good doesn't include Everything. There are things that exist that aren't good at all. But they still exist, and gods still have power over them, and they are still a part of everyday life, even if they aren't particularly desirable elements of it.




Prior to the Hyskos, maybe, but after that, Set was little more than a devil.  His name was erased, his statues were destroyed.  After that--no priests of Set.  No prayers to Set.  

Or to give another example--Anupis the Serpent.  By D&D standards, Anupis qualifies as a god.  But it is a negative god--a god that is not worshiped, but for whom the other gods are worshiped for defeating.  The argument I'm making is that Erythnul's place, and philosophy--he's Chaotic Evil, which is essentially like having a large sign placed on your head that says 'does not work well with others'.



> There are a few ways to go about this.
> 
> #1: They kill people, but who cares? If they kill the evil witch, or the greedy, lonely miser, or the diseased who will succumb to the plague anyway, they're nearly doing society a service.




And this goes fine until they kill the wealthy merchant, the mayor's young daughter, or the beloved old philanthropist.



> #2: They don't need to kill people, they just need to _advocate_ it. According to the PHB, the only thing a cleric of Erythnul has to do to get spells is pray to him once per day and be Chaotic Evil. Someone who wants slaughter, even if they never actually involve themselves, is probably Chaotic Evil, right? So Erythnul likes him for advocating his philosophy, even if he doesn't live as a personification of the god. Indeed, emulating the deity by enacting mass slaughters could be hubristic. Know your place, mortal.




No, it's hubris if they start saying 'Why, I'm better at mass murder than Erythnul!'  Prior to that they are being good worshipers, killing in his name.  And please tell me--what keeps your Chaotic Evil priest advocating murder but not committing murder?  I'd like to know.



> #3: They kill people, but society accepts it. They turn a blind eye to the occasional murder in the street and death of a member, because if they don't, they'll get it worse in the end. Eradicating the church doesn't solve this problem, because the churches in other cities would destroy you, or Erythnul would send monsters to destroy you. Instead, you allow the sacrifice of the individual to preserve the function of society. Most people are Neutral after all, and this doesn't make the church-members nessecarily above the law. Those who commit the murders can still be brought to justice. It just means that the practice is not likely to stop. It's likely to continue, as long as both sides accept the continuing cycle.




Yes, but most people don't want to get murdered themselves, and most authorities are going to want the people under them to feel safe, because that's how they _stay_ the authorities, so letting the Holy Temple of Cruel Slaughter operate legally is probably not going to go over very well.

People may use those rationalizations to "accept" the underground chapters of the cult, the same way some people "accept" drug dealers and serial killers.  But that doesn't mean they'll like it...




> In polytheism, generally speaking, each god has a sphere of life it has control over, and it has no power beyond that sphere.




But in the Greek model, we have Athena, Ares, Zeus, and Apollo all with direct power over battles.  In the Egyptian, multiple dieties claim to be creators of the world, with battles and intrigues between the priesthoods.  Among the Hindus, we see multiple gods of everything, including sun and battle.  Some people pray to all of them, but many more pray to a few of them, or even one of them.  



> And there is also an uncrossable gap between the gods and the mortals. Erythnul is the god of slaughter. That's what he does, that's all he does. He is defined and absorbed in this practice. You can't possibly live a full life *just* praying to Erythnul. Living life like Erythnul would like you to would mean turning a blind eye to the moderation required for life - you would never heal, you would never raise a family, you would just kill, mindlessly, for eternity, just like Erythnul does, and you would be killed when you do, because *people aren't supposed to live like the gods do*.




The cult of Hercules would disagree with you there--they lived their ascetic lives in a direct imitation of his.  (And would go on to inspire the philosophical school of Cynicism.)  And for many polytheists, an act of worship meant doing as the gods do--that's the origin of the Dionysian rites you mentioned earlier.

Now, let's just take a look at Erythnul's church, shall we?  Mostly Chaotic Evil.  Hmmm--well, the Evil would be the entire 'murder is good' angle, but what does that 'Chaotic' mean.  Strongly individualistic--unlikely to conform to society's rules--contemptuous of organization and regimentation...  I'd say we're looking at an antisocial ascetic group here, with little in the way of formal discipline... Basically, a mix of yogis and serial killers... Heh... I see them now...

Wandering the land, following by the holy precepts of Erythnul (forever may He kill), seeking to bring as many as possible into His Bloody Hand, until they are at last brought to it themselves, living lives dedicated to the glories of murder.  They frown on possessions, and keep only what they can carry, and while they are not prohibited from enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, they are contemptuous of them, for has not Erythnul said that the purpose of flesh is to kill, or be killing. Oh, your priest of Erythnul knows he can not be killing all the time--that he must sleep, and eat on occasion--but it is a fact he seeks to suppress, a fact he loathes, and tries regularly to prove his superiority to.  Yea, their tales resound with such heroic figures as Black Chul, whom never did congress with a woman without slaying her afterwards, Carn the Ragged, whom ate either filth or that which he had killed with his own hands and nothing else, and Kyl Burntloaves who would not rest for the day until he had killed an old man, a young man, a child, and a mother.  Meeting under gallows and in cemeteries, they speak of their deeds, and draw their morning stars, each seeking to kill his fellows.  To begin their training, many acolytes go under the tutelage of an older priest, who teaches them the ways.  If they prove weak, they are killed--if they prove strong, they kill their masters.

Some speak of more settled priests in lands of darkness, whom have sacrifices taken to them--who build churches, and council monarchs.  "But fie on them!" shouts the dedicated priest of Erythnul.  "This is the life that Erythnul has chosen for me--my hand against all others, and all others hand against mine!"  And with weapon raised high, he continues on the bloody path of Erythnul.



> Even a devoted Chaotic Evil cleric of Erythnul would pull back and raise a family. He's not a madman -- he just loves bloodshed. He doesn't have to live his life as a constant whirlwind of terror, and no one would expect him to, and he would meet an untimely end if he did.




Some would argue that doing so would be the greatest act of faith that the priest could show.    




> Instead, he's supposed to live as a functional member of society, and serve as the intermediary between Erythnul and mortal life, being as much like the god as any mortal can.




But being as much like Erythnul as he can is going to make him a dysfunctional member of society, unless said society is pretty dysfunctional itself.  Now, seeing that Erythnul and his priest are both antisocial, and figuring that in the battle between god and society, god will when, society is going to take a fairly dim view of the priests of Erythnul, and the priests of Erythnul will take a likewise dim view of society.



> Erythnul has power over a definate aspect of life, one that any logical mind can realize is part and parcel of life. And whenever that aspect of life is encountered, Pelor has no power to help you -- only Erythnul can, as unpleasant as that prospect is. Pelor has 0 power over slaughter and violence.




Sure he does.  He helps you withstand it.



> Neither does Heironeous.  Or Hextor.




Right.  That whole 'war' aspect of their powers--no help whatsoever.



> Or Wee Jas.




A god of death can be no help in--preventing death.



> If you are dealing with savage, bloody violence, Erythnul is the only creature in existence that can aid you, either by summoning it up, or by dismissing it. Erythnul may be evil, but the aspect of life he has control over doesn't only happen to evil people. Slaughter is a daily fear for many, and only by making sure Erythnul isn't irked at you can you avoid it.




The thing is Erythnul is irked at everyone.  You don't make him unirked.  You pray to him for protection, he sends a horde of rampaging gnolls to your village.  You pray to every other god in your pantheon to make sure Erythnul doesn't notice you, and that if he does, they'll protect you.  Because the other gods do have some power for or against violence and with their help, you might get out of it alive.



