Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8780902" data-attributes="member: 6801228">The point is though that, since the ruling class would censor all knowledge of magic, then only the ruling class COULD access magic. Also, unlike speaking a language or reading, there are tangible benefits to knowing magic. After all, many posters have taken the position that those with magic wouldn't deign to rule, because it is so beneath them, so there must be some value in learning magic that would tempt the ruling class into using the knowledge they have consolidated. And while it is difficult to be a noble and an avid scholar MANY did so. We don't actually have many written works created by peasants before the Rennaissance. Most things were written by church authorities, nobility, or those adopted by the nobility and in their social circles. The more knowledge is restricted, the more knowledge is difficult to acquire, the more LIKELY it is that only those who have wealth and power can access it. Even if they aren't the heads of the family.Some magic, sure. But Druidic and Clerical magic is older and requires no study. It is also the most useful to burgeoning societies, even at the low levels. This is another thing we aren't really discussing, but most of the biggest effects happen from level 1 and 2 spells. That is a minor investment of time and energy, compared to reaching the heights of power. And frankly, who is going to get the bigger army? The guy with the big sword or the guy who can stave off death with a touch, feed the starving, and cure diseases? If I'm 100% selfish in my choice of who I want as a leader, I want the miracle worker, not the guy with the shiny stick.I don't think that the argument is that the Aristocracy will be EXCLUSIVELY comprised of magic-users, just that they would be the clear majority and tend to float to the top of the social order. I don't think anyone has argued that being a magic-user would make you part of the aristocracy, just like no one is arguing that being a warrior makes you part of the aristocracy. However, I think,as I stated, the idea that magic can be censored by the nobles does lead to the only access of magic being through the noble ruling class. And, here is the problem, look at the history of the Catholic church. The Catholic church was subservient to the ruling kings. They didn't hold territory, they were merely the advisors to the kings of Europe... until they started realizing that the kings needed them more than they needed the kings, and we end up with the Holy Roman Empire and the Church enforcing political power on the states, til some states broke with the church. The issue with making magic users subservient to the ruling class is that Magic = Power. And if you are more powerful than your boss, if he needs you more than you need him.... why aren't you the boss? Sure, maybe the Boss is so good, and so kind, and so well-respected that no one would ever betray them. But how often was that the case in history? If this is the logic we want to go with, that the nobles are so goodly and kind that they have never in all of history been overthrown, then we can never do corrupt noble stories, which are VERY common stories, because power tends to corrupt.None of what you are saying is countering my argument, and in fact, my ENTIRE POINT is predicated on gods with pro-social doctrines. Let's get into some nitty gritty details here, to help show my point. Torm, God of Duty, Loyalty and Righteousness. Just from his name, he is the god of doing your duty and being loyal. So he is going to be all about a well-run society where people follow the social order. What is his dogma/doctrine?Salvation through service? What greater service is there than the devout serving the state? What higher service to the state is there, than being the King who serves the needs of the people? Strive to maintain law and order? How better to maintain law and order than being the government which enforces the laws? Would you not be FAILING in your duty to Torm if you simply sat back and watched others enforcing the laws of the land? Strike against rot, kill traitors, stand alert against corruption, Question unjust laws and suggest improvements? All of these require being high in the social order. You can't be a pig farmer and deal with traitors to the country, you have no authority to do so. The seamstress in town doesn't get to question the laws or suggest improvements to them. These rules are specifically for the leadership of the country. Which comes to the only one you might be able to argue would prevent the Church of Torm from taking over. Obey your Masters. But, well, this is very vague. Firstly, it could be argued that this is more about following the social hierarchy, the peasant obeys the noble who obeys the king, but the king also has masters. Torm could be the Master of the King, as many medieval societies did place God as the highest authority. So, if Torm is the highest authority, then the King must follow Torm, and therefore they would make logical sense as a Paladin or a Cleric. It flows naturally. But, also, Torm tells his followers to strike down corruption, traitors, and rot in the government. So what happens when there is a corrupt and traitorous king? They would strike him down. And after striking him down, they aren't going to turn to society and say "we destroyed the social order, good luck with that." They are going to place themselves as the authority making sure that the people are cared for and that law and order is maintained, because THAT is their duty. And maybe they put the king's son in charge, but they are effectively ruling the country. And after a few generations... why wouldn't the royal family that is constantly watched by the church, who decides who stays in power and who doesn't not end up as high-ranking members of the church? Again, the who was the highest authority in the Church of England? The King of England. Who was the highest authority amongst the Egyptian priests? The Pharoah. Rulers were quite often in charge not just of this mortal realm, but were high-ranking authorities in the religious community. And nothing about Torm's dogma prevents this from happening, and in fact, it lays out a clear path for it happening. Pro-Social Dieties invested in making sure society functions properly would inevitably end up with their messengers and followers in highly placed positions in that society, to make sure it functions properly.And how do you prevent your neighbor from conquesting you except by being able to protect your lands? And doesn't magic make access to food and water easier? You are also STILL a capable warrior. Remember, even the lowly wizard gets 6 hp, 150% what the commoner gets. And the Bard/Cleric/Druid all get weapons, armor, and are twice as tough as the average citizen. They are all warriors. And if we absolutely need that d10 HD, then we still have