PDA

View Full Version : Guilds



Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-18, 02:55 PM
So, I was looking through the recruitment threads for a while and I noticed that there are a few games that didn't allow "1st Tier" classes to be played, and a few others that where gestalt. I've never played Gestalt, but from what I gather it's an attempt to ensure that Full Casters don't become overly powerful in relation to other partial casters or non-casters.

I've tried a couple of times to alter mechanics around casters, in order to even out the playing field a bit. But I've recently I've come upon the idea of making the rebalancing fully based on the setting.

Rather then just have Wizards being pursued by anyone with a pitchfork, I was thinking of a slightly more reasonable reason for why a classic DnD setting doesn't slide into some variation of the "Tippyverse."

I struck upon the idea of Guilds being the major force for equalization.

The Major Guilds would be the Wizards Guild, the Thieves Guild, the Fighters Guild (For lack of a Better name) and the Church (Not strictly speaking a guild.)

The Wizards Guild and the Church would have highly strict policies policing conduct. Which would mean that full casters would have to decide between unleashing their classes full potential, or avoiding the wrath of their respective organization.

For example, it would be illegal to practice magic without a license. A crime punishable by death, in the even that you're caught. The same would go for the Church, you are either a member with a a patron deity or you are a heretic in need of cleansing.

A wizard with a a license could at any time get new spells from the libraries at the local wizard's guild. However in order to get potentially hazardous or harmful spells they would have to pass a lengthy "Psychological Evaluation". Certain spells would be banned completely, like create undead, and in the event that they find such a spell in your book, your licensed is revoked.

Additionally, Wizards have to pay guild dues, something akin to 10% or their wealth by level. The same would be true of clerics, you can hardly be a part of the Church and then refuse to tithe.

The other guilds would have the opposite sort of effect on the game. For a minimal fee they repair your armor, offer room and board, and point out potentially lucrative contracts and opportunities for a small finders fee. That sort of thing.

The reason for the guilds existence is that it promotes stability. The local authorities Like the guilds because they actively police evil wizards and clerics, create a useful supply of trained fighters, and in the case to the thieves guild, organized crime means no bloody disruptive gang wars.

I have a feeling the restrictiveness might make players resent the guilds, but in that case, they'd make for a fairly useful group of adversaries.

What do you think? Would I just be better off playing a gestalt game or E6?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-18, 03:11 PM
What do you think? Would I just be better off playing a gestalt game or E6?
Yes.

Your proposal will bring you (the DM) into conflict with Players who want to play Tier I characters. Better to just ban classes from play than lock yourselves into a permanent struggle as your Players try to circumvent your rules while you spend your time trying to keep the Tier I characters under control.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-18, 03:32 PM
Your proposal will bring you (the DM) into conflict with Players who want to play Tier I characters. Better to just ban classes from play than lock yourselves into a permanent struggle as your Players try to circumvent your rules while you spend your time trying to keep the Tier I characters under control.

Is there any way to mitigate DM/player conflict? I mean for it to be a setting device not a DM ruling.

If you break guild laws, it's not rocks fall everyone wizards die. There might be a few scaling encounters where you have to deal with pissed guild sanctioned wizards/assassins/enforcers.

Ideally I was going from something meant to be a reasonable reaction to the existence of people with reality shattering powers. Just like there are gun laws in our universe, it's not unreasonable to assume that there would be an analogy for destructive magic.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-18, 03:42 PM
Ideally I was going from something meant to be a reasonable reaction to the existence of people with reality shattering powers. Just like there are gun laws in our universe, it's not unreasonable to assume that there would be an analogy for destructive magic.
It's actually not a very good analogy.

Guilds existed to maintain training (and prices) for certain types of labor. They focused on maintaining their personal position within the overall power structure and often used draconian processes to do so. They were not governing bodies for a kingdom and - being commoners - only had limited impact on non-revolutionary political action.

Powerful and dangerous things are controlled by the State, not private individuals. If anyone is seeking to control magic, it would be the government - or something that can go toe-to-toe with the government. A Wizard "guild" would be run by the government or it would be the government. Ditto for a "Church" that controls all Divine magic in the world.

I suspect this isn't what you had in mind when you came up with the "guild" idea.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-18, 03:50 PM
Historically Guilds and the church had very close ties to the government. And any major financial institution is going to have significant sway in the government, like major lobys in the U.S.

There is no reason to assume that the guilds don't have influence with the government or are in fact governmental bodies.

Int he example I gave I proposed it being illegal for wizards to practice without a license. I didn't just mean by guild law. There could be existing laws requiring all magic users to be guild members.

The same goes for the Church. The Church might have the power to declare someone a heretic, but not the actual legal right to kill them. After they are convicted, they'd have to be handed over to a civil authority for punishment.

The main reason for having guilds instead of government bodies is that it allows the guilds to have sway over areas other then just those controlled by a single government.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-18, 03:56 PM
Historically Guilds and the church had very close ties to the government. And any major financial institution is going to have significant sway in the government, like major lobys in the U.S.
But IRL, Guilds don't control nuclear weapons. Wizards and Clerics do.

It's not a question of "influence;" it's the fact that a Wizard/Cleric Guild could overthrow a government it disagrees with on a whim. No self-respecting government is going to let that sort of institution stand independently.