> If Erythnul is irked at you, Pelor can't save you. Pelor can help you heal in the aftermath, maybe. But Erythnul's domain is slaughter, and there's nothing Pelor can do to stop him in his dominion.




Except that one of Pelor's specialities is... strength.  Being strong against the attacks of evil.  



> In comparison, in Christianity, you can live without the Devil. Because the One God is All, you don't need a force of evil with control, and you don't need to placate the force of evil to get it to relent, because Good has power over Evil. Good trumps Evil. So if you just pray to Good, Good will give you good things, and save you from Evil, all at the same time.
> 
> In polytheism, though, Good doesn't trump Evil. Good doesn't control Evil. Good exists. Evil exists. To protect yourself from Evil, you need to make both Good and Evil happy. Because if you don't make Evil happy, there's no garuntee Good will win against it....indeed, Good is almost garunteed to fail, because it has no power over those things that Evil has power has over.
> 
> Of course, the reverse is true, too. To get Good things to happen, you have to make both Good and Evil happy, because if you don't make Good happy, there's no garuntee it will overpower the Evil...indeed, Evil is almost garunteed to fail, because it has no power over those things that Good has power over.
> 
> So you want to protect yourself from a hobgoblin army? You pray to all the gods. You say "Pelor heal the wounded," and you pray to the sun. You say "Kord give our warriors Strength," and you hit your chest. You say "Heironeous give our leaders courage," and you raise your right fist. You say "Hextor give our leaders power," and you raise your left. You say "Erythnul, take my blood instead of our heroes'," and you pour a bit of your blood on the ground. You say "Nerull, may our fear keep us strong," and you spread some earth aronud. You say "Vecna, keep our tactics silent," and you burn a book.
> 
> Because if you don't, your tactics will be blabbed, your blood will be taken, your leaders will be weak, cowardly, or too gentle, and your wounded will die. Because to deny a god it's rightful honors is to affront it, and is to attract it's attention -- for better, or for worse.




The problem I have is that your analogy is false--even in polytheism there is the belief that Good spirits protect you from Evil ones.  Quite prominently, actually.  But the thing is, no matter who you pray to you're going to die someday, so the idea takes root that Good spirits have limitations--that even they can't protect you from everything.  And so, if things are bad, you give the bad spirits an offering to placate them, and then go back to not mentioning them.

Now, I'd say, looking at the other gods, that Erythnul is not the god of Violence in General--he's the god of a particular sort of violence.  People who think that sort of violence is what they need seek him out--others don't.  His violence does not _trump_ anyone else's violence, and neither does theirs, so you are basically free to worship or ignore him as you see fit.  Good societies, preferring war gods who don't demand that you slaughter all your prisoners to them, generally ignore him.  Erythnul may not like that, and treat them badly as a result, but he treats everyone badly, so it's really not a big deal.  Your Neutral general may give a little offering like you said, but even he stops short of letting the priests settle down, because while you can kid yourself that you can cut deals with Erythnul, the priests are there, and you find yourself dealing with guys that kill your shopkeepers, and set fire to the granaries.  At best you set up a little shrine for them to pray at as they're travelling, and maybe leave a little food there for them--and even then you keep a tight eye on that shrine, and make sure that people who visit it don't stay in the neighborhood too long.  Because that's the thing about Erythnul's followers--they don't take to rules very well.  Just killing.


----------



## kigmatzomat

I think this is getting more into world-specifics than something applicable in all settings. 

Here's a good common commoner question: what consists of a typical commoners diet? In winter?  On the half-dozen holidays?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Rhialto said:
			
		

> Now, let's just take a look at Erythnul's church, shall we? Mostly Chaotic Evil. Hmmm--well, the Evil would be the entire 'murder is good' angle, but what does that 'Chaotic' mean. Strongly individualistic--unlikely to conform to society's rules--contemptuous of organization and regimentation... I'd say we're looking at an antisocial ascetic group here, with little in the way of formal discipline... Basically, a mix of yogis and serial killers... Heh... I see them now...
> 
> Wandering the land, following by the holy precepts of Erythnul (forever may He kill), seeking to bring as many as possible into His Bloody Hand, until they are at last brought to it themselves, living lives dedicated to the glories of murder. They frown on possessions, and keep only what they can carry, and while they are not prohibited from enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, they are contemptuous of them, for has not Erythnul said that the purpose of flesh is to kill, or be killing. Oh, your priest of Erythnul knows he can not be killing all the time--that he must sleep, and eat on occasion--but it is a fact he seeks to suppress, a fact he loathes, and tries regularly to prove his superiority to. Yea, their tales resound with such heroic figures as Black Chul, whom never did congress with a woman without slaying her afterwards, Carn the Ragged, whom ate either filth or that which he had killed with his own hands and nothing else, and Kyl Burntloaves who would not rest for the day until he had killed an old man, a young man, a child, and a mother. Meeting under gallows and in cemeteries, they speak of their deeds, and draw their morning stars, each seeking to kill his fellows. To begin their training, many acolytes go under the tutelage of an older priest, who teaches them the ways. If they prove weak, they are killed--if they prove strong, they kill their masters.
> 
> Some speak of more settled priests in lands of darkness, whom have sacrifices taken to them--who build churches, and council monarchs. "But fie on them!" shouts the dedicated priest of Erythnul. "This is the life that Erythnul has chosen for me--my hand against all others, and all others hand against mine!" And with weapon raised high, he continues on the bloody path of Erythnul.




That's one possible interpretation. On the other hand, Erythnul can give his power to chaotic neutral clerics. It would be quite possible to have an area where the official cult of Erythnul in the temples sacrificed a slave or a prisoner or even a group of them at regular intervals to wish the depredations of the Many upon their enemies. There might well be a secret sect--quite possibly hereditary--that went out and actively murdered on a regular basis. However, there is no guarantee that a society wouldn't tolerate them. Indian societies tolerated Thugee for quite a long time before it was eliminated. I could easily imagine the worship of Erythnul being something like that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Typical commoner diet would vary by culture, but would. by and large consist of mostly heavy beers or diluted wines, breads, cheeses, fruits & veggies (fresh if in season, dried if not), fresh meat when they could buy/catch/poach it, but usually dried instead.  The last estimate I saw on the daily caloric intake was about 6000/day- a lot of that in liquid form.  Of course, they also expended a lot of calories in doing manual labor and maintaining body core temperature.

When I took a tour of the Cistercian Monestaries of Europe, I found out that during periods of fasting, certain special beers were consumed.  These special beers, the forerunners of today's dark beers, were so thick with grains they were jokingly called "meals in a glass," and could have somewhere around 1000 calories per serving.


----------



## Rhialto

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> That's one possible interpretation. On the other hand, Erythnul can give his power to chaotic neutral clerics. It would be quite possible to have an area where the official cult of Erythnul in the temples sacrificed a slave or a prisoner or even a group of them at regular intervals to wish the depredations of the Many upon their enemies. There might well be a secret sect--quite possibly hereditary--that went out and actively murdered on a regular basis. However, there is no guarantee that a society wouldn't tolerate them. Indian societies tolerated Thugee for quite a long time before it was eliminated. I could easily imagine the worship of Erythnul being something like that.




