PDA

View Full Version : Enlightening the Dark Ages



The Vorpal Tribble
2007-03-25, 12:43 PM
Alright, more annoying to me than 'psionics is broken' is 'psionics doesn't fit in my world' or 'psionics are only for sci-fi'.

For those who think the powers of the mind just aren't compatible unless you're flying around in spaceships, let me know why.

And when I mean give your reasoning, use actual reason and not just 'I don't like it'.

Personally I've yet to hear a reason for this beyond that the complainer isn't properly using his imagination or they are so mired down in that 'psionics is futuristic magic' mindset that they can't see beyond it.

Please bring to the table your argument.


Edit: Btw, keep this in mind, much of the psionic material is based off of such things as eastern asian and aboriginal beliefs and practises and the like. Stuff thats been around at least as long as the european theme.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 12:48 PM
Um... I think Apopsi is a stupid name for a power and is the path that leads to terrible, terrible flavor? :smalltongue:

Seriously, why would psionics not fit in? Unless you're playing a very primitive game where no one has a mental score above 10, you should be able to unlock the potential of your mind to do terrible or wonderful stuff.

To answer your poll, in specific terms, it is more appropriate in a futuristic setting, because magic is more likely to be rare in such things, but it is quite appropriate in a medieval fantasy setting, too.

Yuki Akuma
2007-03-25, 12:52 PM
It may be the way the powers are named. Also, illithids (the iconic psionic creature in D&D) have a rather sci-fi-flavoured backstory to them.

I don't think they belong only in sci-fi, of course.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-03-25, 12:52 PM
Seriously, why would psionics not fit in? Unless you're playing a very primitive game where no one has a mental score above 10, you should be able to unlock the potential of your mind to do terrible or wonderful stuff.
Well, thing is, psionics would work even then. Alot of stories have been written about someone who taps into their 'id'.

To quote dictionary.com...

"the part of the psyche, residing in the unconscious, that is the source of instinctive impulses that seek satisfaction in accordance with the pleasure principle and are modified by the ego and the superego before they are given overt expression"

I could well imagine primitive peoples who gain power by delving into pure instinct.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-25, 12:53 PM
Alright, more annoying to me than 'psionics is broken' is 'psionics doesn't fit in my world' or 'psionics are only for sci-fi'.
You conflate two very different statements.


psionics are only for sci-fi
Silly.

See, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and tell me that Aes Sedai and Ashaman aren't actually psionicists. For that matter, do we ever see Gandalf chant an incantation while waving his hands around and fumbling with bat turds? Aside from the books (like Dragonlance, or the Drizzt books) explicitly written in D&D magic terms, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of a spellcaster in classic fantasy writing whose powers are clearly Wizard and not Psion.


pionics doesn't fit in my world
About half the time, this likely means "I don't understand them well enough to want to DM them" -- which is a very valid excuse.

The other half of the time, it means exactly what it says -- and is still a very valid excuse.

Morty
2007-03-25, 12:53 PM
Well, I think that psionic can actually fit into fantasy setting, but I see it more like wild talent, some unnatural and unexplained abilities than something with listed classes, powers and ability to create items.
Besides, I think that Sorcerer class should be like Psion from the beginning, instead of incoherent babbling about draconic heritage and being a wizard's weaker cousin.
EDIT: GodDAMN it :smallannoyed: I voted 'no' while I wanted to vote 'yes'. Damn me for not reading carefully...

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 12:54 PM
I'm actually working on a setting for a game at home where psionics is what's made the world what it is. The world emerged from the dreams of the various races pitted against the machinations of the mind flayers trying to remake reality in their image. Thus, while arcane magic manipulates the stuff the world is made of, and divine magic draws upon sources of power that exemplify and distill the components of that stuff, it's the mental energy and force of will of living beings that gives form to all of the above. Like you say, it's an aboriginal sort of magic. There's nothing requiring an idea like that to be either primitive or advanced.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 12:55 PM
@ VT: But you can't actually manifest powers with such scores.

Maybe you could have Soulknive and psi-like abilities, but what's the fun in that? I want my Ardent!

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-03-25, 12:56 PM
You conflate two very different statements.Possibly, though the only folks I've met who say 'psionics doesn't fit in my setting' are those that don't like psionics period.

I mean, you could possibly work at making a setting that because of some convuluted reason the mind is somehow being dampened, but otherwise...


@ VT: But you can't actually manifest powers with such scores.Sure you can, they could still have Wisdom and Charisma. Psychic Warriors and Wilders use these abilities instead.

In fact, their flavor suggests more of an id-type path to manifestion.

Ardents use Wisdom to, though they are more of a lama or fakir-type thing.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 12:58 PM
I said mental scores. Not Intelligence.

PinkysBrain
2007-03-25, 12:59 PM
I don't think D&D magic is suited to the dark ages, psionics or otherwise.

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-03-25, 01:03 PM
I said mental scores. Not Intelligence.
Why would being a creature of instinct lower mental scores?

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 01:09 PM
No, I said, in my first post in the thread "a very primitive game where no one has a mental score above 10", which I was referring to. Unless you're using the original PH (why?), no one without either an Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma score higher than 10 can manifest powers.

V Yeah, but, what if they don't in a hypothetical setting? What if DM decides that he hates skills, some feats, spellcasting, psionics, ToM, Rogues and lots of other stuff and wants to gimp them so terribly that they can't be used properly? Can't it be done by limiting mental scores to 10?

