Canis said:
You have yet to explain this at all. All you have said (if I understood you correctly) is that it does a poor job of emulating the development of philsophy as it occurred in this world. I can't wrap my head around the notion that this problem is unique to Eberron. Honestly, unless you can explain a) how that's different from every other setting under the sun; and b) why such parallel development would even be reasonable given the world assumptions implicit in D&D magic, then I can't even begin to imagine which games you would actually enjoy playing.
If you think this is a legitimate gripe, please explain yourself. I, for one, am curious.
The idea isn't that complicated, but it is a little obtuse. Western medieval society existed at a certian technolgical level, and had certian characteristics that we are familer with: Knights, Kings, feudalism, pesents, surfs, etc... Nisarg's argument is that when increase the technology level (even thruogh magic) many elements would cease to exists, because people's philosophical outlook changes. While I don't think He's said this spicificly, the rise of a merchantile class like the Houses in Eberron did hamper western medieval society's most distinguashed feature: fedualisim. Europe's been putting the nails into feudalism for centuries now. Russia didn't free their serfs untill Tolstoy's time. (1861) Serfs in China didn't get freed until 1949.
Feudalisim is an interesting concept. As I'm sure most people know, the king (or other sovereign) owns all the land in the kingdom and parcels it out to other nobility who manage it for him and round up troops when there's a war. D&D has never handled this concept well. Indeed, most american fantasy dosn't handel it well. Because americans come from a culture where land ownership is an integeral part of the the American Dream(TM), I think it's hard to wrap our minds around some of the finer points of feudalisim. Also, true feudalisim doesn't facilitate good game play. Why? Well, if the landlord owns all the land, they one everything in it. the own the animals, the minerals, and the surfs. (Cities were an exception, but that is neither here nor there) Thus, when adventures go exploring in a dungeon, kill the monsters and take their loot, all the loot technicaly belongs to the landlord (be it a barron, duke, lord, or king). Hunting on a noble's land to feed yourself is a no no under feudalisim.
You'll notice that there are no serfs in D&D. I've never thought to myself, "gee, you know we need to make this game more realisitic, lets add serfs!"
Many of the trapings of medieval society we think of when we think of the word medieval still existed through the Renaissance into modern times. Divine right was argued by sovereigns right up untill they were killed (some not untill after the US Constitution was signed).
Of course, history isn't a linier progression that starts with civilization in the fertial cressant to the internet. There were lots fits and starts, parallel devlopments in diffrent cultures, and false leads.
You are right in that the problem isn't unique to Eberron, but Eberron is the only one with a tech level above the prining press intergreted into the regular society. Other D&D settings assume such magic items are rare, common for adventures maybe, but not for pesents. A potion of Cure Light Wounds is what 50gp? That's more than a years wages for a pesent. Eberron assumes larger merchant class than Greyhawk does, and a more powerful one at that.
The problem with trying to figure out how magic would impact a world is that magic dosen't exist. Figuring out what kind of impact magic would have on human history is near imposible. Yes, people belived in magic then (and many do now) but because it doesn't exist, we don't how it's actual existance (as opposed to it's precived existance) affects humans. How would the ability to create a 40-foot diamiter ball of fire affect history? No one really knows.