Except the Thugs weren't tolerated.  (Or rather, they only escaped assault because of a strong organization and bribery--and in the end that didn't help them.)  Also, Kali isn't _simply_ a god of violence and destruction--which you could say is what Erythnul's problem boils down to...


----------



## I'm A Banana

*Slaughter, Everyday*



> Or to give another example--Anupis the Serpent. By D&D standards, Anupis qualifies as a god. But it is a negative god--a god that is not worshiped, but for whom the other gods are worshiped for defeating. The argument I'm making is that Erythnul's place, and philosophy--he's Chaotic Evil, which is essentially like having a large sign placed on your head that says 'does not work well with others'.



I would argue that a god that you do not worship is not really a god. Anupis was more a monster than a deity....an epic-level monster, capable of destroying the world, but a monster nonetheless.

Gods are worshiped. If you're not worshiped, your not a god. Admittedly, that's drawing on a bit of religios theory, but I feel confident ruling as such. Gods have clerics, adepts, favored souls, druids, rangers, paladins, etc....if you don't have worshipers, you're not a deity, though you may be as powerful, if not more powerful than one. The Fenris Wolf, for instance, or the Midgard Serpent. Heck, even Satan in a certain sense.



> And this goes fine until they kill the wealthy merchant, the mayor's young daughter, or the beloved old philanthropist.



Yes, but that would be stupid.  Eythnul may advocate slaughter, but the clerics are not uniformly idiots just beacuse they're bloodthirsty. 



> No, it's hubris if they start saying 'Why, I'm better at mass murder than Erythnul!' Prior to that they are being good worshipers, killing in his name. And please tell me--what keeps your Chaotic Evil priest advocating murder but not committing murder? I'd like to know.



Saying that you are like a god is pretty hubristic. And what keeps your CE priest from murdering is the simple fact that he wants to survive to see the slaughter of the next day. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you're a creature of pure, dumb instinct. Would he kill if he got the chance? Definately. But he's not going to spend his life nessecarily dedicated to murder himself...he can spend it protecting other murderers, serving as a mouthpeice to the deity, encouraging others to give into their rage. Just because you worship a bestial god does not mean you have to be bestial yourself.



> People may use those rationalizations to "accept" the underground chapters of the cult, the same way some people "accept" drug dealers and serial killers. But that doesn't mean they'll like it...



Certainly it means some people like it. And the rest aren't affected enough to try and destroy it.



> But in the Greek model, we have Athena, Ares, Zeus, and Apollo all with direct power over battles. In the Egyptian, multiple dieties claim to be creators of the world, with battles and intrigues between the priesthoods. Among the Hindus, we see multiple gods of everything, including sun and battle. Some people pray to all of them, but many more pray to a few of them, or even one of them.



In the Greek case, don't you think you're oversimplifying "battle"? They have direct power over battles, but over different aspects -- Athena was the glory of battle, Ares was the violence of battle, Zeus was victory and strength in battle, and Apollo was archery and beauty. Apollo couldn't preside over bloodshed and violence. Zeus is a bit of an exception, because he's the trump card, but D&D religion has no such trump card. 

In the Egyptian and Hindu case, you run into locally developed deities with conflicting ideologies. People chose gods based on their location, their caste, their own personal culture. Not on belief. Comparatively in D&D, you have several creator gods -- Gruumsh, Corellon Larethian, Moradin, Garl Glittergold -- probably all with conflicting myths. Which one you believe in is dictated probably by your race...no one who believed Re created the world would believe that Amun did it, fer'instance. But these in D&D are basically addendums to the core pantheon, not defining them. D&D has three gods of arcane magic -- Vecna, Wee Jas, and Boccob. But they're gods of different aspects of magic -- Vecna governs the secrets and unknown, Wee Jas governs organization, death, and enchantment, and Boccob governs pure knowledge and magical power. When casting a divination, you pray to Boccob. When casting an illusion, Vecna. When using necromancy, Wee Jas. 



> Wandering the land, following by the holy precepts of Erythnul (forever may He kill), seeking to bring as many as possible into His Bloody Hand, until they are at last brought to it themselves, living lives dedicated to the glories of murder. They frown on possessions, and keep only what they can carry, and while they are not prohibited from enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, they are contemptuous of them, for has not Erythnul said that the purpose of flesh is to kill, or be killing. Oh, your priest of Erythnul knows he can not be killing all the time--that he must sleep, and eat on occasion--but it is a fact he seeks to suppress, a fact he loathes, and tries regularly to prove his superiority to. Yea, their tales resound with such heroic figures as Black Chul, whom never did congress with a woman without slaying her afterwards, Carn the Ragged, whom ate either filth or that which he had killed with his own hands and nothing else, and Kyl Burntloaves who would not rest for the day until he had killed an old man, a young man, a child, and a mother. Meeting under gallows and in cemeteries, they speak of their deeds, and draw their morning stars, each seeking to kill his fellows. To begin their training, many acolytes go under the tutelage of an older priest, who teaches them the ways. If they prove weak, they are killed--if they prove strong, they kill their masters.
> 
> Some speak of more settled priests in lands of darkness, whom have sacrifices taken to them--who build churches, and council monarchs. "But fie on them!" shouts the dedicated priest of Erythnul. "This is the life that Erythnul has chosen for me--my hand against all others, and all others hand against mine!" And with weapon raised high, he continues on the bloody path of Erythnul.



Obviously there's nothing wrong with this view. I like it a lot.  But I prefer my gods to be everyday parts of the PC's lives...so I see it 
more that the priests of Erythnul, Chaotic and Evil as they are, do not wish to be exterminated. If they lived lives of murder and bloodshed constantly, it's insanity, it's psychopathy. Most clerics of Erythnul, Chaotic Evil as they are, are *not* psychopaths....though certainly they don't look down on such creatures.

So they live in a temple at the fringe of society. They are feared and respected, but essential in the operation of life. Most of them live life from day to day encouraging murder, maybe sacrificing an animal or seven, praying to their deity for strength, rage, and gore.

Eyrthnul grants it in the form of goblin raids on the city. They have been more harsh as of late, and more people in the town have succumbed to them. Why? Why have the goblins increased in slaughter? Why must they succumb to this violence? Obviously, some deity must be offended...who? Talk to the Adept...he uses some magic (or at least pretends to, more likely using his Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (local) skill), determining that the got of Slaughter is to blame for the slaughter. So the mayor sends a small contingent to the temple to ask what the god demands, in exchange for renewed safety. The cleric there sees an opportunity for bloodshed, and so demands a sacrifice. The people of the town lead some boars (sacred to Erythnul) to the temple, where there are killed, and a small feast is held in Eyrhtnul's name, with the entire town praying that the god of slaughter spare them. 

Of course, since the cleric was making it up (he had paid the adept to say so, after all, just as he has paid the goblins to attack the village), the goblin raids do not stop...they in fact increase in violence and power, as people show up dead in the night, and the cleric's services become more and more required. The Gods are unhappy, he says. Erythnul is not appeased by the blood of mere beasts. Living, thinking, sentient blood must be spilled, for the transgressions. Who has transgressed? Who is to blame for this? It is the Mayor, whose recent Law of Sanctuary means that this town is a haven for those refugees from the frontiers. As a result, Pelor is becoming too popular in the city. Erythnul demans human sacrifice, from the ruling family, and a repealing of the law...this is not a shocking thing. Five years ago, he wanted the same, and the ruling family happily paid -- to not do so is to 
doom the entire town.

