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

[James Gasik]

To add on, some people simply don't think of the long term. They only care about the here and now. Perhaps they don't really believe in eternal torment, that it's all propaganda. Maybe they believe that if they do good enough they'll climb up in the ranks of the hierarchy and be rewarded.

Maybe? But I mean, unlike our world, where people have strong faith in various things without any definitive proof, you'd think the existence of Clerics would matter more.

Then again, our world has people who demand proof that the earth is round, so maybe not.

 

[Oofta]

Maybe? But I mean, unlike our world, where people have strong faith in various things without any definitive proof, you'd think the existence of Clerics would matter more.

Then again, our world has people who demand proof that the earth is round, so maybe not.

Plenty of people at least claim to believe the world is flat. The existence of clerics just means that those individuals tapped into some source of magic, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything they say is truth. From a historical perspective, a lot of the gods were feared and worshipped to stay on their good side. You didn't sacrifice to Njord, god of the sea because you worshipped him in the sense we think of it now. You sacrificed because you didn't want to piss him off when you set out on his territory.

 

[Dausuul]

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....

First, who says the evil gods are straight with their followers about what awaits them in the afterlife?

And, second, it could be that followers of evil powers think "better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." Whether any of them actually will reign in hell, of course... well, that goes back to the first point.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If the mages work together -- if their loyalty is to "mages" above nation or family or religion -- then, sure, they rule the roost.

This is fundamentally missing the point of this thought experiment. Assume "mages" (as in anyone that is a member of a spellcasting class) have the same basic human desires and emotions. A mage would be just as likely to pursue power as anyone else in the world, but would be better suited to succeed than a non-mage.

And then take into account that we're not just talking about one mage with the goal of conquering the world or getting all of the money. We're talking about how the magic system of D&D and the socioeconomic system of the world would combine to shape the world. Sure, a single mage on their own probably won't be able to take over the world, no matter how powerful they are. But this thought experiment isn't about the actions of a single mage. It's about how mages collectively could use their spells to make more money and put their children through magic school, or a royal family that marries into a magical bloodline in order to make their claims to power more justifiable, or a religion that uses their magical leaders to claim that they're more valid than other religions.

But if not, then the roadblock is other mages. Most people are more inclined to follow than lead, and that goes for mages too. For the leader, then, what matters is what followers you have and how well you lead them. The mage king standing alone loses to the mundane king with a hundred mage followers, just like the lone warrior loses to the charismatic civilian with a hundred swords at their back.

Again, I'm not talking about a single mage/group of mages controlling everything. I'm talking about how magic in general would allow those who practice it to more easily gain power. They'd be more likely to be higher in the social hierarchy due to the economic and social effects of their magic powers.

Sure, a single mage king might fall to an army of mages, but mages as a whole would be more likely to grab power throughout the decades than nonmages.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Most mages are more interested in the pursuit of cosmic power, as opposed to governmental authority. The powerful mages (and even less powerful mages) typically have goals that stretch far beyond "conquering the world". Why conquer a nation when you have the potential to conjure forth entirely new realities of your own making? Why settle for rulership when you can aspire to godhood?

. . . Because becoming the ruler of a nation would give you control of that nation's resources, which would allow you to pursue your other ambitions more easily than before.

Why wouldn't mages try to take over political power if it helped them on their quest for godhood or other great secrets?

And the final reason is because, as was the case for the lich, heroes often arise to stop them.

And that's exactly the kind of justification this thread was meant to inspire! People have been taking the premise of this thread incorrectly. I'm not saying that mages have to rule everything in D&D worlds, I'm saying that taking this question into consideration can help enrich your world. Mages don't take power in your world because adventuring parties keep them in check? Cool! Great! That could be a really interesting and awesome justification for why mages haven't taken over in the world yet: because they keep trying to, but adventurers keep organizing into groups to hunt them down and prevent them from taking power.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Competition between Mages

Interesting solution to the dilemma. How exactly would that work in your world? Are there other mages that keep the overly ambitious ones in check? Are there a bunch of nations/empires that are controlled by different mages, and they're the ones that are competing for total domination?

Desire for magical power/knowledge, not "to rule"

Why would mages be less likely to desire political power than anyone else? Especially when not all mages need knowledge to get more power (Sorcerers, Warlocks, Clerics, Paladins, Druids, etc)? And wouldn't political/economic/religious power increase their ability to pursue magical power to greater extents?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Well, the question was about "wizards", not "arcane casters".

Actually, this thread's about "mages" in general, not specifically wizards. This applies to any spellcasting class (especially "full casters", like Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards, but also Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers to an extent).

Anyone with magic would be more likely to get more political/social, economic, and religious power than non-mages. Not specifically wizards or any other specific class.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No intelligent person would want to rule the world.

Who said that mages were necessarily more intelligent than anyone else? Sure, Wizards/Artificers might be, but there are probably a bunch of idiotic power-hungry elven bards out there that want to take over everything with magical bagpipes!

 

[cbwjm]

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....

I'd say the evil gods get worshipped out of fear. You make an offering to make them look the other way when you undertake a journey or to stave off the diseases that the plaguebringer god sends into the world.

As for actively worshipping an evil God as a cleric, they do get rewarded in the afterlife, just because the god is evil doesn't mean that those who follow them are eternally damned. Even cultists of the archdevils have a small chance of power by ascending the ranks. Otherwise, those who don't know everything about how the planes work, I'd say they'd often follow them for immediate power in the mortal world.

 

[MGibster]

Which means, IMO, that you’re more likely to see nations where it’s effectively legal to murder a spellcaster for any sign of imminent violence from them, than nations ruled by them. The court advisor is a wizard and the captain of the kings guard thinks the mage is doing a wormtongue? Stab.

Given that magical beliefs have been with us since time immemorial, I think it's more likely that such a society would develop institutions to control the behavior of magic users. For those who haven't taken a sociology course in a long time, an institution is an "established practice, tradition, behavior, or system of roles and relationships that is considered a normative structure or arrangement within a society." The big five institutions are Government, Economy, Family, Education, and Religion.

The problem with creating such institutions in D&D (D&D especially), is that players hate, hate, hate having anyone tell them what to do. D&D is an adolescent power fantasy (which is fine), and in my experience most players aren't interested in having to follow societal rules. Which kind of makes creating institutions kind of pointless.