Forums of the Megaverse®

(I apologize in advance if I come off here, as elsewhere, as being overly condescending and verbose in my attempts to be thorough.)

Okay, in a recent thread, I encountered a viewpoint of technology that I've run into many times in the past many, especially here on the forums: the view that low-tech items don't count as "technology."
In this case, it was skinned and prepared hides. In the past, it's been stuff like swords, or armor, or even bows and arrows and such.
This viewpoint, though, demonstrates a lack of understanding of what technology IS.

That's understandable, because when I was looking for a good definition of technology, I ran into a WIDE number of online dictionaries that define the term along the lines of:
1. The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry: "computer technology"; "recycling technologies".
2. Machinery and equipment developed from such scientific knowledge.

Unfortunately, the dictionary is wrong.
I know- any number of people reading at this point are thinking something along the lines of, "Oh, boy... KC thinks he's smarter than the dictionary. "
And in THIS case, yes, I do.
Because "science" relies on the Scientific Method, which didn't pop up until the 17th century.
Which would mean that when the ancient Egyptians had primitive batteries, that wasn't science... which would mean that IF the dictionaries are correct, then those batteries weren't technology either.
And it would mean that clockwork (existing since at least the first century AD) isn't technology either.
Anybody willing to seriously argue that clockwork and batteries are NOT technology, this is your place to do so.

Everybody else, let's move on.

Okay, some of you at this point may be questioning my use of the Scientific Method as THE hallmark for determining whether something is science.
After all, the same dictionaries that define "Technology" as the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes define "science" along the lines of:
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
Which could technically mean using other systems than the scientific method to study things.
The issue here is that if "science" is ANY systematic study of structure and behavior via observation and experiment.... well, then that would mean that magic is science.
Anybody willing to argue that magic in the context of Rifts IS science, now's the time to do so.
I'm not going to argue against it, because if magic IS science, that only goes to illustrate my point that "technology" is a much, much wider category than a lot of people seem to imagine, because IF magic is a kind of science, then magical items are a kind of technology.
In which case the divide between magic and technology, especially the argument that mages shouldn't use "technology," becomes absurdly self-defeating.

Moving on...

Okay, so if "Technology" does NOT rely specifically on science (as in, use of the scientific method), then what exactly IS technology?
Wikipedia defines technology as:
the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures.

Breaking that definition down:
The Making of Tools in order to Solve A Problem is one kind of technology.
The Modification of Tools in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Usage of Tools in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Knowledge of Tools in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.

The Making of machines in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
(To interject here, I suggest that anybody unfamiliar with the term Simple Machines click on the link I just provided, so they achieve a better understanding of what machines actually are, and how broad that category actually IS. Long story short, a lever is a machine, such as a crowbar, or a knife. So is an inclined plane, such as a wheelchair ramp.)
The Modification of Machines in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Usage of Machines in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Knowledge of Machines in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.

The Making of Techniques in order to Solve A Problem is one kind of technology.
The Modification of Techniques in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Usage of Techniques in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Knowledge of Techniques in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.

The Making of Systems in order to Solve A Problem is one kind of technology.
The Modification of Systems in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Usage of Systems in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.
The Knowledge of Systems in order to Solve A Problem is another kind of technology.

And so forth.
If an Ogre deliberately sharpens a stick, in order to use it to hunt for food (or defend against predators), that is technology, because it is the Making of a Tool in order to Solve A Problem.
If a Caveman deliberately piles dirt in front of a cave mouth, in order to create a ramp that makes access to his home easier, that is technology, because it is the Making of a (simple) Machine in order to Solve A Problem.
If a Knight practices with his sword or lance, in order to learn certain striking/parrying techniques that will help him survive in battle, that is technology, because it is the Usage of Techniques in order to Solve A Problem.

It's all technology.
Technology is so completely pervasive in the human experience that it becomes practically invisible through overabundance.

One more:
If a Wizard studies magic, in order to teach other wizards how to practice magic, that is technology, because it is the Knowledge of Techniques and Systems in order to Perform A Specific Function.
As I said, technology is everywhere.

Of course, in the Rifts books (and elsewhere), the word "technology" is often used to mean specifically non-magical technology, and the term "magic" is used to mean "magical technology."
But it IS all technology, and I think that the divide between the magical technology and non-magical technology is a completely artificial one, as techno-wizards and Dr. Articulus would most likely agree.
Still, it's pretty clear that when people are talking about mages not liking and/or not using "technology," it's clear enough what they mean, to a point- they mean that mages should reject/dislike/whatever Non-Magical technology.

