Notations Upon The Will to Power

[LightlyFrosted]

Greetings, gentle reader.

This is no record of my personal affairs; such, if they may be safely disclosed at all, shall find lodgings in a different tome indeed.  For years, I have lived the life of a warring mage, attempting to inflict upon the world that which I believe to be right and good, and all of that is, barring specific examples drawn from those anecdotes, wholly irrelevant to what I would contain within this tome.  Indeed, I rather prefer to believe that this work shall be received in the manner to which I intend it to be written; as a philosophical work, with annotations for any who desire that which the title promises.

I hesitate to leave out a warning to those that found this work and intend to seek within it some kind of mighty arcane strength or warrior's insight.  While such may be derived from proper application of that which shall unfold should you choose to take my words to heart, the true gift that I seek to impart here is knowledge.  It cannot be stolen, unmade, or undone; once you possess it, knowledge is a treasure yours until the end of your days.  Like a fire, this knowledge illuminates all the more for being spread.

I hope that there will be some that find useful that which I now impart.

If not, a pox on thee, and thy illiterate ways.

T. Keel.

[LightlyFrosted]

Lesson the First: Upon the Forms of Power, and Their Comparative Desirability

Perhaps most notable about power is that for all that it is discussed, there is little agreement upon what it truly is.  I say here that power has many faces, each of some worth, but that there is a hierarchy of desirability of power, determined both by merit and possessibility.

Primus: That power which is as result of inherent gift of nature and cultural upbringing.  Perhaps truly two separate forms of power, this encompasses both the traits that a race has, and the traits that a people share.  An elf, for instance, is likely to possess the longevity of his kind through no particular merit of his own, barring unfortunate events cutting short this signature elven trait.  That he speaks the elven tongue, is proficient with the weapons that most - if not all - elves are, and knows the conventions of elven culture are not inherent traits, but neither are they unique to him; these are the results of his education by elves in the way of being an elf.

The first sub-category, on the other hand, is an entirely different tale.  An elf's longevity, comparative nimbleness (on average), and natural observant nature are an intrinsic part of elvenness.  A halfling is short, an elf is long-lived, and a dwarf is tough.  Though these contrast with the halfling's predilection for pies, elven weapon training, or dwarven beard fetish, they are both sub-categories inherently traits - some might say powers, dependent upon the context - of these races.  They are traits resulting not from individual achievement, but rather the individual's position as a product of the race and society to which he or she belongs.

Secondus:  Nature is a secondary trait, both inherently less complex and more personal than the social and biological traits that occupy the primary slot.  How strong, tough, nimble, quick-witted, willful, or personable an individual is (at least in comparison to others of his or her race) is a set of traits unique to them; it is therefore inherently more personal than those traits possessed by entire cultures.  However, although these are the building-blocks of power, they are in some regards, no more the result of individual merit than are the cultural and racial traits.  Although deliberate focus may inform the improvement of any given natural trait, natural traits are most often the result of environment as much as deliberate practice.  A man who grows up strapped to a plow is, although no master of his own destiny, likely stronger than the man who by no more fault of his own, coddled and cushioned from the world's ravages.

Tertius:  Ability.  It is here that the core inherent power of an individual appears.  Be it knowledge gained, skill acquired, tricks mastered, or piety rewarded, it is all within the realm of deliberately sought and achieved by merit ability.  While the more cynical may claim that the most important ability is that of 'not dying', and that the man who grows up on a farm is gaining ability as a farmer through no will of his own, I put forward that improvements in ability stem from desire; the will to power.  As a result, any power that stems from ability, be it skill with blade, al'noth manipulation, or the capacity to bypass an impediment is an inherently personal and irrevocably individual power.

Those that gain in ability do not lose it - or are, at the least, unlikely to barring extreme ill-fortune.  Moreover, ability may begin as the result of environment, but can only be fostered and grown through deliberate desire to do so; if you wish to gain ability in a skill, you must practice it.  Being so personal, it also holds some of the capacity to influence all other forms of power, both above and below it.

Quartus: Confederacy, although beginning the steps removed from the individual, is nevertheless a result of the individual nature, and therefore possesses the fourth slot in favour of those facets of power possessing the fifth and sixth.  Confederacy, simply put, is 'not what you know, but who you know.'  With powerful allies, individual power seems less significant, although it may hold import still as I shall elaborate upon.  The ability to acquire comrades is an important one, though, and another term for confederacy in this context could be 'net-working'.  (So named for the necessarily interlaced lines of rope within a net.)

Confederacy, unlike Status (which is described under Quinternius) is dependent upon the individual.  The allies, friends, and contacts that an individual possesses at this level respond to the individual himself rather than the role he or she fills.  More importantly, confederacy may be a by-product of ability and nature; if you spend your time aiding others, and possess the ability to do so effectively, you may find yourself ripe with allies in your own time of need.

Quintus: Status is a step removed further from Confederacy.  Where the latter exists on the field of the individual, Status instead exists on the field of the position.  A general possesses power over the troops under his command, but not because he is a praiseworthy or even necessarily capable leader, simply because he holds the rank of 'general'.  It is therefore not a form of power that can be relied upon regardless of situation; the holder of the role is able to exert power in this regard only if he or she is recognized as the holder of the role, as opposed to confederates who will (given ample reason) support the individual for being the individual.

