# A magical world where only the poor/untrained resort to mundane weaponry and combat?



## Armoured Rat (Oct 30, 2013)

Wouldn't this be the most logical course of events in a world saturated with magical objects and beings of various types? Are fantasy worlds that seem to employ mundane and magical weaponry, with at least somewhat equal effect (i.e - a shitload of them), basically nonsensical? I've been through a few theories in my mind, and I'm leaning towards it being pretty nonsensical at this point. 

Obviously it works in a lot of these classical fantasy worlds that are low magic, but lets say in something like the Elder Scrolls (I'm sure a few are familiar with that game series), where seemingly everyone can cast magical spells if they want to. Yet, you still have pretty 'pure' warrior types running around stomping on mages.

Of course, it all comes down to detail. Can the mage pull off spells fast enough for on-comers to never get a chance to attack, or perhaps cast permanent spells of some kind? But the real point is, what are the most satisfying resolutions, from a fiction stand point? I'm having a lot of trouble conceiving of a highly magical society in which the poor are a magical as well as economical underclass, and the elite are the equivalent ruling class, without getting the feeling I am missing some sort of fundamental implication of some kind that would make the entire thing highly implausible.

So, any ideas on the subject?


----------



## Sam Evren (Oct 30, 2013)

Well, if magic were ubiquitous, let's say like the Elder Scrolls, so that any one can _do_ it, it's not that different than any given society with a parity of weapons.

What I mean is that the poor can have cold steel weapons (though likely they're often forbidden the right), but the King has his castle, well-trained army, horses, etc.

Translating that to magic, you may have the poor with fireballs, but the King (just for ease of example's sake) has a Ring of Protection against Fire surrounding his castle, along with an army of trained mages, flying carpets, etc.

As for why the downtrodden don't attack en masse, why don't they historically? If it's not that bad of a life, it's not worth risking the only one you have---I'm going to guess off the bat.

Can a mage be beaten by a pure warrior?

During World War II, Italy invaded Ethiopia. It was supposed to be an easy conquest. Italy had tanks. Ethiopia had spears. No contest, right?

The Ethiopians learned that the tanks had blind spots, ran up to their sides, stuck their spears under them as a group, and flipped the tanks. Like turtles on their backs, they were done.

Magic and technology can be beaten, it just takes, perhaps, a different vector of thought.


----------



## GeekDavid (Oct 30, 2013)

Armoured Rat said:


> Wouldn't this be the most logical course of events in a world saturated with magical objects and beings of various types? Are fantasy worlds that seem to employ mundane and magical weaponry, with at least somewhat equal effect (i.e - a shitload of them), basically nonsensical? I've been through a few theories in my mind, and I'm leaning towards it being pretty nonsensical at this point.
> 
> Obviously it works in a lot of these classical fantasy worlds that are low magic, but lets say in something like the Elder Scrolls (I'm sure a few are familiar with that game series), where seemingly everyone can cast magical spells if they want to. Yet, you still have pretty 'pure' warrior types running around stomping on mages.
> 
> ...



Sounds to me like a variation on Butcher's Codex Alera, where everyone (except the MC) can use that world's magic. That doesn't mean that swords disappear, in fact, they're still quite prevalent.


----------



## shangrila (Oct 31, 2013)

I don't think everyone CAN cast magic in the Elder Scrolls though. If that were true the city guards would use magic spells instead of bows to fight dragons in Skyrim, as an example. The only reason the player can seemingly do whatever they like is because it's the player; not everyone is the "Chosen One" or whatever fancy name they give it.

As far as the rest, if everyone can cast anything then you're probably right, there wouldn't be a need for mundane technology. But that's exactly why you don't find it very often, if ever. Even in something like Codex Alera where most people have furies, different levels of power serve to distinguish the different parts of society, while the offensive capabilities are limited so they still require weapons (or their furies augment weapons, like bows/woodcrafters and swords/metalcrafters).

So personally, I don't think what you're describing would work. If everyone is equal then everyone is equal. Trying to force different social tiers into it would feel exactly that; forced. But then, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Queshire (Oct 31, 2013)

It's rather hard to speak just generally. It seems to me that you're talking about this: Main/Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards - Television Tropes & Idioms with the caveat of if the wizards are quadratic while the warriors are linear, then why would anyone be a warrior? Now it's the job of the writer to make a magic system that balances just that issue, well, if they want to balance it at all. 

Some possible methods of balancing could be as follows:

>Money. In skyrim buying new spell books is EXPENSIVE. If it is cheaper to be a warrior than a mage, then some are going to do that out of sheer necessity.