Paladins and Rangers. Magic-users are not helpless in the face of the fighter, and many of them are nearly as good in raw combat as the fighter. So, they seem to have an edge on all the things that would lead to the creation of the state.And how often are the needs and concerns of the wealthy ignored? Even in your earlier examples, you mentioned making sure that people were paid properly as a major component of keeping the government stable. How much easier is it to make your voice heard when you have vast amounts of wealth? Such as access to food and water, two of the foundations of government.Okay, but every single kingdom since the formation of the Akkadian Empire has formed from taking power from existing rulers. Power always changes hands over time, unless you have built an empire that never crumbles and never faces adversity. And then three generations later, that authority is legitimate. William the Conqueror could have been a Tyrant, but that doesn't mean that his great-grandchild was inevitably a tyrant. We aren't pleading any special cases here. Also, the overthrow of the government and taking of power DOES NOT make you a tyrant. George Washington overthrew British Rule from the United States. George Washington has no historical evidence to my knowledge of being a tyrant. It is common for revolutionaries to become tyrants, but it is not inevitable.Why? In many many many times and places there was not a separation between temporal authority and ecclesiastical authority. They were one and the same. Also, the training to be an accountant to make sure the church doesn't become destitute also is different than the training to become a proselytizer. Churches are often built on the backs of many roles. Why can "leaders of the nation" not be one of the roles held by people in the church, just like accountants and paladins?And, again, if maintaining the social order is your goal, you need your people in positions to actually do that. Being outsiders to the system doesn't help you make sure the system runs properly, unless you are working under the auspicious of an authority that the system must obey... and in that case you are kind of in-charge anyways.Who cares if druid's can't wear metal armor? Lacquered wood armor and linen armor was very common in Japan, and that didn't cause the collapse of their civilization. Nor did it cause the collapse of the various Meso-American empires. Or the Pacific Islander cultures. Why is being able to wield a sword important at all? Many cultures didn't have swords. Also, I think you are misunderstanding the druid's goals. They are not instructed to avoid the creation of large urban settlments. They are instructed to avoid harming nature. Many elven cities take the approach of creating urban cities via the growth of live trees. This is no more harmful to the trees than birds or squirrels nesting in them, especially if the trees happen to be large enough. Textiles can be created as an industry without harming nature, same with leatherworking. I've seen plenty of fantasy settings where woodworking is done by "singing trees" into shape. That wouldn't cause undue harm. It would be a very different type of society, but that doesn't prevent the creation of a nation-state, aristocracy or anything else.  And, how better to preserve nature against the damage of civilization than to be in charge of that civilization and shaping it to avoid damaging nature?Fair enough, but how does this immediately cause revolt and ruin? Again, many nation-states had agreements with powerful nations and exchanged goods and services. I'm merely copying a story I've seen told many times on how a warlock pact could trivially work for a ruling family. Mostly because everyone seems to be assuming that it will be a fiendish pact where the rulers are terrible people selling the souls of their populace, and not considering the other approaches. Heck, going back to the religious angle. Maybe it is really hard to train a cleric and be a king. No where near as hard to have the King's Coronation be the acceptance of a Celestial Pact with the God to uphold their wishes in exchange for the power to rule well and long.They don't need it to take over. This is one of those things that would be tempting for a ruler to make a pact FOR. Warlocks can come from the ruling class going and making a deal, not just from peasant warlocks taking over kingdoms. Also, I'd never heard crawford's answer, but I was thinking more in terms of imagery codes or substitution codes that look like illegible gibberish, which this presumably could still help with. Besides, the "I can read all missives from any dignitary" is still really good.... And? Every three hours you take six seconds of focus and you are the equivalent of wearing a chain shirt (but better) basically whenever. In the bath? You are armored. At the wedding? You are armored. At dinner? You are armored. Also, the sleeping is an issue taken care of later, but casting it before you go to bed and being armored for eight hours while you sleep? How many assassins attack while you are sleeping because you are vulnerable? Again, this is insanely useful. The idea that it would be difficult to remember to do this is ludicrous. It is rather trivial to remember to go and do something every few hours.Edit: Didn't see that second part I moved up til later. Law of Averages man. An assassin who his hitting a target with an Ac of 10 has an easier time than hitting a target with an AC of 13. It isn't about "and I'm invincible" it is about "and I'm more likely to survive." And if you are more likely to survive, that is something that people will seek out. And the more people who have it, and are more likely to survive, then the more likely others will adopt it, because selection pressures will push them in that direction.And gaining them for free means you can train other skills. Kind of useful for someone who has so little time to do anything because ruling and being part of the ruling class demands every second of your day.It doesn't. This is something that the RULING CLASS would WANT. And thereofre they would seek out warlock pacts, and BECOME magic-users.You see absolutely no value in the ability to see what your spy sees, in real-time. I'm just going to give you one. Military Movements.So no noble would ever seek a warlock pact to gain the ability to contact the dead? Weird. I've seen these big long epics where nobles went on long journeys to the underworld to question the dead. If they would be willing to go on a multi-year quest around the globe, why not seek a fey or angel who can give them the ability in exchange for a deal?Repeating myself. These were things nobles would want, and therefore seek out deals. Not things that peasant warlocks would use to overthrow the country. You are FAR to focused on this idea of the magic-users needing to overthrow the country. That isn't the point.</blockquote>

Verification