The "High" price of magic

[Subjugator]

1 Yes, a spell is knowledge. It is something that can be taught to someone else, information of how to do something.

It is not knowledge that can be possessed by all.

2 No, the population of the megaverse is infinite, since the number of dimensions is infinite the population is infinite as well. There is no effective restriction of the total numbers of anything if one counts the multiverse and even if you just considered a universe the size is sufficiently large enough to find virtually anything in plentiful supply and mages certainly aren't in short supply whether of the 'I just know how to do this' or 'I was taught how to do this'.

Not all beings can learn magic. That means the population that can learn spells is not infinite.

The people who can't learn or cast spells aren't relevant to the discussion, since it's all about mages and how much they charge for someone to learn a spell from them or for them to cast a spell for someone else.

Not all mages can learn new spells through teaching. Of those that can learn spells, not all can learn all spells of all levels. Those that do have a vested interest in being a scarcer commodity rather than a common one. If you have the only gold mine it is not in your best interest to instruct others on how to mine gold.

Of which the numbers of mages around is significant, Rifts Earth alone clearly has hundreds of thousands of mages of various types if not closer to a million with Ley Line Walkers and Techno-Wizards (those who most spend time learning and trading spells) the most common.

I'd like to see your basis for this.

No, obviously it does not.

Do you think you know economics better than he does?

Funny, they just seem to prove my statement, you reduce everything down to claiming it's all about money

No, he very specifically did NOT do that.

I quote for you:

Yes. I am. Mages seek to maximize their personal benefit (however defined) and minimize their personal cost (however defined).

Note that he said cost and benefit and said 'however defined.' Cost does not only mean money. It could be time, money, convenience, political capital, sleep, effort, land easements, or anything at all the person values but has to give up to do something. Benefit means the same thing.

which is patently false, it's not all about money and economics can't really account for how people react based on those intangible, non-monetary desires.

That is specifically what economics studies. Do you have any understanding of economics? I'm not the *best* at it, but I clearly know more about it than you do. Ed knows a DAMNED sight more about it than I do.

Economists get caught in the wrong all the time because they didn't manage to account for one intangible or another (if they were so right and people so predictable the market would never crash for one, and they'd all be wealthy if they could be so perfect in predicting people's behavior).

You are absolutely incorrect about pretty much every single thing in this entire statement.

/Sub

[flatline]

Please do.

If spell knowledge were a tangible good, then if I sold it to you, I would no longer have it. I would also need to store it and, perhaps, maintain it.

While this is literally true, it is not always practically so. For example, one could cast 'summon wood', which would create lumber at the sacrifice of PPE. By so doing, they could then sell a tangible asset and still have the asset available for future use (since what was sacrificed was PPE, and could be immediately replenished at a ley line. Thus, a tangible object would be sold and yet would not diminish the availability of the product to the spell caster.

In that case, the cost to the caster is opportunity cost, which reflects what they *could* have been doing at the same time had they not been summoning wood.

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

Please do.

If spell knowledge were a tangible good, then if I sold it to you, I would no longer have it. I would also need to store it and, perhaps, maintain it.

While this is literally true, it is not always practically so. For example, one could cast 'summon wood', which would create lumber at the sacrifice of PPE. By so doing, they could then sell a tangible asset and still have the asset available for future use (since what was sacrificed was PPE, and could be immediately replenished at a ley line. Thus, a tangible object would be sold and yet would not diminish the availability of the product to the spell caster.

In that case, the cost to the caster is opportunity cost, which reflects what they *could* have been doing at the same time had they not been summoning wood.

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

I still think that intellectual property is the closest comparison, stuff like songs and such.
Only it takes 2 days per level to burn a particular song, and the RIAA is more evil, and can scry to track people, and they can send assassins and demons instead of lawyers.

[flatline]

Please do.

If spell knowledge were a tangible good, then if I sold it to you, I would no longer have it. I would also need to store it and, perhaps, maintain it.

While this is literally true, it is not always practically so. For example, one could cast 'summon wood', which would create lumber at the sacrifice of PPE. By so doing, they could then sell a tangible asset and still have the asset available for future use (since what was sacrificed was PPE, and could be immediately replenished at a ley line. Thus, a tangible object would be sold and yet would not diminish the availability of the product to the spell caster.

In that case, the cost to the caster is opportunity cost, which reflects what they *could* have been doing at the same time had they not been summoning wood.

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

I still think that intellectual property is the closest comparison, stuff like songs and such.
Only it takes 2 days per level to burn a particular song, and the RIAA is more evil, and can scry to track people, and they can send assassins and demons instead of lawyers.

That's a regulatory constraint, not a constraint intrinsic to the spell knowledge itself.

If I have an apple, then you can't also have that same apple. If I know a spell, that doesn't prevent you from also knowing the same spell. If you and your allies actively wage war against others who know the spell, that's not an economic constraint on the spell knowledge even if you're waging the war for economic reasons.

--flatline

[Subjugator]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect.

No, I am not. I am discussing what he said.

A spell can be used to produce a tangible effect; the best example being a pure combat spell or it can be used to produce a tangible physical item, a zombie, mummy, golem, scroll, talisman, etc.

You are conflating the two ideas.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Someone teaching you the spell costs them something. It takes their time, and it reduces the value of their knowing the spell (scarcity is part of value).

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

Following your logic, engineers and physicists should not make good money because their knowledge is not scarce.

Scarce: (esp. of food, money, or some other resource) Insufficient for the demand

Scarcity does not mean that the good or service could not be sufficient. It means that it IS not sufficient. If there are no mages whatsoever in a community, are they locally scarce? Absolutely they are. If someone in that community absolutely needs a mage and there are no substitutes, they will pay whatever is necessary to get the mage to go to the community to do what needs to be done.