The mayor has a long, hard talk with his family -- one of them must die, so that the rest of the town may live. After much deliberation, they select one of his daughters, the eldest one, unlikely to marry since she was disfigured ten years ago when the worgs struck, and her hips were shattered. Clerics could heal her wounds, but the family could not afford to taker her into the city to regenerate her bones. The day before the sacrifice, she is treated like a queen. A great feast is held in her honor, and Erythnul's. Most of the common people are happy she is dying -- it will mean that they will live, after all. True, next time it could be them...but until that time comes, no sense in worrying about it. Each one has their idea of what they will do -- cut and run at the last minute (CE, CN), refuse, and sacrifice yourself instead trying to take as many goblins with you as you can (CG, though Erythnul's cleric will be happy), gladly sacrifice yourself for the good of your town (LG, LN), or get all the gifts from the sacrifice, and then attempt to argue that someone else should be sacrificed (LE). Or 1,001 variations on these ideas. Either way, accepting the death of someone else so that you may live isn't hard for most people (NN) to do. Even if it's someone you care about -- it is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, the daughter is lavished with gifts, riches, finery, a great feast of boar's meat (all the rangers in the town could hunt), and then sacrificed on the steps of the temple.

The Cleric now has had his slaughter. He wants more, but he sees the sad look in the villagers' eyes, notices the look of outright rage that the mayor's son is giving him (Sense Motive!). He knows if there is no effect after this, that his acolyte may accuse *him* of being the problem, rather than the authority figures. So the cleric sends word to a hoboblin tribe to the south that the goblins to the east (the ones attacking the town) are distracted and ripe for the picking. More slaughter. More chaos. And regardless of who wins, he can try it again later, or have his acolyte do the same, when years have passed and this loss fades into obscurity, people can take another one.

That's a *clever* CE. That's someone with wisdom.   A mindless killing machine may glorify Erythnul, but most people don't want to be that kind of a martyr. So they think of ways around it...in this guy's case, he encourages overall slaughter (he killed villagers with the goblins, increased doubt of the mayor's policies with his words, and now he's killed goblins with hobgoblins...so much blood....), without ever really risking his own neck. He's Evil. Why would he stick his own hide out, even for a god?



> But being as much like Erythnul as he can is going to make him a dysfunctional member of society, unless said society is pretty dysfunctional itself. Now, seeing that Erythnul and his priest are both antisocial, and figuring that in the battle between god and society, god will when, society is going to take a fairly dim view of the priests of Erythnul, and the priests of Erythnul will take a likewise dim view of society.



I disagree. Evil is a part of society, a part of life, and, IMHO, should be reflected every day in the lives of those who live in the world. Slaughter is not something you can, in the world, compartamentalize and push away as simply the acts of madmen or sociopaths. Sure, they are epitomes of slaughter. But they are far from the only way to go about it, and I would argue that they are the rarer way, the more destructive way, the way that most clerics do not take, because they are selfish, they are evil, and they are interested in slaughter on as grand a scale as possible, not just within their own paws. And Chaos likewise is something that goes hand in hand with slaughter. Being Chaotic Evil is not being bestial, being insane, being a savage barbarian. It's something very near at hand to every sentient being...it's not a bogeyman, it's not something in the closet...it's out of the closet and in the soul of everything that happens. 

For a modern-esque take on how this could happen, take a look at _Dark Shamans_ by Neil Whitehead. It's a book on the everyday real-life violence of an Amazonian tribe, and it makes a good case for it not being isloated. Violence, IMHO, is not isolated from society, it's part and parcel of it, *especially* in a world where you could get attacked twice per day. 



> Right. That whole 'war' aspect of their powers--no help whatsoever.



That's way to general, in my opinion. Not every war is under the dominion of a god with the War domain. They all focus on certain parts of war...Heironeous on the valor and honor, Hextor on the obedient selfishness and cruel rule. Kord on strength and power. Outisde of this, they have no power over war...the slaughter of war is solidly in Erythnul's camp. "War" is far too multifaceted to boil it down to an "all or nothing" approach. Depending on the culture, even "The Valor and Honor of War" may be too multifacted. Heck, for the Greeks, "The Storm" was so multifaceted that it became all-powerful. 



> The thing is Erythnul is irked at everyone. You don't make him unirked. You pray to him for protection, he sends a horde of rampaging gnolls to your village. You pray to every other god in your pantheon to make sure Erythnul doesn't notice you, and that if he does, they'll protect you. Because the other gods do have some power for or against violence and with their help, you might get out of it alive.



I disagree. Erythnul = Slaughter. No god can save you from it, except the god itself. You don't pray to Erythnul for protection ("Erythnul protect me!"? Naaah), but if you don't pray to him when his attention is on you, you're screwed (if he sees you refusing to honor him, is he going to be cool with that?). Erythnul isn't something that's Out There, Somewhere, Waiting To Get Us. He's something sudden, immediate, every day, every year, part and parcel of the human condition in this world. 



> People who think that sort of violence is what they need seek him out--others don't.



I would say the case is more that that sort of violence is unaviodable in the D&D world. If you don't seek him out, he finds you and crushes you. To ignore that slaughter exists is like denying that storms exist, that gnomes exist, that the ground exists. To avoid slaughter is like avoiding love. You can't. You will be crushed for trying. Because the god is part of the world, NOT an independant lunatic. If he was an independant lunatic, he would be weak, distant, nothing to worry about every day. But I prefer to think of my gods as immediate, sudden, abrupt, in your face, part of the world, worshiped popularly, and THAT is why they are powerful. If the aspect they control is just for 'someone else,' the god, IMHO, is weak. It's like bringing a goddess of Athenian Democracy to Celtic England....the what the goddess represents has no power in their lives.

Erythnul, I prefer to believe, *has* a power over every life.

The role of the wacky sociopath? That's great. But I prefer fiendish lords for that...Orcus is only part and parcel of the lives of the most fractured individuals, for instance...Erythnul is part and parcel of the lives of everyone. 

Again, not that your way is bad, I just think it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## I'm A Banana

*Food*

It's interesting to contemplate the deit of your average villager....on the one hand, they'll eat pretty much what anyone else would eat: grains, fruits, some herd animal meat, veggies.......but then, you add in the fantasy dimension, and add in various 'magical plants' and what kind of plants would evolve in such a land...leads to some interesting conclusions.

Fer'instance, in an area where they are popular, various magical beasts could be considered the feasts of kings (taking the place of things like fatted calves today). Certain nomadic tribes may care for anything from herds of bison to wandering treants to plant monsters to other fantastic beasts.

And with some of those two encounters/day being from hostile animals and magical beasts, they probably eat a good portion of them, too (or, at least, those who belong to the militia do...)


----------



## Rhialto

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I would argue that a god that you do not worship is not really a god. Anupis was more a monster than a deity....an epic-level monster, capable of destroying the world, but a monster nonetheless.
> 
> Gods are worshiped. If you're not worshiped, your not a god. Admittedly, that's drawing on a bit of religios theory, but I feel confident ruling as such. Gods have clerics, adepts, favored souls, druids, rangers, paladins, etc....if you don't have worshipers, you're not a deity, though you may be as powerful, if not more powerful than one. The Fenris Wolf, for instance, or the Midgard Serpent. Heck, even Satan in a certain sense.




Or Loki, and yet, in D&D there he is, a god.  In fact, D&D is full of divine beings that wouldn't normally be gods, and yet there they are...

I'd say this comes out of the need for adversaries for the good guys.



