Lo, and alas for my heart hangs heavy. A year has passed and no one to my knowledge, even Jake, has grasped the true ideal behind sorcery in The Riddle of Steel. Time and time again I read what can be destroyed, how it can be destroyed and how the lives of others can be dashed, tortured, or dominated. However, there has yet to be one real discussion on how sorcery can assist humanity in its struggle for a better tomorrow. Alas, has the gaming community has become the very thing it once feared? Are its GMs and Senechals nothing more than egotisitcal, self serving, self righteous, arroganant, condensending braggarts who think nothing of life and its value, only of the glory and self satisfaction they can gain from pretending that they are stronger and smarter than others who outshine them in real life? Post upon post I have seen the details of repressed domination of the innocent, arguemnets on wholesale slaughter, destruction, and through all the callous lack of regard for life. Where are the heros? Who is left that will stand against the greed and insecurity, who will discipline in themselves the strength to defend those who are unable to fight? Who will strive agianst ignorance and bear the weight of understanding and consequence upon their shoulders? All that I have seen by any of the posts here and abroad is the expiditious manner in which death can be dealt. Any thirteen year old can tell you how they would destroy the world, but what thirteen year old can tell you how they would establish world peace or tranquility? To me, from what I read the ideal of honor lies dead, a path too difficult for the weak to tread. I am saddened that no one has grasped the what a positive impact a ludicrus force like magic could have on an immaginary world if weilded with care. I had hoped that others might see the opportunity to cement a better tommorrow and unguided, defy the rules as written to forge a better tomorrow.

Maybe I am wrong. If so, please tell me; have any gaming groups yet insured that all of the ficticious people in the disasterous time this game glorifies have clean drinking water, a chance for an education, or even three square meals a day? Given the eventual unlimited power at a sorcerers disposal, what has been done to better the cause of humanity, and insure that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness be gaurenteed to those less fortunate? Has anyone created roads, buildings, stautes, or great works of art? Has anyone managed to bring peace to the world? Heck, is there even anyone out there who even gives a damn?

I'm just curious.

Kudos to your point Rick.

But I think you grasp the aspect of "lets destroy things with magic" from the wrong angle.

It is a great idea to have a campaign built up around the struggle to feed a starving country, there is the potential for a lot of drama there.

And if you want to play in a world where everyone is well fed and supported for, and you or your seneschal were able to create conflict out of this, then even more kudos to you and yours.

The thing is that conflict is the heart of all drama. And the "lets destroy things with magic" approach, no matter how little respect it has for the sanctity of life, creates conflict.

It is not the playing of

repressed domination of the innocent, argumnets on wholesale slaughter, destruction, and through all the callous lack of regard for life.

Kaare Berg wrote: As for the true nature of magic in TROS, well I think Jake got it. If i am not mistaken it says in the beginning of the magic part, that this kind of power should be scary.

Very good post and one that could create a very good debate (debating is fun to me). I'll just leave you with this.

"Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men'."

Rick wrote:
Maybe I am wrong. If so, please tell me; have any gaming groups yet insured that all of the ficticious people in the disasterous time this game glorifies have clean drinking water, a chance for an education, or even three square meals a day? Given the eventual unlimited power at a sorcerers disposal, what has been done to better the cause of humanity, and insure that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness be gaurenteed to those less fortunate? Has anyone created roads, buildings, stautes, or great works of art? Has anyone managed to bring peace to the world?

Heck, is there even anyone out there who even gives a damn?

I stand corrected. * blushes shamefully *

Well that also puts Ricks statements in a different light. My bad.

The discussion is still valid though. Though it may be deplorable to create characters who torch villages for fun it is still fun, and if done properly can be rewarding.

This dosen't mean that it is a way of getting back at people who repress me in my normal life. (which is probably what lit my fire).

Are its GMs and Senechals nothing more than egotisitcal, self serving, self righteous, arroganant, condensending braggarts who think nothing of life and its value, only of the glory and self satisfaction they can gain from pretending that they are stronger and smarter than others who outshine them in real life?

Magic could never be used to bring peace and prosperity to the world of Wyerth Rick. Here's why.


1) We know that ultimately the balance of power (barring changes to this from Uglub's actions) lies with the mundanes. We know this because otherwise sorcerers would have taken over all of Wyerth already. Since they have not done so, we must conclude that this is because they can't. They'd be hunted down, destroyed, what have you.

2) The people in power like the way things are. Using magic to make the world a better place would serve only to illustrate that the world could actually BE a better place...which would make the peasants extremely disatisfied with the status quo.