It should be noted that Status may be attained as a result of ability, be it as reward for noble (or wicked) deeds and actions, or simply because the individual was chosen as 'the best person for the job'.  Of course, a king or lord holds only status as well, barring the divine providence they so often claim.  However, a king or lord who is overthrown may rely upon their confederates, but may not rely upon those vassals who are not also confederates.  Simply put, it's not who you are, so much as what you are.

Sextus: Possession.  The simplest and least personal form of power is not who you are, what you are capable of, or anything to do with your upbringing, but indeed is in what possessions you bear.  People speak of 'powerful merchants' - particularly in the so-called "City of Gold", where the merchants hold considerable political (Status-based) power - but indeed that power is either status based or entirely fleeting, for fortunes can change, and a rich man left a pauper.  Similarly, the difference between two equally trained soldiers differently equipped - one with copper gear and some bandages, and the other armed and armoured in magical gear, with potions - may be profound...  but only exists so long as these possessions, in no way reliant upon the individual, fall where they do.  If the well-equipped soldier is done away with, his advantage may fall to his poorly-equipped counterpart.

Possessions may make for significant differences in expressable power, but in the end they are fleeting and are only significant in how well they can be brought to bear when need requires it.  All the gold in Hempstead is of no use at all on a desert island, where what you truly desire is a potato.

[LightlyFrosted]

Having explored the forms of power, the question now arises, which form of power is most desirable?  There is much lust after possessions and relational power; how many have desired to be king?  Wars have been fought over succession, and a traveler in Vehl who does not take close care of his possessions swiftly learns that others desire them enough that for him, possessions truly are fleeting.  Similarly, while arguably a race or culture's inherent traits are signature to that race or culture's strengths and weaknesses, these traits - be they natural skill or supernatural ability - are no more attainable by any not prepossessing them than the ability of flight to we grounded folk.  Just as I am unlikely to (magic aside) sprout wings and fly, I am also unlikely to naturally possess a dwarf's fortitude or an elf's longevity.

For the reasons outlined in the first part, natural traits, such as finesse, brute strength, or having a formidable constitution are only partly within the discretion of the possessor to control.  Still, there is fair argument to be made that these traits represent raw potential within a person.  If this potential is realized - if, as one of my teachers stated, you grow the fruit of skill upon the tree of your talent - this could well be said to be one of the most potent facets of an individual's power.

However, potential if unrealized, is both wasteful and lacking in actual power.  A genius who does nothing with his or her intellect is not especially powerful; a genius who uncovers the secrets of a lost civilization using his or her analytical skills gains all sorts of prestige, and perhaps no small amount of temporal power.  I realize that I write upon this subject from something of a unique perspective; I am, among other things, an adventurer.  Most in my role within a civilization are self-made and bear considerable power through exceptional deeds - they are therefore exceptions to the rule.

Realized potential - and such potential is realized through the tertiary point in the preceding section, that of ability - is perhaps the most desirable.  Who you are, what you can do, those facets of you that make you yourself, these are things which cannot be stolen from you, but which set you apart from the crowd.  Moreover, through these facets you may achieve status, gather confederates, and acquire possessions by way of merit instead of fortune.  While you can do realistically little about your racial or societal traits from this level, the possibility is certainly extant; see polymorphing mages, or other shape-changers.

Why, therefore, do not more people seek ability rather than status or possessions, if the one may lead to the others?  The answer is manyfold, but there are certainly some things which have greater effect.  For one, ability is, if not invisible to passers-by, at the very least transparent, whereas possessions and respect granted are considerably more visible.  Therefore it is likely that the average passer-by might respect a man's fine robes without understanding that it is his merit that warrants them, and a man who sees a general ordering troops about may wish that power.  This is not to say that all of those that possess fine things deserve them, nor that those in positions of power have attained these by merit, but rather that the way to most consistently acquire and maintain these facets of power is by way of personal ability rather than happenstance or luck.  An heiress that inherits a vast sum of wealth may lose it, whereas a cunning merchant who makes one fortune may make another even if the initial one is lost.

The other possible reason that the manifestations of power are desired over the source of them is that it is viewed as a 'short-cut'.  A thief that steals a thousand coins from a formerly wealthy merchant has not had to acquire goods and services, nor to ply them with contacts and extensive competitive business in order to make of them a fortune; he simply took the product of that labour.  If he should lose this coin, or expend it, he may seek more elsewhere, via means similar to the first.  However, such a thief must by necessity possess a certain amount of luck, else he be found by the constabulary, or a well-defended mark, or fall prey to a trap against those that would prey upon others.

Twice now, I have mentioned luck as something which may contribute to the acquisition of power.  I did not, however, include it within the listing of forms of power, and this is for good reason.  Luck is, in a word, fickle.  It is not a strength to be plied, but rather a manifestation of seemingly divine whim, and cannot be relied upon even as much as the most transitory of possessions.  Luck is not a form of power; it is an aberration.