The classic explanation is caste.
Yet as presented in the rules there's nothing to prevent a wizard from fudging the laws of caste when nobody is looking. Apart from a single sorcerer by the name of Pilif, there hasn't been a wizard seriously violating caste law when armed insurrections and coups are more numerous. This suggests to me that the laws of caste has a stronger hold over wizardry than being just hoary proclamations.
I'm hesitant to invoke spirits of retribution because that runs counter to the notion that Wizards don't get bossed around by gods. (Caste crime can still be sensed magically although that's not a strong enough deterrent IMO).
So what I think is the Malkioni have used caste in their spells to make it more effective. Thus a spell to bless swords , for example, works properly when cast on the swords of men of the warrior caste. Wizards serve the Nobles (as opposed to turning them into butlers) because many of their adminstrative and governmental magics requires a Noble's authority. I would create some explanation about the separation of powers but that may be too modern for some.
So what stops a wizard from inventing a spell that doesn't use caste? Nothing. It is my suggestion that casted spells are more effective than casteless spells (+6 if you're fanatical about observing caste like a Rokari or Brithini, +3 if you take a more relaxed approach like the Loskalmi or Safelstrans).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail