View Full Version : Magocracy society: Pure Wizard or Mixed Casters
Xar Zarath
2016-12-12, 03:23 AM
So in a magical govt/society which would be better: the govt/society is made of purely Wizards or...govt/society is made up of mixed casters sorc/beguilers/etc but no wizards.
What is the playgrounders opinion?
So in a magical govt/society which would be better: the govt/society is made of purely Wizards or...govt/society is made up of mixed casters sorc/beguilers/etc but no wizards.
What is the playgrounders opinion?
Wizards benefit more heavily from being around many of their own far more than most any other caster. A wizard who claims a dead wizard's book will gain any unique spells known with relatively little effort, but more importantly they can trade spell knowledge for money or spell knowledge of equivalent value. A society based on this is going to be stronger and not just because the wizard class itself is stronger. A society where, no matter how competent or powerful you are, scads of people all around you have incredible value to provide that they'll only do if on positive or at least non-hostile terms? That's huge. Huge. That said they'd also probably be plenty welcoming to non-wizard arcanes, because their scrolls can scribe into a book as easily as anything else.
Khedrac
2016-12-12, 03:42 AM
This one depends on the people far more than their classes.
If the people in charge are jerks then it's not likely to be a good government regardless of their classes.
Next question - what do you mean by "better"?
Xar Zarath
2016-12-12, 04:21 AM
...what do you mean by "better"?
In terms of a normal society/nation. Which would you feel safer in? Better living conditions, quality of life that sort of thing? Which govt could better guarantee your interests, although these questions tend to stray into more of the Wizards characters and motivations as opposed to living under Wizard rule.
Melcar
2016-12-12, 04:27 AM
I think it might very well come down to the specific community. You might have mixed, in which it’s your power and knowledge that makes the difference and then you have the Red Wizards of Thay, who only accepts wizards, and where sorceress’ are shunned.
I would venture as a general rule, that wizards often being more scholarly might be more often than mixed or even pure sorceresses. They come across more disciplined or organized. It takes some discipline to go through many years of constant research.
In terms of a normal society/nation. Which would you feel safer in? Better living conditions, quality of life that sort of thing? Which govt could better guarantee your interests, although these questions tend to stray into more of the Wizards characters and motivations as opposed to living under Wizard rule.
In a society made up entirely of wizards or at least magic folk you can guarantee with absolute certainty that whatever else the motives, everyone else wants you alive, and thus learning spells to trade with them. Safety is a lot higher on the totem pole. In addition because people learn more spells everyone can learn an incredible variety rather a few specific good spells that everyone takes. This means more available services, and better performance on those services as everyone on that job has the best tools for it. This is why I kept talking about a competent wizard society being so powerful. Almost the entirety of the classes unique toolset is geared towards being more powerful in groups, and learning from one another. Compare that to classes which have no way of learning from each other and ask yourself what society that degree of personal power with less reliance upon your fellow citizens results in.
ZamielVanWeber
2016-12-12, 04:36 AM
The mixed one. You still have int focused broad knowledge skills with beguilers, but charisma focused sorcerers can easily sway crows without using magic and between them and UMD you can reasonably cover the critical infrastructure needed from spells.
Please note this assumes only so much optimization. If the wizards really want to have amazing diplomacy rolls I am sure they can find a way to do it; it just comes easier to sorcerers.
Coidzor
2016-12-12, 04:53 AM
Wizards are more likely to achieve a magical singularity due to the accumulation of arcane knowledge and the sheer amount of research they could do, since there would be a lot less reinventing of the wheel, and they could specialize in ever more specific areas as spheres of knowledge become mastered.
Also the most likely to stumble upon knowledge or things that cause destruction just by learning it.
Mordaedil
2016-12-12, 05:22 AM
A council of wizards with one sorcerer for the same reason as why Gandalf recommends every wizard having his own Hobbit; to keep their feet connected to the ground and their thoughts from soaring too high in the sky.
