| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 08:30:26
|
So here's a spin off from the Waterdeep's Army thread. So let's say an orc horde comes out from the Spine of the World and threatens the northern communities. The Lords Alliance gets together and decides to deal with the threat. The orcs have very limited magical defences (if any.) So some mages from Waterdeep go up there and wipe out the horde with say some meteor showers. Is that OK?
Or, how about this: Luskan attacks Neverwinter, and the Lords Alliance reacts. So far, Luskan has kept the war "conventional," and has not used any magic. Would it be OK for mages from the Alliance to use mass casualty spells on the forces of Luskan?
|
Edited by - Riverwind on 19 Apr 2010 08:42:08
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 08:45:13
|
I say nuke the orcs.   
Now with Luskan, one should be prepared for some kinda magic retailiation.   |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
 |
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 09:03:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
I say nuke the orcs.
Now with Luskan, one should be prepared for some kinda magic retailiation.
Nuke'em all, let Grumish sort'em out |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 09:16:02
|
Well there is a saying
"All is fair in love and war" This was never true in my opinion. In D&D the answer in some ways becomes easier, because of the alignment rules.
Alas even though rules run into heated discussions at times.
Any invader clearly could be looked at as Evil and all force to stop evil has been justified at times. This though really becomes a issue of proper or excessive defense. The first clearly considered lawful, defending yourself or others, the second that might result in destroying farmlands for years just to kill something certainly could be considered an Evil act.
Earthquake is a very good spell for mass destruction as well, people, homes, animals and invaders can get swallowed into the planet never to draw a breath again (though homes were never alive).
In some ways it has to become a DM call. If the orcs raided, burned and killed, it seems to follow that they should pay for that with as much force required.
If they came out of the hills closer and offered no immediate threat and entered empty lands, there at least should be talk before you killed them *Evil Grin*
Luskan, not using any magic? The only way I can see the concept of treating an invader with a formal rules of war is if the attacker and defender have agreed to them. There is no rules of war in FR that I recall, just alignment rules that might effect the character for acting too quickly or wrongly.
It has been generally accepted that an intruder into your home can be attacked, even killed if you believed others or yourself was in danger. This is considered lawful and most likely good (more so if defending those that can not defend themselves).
When you talk about a city, there clearly are people that can not defend themselves.
If some one ran at your children, spouse, kith or kin with a spear and the only weapon you had at hand was crossbow, should you drop the bow and seek to find a spear in order to fight fair?
It really comes down to what you do and why you do it. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 09:57:06
|
Yeah, Luskan might have been a poor example. But you get my point, if two human kingdoms were at war, there might be some ethical questions on when to use such force. Just say a rich mine is found and two nations claim it, there might not be a clear "good" and "evil" in the situation. It could be the fact that both nations want the mine and go to war over it.
As for the orcs, I'm sure it's the humans who are sometime the "invaders," by putting new settlements near traditional orc lands. Or by adventurers going up into the mountains and coming back missing half their party with horror tales. Next thing you know the town is organizing a posse to go into the mountains. Nobody ever says, "what the heck were you guys going up there in the first place." |
Edited by - Riverwind on 19 Apr 2010 10:59:19 |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 13:39:42
|
I believe that because of such problems some especially destructive spells were forbidden (like someone's Deathspell from "Avatars").
About orcs. It will be enough to throw two fireballs to scare them out of the city's reach. No need for massacre. Even the strongest mages have no wish to obliterate the terrain, creating the desert like the well-known wastelands. |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 14:06:36
|
| If you want, check out RAS's Siege of Darkness and the Hunter's Blades Trilogy to show why having Meteor Storm and other high-powered spells doesn't mean you can wipe out the force coming at you. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 17:06:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
So here's a spin off from the Waterdeep's Army thread. So let's say an orc horde comes out from the Spine of the World and threatens the northern communities. The Lords Alliance gets together and decides to deal with the threat. The orcs have very limited magical defences (if any.) So some mages from Waterdeep go up there and wipe out the horde with say some meteor showers. Is that OK?