The thing is, the argument still makes little to no sense, because (as I've demonstrated) technology is EVERYWHERE.
A mage who rejected (non-magical) Technology:
-could not walk up a non-magical ramp or flight of stairs
-could not use a fork (wedge), spoon (lever), or knife (wedge)
-could not ride (techniques) a horse.
-could not wear non-magical clothing.
-could not tie their own shoes (techniques).

They could not, in fact, even learn magic in the first place, because the techniques and systems of learning magic in the first place are necessarily NOT magical processes.
Reading a book of spells doesn't make the learned technique of reading, nor the system of writing, magical.

Now, many people are probably saying or thinking, "KC... you're being WAY too literal here! It's not that mages don't need/want/like ALL technology, it's only that they don't need/want/like HIGH technology!"
And first of all, yes, I can be VERY literal.
But when discussing mages and their view on "technology," where do you draw the line?
The wheel?
Gunpowder?
Clockwork?
Electricity?
X number of moving parts?
Where...?
At what point would a mage decide, "Whoa! I'm cool with wedges, wheels, block & tackle, levers... but GEARS!? That's sick. I'm staying away from that crap! Ptooey! I don't need that petty stuff."
And, more to the point, why?

If they're not too good for an inclined plane, why would they be too good for an airplane?
I mean, if I were going to feel too good for something, I'd expect that it would be the simpler, more common of the two machines.
I hate SUVs, but if I were forced to pick one, I wouldn't pick the crappiest one I could find... if forced to use something that I irrationally found objectionable, I'd at least go for the BEST I could get.
So even if I was a Dweomer-born mage, who grew up in a society of anti-non-magic-technology bigots... I think I'd be more likely to reject the sword and pick up the laser rifle, if I had to choose one.
I'd reject the stairs, and go for the escalator.
I'd pass over the fire pit, and go for the microwave.
In short, I'd be more prejudiced against low tech than high tech, if I was for some reason prejudiced against non-magic tech in the first place.
Because the higher the technology is, the more it at least seems like magic.

-Swinging my arm around like some kind of jerk, trying to use a crude metal wedge to force flesh apart? That's for chumps. IF I have to choose, I'll take the tool that lets me shoot a blast of energy at my enemies from a good distance away, just like I normally do with my bare hands and some muttered words.
-Moving my own feet, trudging up some stairs? That's for ordinary peons, people that I, with my mighty magical ways, am above.
Stairs that move themselves, so that I don't have to? That seems a lot like magic.
-Holding my food over a fire like a caveman? I don't think so. I'll take the box that I can stick my food in, then pull out a minute later, fully cooked. THAT I can relate to. I have a TW box at home that does the same thing, albeit in different ways.

personally I have no issue on the definition of Technology (in general)
what I do take exception to is applying the broadest possible definition of what constitutes tech inorder to make it a TW item.
IMO melee weapons such as staves, swords, etc... should not fall under the purview of the TW. It smacks too much of just plain standard enchantment and is not the direction the TW class was intended to take based upon the RMB write up. (again just my opinion)

Awesome breakdown KC!

On the topic of "Where do Mages draw the Line", the way I see it is that Rifts uses "technology" interchangeably with "High Technology", "Future Technology", "Golden Age Technology", "Phase World Technology", and "Post Apocalypse Technology". In text they rarely make a distinction beyond something along the lines of "the CS can't reproduce Naruni tech because their technology is better". So when a mage "shuns technology" I think it is referring to anything beyond the Middle Ages and the revolution of Gunpowder. So any, for lack of a better term, "Simple Technology". So a sword is ok, but wilks is not.

The MAIN problem with this is there is text to support the use of future level technology, such in the fact that mages will use lighters, digital recorders, cameras, etc. etc. etc...and I beleive it makes note that they are willing to use Vibro Swords (or gives them one as standard equipment). For instance Warlocks are supposed to be very intune with nature, and according to the idea of "Mages don't like Technology", they should especially be wary of what I will call "Rifts Level Tech"(RLT). HOWEVER, the Warlock gets Pilot: Hovercraft as an OCC skill. It's not even a choice...all Warlocks MUST learn to pilot a hover vehicle in order to finish their training apparently. So now the "Mages don't like RLT" is an even weaker idea.