/Sub

[Killer Cyborg]

Please do.

If spell knowledge were a tangible good, then if I sold it to you, I would no longer have it. I would also need to store it and, perhaps, maintain it.

While this is literally true, it is not always practically so. For example, one could cast 'summon wood', which would create lumber at the sacrifice of PPE. By so doing, they could then sell a tangible asset and still have the asset available for future use (since what was sacrificed was PPE, and could be immediately replenished at a ley line. Thus, a tangible object would be sold and yet would not diminish the availability of the product to the spell caster.

In that case, the cost to the caster is opportunity cost, which reflects what they *could* have been doing at the same time had they not been summoning wood.

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

I still think that intellectual property is the closest comparison, stuff like songs and such.
Only it takes 2 days per level to burn a particular song, and the RIAA is more evil, and can scry to track people, and they can send assassins and demons instead of lawyers.

That's a regulatory constraint, not a constraint intrinsic to the spell knowledge itself.

Agreed.
IF everybody were mages (of the type that can be taught spells), and everybody were generous with their knowledge, and there were no regulations, then everybody could potentially learn all spells.

As it is, though, in the world of Rifts:
-There are regulatory bodies that hoard the knowledge
-Mages aren't generous with their knowledge
-Not everybody are mages
-Not all mages can be taught spells

[flatline]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect.

No, I am not. I am discussing what he said.

A spell can be used to produce a tangible effect; the best example being a pure combat spell or it can be used to produce a tangible physical item, a zombie, mummy, golem, scroll, talisman, etc.

You are conflating the two ideas.

I've been very careful to distinguish between (a) spell knowledge, (b) the act of using spell knowledge to cast a spell as a service, and (c) the act of teaching that knowledge.

I agree that there has been conflation in this thread, but not by me.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Someone teaching you the spell costs them something. It takes their time, and it reduces the value of their knowing the spell (scarcity is part of value).

Which is why the teacher asks a price that both covers the opportunity cost of his time and offsets any depreciation of the value of the spell taught. If the value of the spell really is reduced by teaching it to someone, then the spell loses value regardless of who is doing the teaching, so if the teacher wants to be compensated for the spell depreciation, he needs to be one getting paid to do the teaching rather than letting the potential student find another teacher.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

Following your logic, engineers and physicists should not make good money because their knowledge is not scarce.

I am a well paid engineer. If I could make more money teaching my trade than performing it, I would do so. However, since a single engineering professor can teach dozens of students at a time, it turns out that only a small number of trained engineers are required to meet the demand for teaching new engineers. The rest of us support ourselves by applying our trade. If we couldn't support ourselves by applying our trade, then there would be no demand to learn our trade, which means no one could support themselves teaching the trade.

Everyone could know what I know, but since there aren't enough people trying to practice what I know to overwhelm the demand for what I know, I can make a living at it.

Again, note the distinction between KNOWING something and APPLYING that knowledge. They are two separate things.

Scarce: (esp. of food, money, or some other resource) Insufficient for the demand

Scarcity does not mean that the good or service could not be sufficient. It means that it IS not sufficient. If there are no mages whatsoever in a community, are they locally scarce? Absolutely they are. If someone in that community absolutely needs a mage and there are no substitutes, they will pay whatever is necessary to get the mage to go to the community to do what needs to be done.

/Sub

There is not finite number of spell knowledge units that have to be distributed over all the mages that want to know that spell. Therefore, by your own definition, there is no level of demand that could not be met and so, spell knowledge is not intrinsically scarce.

--flatline

[flatline]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

I still think that intellectual property is the closest comparison, stuff like songs and such.
Only it takes 2 days per level to burn a particular song, and the RIAA is more evil, and can scry to track people, and they can send assassins and demons instead of lawyers.

That's a regulatory constraint, not a constraint intrinsic to the spell knowledge itself.

Agreed.
IF everybody were mages (of the type that can be taught spells), and everybody were generous with their knowledge, and there were no regulations, then everybody could potentially learn all spells.

As it is, though, in the world of Rifts:
A-There are regulatory bodies that hoard the knowledge
B-Mages aren't generous with their knowledge
C-Not everybody are mages
D-Not all mages can be taught spells

I've added enumerations to your list in red.

A and B put a limit on supply.
C and D put a limit on demand.

None of them place any limits on the actual good for which a market price is being determined (aka Spell Knowledge).

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

None of them place any limits on the actual good for which a market price is being determined (aka Spell Knowledge).

Not sure what your point there is.

[Drakenred®™©]

you forgot

E Not all Mages are sain enough to properly use the spells they have
F Not all Mages are able to know when teaching a spell is a bad idea
G Not all Mages are able to know when teaching a spell is a good idea
H The reality is that Magic, as a "science" actualy exists in a "Cold war from hell" Mixed in with a lot of "Kingpin of Crime" mixed in with a "Punisher Vs The Executioner Universe where there are bad people with bad intentions plan to do bad things to people for bad reasons
I Because of reasons E through H theres people who dont use Magic who are more than willing to use the technology they do have to Kill any Mages who look like there becomeing a threat because there IN catagory E through G
J because they dont know enough about magic they dont know when they should use there Tech to Kill Mages and when to not kill mages making the only safe move killing mages.
K They also dont know when to NOT use there Magic to Kill Mages because unfortunatly Good Mages are also in Catagory E F and G but because they ARE in catagory F and G to the Mon Mage users they resemble the Mages in Catagory E F and G who probably should be killed. Again making the only safe move for them Killing All Mages.
L compounding things is the fact that unfortunatly the people in Catagory I who dont know when a Good mage is notin any of the above catagory
M theres Mages who Are Sain enough to use the powers they have and Know when its a good or bad idea to give another mage a given spell who also know about facts J.
O therefore from there point of View they have no choice but to step in and curbstomp mages in Catagorys E and F, and probably G as well just to be safe, because they at least will not have the Agenda of catagory I and J.
P This leads to the realisation on the part of people in Catagory E and F that there going to get curb stomped by the Mages in Catagory M.... Seriously you have to realise by this point that Loki was planning on Thor showing up in his next Thor movie to break him out of that prison cell thing way back in Journey into Mystery #85... yes including all of the changes in the timeline caused by all of the retcons that Marvel comics has been through, seriously when they say his mind is like a bag of Cats they are not kidding!

