I don’t actually believe that’s really true. They definitely incorporated psionics into DS fully, but really any of the plot points or concepts that mattered were arcane magic vs. “else”, where “else” is usually psionics, but could just have easily been druid magic or Lifeshaping with the barest amount of rewriting.
Other than fantastic scenes like mental constructs doing battle on a mindscape and such (which could really be replaced by physical combat, plot-wise) can you name any specific instances of psionic’s specifically inherent traits (not it just being not-magic) being crucial to a published adventure or novel?
None I can think of. Definitely not in 4e, where all power sources were “different, but the same” ™.
I think that’s a trick question. Of course it could have been something else and you could use the same plot template and substitute one MacGuffin for another. So at some level of abstraction you could use something else and say it is the same. But world-building is at least as much about tone and texture than narrative structures. The Psionatrix could have been an artifact that reversed the effects of the Raise Dead spell hidden in the jungles of Chult rather than Dragon’s Crown.
Well, it is but its not. The question invites/leads you to arrive at the same conceptual position I’m at.
I submit that perhaps you actually mean something more like: “the writers of DS integrated psionics to a fantastic and unprecedented level for a published campaign setting and they used the differences between arcane magic (defiling specifically) and other power sources (cleric magic, druid magic, psionics, etc - psionics being treated as the most obviously different) in an interesting and engaging way in their world-building.”
To which i would 100% agree. DS rocks because its so different.
Maybe everyone will think that’s a matter of semantics and me being a jerk, but in my experience: the wrong hypothesis leads to the wrong questions, which lead to the wrong answers. And i want to see the right answers tumble out of this discussion, no matter what those answers are.
Now, i all fairness, you did (accidentally i suspect) address my question. The Psionatrix affected Thri-Kreen specifically because it was psionic.
Silt skimmers I’m on the fence about: they’re basically just crappy Halruaan skyships or spelljammers, but i think there’s a scene or 2 in a novel where it matters that Tithian is the only psion and the only one who coukd float it - and i feel like that counts.
Look at how Dark Sun writes about psionics versus how the Eberron novels write about psionics (in particular, The Dreaming Dark series which revolved quite a lot around the psionics heavy kalashtar, and featured a battle with a mind flayer).
IMO from a narrative standpoint, Dark Sun’s psionics have always had an advantage over the other settings in that the characterisation of how it works is so markedly different from magic. In the Prism Pentad series, there was never any mistaking which one they were using. But in Eberron, the distinction between magic and psionics was a lot more (perhaps annoyingly) subtle. Really the only giveaway of psionics in Eberron was how little evidence of its use you’d see and how it affected individuals-- a little bit of strain on the psion’s face, and suddenly your whole world collapses around you and you’re in a dreamworld.
Since some of those narrative differences were in response to the vastly different editions of D&D upon which they were based (2e for Dark Sun and 3.5e for Eberron, respectively), we could also bring that argument back somewhat into the mechanics as well. Using 3.5e mechanics for Dark Sun will necessarily change the play style of psions, the nature of combat with them, and their impact on the world around them.
Unless you apply mechanics and rules to your narrative after it has been written, the mechanics and rules will inevitably affect the course of the narrative.
I think, that also subjects of SK’s also also hated clerics and druids. I’m not sure, but do state propaganda said, that non-templar-clergies are evil?
Also I can’t remember, do normal peoples from wild lands knowed differences between divine magic and arcane magic.
My two bits. 2e wise, psionics weren’t capable of the feats that magic could produce. Magic could affect a large area and number of targets whereas most psionics could only impact one to a few or had a more localized influence.
In a 2e sense, Rajaat’s motivations to find a grander power to accomplish his genocidal and world-terraforming goals have more credence.
That’s not in any of the canon material that I can recall. There was a “preserver jihad” retcon in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting, Expanded and Revised, which was an addition that was unfortunate, and not just for the terminology. This was followed by another jihad against the druids for seemingly no reason at all. Anyway, this retcon may be where you got the idea that clerics and druids are persecuted.
Clerics are generally half-crazed (at the very least obsessive) elemental cultist nuts, who can be prevailed upon to provide some healing, or food or do any of a hundred useful things, as long as you pay at least nominal reverence to their patron element.
Wizards don’t have the capability that clerics do.
As for the SMs and clerics…clerics in the cities are tolerated as long as they don’t challenge the Templarate or attract any kind of following that the secular authorities might consider a threat.