Vogie
2016-12-12, 03:42 PM
So in a magical govt/society which would be better: the govt/society is made of purely Wizards or...govt/society is made up of mixed casters sorc/beguilers/etc but no wizards.
Which would you feel safer in? Better living conditions, quality of life that sort of thing? Which govt could better guarantee your interests, although these questions tend to stray into more of the Wizards characters and motivations as opposed to living under Wizard rule.
I think the main differential between the two is something core - Wizards study into their abilities (among other things), while Sorcerers have their abilities by their bloodline.
All fluff aside, that basically breaks down to a full Meritocracy vs some sort of Caste System based on those bloodlines.
There's no way to tell which would be "better" per se, as both can have really great stories built into them. The Sorcerer/Bloodline idea has been told in many ways - Avatar/Legend of Korra universe, the drafters of Brent Weeks' Lightbringer series, Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series - where some groups are more useful in the norm of society, while others are less so, and your bloodline defines your role for the most part. There's also a series of worlds where everyone we see is some sort of magicuser - The Harry Potter universe (at least the wizarding half), the 17th Precinct, Fire Emblem - where bloodlines can matter, or not, depending on the stories.
Jama7301
2016-12-12, 03:49 PM
If those Wizards get too self-absorbed in their own study, what's helping manage the day-to-day of their jurisdiction? If they're in such a position of power, would they even care about those not on the governmental seat?
Barstro
2016-12-12, 03:57 PM
Wizards benefit more heavily from being around many of their own far more than most any other caster. A wizard who claims a dead wizard's book will gain any unique spells known with relatively little effort, but more importantly they can trade spell knowledge for money or spell knowledge of equivalent value. A society based on this is going to be stronger and not just because the wizard class itself is stronger. A society where, no matter how competent or powerful you are, scads of people all around you have incredible value to provide that they'll only do if on positive or at least non-hostile terms? That's huge. Huge.
While agreeing with everything in the first few sentences, I draw the opposite conclusion. In a world where everyone can learn from everyone else, the most powerful person is the one who learns without teaching and cuts down those that might start to become "equal". This powerful person (or inner circle, even) would eventually want to bring sorcerers, etc. into visible power so that they can maintain their secret monopoly. The powerful have proved to be all to happy to hurt society to keep their elite status.
Were I were to imagine a benevolent Magocracy, it would be a Parliament of mostly wizards and it being mostly others who act as those who carry out the whim of Parliament (civil servants, military, etc.)
If those Wizards get too self-absorbed in their own study, what's helping manage the day-to-day of their jurisdiction? If they're in such a position of power, would they even care about those not on the governmental seat?
You do realize the question posed wasn't just about who rules but the entire population of said civ right? In a society where everyone is a wizard no one can truly be considered unimportant, because the spell knowledge trade would far surpass the economic activity of any twelve non-mageocracy cities combined.
Edit: Do you REALLY think it's smart to make a target of yourself playing at tyrant in an entire society of some of the most hilariously paranoid casters in existence? You couldn't get me to accept that position for all the gold that exists or ever will exist.
Jama7301
2016-12-12, 04:03 PM
You do realize the question posed wasn't just about who rules but the entire population of said civ right? In a society where everyone is a wizard no one can truly be considered unimportant, because the spell knowledge trade would far surpass the economic activity of any twelve non-mageocracy cities combined.
Edit: Do you REALLY think it's smart to make a target of yourself playing at tyrant in an entire society of some of the most hilariously paranoid casters in existence? You couldn't get me to accept that position for all the gold that exists or ever will exist.
No, i didn't realize becaue I misread the question.
I was operating under the assumption "If you were a commoner, which sort of governance would you prefer".
My bad.
No, i didn't realize becaue I misread the question.
I was operating under the assumption "If you were a commoner, which sort of governance would you prefer".
My bad.
