Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8133043" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sure, but it isn't far-fetched to imagine that certain choices are heavily favored, for practical, cultural, etc. reasons. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that the classes with the most raw power would rise to the top of the hierarchy. I would say that magic users (or maybe clerics) in most versions of D&amp;D fit that bill. Beyond that, while combat prowess is no doubt useful, it is only useful if you are fighting. Magic is useful in virtually all the possible range of situations. Admittedly, if you posit more harsh conditions, you might say &quot;well, but a given magic user has very limited spell resources, and there are lots of fights that leaders must participate in.&quot; This could be true, but then my experience playing all editions of D&amp;D (except 3.0) tell me that in almost all those cases magic users/wizards can pretty much hold their own, especially with the support of what would presumably be a staff of other characters (soldiers, local priests, etc.). I think, realistically, the only tenable objection to a largely magical aristocracy where full casters are the favored holders of power, is the &quot;requires too much study&quot; argument. That may be sufficient for some. Considering what I can see of history though, individuals with an academic set of accomplishments are not exactly absent from the halls of power in the world today, nor in the Middle Ages (given that education was rare back then). Were that education to result in powers such as charms, invisibility, and other highly useful magics, I would think it would only be MORE common.So, I feel like in most worlds it would be logically consistent if a pretty significant fraction of rulers were full casters, and if a pretty significant fraction of full casters were rulers too!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8133043, member: 82106"] Sure, but it isn't far-fetched to imagine that certain choices are heavily favored, for practical, cultural, etc. reasons. Nor is it far-fetched to assume that the classes with the most raw power would rise to the top of the hierarchy. I would say that magic users (or maybe clerics) in most versions of D&D fit that bill. Beyond that, while combat prowess is no doubt useful, it is only useful if you are fighting. Magic is useful in virtually all the possible range of situations. Admittedly, if you posit more harsh conditions, you might say "well, but a given magic user has very limited spell resources, and there are lots of fights that leaders must participate in." This could be true, but then my experience playing all editions of D&D (except 3.0) tell me that in almost all those cases magic users/wizards can pretty much hold their own, especially with the support of what would presumably be a staff of other characters (soldiers, local priests, etc.). I think, realistically, the only tenable objection to a largely magical aristocracy where full casters are the favored holders of power, is the "requires too much study" argument. That may be sufficient for some. Considering what I can see of history though, individuals with an academic set of accomplishments are not exactly absent from the halls of power in the world today, nor in the Middle Ages (given that education was rare back then). Were that education to result in powers such as charms, invisibility, and other highly useful magics, I would think it would only be MORE common. So, I feel like in most worlds it would be logically consistent if a pretty significant fraction of rulers were full casters, and if a pretty significant fraction of full casters were rulers too! [/QUOTE]

Verification