Fax Celestis
2007-03-25, 01:09 PM
Yeah. Most animals have rather high wisdom scores.

anphorus
2007-03-25, 01:19 PM
See, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, and tell me that Aes Sedai and Ashaman aren't actually psionicists. For that matter, do we ever see Gandalf chant an incantation while waving his hands around and fumbling with bat turds? Aside from the books (like Dragonlance, or the Drizzt books) explicitly written in D&D magic terms, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of a spellcaster in classic fantasy writing whose powers are clearly Wizard and not Psion.

I agree totally when it comes to DnD style magic.

Since The Tribble-meister didn't specify DnD, I'm going to throw some generalish stuff on the fire.

Another way to consider the differences between Psionic powers and Magic powers is where the energy used comes from. Magic could be defined as using a power that comes from within yourself, whereas magic involves wielding a power that is outside of your own body. I think this works better because, otherwise pretty much every magical power is actually psionics. A wizard or sorcerer has to concentrate and use the power of his will, of his mind in order to manipulate the magical forces around him. If I were to do the same things as a wizard does when casting a spell, I'd just look silly. In this definition channelling would be magic. This argument isn't perfect with Devine magic, it's possible that a Cleric or Paladin does just go through the motions, and the reason why it doesn't work for Joe Average is that they aren't blessed by the gods.

Of course, this definition isn't perfect. One famous story with psionic powers is Akira. However using the definition I like, the powers in Akira are actually magical, (I can't decide whether they are Arcane or Devine. Probably Devine. Although the power isn't given through faith, it does come from a Devine being). The Sorcerers in the Belgariad would be psionists, in this example, to come at this from the other side.

To go back to my opinion on all this, I think that psionics works perfectly fine in a medieval setting. One of my all time favourite book series is The Farseer Trilogy. The Skill and the Wit in those books have a very psionic feel to them.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 01:22 PM
No, the sorcerers of Belgariad would be quasi-deities.

anphorus
2007-03-25, 01:26 PM
Power still comes from within themselves, though. The fact that they have lesser versions of the powers that the gods enjoy is, at most, a trifling detail.:smallamused:

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 01:28 PM
Then what's Will and Word doing there? And why do they have to draw heat from their surroundings to create fireballs?

anphorus
2007-03-25, 01:39 PM
Then what's Will and Word doing there? Well the Will itself seems very psionic in nature, using their willpower to alter the world around them. As to The Word, I'm not positive on this, but wasn't it explicitly said at one point that that was just an aid to concentration, to get your mind into the right mindset? I think I remember Belgarath saying that it didn't actually matter what the word itself was, it was the intent behind it. But like I say, it’s been a while since I read the books.

And why do they have to draw heat from their surroundings to create fireballs?They are using the heat energy around them that is true, but they are manipulating that heat energy using a power that is within themselves. They aren't harnessing an outside force (like the One Power, for example) and then using that to manipulate the heat energy.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-03-25, 01:41 PM
Psionics can make sense in a medieval setting.

Remember, the medieval world didn't have any magic so why is does that fit in better than psionics?

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 01:41 PM
Still, they're dirty manipulators. Psionics is honest to the core. *manifests fully augmented Psionic Charm for a circumstance modifier to his Bluff check*

Jerthanis
2007-03-25, 02:14 PM
The reason I see psionics as a primarily futuristic icon is that it depends heavily on understanding and mapping out what the human brain can do. This is something we're still learning today, so it feels odd to have people in an age of lesser technological prowess, and without the benefit of ages of scientific reasoning be more advanced in that department. In cyberpunk/sci-fi settings we can think that something (evolutionary mutation, pycho-stimulant drugs, surgery, ect.) would set off the sudden capacity to perform psionics. And if it's not based on knowledge and exploitation of the brain, but simply on honing your mind though practice and meditation... why don't Monks gain a power point reserve?

If, in your scenario, psionics arise after the practice of learning magic is well established, I feel that there is little likelyhood of people attempting to gain special powers through honing their minds when there already exist ways for them to gain special powers dependent on their impressive intellect. Why wouldn't they simply become wizards over psions? In a sci-fi setting, we often disregard magic, and say that magic doesn't fit in a sci-fi setting because of its blatant and obvious disregard for scientific laws. (other than when they give the name "magic" to scientific breakthroughs, like in Guilty Gear, where all "magic" is the utilization of scientific principles to harness free energy) and we use psionics as a replacement.

And Aes Sedai are expressedly, and completely, in all ways not psionicists. They draw their power from an outside, divine power which resides outside their own being, and weave it together according to formulae and specific patterns to make it do specific things, rather than transmitting desire->action through use of their mastery of their own internal mental powers. Just because they're not waving their hands around and chanting doesn't mean they aren't using magic. Focusing too much on the aesthetics can lose the flavor. For example, Howl (from Howl's Moving Castle) was the most obvious Wizard ever, yet he still never gave an incantation, and the most complex somatic component he did was waving his hand.

In any case, I didn't vote for or against psionics fitting a classic fantasy setting, because I think it depends entirely on which setting it is. Sometimes it makes sense (Psionics arose in a different part of the world, magic is feared and hated so psions, being easier to conceal, survive easier. ect) but sometimes it just doesn't feel right.

Dausuul
2007-03-25, 02:37 PM
Alright, more annoying to me than 'psionics is broken' is 'psionics doesn't fit in my world' or 'psionics are only for sci-fi'.

For those who think the powers of the mind just aren't compatible unless you're flying around in spaceships, let me know why.

