In a world where the quadratic wizard could exist, the quadratic wizard wouldn't...

[Dausuul]

Mo' money, mo' problems. I suppose no one would ever be jealous, threatened, or spiteful toward the wizard that is enthralling this town (probably with some sort of charm spell).

Why would you need a charm spell? You're the hometown boy (or girl) made good. You're the one who went on to fame and glory. You don't need magic to get people to suck up to you.

But regardless--yes, undoubtedly someone will feel jealous, threatened, and spiteful. So what? You've got bodyguards. Lots of people feel that you're the best thing since sliced bread... because if anything happens to you, the wizard-king, your town does not become free to make its own fate. It just gets overrun by the wizard-king from the next town over. Like I said, better to be ruled by one of your own than subjugated by a conqueror.

In a world where the quadratic wizard can exist, all it takes is one high-level wizard to establish that no kingdom can afford to not have one. In such a world, the threat to lowbie wizards does not come from peasant mobs. It comes from high-level wizards who take a dim view of competition. The end result of the quadratic wizard is not Dragon Age; it's Dark Sun.

 

[jshaft37]

The end result of the quadratic wizard is not Dragon Age; it's Dark Sun.

The charm spell comment was tongue in cheek, just the same as my OP. A little levity never hurt anyone.

I think that both outcomes are plausible, based on the fact that I'm familiar with both settings and didn't think that either was far-fetched (in terms of Fantasy that is). But if the Sorcerer-Kings of Dark Sun were to be wiped out, I don't think the denizens would be naive enough to let that course happen again.

 

[kevtar]

In my gaming experience, although we all knew the god-like potential of wizards (and CoDzilla, Druids, Pun-pun... whatever), those were only theoretical concerns and never really impacted our play. When a player talked about her/his future build, or started to veer in that direction, either the players or the DM would get involved. In some cases, the player in question would get 'reined in' because it would adversely affect the group/game. In other cases, the DM adjusted. As Wizards, Clerics and Druids reached stooperific levels of arcane or divine power, the DM (which was usually me) would compensate through giving Fighters new, shiny artifacts/weapons/items, etc... even homemade feats.

In short, although the 'theoretical potential' of Arcane/Divine supremacy was possible, it was usually avoided through reasonable players and DMs making decisions for the betterment of the game and their friends.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There's another factor. Wizardry can be taught in D&D. You simply have to be intelligent enough, which isn't so difficult when you have private tutors growing up. Not only would Wizards rule, but the entire aristocracy would be taught wizardry from a young age. There would be an entire ruling class of wizards.

The lower class wouldn't have the education or time to learn wizardry, so it would be a stark dividing line. Over time, it's likely that many places would prohibit commoners from learning and using magic.

While you might think people would be offended by this, the truth is most would likely be convinced as to it's rightness. The aristocracy would be powerful beings, capable of feats of magic that common men were not. Clearly it would be their right to rule, as sure as if they'd been placed in charge by the gods.

 

[GreyICE]

Why would people hate a powerful spellcaster?

Do you have any IDEA what a Druid can do for crop production? A Druid, singlehandedly could probably feed a small nation with a village's worth of farmland. That same Druid can also easily fend off any nearby predators, and crush most Wizards who think the Village is easy pickings back to the stone age (Druids spank Wizards until around levels 11-15).

Why on earth do you overthrow this person? You're living the good life.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Because the druid keeps dragging off one of your young men to sacrifice to the Corn God every year? Not to mention how he keeps pissing off the Romans...

 

[GreyICE]

Because the druid keeps dragging off one of your young men to sacrifice to the Corn God every year? Not to mention how he keeps pissing off the Romans...

Ever seen the 3E illustrations for the Druid? The young men enjoyed it, thank you very much

 

[Tom Servo]

One major balancing factor is...other wizards.

As a wizard is distracted by the daily responsibilities of being supreme lord and ruler his rivals are hard at work researching spells, seeking out ancient artifacts, and honing their abilities against dragons and demons.

Also, as Conan said in Conan the Destroyer, "There's magic in this game, and I have to be able to fight it with magic." Imagine being a powerful wizard and having the nuisance of everyone, peasant and noble alike, coming to you and begging for your help. "Our supreme lord and ruler is a horrible tyrant, but he's a wizard. We need your help, no one else can do anything!"

Finally I don't think other powerful wizards would take to kindly to one of their own just deciding to take over. Sort of an unspoken gentleman's agreement...or possibly more of a threat of mutually assured destruction.

 

[delericho]

If wizards can ascend to "godlike" power, then they would constantly be hunted down and either regulated or eliminated. It doesn't make sense for all of the PC races to let a small subset hold exponential power over the vast majority.

In the real world, a tiny subset hold massive power over the vast majority. Yet, somehow, we haven't risen up and wiped out the rich.

 

[trancejeremy]

Personally, I have yet to comprehend how a high level wizard could take out a small army, much less a large one.

There far too much hyperbole involved in this claim, IMHO. And perhaps not a bit of class warfare (as shown by that last comment)

People shouldn't focus on what others have and get jealous, it's not very productive.