Eh it happens. I'd also still take the wizards as a commoner. Most of the good post scarcity and comfort spells aren't exactly common picks on limited spells known lists, and the people wish to protect the society at large being more effective is a good thing. Not to mention non-wizard arcanes have even less reason to care about commoners than wizard. Given time you can train anyone who isn't thick as a brick at least basic wizardry and thus give them advancement opportunities even as you make them more efficient labor/cheap spell seller. The same cannot be said of powers hereditary or completely random/out of any real control.
John Longarrow
2016-12-12, 05:50 PM
Um.. Neither?
For a government to work it must provide services that the people need. Most spell casters become powers onto themselves and often have little need for "Government". Most people would want a government to help protect them FROM spell casters. Trying to get either group to work together is problematic since single individuals with great personal power and limited morals can become a massive problem. As such neither group normally would be stable unless there is an outside (read non-caster) pressure within society to bind them together.
While Ryu does post a good reason for wizards to band together, there is the downside that who ever is most able to create new spells or to control spell availability become inordinately powerful. They would dominate society in the same way wealthy individuals do modern society. Just like the wealthy of today they to would guard their elite status with jealousy ferocity.
Um.. Neither?
For a government to work it must provide services that the people need. Most spell casters become powers onto themselves and often have little need for "Government". Most people would want a government to help protect them FROM spell casters. Trying to get either group to work together is problematic since single individuals with great personal power and limited morals can become a massive problem. As such neither group normally would be stable unless there is an outside (read non-caster) pressure within society to bind them together.
While Ryu does post a good reason for wizards to band together, there is the downside that who ever is most able to create new spells or to control spell availability become inordinately powerful. They would dominate society in the same way wealthy individuals do modern society. Just like the wealthy of today they to would guard their elite status with jealousy ferocity.
Eh if we stop and consider that the best non-caster society is basically barely a step above third world, and debatably worse as actual third world countries generally don't have to worry about magical problems like the dead rising from the earth consume and propagate through the living, and that wizard society is post scarcity? There comes a point where I'd just rather be the poor man in a 1st (0th?) world country than a rich man in what can charitably be called the third world. In fact I'd probably take being a pet hummingbird in wizard land over being a commoner literally anywhere else especially with no casters for protection.
Bucky
2016-12-12, 06:42 PM
The mixed society gets archivists and artificers, right?
Chulehdoido
2016-12-12, 06:44 PM
Pure Lawful Sorcerers. They have better social skills than wizards. They can be Leader, king, diplomancer easier.
Why Magocracy need wizards? Sorcerers can have a Tower of the Rings!!
Tower of the Rings are sets of theurgy rings(Comp Arcane pg146), giving access to all spells for the sorcerer, similar to the mage of the arcane order.
Theurgy Rings gives access to cleric spells / Wizard / Druids / Bards to Tower leaders.
Summons / Ice Assassins / Simulacruns / Minions refills the rings.
Black Ethergaunt = Wizard Spells Acess
Planetar = Cleric Spells Acess
Abeil Queen = Druid Spells acess
Sorcery Magocracy is Overpower.
The mixed society gets archivists and artificers, right?
From the framing of the question I was assuming straight up arcane without spell lists non-arcane?
Edit: And it's starting again! Get your popcorn.
Chulehdoido
2016-12-12, 06:58 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b3/07/d1/b307d1652815ffc03cbcdfa42e730d51.jpg
LordOfCain
2016-12-12, 07:01 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b3/07/d1/b307d1652815ffc03cbcdfa42e730d51.jpg
That is a very definitive answer to this question...
Chulehdoido
2016-12-12, 07:07 PM
That is a very definitive answer to this question...
I've answered before. :redcloak:
John Longarrow
2016-12-12, 07:54 PM
Eh if we stop and consider that the best non-caster society is basically barely a step above third world, and debatably worse as actual third world countries generally don't have to worry about magical problems like the dead rising from the earth consume and propagate through the living, and that wizard society is post scarcity? There comes a point where I'd just rather be the poor man in a 1st (0th?) world country than a rich man in what can charitably be called the third world. In fact I'd probably take being a pet hummingbird in wizard land over being a commoner literally anywhere else especially with no casters for protection.