In the end, I beleive that they ONLY don't like RLT environmental armor because it messes with their magic, and I would guess that most of them have been told from early on in their training "Don't wear composite armor or you'll go blind!!!" and then all it will take is one brave soul to put it on and cast a Fireball and incinerate some poor sap and then all mages learn that "Hey...this isn't so bad..."

That's the only thing, really. People don't want to give up their traditions, so they go to the young, tell them how evil everything else aside what they want to teach them is, and then you have a bunch of bigots who only do things one set way, with one set of tools and rarely give them up, even in death. I think it's an argument for swords and axes, say your great grandfather killed the dragon living some valley with his axe, and that's where he decided he would build the village that you grew up in? Wouldn't you be tickled pink when your father gave you that same axe when you became a man?

Though, some teenagers just don't care, and they would be like "huh???? you want to give me some sharpened wedge? I'll stick to spells, thanks...you can keep your baby toys."


Aside from being a little of your topic here and there, I do want to say i like your point of view on this. I'm only saying that sometimes traditions trump practicality, people have a very hard time understanding a viewpoint outside of what they've accepted all their lives.

I agree - just because I'm a mage, doesn't mean I'm Amish.

Talavar wrote:I agree - just because I'm a mage, doesn't mean I'm Amish.

Could you imagine? Just this level 1 LLW walking everywhere, never having PPE because he has to use it for every little thing? Some random traveler would pull up in a Big Boss ATV or something and say "Hey buddy, you need a ride?" and the LLW just hisses at him and tries to go invisble to get away or blow up the ATV with a spell and can't because he's just too tired (spiritually drained I think is what having no PPE does to you) and his mind is literally fried with how much magic he keeps pumping out to get from point A to point B alive.

Talavar wrote:I agree - just because I'm a mage, doesn't mean I'm Amish.

The Amish actually will use modern technology, but only in as limited means as possible. So they'll use a tractor if it's communal or provided to them by someone that they're working for as well as life-saving medical technology (I remember seeing one that had an insulin pump clicked to his belt). They just don't use it as a stable like many others do.

But yes it makes no sense that other than someone like a Biomancer would be insisting on low or no technology, they aren't mutually exclusive things and mages are still intelligent thinking beings and (outside a few) have no insanities that would justify such a 'ewww I won't touch technology magic's the only way for me!' obsession/delusion.

Rifts does have its own definitions of technology scattered through the books.
The PF Conjurer description considers anything with a power source to be considered "high technology".
The Traditionalist Native American description pretty much supports that by permitting the use of virtually anything that doesn't require a power source.

With respect to mages, considering that every depiction of a LLW includes his trademark gas mask, I think it is fairly safe to they mages have given low technology the big thumbs up. Of course, their starting equipment also includes and Energy Rifle or Pistol which would suggest they are fine with high technology too...
It is probably more a case of arrogance than actual belief. They preach about themselves being superior beyond the mundane need for technology but if it suits their needs, they will use it without giving it a second thought. All of the thinking will probably come after the use in trying to find a way to justify the use to suit their own arrogance.
Ignoring their starting equipment and obvious use of technology, if mages really were a strictly no tech bunch of people, then we wouldn't need such an elaborate description for the Native Americans and their beliefs. The book would merely say "They are exactly the same as Lazlo, Dweomer, Duscon's FoM and every other magical nation."

I tend to play mages as using their magic to supplement and assist than the primary form of action. If combat is coming up I'll use a variety of defensive spells (AoI being so much more effective in SDC than MDC just as a side note) and use my laser rifle or autopistol for offense, so on and so forth

Thus my mages go against the norm and use technology all the time

If you want to see the origins of technology, go no farther than than your kitchen, which has benefitted from a steady progression of development since somebody around a campfire discovered that heated just right, food tastes good and/or lasts longer.Tribal cooks were messing with chemistry long before alchemists, and preserving foods long before ice boxes.

Damian Magecraft wrote:personally I have no issue on the definition of Technology (in general)
what I do take exception to is applying the broadest possible definition of what constitutes tech inorder to make it a TW item.
IMO melee weapons such as staves, swords, etc... should not fall under the purview of the TW. It smacks too much of just plain standard enchantment and is not the direction the TW class was intended to take based upon the RMB write up. (again just my opinion)

Agree whole heartedly.

what is the point of this, if you look at the starting equipment its shows mages use modern tech.