[Mech-Viper Prime]

And with that I will say female mages seems always to be easy on the eyes, well until they start casting spells at you, then they became ugly old hags from some odd reason.
But I wonder are there different types of the same spell.
Such as a scroll, you can cast from, vs a scroll that teaches you the spells, vs a scroll teaching you how to make a scroll of the spell.

[Ed]

Please do.

If spell knowledge were a tangible good, then if I sold it to you, I would no longer have it. I would also need to store it and, perhaps, maintain it.

Depends on the good. For instance, a refrigiderator is a tangible good. If I sold you one of the ones in my house it's true I would no longer have it to sell again. However, if I were Maytag, unless I sold you the factory that made refrigiderators, I would not have created a competitor.

Whether or not a particular spell could be a positional good is something I'm trying to understand. Knowing a rare spell could, in some circles, give you some sort of status that you wouldn't have if everyone knew the spell, which, of course, may increase demand for that spell (and, in the short term, at least, increase the price that the market will bear). Beyond that, I'm not certain how being a positional good would change anything.

--flatline

Take for example two 1st level temporal wizards A and B. They have the same initial spell list with one exception A knows Talisman, B knows Create Golem. Due to the positional value of Talisman temporal wizard A will be able to charge a premium for every other spell he knows. Reason being every potential spell casting customer only has to complete one negotiation forcing temporal wizard B to cut his price to compete.

[Ed]

1 Yes, a spell is knowledge. It is something that can be taught to someone else, information of how to do something.

Teach a 1st level mystic how to cast a 6th level spell. Teach a warlock of any level to cast Close Rift.

2 No, the population of the megaverse is infinite, since the number of dimensions is infinite the population is infinite as well. There is no effective restriction of the total numbers of anything if one counts the multiverse and even if you just considered a universe the size is sufficiently large enough to find virtually anything in plentiful supply and mages certainly aren't in short supply whether of the 'I just know how to do this' or 'I was taught how to do this'.

The population of mages capable of learning or teaching spells is definitely not infinite.

The people who can't learn or cast spells aren't relevant to the discussion, since it's all about mages and how much they charge for someone to learn a spell from them or for them to cast a spell for someone else. Of which the numbers of mages around is significant, Rifts Earth alone clearly has hundreds of thousands of mages of various types if not closer to a million with Ley Line Walkers and Techno-Wizards (those who most spend time learning and trading spells) the most common.

Since not everyone is a mage and not all mages can be taught spells, the absolute number who can is definitely relevant. It being the fixed upper boundry of the market.

No, obviously it does not.

Price is the value of goods or services people are willing to offer in exchange for a given product or service. Value contains both tangible and intangible elements.

Funny, they just seem to prove my statement, you reduce everything down to claiming it's all about money which is patently false, it's not all about money and economics can't really account for how people react based on those intangible, non-monetary desires.

I don't think I even used the word money in any of the above.

Economists get caught in the wrong all the time because they didn't manage to account for one intangible or another (if they were so right and people so predictable the market would never crash for one, and they'd all be wealthy if they could be so perfect in predicting people's behavior).

While economics isn't psychohistory and I'm no Hari Sheldon, the strengths of the discipline speak for themselves.

[Ed]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

In the above lets substiture diamond ring for spell knowledge. The result:

You are equivocating having a diamond ring with the mining for diamonds. Mining has an opportunity cost because the time and resources spent digging could have been used for something else. Buying a diamond ring has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But owning a diamond ring has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes minimal space, and owning a particular ringl does not prevent you from buying another.

Strictly speaking, a diamond ring is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants one COULD have one without taking it away from someone who already had one. The scarcity is associated with mining and purchasing.

See how that works?

[Ed]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

I still think that intellectual property is the closest comparison, stuff like songs and such.
Only it takes 2 days per level to burn a particular song, and the RIAA is more evil, and can scry to track people, and they can send assassins and demons instead of lawyers.

That's a regulatory constraint, not a constraint intrinsic to the spell knowledge itself.

Agreed.
IF everybody were mages (of the type that can be taught spells), and everybody were generous with their knowledge, and there were no regulations, then everybody could potentially learn all spells.

As it is, though, in the world of Rifts:
A-There are regulatory bodies that hoard the knowledge
B-Mages aren't generous with their knowledge
C-Not everybody are mages
D-Not all mages can be taught spells

I've added enumerations to your list in red.

A and B put a limit on supply.
C and D put a limit on demand.

None of them place any limits on the actual good for which a market price is being determined (aka Spell Knowledge).

--flatline

No. All of them do. Provided you are discussing spell knowledge that is learned rather than spontaneously developed.

[kaid]

One thing I think is being missed. Men of magic who are capable of learning spell magic in addition to their normal ones they gain per level have an incentive to teach others spells. That incentive is if they won't teach others then others won't teach them. If everybody plays the spells super close to their vests then all these people who actively seek and try to research spells are less apt to gain new spells than mystics/shamans/warlocks which is pretty backwards.