It's a question of flavor. Psionics have a science-fiction flavor; they are typically thought of and explained in quasi-scientific terms. It's like having a weapon in your fantasy world called a "laser pistol" that shoots a scorching beam of light. Sure, in a world where magic works, you could have such a thing--just take a wand of searing light and stick a handle on it. But calling it a laser pistol brings in all kinds of assumptions and ideas from science fiction, and destroys the flavor of the fantasy world. Similarly, "psionics" suggests a scientific mindset which I don't think fits in a quasi-medieval setting.

Mechanically speaking, I have no problem at all with 3.5E's psionics rules. In fact, I like them better than the Vancian magic system, and if somebody wanted to play a psion in my game, my only stipulation would be "Just call yourself a magus or something." It's calling it "psionics" that I object to.

(Well, I might also tweak the system so they can't burn all their power points in a single encounter, since I seldom stick to the "four encounters per day" guideline. But that's a minor issue, easily set right.)


And when I mean give your reasoning, use actual reason and not just 'I don't like it'.

Do you like the taste of fried squid slathered in sauerkraut and maple syrup and garnished with raw onions? No? Give me an actual reason and not just "I don't like it."

TheElfLord
2007-03-25, 03:03 PM
Do you like the taste of fried squid slathered in sauerkraut and maple syrup and garnished with raw onions? No? Give me an actual reason and not just "I don't like it."

He said to use reason, not give a reason. There are few things more vexing to thinking people than unthoughtful answers such as I don't like it. He wanted a thought out explination of why people don't like psionics. Which you did very well, by explaining that you consider it to be a future term.

Note that I am not trying to imply that you are not a thinking person

its_all_ogre
2007-03-25, 03:15 PM
personally i just refer to it as magic. when pcs discover an npc referring to himself as a magus/wizard/sorcerer/warlock/whatever he could be any spell-casting class.
i just use the appropriate mechanics for the class in question.
oh and i ditch the stupid crystal rubbish too.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 03:19 PM
Hey, don't call crystals stupid! They're naturally resonant creations for psionic energy.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-25, 03:21 PM
About half the time, this likely means "I don't understand them well enough to want to DM them" -- which is a very valid excuse.

The other half of the time, it means exactly what it says -- and is still a very valid excuse.

Yep, it's hard enough tracking and adjudicating things you use a lot. It's significantly harder with psionics, which in my experience seem to attract a lot of two types of player: the new, "Hey this is cool!" guy who doesn't know the rules well at all and the "This is my path to ultimate power BWAHAHAHAHa!" guy that has pored over every line of sourcebook, errata and forum posts for every last twink and tweak who releases his stockpile of information selectively in his favor.

Much like one reading of the PHB and DMG doesn't get you to where your games run smoothly, it takes more than a quick read of the EPH to learn the psionics rules well enough to run a game smoothly. And spending the time to get comfortable with the rules and having the game disrupted while you work out the kinks is more trouble than some people (including myself) think psionics is worth.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 03:23 PM
Yeah, that's why you never bother with spells and get into psionics in the first place. Saves a lot of time and trouble later.

Lemur
2007-03-25, 03:25 PM
I don't think that psionics necessarily have to go along with magic, but that the setting should determine what the score is. A setting where monks fit in should have room for psionics as well, since there's a lot of overlap, conceptually speaking.

I'll dispute the claim that psionics has a more "scientific" flavor to it than magic, because I think this more has to do with the setting. I see a lot of people making "systems" for magic. In fact, I've seen some people who are convinced that magic in any given world needs a System.

Once you give magic a system, it becomes a science. Remember, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" aka the science/magic transparency rule. A sorcerer might have the blood of a dragon, but he also could be modified with nanobots that use advanced technology to create lightning bolts (I have to make a character along these lines at some point). It all depends on the flavor you choose to give it.

By the same lines, psionics could be very unscientific. Psions might just follow their instincts and emotions, without any real method.

Swordguy
2007-03-25, 03:28 PM
What about when "I don't like them" really is the reason I restrict psi in D&D? I've got quite enough to keep track of as it is, and I've had many more bad experiences in the past with psi rather than with magic (even polymorph cheese). I realize that that was under the 1st and 2nd ed psi rules, and may not be as much of a problem now, but I really don't feel like having to learn yet another casting system. And with the back history of psi I've had in games, well, if I have to keep something out of the game for my own sanity, it's gonna be psionics.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 03:31 PM
In 3.5, magic is much more sanity-destroying than psionics is.

And VT doesn't say not liking it is not a valid reason for not using it. He just says that people claim that psionics only has a place in settings with nanotech, droids, aliens and other sci-fi stuff. And that annoys him.

If that is the reason you don't use psionics, then you just have to ask whether you could fit it in a fantasy story or not. Then answer accordingly. This is more a flavor question than a mechanics question.

Bouldering Jove
2007-03-25, 03:41 PM
I don't like the psionic flavor, period. "Powers of the mind" and "tapping the mind's potential" are, frankly, idiotic concepts that remind me far too much of real-life supernatural charlatans. It makes about as much sense as using the "hidden powers of the arm" as an explanation for telekinesis, and it wounds my suspension of disbelief. Magic is magic, with no attempt whatsoever at rational justification, so swallowing it is just part of accepting a fantasy setting. If Wizards attempted to justify magic with some sort of pseudoscientific garbage, I'd hate it just as much.

There's nothing wrong with the psionic mechanics, of course. Just find a way to characterize it that doesn't make me roll my eyes.

headwarpage
2007-03-25, 03:45 PM
I voted no, even though I don't really like psionics.

At its core, the idea of harnessing the power of the mind is entirely appropriate for a typical D&D setting. So appropriate in fact, that I envisioned it as part of arcane magic before I knew anything about psionics. For that reason, I find psionics unnecessary, though there are a few other things I don't really like about them.