3) Therefor, the powers that be cannot allow a sorcerer to undermine their authority by improving the standards of living for the common man. The entire eco-socio system which the great land barons and bourgeoisie rely upon for their power would collapse without disease, starvation, illiteracy, and poverty to support it.

Ergo, no sorcerer who attempted such a thing would be allowed to live for very long. His actions would no doubt be framed as whatever the Wyerth version of satanic demon spawn trickery is. "Your son hasn't really been cured of the plague ma'am...he's been possessed by a demon who uses his power to give the illusion of health. I'm afraid we'll have to burn him at the stake". Of course, the true reason behind it has nothing to do with religious faith and everything to do with preserving the status quo.

Its basic politics really. No entrenched powerbase can allow something with the ability to shake up the status quo to go unchallenged. Either they have to adapt the thing to their own use (which they can't since they aren't Sorcerers and couldn't really trust one enough to hire one) or they have to destroy it...or they lose power.

So...only the overthrow of the current power structure, to be replaced with one that accepted open sorcerery (which would almost require rule to go to the most powerful sorcerer / cabal), would allow an environment where sorcerers could try to change things for the better and actually succeed.


Would make for an interesting campaign though. Complete with "Destiny: to be burned at the stake for Heresy" as the utopian village gets dragged back under the yoke of monarchal rule.

Hello,

I refer the interested reader to two novels: Freddy's Book by John Gardner, and The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. Leguin. Both present fine examples of the backfires awaiting the sorcerous/magical do-gooder.

Best,
Ron

Forgive me if I misremember, but isn't Fauth just one such place, where a Sorcerous ruler has made life better for the common man?

I think it's quite possible, of course, for Sorcery to be used to heal and build, but as Kaare mentioned, conflict is what makes games and stories interesting. The healing and rebuilding usually come afterward, and people are less likely to want to play up the denoument of the story than the rising action and final conflict.

I am about to start a new game of TRoS, and it will be the first with a sorcerer PC. Said player wishes his character to free Angharad from Stahlnish dominion, so be assured that there will be some violence, and people dying from sorcerous use of power.. But freedom without some improvement of the quality of life is of little worth. Perhaps I'll be able to answer your question favorably, in time.

The reasons magic can't make the world a better place is the same reason sorcery hasn't already destroyed it:

There aren't enough sorcerers.

My guess is there's probably only one sorcerer per 100,000 to 1,000,000 people in Weyrth -- probably no more than maybe a thousand, tops, in the entire continent. That's probably why the Druids are so desperately busy in Angharad and Picti, and why they don't lead the armies of the Cymry to overthrow Uglub or rule Weyrth -- there are hundreds and hundreds of fields and only a few score Druids capable of casting "Bless the Crops", and not all of those want to do it with the regularity necessary or they'd all be prunes before too long.

And sorcerers can't make permanent magic items in TROS. At best they can charge something up with a few embedded spells. Technology didn't change the world because everybody became a technical genius -- it changed the world by building devices you didn't need to understand in order to use. Until there are more sorcerers or the existing sorcerers figure out a way to do this, the world will remain pretty much as it is.

You don't need to be a sorcerer to change the world for the better; you just have to think of something right and persuade people to do it. I'm writing a fantasy series right now where one of the major themes is the point that although there was a long-standing network of wizards who could have kicked off this world's Renaissance at any time, it took a mundane woman with no magic at all except her own courage, intelligence and charisma to actually do it.

If I wanted to play a character out to improve the world, I might play a sorcerer, but I'd play him as an apprentice who stumbled across a brilliant idea and who keeps trying to convince people that no, there's no magic in this invention -- none at all! It's entirely ordinary! You see, it's called a printing press....

There's (IMO) a real simple reason that sorcerers don't spend their time using magic to make the world a better place.

It's called human nature.

I can just see the internal monolog now:

"I love the people of this village. They're so peaceful and carefree, and they're made me so welcome. I wish there was something I could do to help them. Hmm... Well, I could cast some spells to make the crops grow better this year, and cure the blight that has been affecting the livestock around here. Hmm.. hang on, that'll probably knock a couple of years off my life though... Also, it might be noticed by others who want my power. Power that I have spent years amassing. Christ, it's not like this stuff is easy, you know, it's taken a lot of research and time. Fuck it, what did they ever do for me that I should spend my life energy making their lives better? Those selfish bastards, how dare they expect me to help them? Just for that, I'll show them! They'll learn to fear me... ZAP!"