Or, how about this: Luskan attacks Neverwinter, and the Lords Alliance reacts. So far, Luskan has kept the war "conventional," and has not used any magic. Would it be OK for mages from the Alliance to use mass casualty spells on the forces of Luskan?
To continue Faraer's reflection - all is fair in war, and the notion of "fairness" does not enter into the equation, most of the time.
From a moral point of view, one could say that the use of magic merely constitutes use of overwhelming force (not all that different from using bows and arrows from a distance against an army which has no missile weapons). There are no laws in war which prohibit "unfair fighting", unless a code of chivalry applies, and that one would apply to individuals, rather than entire armies.
I would say that inhabitants of Faerūn would not make a distinction "conventional / non-conventional" between "no magic" and "magic". If you'd ask a general the question, his answer would likely be along the lines of "it's there, so why would not use it?"
The restrictions on use of magic would probably not derive from any rigid considerations, but rather from "do unto others as you would others do unto you" type reasoning, much like the laws of war originated on earth, from antiquity, similar to customary law or ius cogens in current international public law. It woudl also probably be based on some notion of reciprocity.
Further restrictions on the use of magic would probably only be created through Mystra's intervention, in her role as overall guardian of the Weave. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 18:44:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauramarth
To continue Faraer's reflection - all is fair in war, and the notion of "fairness" does not enter into the equation, most of the time.
*Blink*
quote:
From a moral point of view, one could say that the use of magic merely constitutes use of overwhelming force (not all that different from using bows and arrows from a distance against an army which has no missile weapons). There are no laws in war which prohibit "unfair fighting", unless a code of chivalry applies, and that one would apply to individuals, rather than entire armies.
I would say that inhabitants of Faerūn would not make a distinction "conventional / non-conventional" between "no magic" and "magic". If you'd ask a general the question, his answer would likely be along the lines of "it's there, so why would not use it?"
The restrictions on use of magic would probably not derive from any rigid considerations, but rather from "do unto others as you would others do unto you" type reasoning, much like the laws of war originated on earth, from antiquity, similar to customary law or ius cogens in current international public law. It woudl also probably be based on some notion of reciprocity.
Further restrictions on the use of magic would probably only be created through Mystra's intervention, in her role as overall guardian of the Weave.
Though in a world of magic that can be seen every day and weapon fighting less often, it does strike me the people of Waterdeep would consider not using magic to defend immoral if it could have used to to defend. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 22:22:45
|
quote:
To continue Faraer's reflection - all is fair in war, and the notion of "fairness" does not enter into the equation, most of the time.
From a moral point of view, one could say that the use of magic merely constitutes use of overwhelming force (not all that different from using bows and arrows from a distance against an army which has no missile weapons). There are no laws in war which prohibit "unfair fighting", unless a code of chivalry applies, and that one would apply to individuals, rather than entire armies.
I would say that inhabitants of Faerūn would not make a distinction "conventional / non-conventional" between "no magic" and "magic". If you'd ask a general the question, his answer would likely be along the lines of "it's there, so why would not use it?"
Further restrictions on the use of magic would probably only be created through Mystra's intervention, in her role as overall guardian of the Weave.
Well, if magic is too common, that opens another can of worms. Why would people die of disease or old age, when both can be cured or delayed through magic. Why have roads when you can have portals. Why fire places, etc. My point is, magic would have to be rare and used sparingly. Or is it a case where only the rich have access to such things? |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 22:35:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Well, if magic is too common, that opens another can of worms. Why would people die of disease or old age, when both can be cured or delayed through magic. Why have roads when you can have portals. Why fire places, etc. My point is, magic would have to be rare and used sparingly. Or is it a case where only the rich have access to such things?
Simple magic is common and affordable. Maybe up to level three spell level one can receive things for free or at low cost. Clerics, clearly can provide cure wounds , disease, etc. at no cost if providing service to faithful. Longevity and raise from dead are higher level spells that cost the spell caster. Flying is also higher level so not affordable to all.