In my opinion, I play mages as people who prefer to use magic over technology, but only if a magic solution is comparable to a technological solution. So, I might have a LLW that will eschew heavier body armor or EBA in favor of the Invincible Armor spell, but only if this is something he can readily cast. If that spell isn't available, the by all means he'll be suiting up as heavy as he can to get through the day. And until my LLw can fly or teleport or otherwise move magically, he'll be keeping his hovercycle.

Your mileage as always might vary

jaymz wrote:I tend to play mages as using their magic to supplement and assist than the primary form of action. If combat is coming up I'll use a variety of defensive spells (AoI being so much more effective in SDC than MDC just as a side note) and use my laser rifle or autopistol for offense, so on and so forth

Thus my mages go against the norm and use technology all the time

That's the thing: I think that IS the norm.
The whole "mages dislike technology" is unusual, which is why the attitudes of Dweomer are an exception, not the rule.

Nothing says he is a Mage, like a non magical cyborg running around with a rail gun yelling "I'm a Mage".

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:I tend to play mages as using their magic to supplement and assist than the primary form of action. If combat is coming up I'll use a variety of defensive spells (AoI being so much more effective in SDC than MDC just as a side note) and use my laser rifle or autopistol for offense, so on and so forth

Thus my mages go against the norm and use technology all the time

That's the thing: I think that IS the norm.
The whole "mages dislike technology" is unusual, which is why the attitudes of Dweomer are an exception, not the rule.

I think the difference is in the cultural perception of Mages and Magic. For example, Gandalf the Grey/White is a very old, very intelligent and wise man. He has studied for years in the art of magic and I think it is alluded to (if not said) that he is neigh immortal, or at least long lived. Then there is Merlin, another very old, very wise and intelligent man, who guided King Arthur. We can even look to Harry Potter and at Albus Dumbledore, yet again, a very old, wise, and intelligent man.

Looking at D&D Magic is seen (much as in pop culture) to be a very scholarly and studious area of study, taking the longest to master the use of, and all mages are supposed to be very intelligent men/women. This would lead to the troupe "mages don't like technology" or in the case of D&D swords and other "barbaric" weapons, not because they fear it, or are pompous and arrogant, but simply because they can form better plans and work this insanely powerful mystical art; literally bending reality to their will.

Then Rifts comes along. It changes mages from "old, wise, intelligent" to more "young, spirited, and capable" which is a much different view. Most mages don't study for decades to receive their powers by canon. Yes, some can learn from spellbooks and scrolls bought through shops and such, but on the other hand quite a few are "granted" powers and even they aren't quite sure how they received them (read, Mystic, Warlock, Ley Line Rifter, etc.). Learning the magical arts are much different in Rifts Earth, whereas in other systems magic can easily be extrapolated to a "Science" of sorts in the way it is studied and learned, in Rifts Magic is literally just Magic. It's a belief in the ability to bend reality and make it what you will, using your own body as a conduit/battery for the power necessary to make the impossible possible.

In Rifts I used to veiw things such as Ley Line Walkers as these old super intelligent men of magic, and quickly found that to be completely untrue. For example, look at the Rift Runner in Black Market. It's a specialized LLW that uses his powers to smuggle and steal things. Now nothing says the character DOESN'T need to be old and intelligent, but I can't picture Gandalf deciding to rob Bilbo blind and on the other hand, nothing says they can't be young and spry either. Rifts magic can be as easy or as difficult to learn as you want it really (extrapolated from the "you just need to truly believe" text). Rifts Practitioners of Magic are what I would call Gritty Men of Magic. Yes, they have magic, and yes they are generally intelligent in some form, however, a Rifts styled mage would totally use a laser rifle to take out his aggressor, and (working through the "it messes with magic" penalty) would wear environmental armor of some kind, using technology to supplement themselves to handle what magic either CAN'T, or what they just don't want to waste their magic doing.

I mean, pretending I'm a PoM who can bend reality to my will...and I'm hungry...I'm not going to use my magic and drain my energy just to get a bite to eat. I'll go hunt or buy some food or something. It would almost seem like a disgrace to the power to call upon it for every little thing.

Tl;DR Rifts has a dark feel to it, mages can be anybody, and will use tech because Rifts Mages are not the sterotypical Man of Magic and Mystery as presented by current pop culture.