I just find it odd that so many try so hard to justify crippling spell knowledge of casters. The only reason I can think of it is still blow over from D&D and people just cannot get over the concept of a level 1 ley line walker potentially learning a spell of legend even though most level 1 LLW could not actually cast the spell in anything other than a massive ritual with others helping and it really has little if any negative play balance effect.

Frankly I almost wish they just did away with the whole option to learn spells from others and just were more generous about researching their own spells or simply being given more spells per level automatically and just be done with it.

[flatline]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

In the above lets substiture diamond ring for spell knowledge. The result:

You are equivocating having a diamond ring with the mining for diamonds. Mining has an opportunity cost because the time and resources spent digging could have been used for something else. Buying a diamond ring has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But owning a diamond ring has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes minimal space, and owning a particular ringl does not prevent you from buying another.

Strictly speaking, a diamond ring is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants one COULD have one without taking it away from someone who already had one. The scarcity is associated with mining and purchasing.

See how that works?

It doesn't work. Your diamond analogy is fatally flawed.

Why is it a flawed analogy? Because if I have a particular diamond, you can't have that particular diamond without depriving me of it. If I give you the diamond, it costs me the diamond. In the end, only you have that diamond.

If I know a particular spell, you can also know that particular spell at the same time. So if I teach you the spell, it does not cost me the spell. In the end, we both have it.

See how that works?

--flatline

[Nightmask]

1 Yes, a spell is knowledge. It is something that can be taught to someone else, information of how to do something.

Teach a 1st level mystic how to cast a 6th level spell. Teach a warlock of any level to cast Close Rift.

An effort to try and confuse the issue, we're discussing teaching spell knowledge to other mages capable of learning it and mystics and warlocks don't learn spells from others therefor aren't relevant.

2 No, the population of the megaverse is infinite, since the number of dimensions is infinite the population is infinite as well. There is no effective restriction of the total numbers of anything if one counts the multiverse and even if you just considered a universe the size is sufficiently large enough to find virtually anything in plentiful supply and mages certainly aren't in short supply whether of the 'I just know how to do this' or 'I was taught how to do this'.

The population of mages capable of learning or teaching spells is definitely not infinite.

I repeat, if you have an infinite multiverse then there is effectively an infinite number of anything, and in any case the number of mages around capable of learning and teaching spells is not in short supply, they can be found just about everywhere.

No, obviously it does not.

Price is the value of goods or services people are willing to offer in exchange for a given product or service. Value contains both tangible and intangible elements.

All well and good, except you never acknowledge the intangible elements or admit that they've an influence on things. That and everything doesn't operate under a market economy, people have motivations other than buying and selling goods or services.

Funny, they just seem to prove my statement, you reduce everything down to claiming it's all about money which is patently false, it's not all about money and economics can't really account for how people react based on those intangible, non-monetary desires.

I don't think I even used the word money in any of the above.

You use language that means the same thing.

Economists get caught in the wrong all the time because they didn't manage to account for one intangible or another (if they were so right and people so predictable the market would never crash for one, and they'd all be wealthy if they could be so perfect in predicting people's behavior).

While economics isn't psychohistory and I'm no Hari Sheldon, the strengths of the discipline speak for themselves.

Yes, that it's not perfect and like any other tool if you use it wrong you get the wrong results.

[Nightmask]

H The reality is that Magic, as a "science" actualy exists in a "Cold war from hell" Mixed in with a lot of "Kingpin of Crime" mixed in with a "Punisher Vs The Executioner Universe where there are bad people with bad intentions plan to do bad things to people for bad reasons

That's way inaccurate to the point of being just about totally wrong as a result. There are always bad people around with bad intentions doing bad things to people but there are also good people with good intentions doing good things just as much. Entertainment media presents way too much of the successful evil for storytelling purposes people seem to have the idea that evil is better or somehow more powerful when that's clearly not so, if it were society would never have reached the point it's at now. Driven good people slowly make headway against the bad (and sometimes quickly depending on the situation), like Lord Coake creating and training his rival Man at Arms group that's been spreading to do good works around Rifts Earth.

By your reasoning Lord Coake would have never succeeded because as soon as he tried to set up these rival training facilities and specially trained warriors the existing warrior guilds would have promptly stepped in to kill him because he was a rival creating more rivals for them. Obviously he did succeed though so apparently the power of bad people to eliminate competition/rivals is finite and does fail.

[Subjugator]

I've been very careful to distinguish between (a) spell knowledge, (b) the act of using spell knowledge to cast a spell as a service, and (c) the act of teaching that knowledge.

I agree that there has been conflation in this thread, but not by me.

If you were not conflating the two ideas, what words of mine were you addressing when you said I was equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell?

Which is why the teacher asks a price that both covers the opportunity cost of his time and offsets any depreciation of the value of the spell taught.

...and that is why the price of spells is so high.

If the value of the spell really is reduced by teaching it to someone, then the spell loses value regardless of who is doing the teaching, so if the teacher wants to be compensated for the spell depreciation, he needs to be one getting paid to do the teaching rather than letting the potential student find another teacher.

That's called 'competition', and that's how the point of price equilibrium was reached. The market has balanced out at the point where the prices are low enough where people are willing to pay them and high enough where people are willing to sell them.

I am a well paid engineer. If I could make more money teaching my trade than performing it, I would do so. However, since a single engineering professor can teach dozens of students at a time, it turns out that only a small number of trained engineers are required to meet the demand for teaching new engineers. The rest of us support ourselves by applying our trade. If we couldn't support ourselves by applying our trade, then there would be no demand to learn our trade, which means no one could support themselves teaching the trade.

You totally missed the point. The point was that engineering knowledge isn't scarce by your definition (since knowledge isn't scarce), and yet reality says that it is sufficiently scarce for engineers to make a very good living.

Everyone could know what I know, but since there aren't enough people trying to practice what I know to overwhelm the demand for what I know, I can make a living at it.