As has been mentioned, the word 'psionics', outside of the context of D&D, tends to have futuristic connotations. Had they called this alternate magic system 'witchcraft' or something, it would be less of a problem.

I also don't really like the emphasis on crystals, and it tends to heighten the futuristic feel of psionics, at least to me. I have nothing against the psicrystal mechanic, though. In fact, a psionicist with a staff as his 'psicrystal' would have a great old-school wizard feel. I just don't like all the crystals.

It's a shame, because I really like the mechanics of psionics. I've considered stealing the mechanics for an alternate magic system, or just dropping ordinary magic, renaming psionics 'magic' and rewriting the fluff to suit my needs. But otherwise, I'm inclined to disallow psionics in most of my games, because I don't feel like they add anything except complexity when used alongside vancian magic.

Now, I realize that my objections tend to be largely irrational. And given the incentive, I could probably train myself to view psionics as presented by WotC as an integral part of a typical D&D setting. But right now, I just don't think psionics fit as seamlessly as they should with everything else in D&D.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-03-25, 03:56 PM
Inexplicable powers aren't really time-constrained, sez I. They might be misattributed, but they're still there.

...you know. In the game world.

Swordguy
2007-03-25, 04:00 PM
In 3.5, magic is much more sanity-destroying than psionics is.


Oh, absolutely. But I've already got magic in my games, while I don't automatically have psi.



And VT doesn't say not liking it is not a valid reason for not using it. He just says that people claim that psionics only has a place in settings with nanotech, droids, aliens and other sci-fi stuff. And that annoys him.

If that is the reason you don't use psionics, then you just have to ask whether you could fit it in a fantasy story or not. Then answer accordingly. This is more a flavor question than a mechanics question.

I can absolutely see psionics in a fantasy game. It's certianly not just a sci-fi thing. Whether I use it or not doesn't change that.

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 04:00 PM
but I really don't feel like having to learn yet another casting system.

What are the casting systems you've already learned, just out of curiosity?

Ramza00
2007-03-25, 04:42 PM
I'm sorry but this is one of my historical irritations. The Dark Ages weren't "dark" as in unenlightened. Yes science did not progress as fast in this time as in other times, this is because it was very difficult to reach "critical mass." The dark ages (500 to 1000) were dark not because of lack of knowledge or intellect it was the lack of institutions created by the instability and anarchy of the times.

The dark ages had three main problems that led to the decline of scientific knowledge

1)The visigoths and other similar tribes causing the end of the roman empire. Followed by no direct king or similar league. Thus lots of infighting between people.

2)During this time due to all the chaos many aqueducts, roads, and buildings were canbanalize to build other buildings. Additionally due to the instability and non permanent leadership it was hard to upkeep what was already there leftover from the romans. Without running water cities die and disease spreads. Thus we see a "decentralization." Where do universities form, oh yeah in cities :smallwink: The decentralization of people, disrepair of roads, and lack of kings or similar people (and thus lack of continous law standards and jurisdiction) stops trade.

No one single person was able to unite the waring tribes until about Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer). This man was a frank warlord who was relatively minor until the Muslim Moors invaded France (they had already conquered much of Spain), if it wasn't for the Moors invasion though he would have never united much of the Frank people, if Charles didn't defeat the Moors at the battle of tours then history would be vastily different (in much the same way if the Persians won the Greco-Persian Wars). The grandson of Charles Martel, Charlemagne then further united the Frank people and expanded his territory into what became the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne build roads and schools and we seen a boon of learning in this time, he would have recreated a new empire that would have covered all of Europe, Europe was once again a land of progress. Except two things happen.

Europe still wasn't centralized enough, and the vikings happened. Due to the complete decentralization into villiages, and the lack of fortifications it was quite easy for vikings to kill everything in their path, only to disapear the next day. Second thing that happened was Charlemagne's death. These two things setback European progress for a few centuries.

3)Eventually the vikings were stop with the creation of feudalism, walled fortressess, and the idea of feudal lords. Of course while this stop the vikings, it still lead to the same problem as the vikings. Now rival feudal lords sent knights who terrorized the population of area that weren't theres in the hope of expanding their own small kingdoms/counties. The catholic church tried to stop this by making religious laws you can't kill innocents, no attacks on sunday, and other similar religious laws which they forced knights and lords to swear too. Unfortunately while this may have curb some of the excesses it didn't stop it.

4)Plagues, pandemics, and disease outbracks of various sorts and various times. Notably the biggest outbreak of the Black Plague of 1350s, other outbreaks of Plague, Justian Plague, and other disease outbreaks that significantly hurt cities.

The Dark Ages end with the start of the First Crusade. The First Crusade allowed Europe to export these knights who were terrorizing Europe to another place. It allowed Europe to "channel" the worse parts of the dark ages and into another area, by the idea we are fighting a holy war. Looking from today's perspective we find the Crusades abhorant, they were, yet at the same time Europe progress because of them for now instead of fighting ourselves we were fighting an "other."

With the start of the Crusades we enter a period called the High Middle Ages (1000-1300). It is during this time that cities began to reform, trade returned, technological progress began again, and we see an advancements in building (from cathedrals to impressive castles). Eventually the High Middle Ages allows society to gain enough critical mass to progress into the Late Middle Ages (where we see even more and faster progress) followed by the Renassiance which started the beginning of the Modern Era(1500 on+)


------------------------------------

So in sum why not have psionics? It should be "Wizard" magic that is banned if you are doing a Dark Age theme (not sorcerers though). Additionally tales of wizards (but not D&D wizards), warlocks, shapeshifters etc were all common during this time of history.