OR a bio-battery in the machine utopia of the matrix?
Luccan
2016-12-12, 07:56 PM
Edit: And it's starting again! Get your popcorn.
I fear I may have summoned him from the ether with a post I made a month ago. Now he pops up whenever someone says the "S" word
OR a bio-battery in the machine utopia of the matrix?
I mean are you saying magical matrix style life in a utopian setting with post scarcity, safety, and the freedom to make relevant decisions for myself in a world so real I can't even tell it's not real? What part of that deal isn't completely and utterly sweet? You'd be no more knowably shackled than you are now with a much more enjoyable, longer life.
John Longarrow
2016-12-12, 08:04 PM
I mean are you saying magical matrix style life in a utopian setting with post scarcity, safety, and the freedom to make relevant decisions for myself in a world so real I can't even tell it's not real? What part of that deal isn't completely and utterly sweet? You'd be no more knowably shackled than you are now with a much more enjoyable, longer life.
Assuming you failed your will save.. possibly on purpose..
Access to magic does not change basic human nature. It is the reason we don't live in a post scarcity world now. Its why so many nations fail to protect their people or their people's freedoms. Access to magic would only enhance those aspects of society we least like.
Unless someone just mind rapes everyone into being nice to each other... Free will is soo over rated. :D
Assuming you failed your will save.. possibly on purpose..
Access to magic does not change basic human nature. It is the reason we don't live in a post scarcity world now. Its why so many nations fail to protect their people or their people's freedoms. Access to magic would only enhance those aspects of society we least like.
Unless someone just mind rapes everyone into being nice to each other... Free will is soo over rated. :D
That logic only holds if you deliberately ignore the pattern of history where we continually get more efficient ways of doing things in general, thus have less work, and more stuff, and even more TYPES of stuff. To anyone who genuinely believes that such things aren't a major change to society? Look up what life was like a century ago and answer me honestly you wouldn't vastly prefer to live in the now.
Luccan
2016-12-12, 08:11 PM
For even regular people, I would say "learned" casters, in this case Wizards, are better, if only based on potential. A wizard based society isn't controlled by the essentially omnipotent system masters that well-read players are, they'll still be people and not know all their is to know about their magic system. As a result, you should be able to steal/destroy their magic powers (their books and scrolls) if necessary, although it'd be really hard.
Also, in The Matrix, people were living in a perfect simulation of the real world, with it's ups and downs. The heroes wanted everybody to live in the world that didn't have a sun and probably didn't have the resources to take care of all the people in the machines. I'd probably take the simulation at that point.
For even regular people, I would say "learned" casters, in this case Wizards, are better, if only based on potential. A wizard based society isn't controlled by the essentially omnipotent system masters that well-read players are, they'll still be people and not know all their is to know about their magic system. As a result, you should be able to steal/destroy their magic powers (their books and scrolls) if necessary, although it'd be really hard.
Also, in The Matrix, people were living in a perfect simulation of the real world, with it's ups and downs. The heroes wanted everybody to live in the world that didn't have a sun and probably didn't have the resources to take care of all the people in the machines. I'd probably take the simulation at that point.
And if you'll remember the matrix we see in the movies was the fifth one, wherein the first was literally perfect utopia the idiot humans turned down out of some deranged fear of comfort and longevity. Seriously. Matrix version 1 is my ideal version of reality. Infinite paradise to use a body I don't even know exists for some unknown and highly illogical task? Gimme.
John Longarrow
2016-12-12, 10:09 PM
And if you'll remember the matrix we see in the movies was the fifth one, wherein the first was literally perfect utopia the idiot humans turned down out of some deranged fear of comfort and longevity. Seriously. Matrix version 1 is my ideal version of reality. Infinite paradise to use a body I don't even know exists for some unknown and highly illogical task? Gimme.
And the majority of humanity will still fall to baser instinct. True, in some parts of the world people have much more than at any previous time in history. This does include new and inventive ways to destroy each other. Human nature is not one to take comfort well as history shows time and again. Seldom has man been so effective at killing himself.