Hm. I'd say a lot of people could know what you know, but not everyone. That few take the time and effort to learn it shows that scarcity can come from more than a lack of physical availability. For example, it can be more difficult than some prefer to pursue (kinda like...MAGIC!).

Again, note the distinction between KNOWING something and APPLYING that knowledge. They are two separate things.

They are, but it's irrelevant to my point.

There is not finite number of spell knowledge units that have to be distributed over all the mages that want to know that spell. Therefore, by your own definition, there is no level of demand that could not be met and so, spell knowledge is not intrinsically scarce.

Did you even bother to read the definition presented?

Scarce: (esp. of food, money, or some other resource) Insufficient for the demand

There are not enough people who know how to cast spells to meet the demand. Ergo, the knowledge is scarce.

There is absolutely no requirement given anywhere that the item be limited in how much can be produced. It does not mean, "Cannot be produced or made more available in the future to meet current demand." It is only if you add to the idea that it must not be able to be generated at some future date without limit that scarcity does not apply, but that is not a part of the definition of scarce and is not required for something to be scarce. All that is required for something to be scarce is that it be insufficient to meet the demand for the item in question at a particular time and place. That is true whether the item in question is toilet paper, water, hamburgers, or the ability to cast a given spell.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

I've added enumerations to your list in red.

A and B put a limit on supply.
C and D put a limit on demand.

None of them place any limits on the actual good for which a market price is being determined (aka Spell Knowledge).

--flatline

The problem here is that you are applying incorrect limits on the definition of scarcity. Scarcity reflects an insufficient supply for a demand at a specific time and place. It does not reflect an inability to satisfy that demand at a different time and/or place.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

It doesn't work. Your diamond analogy is fatally flawed.

Why is it a flawed analogy? Because if I have a particular diamond, you can't have that particular diamond without depriving me of it. If I give you the diamond, it costs me the diamond. In the end, only you have that diamond.

If I know a particular spell, you can also know that particular spell at the same time. So if I teach you the spell, it does not cost me the spell. In the end, we both have it.

See how that works?

It reduces the sale value (teaching) and casting value (service) of that spell. That *IS* a cost for teaching that spell to another.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

2 No, the population of the megaverse is infinite, since the number of dimensions is infinite the population is infinite as well. There is no effective restriction of the total numbers of anything if one counts the multiverse and even if you just considered a universe the size is sufficiently large enough to find virtually anything in plentiful supply and mages certainly aren't in short supply whether of the 'I just know how to do this' or 'I was taught how to do this'.

We aren't dealing with the megaverse though, but a particular group of beings at a particular place at a particular time.

I repeat, if you have an infinite multiverse then there is effectively an infinite number of anything, and in any case the number of mages around capable of learning and teaching spells is not in short supply, they can be found just about everywhere.

The infinity of beings that cannot learn spells is almost certainly larger than the infinity of beings that can, given that stats that are above average are required to belong to a class that can learn spells (unless most D-Bees are both magic capable *and* has stats that average above the human average).

All well and good, except you never acknowledge the intangible elements or admit that they've an influence on things. That and everything doesn't operate under a market economy, people have motivations other than buying and selling goods or services.

Yes he does, and the market economy takes those other motivations into account. That's part of the way the market reaches equilibrium. This is very, very basic to economics.

You use language that means the same thing.

Care to quote it? I've quoted his use of ' benefit, however defined', but I do not see your response to that. Did you miss it? If so, I bring it to your attention here.

Yes, that it's not perfect and like any other tool if you use it wrong you get the wrong results.

This is particularly true when you ignore it and treat it as if it is saying something it is not...like when you say that the person using it is ignoring non-monetary motivations.

/Sub

[Ed]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

In the above lets substiture diamond ring for spell knowledge. The result:

You are equivocating having a diamond ring with the mining for diamonds. Mining has an opportunity cost because the time and resources spent digging could have been used for something else. Buying a diamond ring has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But owning a diamond ring has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes minimal space, and owning a particular ringl does not prevent you from buying another.

Strictly speaking, a diamond ring is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants one COULD have one without taking it away from someone who already had one. The scarcity is associated with mining and purchasing.

See how that works?

It doesn't work. Your diamond analogy is fatally flawed.

Why is it a flawed analogy? Because if I have a particular diamond, you can't have that particular diamond without depriving me of it. If I give you the diamond, it costs me the diamond. In the end, only you have that diamond.

If I know a particular spell, you can also know that particular spell at the same time. So if I teach you the spell, it does not cost me the spell. In the end, we both have it.

See how that works?

--flatline

Not even close to being correct. A diamond only has value to the degree it is useful or scarce. Two diamonds with the same 4C characteristics have identical utility and therefore are perfect substitutes.

So if you have a diamond with a particular set of 4C's and I dig up cut and polish my own with the same 4C values, we have identical amounts of utility.

[Drakenred®™©]

theres so many things wrong with the arguments here.

In a Infinite reality, yes theres an infinite number of people. the problem is that given the current know distrbution of live within even virtualy non comunicative space, we still have managed to only have one copy of Steven Hawkings.

Given that theres theoreticaly infinite number of worlds exising in parlax(I think I have to have him explain that to me again when Im not in a mood to strangle him for explaining it all I know is that means pallel univers that both are and are not "in sink" with this world meaning that if I could get around conservation of momentum and can somehow access all of that reality, theres literaly an infinte ammount of Energy/Data at my fingertips) that means that withing arms reach of me is Literaly an infinte ammount of gold.

That also means that I can not access most of it, and unfortunatly the current theoretical understandin is that I can access such a small part of it that I am accutaly totaly incapable of accessing ANY of it. (its the paradox of dividing a finite number into infinity, the answer is always 0.)

