Magocratic

[Thelandrin]

Discussion thread for Magiocratic (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Magiocratic).

Incidentally, why are we using "magiocratic" rather than "magocratic"? A quick search of Wikipedia indicates that "magocracy" is more common and it certainly rolls off the tongue more easily. This isn't a criticism - just a query.

[kgauck]

Because this way we're the number one hit on Google.

Magocratic is more common and is the D&D standard. I'm not sure whether I am using a variant or can't spell.

[Thelandrin]

I nominate you to find out then :) I'll even do the spelling corrections if you decide that "magiocratic" is in error :P

[kgauck]

I think we should conform to the spelling in the DMG, which is "magocratic".

[Thelandrin]

I love the new government template. It's great!

[Arjan]

Because this way we're the number one hit on Google.

Magocratic is more common and is the D&D standard. I'm not sure whether I am using a variant or can't spell.

SEO, your hidden talent?

http://www.google.com/search?q=magiocratic

[Thelandrin]

What does SEO mean?

Incidentally, looking at the goverment templates, shouldn't that be "whom it serves"?

[Arjan]

What does SEO mean?


Search Engine Optimization
optimizing your webpage in a way so you will get high rankings on search engines like google

[kgauck]

Actually I have done that as part of my job. I have also advised other businesses on how to do it.

[kgauck]

Incidentally, looking at the goverment templates, shouldn't that be "whom it serves"?

Only if you construct a sentence in which government is the subject and there is a prepositional phrase in which then would require "whom". No prepositional phrase, no whom, and depending on how you read it, "it" can be the subject of its on question, rather than the object of government.

[AndrewTall]

Just spent a happy half hour reading through :), I note with amusement that bureaucratic wasn't offered as an option for a primitive government...

Hmm, is rule by the serpent technically rule by ones god (deific? deiocracy?) as his people worship him? I think we can scrape by with autocracy...

[kgauck]

Bureaucracy and feudalism are so far away from each other on the spectrum of government options that there is no way they could co-exist in the game world. Both are essentially ways of dealing with the problem of having a domain too large for one person to manage, which is a baseline of some handful of provinces (two or three?) and doesn't bother with how things are handled locally. If you realistically had the choice of governing through a professional class of government workers whom you could fire at-will, who would chose to out-source government to a vassal? A choice between giving someone something, and then hoping they continue (and their heirs) act in your interest is a world apart from just having an employee who is entirely dependent on you.

So given that feudal is included, bureaucratic was not possible. And I think feudal makes more sense because it explains why as a province grows exponentially, your revenue and power grow arithmetically.

[AndrewTall]

I was thinking more along 'tribal council' sort of models, where the best hunter, best fisher, best bone carver, wisest, eldest woman, eldest man fill various 'roles' and together then lead the clan. Not the sort of 'big' bureaucracy that the term is generally applied to, but the 'governance by consensus of the worthy' model I was thinking of isn't really monarchy - particularly if the chief is just best warrior when we are fighting, best mediator when we aren't kind of system - the method works fine for small groups, but would be lousy for large province level domains - and regency.

A real ancient china form of bureaucracy doesn't really fit as you say, except possibly for the Karamhul - but then I see them as extremely pragmatic and socially oriented towards the community, making bureaucracy more natural.

Personally I'd see the elves as another 'weird' one - while BR carefully uses Feudal terms, the model doesn't really work for immortals - particularly those highly whimsical. Personally I see ruling elves as akin to herding cats, if they are heading in a specific direction (war being the obvious example) then they can be led, otherwise they mostly ignore the center and expect to be ignored in turn.

[kgauck]

That's an oligarchy.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, I'm left wondering where the cross over is to me bureaucracy is not really a system of government so much as a way of filling posts which would make it seem as relevant as any other - similarly meritocracy is just a way of choosing who gets what post, not what posts there are (plenty of elected autocrats). I guess the other methods for filling posts would be inheritance, direct appointment by the governing body, and claim+defend.

[kgauck]

The council was the oligarchy I was refering to.

When one looks at a late medieval government and imagines the kinds of things its going to do; manage money, administer its rule set, wage war, engage in diplomacy, you find that you are describing the kind of skill set for which the aristocracy is designed. Aristocracy means rule by the best. It means literally the best kinds of people, but according to the standard of running the late medieval state, they are also the best at these kinds of jobs. As one seeks to fill the offices of war, money, diplomacy, and law, one should not need to look beyond the aristocracy unless one wants to.

Meritocracy is aristocracy without titles. Both see the source of being best as coming from a combination of talent and training, but see the exact nature of innate skill and training in slightly different ways. Aristocrats believe that their way of life is the best preparation.

A bureaucracy is a meritocracy in which specialization is considered important enough that merely being generally talented is not enough, one must also have specialized preparation, often demonstrated in the form of credentials.

Cultural biases work strongly against meritocracies. Brecht ways of life will lead to a aristocracy of guilds, in which the way a good Brecht lives (and worships) produces a good guilder. Khinasi wizards likewise.

For the sake of clarity, I have used aristocracy only in the sense of being landed, to distinguish between aristocracies of land, war, and law, which I call "Aristocratic" and aristocracies of other kinds which I call "Plutocratic", "Magocratic" and "Theocratic". But these are all essentially aristocracies because the way to be best is a life style, with cultural biases and religions to back them up.

When domains are run as real unified wholes, rather than a temple domain with some law, a guild domain with a province, or a landed domain with some temples; when sterotypes of Brecht guilders, Anuirean knights, and Khinasi wizards are outdated because regional feats and skill bonuses are obsolete, then we can talk about a proper meritocracy.

[AndrewTall]

Given the differing upbringing between noble, craftsman and peasant the aristocracy is bound to be the best at rulership/war - because the other social orders have zero preparation for the social role, leadership, etc.

That doesn't mean that we (well, you as you understand it better) can't draw this out on the wiki - so the court is meritocratic, but because of the social setting the best inevitably means the nobility... The initial practical aspect then also evolving social issues which compound the problem - you can put a sow in a ballgown but it remains swine.

Of course the ruler may have a few childhood friends of relatively low social status who have significant influence, and a few rare lower social caste people (i.e. adventurers) may progress through merit, but generally the 'system failure' is that lower social castes simply never get to try and prove their merit - and given the social baggage would find it almost impossible to do so.