One should also remember that only so much magic can be used per day. Have 10 in need of cure wounds and having only three cure spells translates into 7 not being healed by magic that day. Oh next day three more might be healed if they did not die during the night. There is a lot of magic in the Realms, however magic does not and can not be the answer to everything. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 22:41:14
|
quote:
There is a lot of magic in the Realms, however magic does not and can not be the answer to everything.
I 100% agree, but than the same can be said about its use in warfare. |
|
|
|
Thauramarth
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
729 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 23:16:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
quote:
To continue Faraer's reflection - all is fair in war, and the notion of "fairness" does not enter into the equation, most of the time.
From a moral point of view, one could say that the use of magic merely constitutes use of overwhelming force (not all that different from using bows and arrows from a distance against an army which has no missile weapons). There are no laws in war which prohibit "unfair fighting", unless a code of chivalry applies, and that one would apply to individuals, rather than entire armies.
I would say that inhabitants of Faerūn would not make a distinction "conventional / non-conventional" between "no magic" and "magic". If you'd ask a general the question, his answer would likely be along the lines of "it's there, so why would not use it?"
Further restrictions on the use of magic would probably only be created through Mystra's intervention, in her role as overall guardian of the Weave.
Well, if magic is too common, that opens another can of worms. Why would people die of disease or old age, when both can be cured or delayed through magic. Why have roads when you can have portals. Why fire places, etc. My point is, magic would have to be rare and used sparingly. Or is it a case where only the rich have access to such things?
OK. First... Kentinal? Oops. Sorry, not Faraer, but Kentinal.
I did not exactly say that magic was all that common (but all things being equal, FR, as written, contains more magic than, say Greyhawk, although not as much as certain parts of Mystara).
Not all armies might have it (the Tuigan Horde comes to mind), but a lot of them do: Thay (of course), Rashemen (witches), Aglarond, Zhentil Keep (the Zhentarim), Cormyr (the War Wizards), Luskan (Hosttower), various drow cities (spellcasters are an integral part of their armed patrols). It's common enough for it to be known as a potential parameter in war. And an army which has it, probably has no moral qualms about using it, any more than using bow and arrows, or heavy cavalry to ride down defenseless light infantry.
And yes, the rich probably have easier access to magic than the poor. Same as for everything. |
|
|
|
dragonfriend
Seeker
Italy
65 Posts |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 23:18:52
|
Magic is part of the Realms, but is an uncommon part. We are used to see it from the adventurers point of view, but it is not so common. To wipe out a large numbers of foes you need high level spells. Quite rare. We know wizards and sorcerers are weak (bad BAB, few hit points), so most of them will stay away from most of battles. You need high intelligence and wisdom scores to cast powerful spells. The average int or wis is 10-12; we can say the average mage or cleric has 13-15, so spells of 3rd 5th levels.
Magic is a part of life in Faerun, and faerunins will use it at war.
|
Edited by - dragonfriend on 19 Apr 2010 23:37:42 |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 02:27:59
|
"And yes, the rich probably have easier access to magic than the poor. Same as for everything."
So my mom dies because we have no money but Mirt and the other Lords live thanks to magic. You better get more troops, you're going to have a revolution on your hands. |
Edited by - Riverwind on 20 Apr 2010 02:29:05 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 04:57:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
"And yes, the rich probably have easier access to magic than the poor. Same as for everything."
So my mom dies because we have no money but Mirt and the other Lords live thanks to magic. You better get more troops, you're going to have a revolution on your hands.
Yeah, it's obviously the fault of Mirt that you've got no money. 
Also, how do you know who the Lords are, if you're a citizen in Waterdeep? You know a few people who are suspected, but that's about it.
Oh, and if you're so broke that your mom dies, where are you getting money for arms, armor, and supplies for your revolution? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 07:53:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
"And yes, the rich probably have easier access to magic than the poor. Same as for everything."
So my mom dies because we have no money but Mirt and the other Lords live thanks to magic. You better get more troops, you're going to have a revolution on your hands.