Also due to simple statistical clustering, the odds of anyone actual being in a super cluster is 0. After all dividing an infinite number into an infinite number only apears to have three results, (Infinite, zero, and 1) the "Normalicy" paradox dictates that the only correct answer is 0. Its one of thoes things, Even if we WERE in a super cluster of some kind of thing that would be uber super to be in the middle of, if theres nothing realy special about earth....then the net result is that yet again were stuck in a Vacume. oh hey! the Earth is literaly orbiting in a near Vacume of space-time-energy.

the basic paradox is that the instant something becomes infinite, its no longer special and therefore instantly becomes a vacume where nothing exists but itself and is therefore useless.

Literaly the universe your talking about the very thing you want to have happen will make it useless to the point that the free magic people would be sitting there going "why are we wasting our time on this crap"?

theres three mechanics that make this all moot
1 decent instruction in Magice that does not risk you ending up looking like Emler fud after he tried to shoot the corks out of his double barrel shotgun

2 Casting a spell from a scroll that you have a low chance of actualy learning a spell from and if you use the optional "Failure" system can be quite painfull for each failure to learn from a scroll

3 Learning from a Mages spellbooks (theres actualy a safe(er) way to learn a spell this way, its kind of slow but the results can be a bit messy if you flub it up)

4) learning a spell from a "learn how to cast this spell!!!" book...and if you know anything about the School textbook system you will quickly realise that its a scam intended to make book publishers money and very few have had mutch success in making a dent in that.

[Giant2005]

Does anyone know of any rules to cover obscure magic like Temporal Magic, Necromancy or Nazca Line Magic? Or is that just covered by the 20% rare magic fee?
I wouldn't think 20% would be enough for such things.

[GaredBattlespike]

Greetings!

I do not often play Mages of any sort-I usually play Mind Melters or Headhunters...When I DO play a Man of Magic, we use the Nightbane WB 3 Spell Research Rules. This means that the MINIMUM time to make a Variant Spell is 2 weeks. To make a Brand New Spell (Never Existed Before on your World) it is 3 weeks. Those times are for 1st Level Spells. Higher Level Spells are multiplied by those base times. To reverse-engineer a Spell that is "known" on the world, like say Firebolt or Call Lightning or Negation of Magic or Familiar Link (All in the Base Book listing of that world's Spells) takes 30 days regardless of Level. This means that
A) I am taking at LEAST two weeks to make a variant of a measly 1st Level Spell or a Month to reverse engineer a "Base Book" Spell of any level.
B) Still paying my own upkeep-Rent, Food, Clothing, Entertainment ECT
C) There is a Percentage Formula for Success. All that time/effort can FAIL. This means that I CANNOT even try again with that Spell until I gain another Level of Experience.
D) There is serious RISK involved as failure also means a roll on the Failed Spell Invention Table-Death is a possibility, although Insanity is more likely.
E) This is a BIG DEAL to me! My PC has spent a great deal of time and effort-AT RISK TO HIMSELF and for what? Just to sell this precious knowledge for a pittance? Really? My PC risks his life, soul and sanity just to TRY to learn more Magic. Anyone that wants my Stenographer Spell had better be a friend, more than a mere customer!

In closing I say this: Magicians may make the mightiest of Heroes/Villains, but only at great risk and great cost!

[Nightmask]

Greetings!

I do not often play Mages of any sort-I usually play Mind Melters or Headhunters...When I DO play a Man of Magic, we use the Nightbane WB 3 Spell Research Rules. This means that the MINIMUM time to make a Variant Spell is 2 weeks. To make a Brand New Spell (Never Existed Before on your World) it is 3 weeks. Those times are for 1st Level Spells. Higher Level Spells are multiplied by those base times. To reverse-engineer a Spell that is "known" on the world, like say Firebolt or Call Lightning or Negation of Magic or Familiar Link (All in the Base Book listing of that world's Spells) takes 30 days regardless of Level. This means that
A) I am taking at LEAST two weeks to make a variant of a measly 1st Level Spell or a Month to reverse engineer a "Base Book" Spell of any level.
B) Still paying my own upkeep-Rent, Food, Clothing, Entertainment ECT
C) There is a Percentage Formula for Success. All that time/effort can FAIL. This means that I CANNOT even try again with that Spell until I gain another Level of Experience.
D) There is serious RISK involved as failure also means a roll on the Failed Spell Invention Table-Death is a possibility, although Insanity is more likely.
E) This is a BIG DEAL to me! My PC has spent a great deal of time and effort-AT RISK TO HIMSELF and for what? Just to sell this precious knowledge for a pittance? Really? My PC risks his life, soul and sanity just to TRY to learn more Magic. Anyone that wants my Stenographer Spell had better be a friend, more than a mere customer!

In closing I say this: Magicians may make the mightiest of Heroes/Villains, but only at great risk and great cost!

Okay, and in counterpoint how much real good is that spell doing you if you can't even sell it because you're charging a ridiculously high fee for learning it? Especially if it's a spell meant to be used in dangerous situations that you would rather not be in or improve your chances of survival if your companion mages also knew it but you refused to share it with them in any fashion? There's also the advertising angle, who'll want to pay you a pretty penny for the spell if they don't even know it exists or how useful it is? The more people using it the more who'll see it and want to buy it. You want mages with the spell using it to improve your chances of selling training in it.

[GaredBattlespike]

Greetings!

Actually I DON'T want to sell it. I am charging a REALLY high price to discourage some who-ha from using daddy's cash (or whatever) to buy access to the Power I had to risk myself to gain and IF I do sell, It will cost enough money that I can afford to take the time to try some REALLY advanced Research.