If your utopia does not include some major change to human nature it won't last. History shows us this time and again.
Coidzor
2016-12-13, 12:36 AM
And the majority of humanity will still fall to baser instinct. True, in some parts of the world people have much more than at any previous time in history. This does include new and inventive ways to destroy each other. Human nature is not one to take comfort well as history shows time and again. Seldom has man been so effective at killing himself.
If your utopia does not include some major change to human nature it won't last. History shows us this time and again.
I believe it should be taken as a given that since either form of society can take measures to prevent someone going all Darth Bane on them, they have. Otherwise it's not very interesting of a question.
Now, how effective the measures might be, that could be an interesting thing to explore.
Xar Zarath
2016-12-13, 07:48 AM
The mixed society gets archivists and artificers, right?
Well, when I stated mixed casters artificers and the like were implied. Don't see why others didn't pick up on it. But in keeping with the thread, no divine casters or divine magic using classes.
That would technically be theocratic in nature and we're just discussing magocratic (mage/arcane) society.
Lord of Monies
2016-12-13, 08:31 AM
Getting mixed casters to work together is going to be a very difficult feat for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being cultural differences. As previously touched on, wizards gain their power from study while sorcerors inherit it, so to speak, which immediately creates a divide that makes one dislike the other for how the gained their power. "You uneducated simpleton" "You pompous nerd". Other types of caster are likely to either be looked down on for having a limited scope or progression, or seen with even greater jealousy and derision due to how much more power they have (the artificer is a cheater cuz he can do everything we can before we know how to).
You can get around this by having different types of caster keep to their own smaller departments like in a real government. Diviners are assigned to the intelligence network, illusionists have entertainment, transmuters could be associated with infrastructure, and that's just if we only consider schools of magic and not the caster types themselves.
A very real concern is how are we deciding who specifically makes up the top brass of government. A Magocratic society only tells us the profession of our rulers. Did we elect them? Are we dictated by a single archmage, which in turn implies that only the most powerful caster has the right of rule? Does this mean someone can assassinate the Archmage Supreme and the position is legally theirs? Maybe we are a communist state that has the advantage of allowing any fledgling caster the disposable income they need to advance, but all progression grinds to a halt when they hit that glass ceiling.
In all cases, unchecked power will inevitably lead to a kind of domination over the people, so to keep an eye on the original question it might be better to have mixed casters as internal squabbling and one-upmanship is an imperfect yet potentially effective method of keeping them all in line.
Barstro
2016-12-13, 09:40 AM
In all cases, unchecked power will inevitably lead to a kind of domination over the people,
Meanwhile, checked power leads to backroom deals and absolute power held in secret.
I think the main way for a society made up of all these being with potentially godlike power is for true transparency. Parliament with representation by both wizards and sorcerers, strictly enforced truth fields throughout the inner city, and some sort of detriment to being a leader.
There must be reasons in place for everyone to completely trust those in charge.
Lord of Monies
2016-12-13, 10:03 AM
Meanwhile, checked power leads to backroom deals and absolute power held in secret.
I think the main way for a society made up of all these being with potentially godlike power is for true transparency. Parliament with representation by both wizards and sorcerers, strictly enforced truth fields throughout the inner city, and some sort of detriment to being a leader.
There must be reasons in place for everyone to completely trust those in charge.
This would be a wonderful thing which will also easily lead to backroom deals and secret meetings. Rarely does truth magic actually drag the truth out of you, so it would have about as much effect as if it were placed on our current politicians who play with half truths and diversionary wordplay. Mind probes would be effective, but then you have a civil liberties suit on your hand if the entire cabinet needs to put their professional and private life on the record in the name of public security.
Barstro
2016-12-13, 10:17 AM
This would be a wonderful thing which will also easily lead to backroom deals and secret meetings. Rarely does truth magic actually drag the truth out of you, so it would have about as much effect as if it were placed on our current politicians who play with half truths and diversionary wordplay. Mind probes would be effective, but then you have a civil liberties suit on your hand if the entire cabinet needs to put their professional and private life on the record in the name of public security.
