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

[Kurotowa]

What are their qualifications to rule? Bloodline inheritance and political acumen are their own qualifications, separate from and in some ways mutually exclusive with accumulating arcane power. You can devote years to assembling a network of alliances and favors that will put you on the throne, or you can spend those years studying magic. Pick one.

So is it simply a question of power? Well, ascension and rule by power just makes them a warlord. And warlords only thrive when there's no nations to suppress them or heroes to topple them. A wizard warlord rules until an army marches on their tower or a Paladin with a grudge and a Spellguard Shield turns up. You might as well ask why dragons or giants don't take over the world.

Do you imagine a setting where Wizards have become a keystone of society due to supplying essential magical infrastructure and then parlayed that into a political rise as the ruling body? That's ...not usually how it works. If you look at the world around us, people in essential jobs are underpaid and ill treated, not lauded and gifted with greater authority.

A secret society of the wizarding world that discretely applied their magic behind the scenes to take control of world leaders? That sort of conspiracy theorizing isn't as funny as it used to be, and in a D&D world it runs into all sorts of problems. Brave heroes, opposing secret societies, the fact that "Is a Wizard" is a pretty thin common denominator to try and build a secret society around...

So I can see a specific villain, who happens to also be a Wizard, using magic for their nefarious goals of conquest. I do not see Wizards uniting as a power bloc, either public or secret, and making a bid for power.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

That's fair, the Gods might choose to not have their servants in charge. That requires some pretty specific set-ups I think though. Something which can be easily overturned with how most worlds are designed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

And no one has ever sought more power once they have power?

No person has ever been tempted by wealth, wine, women, and other trappings of royalty?

Every single mage who has ever learned magic has done so in pursuit of the ability control "real" power and has never done so to help their fellow people, or to get wealth for themselves?

Your answer might work for an individual, but it doesn't really work for a class of people over a long period of time.

 

[Oofta]

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"

Bob can hire consultants and specialists to do most of the magic things if he needs. What's going to matter more is how good they are at politics and inspiring people, convincing others that it's in the interest of king and country to serve them. If Bob happens to be in line for the throne and Steve is not, Bob is probably going to wear the crown.

A caster can obviously be king, but just because Bob cannot cast a spell it doesn't mean he and his followers do not have access to magic.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I worked on a setting that ran that thought experiment and it can definitely be an interesting world. But it is also very different and counter intuitive. Some fantasy settings are there to emulate myth and legend, some operate more like science fiction as thought experiments. I don't think there is anything wrong with handwaving the power of magic, or explaining why it hasn't drastically changed the world because it preserves a certain style and flavor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What are their qualifications to rule? Bloodline inheritance and political acumen are their own qualifications, separate from and in some ways mutually exclusive with accumulating arcane power. You can devote years to assembling a network of alliances and favors that will put you on the throne, or you can spend those years studying magic. Pick one.

See, I think you skipped right past this though. I think you are right about why Warlords don't work and how public works may not work.

But what prevents the ruling family from making a Warlock pact with a Celestial or a Fey? "We will honor you, give you gifts, and in exchange you give us the power to rule and keep our people safe" this is actually a pretty common deal in folklore for Eastern Nations. And would be a powerful alliance that puts you on the throne.

Bloodline inheritance? What prevents the family from having a bloodline connection that allows for Sorcerous powers? You don't need to study to have sorcerous powers, you just do. In fact, marriage between bloodlines with power would be prime candidates for political marriages.


You also can't dismiss the phenomena of second and third sons. Many first-born children were devoted to the continuation of the connections with the nobility, but the second or third born were given to the church to work as priests, and to make an alliance with the church. After all, if the local deacon is your Uncle, you have more power than the guy whose family has no connection to the church.

Many nobles learned arts and histories. Why could this not lead into Bardic magic? They are born through the study of art and history.