I normally only want to TRADE Spells with those I really trust (so they do not use that neat new Spell I just made on me) in exchange for other Magic Spells. Money is good, but Knowledge is POWER! I am unlikely to trade my Ritual: Map Ley Lines to anyone, nevermind SELL it!!! It's a 13th Level Ritual Spell that needs 300 PPE to cast! I am NOT looking to SELL such a powerful effect for some other Mage to quickly know the lay out of the local Ley Lines (1/2 Mile per Level) and knows the locations of each Nexus as well. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

IF I sell a Spell/Ritual, I must be REALLY hard up for SERIOUS money-The group's Behemoth Robot needs VAST repairs or the like! It is our (mobile) home. Otherwise why would I sell this awesome Power for mere money???

[Nightmask]

Greetings!

Actually I DON'T want to sell it. I am charging a REALLY high price to discourage some who-ha from using daddy's cash (or whatever) to buy access to the Power I had to risk myself to gain and IF I do sell, It will cost enough money that I can afford to take the time to try some REALLY advanced Research.

I normally only want to TRADE Spells with those I really trust (so they do not use that neat new Spell I just made on me) in exchange for other Magic Spells. Money is good, but Knowledge is POWER! I am unlikely to trade my Ritual: Map Ley Lines to anyone, nevermind SELL it!!! It's a 13th Level Ritual Spell that needs 300 PPE to cast! I am NOT looking to SELL such a powerful effect for some other Mage to quickly know the lay out of the local Ley Lines (1/2 Mile per Level) and knows the locations of each Nexus as well. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

IF I sell a Spell/Ritual, I must be REALLY hard up for SERIOUS money-The group's Behemoth Robot needs VAST repairs or the like! It is our (mobile) home. Otherwise why would I sell this awesome Power for mere money???

Except every mage isn't researching spells for the purpose of hording them to themselves, many are researching them to help others (clearly that must be so or else there wouldn't be any standard spells being taught to mages) and other reasons. A mage had to have some reason why he researched a spell, and circumstances can encourage one that was otherwise intending to keep a spell to themselves to give it out to others.

[flatline]

You are equivocating spell knowledge with the casting of the spell or the spell effect. Casting a spell has an opportunity cost because the time and PPE spent casting could have been used for something else. Learning a spell has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But KNOWING a spell has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes no space, and knowing a particular spell does not prevent you from learning anything else.

Strictly speaking, spell knowledge is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants to know a particular spell COULD know it without taking it away from someone who already knows it. The scarcity is associated with obtaining instruction.

--flatline

In the above lets substiture diamond ring for spell knowledge. The result:

You are equivocating having a diamond ring with the mining for diamonds. Mining has an opportunity cost because the time and resources spent digging could have been used for something else. Buying a diamond ring has an opportunity cost because of the time required and the purchasing price.

But owning a diamond ring has no opportunity cost. It requires no upkeep, takes minimal space, and owning a particular ringl does not prevent you from buying another.

Strictly speaking, a diamond ring is not a scarce resource since everyone who wants one COULD have one without taking it away from someone who already had one. The scarcity is associated with mining and purchasing.

See how that works?

It doesn't work. Your diamond analogy is fatally flawed.

Why is it a flawed analogy? Because if I have a particular diamond, you can't have that particular diamond without depriving me of it. If I give you the diamond, it costs me the diamond. In the end, only you have that diamond.

If I know a particular spell, you can also know that particular spell at the same time. So if I teach you the spell, it does not cost me the spell. In the end, we both have it.

See how that works?

--flatline

Not even close to being correct. A diamond only has value to the degree it is useful or scarce. Two diamonds with the same 4C characteristics have identical utility and therefore are perfect substitutes.

So if you have a diamond with a particular set of 4C's and I dig up cut and polish my own with the same 4C values, we have identical amounts of utility.

Okay, assuming your analogy isn't flawed, if two diamonds can substitute for each other, then two spells must be able to substitute for each other. What is the "perfect substitute" for Talisman? or Cleanse? or Mend the Broken?

Ah, there is none. Each of those effects are unique and so there is no substitute spell that gives the same effect. Therefore, comparing spells to diamonds is a flawed analogy. Please stop using it.

--flatline

[flatline]

Does anyone know of any rules to cover obscure magic like Temporal Magic, Necromancy or Nazca Line Magic? Or is that just covered by the 20% rare magic fee?
I wouldn't think 20% would be enough for such things.

We always assumed the prices were intended only for regular spells.

--flatline

[Giant2005]

Does anyone know of any rules to cover obscure magic like Temporal Magic, Necromancy or Nazca Line Magic? Or is that just covered by the 20% rare magic fee?
I wouldn't think 20% would be enough for such things.

We always assumed the prices were intended only for regular spells.

--flatline

So what do you think would be a fair modifier for exotic magic? Assuming you would allow it to be sold at all...

[Ed]

Okay, assuming your analogy isn't flawed, if two diamonds can substitute for each other, then two spells must be able to substitute for each other. What is the "perfect substitute" for Talisman? or Cleanse? or Mend the Broken?

Ah, there is none. Each of those effects are unique and so there is no substitute spell that gives the same effect. Therefore, comparing spells to diamonds is a flawed analogy. Please stop using it.

--flatline

Wrong. The perfect substitute for a diamond with a particular set of 4C characteristics is another diamond with the same characteristics. Utility = Utility.

The perfect substitute for Talisman/Cleanse/mend the Broken is Talisman/Cleanse/mend the Broken cast by another mage. Utility = Utility.

I think I'll keep using this analogy.

In conjunction with this one: Computer software.