And now you know why sorerers tend to use destructive spells instead of constructive :-)

Yes, that monolog is a tad flippant, but my point comes through pretty clearly I suspect. Humans are, by nature, selfish and out for number one. There are exceptions of course: every world probably has it's mother Teresa and it's Ghandi, but for each of those there are a thousand Saddam's, Castro's and Khans.

Brian.

Of course I must defer to the author, but I didn't think that making the world a better place was the real spirit behind TROS magic either. I thought it was how magic interacts with spiritual attributes.

In literature (to which TROS frequently refers as inspiration) magic is almost always used as a plot device. Why does a sorcerer do the thing he does? Because it serves the plot. The wizard is deus ex machina. That is what I thought TROS magic was all about. In the manner of Merlin or Gandalf, the sorcerer flaps the wings of the butterfly, which shakes the world.

So, the real question for me is not how he can kill someone, but rather what does killing that person accomplish? The sorcerer is trading his very life for this effect, and so must use it cleverly to achieve maximum effect. All this simply to kill one life is not worth it. It is what happens as a result of killing this person (or encouraging someone to bear children, or serving as muse to inspire great deeds, etc.).

In a sense, the power of the sorcerer in TROS gives great responsibility. The sorcerer player must look at the game from a GM's perspective. In a sense, he becomes the senschal's assistant.

What would I do (to create social order)? Let’s see, I could threaten every ones afterlife. Tell them to be good or else fry for all eternity. Nah, that’s been done. I’m fairly sure I would work to create an immersive simulated reality that would allow people to live out their fantasies in a constructive manner while enjoying the company of their peers and expanding their understanding of the ideals and forces surrounding them. In short I’d try and teach people to think, imagine, and exercise tolerance and understanding while instilling in them their own ability to create. I’d try and make it more fun to pretend to kill and destroy than to actually succumb to the animalistic instincts that force so many to live their lives in fear of one another. I would make it so easy to be lazy, perverted, self-indulgent and cruel that the only challenge left in existence would be to live life with strength and honor. In short, I would work to educate the populous in any manner I could.

But why Rick, why?
Your idea is full of merit, but whats the point. Humans are humans, and sorcerers are still to some extent human aswell (I am for the sake of argument ignoring things like the fey and other permutations.)

Now, to create a better world is a good drive, or maybe faith:the inherit goodness in man.

And lets say you create the simulation of a better world where everybody learns to be good to everybody else. Sooner or later your spell runs out, and everybody returns to the mundane world, with its famine and drought and other general nastyness.

All you have done then is to give people a vision of the paradise they could have, and not the means to achieve it. Bitter experience tells us that education helps, but is in itself not enough. It just takes one charismatic asshole and its all over for us flowereaters.

Hmm. all this "human nature" stuff is getting off the point I think. Seekign to improve the general lot is not delusional. If ity really were "human nature" then presumably Mother Theresa is just as HUMAN as Genghis Khan (or Donald Rumsfeld say), and thus the observed range is very broad.

This also tends to treat the human as overly atomic. Brian wrote:

Fuck it, what did they ever do for me that I should spend my life energy making their lives better? Those selfish bastards, how dare they expect me to help them?

Supposing it worked: supposing a minority of people wielded supreme power, and, with the best will to improve the lot of humanity, magically engineered away hunger, disease, and all practically detrimental effects of poverty...

Sounds like the Bilderberg group, or what some World Federalists argue for in the Real World. And the problems would be the same as the ruling groups of the real world have: Your good is not my good (How do you magically improve a society that has an anti-magical religion?). Your power is not my power (Can the non-magic users ever become anything more than benevolently guided children?). The dramatic possibilities are fantastic, and relatively untapped.

But the idea of a high magic game where the PC's are working for the common good in a way that doesn't exclusively centre on kicking the crap out of bad guys definitely appeals. Perhaps set in the aftermath of the fantasy cliche of the defeat of evil.

Sauron's gone, the elves have gone, the shire's in tatters... what now? The PC's are surounded by grubby faced hobbits with a lost, pleading expression... "What do we do now, Mr Gamgee?"

Civil virtue as a theme in FRP? I've got the seeds of an idea to run a high-fantasy version of the Berlin airlift now, damn you. On to the ideas pile it goes...

(edit: Still working on ER the RPG, so I'm biased about the possibility of civil virtue FRP...)

contracycle wrote: So a REAL person in a real world actually has quite a lot of reasons to try to make the world a better place and reap the social kudos thereof.

