Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8781343" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I genuinely 100% do not believe that anything less than 6th-7th level spells would confer a sufficient advantage to make magocracy inevitable.I am saying that an absolute magocracy, which IS definitely what the OP has presented even if that wasn't their intent, would almost guarantee oppression of non-mages. For God's sake, this happened in real societies! People have cited this exact thing in this thread! Rebellions against rulers who ceased to address the concerns of the governed. Absolute magocracy is going to cause unrest because anyone who can't use magic will be at best a second-class citizen and at worst a slave. The Servile Wars are calling, they want to know why they're being ignored, and the answer has to be "because magic will let me suppress rebellions" if it is any answer at all.No. I'm saying Good-aligned (and even most Neutral-aligned) deities would not stand for absolute magocracy, which this thread has presented as a guaranteed and inevitable state of affairs without actually defending it. "The ruling class is all, and only, mages." Even people who have explicitly said that that isn't what the thread is about immediately fall back into it, by saying (for example) that sorcerers who pop up at random pose a serious question because they are implicitly part of the magocracy, part of the ruling class, purely because they have spellcasting powers, which can only be the case if there is an exact equivalence between "X is a member of the ruling class" and "X has the ability to cast spells."Not true, but not a fight I intend to actually wage in this thread. Suffice it to say this is WAY WAY WAY more complicated than you are making it sound. Hierarchy is not the only social organization method, and even in hierarchy, the stratification need not be based on inequality.That's...not...sighHaving strata is not the same as inequality. Inequality is the OPPRESSION of lower classes by higher classes in the social order. The existence of a social order does not equal oppression.And I'm saying that absolute magocracy will, actually inevitably, lead to oppression of non-magic-using population. Because in an absolute magocracy, if you can't cast spells, you aren't a person. Not a full one anyway.People claim this "it ABSOLUTELY cannot be imitated by ANY other means" and I'm...skeptical. It is quite a big claim to say that it is 100% impossible to get the same thing done in other ways. This is part of my skepticism.That's...not...That has nothing whatsoever to do with the aristocracy becoming 100% mages nor mages supplanting and taking over the aristocracy! Now you're talking about a completely different thing altogether, which is simply the idea that magic will be employed. Of course it will! That's trivial! If you can hire a wizard, why wouldn't you? But that is COMPLETELY different from either the inevitable conquest of spellcasting aristocrats or spellcasters replacing aristocrats!This is maddening. Three times now I have tried to actually address the topic and it keeps moving.</blockquote>

Verification