> Yes, but that would be stupid.  Eythnul may advocate slaughter, but the clerics are not uniformly idiots just beacuse they're bloodthirsty.




But without an element of randomness, it isn't slaughter.  (Which, given Erythnul's alignment, I'm taking to mean 'to kill in great numbers, indiscriminately'.) Sure your priest of Erythnul can spend his time killing drunks, poor people, and the castoffs of society, but eventually, Erythnul's going to get peeved because his priest is showing more concern about his safety then Erythnul's glory.



> Saying that you are like a god is pretty hubristic.




Only without proper context.  Saying you seek to imitate the holy example of your god is being a good worshiper.  Classically, hubris comes when a man tries to deny or supplant the gods.  If the high priest of Erythnul starts having his followers kill in his name instead of Erythnul--hubris.  But Erythnul expects his priests to follow his example.



> And what keeps your CE priest from murdering is the simple fact that he wants to survive to see the slaughter of the next day. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean you're a creature of pure, dumb instinct. Would he kill if he got the chance? Definately. But he's not going to spend his life nessecarily dedicated to murder himself...he can spend it protecting other murderers, serving as a mouthpeice to the deity, encouraging others to give into their rage. Just because you worship a bestial god does not mean you have to be bestial yourself.




But my problem with this is it destroys any individuality Erythnul's priesthood might have.  They are now simply another evil priesthood, like every other priesthood.  At this point the difference between Erythnul and Nerull becomes a simple matter of "Nerull's temple has more zombies".  Erythnul's priest should, on the whole, be a reflection of Erythnul just as Pelor's priest is a reflectio of Pelor.  That's not to say they won't be individualistic, but we must assume that they all have some reason 

Furthermore, while I don't think all of Erythnul's worshippers are going to act like that, I'm talking about his priests.  They are supposed to be just a tad 




> In the Greek case, don't you think you're oversimplifying "battle"? They have direct power over battles, but over different aspects -- Athena was the glory of battle, Ares was the violence of battle, Zeus was victory and strength in battle, and Apollo was archery and beauty. Apollo couldn't preside over bloodshed and violence. Zeus is a bit of an exception, because he's the trump card, but D&D religion has no such trump card.




Actually, no, it was largely a regional matter, but I have yet to find a single Greek reference delineating these deities different responsibilities.

Also, the Spartans would be interested in knowing Apollo had no power over bloodshed and violence.  All that money to the Delphic Oracle--wasted...



> In the Egyptian and Hindu case, you run into locally developed deities with conflicting ideologies. People chose gods based on their location, their caste, their own personal culture. Not on belief. Comparatively in D&D, you have several creator gods -- Gruumsh, Corellon Larethian, Moradin, Garl Glittergold -- probably all with conflicting myths. Which one you believe in is dictated probably by your race...no one who believed Re created the world would believe that Amun did it, fer'instance. But these in D&D are basically addendums to the core pantheon, not defining them. D&D has three gods of arcane magic -- Vecna, Wee Jas, and Boccob. But they're gods of different aspects of magic -- Vecna governs the secrets and unknown, Wee Jas governs organization, death, and enchantment, and Boccob governs pure knowledge and magical power. When casting a divination, you pray to Boccob. When casting an illusion, Vecna. When using necromancy, Wee Jas.




...Or some wizards might pray to Boccob on all spells as 'the lord of All Magic.'  And some might feel that Wee Jas or Vecna trump him.




> Obviously there's nothing wrong with this view. I like it a lot.




Well, thank you.  I thought it was a nice bit of work myself.



> But I prefer my gods to be everyday parts of the PC's lives...so I see it
> more that the priests of Erythnul, Chaotic and Evil as they are, do not wish to be exterminated. If they lived lives of murder and bloodshed constantly, it's insanity, it's psychopathy. Most clerics of Erythnul, Chaotic Evil as they are, are *not* psychopaths....though certainly they don't look down on such creatures.




But once again, the priests of Erythnul become a Generic Evil Priesthood this way.  To my mind, each of the gods should have a unique priesthood.  Hextor's the one for evil theocracies and inquisitions, Vecna's got the scheming politicos who are trying to build up a power base, Nerull's priesthood spans from the creepy guys in black robes with the onyx temple at the edge of town to the crazy family living in the woods with an army of zombies.



> So they live in a temple at the fringe of society. They are feared and respected, but essential in the operation of life. Most of them live life from day to day encouraging murder, maybe sacrificing an animal or seven, praying to their deity for strength, rage, and gore.
> 
> Eyrthnul grants it in the form of goblin raids on the city. They have been more harsh as of late, and more people in the town have succumbed to them. Why? Why have the goblins increased in slaughter? Why must they succumb to this violence? Obviously, some deity must be offended...who? Talk to the Adept...he uses some magic (or at least pretends to, more likely using his Knowledge (religion) or Knowledge (local) skill), determining that the got of Slaughter is to blame for the slaughter. So the mayor sends a small contingent to the temple to ask what the god demands, in exchange for renewed safety. The cleric there sees an opportunity for bloodshed, and so demands a sacrifice. The people of the town lead some boars (sacred to Erythnul) to the temple, where there are killed, and a small feast is held in Eyrhtnul's name, with the entire town praying that the god of slaughter spare them.
> 
> Of course, since the cleric was making it up (he had paid the adept to say so, after all, just as he has paid the goblins to attack the village), the goblin raids do not stop...they in fact increase in violence and power, as people show up dead in the night, and the cleric's services become more and more required. The Gods are unhappy, he says. Erythnul is not appeased by the blood of mere beasts. Living, thinking, sentient blood must be spilled, for the transgressions. Who has transgressed? Who is to blame for this? It is the Mayor, whose recent Law of Sanctuary means that this town is a haven for those refugees from the frontiers. As a result, Pelor is becoming too popular in the city. Erythnul demans human sacrifice, from the ruling family, and a repealing of the law...this is not a shocking thing. Five years ago, he wanted the same, and the ruling family happily paid -- to not do so is to
> doom the entire town.
> 
> The mayor has a long, hard talk with his family -- one of them must die, so that the rest of the town may live. After much deliberation, they select one of his daughters, the eldest one, unlikely to marry since she was disfigured ten years ago when the worgs struck, and her hips were shattered. Clerics could heal her wounds, but the family could not afford to taker her into the city to regenerate her bones. The day before the sacrifice, she is treated like a queen. A great feast is held in her honor, and Erythnul's. Most of the common people are happy she is dying -- it will mean that they will live, after all. True, next time it could be them...but until that time comes, no sense in worrying about it. Each one has their idea of what they will do -- cut and run at the last minute (CE, CN), refuse, and sacrifice yourself instead trying to take as many goblins with you as you can (CG, though Erythnul's cleric will be happy), gladly sacrifice yourself for the good of your town (LG, LN), or get all the gifts from the sacrifice, and then attempt to argue that someone else should be sacrificed (LE). Or 1,001 variations on these ideas. Either way, accepting the death of someone else so that you may live isn't hard for most people (NN) to do. Even if it's someone you care about -- it is the lesser of two evils. Anyway, the daughter is lavished with gifts, riches, finery, a great feast of boar's meat (all the rangers in the town could hunt), and then sacrificed on the steps of the temple.
> 
> The Cleric now has had his slaughter. He wants more, but he sees the sad look in the villagers' eyes, notices the look of outright rage that the mayor's son is giving him (Sense Motive!). He knows if there is no effect after this, that his acolyte may accuse *him* of being the problem, rather than the authority figures. So the cleric sends word to a hoboblin tribe to the south that the goblins to the east (the ones attacking the town) are distracted and ripe for the picking. More slaughter. More chaos. And regardless of who wins, he can try it again later, or have his acolyte do the same, when years have passed and this loss fades into obscurity, people can take another one.
> 
> That's a *clever* CE. That's someone with wisdom.   A mindless killing machine may glorify Erythnul, but most people don't want to be that kind of a martyr. So they think of ways around it...in this guy's case, he encourages overall slaughter (he killed villagers with the goblins, increased doubt of the mayor's policies with his words, and now he's killed goblins with hobgoblins...so much blood....), without ever really risking his own neck. He's Evil. Why would he stick his own hide out, even for a god?




