Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8131608" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think what people are saying is, there are only certain permutations which really make sense. If learning magic is, relatively, easy then surely the richest people will be more likely to learn it, or teach it to their children, etc. They are also likely to want to put some controls on the whole thing such that serious magical prowess is unlikely to arise in anyone outside of themselves, or at the very least of their control. If it is hard to learn magic, OK, then maybe, perhaps, they aren't as exclusive, in that anyone who CAN learn it probably will be recruited to do so, within reason. However, again it is highly logical to assume that this is vastly most likely to take place under the patronage of, and even within the families of, the nobility (IE they are sure going to test themselves for magical aptitude before anyone else!). Given the huge potential of magic, even lower level stuff, it is hard to see how it would be otherwise. Possibly even to the degree that anyone outside of their control learning, practicing, maybe even talking about, magic would subject to persecution, even death. That would be consistent with the behavior of elites across the vast majority of human history. Now, I can see a model where wizards are not controlled by the nobility. It is one where only an immersion in an 'arcane environment', which is corrupting and toxic to most people, is required. Thus the 'swamp wizards' exist because the only place to get that exposure is out in the Forbidden Swamp, in Swamp Tower. This is possible, but of course means 'wizard' is a bit more like 'warlock' or 'sorcerer' in flavor (in editions that have those). This does however clash pretty heavily with the stock assumptions built into certain subsystems in AD&D and 3.x, which seem to indicate arcane casters are actually fairly common. Lest you think 0.5% is not 'fairly common' I must remind you that, HISTORICALLY, all the nobility of Europe, from the lowest to the highest levels, comprised significantly less than 1% of the population. In fact, medieval agriculture had a production ratio of only 1.03. That meant that for every 100 agricultural laborers, enough food was, on average, produced for 103 people. Even a moment's consideration shows how few of those could be nobles (since there are tradespeople, soldiers, clerics, etc. as well).  So 0.5% is not rare, it is actually a pretty high rate. This won't mesh with the above assumption. IMHO ANY other assumption about wizards pretty much leads to the nobility establishing a monopoly or near-monopoly on wizardry.Thus I conclude that the assumptions of, at least, games like AD&D and 3.x are incoherent with any logically consistent version of society.</blockquote>

Verification