1) Problem with half-truths is that nobody knows which part is the truth and people evade questions. I assume (shame on me) a Parliament where people know the correct questions to ask.
2) It's not a violation of civil liberties if you have to give something up in order to accept position.
Only people with something to hide are against their own true transparency. I, for instance, would never accept true transparency.
Keral
2016-12-13, 12:17 PM
If those Wizards get too self-absorbed in their own study, what's helping manage the day-to-day of their jurisdiction? If they're in such a position of power, would they even care about those not on the governmental seat?
That's a valid point, I believe.
Anyhow, it may or may not be useful to know, but the campaign I created the main government body, so to speak, is a magocracy. I decided to go the pure wizard way, both because It would have been too complex for my purpose to have it otherwise, and because the main alternative (sorcerers) are frowned upon in my setting.
As for what is managing day to day administration, I used a system of city-states under the rule of the wizards. Sort of a federation, tho I call it a protectorate. So basically each city rules itself, with various government types, each with its own laws. However some laws are equal for all and enforced by the wizards.
Now, in the specific, I'd still go for wizards, or rather, non spontaneous casters. I don't know how big this society would be or how many people you'd need to run it. But if you're using wizards you can always find people and teach them, if you're using sorcerers that becomes kinda hard, I think.
Sheogoroth
2016-12-13, 01:04 PM
I would expect a Caste society with Wizards at the top, heavily restricting the instruction of magic to the lower castes.
Coming in 2nd place, I would think Clerics, paladins, and others who are not a threat to the power of the wizards, but fill a very vital role in the society(preaching wizards good is good for wizards. A full-on wizard cult would lead to an imbalance of power)
Coming in 3rd would be lesser casters(magus, warlocks, bards), and probably those who serve a function a useful function in the Wizard's society: soldiers, merchants, traders, artisans, and skilled craftsmen.
And coming in 4th would be the vast majority of peasantry, laborers, mercenaries, farmers, fishermen, sailors, etc.
And at the VERY bottom, truly an anathema to the society, distrusted and persecuted at best, killed onsite at worst would be spontaneous casters that could potentially go toe to toe with a wizard, representing the greatest threat to their power, (Sorcerers, druids, Shujenga, Psions, etc.)
Potentially put Warlocks in 4th or 5th, but it really depends on how you decide to flesh them in your campaign. Probably they would be more despised by the priest class than the wizards(who want to make the priests happy).
Raz Dazzle
2016-12-13, 01:09 PM
Getting mixed casters to work together is going to be a very difficult feat for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being cultural differences. As previously touched on, wizards gain their power from study while sorcerors inherit it, so to speak, which immediately creates a divide that makes one dislike the other for how the gained their power. "You uneducated simpleton" "You pompous nerd". Other types of caster are likely to either be looked down on for having a limited scope or progression, or seen with even greater jealousy and derision due to how much more power they have (the artificer is a cheater cuz he can do everything we can before we know how to).
Why is it ALWAYS assumed that people of different classes would act this way? Fictional medium aside, D&D characters are supposed to act like real people, not sitcom characters. Sorcerers aren't jocks who give the wizard nerds swirlies. Artificers aren't looked down on for "cheating." Assuming a basic level of maturity, a spellcaster shouldn't have an issue with how other spellcasters gain their powers. People are capable of working with people of different skill sets without issue. Some aren't, but that's not because of "cultural differences"; those are just individuals being jerks.
Luccan
2016-12-13, 08:51 PM
Why is it ALWAYS assumed that people of different classes would act this way?
Because class descriptions always contain the "and these are the people you like and the people you irrationally hate" category. Or at least that's how people read it. Honestly, unless your class has a specific reason that makes sense to be uncomfortable around people of a particular profession (LG paladins around professional thieves, for instance) those sections are kind of dumb. But if memory serves, Sorcerers are "supposed" to see wizards as weak book learners and Wizards thinks Sorcerers are idiots, so...