"That man looks nothing like a mage."
"Which is why I believe he IS a mage."
"He's a vagrant!"
"Yes, he's trying TOO HARD to look like a vagrant, that is why I suspect he is really a mage."

Thanks everybody for showing why Tolkeen losted, magic is weak

Gryphon wrote:

GenThunderfist said: Rifts has a dark feel to it, mages can be anybody, and will use tech because Rifts Mages are not the sterotypical Man of Magic and Mystery as presented by current pop culture.

Then why is it that every time we see art showing a mage, they all look like mages?

In fact, Rifts mages are clearly different from Gandalf, Raistlin, Fizban, Elminster or similar. But they are also just as clearly spell casters of some sort, seen just by looking at them. Do they wear MDC armor made out of modern materials. Yes, sometimes, in fact, considering how easy it is to get, and cheap by comparison, many do wear armor of modern materials, but apparently also wear a very specific style of this armor that clearly makes them as spell casters. Many also wear armor made of non-modern materials, or wear no armor at all, relying on their magic and gear to protect them.

Do they use modern weapons too? Well, yes, again, many do. And many will prefer T.W. weapons. And still others will prefer to use some other alternative instead. But pretty much all of them will "look like a mage" while doing it, according to the imagery we have of their world.

And honestly, if they are going to go through the trouble of wearing armor that sets them a bit apart, and using gear that sets them equally apart, then many of them, especially after they can a few levels, are going to eschew the use of technology if only because they can. Some won't of course, I have a LLW that dresses like the books, breather and goggles face mask, cloak, arcane symbology, the works. He still carries an NG-57, because yo never know when it will come in handy. He also went through at least a dozen fights where he never even recalled he had it, because his magic, at fifth to seventh level, was sufficient, and that made him very, very proud. Not all mages have to be played like this, but for every PC mage that opts to dress up in identical gear to that of his Men at Arms traveling companions to blend in, the books will tend to have 10+ who aren't willing to forgo the opportunity to flaunt their magic power.

Those mages are "normal" in Rifts: Earth, not someone who disappears into a crowd. That sort is unusual, even if they are entirely legitimate, or even excusable for it.

Since when does the art of a character become the only way the character should be portrayed? You ask an artist 'draw me a mage' and he draws you what he thinks of for a mage, one individual perspective out of many. It's certainly not the end-all and be-all of the character (if it were it would get boring quickly if you could only play it so 2-dimensionally).

Gryphon wrote:

GenThunderfist said: Rifts has a dark feel to it, mages can be anybody, and will use tech because Rifts Mages are not the sterotypical Man of Magic and Mystery as presented by current pop culture.

Then why is it that every time we see art showing a mage, they all look like mages?

Um... how do you know that they all DO?

I mean, RUE 267 shows a picture of a chick with a mohawk, wearing Gladiator armor.
For all you or I know, she could be a Line Walker.
That guy on page 266, riding the Wastelander motorcycle could be a mage.
That guy on page 326, the one holding paired pistols, with a couple of rifles strapped to his back?
He could be a mage too.

But as a general rule, artists often metaphorically hang lanterns on stuff, highlighting what's going on in the picture, so that their artwork doesn't end up looking like just a bunch of guys.
That's why Psi-Stalkers are often shown without helmets in the artwork, even when they're in combat.
Not because Psi-Stalkers go into combat helmetless as a rule, but simply so that we know that we're looking at a psi-stalker.
We can tell because of the hairless head... a feature which was invented originally by artists, so that they could portray psi-stalkers as being easily identifiable. It wasn't until RUE that Psi-Stalkers actually were described as being hairless, taking the artist-invented trope and making it official.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Gryphon wrote:

GenThunderfist said: Rifts has a dark feel to it, mages can be anybody, and will use tech because Rifts Mages are not the sterotypical Man of Magic and Mystery as presented by current pop culture.

Then why is it that every time we see art showing a mage, they all look like mages?

Um... how do you know that they all DO?