Defilers and Preservers touches on this. When energy is drawn to cast spells green tendrils arc from the ground to the wizard’s outstretched hand. A clear sign that it’s not psionic or clerical. The wizard would need to conceal the casting or bluff they’re using one of those other forms to not arouse suspicion.
Caelum from the Prism Pentad series of novels is a great example of this. He’s an out and out fanatic. He forced his wife Neeva to suffer horrific sunburn on her pregnant belly so that the resulting child would become a sun (fire) cleric.
I forget where I read this (probably the PP), but another give away effect (instead of green tendrils) was a kind of heat haze rising from the ground to the wizards hand. I guess the given effect varies from wizard to wizard (much like some of the visual, olfactory and auditory effects that original 2E DS had).
In past priests and druids were persecuted. In “game time”, how I look now, right have Kalindren that if they arent too big problem they will be ignored by state administration. But in many places druids still have problems. In Tyr, even under Kalak, or Nibenay they are accepted, but in many places still “huntings on druids” is did it.
Fast fragments from “Earth, Air, Fire and Water”
Site 5:
“But the templars, and even some elves I know, have been well rewarded for delivering the heads of wasteland druids”
site 45 “The Bane of Sorcerer-Kings”. Here is wroten, that priests were persecuted and next step was extermination of druid.
Yes I know this. But I wasn’t sure level of knowadle of normal peoples about users of divine magic and this type of magic. Because still many non-educated, normal “bread eaters” often don’t know that mages can be divided to Defilers and Preservers
I don’t believe that the difference between a preserver and defiler is that clear cut. A preserver makes effort to ensure that they draw energy from plants without killing them, while a defiler doesn’t care. But if you had many preservers in the same location drawing energy from the same plants, I’m pretty sure the outcome would be identical to that of a defiler. Now, I’m sure that organized groups like the Veiled Alliance make effort to avoid just such a scenario, but such a scenario can happen spontaneously in places where preservers do not know each other.
The difference between a preserver and defiler is a difference of degree. The better option is to not use magic at all, and this is how the common people view it even if they make a distinction.
I wrote not about perspective of experts, but by perspective of normal people.
Even mages ofton don’t know, that “there exist other form of magic”. So if mages hadn’t info about this - potters, bakers, farmers, artisans, bricklayers, jewelers, hunter-gatherers, cannon fodder etc. also often hadn’t infos that “there exist more forms of magic and some can be neutral for nature”. Therefore any wizards can be victim of lynching “because he is mage”.
Fast quote from “Defilers and Preservers: The Wizards of Athas” site 50.
“These wizards tend to believe that what they do is the only kind of magic that exists.”
Based on every other DS product that discusses magic, it seems implausible that a wizard would not know the difference between defiling and preserving. Even then, the difference is not so great that a commoner would not think a defiler and preserver is the same thing. The only casters of clean magic, also introduced for the first time in Defilers and Preservers, are the Gray, Black and Cerulean casters, all of which overturn the entire premise of the setting.
For example by way of the distinguishing between psionics and non psionic stuff: most (but not all) 3.x powers have a Visual Display, which by default is burning points of silver fire being visible in the eyes of the manifesting psion.
Unless suppressed by a skill check - which would most likely never happen at low levels, this should be the nearly default description for most psionic usage, regardless of world or campaign setting… IF using the 3rd edition ruleset without mods.
There are also the rest of the displays beyond visual, all of which are fairly easily recognizable. And would probably have to be duplicated by any caster trying to fake psionics.
I don’t think we disagree in relation to commoner perceptions of magic. In fact, I think that from a metagame perspective the commoner view of magic is more accurate than that of the veiled alliance.
I think that Nicky Rea (writer of D&P) messed up when writing that a wizard wouldn’t know the difference between preserving and defiling. Also, by introducing the alternative energy sources, Nicky Rea created a class of uber preservers, basically tuning the old preservers into a type of defiler lite (+ loads more hypocrisy).
We can have different point of view. This isn’t something wrong But give me some quote from novels or game-books, on which you base your point of view, that knowledge of the differences between the two styles of magic is more widely known or recognized intuitively or otherwise.
I like any sources or other interpretations, because this always is other way to narrative functions and interesant points for creating scenarios. But some quotes or other elements would be nice, as base to other interpretation.
But give me some quote from novels or game-books, on which you base your point of view, that knowledge of the differences between the two styles of magic is more widely known or recognized intuitively or otherwise.