Yeah, it's obviously the fault of Mirt that you've got no money.
Also, how do you know who the Lords are, if you're a citizen in Waterdeep? You know a few people who are suspected, but that's about it.
Oh, and if you're so broke that your mom dies, where are you getting money for arms, armor, and supplies for your revolution?
Whooly,
In situations where there's inequality, trouble brews.
I apologies, I was just having some fun with these questions. I love the game, I love the Forgotten Realms. Clearly we can't expect to answer our own social problems in a game. Although, books like the Icewindale Trilogy or Daughter of the Drow do deal with issues like racism. I remember reading those books as a kid, and I really think they helped me out. So personlly I would love to explore issues like ethics in the Realms. Clearly I'm in the minority, which is fine. The great thing about D&D is the flexibility of the game. How many of us had house rules or optional rules from Dragon Magazine? I remember we used to play with critical hits and bad misses which was a great optional rule in Dragon. We tried playing with the weapons vs different types of armor (I loved it, but others in my group hated it.) Anyway, sorry for these threads...I should be working right now |
Edited by - Riverwind on 20 Apr 2010 07:55:15 |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
Posted - 20 Apr 2010 : 07:56:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
So here's a spin off from the Waterdeep's Army thread. So let's say an orc horde comes out from the Spine of the World and threatens the northern communities. The Lords Alliance gets together and decides to deal with the threat. The orcs have very limited magical defences (if any.) So some mages from Waterdeep go up there and wipe out the horde with say some meteor showers. Is that OK?
I believe the response depends on the progress the threatening orcs are making towards settlements under Waterdeep's jurisdiction (ie-Fireshear).
The 1st tactic would be to let the orcs know---via message, or an invite to dialogue, or magical display to accompany an initial show of martial defense---that they approach, w/their unprovoked malicious intent and inferior battle preparations, at thier own expense. If they laugh it off and continue to march w/the intent to kill or even threaten, then I say yes, it'd be OK for Waterdavian mages to go up and wipe'em out w/some Meteor Showers.
Initial dialogue would've been preferable, but if they choose to threaten the safety and livelihood of the human/demihuman settlements, then they have to be dealt with. Why should the Waterdavian's dumb down thier weaponry whilst being attacked? Though mind you, I don't think those high level meteor shower spells would be neccessary to destroy these orcs w/limited magical defenses, as you've stated.
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
Yeah, Luskan might have been a poor example. But you get my point, if two human kingdoms were at war, there might be some ethical questions on when to use such force. Just say a rich mine is found and two nations claim it, there might not be a clear "good" and "evil" in the situation. It could be the fact that both nations want the mine and go to war over it.
Yeah Luskan w/o magic was a poor example!
When there's not a clear evil as you've pointed out, then the issue isn't black and white, and thus going to war would have the potential for disasterous long-term effects. Perhaps even short-term, w/lands that were trading partners then going about establishing trade embargos against the aggressive nation, for being so callous. I don't see a situation of going to war happening between "1st world" nations on Toril, over the described situation w/the mine. Rather, trade dialogue would be the first order of business. And if those degenerate into threats of going to war by one country, then those speaking such fighting words would be dealt with by lords, noblemen, guildmasters, other people of influence etc. of the same country, ousting the one w/the mouth for war. Or at least rendering him moot in all discussions, including those where potential coin is to be made.
I could envision poor nations going to war over it, rendering an ethical argument moot, as both parties would be fully in the wrong.
I can envision Luskan and Waterdeep (or Port Llast or Neverwinter) going to war over it, but Luskan is ruled by evil people. It'd be something for the Lord's Alliance that'd be worth fighting for, as the mine is rich (as you said), and thus can be used to strengthen Luskan's forces, which are already an established threat to all the settlements around it.
