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

[Voadam]

At least two TSR/WotC product lines had that happen: Darksun's dragon-kings and Vecna from Greyhawk.

Socerer-Kings of Dark Sun do come to mind first.


Greyhawk, in addition to the historical Vecna empire, also has the contemporary Mage of the Valley, The elven Queen of Celene, and in the recent past Xagyg the mad archmage mayor of Greyhawk (until he became a Demigod). Plus the Theocracy of the Pale is led by a cleric as are some of the Bakluni nations. Not to mention Iuz the Old One.

In Dragonlance there was the prominent example of the Kingpriest era and the Dragonlance war had emperor Ariakan who I believe was a cleric of Takhisis (and his dragonlord Verminaard).

Also Forgotten Realms with Red Wizards of Thay, Halruaa, the witches of Rashemon, the God kings of Mulhorrand and the historical empire of Netheril and their shadow mage return. Not sure about magical rulers of their elven kingdoms without looking up specifics, other than the Lolth theocracy in the underdark.

Eberron has the clerical theocracy of Thrane.

If you go back to 1e Deities and Demigods then Melnibone is ruled by the spellcasting imperial family and Pan Tang is known to be run by the Purple Wizards.

 

[Fanaelialae]

. . . 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?

The simple answer is, they would. I just don't think that doing so would normally help them on their quest for godhood (or whatever). Or at least, I think that directly pursuing magical power would generally be more productive to that end than pursuing political power.

If, of course, the nation of Ascencia is hiding the secret to godhood (or whatever) then maybe it isn't. But even then, taking over the country would be a means to an end, as opposed to an end in and of itself. The mage would likely take over, attain godhood, and then discard that country like a used tissue.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The simple answer is, they would. I just don't think that doing so would normally help them on their quest for godhood (or whatever). Or at least, I think that directly pursuing magical power would generally be more productive to that end than pursuing political power.

If, of course, the nation of Ascencia is hiding the secret to godhood (or whatever) then maybe it isn't. But even then, taking over the country would be a means to an end, as opposed to an end in and of itself. The mage would likely take over, attain godhood, and then discard that country like a used tissue.

But becoming the ruler of a nation would at the very least grant you control of the nation's funds (which you could use partially to fund your research) and social contacts that would allow you to better research some apotheosis ritual/spell.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But becoming the ruler of a nation would at the very least grant you control of the nation's funds (which you could use partially to fund your research) and social contacts that would allow you to better research some apotheosis ritual/spell.

There are plenty of spells that can make you all the money you could ever need. Such as Fabricate or Wish. The monetization of which is almost certainly less involved than taking over a nation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

See, this is bizarre to me. You are basically saying that all spellcasters would view political leadership and the power of the state as consolation prizes.

This is, to me, like saying that all coders think they are too good for any position lower than Bill Gates. Not every coder is going to be a billionaire who changes the world, not every spellcaster ascends to godhood like Vecna. In fact, the vast majority of them don't break 5th level.

And is this how we present the world of DnD? "Well, when I made my pact and sold my services to a Genie, I could have become the Sultan, but I have better things to do than rule the most powerful empire for thousands of miles, who shapes the very future of the world with their policies."

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

How? Why? Power is not automatically transitive. The set of skills necessary for civic leadership or mercantile success are an entire career path of their own. Access to magic is useful, but access can be bought or negotiated. It doesn't have to be possessed personally or not at all.

Leaders don't build bridges, fight wars, collect taxes, or educate the youth. Leaders possess the skills and authority to organize and delegate those tasks to the countless specialists necessary for those roles. One person can not do everything; they don't have the skills and can't be everywhere at once.

So your average magic user makes a terrible leader, because when they don't have their nose buried in arcane research they're trying to harness their mystic might to do everything themselves. It's unsustainable and makes for a terrible leadership model. Even if a wizard assumes control through overwhelming might, the first thing they're going to do is to appoint a regent to handle all the tedious day to day work of running the polity. At least, they will if they have any sense. Otherwise you get the mad sorcerer king that runs the nation into the dirt and gets slain by a hero.

 

[ECMO3]

I think they usually do, given enough time. In forgotten Realms you have Thay, Netheril (both ancient Netheril and the more modern Shade Enclave), the Elven Kingdom of Myth Drannor, Halruaa, Vassa, Chult and Mulorand.

That is a pretty significant part of Ferun, and if you are looking at functioning nations, that is probably most of them. Places like the Sword Coast aren't really nations.

 

[Fanaelialae]

See, this is bizarre to me. You are basically saying that all spellcasters would view political leadership and the power of the state as consolation prizes.

This is, to me, like saying that all coders think they are too good for any position lower than Bill Gates. Not every coder is going to be a billionaire who changes the world, not every spellcaster ascends to godhood like Vecna. In fact, the vast majority of them don't break 5th level.

And is this how we present the world of DnD? "Well, when I made my pact and sold my services to a Genie, I could have become the Sultan, but I have better things to do than rule the most powerful empire for thousands of miles, who shapes the very future of the world with their policies."

Not really. It's more like saying if someone offered you the superpowers of one superhero of your choice (Superman, Dr Strange, etc) or to be the leader of any nation of your choice, which would you pick? IMO, the no brainer choice is superpowers. You can leverage those for everything the leader could get, and a whole lot more.