Altair_the_Vexed
2007-03-25, 05:53 PM
...snip...

Please bring to the table your argument.


Edit: Btw, keep this in mind, much of the psionic material is based off of such things as eastern asian and aboriginal beliefs and practises and the like. Stuff thats been around at least as long as the european theme.

Your edit hits my argumentative nail right on the head: the flavour of psionics is extra-european, and so it doesn't fit my standard area of play. Neither do Monks, so I've all but thrown them out. I reserve the psionics rules for when I'll need some unusual "magic" power from cultures outside the pseudo-euro setting.

Ranis
2007-03-25, 06:12 PM
Before I say anything, I do not claim to know anything about how psionics work, because, I don't.

However, I have read the first chapter in the Complete Psionic, and, to me, psionics represent the continuation of evolution as a base. To me, that makes sense that people would eventually evolve to a point where knowledge within the self has grown so vast that it begins to manifest and individuals can leave their mark on society as an individual with their mind. I think that says something.

I also think that psionics make sense with more modern settings because in more modern settings, people's minds could have been surgically tampered with, which, ala the Hulk, would create the first psion, who would breed and create more of them. In other words, I think it makes more sense that psionics are a product of experimentation with technology trying to replicate life, or something. (Much like Cell by Stephen King.)

That's why I perfectly understand and accept that the entire Illithid race is psionic, because furthering the knowledge and power of their minds is what they do. So it makes perfect sense.

That said, I'm a HUGE Marvel fan, and that may have had something to do with how I feel on the subject. (X-Men, anyone?) So, that's my two cents as to why psionics should only be in a more modern setting.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 06:14 PM
But you can have a sudden leap in evolution, according to most fantasy and sci-fi books! Even the Paragon template can be added to a creature due to such an occurence!

I love my exclamation marks! :smallbiggrin:

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 06:16 PM
However, I have read the first chapter in the Complete Psionic, and, to me, psionics represent the continuation of evolution as a base.

I'm not sure what this sentence means. "The continuation of evolution as a base"? Could you clarify?


I also think that psionics make sense with more modern settings because in more modern settings, people's minds could have been surgically tampered with, which, ala the Hulk, would create the first psion, who would breed and create more of them.

It'd have to be a pretty interesting surgical alteration that could be passed on to offspring.

Ranis
2007-03-25, 06:33 PM
I'm not sure what this sentence means. "The continuation of evolution as a base"? Could you clarify?

Yes. I meant that as a broad term so I wouldn't get pounded for saying 'humanity,' because even Warforged can be psionic. I meant as sentient creatures evolve, they would acquire these new 'powers' that psionics are.




It'd have to be a pretty interesting surgical alteration that could be passed on to offspring.

As inspecific as it is, I digress; but what was meant by the surgery would be a fundamental altering of the subject's brain, damaging enough to awaken psionics. And pass on through genealogy.

Khantalas
2007-03-25, 06:35 PM
Effects of any surgery -indeed, anything- that doesn't change gametes' DNA doesn't pass on to the offspring.

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 06:36 PM
As inspecific as it is, I digress; but what was meant by the surgery would be a fundamental altering of the subject's brain, damaging enough to awaken psionics. And pass on through genealogy.

Yeah, that was my point. Acquired traits aren't inherited. Unless you're dragging magic into it - which kind of runs counter to the "modern feel".

What you're talking about is more like gene therapy.

Ranis
2007-03-25, 06:38 PM
Yeah, that was my point. Acquired traits aren't inherited. Unless you're dragging magic into it - which kind of runs counter to the "modern feel".

Hey, this is still D&D. And psionicists are similar to sorcerers.


What you're talking about is more like gene therapy.

I'm not a science-y guy, so sure. You get the gist of what I'm saying here, so killing catgirls aside.....

Mewtarthio
2007-03-25, 06:56 PM
If, in your scenario, psionics arise after the practice of learning magic is well established, I feel that there is little likelyhood of people attempting to gain special powers through honing their minds when there already exist ways for them to gain special powers dependent on their impressive intellect. Why wouldn't they simply become wizards over psions?

Because they don't want to spend the best years of their lives sequestered away in some dank library, spending hundred of dollars on expensive inks to scribe complex, nigh-unreadable runes into a book that they have to carry with them at all times lest they become completely useless?

Krellen
2007-03-25, 10:26 PM
Psionics doesn't seem to fit because the displays, the ectoplasm, and the word 'psionics' are not things commonly associated with fantasy - which, for most English speakers, means Western. I myself can't really reconcile any of that with my campaign world, except insomuch as I've recently considering giving psionic powers to the Dragons and other reptilian creatures that are the servants of dragons - to give dragons some source of power that is different from those of the PCs (especially since Sorcery isn't Draconic in my world, but rather the method Gnomes go about tapping magic.) The weird aspects of psionics would only further drive the flavour of powers-from-before-Man home.

LoopyZebra
2007-03-25, 11:14 PM
I personally think that the realms of arcane magic and psionic magic overlap too much for them to be regularly used in the same setting. I'll admit, I'm not the best with psionics, but a cursory glance at the various spells/powers shows that many are just different ways to cast the same thing. Aside from the mechanics, the flavor also overlaps. As someone pointed out, Gandalf (a wizard), could be possibly interpreted as a psion from his description. A psion studies in a school and learns to unlock his mind to bend the space/time continuum, a wizard studies in a school so that he can bend the space/time continuum with various words and gestures. Originally, I had included psionics in my homebrew world, but I took them out. Although I liked a few concepts (like the Mindblade worked with a particular religion very well with a few flavor changes), it wasn't anything that couldn't be easily replicated with arcane magic. There wasn't any niche room for them. They are just too similar to me. In a typical sci-fi setting, you don't see very many wizards walking around, and psionics, without it's twin brother Arcane Magic to compete against, works far better in that kind of setting.