I mean, RUE 267 shows a picture of a chick with a mohawk, wearing Gladiator armor.
For all you or I know, she could be a Line Walker.
That guy on page 266, riding the Wastelander motorcycle could be a mage.
That guy on page 326, the one holding paired pistols, with a couple of rifles strapped to his back?
He could be a mage too.

agreed. by definition, you won't be able to identify a mage who doesn't look like a mage by looking at a picture of that mage. after all... if you could identify them as a mage just from looking at a picture of them, that means they look like a mage, and therefore do not qualify for the category of "mage that doesn't look like a mage".

but, just as an example, let's take a walk through the RUE colour pages:

there is one entitled "An ambush by Coalition soldiers" on the 5th page (page 36 of the book). it has what certainly *appears* to be a mage, due to the yellow energy crackling between his hands and forming a purple ball. he is, however, heavily armoured. in contrast, the two people with him don't have armour, and are not demonstrating any magical ability whatsoever.

the illustration of the city of dweomer on page 38 has a number of skycycles (or something that looks very much like them) flying around the place.

the rogue scholar on page 108 looks far more like a mage than the techno-wizard on page 110. most of the psychics on page 109 also look like they could be a mage as well.

Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

Yes... I think.

Slight001 wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

Yes... I think.

Well that narrows it down

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

both, as far as I know, why would it make a difference?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

both, as far as I know, why would it make a difference?

Yes, you know a GM's style and flair, then factor in a Mage's ego and pride in their craft, something I think most on here are forgetting.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Are we talking about pc mages or NPCs mages

both, as far as I know, why would it make a difference?

Yes, you know a GM's style and flair, then factor in a Mage's ego and pride in their craft, something I think most on here are forgetting.

Ummm, no I still don't know how that plays into things. You'll have to explain what you mean. Sure, GM's have their own style and flair, but that could mean anything depending on what GM you have.

I think this is sort of like the argument in the white wolf system of "what does a vampire look like" the Answer "what ever fits the story" doesn't make some people happy, but that doesnt mean it can't be true either.

Gryphon wrote:Because 9 times out of 10 the image in question has some moderately clear connotation for its placement, either because of the book its in, or the section of a given book, or in connection with a given article of gear.

Chick on 267: Correct, she could be an LLW...except she is wearing a suit of Gladiator armor...which the setting itself tells us a mage won't be likely to do. Thus, I can infer that she isn't a LLW or caster. Whatever else she might be is still open to interpretation. Her status as a mage, really isn't.

"Isn't likely" is hardly a strict rule.
For all you know, it's a mage.
You just ASSUME that it's not, because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of a mage.
(pretty much the same with the other pics, so I won't bother addressing each one.)

AND it's that kind of preconception that fuels the art; the artists want people to know what they're looking at, so they play up the stereotypes.
Or do you really think that every Line Walker wears a beer hat and a "lobotomize me" belt...?

in fact, we know that there are mages that live in the chi-town 'burbs. now, colour me crazy, but... i imagine if there was a guy walking down the road, wearing fancy clothes covered in runes and glyphs and such, that person would probably last about a minute before they were arrested and made to disappear.

so, i think it's pretty safe to say, that not only *could* there be mages that don't advertise via their clothing that they are mages (and those colour picture sections i refer to give some examples of mages that don't look like mages), but that there in fact *are* mages that do so. and they probably aren't even all that uncommon. there are plenty of places where magic is welcome... and there are plenty more places where magic is not. any sort of travelling mage had better be prepared to hide the fact that they are a mage, because you never know when you're going to run into a CS patrol where you may have the option of either facing a full squad of CS soldiers, probably with skycycle and/or SAMAS backup within a few minute's range, or you can politely small and make it look like you agree when they warn you of the evil wizard that's been rumoured to be travelling in the area. it's your choice, of course, but most folks that want to survive will choose to not look like a mage (i've often said that 1:1 a mage vs a regular soldier is going to win... and i stand by that. this is why the CS sends out patrols in large groups. sure, you can take out 2, or 3, or 4... so they send groups of 10, with backup available, and that is why you don't want to pick a fight with a patrol unless you've seriously prepared for it, imo).

Killer Cyborg wrote:it's that kind of preconception that fuels the art; the artists want people to know what they're looking at, so they play up the stereotypes.

That's exactly what I was talking about when I was saying that Rifts Mages aren't exactly the current standard that can be found in current pop culture. Sure, I can see the fact that some mages could have a flair for the extreme, or have a have "a certain style"...however THATS not exactly what the deadly Rifts setting is putting upon the mages...only the art in order to highlight what is and is not magical. Like the Burster picture that isn't wearing any armor, or the Mind Melter that is standing in the middle of a crowd, or the various Man at Arms who refuse (for no reason) to wear helmets with their armor. It's NOT a standard to wear EBA without a helmet. It's NOT standard for a Mind Melter to walk in the middle of the armed and loaded CS and flip them off. It's NOT standard for a Burster to be half naked (like only cargo shorts and an open hawaii-tee). That's simply art to highlight the differences in people that normally can't be seen.