The rules I'd have in going to magical war---war in general, in the Realms---would be to ensure than no innocent lives are lost as the primary focus; spells that can damage/destroy farmland, forestry, and wildlife are used to an absolute minimum, only used as tactical contingencies (hopefully the Lord's Alliance are on good terms w/the elves, druids, and rangers of the lands, for to have allies that can cast spells in battle than help defeat the threat and also preserve the farmland, trees, and wildlife) as the secondary focus; and to have a measure of mercy on the opposing combatants who throw down their weapons and surrender as the tertiary focus (w/clerics of Helm or so taking the lead in this, casting spells to discern the motivation, ensuring that those who 'surrender' aren't kamikaze).
quote:
Originally posted by Riverwind
As for the orcs, I'm sure it's the humans who are sometime the "invaders," by putting new settlements near traditional orc lands. Or by adventurers going up into the mountains and coming back missing half their party with horror tales. Next thing you know the town is organizing a posse to go into the mountains. Nobody ever says, "what the heck were you guys going up there in the first place."
That puts a whole new twist on things. Knowing how someone like Queen Alustriel operates and her land's proximity to orc hordes, I'm sure there is provisional protocol of how to deal w/those situations where stupid urban adventurers drum up trouble in the wilds, and make the orcs believe that humans want their traditional territory. All in an effort to promote dialogue, perhaps even unto establishing a peace w/the various tribes of mountain orcs, and thus potentially have even something more than juss avoiding another human urban settlement vs. mountain orc tribe war.
|
Edited by - bladeinAmn on 20 Apr 2010 19:04:57 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 06:15:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
You know, that brings up the Transitions books by RAS. Obould effectivly created his own kingdom, so now, apperently, you have a new dimention to deal with regarding orcs. If they have become organized and "civilized", is it still okay to use magic against them?
It was okay before, it certainly should be okay now.
Magic is part of combat, not a cure all - you still need blade to win as well.
With the established kingdom, war becomes harder then dealing with smaller tribes.
Magic (for the most part( is not Evil or Good), how the magic is used and why determines if the use is Evil or Good.
Using magic against peaceful orcs clearly strikes me as an Evil act. Much like killing ever Drow seen might be an Evil act. Kill first and ask questions later at least in D&D is possible (ask dead spell), however repairing an unjust action still cost the target. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 21 Apr 2010 : 21:23:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Um, I guess what i'm saying is, would you still treat them as just orcs, or should the rules of warfare and diplomacy apply? I would think yes, though some might disagree bcause they're orcs. Much like some elves would disagree that it's not okay to kill every drow one meets....
Well I think you would have to treat all intelligent life with respect. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 04:19:54
|
I've played a Wizard for decades now; and often played him in wars and large scale conflicts.
Most spells in D&D come from a time when (I'm guessing some on this; educated the rest) the players of Gygax's game played fantasy war games. A wizard using a Lightning Bolt on the flank of a long enemy formation was going to kill LOTS of soldiers...whether they were orc or human.
Almost any area of effect spell is ideal for war...no different than a rocket propelled grenade, hand grenade, land mine or artillery shell. Wizards and other casters ARE the heavy weapons of fantasy warfare. Because of that, I never had a problem doing whatever I needed so that I could do away with enemy soldiers.
It didn't matter if I was laying waste to a tough to crack elite center of the enemy army with Wall of Fire, or sweeping a flank with a Cloudkill spell; if the enemy can't counter you, it isn't wrong for you to use superior firepower.
Even more important, wizards should be used on the attack instead of defensively. Wizard magic isn't ideally suited to defending large numbers of soldiers against an enemy attack. My personal philosophy on the subject was to obtain "Wizard Superiority" over an enemy just as in modern warfare Air Superiority is key and a primary objective.
I primed my spell list with spells dedicated to dealing with enemy casters foremost. Once enemy casters were dealt with (either chased off or killed), then my supply of scrolls, wands, staves and other implements could be used to decimate the enemy. It was the job of my apprentice(s) to ready an adequate supply of wands and scrolls mostly, particularly wands dealing with fire and ice; but always to ensure a supply of uncommon magics too.