That said, I could see it in a fantasy setting, but I feel that it is better put somewhere were it doesn't have to compete with arcane magic, which is present in virtually every fantasy world.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 06:50 AM
LoopyZebra, do those comments not also apply to arcane vs divine magic? Gandalf has often been described as a cleric.

LoopyZebra
2007-03-26, 08:44 AM
Not really, although I suppose you could see it that way. Looking at the spells mechanically, cleric spells (typically, I know there's quite a few that are similar and shared) do very different things than wizard spells. A wizard shoots fireballs, charms adventurers, and teleports. A cleric heals, buffs, and provides other support. The cleric is the party's logistics, the wizard is the party's artillery and air support. There's also armor to tell the two apart. Flavorfully, they're different. A cleric does things in his god's/goddess' name (or, atleast acts in a devout manner; clerics usually have other motivations than "my god told me to do it") and recieves the power to do so, a wizard does things for whatever reason and bends reality as he sees fit. A cleric is a result of a religion and the wizard is the result of the self.

In terms of settings, I've never seen any area where arcane and divine magic overlap, except for possibly in the case of various gods of magic. Fantasy as a genre has a long standing tradition of having both present. They don't come into conflict for party roles and social roles. There's no real RP or mechancial conflict between the two that would cause them to not coexist. It would be possible to make a world with just one or the other, but there's no reason to except for taste.

Psions, on the other hand, overlap with wizards way too much. They have about the same party role, and the same RP 'role'. A wizard does things for whatever reason and bends reality as he sees fit, a psion does things for whatever reason and bends reality as he sees fit. A wizard's strength comes from his manipulation of reality, and a psion's strength comes from his manipulation of reality with his mind.

Fhaolan
2007-03-26, 01:06 PM
I've been gaming for a long time, and got ticked off by the 1st, 2nd, and 3.0 versions of psionics. It sorta taints me towards psionics in general. However, I do in fact use it in my game, I just have it being very rare and mysterious relative to the 'known and understood' arcane/divine magic.

My main objection to the older forms of psionics (I'm not fully versed in the 3.5 version, so I can't comment much about that) is: I didn't like the parapsychological fluff used. It breaks my suspension of disbelief when you introduce modern or futuristic terminology into my medieval fantasy game. Also, the older versions were very much stuck into the main system with no connection to anything. They were an afterthought, and it's exceedingly obvious that they were afterthoughts.

Personally, I don't really like having two independant magic systems. Either they are interdependant (see the Authentic Thermaturgy paragraph below), or there are *lots* of independant magic systems. Psionics, Vancian castings, runes, true naming, etc. But this is a lot of work for me as DM, and I already have one full-time job, I don't need more just to play a game.

I've also been tainted because Steve Jackson Games published a book once, called 'Authentic Thermaturgy' or something like that. Not a GURPS book surprisingly, and my copy was destroyed a long time ago so I'm not 100% sure of the title. It was an attempt at building an RPG magic system based off of actual mythological, alchemical, and neopagan theories of magic. It was a bit overcomplicated, but the core concept appealed to me. That low-level psionics is the doorway into full magic. Psionics would be using your will and internal energy to produce relatively small effects. Larger effects require more power than you personally have, so you using your will and energy to create a focus, a lens, to channel externally-available power (from whatever source, each with it's own cost/benefit). Even bigger effects require many people working in concert. This whole way of thinking about things really appealed to me. I've just never had the personal energy to rejigger the system in a more usable way. It was more complex than my players (and myself) were really willing to deal with. Again, I already have a job. I don't need another. :smallsmile:

Fax Celestis
2007-03-26, 01:10 PM
"Authentic Thaumaturgy" (http://www.sjgames.com/thaumaturgy/) is the book you're looking for.

Phoenix Talion
2007-03-26, 01:35 PM
Psionics is alright. I used to not like it- AD&D left a bad taste in my mouth for that, and yes, I tended to associate it with Vulcans and Jedi and PsiCorp. But it's really grown on me.

I still don't have it in Sharra, my homebrew world setting, but that's because it truthfully and honestly doesn't fit in. Causes trouble with the origin of magic, among other things.

PnP Fan
2007-03-26, 08:35 PM
yes, no and somewhere in between.

What it comes down to, from a flavor perspective, is that psionics have two major associations, with a possible third lesser connection. The primary connection is the sci fi connection (Jedi, Star Trek, Dune's Bene Gesserit Sisters, etc.. . ). Because of this, most folks instantly associate psionics with sci fi. To say that they are wrong is kind of silly, because clearly and repeatedly there is a connection. Whether it's the bastardized eastern mysticism of the Jedi, or the 'evolved' human of the Kwisatz Haderach, the connection is there. The other main connection is with Eastern Mysticism and Inner Power and Chi, etc. . . Well, there's no real Western analogue for this sort of thing. The closest is magic, and it works by a completely different set of metaphysics (generally). Metaphysics that doesn't acknowledge the use of "inner power". So, in the standard medieval european fantasy setting, it's difficult the attach the mental processes and cultural developments that go with eastern psionic development to anything in a setting derived from a culture that had no comparable component. The third connection is the comic book connection, and isn't really relevant to medieval fantasy literature, except as more evidence that the introduction of eastern concepts doesn't take place until long after the medieval period.

