Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8780972" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Alright. Perhaps it would be useful to go back to the start, and re-consider this whole thing from the beginning. There are a number of factors that are left unspecified, but often assumed in one way or another. So, let's turn this into a series of questions rather than answers.Does comprehensive magical knowledge form before or after the rise of political bodies/"countries" (recognizing that's a...very loose word)?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it happens before countries, then you probably need to think a lot about how magic affected it. Classes that depend on formal study or special bloodlines are unlikely to form this early unless you give a reason why they would, so informal or spiritualist traditions are more likely to take hold. Consider what, if any, effects are felt due to the beliefs and doctrines of these traditions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it happens after countries, then you need to determine whether magic is seen by the aristocracy as a tool to employ, usually through experts; as a skill to master, usually personally or through heirs/relatives; or as a threat to be controlled, usually through laws and penalties. The first and third are unlikely to result in magocratic societies, while the second makes magocracy likely but not guaranteed.</li> </ul>How much time is required to develop comprehensive magical knowledge that would have a meaningful impact on one's ability to govern? Can this be mastered at the same time as mastering the skills required for a ruler?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and cannot be learned while also learning to govern, it is unlikely that there will be a lot of intersection between the ruling class and those with magic expertise. Instead, they will take a position more like physicians, lawyers/judges, and engineers: positions that require a lot of training and knowledge, but which are largely pursued by functionaries and civil servants, not proper "ruling class" members, who have more important things to do.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and can be learned while also learning to govern, then a tension between the two skills is likely, leading to an unstable situation. Powerful magocratic leaders will be old leaders, and thus unlikely to hold onto power for a long time unless they also pursue lifespan-extension. This may lead to nefarious uses, and produce great social unrest, unless a highly dominant nigh-immortal spellcaster is able to gain a durable foothold.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it doesn't take a long time (e.g. only a few years) but cannot be learned while also learning to govern, then things are likely to result in a sort of "graduate school for rulers" situation: monarchs will want their heirs to study magic after learning the skills needed to rule, meaning there will be an interest in prolonging adult reigns at least long enough to allow heirs to master both sets of skills.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it doesn't take a long time and can be learned while learning to govern, then answers to the previous question shift more toward likely magocratic dominance. E.g., if comprehensive magical knowledge predates mass social organization ("countries"), and such knowledge can be relatively quickly acquired, and it can be a double-major alongside a bachelor's in rulership, then there's a pretty strong likelihood that magic and political power will conglomerate.</li> </ul>Are the skills/talents/bloodlines/etc. easily acquired, or are they rare and special with few being able to develop meaningful magic power?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If these things are rare, cannot be reliably passed to heirs, and/or sporadic in the population, then it's going to be a struggle to keep magic in the leadership. Heirs will be chosen more based on their personal skills, meaning magic-users are likely to be treated as important advisors/experts (analogous to "court physician" type stuff) rather than seeing magic as a prerequisite for or path toward rulership.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If these things are moderately common but somewhat unreliable, instability is likely, rather than settling into any consistent pattern. Monarchs and mages alike will struggle to ensure magocratic dominance, which may lead to either oscillations (sometimes "mundane"-ocracy, sometimes magocracy) or a meta-stable equilibrium favoring the selection of mages as co-rulers or marriage partners to ensure that magic continues to have a part even if the monarch does not have such skills personally.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If these things are common and/or reliable, then magocracy is likely simply because magic is cosmopolitan--almost everyone could theoretically become a powerful mage if they could just put in the time to get there, and as a result, the upper classes with more free time are much more likely to develop and refine such powers. Sorcerers add a wrinkle,</li> </ul>Do the gods and/or other powerful entities take an interventionist stance on these issues?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If no, then magocracies are somewhat more likely because we lack one of the plausible checks on magocratic power accumulation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If yes, then you'll need to think carefully about the ratio of different kinds of entities (e.g. deities seeking Clerics vs patrons seeking Warlocks) and the various ideologies they hold, as they could be either pro- or anti-magocratic.</li> </ul>Can ordinary (non-spellcasting) individuals create magic items or otherwise learn to "even the playing field" without becoming spellcasters?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If yes, magocratic societies become significantly harder to maintain, as it is possible to compensate against them. This will depend on the level of difficulty required for non-spellcasters to produce magic items.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If no, this again increases the likelihood of at least partially magocratic societies, because magic items are very powerful tools and people who can create them are very useful.</li> </ul>Can magic-users hold their own against mundane uprisings, or do they need to rely on non-spellcasting help in order to deal with such things?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If they can deal with these problems on their own, magocracy becomes significantly more likely, especially if magical skills are relatively common. This allows a magic-using aristocracy to deal with whatever issues come up while still consolidating their power, and without needing a population of non-magic-using lackeys that might become rebellious.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If they cannot deal with these problems without non-spellcasting retainers/servants/etc., it becomes a lot harder to achieve or maintain magocracy, due to the inherent need for a subservient non-magic-using underclass. This is nearly guaranteed to create resentment and produce at least some abusive practices from the magic-using ruling class, which will at the very least lead to instability, if not outright witch-hunting against spellcasters who have secured power.</li> </ul>-----------Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that neither "mages conquer and take over the aristocracy" nor "the aristocracy simply chooses to all become mages" is particularly more likely than unlikely, and certainly don't think either of them is some completely 100% inevitable, guaranteed thing. I have yet to see a single argument that defends how this is a completely 100% inevitable situation; people just act like it's trivially self-evident when it emphatically is not.I'm very much of the opinion that:Societies and politics predate comprehensive magical knowledge/skills in most settings;Truly mastering magical skills takes a long time (at least a decade) of dedicated study, making it incompatible with focusing on learning to be a monarch;Even for those who can learn it, most are not going to have the ability, nor the drive, to reach the upper echelons of magical power, which means many will focus their efforts in other areas;Interventionist powers, particularly good- and neutral-aligned deities, will exist and be generally opposed to dominance of spellcasters over non-spellcasters, as this is an inherently unequal and likely oppressive society which only LN and various E beings would support;Magic items can (almost) always be created by non-magic-users because that's both more folkloric, and because it's just generally more interesting, severely weakening the exclusivity afforded to spellcasting power;Magic-users cannot deal with a significant swathe of the problems facing a typical leader/administrator without relying on a very large population of non-magic-using people, meaning they must keep at least some of the aristocracy/bureaucracy staffed by influential non-spellcasters and weakening the absolute control that spellcasting could potentially acquire.As a result, for (what I consider) a typical fantastical world, magocracies face some pretty significant power gaps that they must overcome with more than just magic in order to become absolutely hegemonic. This does not mean that every world makes difficult. But it does mean that the explicitly pushed ABSOLUTE INEVITABILITY of magocratic rule is simply not correct.</blockquote>

Verification