What is the playgrounders opinion?Depends on what kind of world you want to create.
The wizard's dependency on spell books, research, and flavor fits into a more scholarly led world that is ruled by academic standings. Public perceptions of intelligence is what matters and it's the dynamic that fuels court standings. Books could be purposely withheld or costly and specialized schools & tutors serve to widen the gap between poor students and those of a higher class of wealth which means for linguistics and idioms insults and slurs people target intelligence and poverty. Overall, because two minds are better than one they would shift towards a limited form of democracy with a minimum intellectual standard on who is allowed to vote.
On the other side of the fence, pure sorcerer worlds would favor arcane prowess. Might makes it right would be the underlying dynamic to courts with a more archaic dynasty-like world. With the right amount of cunning and insight it's possible for a low level mage to beat a higher level one, so academics in terms of strategy, feat, and spell choice would distinguish the finer differences between equal leveled mages which would also mean people that are perceived to be near equal in level rarely openly challenge another. Instead that would likely focus on shifting perceptions such as announcing their accomplishments to rise up and using racial sluts like "mudblood" to lower his opponents.
In a mixed class world diversity would keep certain things in check and force those who wish to be in power to appease others. I see lesser casters, those whom only get 4th level spells, being treated as liberal arts majors and bards are college drop outs. A beguiler may not be as impressive as a wizard, but a beguiler can get his job done. Guilds/Businesses look at spell choices or school specialization like it's your degree. Overall if it sounds like I'm paint a picture that a mix-caster world would be more like ours, I am intending to do so. Civilization became what it is because people were given the opportunity to specialize. The wizard in a more generic and theoretical blank state does appear to be stronger than a sorcerer, but a sorcerer that specializes in summoning will summon better than a wizard, a warmage that took blasting related metamagic feats will nuke better than a wizard, and is a dread necromancer better than a necromancy focused wizard? Well is Harvard better than Yale? M.D better than a D.O.? Paramedic or nurse? Maybe when it comes to the job's expectations they both perform equally well enough it just doesn't matter either through they may take pride in the method they used to get there.
Xar Zarath
2016-12-14, 01:12 AM
...snip...
Now I'm imagining a world where wizards keep sorcerers locked up as xp batteries and walking spell repertoires, draining them dry and using them up, as the wizard approved priesthood preaches about the evils of sorcery and innate magic.
Roan_Spence
2016-12-14, 09:39 AM
I think some of this dramatically depends on how you define, "better."
That's a very nebulous value judgment and unless that's nailed down, answering your question would be a bit difficult.
Xar Zarath
2016-12-15, 12:25 AM
I think some of this dramatically depends on how you define, "better."
That's a very nebulous value judgment and unless that's nailed down, answering your question would be a bit difficult.
Well I suppose first we look at what makes them a better govt for ensuring the rule of law and the betterment of society. For both wizards and mixed casters, the preferred lens by which we will view them is a democratic govt style. In your opinion, which do you think would be "better" at running a democratic govt, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
And in terms of a democratic nation, which would be better at all sectors of everyday life, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
Well I suppose first we look at what makes them a better govt for ensuring the rule of law and the betterment of society. For both wizards and mixed casters, the preferred lens by which we will view them is a democratic govt style. In your opinion, which do you think would be "better" at running a democratic govt, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
And in terms of a democratic nation, which would be better at all sectors of everyday life, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
meritocratic democracy with a heavy focus on personal freedom and the gains of trade? Wizards. Genetic power lottery would make the system even more blatantly random and unfair than it already is.
Roan_Spence
2016-12-15, 09:38 PM
Well I suppose first we look at what makes them a better govt for ensuring the rule of law and the betterment of society. For both wizards and mixed casters, the preferred lens by which we will view them is a democratic govt style. In your opinion, which do you think would be "better" at running a democratic govt, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
And in terms of a democratic nation, which would be better at all sectors of everyday life, pure wizards or mixed (arcane) casters?