>Time. In many places, magic is described as taking intense and detailed study to master. That takes time which the peasants, who are too busy with just surviving as it is, just don't have.

>Danger. If magic is dangerous to study, peasants who, again, are busy enough surviving would be less likely to take it up compared to some academic who is less preoccupied with the daily struggle or could hire people to take the risks for them.

>Mana. Or some other fuel for the magic. When a mage runs out of mana their out of luck while a warrior still has a hunk of metal to beam you over the head with.

>Robes. Mages are often shown wearing robes or otherwise unarmored for one reason or another. The fact that a warrior can survive a hit that a mage couldn't balances them.

>Talent. If you just suck at magic then you might be better served by swinging around a sword even if it's less efficient.

>Nothing. Maybe there is no real reason? In that case, the difference between warriors and mages is that warriors would use magic to swing a sword better while a mage uses magic to throw fireballs.

Frankly, in the end if you go "Why don't they just do X?" and you can't come up with any good reason not to then go with it. You could come up with something really unique and interesting.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 31, 2013)

A lot of it depends on what "magic" does. In many console games it's only a bit stronger than a sword, harder to use, and probably more expensive to learn-- so it makes sense that only specialists or elite would use it instead or as well as weapons, but for most people it doesn't change the balance of power much. 

Or in something like D&D, or some stories, you've got Fireballs that you might as well call grenades-- bad news for every grunt in sight, and there's no kind of cheap protection available. Worlds like that pretty well are dependent on magic like that being hard to use, and every lord or power-broker either having protection amulets or a full wizard on his payroll so that even another wizard is leery of assassinating him. So here you would have a nonmagic "underclass", but it would mean anyone who wasn't rich and powerful already. (And, those worlds sometimes avoid the "linear warrior/ quadratic mage" imbalance by either saying the best warriors are very good at hitting wizards fast or because magic also offers talismans that make a rich fighter into Captain America or better. But only somtimes.)

Of course, part of me wonders why with all those fireball spells (even small-scale) there's never anything to help the farmer get more food out of the fields. And sometimes there is, on some easily-overlooked level, but mostly it's because that's never been magic's priority. Because, humans.


----------



## Queshire (Oct 31, 2013)

@wordwalker: Main/Utility Magic - Television Tropes & Idioms for spells like helping a farmer get more food. Frankly, the lack of magic to help agriculture and stuff like that is because magic is the domain of fiction and raising crops just isn't that interesting compared to throwing around fireballs. Ah, but IIRC, rituals to ensure good harvest or a good catch were one of the biggest uses of magic in real world cultures.

'course if you want to chalk up the lack of utility magic to human nature in your story then go for it. It could be really interesting particularly with a hero who manages to use this battle magic for uses they were never intended; using a fireball to light a campfire for instance.


----------



## Sam Evren (Oct 31, 2013)

If you're just looking for barriers to entry on magic, a reagent-heavy system might do that.

If you require a griffon's spleen, a small gold ingot, and the trachea of a harpy just to light a fire, that would certainly put a damper on the lower classes' use of magic.

@wordwalker: In the PC game Ultima VII, mages went a bit... daft. One of them was charged with enchanting a warrior's sword and a farmer's hoe. He got a bit confused and created "The Hoe of Destruction" and "The Sword of Plowing," I believe.


----------



## Captain Loye (Oct 31, 2013)

Sam Evren said:


> @wordwalker: In the PC game Ultima VII, mages went a bit... daft. One of them was charged with enchanting a warrior's sword and a farmer's hoe. He got a bit confused and created "The Hoe of Destruction" and "The Sword of Plowing," I believe.



I can't remember specifically, but I think that he went mad because magic in Brittania started to get all screwy and all the mages went a bit crazy! But that game had a reagent-based magic that was pretty cool - there was no way to case Armageddon without access to rare black pearls, for example.

I think the biggest limiting factor that I've seen for magic is the intellect required. Just like some people are better suited to be doctors or physicists, mages need to not only have incredible memory (for spell invocations like words, hand movements etc) but also need to be able to keep that concentration under pressure.

I guess that's sort of imagining casting a spell is like playing an instrument - most people can learn how (though some are better than others), but as soon as your concentration wavers in a song, you screw up and it all falls in a heap. Of course, it's a bit more dangerous to screw up a fireball than Rachmaninoff's 3rd !

If spell-casting was something everyone could do without thinking, like walking or talking, then all bets are off. 

I guess the point of all this rambling is that it's up to you - super useful, huh?


----------