Does this mean that it can't fit in to a campaign setting? of course not. Eberron has done a fantastic job of working psionics into the setting. But you'll notice that most of the psionic material is related to the Kalashtar, who are from "far away" and aren't really part of Khorvaire society. And thereby lies another part of your frustration. Most folks aren't willing to add stuff on to their campaign setting just to involve a set of rules that aren't strictly necessary to play the game. I should also point out that Eberron isn't a typical medieval setting. It's really more of a pulp setting where magic takes the place of technology.

I would also add that "I don't understand the rules" are perfectly valid reasons to not allow something optional in the game. It's not one I hold to so much any more, but that's because I trust my players. I trust them to take full advantage over whatever rules I say are allowed, so it doesn't matter what I do or don't allow. ;-)

I'm not sure if any of that rambling helped or not, I'm feeling a bit ill right now, so I'm not sure how it came across. I guess the bottom line is that psionics has "weird fluff" that isn't easily integrated with standard "medieval western culture fluff".

TimeWizard
2007-03-26, 09:54 PM
I'm going to say this because I beleive it's true:

Psionics has no place in western fantasy; Arcane, Druidic, and Clerical powers have a place.

Now, this leads me to Point B:

Dungeons and Dragons is not a game based soley on western fantasy.

There's not much more to say.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-03-26, 10:17 PM
I'm pretty cool with psionics in any age sans maybe the dark ages and before...but if that should ever happen I'll use all the same mechanics and feel and just call it a different kind of magic. I love psionics too much to disallow them.

Matthew
2007-03-28, 10:16 PM
Well, personally I have never really been comfortable with the idea of Psionics in a default D&D game or fantasy themed RPG that doesn't specifically legislate for its inclusion. My main beef is that Psionics use the 'power of the mind', which to me translates to Ki or Chi or whatever other word implies power derived from self discipline and spiritual control. Psionics, indeed, is simply a Sci Fi word for using Spirit or Psyche or whatever to achieve supernatural or magical effects. As far as I am concerned that's what magic is for Classes like Sorcerer, so I see Psionics as mainly redundant as a separate sphere of magic.

I don't need to see Psionics in my default D&D games any more than I need to see Wizards in Battletech or Warlocks in Babylon Five.

Aquillion
2007-03-29, 12:30 AM
Well, thing is, psionics would work even then. Alot of stories have been written about someone who taps into their 'id'.

To quote dictionary.com...

"the part of the psyche, residing in the unconscious, that is the source of instinctive impulses that seek satisfaction in accordance with the pleasure principle and are modified by the ego and the superego before they are given overt expression"

I could well imagine primitive peoples who gain power by delving into pure instinct.The entire idea of the id, ego, and superego is entirely and completely modern, with no place whatsoever in any even slightly pre-industrial setting. Before Sigmund Freud, there were simply no such concepts--there weren't even any words to refer to them. To put this in perspective, gunpowder is over a thousand years older than the concept of the id. The modern steam engine is almost two hundred years older than the concept of the id. By the time the concept of the id was proposed in our world, trains with iron tracks were widespread, and every modern military in the war was armed almost entirely with firearms. Need I continue?

Note that this isn't limited to 'western' fantasy, of course. The concept of the id and related ideas that are central to the D&D portrayal of psionics are utterly alien to any part of the world before the mid-19th century. In fact, if you were to include china, a 'gunner' class that used primitive firearms and cannons would be far more appropriate to D&D than a character whose abilities stem from a modern Freudian understanding of the mind. As the dicipline is described now, Warforged would have far more place in Core than psionics--while nobody ever made thinking humanoid machines, the concept of such machines has been around in our world far longer than the idea of the id, ego and superego. They have plenty of precident in mythology, really; psionics, well, don't.

...now, with all that said, psionics are certainly salvagable. If you changed the name of the class to 'mentalist' or something similar, excised all reference to Freudian concepts, and changed the fluff in a few other places, they'd fit in fine.

An even better option would be to change them and their fluff to 'spiritualists', which is really the only thing remotely close to the concept in any sort of fantasy, from anywhere in the world. Just call the class spiritualists, and make a few changes to their fluff and power names to match. Presto, they fit fine... there are lots of old stories about people who drew on their strong inner spirit or whatever. There are none about people who draw on their id, because the concept of id is thoroughly and completely modern in nature.

Edo
2007-03-29, 01:02 AM
The entire idea of the id, ego, and superego is entirely and completely modern, with no place whatsoever in any even slightly pre-industrial setting. Before Sigmund Freud, there were simply no such concepts--there weren't even any words to refer to them.I'd have to disagree on this point.

By the time the Mongols sacked Baghdad, the Muslim world had already hashed out a psychology explaining the different levels of the nafs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafs) and how they interact with each other. Buddhist (and to some degree Hindu, but I'm not sure on the details) sources had been building their own psychologies autonomously for about 1500 years before that.

Neither of these is "Western," per se, but does that matter? It's not as if language was a serious barrier, even then - there were more Europeans who were fluent in Arabic 800 years ago than now - and they didn't have access to comprehend languages. And, worst case scenario, psionics could always follow the arms race.

I'll agree with you that it could use some de-Freuding, though.

Khantalas
2007-03-29, 05:52 AM
They don't have to know how it works. People didn't know the reactions necessary for ignition for a long time, yet they knew how to create and, to a degree, harness fire. Psionicists don't have to know how their mind works, either. They just have to know what they are capable of.