Because he's a priest.  Not a Chaotic Evil fighter who prays to Erythnul for guidance now and then.  And my problem with your little scenario is not only a villain who is too smart facing opponents who are too stupid, but that this scheme could be given to a priest of Nerull and play out the same way.  (Also, I'd say this is _Neutral Evil_ myself.)  Will a Chaotic Evil priest of Erythnul wish to encourage as many killings as possible?  Naturally, but he'll also want to do as many as possible himself, because that way he's guaranteeing it'll get done.  Because as a Chaotic, he trusts himself above others, the individual over the group.  That's not to say he's necessarily going to be obvious about it--though unless he hiding his alignment, he's going to show up horribly clear on a _detect evil_ spell--but it does hint at a certain philosophy.



> I disagree. Evil is a part of society, a part of life, and, IMHO, should be reflected every day in the lives of those who live in the world. Slaughter is not something you can, in the world, compartamentalize and push away as simply the acts of madmen or sociopaths.




...

Okay, I'm hoping your sticking with D&D here, because I'm this close to a philosophical speech.



> Sure, they are epitomes of slaughter.




And shouldn't a priest of slaughter be an epitome of slaughter?



> But they are far from the only way to go about it, and I would argue that they are the rarer way, the more destructive way, the way that most clerics do not take, because they are selfish, they are evil, and they are interested in slaughter on as grand a scale as possible, not just within their own paws.




The average worshiper, I grant you--but we're talking about the priests.  These should be people with a little something--something that makes them seek to follow the ways of Erythnul.  That's why they're clerics, and not fighters and rogues.  They've got that something extra that makes them see Erythnul as more than the god you call out to as you rush out to face the steel legions of your foes--they see him as a way of life.

Because otherwise you just reduce gods and clerics to what amounts to divine bureucrats, fiddling with the scales so that everything is even.



> And Chaos likewise is something that goes hand in hand with slaughter. Being Chaotic Evil is not being bestial, being insane, being a savage barbarian. It's something very near at hand to every sentient being...it's not a bogeyman, it's not something in the closet...it's out of the closet and in the soul of everything that happens.
> 
> For a modern-esque take on how this could happen, take a look at _Dark Shamans_ by Neil Whitehead. It's a book on the everyday real-life violence of an Amazonian tribe, and it makes a good case for it not being isloated. Violence, IMHO, is not isolated from society, it's part and parcel of it, *especially* in a world where you could get attacked twice per day.




But that doesn't mean everyone is going to bow down to the temple of Erythnul.  I'm not saying he won't show up in vows, and that your neutral townspeople might just leave a goat out in the shrine out in the woods when things get bad.  But that still is a way to go from letting his priests run a temple in the middle (or even the outskirts) of town.  To my mind, the worship of Erythnul is something that people would try to marginilize or forget.  He's a guy you generally hope ignores you, and when he isn't ignoring you, you either hope your friends have the power to protect you, or you give him something in hopes he'll go away.



> That's way to general, in my opinion. Not every war is under the dominion of a god with the War domain. They all focus on certain parts of war...Heironeous on the valor and honor, Hextor on the obedient selfishness and cruel rule. Kord on strength and power. Outisde of this, they have no power over war...the slaughter of war is solidly in Erythnul's camp. "War" is far too multifaceted to boil it down to an "all or nothing" approach. Depending on the culture, even "The Valor and Honor of War" may be too multifacted. Heck, for the Greeks, "The Storm" was so multifaceted that it became all-powerful.




So does Herioneous's power cease the moment the first blow is landed?  Does Hextor loose his sway the moment troops break formation?  When you wade into the fray, does Kord's strength leave your body?  I don't think that during the course of the battle one god suddenly gains power over the others depending on the conditions--I thinks it more they can all influence the battle to the same degree, and it all really boils down to the strength and power of their followers.  (Actually, I rather think the gods have some sort of detente set up--'you limit your powers, and I limit mine'.  Also, if nobody prays to them, they generally aren't interested in the battle...)

They are different philosophies, I'll grant you.  And some people might try to appease them all.  But for most, I think it will come down to calling on the ones who fit your mindset. 




> I disagree. Erythnul = Slaughter. No god can save you from it, except the god itself. You don't pray to Erythnul for protection ("Erythnul protect me!"? Naaah), but if you don't pray to him when his attention is on you, you're screwed (if he sees you refusing to honor him, is he going to be cool with that?).




So why the bleeding heck do gods have the freakin' sphere of protection in the first place?  I'm sorry, but your tenent falls apart when you look at it closely--so Pelor, the light against darkness is powerless when darkness strikes?  Heironeous and St. Cuthbert are shouting about justice and honor but when the horde of goblins strike, you're on your own?  I don't think the moment Slaughter rears its head, every other god is suddenly powerless to stop it.  If anything, I see the divine situation as a sort detente--all of them try not to use their powers to the fullest because if they did a large chunk of the pantheon would unite to put them down.





> Erythnul isn't something that's Out There, Somewhere, Waiting To Get Us. He's something sudden, immediate, every day, every year, part and parcel of the human condition in this world.




And?  So's Gruumsh.  I don't see everybody going to worship him the moment Orcs arrive.  Hell, so's Olidammara, and I'm betting that the average farmer isn't going to be visiting his temple--assuming he has one--anytime soon.  

And--well, the whole two attacks a day paradigm has so many problems with it that I won't get into it--but let me put it this way--the goblins don't raid the town every day.  Erythnul can't slaughter everyone.  He is something that happens Every So Seldom.  To say simply because he's a god he's going to smite everyone who isn't his worshipper makes no sense because then all the other gods will just smite all his worshippers. 

Like I said--detente.  You don't go out of your way to get my flock, I don't go out of my way to get yours.  Oh, my priests are another matter--can't blame my boys for following my example, after all--but I personally, will keep out of it.



> I would say the case is more that that sort of violence is unaviodable in the D&D world. If you don't seek him out, he finds you and crushes you. To ignore that slaughter exists is like denying that storms exist, that gnomes exist, that the ground exists. To avoid slaughter is like avoiding love.
> You can't. You will be crushed for trying.




A man can believe in love without honoring love, without feeling love to be worthy of worship, and without being in love himself.  Likewise, not worshiping Erythnul is not a matter of not believing in slaughter--it's a matter of not thinking slaughter to be worthy of worship.  Yes, some people will try to hedge their bets.  But some won't.



> Because the god is part of the world, NOT an independant lunatic. If he was an independant lunatic, he would be weak, distant, nothing to worry about every day.




Tell that to anyone who's ever suffered at the hands of an independent lunatic.  They'll set you straight.