Yes, LLW have their own armor, but they are like one of the only...if not the only...ones that have specific armor MADE for their class; and even then nothing says "And the LLW wouldn't ever use anything OBVIOUSLY better than their suit" it's simply a starting suit...like your car...you don't just put body putty on it and call it good...eventually you would get a newer, shinier, UPGRADED, car.

Art and what actually happens within a realistic world are vastly different. Art highlights the differences that just can't be seen. Identical twins dressed in a white t-shirt and blue jeans and one's a mage? You could never tell. So art takes a different approach and throws a robe and a glowing crystal on one and BOOM! Obviously magic...nothing says they CAN"T wear blue jeans and a t-shirt...but we would never be able to tell the differences then.

GenThunderfist wrote:Yes, LLW have their own armor, but they are like one of the only...if not the only...ones that have specific armor MADE for their class; and even then nothing says "And the LLW wouldn't ever use anything OBVIOUSLY better than their suit" it's simply a starting suit...like your car...you don't just put body putty on it and call it good...eventually you would get a newer, shinier, UPGRADED, car.

Not only that, but the LLW's starting equipment simply lists:
"light MDC body armor (seldom wear heavy armor because it reduces their speed and mobility by half)"
NOT "Concealed Ley Line Walker Armor (seldom wear other armor)."

And "seldom"...?
I seldom eat at Red Lobster, but it's hardly unheard of.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

GenThunderfist wrote:Yes, LLW have their own armor, but they are like one of the only...if not the only...ones that have specific armor MADE for their class; and even then nothing says "And the LLW wouldn't ever use anything OBVIOUSLY better than their suit" it's simply a starting suit...like your car...you don't just put body putty on it and call it good...eventually you would get a newer, shinier, UPGRADED, car.

Not only that, but the LLW's starting equipment simply lists:
"light MDC body armor (seldom wear heavy armor because it reduces their speed and mobility by half)"
NOT "Concealed Ley Line Walker Armor (seldom wear other armor)."

And "seldom"...?
I seldom eat at Red Lobster, but it's hardly unheard of.

Exactly. I mean, not wearing heavy MD is one thing, if it makes sense if it limits their abilities so bad (physically). It's like me trying to pick up a car; I can try, and I might even lift it a little, but not for long, and it's not a good idea.

Furthermore that's their starting equipment, which is by no means all they will acquire during the game. If we were to go with the "standard" preconceptions of mages currently being shown - while adventuring, unless given TW armor (which is technically a "maybe" by some text), the LLW will ONLY stick to his LLW Armor, which is simply preposterous.

Not every Mage operates in coalition controlled area, I'm sure the mages in the FOM try to hide that they are mages from other mages. I'm sure a ley line walker in Alaska is worried about hiding the fact he is a Mage or hiding from the coalition

I know my players and most would question the player's manhood and why you going be a Mage when you playing a men at arms who can cast some spells, and that is from the players who play the men at arms classes and half of are females,so that is always funny, I can see the ones who play Mages just insulting that Mage as a wannabe or a "fake Mage", for making mages look weak, there that's ego and pride coming into play.

Lets remember rifts was made back in the 1990, it's now 2013 , there been alot style changes since then, if rifts came out during the steam punk craze, it's a safe bet techno-wizard would have a steam punk feel to them with sp/tw power armor.

As for the pictures
The female could be a body fixer
The guy on the bike could be a wilderness scout
The guy with all the weapons could be a vagabond

Sure a Mage in a dark room could flip the switch and turn on the lights or cast a globe of daylight, just because your Mage does things different doesn't mean every Mage do the everything the same way as your Mage, heck the other mages might look at you as strange and not the good strange , the uncle who will touch you in your special areas if you are lefted alone with him strange.

notafraid2die wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Sure a Mage in a dark room could flip the switch and turn on the lights or cast a globe of daylight, just because your Mage does things different doesn't mean every Mage do the everything the same way as your Mage, heck the other mages might look at you as strange and not the good strange , the uncle who will touch you in your special areas if you are lefted alone with him strange.

huh????

I'm pretty sure mages don't judge each other by their appearance, rather by their ability. I could run around in my underwear, but if I was a powerful enough mage, I would have the respect of my peers, at least for that.