I don't care what alignment a wizard is, once actual war is declared from one side or the other...I don't see a need for limiting what casualties can be caused. I will say that using undead and other-planar creatures might be considered "cheating" but that is another matter entirely in my opinion.
Wizards are elite troops...and if you don't want to face them on the battle-field, then you better have someone to neutralize the threat. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 04:34:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I've played a Wizard for decades now; and often played him in wars and large scale conflicts.
Most spells in D&D come from a time when (I'm guessing some on this; educated the rest) the players of Gygax's game played fantasy war games. A wizard using a Lightning Bolt on the flank of a long enemy formation was going to kill LOTS of soldiers...whether they were orc or human.
Almost any area of effect spell is ideal for war...no different than a rocket propelled grenade, hand grenade, land mine or artillery shell. Wizards and other casters ARE the heavy weapons of fantasy warfare. Because of that, I never had a problem doing whatever I needed so that I could do away with enemy soldiers.
It didn't matter if I was laying waste to a tough to crack elite center of the enemy army with Wall of Fire, or sweeping a flank with a Cloudkill spell; if the enemy can't counter you, it isn't wrong for you to use superior firepower.
Even more important, wizards should be used on the attack instead of defensively. Wizard magic isn't ideally suited to defending large numbers of soldiers against an enemy attack. My personal philosophy on the subject was to obtain "Wizard Superiority" over an enemy just as in modern warfare Air Superiority is key and a primary objective.
I primed my spell list with spells dedicated to dealing with enemy casters foremost. Once enemy casters were dealt with (either chased off or killed), then my supply of scrolls, wands, staves and other implements could be used to decimate the enemy. It was the job of my apprentice(s) to ready an adequate supply of wands and scrolls mostly, particularly wands dealing with fire and ice; but always to ensure a supply of uncommon magics too.
I don't care what alignment a wizard is, once actual war is declared from one side or the other...I don't see a need for limiting what casualties can be caused. I will say that using undead and other-planar creatures might be considered "cheating" but that is another matter entirely in my opinion.
Wizards are elite troops...and if you don't want to face them on the battle-field, then you better have someone to neutralize the threat.
Great post. Wizards could also be very good in other areas on the battlefield. They could mask the movement of your heavy cavalry under a mass invisibility spell as the unit flanks the enemy. That would be nasty. |
|
|
|
The Hooded One
Lady Herald of Realmslore
5056 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 19:57:06
|
Gary and his friends and family (Rob Kuntz, Jim Ward, Dave Arneson, Len Lakofka, Gary's son Luke, etc.) played "sandtable" and "tabletop" wargames (with miniatures, measuring tape, etc.) using medieval rules they developed (calling themselves the "Castles and Crusades society"). When medieval-era monsters started showing up on the battlefields, rules were written for their use, and CHAINMAIL was the result.
I talked to Dave Arneson many times, and Gary two or three times, about these halcyon pre-D&D days, but Ed Greenwood recalls sitting in on an early Gygax-run tabletop fantasy army battle (at GenCon 8, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin). In that battle, ricocheting lightning bolts were DEADLY among heavily-armored cavalry (knights).
Much later, Ed first met Bruce Heard face-to-face (who was the liaison between TSR and all of its freelancers, as well as the in-house scheduler of products) at a Milwaukee GenCon, when Ed played a Battlesystem (D&D) rules playtest (again, a tabletop fantasy skirmish) with Bruce as the DM and space for four players. In that one, polymorph was the most useful defensive spell (Ed's wizard used it on Stumblehop, the giant his opponents controlled, to turn the giant into a helpless, immobile giant clam for the duration of the battle; when Ed's side won, they built a fire and had a celebratory (giant) clambake.
Ah, ancient history. I, of course, am as young and fresh as I was back then (sigh; NOT).
love,
THO |
Edited by - The Hooded One on 22 Apr 2010 19:59:24 |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 20:57:30
|
That's a great story, THO.