Sure, not every caster is Vecna. But I don't think the average joes of the wizarding community are likely to be able to take control of a nation either. It's the really powerful mages who have the magic to tilt the odds in their favor, and they have better things to shoot for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

It was edited in the OP, but they were asking about "spellcasters" not just wizards.

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.

You ask what edition, but then you don't make a point that actually makes any sense. You don't need to be a PC to be a wizard, as multiple statblocks like Archmage, Enchanter, Necromancer, Transmuter, Conjurer, ect show us. You don't need to be a PC to be a Warlock, as shown by the stat blocks like Warlock of the Archfey, Warlock of the Fiend, Firenewt Warlock of Imix, Yuan-ti Nightmare Speaker, Yuan-ti Mindwhisper, ect. And for sorcerer you have the derro Savant, Kobold Scale Sorcerer, Occult Extollant, as well as the Dragon rules.

Having a class isn't a prerequisite to being a spellcaster. And it is trivial to say that a family DOES have a sorcerous bloodline and can all cast spells, without even needing them to all be "high level" whatever that means.

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?

How does your reply of the celestial choosing a ruler and granting them powers in any way invalidate the idea of the rulers being given supernatural powers? That sounds like you agree with me.

Sure, maybe the King can't have a warlock pact with a fey, but what about a Duke? A Baron? The common people might actually not see it as split loyalties but as a political alliance. No one gets mad at America for having a mutually beneficial deal with Canada. Why would they be upset that the Royal Family has such a strong bond with the powerful fey of the ancient forest that they are granted supernatural abilities? It is no different from having a strong bond with the nearby dwarven nation and receiving high quality weapons and armors.

Remember, a Pact is not a immediately a pact of servitude or one where you sell your soul. It is a contract. And nations make contracts with foreign powers all the time.

Additionally, there are DOZENS of warlock powers that would be insanely 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.

Why?

When rulership in France changed hands through "right of force" that didn't mean that the English Kings who had also claimed their kingdoms through force of arms suddenly had to find a new system of government.

Think about it in terms of averages. Who is more likely to rule over time? Is it the person with the biggest muscles? The strongest constitution?

No. Rulers tend to be the most charismatic, the most intelligent, the wisest. Which also describes spellcasters. They are the people in DnD who tend to have the highest mental scores. Again, solely on averages, exceptions certainly exist. But we seem to view "The King was a mighty warrior in his youth" as a nothing statement, it is a default assumption. However, "The king is a mighty wizard" is somehow being presented as bizarre. Like it could only happen if there is a council of wizards which took over the world, instead of natural selection pressures.

IRL Kings tended to be seen as powerful warriors, because a warrior leading an army was an effective way of becoming king. In a DnD world though, it makes just as much, if not more sense, for that warrior king to be a spellcaster. So, over the centuries, why would spellcasters not be the default people in charge?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

How? Why? Power is not automatically transitive. The set of skills necessary for civic leadership or mercantile success are an entire career path of their own. Access to magic is useful, but access can be bought or negotiated. It doesn't have to be possessed personally or not at all.

Leaders don't build bridges, fight wars, collect taxes, or educate the youth. Leaders possess the skills and authority to organize and delegate those tasks to the countless specialists necessary for those roles. One person can not do everything; they don't have the skills and can't be everywhere at once.

So your average magic user makes a terrible leader, because when they don't have their nose buried in arcane research they're trying to harness their mystic might to do everything themselves. It's unsustainable and makes for a terrible leadership model. Even if a wizard assumes control through overwhelming might, the first thing they're going to do is to appoint a regent to handle all the tedious day to day work of running the polity. At least, they will if they have any sense. Otherwise you get the mad sorcerer king that runs the nation into the dirt and gets slain by a hero.

Power begets power. It's not necessarily that a single mage will automatically take over positions of leadership. It's that people that are already in leadership roles will have more access to magic and that those with magic will be more likely to end up in positions of leadership eventually. Just like how wealthy families get the best education, which then grants them better jobs, which grants them even more money. It's a cycle.

Royal bloodlines would purposefully marry into magical bloodlines in order to increase their power (and hold on their power) and their claims to being divinely mandated for rulership. The aristocracy in a setting would have the funds necessary to get bardic training or schooling in wizardry, which would increase the overall wealth of the family due to access to easier means of producing money. People that want more power would join certain religions or make pacts with otherworldly entities in order to increase their social standing.

Power begets power just like money begets money. It's easier to maintain power the more power you have. Adding magic into the already unequal social divide of the real world would just exacerbate that. Sure, individual heroes and revolutions can overthrow individual magical tyrants/nobles, but that creates a magical power vacuum.

And, again, this isn't just about Wizards. This is about all spellcasters (typically just full-casters, but half-casters to a smaller extent). Bards would be excellent at taking positions of political and social power throughout time. Clerics would automatically rise to positions of religious leadership, because the people that perform miracles in the names of their gods will obviously be more likely to be promoted through religious organizations. The best inventors and engineers in the world would be the ones with access to magic (Artificers), which would increase the profit they'd take in from their trade and allow them to get more money to fund more magical inventions.