Software is pure knowledge, nothing but ones and zeros arranged in a particular sequence. Under your paradign anyone can learn it and there are no penalties for sharing it or incentives to hoard it. Me learning the source code for MicroSoft Word in no way reduces the effectiveness or utility of Word for anyone else. The question then becomes, why don't software developers follow your games theory model and dump the source code ASAP in order to cash in on thier exclusive knowledge before it becomes worthless? After all the more people using Word the better the chance someone will use it to write some really Kewl code the original developer would find indespensible.

[kaid]

Okay, assuming your analogy isn't flawed, if two diamonds can substitute for each other, then two spells must be able to substitute for each other. What is the "perfect substitute" for Talisman? or Cleanse? or Mend the Broken?

Ah, there is none. Each of those effects are unique and so there is no substitute spell that gives the same effect. Therefore, comparing spells to diamonds is a flawed analogy. Please stop using it.

--flatline

Wrong. The perfect substitute for a diamond with a particular set of 4C characteristics is another diamond with the same characteristics. Utility = Utility.

The perfect substitute for Talisman/Cleanse/mend the Broken is Talisman/Cleanse/mend the Broken cast by another mage. Utility = Utility.

I think I'll keep using this analogy.

In conjunction with this one: Computer software.

Software is pure knowledge, nothing but ones and zeros arranged in a particular sequence. Under your paradign anyone can learn it and there are no penalties for sharing it or incentives to hoard it. Me learning the source code for MicroSoft Word in no way reduces the effectiveness or utility of Word for anyone else. The question then becomes, why don't software developers follow your games theory model and dump the source code ASAP in order to cash in on thier exclusive knowledge before it becomes worthless? After all the more people using Word the better the chance someone will use it to write some really Kewl code the original developer would find indespensible.

One thing to note though given you are using a computer with presumably legit operating system copy using web browsing software that presumably is also not pirated is that these software companies may not dump the source code but they do however sell their software for reasonable prices to cash in on their knowledge. And they do this even knowing people could copy their product and potentially pirate this knowledge.

Really though this entire thread keeps running down the rabbit hole I have seen GMs fall into and is why I simply don't play LLW/LLR/techno wizards or any other men of magic that has to purchase spells to learn most of their spells. Really following the logic I am seeing in this thread one wonders how places like lazlo/new lazlo and the federation of magic could ever form given mages are so ultra paranoid of their uber precious call lightning spells that they should following the logic here avoid other mages like they had the worst case of cooties ever.

If mages are really this utterly paranoid and secretive about spell knowledge then the last thing they are going to do is stay near anybody else who could glean those secrets from watching them in action.

[Ed]

One thing to note though given you are using a computer with presumably legit operating system copy using web browsing software that presumably is also not pirated is that these software companies may not dump the source code but they do however sell their software for reasonable prices to cash in on their knowledge. And they do this even knowing people could copy their product and potentially pirate this knowledge.

As do mages. In fact, KC has demonstrated it's possible to generate large amounts of income with relatively little effort casting spells for a fee. Which would be the RPG equilivent of buying the object code.

Really though this entire thread keeps running down the rabbit hole I have seen GMs fall into and is why I simply don't play LLW/LLR/techno wizards or any other men of magic that has to purchase spells to learn most of their spells. Really following the logic I am seeing in this thread one wonders how places like lazlo/new lazlo and the federation of magic could ever form given mages are so ultra paranoid of their uber precious call lightning spells that they should following the logic here avoid other mages like they had the worst case of cooties ever.

If mages are really this utterly paranoid and secretive about spell knowledge then the last thing they are going to do is stay near anybody else who could glean those secrets from watching them in action.

Since it's not generally possible to reverse engineer spells to learn them through observation on a mass scale, proximity isn't much of an issue. And low level spells ARE readily and commonly available it's just the high level ones like Talisman and Teleport: Superior that everyone needs to enact their favorite "Lay waste to Chi-town" scheme; aren't. This fact disturbs some people more than others.

[Subjugator]

Okay, and in counterpoint how much real good is that spell doing you if you can't even sell it because you're charging a ridiculously high fee for learning it?

It can do plenty of good for you if you cast it for others at a fee or if you otherwise use it to achieve your goals.

Especially if it's a spell meant to be used in dangerous situations that you would rather not be in or improve your chances of survival if your companion mages also knew it but you refused to share it with them in any fashion?

Given the scarcity of mages on Rifts earth, you are unlikely to have many companion mages. Also, that doesn't address the concept to which others are objecting, which is that they wouldn't sell them out wholesale.

Way to ignore the real point.

There's also the advertising angle, who'll want to pay you a pretty penny for the spell if they don't even know it exists or how useful it is? The more people using it the more who'll see it and want to buy it. You want mages with the spell using it to improve your chances of selling training in it.

Sort of correct, but mostly wrong. Yes, you can create a market by making something better known, but in this case you don't want to commoditize your product because the price you can charge goes down and you cannot mass produce the spell effects in such a way where you get the benefit from the casting. The less competition there is, the more you can charge for it (until substitutions become more attractive). Hugely powerful magic will generate its own stories.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

Except every mage isn't researching spells for the purpose of hording them to themselves, many are researching them to help others (clearly that must be so or else there wouldn't be any standard spells being taught to mages) and other reasons. A mage had to have some reason why he researched a spell, and circumstances can encourage one that was otherwise intending to keep a spell to themselves to give it out to others.

The books seem to disagree with you when it comes to spells of any significance.

/Sub

[Subjugator]

Okay, assuming your analogy isn't flawed, if two diamonds can substitute for each other, then two spells must be able to substitute for each other. What is the "perfect substitute" for Talisman? or Cleanse? or Mend the Broken?

Ah, there is none. Each of those effects are unique and so there is no substitute spell that gives the same effect. Therefore, comparing spells to diamonds is a flawed analogy. Please stop using it.

--flatline

The substitutions are someone else casting the same spells, someone doing it with technology, or one doing without.

/Sub