> But I prefer to think of my gods as immediate, sudden, abrupt, in your face, part of the world, worshiped popularly, and THAT is why they are powerful. If the aspect they control is just for 'someone else,' the god, IMHO, is weak. It's like bringing a goddess of Athenian Democracy to Celtic England....the what the goddess represents has no power in their lives.
> 
> Erythnul, I prefer to believe, *has* a power over every life.
> 
> The role of the wacky sociopath? That's great. But I prefer fiendish lords for that...Orcus is only part and parcel of the lives of the most fractured individuals, for instance...Erythnul is part and parcel of the lives of everyone.
> 
> Again, not that your way is bad, I just think it's an interesting discussion.




Well, this is largely a flavor discussion.  But personally I find the society you describe as a shade *too* unpleasant...


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Well, this is largely a flavor discussion. But personally I find the society you describe as a shade *too* unpleasant...



Fair 'nuff. And I personally find your description to be a shade too unrealistic. Prolly just an agree to disagree situation, since it *is* largely a flavor discussion. You're happy with your "big evil lurking in the fringes and slaughtering purely for slaughter's sake," I'm happy with my "everyday evil lurking right next door that you have to deal with, like it or not." From my research of religious customs of the world, this fits the typical devotion of an unpleasant deity, though I admit I'm focusing a bit more on a Mesoamerican/South American philosophy (and these folks are infamously into human sacrifice and ritualized warfare, so there ya go. ).

As far as my world-building is concerned, clerics have about the same ability to be evil, good, lawful, or chaotic as any other member of society, so gods of healing and sun and peace aren't nessecarily more common than gods of corruption, warfare, slaughter, disease, and death. Clerics devote themselves to specific deities, but Adepts serve the gods and spirits in general, without that special connection.


----------



## Rhialto

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Fair 'nuff. And I personally find your description to be a shade too unrealistic. Prolly just an agree to disagree situation, since it *is* largely a flavor discussion. You're happy with your "big evil lurking in the fringes and slaughtering purely for slaughter's sake," I'm happy with my "everyday evil lurking right next door that you have to deal with, like it or not." From my research of religious customs of the world, this fits the typical devotion of an unpleasant deity, though I admit I'm focusing a bit more on a Mesoamerican/South American philosophy (and these folks are infamously into human sacrifice and ritualized warfare, so there ya go. ).
> 
> As far as my world-building is concerned, clerics have about the same ability to be evil, good, lawful, or chaotic as any other member of society, so gods of healing and sun and peace aren't nessecarily more common than gods of corruption, warfare, slaughter, disease, and death. Clerics devote themselves to specific deities, but Adepts serve the gods and spirits in general, without that special connection.




Hey, I've got nothing wrong with 'the everyday evil lurking next door'.  I just don't see Erythnul as an example of that evil.  Vecna, sure.  Nerull, fine.  Hextor--these guys might actually be the police in the area  you live in.  But Erythnul should be something special.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

Wow...

This discussion about gods is the best I have seen in a long time...

Thanks, Kamikaze Midget, Rhialto and Elder Basilisc.

Edit: Bump


----------



## Imagicka

*World Altering Spells - Low Level*

Greetings...



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Now, a related question for you all - which low-level spells would have the greatest effect on a world like ours? That is, which ones can do things that technology cannot yet do?
> 
> I'd say _Comprehend Languages_ is something technology can't do (Linear B, for example) but it wouldn't be all that world-changing.  _Detect Lie_ (or whatever it's called now) is another one that technology can't do (polygraph is more like a +4 bonus to Sense Motive, because unlike _Detect Lie _ a skill check can give false positives), but it does allow a save.  _Cure Disease _ is probably the top low-level spell in this regard - imagine being able to cure any ailment even once per day.



Without a second thought... _Curse Disease_.  Why? Well, first of all, there wouldn't be an lepers to frolick with.  The first sign of any life threatening disease, the clerics/druids would be right in there frolicking away.  You don't need a potientally deadly disease spreading around the community.  

 Now, in a medieval fantasy D&D world, of course you don't have anti-biotics, antisepsis, and knowledge of germs like we have today.  Hell! They have something better!  _Cure Disease_.  

 Infection, Gangreen, Dysentery (the bloody flux), Ergotism (St. Anthony's fire, holy fire, devil's fire), Gonorrhea, Influenza, Leprosy, Malaria, Measles, Puerperal Fever, Chicken Pox, Small Pox, Typhoid Fever, Cholera, and Plague (Black Death) all eliminated with one simple little spell, which effectively foolproof and 100% effective. 

 Do the commoners of our D&D world think that diseases are punishment from the gods?  Would they have all these fear-based superstitions based around disease?  Probably not.  Not when they are pious people (and how could you not be pious when there is physical evidence of the existance of gods is staring you in the face almost every single day?) who can just go frolicking down to the local clergy and hopefully get a quick cure before dinnertime.  

 Also, the economic reasonings for D&D I think are seriously flawed, along with what constitutes for 'commoner' and 'average level of commoners'.  But more on that later after I've read the rest of these posts and written a ridiculously huge reply...


----------



## kigmatzomat

I have one comment on religion at the lowest level and that's the existence and role of pantheists.  IMC, most adepts are followers of an entire pantheon, calling on Erynull for attacks, Yolanda for healing, Correlon for protection, Boccob for divinations, etc.  Clerics are god-specific or serve a purpose (Good for it's own good, if you will).  Adepts have contact with many gods and that dilute connection explains why they cannot control undead without magic; they have no particular "polarity" for positive/negative energy.  

Small communities may have a single temple dedicated to a particular god and then a shrine that addresses the rest staffed by an adept.  The adept can generally serve the needs of everyone but has less top-end power, in contrast with the more powerful but also more single-minded clerics.  Imagine a half-orc getting last rites from a priest of Correlon; not going to happen.  

IIRC, pantheists were fairly common in greek, rome, and egypt where the gods were intertwined.  Most D&D is similar so I would expect a number of pantheists and the adept is the best candidate.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Imagicka said:
			
		

> _Curse Disease_.  Why? Well, first of all, there wouldn't be an lepers to frolick with.  The first sign of any life threatening disease, the clerics/druids would be right in there frolicking away.  You don't need a potientally deadly disease spreading around the community.




Unfortunately, cure disease won't stop plagues or illness.  5th level casters aren't common enough to be available everywhere.  I'll grant you that most people live within a day of someone who can, however that's one day's travel while well and in typically nice weather.  Diseases bloom most in the wet and cool periods when travel is slower and the act of traveling increases the risk to the patient.  Spending the day outside may be more fatal than just toughing out the illness.  And if it is flu season, there's a good chance the cleric's not at temple and is off helping someone else.  

Furthermore, cure disease doesn't prevent re-infection so a given person could catch the plague time and time again. Additionally, diseases generally rack the body causing stat loss, so you'll need to add some Restoration magic into the mix.  Yes, possible, but it cuts the number of people that can be healed down.  

I believe Cure Light Wounds is still the biggest one.  Eliminating the site of infection goes a long way to preventing many infections.  Lesser Restoration would be a close second since it provides a divine boost, fixing the damage done by a disease and reinforcing the patient until their own immune system throws it off.  



> Do the commoners of our D&D world think that diseases are punishment from the gods?  Would they have all these fear-based superstitions based around disease?




Actually, they *know* many diseases are punishment, or at least attacks, from the gods.  There is always a plague god (Nerull has that in the default pantheon, I believe).  

As long as you agree with the RAW on the class-distributions, you won't see many disease curing clerics around.  They will cut down on the number of people who die due to secondary infections or individual infection however a plague will rapidly overwhelm the casters' abilities.  