For myself, I agree completely with Dalor. Wizards (and to a lesser extend clerics) are any D&D world's version of heavy artillery. Moreover, in a world where magic exists, and has existed for thousands of years, its use would be widespread. Note, that this doesn't mean universal, there have been plenty of eras in Earth history where the full potential of new weapons and/or tactics weren't realized at once, and where those who did had decisive advantages (Gustavus Adolfus's combined arms tactics at Breitenfeld and the Spencer repeating carbine and its kin in the US Civil War come to mind). In fact, a proper integration of magic with the rest of the battlefield is likely what allowed historical powerhouses (ie: Netheril, Eaerlann, Imaskar maybe, Thay probably) to defeat numerically superior foes.
There are plenty of examples in Realms canon of it as well. Zalathorm and Akhlaur's spells against the Mulhorandi in Wizardwar, the entire Rotting War in the Vilhon Reach, and some of the nastier Netherese magics were all meant for large-scale battlefield application.
I'll go further: in a world where magic exists, and you have magic on your side, refusing to use it would be not just unethical, but criminal, because it would lead to the needless death of the people under your command. Avoid crossing lines (the Rotting War is a prime example, and the use of undead for many is another), by all means, but if you go to war, war to win, and use all weapons available to you. A nation like Cormyr going to war without its wizards would be like the US going to war but deciding to leave all its tanks and planes at home just because. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2010 : 21:15:00
|
I think the question people are asking here is not so much whether magic SHOULD be used, but where does one draw the line at unethical use in war? Which spells should be considered off-limits in a war, such as the aforementioned meteor showers, or earthquake? While I agree that magic is an integral part of warfare in a fantasy world like FR, I also believe that there are lines of right and wrong that should not be crossed- like using magic to torture captured enemy troops or agents for information, using "sweep and clear" type spells that damage the land and any local civilians, or using undead or planar creatures (especially lower-planer ones) which can excape control and wreak havok. Perhaps Fearun needs a magical equivilant of the Geneva Convention Rules? Cormyr without wizards in battle might seem like a dumb idea, but so is Cormyr with its wizards running amok on the battlefield without some sort of constraints....
|
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 00:09:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Luskan, not using any magic?
It probably wouldn't really be much of an option or choice anymore, what with the Hosttower being leveled and all in The Pirate King...
It might be cool to see High Captain Kensidan's pirates go head-to-head against the orcs, though. Who needs magic, there? All-out melee, without any remorse for the losers from us! |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 05:34:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I think the question people are asking here is not so much whether magic SHOULD be used, but where does one draw the line at unethical use in war? Which spells should be considered off-limits in a war, such as the aforementioned meteor showers, or earthquake? While I agree that magic is an integral part of warfare in a fantasy world like FR, I also believe that there are lines of right and wrong that should not be crossed- like using magic to torture captured enemy troops or agents for information, using "sweep and clear" type spells that damage the land and any local civilians, or using undead or planar creatures (especially lower-planer ones) which can excape control and wreak havok. Perhaps Fearun needs a magical equivilant of the Geneva Convention Rules? Cormyr without wizards in battle might seem like a dumb idea, but so is Cormyr with its wizards running amok on the battlefield without some sort of constraints....
I agree with you that certain nations would put limits on themselves. One thing is clear is that no nation in the Realms would move an army without proper magical support. In fact, I would think that all would be developing tactics and doctrines to fully intergrate a type of magical combined arms. Also I'm sure wizards would be employed to develope specialized spells for war and there would be a magiacal arms race so to speak. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Riverwind
Learned Scribe
133 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 07:30:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Precisely. Who needs FRW II or FRW III? The minute someone developes a "nuke" spell, it's all over...
If someone could figure out how to develope dead magic zones, like the ones created after the Times of Troubles that would be interesting. In fact another poster talked about one of the RAS books and I think they did craete a dead magic zone. If the knowledge of how to do that became widespread, that would add another interesting twist into the debate. It be like SDI. |
Edited by - Riverwind on 23 Apr 2010 07:36:45 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Ethics of Magic in War
