Just a couple of points.
My point was, how do we view the implications of RAW upon a setting. Sure, you can change the RAW. That's always true. But, that still ignores the question. Heavy handed or not, it doesn't address the question at hand.[/QUOTE}
I thought your point was that the current "magitech" extrapolation of the RAW was more logical than other past and possible extrapolations. If this isn't your point, then obviously I don't need to argue about it.
In order to determine what can logically be derived from the rules, first we need to determine whether "The peasants don't choose PC classes for the same reason that day laborers don't become doctors and lawyers" or "Peasants don't choose PC classes because the RAW says they don't." They are not mutually exclusive, but the first assumes that the RAW is representative of some reasoning that is not itself stated in the RAW.
But, as stated earlier, if the RAW itself is all that needs be considered, then there are a plethora of equally logical worlds because, according to the RAW, the NPCs do whatever the DM decides and, in your arguement, that doesn't have to be explained. Using the idea that what is in the RAW goes without trying to determine how the RAW fits into normal socio-economic and political behavior means that a world in which spellcasters never cast spells unless paid and spend the rest of their time acting like chickens is as "logical" as the next one.
Somehow, I don't buy that.
