High Magic - High technology, historical question

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I don't really understand why xp is percieved to be such a massively limiting factor.

It's a fairly easy to replace resource and as long you manage your magic item production carefully, the benefits of magic items in gaining xp far outwiegh the disadvantages.

I really don't know that the argument that elitism slows scientific progress holds all that much water.

The vast vast majority of people alive during the scientific revolution had nothing to do with it. Aspects of the scientific revolution were devoted to exploiting them more effeciently, but they were all built to serve the elite.

Firearms prevent the elite from having to train in armor and risk their lives.

Effecient farming methods mean you have to protect and employ fewer peasants.

Factories mean you get to use wage slavery to control the abundant capitalless poor, created by the above situation, for your own wealth and gain in situations that generally discourage revolution.

The revolution itself was fueled by the increasing numbers of the elite who went into or invested in scientific research. Newton and Maxwell were both educated by the inherently aristocratic English university system and then supported by royal societies. Edison was a 'commoner' but he was also an investment for a wide variety of America's wealthy post-robber baron capitalists.

One could equally make the argument that magic would increase the liklihood of a scientific revolution because of the limited but useful nature of magical items. Look, a wizard or sorceror, it is generally agreed upon, is probably going to either be or have a relationship with the elite of his or her society. This means the wizard or sorceror is going to look for means to multiply the force of his advantages. This mage knows about magic items but finds that their production process is limiting. Wouldn't this encourage the mage to devote a portion of his or her vast intellectual or social resources to developing easily created non-magical equivalents of magical items?

I mean sure, you might be able to come up with enough lightning wands for your officers, but wouldn't it be great if you could give the men rifles or cannons so they can be useful too?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Of course, in some campaign settings, there are places already at this point. Amn in the FR is a Republic that is Mercantile in nature (though not in practice, because they don't have any overseas colonies yet)

They don't? Then what about New Amn in Maztica? Or did those colonies already declare their independence?

 

[Sixchan]

They don't? Then what about New Amn in Maztica? Or did those colonies already declare their independence?

There's a New Amn? Well, I think there's a saying about calling me Charlie, or something, that expresses surprise. If I knew what that was, I'd say that now.

 

[s/LaSH]

I don't really understand why xp is percieved to be such a massively limiting factor.

It's a fairly easy to replace resource and as long you manage your magic item production carefully, the benefits of magic items in gaining xp far outwiegh the disadvantages.

I really don't know that the argument that elitism slows scientific progress holds all that much water.

It might not, to a logical modern person, but that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about people in a pseudomedieval society. This is based upon a historical order in which you fought, you prayed or you toiled, and to break the mould was to rebel against God. And this was the enlightened civilisation that ours evolved from! Most D&D societies are pantheistic, and let's face it, historical pantheisms aren't exactly... well, the Greeks could have created devices to do their labour for them, but they decided not to because they couldn't figure out what to do with the slaves. These are people who used energy weapons, right? (The parabolic mirror system. I think. Haven't read much on this.) Their elitism wasn't reinforced by people who actually had abilities far and away in advance of anyone else (sure, they idolised the Hero, but they didn't have any wandering around their cities at the same time as their great philosophers).

I don't know how much of this carries over into fantasy cultures, but if I were in a society where everyone had their place and my place involved hurling fireballs around, I'd certainly regard the system as just and enlightened.

The vast vast majority of people alive during the scientific revolution had nothing to do with it. Aspects of the scientific revolution were devoted to exploiting them more effeciently, but they were all built to serve the elite.

Firearms prevent the elite from having to train in armor and risk their lives.

On the other hand, the elite became elite by risking their lives (or the lives of their ancestors). They're warriors - people who go out to kill stuff because it's what they do. Suddenly they're not allowed to do that anymore and they're supposed to be comfortable with that? No wonder they devolved into corrupt layabouts in our history. In a paradigm where a 10th level mage can take half a dozen musket blasts before collapsing (according to the DMG), all the while firing off mass destruction spells, I don't think this suppression is going to be as effective.

Effecient farming methods mean you have to protect and employ fewer peasants.

Factories mean you get to use wage slavery to control the abundant capitalless poor, created by the above situation, for your own wealth and gain in situations that generally discourage revolution.

Valid points, of course. Enlightened civilisation is simple selfishness - something I've been saying for years. Anyway, these are points in favour of advancement. The question is, Will the desire to have 'one meelion vassals' outweigh the desire to be strategically viable? Don't underestimate megalomania, especially in an environment designed to foster it.

The revolution itself was fueled by the increasing numbers of the elite who went into or invested in scientific research. Newton and Maxwell were both educated by the inherently aristocratic English university system and then supported by royal societies. Edison was a 'commoner' but he was also an investment for a wide variety of America's wealthy post-robber baron capitalists.

