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

[Chaosmancer]

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....

Yeah.

In my homebrew world, I got rid of Evil Gods. They just make zero sense with how I've structured what a God is.

Archdevils get worshippers by being Devils. They offer the position (with supporting evidence) that the Gods can't protect the world from the Demons and the Abominations, that they are too busy fighting amongst themselves and splitting their power. Additionally, the Devils in my world are a 100% meritocracy. If you are good enough, you can be any position. They sell people on worshipping them, because they are the best and most logical option.

Demons are worshipped by the insane or those whose lust for power or confidence in their own cleverness overrides their common sense. Those who say "@#%# the consequences!" and seek power at all costs.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

. . . This isn't an either/or situation in D&D. You can easily be a spellcaster and the leader of a nation. In fact, it would be easier to get access to magic if you were the leader of a nation and it would be easier to become the leader of the nation if you had magic. It's a feedback loop, just like how wealth is in the real world.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Depends on the level of magic in the setting, but I do believe it'd make sense for them to just be running most things, or at least delegating it to others while being the face in charge. In a world where individuals can become immensily powerful, the high level people would probably be running things in general, but spellcasters just have an immense edge.

Look at it on a smaller scale, a 5th level Druid and a 5th level Fighter arrive in a small town, not many other powerful people around. The Fighter could slay some enemies, train people, and be known as a strong dude they could rely on, but probably not powerful enough to be just running things.

The Druid can:

• Heal diseases and injuries, and detect disease outbreaks.
• Boost the local farms and double their yield.
• Resurrect the dead if he's around when it happens.
• Speak to the town's animals and plants (not terribly useful, but highly amusing).

All while being extremely useful in combat as well, arguably more so depending on how some spells are ruled. It's not a super long list just skimming their spell list, but those abilities are huge, relatively low level, and people are more likely to like you and want you to be their leader when you can do miracles every day.

 

[Fanaelialae]

. . . This isn't an either/or situation in D&D. You can easily be a spellcaster and the leader of a nation. In fact, it would be easier to get access to magic if you were the leader of a nation and it would be easier to become the leader of the nation if you had magic. It's a feedback loop, just like how wealth is in the real world.

That's not entirely incorrect, but I don't think it's really as clean cut as you are making it out to be.

Becoming the leader of a nation is easier with magic, sure. But it's only significantly easier with really powerful magic. Presumably any nation worth ruling has at least one or two competent mages in their employ, so the low level stuff isn't likely to cut it IMO. And becoming the leader of a nation isn't generally an easy proposition.

I mean, sure, if a mid level wizard saves a nation from an evil dragon and the people laud him and ask him to be their king then that might be a fairly easy choice. If he actually has to wrest power from an existing ruler, as would far more likely be the case, it's a different matter entirely.

I would say that magic begets greater magic moreso than political power begets magic. If anything, having to rule a nation would be a serious distraction from the pursuit of real power. After all, in order to rule a nation, you actually have to take the time to rule it. It's not all spending the kingdoms resources (at least not if you want to remain in power for any length of time).

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because they don't want to pay the price? Because if there's enough infernal interference the gods will step in with their own powers to counterbalance and vice versa? Perhaps that doesn't happen because of mutually assured destruction? In many stories, people are pawns to greater powers but the greater powers have their own agenda.

Sure, but SOMEONE has to be willing to pay the price, otherwise warlocks would never exist. And again, this is an extremely common folk tale trope where the kingdom or local lord has a deal with fairy or spirit forces.

Also, sure, maybe the Fiends won't get a lot of traction. That does nothing to stop the Archfey. Celestials, Genies, ect ect ect. Not all warlocks make deals with demons.

What mutually assured destruction? No one makes a deal with a ruling family because then everyone will try and kill each other? Have you LOOKED at Outer Realm "politics" all it is are the various great powers trying to kill each other. And there are dozens of stories of corrupting those in power towards their agendas. This one just doesn't make sense.

I have an island kingdom that does that. But how much interbreeding can you have before you have serious issues? How strong is the inheritance over the course of generations if you don't keep it in the family?

Why do you need ANY inbreeding? It is a magical talent. As long as you are a direct descendant you get magic. No inbreeding needed at all.

We even have examples of this in DnD, with the 4e Tiefling curse, where any child of a Tiefling and any other race is a Tiefling. This is again, VERY common.

Clerics get power based on serving a god. Depending on campaign, the gods may or may not favor any specific government.

Sure, they may not depending on how the world is structured.

However, many DnD worlds are structured with the Church acting in political matters and being a political force. In those settings, why would the Gods settle for being merely a secondary power in the structure instead of the primary? Why would the Gods NOT choose to bless a chosen country of their followers?

While your nobles were learning that, the people who ultimately pull the strings have been plotting and studying courtly intrigue. Being a successful politician is it's own skill and requires significant training and dedication. Being a bard is, in large part, being an entertainer. Kings aren't entertainers they get entertained.

Who says that "my" nobles didn't learn courtly intrigue? I didn't pick those examples out of nothing. The nobility in the real-world learned history and the art of making music. This was seen as a highly important skill during certain governments.

If they are learning history and music, why not take that extra half-step into fantasy and have them learning bardic magic? That is tied to the fundamentals of history and music. This doesn't take away from their courtly training, it is part of it. Unless we suddenly decide that this takes far too much focus and leaves them politically bereft... but then martial training for knights doesn't do the same? It becomes a bit of special pleading.

How many of today's leaders could defend themselves in combat? A kingdom is not an individual, a king commands an army. Few rulers outside of very small kingdoms ever picked up arms and even then it was more of a token presence to inspire their followers than anything.

