Let's play a game: Save the Ancients!

[LilimoLimomo]

...what? Multiple NPCs comment on the extent of Hermes' ability. He's actively called a genius at points, his knowledge and talent are remarked upon by his compeers as being unmatched, and he's considered the foremost expert and leading authority within his field.

I get the impression you're misunderstanding me, because I explicitly called out that that Hermes was renowned in his field of study. Where I think we are failing to communicate properly is that being a world-class biologist isn't the same thing as being a world-class mage. If my memory serves, there is no time when anyone comments on Hermes' having impressive magical or creation-based abilities. I am committed to the truth above all else, so if you can provide solid evidence that proves the contrary, I will change my position.

trying to prop up the notion that simply anyone can be elected purely because Hythlodaeus is ridiculously self-deprecating is hilariously off-base and smacks more than a little of bad faith

Again, you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that just anyone can be elected. I'm saying that if Hythlodaeus was qualified to be in Convocation, then that makes it clear that things like magical ability are in no way expected of Convocation members. Hythlodaeus is incredibly knowledgeable and his gift of sight is greater than even Hades', but he's a sub-par mage. We see evidence of this in Hyperboreia when he takes action in order to thwart a serious problem, and concedes that the best way he can be helpful in combat is to shoot arrows because he can see target's weak points. In this moment, we are given evidence that Hythlodaeus is not merely being self-deprecating, but that he is being honest about his limitations. All of which leads up to the singular conclusion that we cannot make the assumption that being on the Convocation requires strength, because if it did then Hythlodaeus would not have been offered a seat.

If you disagree with the conclusions I'm coming to, that's fair. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't aim accusations at me. If I'm wrong, I want to know how so I can correct my position and not be wrong. That's the whole reason I read your counterarguments, so that I can test the stability of my own understanding. So if you disagree, I hope you'll focus all your energies on providing accessible counterarguments. I get the impression that we may have interpreted the text in different ways, so it might help to provide some citations with sources if there are specific examples that would demonstrate ways in which I'm wrong. No pressure, though, I do understand that that takes a non-trivial amount of time and effort and that it may not be worth it to clear up a disagreement on a message board about a fictional society. But at the very least, hopefully we can keep our blows aimed at the arguments and not each other.