I believe Edison also farmed a large number of innovators and claimed many of their successes as his own. I'm not sure how many of those innovators were upper-class. True, without upper-class funding they'd never have come up with the lightbulb or direct current power grids (ahem), but it was lower-class innovation that did all that.

Thus arguing counter to my above points, of course. It'll probably be the little people who come up with the technologies needed to overthrow magical elite. Heh.

Your point being, perhaps, that elites inadvertently accelerate technology (thus lower-class empowerment) through their own research. It'll happen, of course, but how fast?

One could equally make the argument that magic would increase the liklihood of a scientific revolution because of the limited but useful nature of magical items. Look, a wizard or sorceror, it is generally agreed upon, is probably going to either be or have a relationship with the elite of his or her society. This means the wizard or sorceror is going to look for means to multiply the force of his advantages. This mage knows about magic items but finds that their production process is limiting. Wouldn't this encourage the mage to devote a portion of his or her vast intellectual or social resources to developing easily created non-magical equivalents of magical items?

Of course they are. Whether they tell anyone how to make them, thus invalidating their own position of influence, is another matter. Personal prestige is very important in a class system. The wizard is intelligent by definition, and might not give out the secrets of this 'technology' for a while.

Eventually it will leak out. Technological progress is inevitable, I don't think anyone can argue counter to that. But how fast it goes depends on how much the elites decide to give out, and I don't think they want to give out too much.

Oh, and near-slave labour is only a bad thing if you're not using mindless undead. Think about it.

I mean sure, you might be able to come up with enough lightning wands for your officers, but wouldn't it be great if you could give the men rifles or cannons so they can be useful too?

Not as effective, though. Not a bad idea, but the simple fact that an officer can do 5d6 down a huge line of troops and a musketeer can do, what, 2d6 (? DMG stats not to hand) to one target - that's elitism all over again.



Now to make a separate point: Dwarves (under D&D rules) seem to hate magic. Look at their racial bonuses to saves, then their industrious nature, and tell me that they're not going to be first in line for the industrial revolution. This isn't my idea, but it's a good one. A race/culture that doesn't rely so much on magic will probably be the first to break the shackles of mystic elitism.

(Break the shackles... I sound like some short revolutionary waving a burning elven flag. Heh.)

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It might not, to a logical modern person, but that's not what we're talking about.

Ah, but it is our particular modern and logical perspective enables us to better understand the pseudo-middle ages and their subsequent history far more accurately than the poor enlightenment saps who chose to ignore and misconstrue the foundations of their own world. We have only to take it up.

The class based society of the middle ages and the polytheistic - pantheistic being something present but distinct within Greek society - Greeks were two of the most dynamic societies in world history and arguably the two that contributed most to our current technical societies.

The middle ages are characterized by tremendous technical advances and achievements, not to mention fantastic new systems for preserving technology. And the class based society is a lot of what makes that possible.

And the Greeks certainly did have heroes who walked alongside their philosophers, unless you would care to characterize Alexander the Great as just another general.

On the other hand, the elite became elite by risking their lives (or the lives of their ancestors). They're warriors - people who go out to kill stuff because it's what they do. Suddenly they're not allowed to do that anymore and they're supposed to be comfortable with that? No wonder they devolved into corrupt layabouts in our history. In a paradigm where a 10th level mage can take half a dozen musket blasts before collapsing (according to the DMG), all the while firing off mass destruction spells, I don't think this suppression is going to be as effective.

Valid points, of course. Enlightened civilisation is simple selfishness - something I've been saying for years. Anyway, these are points in favour of advancement. The question is, Will the desire to have 'one meelion vassals' outweigh the desire to be strategically viable? Don't underestimate megalomania, especially in an environment designed to foster it.

The elite became the elite by virtue of a desire to rule men, fighting is only an aspect of that. The warriors work for the elite, just like the inventor works for the business man. To the elite, strategic value is everything, noone is going to want a million vassals when they could have the grovelling loyalty of a hundred princes.

I believe Edison also farmed a large number of innovators and claimed many of their successes as his own. I'm not sure how many of those innovators were upper-class. True, without upper-class funding they'd never have come up with the lightbulb or direct current power grids (ahem), but it was lower-class innovation that did all that.

Thus arguing counter to my above points, of course. It'll probably be the little people who come up with the technologies needed to overthrow magical elite. Heh.

Your point being, perhaps, that elites inadvertently accelerate technology (thus lower-class empowerment) through their own research. It'll happen, of course, but how fast?

The elites do not inadvertantly accelerate technology, they are responsible for it. Lower-class innovators are simply an additional tool in this process.

Look at the major technical powerhouses of this century and the last, America and Britain are certainly strong democracies, but they are also highly developed producers of untouchable and incredibly powerful elites.