Yes, you would powerful and strange Mage and they would still keep the kids away from you.

I have never agreed with mages 'eschewing' technology. For example I played a Battle Magus who got to take Pilot Hover instead of Horsemanship; his specialty was sabotaging or stealing CS vehicles (imagine what a well-placed fusion block on a timer, combined with the Seal spell, can do to a fully-equipped, flying transport). I managed to negotiate with the GM for the trade.

On the other hand, given the 'traditions' of studious mages, there was something that occurred to me. Namely, the study portion.

Think about it. You have a mage, sitting there in his chair, poring over ancient tomes, making notes, and muttering ancient words of power. Said mage is surrounded by candles, maybe a torch on the wall, incense burning in a brazier, toxic chemicals (like mercury and arsenic) bubbling away in alembics and misc glasswares.

Given these surroundings, is it safe to assume that the mage suffers from eyestrain from the candles, a bit of oxygen deprivation from the incense, and probably as high as a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide from the fumes?

Given all of this, what would the difference in study progress be for a mage who ditches the candles, replacing them with a couple of 60 watt bulbs, and adds in a ventilator fan? That's it. The only differences.

Oh god...the descriptions above of mages dressing to expected stereotypes and the misunderstandings that could arise..."


"You're a fruitcake aren't you?"
"What? What makes you say that?"
"The way you dress."
"What?! I'd have you know this is the uniform of the Sacred Order of the Invisible Eye! A very RESPECTED order of mages!"
"Not very invisible are you?"
"RESPECTED, I tell you~! TRADITIONAL!"
"Are they all fruitcakes too?"
"NO!"
"So...it's an all-male society then?"
"What are you implying?!"
"Darrel, everybody knows Sam here is a Luddite."
"WHAT?!"
"Com'on, the most advanced thing you have on you is a wristwatch and that's spring-wound."
"I AM NOT A LUDDITE!"
"Then you're a fruitcake, because only Luddites or fruitcakes dress like that...or..."
(Sam goes Sorcerous Fury and beats Darrel to a pulp with the latter's own cybernetic leg)

As for dress, I am currently playing a techno-wizard. He wears a TW modified suit of the old Glitter Boy Pilot's Suit, which doubloes as highly durable mechanic's overalls. 25 MDC, non-environmental. I always felt that the whole leather jacket WWII pilot thing was overrated and ridiculous, which is directly in conflict with the 'high fashion' theme presented in both RMB and RUE.

It gets a bit worrisome at times when some of these absolutes are tossed about, the only way they could be absolutes is if the magic class caused insanities in all those taught the class because the OCC would have to be delusional and obsessed to have all members behave in a particular fashion whether it be 'never uses technology' or 'always dresses this way'.

if the exceptions to the rule are frequent, are they really exceptions to a rule any more? i mean, if, say, 25% of all wizards don't care about dressing in robes, is that really so uncommon as to be suspect when people play a mage that doesn't care about robes?

and, more to the point, if basically 100% of the mages in the setting are presumed to begin the game owning MDC armour and MD technological weapons and vehicles... is there really *any* justification to claim that mistrust and hatred of technology was ever the rule in the first place, for rifts?

personally, when i look at magic, yes, it's my first choice for a weapon... but i hate to use it for something so inelegant as dealing damage. i carry technological weapons because for something so frankly irrelevant as dealing damage, i'm not going to waste my energy when i could use it on something important... like turning an enemy to my side of the fight, or trapping a group of enemies someplace where they'll be stuck with a bad choice if they decide to keep fighting, or using a spell to completely negate a group of enemies' attacks.

what kind of fool mage would throw away all their PPE on fire bolt when they could use it to much more devastating effect if they were to throw a simple magic net at their enemy, and neutralize them in a single shot? (without damaging their armour, no less: more loot = more money = more spells). why would you blow all your PPE trying to keep armour of ithan active all day when you could wear some simple tech armour and use armour of ithan or impervious to energy or some other defensive spell when needed, which you generally won't find out until after shots are fired (it is generally considered to be a bad way to find out that you need armour if you find out by getting shot without your armour).

from my mage's perspective, it is better to save PPE for the important things that can't be done with the use of single-purpose devices. if i am shooting someone, i am going to choose to use the tool for the job that leaves me the most options later. i can use magic to recharge my e-clip. i cannot use my e-clip to recharge my magic.