Many nobles were knights. What prevents them from having a divine oath of the crown and being a paladin, or studying magic and becoming an Eldritch Knight? As far as we can tell, becoming an Eldritch Knight is no more difficult than becoming a cavalier, banneret, or battle master.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Bob can hire consultants and specialists to do most of the magic things if he needs. What's going to matter more is how good they are at politics and inspiring people, convincing others that it's in the interest of king and country to serve them. If Bob happens to be in line for the throne and Steve is not, Bob is probably going to wear the crown.

A caster can obviously be king, but just because Bob cannot cast a spell it doesn't mean he and his followers do not have access to magic.

Okay, but if we assume all other things being equal, then Steve is just as likely to be in line for the throne. Steve can also hire consultants and specialists, and steven can also be good at politics, inspiring people and convincing others to follow them.

You are basically saying "Those in power were either born into it or are good at it" and people with magic can be those things too. And then, during those inevitable moments of turmoil where people are killed and political power is taken or assaulted by force... magic using individuals would be more likely to survive and thrive, wouldn't they?

 

[Fanaelialae]

And no one has ever sought more power once they have power?

No person has ever been tempted by wealth, wine, women, and other trappings of royalty?

Every single mage who has ever learned magic has done so in pursuit of the ability control "real" power and has never done so to help their fellow people, or to get wealth for themselves?

Your answer might work for an individual, but it doesn't really work for a class of people over a long period of time.

IMO, that's kind of like a member of the Olympian pantheon running for President. They could. It probably wouldn't get them much that they don't already have.

Wine, women, wealth? Any powerful mage can easily have these things.

I think it's actually the reverse of what you suggest. Your answer could work for an individual (maybe someone who wanted political power and decided to learn magic as a means to that end). But it doesn't really work for mages in general, who have something better to aspire to.

 

[Kurotowa]

But what prevents the ruling family from making a Warlock pact with a Celestial or a Fey? "We will honor you, give you gifts, and in exchange you give us the power to rule and keep our people safe" this is actually a pretty common deal in folklore for Eastern Nations. And would be a powerful alliance that puts you on the throne.

Bloodline inheritance? What prevents the family from having a bloodline connection that allows for Sorcerous powers? You don't need to study to have sorcerous powers, you just do. In fact, marriage between bloodlines with power would be prime candidates for political marriages.

Well, the question was about "wizards", not "arcane casters". But alright, I'll play.

First off, what edition are we in? Because in 3e everyone has a class, but in 5e PC classes are for PCs and most NPCs don't have a class. So a Sorcerous bloodline is more likely to pop out one Sorcerer every few generations, rather than entire families throwing around high level spells. That's an interesting quirk but not a qualification for rulership in itself.

As for Warlock pacts, there have been many revolutions and civil wars started when a ruler's loyalties were brought into question. People don't like it when their ruler is answering to foreign princes, much less mercurial fey. Or if you do find a benevolent Celestial who's willing to make a partisan alignment with a mortal nation, why limit it to one family? Wouldn't that be more "The divine spirit picks a ruler and whoever that is gets blessed with power"? Which is fine, but it's not a family business or something you can easily export. Although, why bless the chosen ruler with Warlock combat powers instead of, you know, something useful for ruling?

A line should be drawn between "A ruling family that happens to have a tradition of arcane study or a potent bloodline or a pacted benefactor" and "A mageocracy where those with arcane power have taken and hold authority by right of spell slots". The former is an interesting plot hook, the latter is a lot harder to make work. I mean, you can make it work, but usually just for like one nation at a time. It's not a "But why don't they rule the world?" type of thing.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

This leads to a question I've always had about D&D worlds- if the Gods are demonstrably real, to the point that devout worshippers actually can cast magic spells, then why would anyone worship an evil God? You literally know that heavens and hells are real, you know demons and devils are a thing, do you really think serving an evil God will lead to rewards in the afterlife?

Let alone why anyone would become a cultist to some jumped up Archdevil or Demon Prince....