The main reason for having guilds instead of government bodies is that it allows the guilds to have sway over areas other then just those controlled by a single government.
Only if those areas allow the Guild to have influence. If I'm a king, I'm not going to allow some foreign Wizard's Guild to tell me what my Wizards can and cannot do. If the Wizard's Guild is strong enough to thwart the will of kings them it isn't a Guild anymore - it's a government with a puppet State.

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-18, 04:09 PM
It's actually not a very good analogy.

Guilds existed to maintain training (and prices) for certain types of labor. They focused on maintaining their personal position within the overall power structure and often used draconian processes to do so. They were not governing bodies for a kingdom and - being commoners - only had limited impact on non-revolutionary political action.

Powerful and dangerous things are controlled by the State, not private individuals. If anyone is seeking to control magic, it would be the government - or something that can go toe-to-toe with the government. A Wizard "guild" would be run by the government or it would be the government. Ditto for a "Church" that controls all Divine magic in the world.

I suspect this isn't what you had in mind when you came up with the "guild" idea.

First of all, I would disagree with a few of your points, based on certain facts.
- 1 d&d isn't based on real life it's based on fantasy.
- 2 based on the first point, the fantasy genre has quite extensively used this line of reasoning to police "magic".

Look at the Wheel of Time series, the White Tower watched over magic. Yes, they considered themselves a law unto themselves, and had their own little kingdom. But, they also had advisors in almost every other kingdom. This is very similar to the Catholic Church's presence today. They have their own little kingdom, with a presence in as many other countries they can possibly manage.

If you consider Dragonlance, the same thing happens. You have a council of mages that oversee all other mage. To the point, the only thing that keeps Tier 1 casters in check is the threat of retribution from other Tier 1 casters. Now, the problem with this is when a Tier 1 caster, such as Raistlin, becomes more powerful than all of the other Tier 1 casters combined. Ta da, you have just run into the Tippyverse.

In short, its not a bad idea. Just don't expect it to solve all of your problems.

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-18, 04:16 PM
It's not a question of "influence;" it's the fact that a Wizard/Cleric Guild could overthrow a government it disagrees with on a whim. No self-respecting government is going to let that sort of institution stand independently.

In most fantasy literature, the wizard's guilds were upheld by a higher philosophy that kept them from taking over the world. In any case, your average king was too afraid to go against the nearby wizards, and the wizards were too busy figuring out magic to deal with the affairs of state.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-18, 04:26 PM
It's not a question of "influence;" it's the fact that a Wizard/Cleric Guild could overthrow a government it disagrees with on a whim. No self-respecting government is going to let that sort of institution stand independently.


A guild provides a service, namely policing it's members. Additionally if their income is being taxed, they are creating revenue for the state.

At some point it might not be worth the risk, but until that point there isn't any real reason not to allow a guild to exist.



Only if those areas allow the Guild to have influence. If I'm a king, I'm not going to allow some foreign Wizard's Guild to tell me what my Wizards can and cannot do. If the Wizard's Guild is strong enough to thwart the will of kings them it isn't a Guild anymore - it's a government with a puppet State.

The nice thing about having the guild out in the open means that it's a visible target.

If other guilds exist, like the Church, and the Thieves Guild. To a large extent they will balance out. If the Guild tries to grab power, they have to deal with the Church, and whatever other organizations are on good terms with the Government.

Depending on the government the takeover could go the other way. If there are a few high ranking Guild member with ties to the crown, they might collude to take over the guild in the name of the king.

Given the setting it's entirely possible that the Guild could be powerful enough to take over a government, or even several. But it's unlikely that the guild will be able to control all the governments everywhere.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-18, 05:47 PM
Well, have fun with that then. I've said all I can - States are never comfortable with outside forces having significant influence within their dominion. It's bad enough when you're dealing with a purely moral entity like a RL church; when the church also has the ability to solve world hunger at will or scry-and-die the king it is much worse.

* * *

The metagame concerns can't be dealt with, unfortunately. Using fluff to restrict mechanical advantage usually results in arms races.

EDIT: To elaborate on the Guild vs. Government point.
Guilds and Governments both provide training and resources to individuals. Typically, governments prefer to doing the training & supplying of dangerous individuals; only when the State is insufficiently strong to control the "market" for dangerous individuals do private entities take over.

Magic is so powerful that any State that could control it, would control it. States would prefer to train their own War Wizards and have a friendly Church on hand to provide food & healing. In many settings, this is the case - powerful States have Royal Academies to provide Wizards and a State Church to provide Clerics. In others, the main States are too weak to control these entities and if they exist, they are usually short on manpower too; the world is mostly a No Man's Land filled with more monsters than civilization.

What you've proposed is different. Your Guilds need to be active enough to monitor spellcasting across the world and to respond to illegal casting. If it wasn't, then your Tier I classes would not restricted save for when they were casting in areas where trained observers are common - that is to say, no restrictions at all. Any Guild that active is going to have to have the resources of a government, and be free enough to sent Agents wherever they want without interference.

Such an entity is hardly a Guild; it is a private agency that could upset the balance of power if it wanted. Compared to the Church and the Academy, the other "guilds" are barely worthy of their name - they cannot command influence from outside powers nor can they ignore those dictates.

As long as you're aware that the Church and the Academy will be on-par (if not superior to) every other State in the world, go right ahead. Otherwise, you'll run into internal consistency problems when the Players ask "why hasn't the Academy dealt with this? How can the King force the Church to do anything?"