What's the make up of the general population? is it all wizards or are their mixed arcane casters among the populace?
Xar Zarath
2016-12-16, 12:18 AM
What's the make up of the general population? is it all wizards or are their mixed arcane casters among the populace?
General pop for both societies is filled with experts, commoners and plain normals. For pure wizard society the only casting class available is wizards. But there are martial classes in society.
As for mixed casters society, the only casters not there is wizard. Rest of it is just mixed bag together with martial classes.
General pop for both societies is filled with experts, commoners and plain normals. For pure wizard society the only casting class available is wizards. But there are martial classes in society.
As for mixed casters society, the only casters not there is wizard. Rest of it is just mixed bag together with martial classes.
Total number of casters the same between societies? If not the mixed society might actually pull ahead with archivists, artificers, and psions in terms of raw potential ability. It'd still probably be an absolute bed of chaos due to aforementioned issues. If it is the same total number of casters and the mixed are split between all non-wizard casters evenly I'd say wizards pull ahead again due to higher proportion of powerful casters.
Xar Zarath
2016-12-16, 03:30 AM
Total number of casters the same between societies? If not the mixed society might actually pull ahead with archivists, artificers, and psions in terms of raw potential ability. It'd still probably be an absolute bed of chaos due to aforementioned issues. If it is the same total number of casters and the mixed are split between all non-wizard casters evenly I'd say wizards pull ahead again due to higher proportion of powerful casters.
Numbers are the same, lets say 200 - 300 casters on both side. Even mixed does not exceed the 200 - 300 cap. (No psions though, psionics not allowed for this thread just arcane casters)
Highest level do not exceed 20. No epics.
As for martial/melee classes, as many as you want are thrown in.
Numbers are the same, lets say 200 - 300 casters on both side. Even mixed does not exceed the 200 - 300 cap. (No psions though, psionics not allowed for this thread just arcane casters)
Highest level do not exceed 20. No epics.
As for martial/melee classes, as many as you want are thrown in.
Considering the sheer number of caster classes tier 3 and below and assuming equal help to both sides with any prestige classes? Give the raw advantage to the wizards. I just think they'd have a more stable, self supporting structure, and a lot more effectiveness due to sheer versatility. There's also the fact that, in a society where anyone can easily learn any relevant skill quickly and easily relatively speaking, no one person dying disrupts much in any sort of true long term. Not necessarily true if there's less than five people in a given class and they don't necessarily have much skill overlap. For example can you imagine just how much it would thoroughly suck if one in five of any given country's doctors were to just up and die in a single night? For a less extreme but still deeply bad situation one in five electrical workers? Society does not enjoy such fragile workforce numbers.
stanprollyright
2016-12-16, 07:12 AM
Does this all-wizard/no-wizard thing apply to the entire world, or specifically enforced within one magocratic nation?
If the former, it depends more on how you want magic to operate more than anything. Humanoid nature and power structures should be roughly the same, and there will be conflicts and methods to deal with them within any society. If magic is technically a thing anyone can learn if they are smart and dedicated enough, then it's a wizard society. If you want magic to something only "special" people can do, it's no wizards. A wizard society with a bunch of wizard schools might seem more meritocratic on the outside, but education and spell components and the idle time needed to devote to studying magic are not free, and thus a function of class; not to mention the genetic lottery of having enough smarts to become a wizard in the first place. A world with no wizards would function the same way, but with fewer "academies" and more "recruitment programs" and parental tutorship. Powerful casters that gain prominence in this society will marry and reproduce with other casters to make magical offspring. Either way, you're looking at a de facto aristocracy with a landed elite of powerful casters, and probably a single powerful archmage who leads by virtue of being the strongest caster within the aristocracy.
If the latter, then you have to ask yourself how there is a nation with all wizards or no wizards? Well, an all-wizard nation will likely have mandatory screening for magical children at a young age to get them into the school system, with other mages are labelled as heretics and renegades and probably purged violently. A no-wizard nation...has no wizard schools. Maybe paper is really expensive there.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.