Aquillion
2007-03-29, 08:39 AM
But this bumps into the same problem. Even if you don't squint at it too closely, there's a glaring inconsistency in the presentation of the fluff for psionics and the fluff for the rest of the game.

Where's the soul, the spirit? D&D has a firmly-established metaphysic to it, and a big part of that is that a person's essential "person-ness" is described by a soul, something that can be called back after death by magic, trapped in an object, whatever. All your memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality go with it. (See Magic Jar.)

Of course, the people who wrote the D&D psionics fluff didn't want to think about it, and they were thoroughly modern themselves, so they just used mind and soul interchangeably.

This doesn't work, though, in a supernatural world. If D&D is going to say that the mind and the soul are one, they need to state it explictly, change the fluff on psionics to reflect the fact that it's effectively a form of internal spiritualism, then stop talking about the mind when the rest of the D&D universe terms it the spirit. If they aren't the same thing, psionics as written make no sense--they're talking to the monkey when the organ grinder is right there.

Telonius
2007-03-29, 08:40 AM
I wouldn't call psionics a strictly futuristic thing. The Theosophical Society was around way back in the 1870s, and I can definitely see something like that harboring some psionic stuff. Psionics play a big part in Eberron, which occupies something approximately like that time period for me.

If you're looking at the ancient world, some of the Gnostic cults were striving for personal enlightenment, in something like the same way monks and psions were. In practice, Gnostics were much more religious than a typical D&D Monk or Psion; they would be much more like Clerics. But with a bit of fluff-work you could turn a temple of Sophia into a psionic center.

Aquillion
2007-03-29, 08:55 AM
Again again--it's the same thing. The Theosophical Society focuses on the spirit, not the mind. There were people throughout history who were very interested in things that could be blurred into looking like psionics, but there's always one key difference. In the ancient world, no matter where you go, everything done with psionics would have been attributed to some sort of internal "spirit" rather than the mind. The stubborn insistence on having psionic fluff focus on "unlocking the potental of the mind" rather than "exploring the potential of the spirit" is the reason it has never been accepted; the former (as it is used with regards to psionics) is a completely modern concept with no place in the non-psionic parts of the D&D universe as they've been established, while the latter is an ancient concept that would fit in perfectly.

Using 'spirit' instead of 'mind' for psionics also lets transparency make more sense... as it is now, it feels like a kludge. They go out of their way to establish that psionics are completely separate from spoooky spiritual magic, then tell you to treat them exactly alike in every way that matters? Bah. Just call psionics a form of internal spiritual power already and be done with it.

Saph
2007-03-29, 09:03 AM
But this bumps into the same problem. Even if you don't squint at it too closely, there's a glaring inconsistency in the presentation of the fluff for psionics and the fluff for the rest of the game.

Where's the soul, the spirit? D&D has a firmly-established metaphysic to it, and a big part of that is that a person's essential "person-ness" is described by a soul, something that can be called back after death by magic, trapped in an object, whatever. All your memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality go with it. (See Magic Jar.)

Of course, the people who wrote the D&D psionics fluff didn't want to think about it, and they were thoroughly modern themselves, so they just used mind and soul interchangeably.

This doesn't work, though, in a supernatural world. If D&D is going to say that the mind and the soul are one, they need to state it explictly, change the fluff on psionics to reflect the fact that it's effectively a form of internal spiritualism, then stop talking about the mind when the rest of the D&D universe terms it the spirit. If they aren't the same thing, psionics as written make no sense--they're talking to the monkey when the organ grinder is right there.

I hadn't thought about it until now . . . but this makes me realise exactly why I don't like psionics. It just doesn't fit in with the rest of the D&D system.

I think I'll just leave it out. There are so many types of D&D casters already that I can't really see the point of adding yet another kind, especially one with such a Freudian and modern feel.

- Saph

Telonius
2007-03-29, 09:25 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to step into a conversation there, Aquillon, I was responding to the OP. :smallsmile:

I don't have any Psionics books, so I don't know what the extended fluff says about mind/soul. The Void card from the Deck of Many Things suggests that if the soul is gone, so is the mind. But then in the SRD's Psionics Power overview (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm), it says, "Psionic powers spring from sentient{sic} minds." This suggests one of two things to me: either mind and soul are one thing, or the mind happens as a result of (is an epiphenomenon of) the soul. If you take the second interpretation, that puts you pretty close to the old mystery cults, or even the Platonists.

Grafting that onto a D&D world, Psionic practitioners might prefer to use psionic powers because, being one step further removed from the corrupt world, they're more "pure," "artistic," or "abstract" than normal magic. Where wizardry is attempting to research this world, psionics might see themselves as trying to free themselves from the world. So wizards might well look down on psionics as flighty and silly, working on the fringes of power rather than going to the source. At the same time, psionics might look down on wizards as being too wrapped up in their scribblings to see the power within themselves, sorcerers as too undisciplined or un-evolved to control their own power.

Aquillion
2007-03-29, 12:22 PM
Yeah... what I'd personally like to see done with psionics, though, is to have it turned into a sort of eastern spiritualism, with characters gaining seemingly supernatural abilities from their own internal discipline, focus, and spiritual purity (in the aesthetic 'pure, focused mind' sense, not the Paladin sense.) Possibly replace psicrystals with meditation items of one sort or another... it's really just the term "psionics" and a few bits of related fluff that keep this from working.

Leon
2007-03-30, 08:46 AM
In 3.5, magic is much more sanity-destroying than psionics is.

And World Destroying