What are those other ways, if in your view making it rare, difficult and/or dangerous is off the table?
I'm not sure! I'd need to think about it carefully. I definitely think that a harder division between Rituals and more workhorse magic (that is, magic for combat and for minor effects like
prestidigitation) is one way to go about it. But it would need testing, because
everything needs testing before you can be sure it works.
Appreciation is a tricky thing. It requires that the value of something be clear and desirable, but game balance requires that it not be overwhelming. Weighing quantity against quality and encouraging
evaluative judgement instead of mere
calculation is hard. But that effort is clearly worthwhile, no?
Syndrome in this case was (and still is) absolutely right.
No, he absolutely was not, and if you take even a moment to spool out what he's saying his statements make no sense whatsoever. He is exploiting an equivocation fallacy to make something that sounds profound when it is not.
First, if we make the same argument using other qualities, it clearly becomes gibberish: "if all food is tasty, the no food is tasty." "If all goods is expensive, then no goods are expensive." "If everyone is happy, then no one will be happy." These all have only one relevant sense, and thus the statement is obviously ludicrous.
Second, if we nail down a single meaning of "special," it becomes just like the above statements. He is exploiting the difference between "special" meaning "unique, unlike any other, unusual, stand out" and "powerful, capable, able to do significant things."
"If everyone is unique, then no one is unique" is clearly false. Having a collection where no two members are alike does not suddenly make all of them identical, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Likewise, "if everyone is powerful, then no one is powerful" is clearly false. Having power does not automatically mean others have less power; the ability to take actions, even significant ones, does not deny others the ability to also take significant actions. It isn't a zero sum game.
It is only by exploiting the ambiguity--by conflating "has the power to do things" with "being unique"--that Syndrome can sound even remotely correct. As soon as you remove that fallacious veneer, however, his argument falls apart completely.
Disparity, along with rarity, is what makes things special; and when everything is on the same level - whatever that level may be - there is no disparity, and thus much less or no special-ness.
Nope. As I said, my thermos cup is special to me, despite being perfectly identical to every other thermos cup of its make. It is not the
disparity, but the
utility that makes it special to me.
Likewise, a rose can be incredibly special even if it is essentially identical to all other roses.
This is true of magic, and of characters, and of real-world people.
So the only way for people to be special is for them to live in a stratified society where others are forcibly kept "beneath" them? Bull feces. People can be special, appreciated, for an
enormous variety of reasons, and disparity (particularly crappy enforced disparity) doesn't ever need to be one of them. Indeed,
eliminating unnecessary disparity has helped us embrace human specialness in Western culture in a way that the enforced stratification of our forebears could not.