 [/QUOTE]

 Also, the economic reasonings for D&D I think are seriously flawed, along with what constitutes for 'commoner' and 'average level of commoners'.  But more on that later after I've read the rest of these posts and written a ridiculously huge reply...[/QUOTE]

I admit that I do not use the RAW where commoner levels are concerned.  I believe about 50% of the commoners tend are in the 4th-6th band and are in the 25-45 age bracket.  But those are house rules and I generally don't see the point in arguing the distribution since there are so many reasonable ones that any one will do for coming up with a process to extrapolate the rest of the culture.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Here's one that hasn't been discussed but would probably make a difference: Bestow Curse.

How many fairy tales revolve around a curse like someone's nose growing every time they lie or the evil fairy queen cursing someone to only wake at night and to sleep before the sun rises (usually while cursing their fated husband or wife to sleep as soon as night falls and not wake until the dawn).  The fairy tales make interesting stories and at least half of the curses seem as much about moral instruction as about anything else. Perhaps that's how good clerics and wizards would use the spell. (And remember, if most people live within a day's travel of someone who can cure disease, they probably live within a day's travel of someone who can bestow curse). There's plenty of room for curses to be a part of the official justice system too. I would imagine that treaties between people who didn't trust each other would often be enforced with a Mark of Justice on the signatories (failing to have anything like Paradigm Concepts' Sarishan Oaths in the core rules). And, of course, all of the evil curses and hexes that our ancestors got so worked up about would actually be real too. I wonder about the implications of that.

And, since we're talking about Cure Disease--remember, there's also Contagion. There are plenty of people who would have arranged for their enemies to catch a disease if they could. There were and are plenty of people who have actually taken steps to do that--from suicide bombers strapping vials full of blood from AIDS patients to their bodies to try to infect survivors and making sure the screws in their bombs are rusty to people sending smallpox blankets to the Indians or before that, tossing dead and rotting corpses over the walls of castles with catapults. With Contagion, there would be a more effective (and less risky) way to spread disease to your enemies. Who knows but that the old beggar who rants in an unfamiliar tongue and paws at you ostensibly for a donation is actually a priest of Nerull using you as a vector to bring some disease back to your community? And if you don't have a priest of Nerull around, well, it's a domain spell for St. Cuthbert as well.


----------



## kigmatzomat

Agreed.  Curses at the high end, arcane marks at the low (i.e. Scarlet Letter) and Mark of Justice for seriously binding tasks.  Geas would also be used in legal fashion to enforce compliance.  

The legal system is probably both more straight forward and even more convoluted. I'd imagine a zone of truth pretty much simplifies the bulk of cases where magic isn't likely to be involved but then you get to the weird stuff.  

Would you trust what you see from a scrying done by the god of illusions?  The god of good?  The god of warfare?  What about a wizard?  Glamours and transformations make all evidence questionable since you can magically turn yourself into an exact physical duplicate so even truth magics merely prevent someone from saying what they know to be false.  

Imagine the legal wranglings between a church and a wizard's guild!  I'm sure it's a king's nightmare.


----------



## I'm A Banana

*On Disease*

1) _Cure Disease_ is a pretty high-level spell. Not a lot of places have it.

2) _Cure Disease_ is exactly as common as _contagion_. Assuming they're cast on a one-for-one basis, the eventual effect is a 0, or perhaps slightly more in favor of _contagion_ (it's a lot easier to spread disease from one person to many than it is to heal one person, and have them heal others -- getting infected requires no special talent).

3) While it's not part of the RAW at the moment, the Nyambe idea of giving diseases an SR goes a long way to making sure that even once _cure disease_ enters the picturer, plagues are still common. 



> There's plenty of room for curses to be a part of the official justice system too.



Love this idea...yoink!



> I have one comment on religion at the lowest level and that's the existence and role of pantheists. IMC, most adepts are followers of an entire pantheon, calling on Erynull for attacks, Yolanda for healing, Correlon for protection, Boccob for divinations, etc. Clerics are god-specific or serve a purpose (Good for it's own good, if you will). Adepts have contact with many gods and that dilute connection explains why they cannot control undead without magic; they have no particular "polarity" for positive/negative energy.



Bingo, that's my take on it, too. Adepts worship the pantheons, clerics worship the gods, druids worship the forces...of course, there's overlap, alteration, etc. Adepts may like one god over others, clerics may devote themselves to forces, druids may decide to start worshiping a nature god, etc.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

I would imagine that Zone of Truth would be a part of most serious trials--after all, there's someone who can cast it in nearly every village and it seems like it would be irresponsible not to. On the other hand, in most villages, it can only be cast at 3rd-5th level which is hardly enough time to cover the trial proper and will have a DC of 13-15 (2nd level spell+1-3 for wisdom and possibly spell focus) which an ordinary commoner can resist about 30-40% of the time.  So, while it might have some effect, I would think that it would be more use in evaluating confessions and during interrogations than during the actual testimony. It might be used after all testimony was completed for the day. ("In the sight of Pholtus, I hereby solemnly certify the truth of my testimony. I have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." And if the person can't say this, they're charged with perjury). That way, it would raise the bar for people attempting to give false testimony because they would not only have to worry about being caught in a lie ordinarily, they would also have to worry about failing the save and making it clear that they had perjured themselves even after a successful lie. The knowledge that lying would face the risk of magical detection after the fact might well be more effective than simply having the zone of truth active in the courtroom to begin with. (If it's active, you could test your resistance with a little lie before saying anything that could be prosecutable and your hearers might be less wary because of the zone of truth).

Of course, the skilled liars present in each village (lets say a 4th level commoner with a decent wisdom, iron will, and the deceptive feat or skill focus: bluff) would be able to get away with lying as often as not and unusually skilled liars (6th level bards or clerics with the trickery domain aren't that uncommon and could succeed at the save most of the time) would usually be able to evade the magic. Consequently, I don't think that there would be much less discussion about the reliability and trustworthiness of witnesses than there is IRL. After all, the guys who won't make the save often (Com 1 with an 8 wisdom) are generally the guys who aren't very good at lying to begin with (His bluff would max out at 7+cha mod even if he had Skill focus: Bluff and Deceptive). The guys who you're actually worried about (the com 4 with his +8 or +9, the bard with his +15 bluff, or the cleric with his +12-+14 bluff) are the least likely to be deterred by the zone of truth. The real effect would be to further separate the petty liars from the skilled ones rather than to prevent lying in general.


----------



## ElvishBard

*animals help towns?*

About the economic system used in the book, I tend to think of it as a guide to the adventuers.  Think about it: these guys have huge flaming swords, shiny armor, and their money pouches jingle with every step they take.  Therefore, I can see the people all raising their prices because these people can obviously afford it, but they don't want to raise it too much in case these adventuers are evil.  I was somewhat surprised that no one mention a wand of cure light wounds or disease, a few of those could keep a village in good health for a very long time.  

One thing I think your forgetting about with the attacks on town is that people will most likley have some type of domesticated animal/magic beast or whatever.  Cave men had hunting dogs, and the animal trainers do exist in D&D, therefore I think we can assume that towns would have some animals that would help significently in the defense of the town.  

I am not going to go into the different dieties of D&D because I am rather new to the game, only been DMing for almost 2 years now I think.


----------



## Piratecat

I'm archiving this thread. If you'd like to continue the topic, please start a new one!


----------