But this seldom happens in games because games pretty much require conflict of the violent sort.

Ricks initial question has merit - but I don't think that RPG is ever going to be a vehicle for people to play out their fantasies of civil virtue.

You all raise good points, but I still would defer back to the following quote

"Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men'."

Sorcerers are EXTREMELY powerful. Imagine a Sorcerer who realizes the power he has. He would have complete control over his enviroment and any lifeform he wishes. By nature humans are greedy. Sure there are exceptions to this rule with Mother Theresa and Ghandi, but they are just that, exceptions to the rule. As a general rule Humans are ruled by greed, lust and power. Humans are destructive. Society dictates that, but that is in real life.

The question then is can it be done in a fantasy setting? I think the answer is.....maybe. There are several ways you can go with a storyline and a campaign to subtlely coerce the players to act the way you want. In my opinion, to have the players act as the good guys/gals you would have to create a world that is oppressive and torturous for the PC's to live in. To force them to change the world as a better place. Knowing that ...what follows is a rough (real rough) outline of a possible world where fighting for a better world might work. Keep in mind this is just my opinion.

The world would have to be overly dark and brooding. People are oppressed daily, atrocities against all men and women are commonplace and the sun shines only rarely because the world is affected by the oppression of the creatures living on it. It Rains almost daily and dead forests are commonplace. The PC's are banded together to stop the oppression. To make this world a better place. This, in no way, dictates that they are your atypical heroes. They have secrets. They are dark. They have their own agendas, but they are a dim light in a dark world. Destiny awaits them as they take the first steps to fufilling their fate.

Sorcerers are extremely rare. In fact only if there are sorcerers in the player group will characters know about Sorcerers. Maybe a PC recently discovered his power, discovered it's cost. Decided that it was his destiny to die helping those who could not help themselves.

That is how I would try to accomplish this. Whether it is right or wrong is yet to be determined, but the way I see it the PC's are good of character and are attempting to better the world, but the setting allows for more conflict. Maybe the sorcerer is also part healer (actual healing as opposed to magical). The Sorcerer would have to be a strong character. One that drives the group. Maybe he or she decides that they must travel from town to town and work to free the oppressed. Maybe they only use Sorcery in defense or in extreme conditions.

Ok, I just realized I am rambling again. I'm stopping that now. Just hard to stop when ideas flow.

Sorry about the long rambling post. I hope you can pick up my point somewhere in there.

However, there has yet to be one real discussion on how sorcery can assist humanity in its struggle for a better tomorrow

In the game I'll be playing shortly, I've got a Sorcerer who's Destiny is to free a land and be its legitimate ruler (he's Stahlnish, the land in question is Angharad, and I'm pretty sure I spelled one or both wrong). I like to believe he's a fairly nice guy, but we'll see how that works out in play.

(btw, an "F" in attributes bites, totally. I mean, completely. ouch.)

mrgrimm wrote: "Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887. 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men'."

Sorcerers are EXTREMELY powerful. Imagine a Sorcerer who realizes the power he has. He would have complete control over his enviroment and any lifeform he wishes. By nature humans are greedy. Sure there are exceptions to this rule with Mother Theresa and Ghandi, but they are just that, exceptions to the rule. As a general rule Humans are ruled by greed, lust and power. Humans are destructive.

mrgrimm wrote: As a general rule Humans are ruled by greed, lust and power. Humans are destructive.

I beg to differ on that. In my opinion we are ruled by lust, greed and power as an example look at all the people killed in the name of religion. That is being ruled by power, albiet it's their interpretation of power, but nonetheless they are ruled by power. Look at the majority of men and to some extent women that cheat on their significant others because of lust. Then there is greed. That is too easy to justify, so I'll let it alone. All those people that I mentioned had choices. They chose to be ruled by the power they follow, the lust in their loins and the greed in their hearts. That is being ruled by it, not Strongly Influenced by it and that is more the rule than the exception. Humans are destructive by nature and violent by willing choice.

Again this is just my opinion. It may not be anybody elses. Take it as you will, with a grain of salt and some crackers.

I think we're ruled by what we allow ourselves to be ruled by. Some would say that that's greed, lust, etc. They're right. Others are ruled by fear. They're right. Others by a wish to do well that has actually overcome those other instincts. They're right. To say that people are ruled by anything says more about one's self then about people. "People" isn't a thing, but an individual is.