Elites who made the clever trade of allowing the people greater power in exchange for greater service and little responsibility to society as a whole save through taxation and the ancilliary benefits of their ceaseless competition. Enabling them to harness democracy for their own ends.

Not to say that it doesn't exist for other reasons, but societies that house a dissaproving elite certainly have a hard go of it.

Eventually it will leak out. Technological progress is inevitable, I don't think anyone can argue counter to that. But how fast it goes depends on how much the elites decide to give out, and I don't think they want to give out too much.

(Break the shackles... I sound like some short revolutionary waving a burning elven flag. Heh.)

Technological progress is certainly not inevitable, it does happen, but it happens by fits and starts and in highly specific situations. Look at the technological variance in our own world for proof of this, much less that of the nineteenth century.

And one of the greatest producers of this variance is revolution, revolutionary societies are very poor innovators. Compare revolutionary France to Britain or even France well after the elite had been reinstated. Compare the United States to the Soviet Union.

My point is not that magic will or won't retard technological progress but that it has relatively equal potential to do both, as the real work for technological progress will be performed by a whole host of societal factors for whom Magic will simply be another tool. And an argument that a magically reinforced elite will retard technological progress ignores the actuall dynamics of technologies relationship to the elite and their relationship to the rest of society.

But as I said earlier, just pick a theory and run with it recognizing that there is no strong consensus on the dynamic of technology in history and that it's relevance to an actual historical scene will be just as fictional as the system of magic you create.

 

[Dreaddisease]

Thank you so much for your lively discussion. I barely got time to read this and had some comments or maybe a summary to this whole thing.

I agreed much with Dr. Strangemonkey but I felt that you tended to go towards the 'technology is inevitable' feeling. I was forced to agree on some points but not all conclusions came towards technology. I will return to this later.

Interesting that no-one brought up the royalty in all this and the striving for power. Elite vs dolts was a good point, as well as the selfishness of individuals and the progression of society through those means (Ayn Rand is ever so clever) but selfishness tends towards a relying on the abilities of yourself more on the loyalty of subjects. Thus a elitist would rather they or their small group control the outcome of conflicts rather then depend on the peasants and dolts of their society who change loyalties to suit their survival. This idea to me tends towards the retardation of technological advances and the enhancement of magical means. We must not forget that money in many cases was not a concern for most royal families (considering they raped the population of every last cent) So the comment of ROI (Return on Investent) had no bearing. As an example of royal wealth, the King of a small Arab country had (before westernizing his culture) over 100 Billion american dollars worth of liquid assets.

Often the advance of technology was related to the advancement of weapons (D&D being a battle oriented game) and I must agree that Thousands of rifles/muskets and intermixed cannons is much more powerful than a couple magic items, but that is also thousands of rifles in the hands of peasants, which can bring upon uprisings much quicker and more deadly than before. Tech was not really handed to the masses unless it was deemed harmless to the 'regime' in power. Thus most battle participants up until the 14th and 15th centuries were still considered the elite. Also magic can lead a elite part of society to depend less and less upon the peasants/farmers and merchants (Create Food and Water, Ring of Sustenance, etc...) thus alienating the two societies.

One last point, Man tends towards stability and are frustrated easily. Thus a Utopian society with no reason to become frustrated with their situation will always stay that way. You introduce disease, hard work, famine, unexplained phenomenon, weather and any hardship the society must change because of the frustation of the masses. IMHO magic sounds like an opiate that encourages stability in its use. It destroys trials, hardships and pain and promotes deception, comfort and peace.

There is much I do not understand about history plus I doubt that you can use mankinds history as a good template for a fantasy setting as variances from the beginning of time would change things drastically. Plus I would have a hard time believing that a society made up of christians, buddhists and muslims would exist where the dieties had more involvement or their powers were more present in their followers (i.e. Clerics).

I apologize for the long post, plus I must apologize for the vague question that started this post. After I posted I knew I should have explained myself a little more. I was in a very in depth discussion about Rowling's world she created with Harry Potter and some of the innate problems with the idea and how she solved them (with fairly little problem of creating the disbelief by separating the two worlds). But the question I kept on rolling over in my mind was why they were so midevil in their practices when they had all the technology of modern day (Of course the flying car thing was an exception).

Anyways, thanks for the insights.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Questioning Technology by Andrew Feenberg is a very recent and well respected look at the philosophy that deals with technology and the manner in which technology is mythologized and developed/exploited by capitalist societies. There might be less utility with regard to more or less medieval systems, but I think it could still be very useful.

Hey, I took a class from him! If his writing is anywhere near as dry as his lecturing style, I don't think I'm interested, though.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I actually like a dry lecture.

But then again, I'm also a gin drinker.

As I said, I didn't mean to sound as though I was saying technology is inevitable, so much as to point out that technological progress is possible and probably under a wide variety of conditions.