Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8780691" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, based on actual history, the one who is more likely to actually take control. And the guy with the shiny sword? He's already got an army at his back because he's already in a leadership position. The guy "literally flying through the air" is certainly impressive, but impressive doesn't inspire loyalty.You act like each and every person is a homo economicus. That's just not how humans work. People do not flip on a dime simply because a shiny thing is dangled before them. There are far too many social connections in play, far too many subtle and emotional factors. Loyalty is a difficult thing to acquire and preserve, and genuine loyalty is one of the few things magic really has no control over.Not at all. Bloodline inheritance is almost always more important than specific skills. Otherwise, there would have been a LOT more, ahem, "Klingon promotions" in medieval Europe. Particularly with people like the final king of the Habsburg dynasty, Charles II of Spain.Further, there have been several instances in human history where a very talented advisor could easily have become a king (e.g. Imhotep in Egypt), or where talented individuals who failed to play to the interests of the crowd failed while others who did play to the interests of the crowd succeeded. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids--three of the four at least partially "academic" spellcasters--do not specifically develop or focus on the skills and talents necessary to play to the crowd. I would absolutely expect, for example, a charismatic Fighter to outdo the vast majority of Wizards, who have no need for charisma in their academic studies.This leaves, as noted, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards. Sorcerer is completely unreliable, as the bloodline frequently skips generations or fails to manifest for reasons never established. Warlock is a huge risk for a number of reasons, and (as argued above) one would generally expect an equitable deal, which means giving up something great in exchange for something great. Bard is the only remaining option, but...well. The culture surrounding storytellers and wandering minstrels does not lend itself to "respected leader." At all.Hence, if you're going to make this argument, you have to actually defend why spellcasting specifically would be so actively sought out, and would have such an overwhelmingly beneficial impact instead of actually relevant skills like leadership, diplomacy, and strategy.Then you are making a slippery slope argument, because you haven't actually shown how this will inevitably result in "more and more nobles being spellcasters."Perhaps it interests only a few, and their interests don't spread to their children. Perhaps their attempts to combine their lines with plausible sorcerer bloodlines fail (after all, sorcery is usually a surprise, not a family business.) Perhaps those trying to use magic get cornered and beaten down by those who don't use magic, creating a counter-tradition of "magic users shouldn't have power."I could go on. There are many different other exits from this slippery slope. You have yet to prove that this cascade of events inevitably happens.</blockquote>

Verification