Jake

pete_darby wrote:

Your good is not my good

So it is agreed then that while the power of sorcery may be used for a good purpose, free will ultimately directs the course of humanity. To a point, magic is a fulcrum for desire. It allows things to happen that would otherwise be impossible. But it’s guided by the imaginations and intentions of those using it. In this case of this RPG, it’s the players. My premise is that it would be the ultimate challenge to any role player to take on the impossible. However it gets justified, the ability to defy thousands of years of quotes and improbability lies in the minds of someone out there. I’m curious to see who it is. Even if it is just pretend. Theoretically, it should be easy if all that really need be overcome is something as well contemporized as desire.

Kaare Berg wrote: pete_darby wrote:

Your good is not my good

If one accepts that a group of basically good intentioned sorcerers had siezed world control and created their vision of utopia. And the majority of the people were happy with this (suprise). What would the rules be?

Would this be an medival version of Big Brother (the book, not the show) or Brave New World?

How would the ruling elite deal with dissidents?

I'm reading through all of this, and trying not to get flashbacks to Zardoz...

(I spend a lot of time trying not to get flashbacks to Zardoz...)

Hmm, Zardoz is not too bad a thought here. I'd have trouble understanding why wizards as powerful as these DON'T got out and set themselves up as god-kings. that would seem to me the safest coiurse of action, becuase it obviates many of their menial needs and thus preserves their power as much as possible. An occassional demonstration to keep everyone in line should be all thats needed.

contracycle wrote: I'd have trouble understanding why wizards as powerful as these DON'T got out and set themselves up as god-kings.

Rick! That borders on the pompous! Nice job. :-)

This is just a game, after all. As such, I think it's no big deal to play the good guy sorcerer. Like I said above, that's what I'd be doing. I mean, sure ultimate power is a hard thing to get around in RL. But you don't actually have it in an RPG, as a player, do you? I mean, the rewards aren't real, so refusing the spoils of power is pretty easy. If all you're after is a good story, in fact, then it's child's play to be the good guy.

Heck, you could play a Bhudda-like or Christ-like character in an RPG with little trouble if you had the notion to do so. It's just not that big a deal. :-)

Mike

So now that the concept of do-gooding in extreme sense has been illuminated to be as trite and ridiculous as destroying the world, what say we move on to the real point of the discussion. With the potential for such aweful power being wielded by characters for what ever purpose whimsy strikes, the need for a tolerant social philosophy amongst sorcerers would logically be beneficial. This set of rules could be looked to as a guideline for acceptable or even enforceable behavior and help to establish, destroy, and/or maintain the balance in the shadowed society of sorcery. (Or to help new players and old establish a successful venue in which their characters can pursue life, liberty and domestic tranquility. Or to dash it all to bits. It’s your game.)

So I’d like to progress on to said discussion of the rules of magic. More specifically, as this is a great forum to do this in, I would like to use them (after lengthy debate) to create a constitution of sorts that is specific to the issues that would arise from violating things like:

Rule #1.

Don’t be stupid.

I think this paraphrases just about every situation that could or has gone wrong (where in someone had a choice of course).

What other maxims should form the supporting cast?

On this path, we quickly reach a point to where we have to consider not just social philosophies among sorcerers, but also the possibility of organisations charging themselves with the furtherment of one or the other philosophy. In areas where sorcery is frowned upon or persecuted, such organisations are even more likely to come into existence, albeit of course in secrecy, to protect its members, especially those not yet powerful enough to protect themselves.

Rick wrote:
Rule #1.

Don’t be stupid.

I think this paraphrases just about every situation that could or has gone wrong (where in someone had a choice of course).

I'd have to disagree Pete... I think there are some general guidelines of stupidity that are universal.

Rick wrote: So I’d like to progress on to said discussion of the rules of magic.

Rule #1.

Don’t be stupid.

What other maxims should form the supporting cast?

I see sorcerers as more fiercely independant. Rather than following a code, like "don't be stupid for the benefit of all sorcerers" I see it more as a balance of power like "don't piss me off or I'll kill you." Sorcerers desire power (whether for good or ill, that's why they pursue sorcery), but they don't want to attract the attention of other sorcerers because it's much easier to kill someone with sorcery than it is to avoid being killed.

I forgot the corollaries: "Don't try to kill me because you don't know what I've got up my sleeve" and "Don't try to kill me because I have powerful friends to get payback."

What about a coven of sorcerers creating their own little nightmare of an utopia somewhere with the mother of all Conquer rituals: Happiness is mandatory, dissent is impossible.

...What is the matrix?