D&D 5E Discussing Worldbuilding: Why Don't The Mages Take Over The World?

[UngainlyTitan]

It is all setting assumptions. There is not enough data in the D&D rules to dictate any particular fate of the world with respect to magic and rulership. In that one can tweak the assumptions to pretty much justify anything.
You can justify anything from MagiTech to rule by immortal sorcerer kings. Lot of low/high magic or limited magic or any variation in between.

 

[Oofta]

There are plenty of ways for a mage to sieze power magically that have nothing to do with combat.

Such as? There's seizing power and holding on to power, I don't see magic PCs have access to giving wizards that much of benefit.

 

[Chaosmancer]

• Mages have taken over the setting's religious power: This is true in most D&D worlds, where the leaders of most religions are Clerics, Druids, Paladins, or Warlocks. In D&D settings, it's very common for religions to be ruled by those with magical power, because normally those with magical power logically have a stronger claim to be the "chosen leaders" of the religion. However, settings could lean into this fact a bit more and call out the fact that mages are more likely to be respected and put into positions of religious leadership due to their magical powers, regardless of which type of spellcaster they are, or have the most powerful religion either absorb the other ones (like the Roman Pantheon did) or try to root out the others and execute/condemn "heretics"/"pagans" (like Catholicism). (A good example of magic being the focus of a fantasy religion is the Cosmere, where most religions have something to do with the setting's magic system.)

This one might lead into an entirely separate question, but one even less considered by the typical game worlds I've found.

Why aren't basically all the nations Theocracy's? If you go back and look at the history of political power in the real-world, it was actually incredibly rare for the leader of the nation to NOT also be the head of the church. Spiritual authority and spiritual power were massively important, leading to "The Divine Right of Kings", "God-Kings", "The Mandate of Heaven" and so on.

But, in DnD the gods are REAL, and they are more powerful than most other forces. So, logically, the majority of settings would have Theocracies of the God's actual chosen rulers.

Only thing I can think of quickly which would prevent this is a world with a single pantheon, because then a single god couldn't get the focus, because all eight of them are equally important. But once you have hundreds of gods and thousands of kingdoms... then quite a few of them would be divinely ordained I think.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but the goal is to make an interesting environnement to let the players characters evolve. It may look logic to have casters overrule the world, but would it makes a more interesting place to play?

How is it less interesting to have the King have a bloodline of magical power and be able to cast spells, born into wealth, and with the backing of armies than the king being a dude who happened to be born into wealth and have the backing of armies?

To me "normal king we've seen a million times" < "King with Magic"

 

[DeviousQuail]

I haven't read the books or played the games but I liked how powerful magical individuals were integrated into the world of The Witcher TV series. A large group of them bands together and has sway over a number of kingdoms. They don't run things but act more like bumpers in a bowling alley. Their own political tug and pull acts as a balance amongst this group. But that alliance can break down as we saw with Fringilla.

Outside of them we see smaller groups or individuals doing their own thing. Magical assassin guy, Mousesack, Istredd, Baba Yaga, etc.

As powerful as they are they still have to worry about armies because thousands of soldiers can absolutely ruin your day as seen in the sacking of Cintra and Battle of Sodden Hill.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was just about to make the same point. Why rule kingdoms (or magedoms) when you can let other people deal with the hassle? Assuming the mage is powerful enough to seize power, they're probably powerful enough to get whatever they want through other means that besides rulership.

Why does anyone want to rule a nation then? Your argument makes it sound like no one ever actually wants to rule, and well.... they do. All the time. they even kill each other for the right to deal with all that hassle of being the most powerful person with the backing of a state for miles around.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This one might lead into an entirely separate question, but one even less considered by the typical game worlds I've found.

Why aren't basically all the nations Theocracy's? If you go back and look at the history of political power in the real-world, it was actually incredibly rare for the leader of the nation to NOT also be the head of the church. Spiritual authority and spiritual power were massively important, leading to "The Divine Right of Kings", "God-Kings", "The Mandate of Heaven" and so on.

But, in DnD the gods are REAL, and they are more powerful than most other forces. So, logically, the majority of settings would have Theocracies of the God's actual chosen rulers.

Only thing I can think of quickly which would prevent this is a world with a single pantheon, because then a single god couldn't get the focus, because all eight of them are equally important. But once you have hundreds of gods and thousands of kingdoms... then quite a few of them would be divinely ordained I think.

At least in my case, the official church doesn't rule because they've been told not to. The priesthood has Kafer-Naum, the Temple-City, but otherwise they recognize themselves as servants to the community, people present in and aiding temporal authority. This is an extension of the orders given to the "Servants" (celestials--e.g. angels and couatl), who claim to have been ordered to never, ever coerce mortals. To coerce others by taking temporal authority would be to overstep their bounds as servants of the One. That doesn't mean there haven't been factions who try, but those factions are generally not very influential in the priesthood.*

The Kahina (Druids/Shaman) are a lot more comfortable with temporal power, particularly Druids (as established by our party Druid and his family), but it's a lot harder to find good recruits now than it used to be, and having authority over a tribe isn't quite the same as ruling a city with an army etc.

*That said, over in Yuxia, the Not!Asia country in the mortal world, there is a much closer link between religion and political power, but that's because they view the world as part of the Celestial Bureaucracy rather than as a heavenly hierarchy which is separate from temporal power.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, it because of alignment. (if people still use it)

Simply put, the good mages provide a counter balance to the evil mages - so neither can take over the world.

Then why do we have kings? Good Kings should prevent Evil Kings from taking over the world, so no kings would rule anything.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why does anyone want to rule a nation then? Your argument makes it sound like no one ever actually wants to rule, and well.... they do. All the time. they even kill each other for the right to deal with all that hassle of being the most powerful person with the backing of a state for miles around.

Probably because they want power. The thing with mages though is that they have their own path to real power.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Such as? There's seizing power and holding on to power, I don't see magic PCs have access to giving wizards that much of benefit.

Let's take Bob, common every day dude, and Steve, the sorcerer. They both want to rule over their city, which was just founded.

Someone wants to stab the ruler, kill them, and take over.

Bob is a normal dude. He is very stabbable.
Steve can be wearing invisible armor all the time and summon a shield of force to protect him. Steve is not very stabbable.

Bob wants to have a guard force that protects his city and people, as well as himself. So he hires a bunch of people.
Steve wants to have a guard force that protects his city and people, as well as himself. So he hires a bunch of people. He can also at anytime summon additional forces beyond that, for emergencies.

Bob needs to sign an agreement with another kingdom, that may decide the fate of his people. He has nothing but his wits and advisors to decide on the best course of action.
Steve needs to sign an agreement with another kingdom, that may decide the fate of his people. He has nothing but his wits, advisors, and the ability to cast divination magic to peer into the future and know the general results of his actions to decide on the best course of action.

Dealing with poison? Magic gives you more options
Spycraft to send coded messages? Magic gives you more options.
Communication, construction, protection from diseases? Magic gives you more options

This isn't a question of "what specific ability gives the Wizard the ability to rule a nation" this is a question of "since spellcasters always innately have more options than mundane people, why aren't they in charge, since over time those additional options would have prevented them from being removed from power and kept their nations prosperous"