Becoming a wizard or other caster requires commitment and sacrifice. Being a leader the same. Some people do both but being a leader is completely different from being a frontline combatant. So yes, sometimes the ruler is a wizard. Sometimes they're a warrior. Sometimes, I would say most of the time depending on the setting, they're just a politician.

Today's leaders don't matter, since the DnD setting isn't a Modern world.

How many great leaders of the past were Warriors? Not even looking it up I can think of

Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar
Alexander "the Great"
Genghis Khan
Napoleon Bonaparte
Richard "the Lionhearted"
Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu
William "the Conqueror"
Constantine

I mean, I could go on, but this kind of makes my point for me. Heck, even in the "modern day" there have been 29 of the 46 presidents of the United States of America that have had military service records. That is over half.

There is obviously not a one to one, and it changes depending on the setting, but there have been far and away enough examples of warriors and military men ending up with political power to make it a decent assumption that it probably happens. Yes, the strength of a kingdom is not measured in the power of a single individuals ability to kill another individual, but that doesn't prevent the inspirational aspect of having a warrior-king who you know has conquered other warriors through skill and strength. "Strong-man" politics are a thing for a reason.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's not entirely incorrect, but I don't think it's really as clean cut as you are making it out to be.

Becoming the leader of a nation is easier with magic, sure. But it's only significantly easier with really powerful magic. Presumably any nation worth ruling has at least one or two competent mages in their employ, so the low level stuff isn't likely to cut it IMO. And becoming the leader of a nation isn't generally an easy proposition.

I mean, sure, if a mid level wizard saves a nation from an evil dragon and the people laud him and ask him to be their king then that might be a fairly easy choice. If he actually has to wrest power from an existing ruler, as would far more likely be the case, it's a different matter entirely.

I would say that magic begets greater magic moreso than political power begets magic. If anything, having to rule a nation would be a serious distraction from the pursuit of real power. After all, in order to rule a nation, you actually have to take the time to rule it. It's not all spending the kingdoms resources (at least not if you want to remain in power for any length of time).

I'm not saying that any of this is easy. It's definitely not going to be easy for a level 3ish Wizard to take over a nation. I am, however, saying that it's practically inevitable given enough time. Eventually, royals are going to notice that people with inherent magic are more respected and/or feared than those without it. The aristocracy is going to figure out that using magic, even if it's just simple, low-level spells like Arcane Lock, Alarm, and Detect Thoughts to maintain, protect, and expand their power is superior to not using magic.

It is definitely not easy for individual people, even mages, to take over the world in a life span. However, just like how money begets money and those that are born with more money are more likely to make even more money during their lifetime than those that are born poor, those born with magic or in a circumstance that grants them more access to magic/magical training are going to be more likely to get even more magic and more power in the world.

Those mage-advisors to the king are eventually going to realize within a few generations that a simple Suggestion spell or blackmailing someone with Detect Thoughts is going to allow them to control the monarchy, which will eventually allow them to overthrow/supplant the monarchy. Magocracies are inevitable unless there's something else in the setting to counter their development (like the examples I gave in the OP, like Thedas's Templars).

 

[Chaosmancer]

If Steve and Bob are precisely equal in every way except that Steve has magic, sure, Steve has the edge.

But Steve and Bob are never precisely equal. There will always be traits that differ between them. And traits like "ability to lead and organize people" count for far more than the ability to personally wield magic. If Bob can get half a dozen spellcasters of various classes to support him, while Steve has to rely on his own magic alone, Steve is screwed.

Sure, but why do we always assume that Steve sucks at organzing and leading people? There are FOUR classes that rely on Charisma as their primary stat. Charisma is the stat for the feat "Inspiring Leader", so it is logical that leading and organizing people would be something that a charisma character would be excellent at.

Well, maybe not organizing, maybe you need intelligence for that? Or Wisdom? I've just named the other two casting stats.

So why do we constantly assume that Steve is bad at this?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well the good kings have their territory, and the evil kings have their territory, and neither can take over the world.

Or in other words, maintaining a kingdom is not the same as taking over the world.

But this is a fantasy game, and these are just ideas. If you don't like my idea, then don't use it.

Maybe you aren't understanding the question in the OP then.

Why can't spell casters have territory?

I agree, maintaining a kingdom is different than taking over the world, but the whole "take over the world" aspect is I think meant to be more "why aren't nearly all kingdoms run by spellcasters?" Not "why doesn't a single spellcaster own the entirety of the world?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

But once I have the powers of Superman, I can take over and rule a nation. Everything about getting those powers makes me far more likely to rule compared to being someone without powers.

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.

I think this gets into a fundamental question though, and is the reason I'm struggling with this discussion.

You say the average joe wizard wouldn't be able to "take control" of a nation. But this assumes that the nation already exists and is ruled by a non-magic user. Why? Why would non-magic users be in charge AT ALL.

Go back to the earliest days of the first nation states. Who ruled those states?

1) Those who could provide food to their followers
2) Those who could defend their lands
3) Those who could claim the blessings of the Gods

All of those things would be made easier, and be done perhaps even better by magic users. You seem to be assuming a set-up where a nation state already exists, is already ruled by non-magic users and that the magic user comes in with no backing and tried to forcefully oust the legitimate rulers.

I'm asking, why is the basis of the government not ALREADY built on magic? As you said earlier, spells like creation and fabricate lead to massive amounts of wealth, which would then be the basis of becoming a noble family, which would then lead to you being in the ruling class. Getting wealth is inherently something that puts you in the ruling class, because wealth represents man-hours of labor, and the wealthy can direct more man-hours than the poor. So if spell-casters are just casually wealthy, they would casually be in the ruling class.

 

[Minigiant]

In my Urban Fantasy NonD&D game,

mages are vulnerable to exploitation and most stay in hiding.

If you can create magic weapons and transform people, some billionaire will kidnap your spouse/kids/pets and force you to work for them.