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

[Fanaelialae]

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).

I disagree that it is inevitable. I certainly don't think that it's impossible, but hardly inevitable.

The only one inevitability that I see is that the aristocracy would indeed keep mages in their employ. But that's likely to be a cushy job, and most mages are going to be smart enough not to try to poop where they eat. Trying to screw over your employer isn't unlike trying to embezzle from an employer in the real world. It might work out in the short term, but I the long term they're usually caught and punished.

As an aside, suggestion isn't likely to allow you to take over a nation. Not even mass suggestion. You know that you've been affected by suggestion, plus it has to be reasonable to begin with. And that assumes the monarch isn't being protected by something like Mind Blank. All that casting suggestion on the government is likely to get you is an execution.

Look at it this way. How many world leaders in our world are hackers? Probably zero. They can pay someone to do that. Could a hacker dig up dirt on the leader and use that to blackmail them? Sure. Probably won't end well for the hacker though.

It's the same for mages. Magic presumably requires dedication to master at any serious level, not unlike hacking. Leaders have better things to do with their time than master hacking, and hackers have their own area of interest (hacking) that will generally preclude the time involved in leading a nation.

I mean, if you want all of your world's governments to be run by mages, that's fine. If you want mages to desire political power, but have some obstacles (like DA's templars) that's fine too. I just disagree that it's inevitable like you suggest.

I actually think that a magocracy would be the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I would disagree. There are many things that can go counter to that.

Wizarding in D&D traditionally narratively takes focus and training and ongoing study. This is a big opportunity cost for learning rulership skills and building political power bases and taking actions to rule. If the king has to do months of uninterrupted spell research or magic item creation this takes away from rulership time or bettering their rulership skills or making political alliances.

Clerics and druids narratively often serve another master whether that is a god or a church or the druidic secret society. Warlocks have this more so. Many people would not be happy to know their king got his position thanks to making a deal with an archfey.

I agree that power is going to beget power, but that is generally going to be more along the lines of entrenched rulership things like family dynasties or organizations enforcing a power privilege (in Thay the Red Wizards have set it up so many power positions are restricted to wizards). In theocratic Thrane a wizard does not have the same in to political power as they would in Thay.

I don't think survival of the fittest would drive everything to spellcaster rulership.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I disagree that it is inevitable. I certainly don't think that it's impossible, but hardly inevitable.

The only one inevitability that I see is that the aristocracy would indeed keep mages in their employ. But that's likely to be a cushy job, and most mages are going to be smart enough not to try to poop where they eat. Trying to screw over your employer isn't unlike trying to embezzle from an employer in the real world. It might work out in the short term, but I the long term they're usually caught and punished.

But the aristocracy would be paranoid that the mages would overthrow them (because mages have more power than they would). So in that situation, either the mages eventually overthrow the aristocracy and become the new aristocracy, the aristocracy learns magic in order to maintain their power (Bard/Wizard school, selling their soul/children to become a Warlock, etc), or the aristocracy has a non-core 5e way of controlling the mages.

As an aside, suggestion isn't likely to allow you to take over a nation. Not even mass suggestion. You know that you've been affected by suggestion, plus it has to be reasonable to begin with. And that assumes the monarch isn't being protected by something like Mind Blank. All that casting suggestion on the government is likely to get you is an execution.

I'm not saying a single casting of Suggestion would let you take over the nation. I'm saying that court mages periodically using Suggestion to change the monarch's position on a certain issue would let them control the government. Also, Mind Blank is an 8th level spell. Suggestion is just 2nd level. Mind Blank would require a 15th-level spellcaster repeatedly casting the spell on you in order to protect a non-mage from their mage servants.

I'll say it again: Unless the government leaders had some way to protect themselves against magic or control mages, the mages could easily and would eventually take control of the government (even if they don't do it obviously and just control the leaders through magic and blackmail).

Look at it this way. How many world leaders in our world are hackers? Probably zero. They can pay someone to do that. Could a hacker dig up dirt on the leader and use that to blackmail them? Sure. Probably won't end well for the hacker though.

It's the same for mages. Magic presumably requires dedication to master at any serious level, not unlike hacking. Leaders have better things to do with their time than master hacking, and hackers have their own area of interest (hacking) that will generally preclude the time involved in leading a nation.

Can people be born skilled hackers? Can those skilled hackers somehow hack into people's brains and mind control them (even if temporarily)? Can that hacker that learned your secrets and is blackmailing you also spontaneously combust you if you don't do what they want you to do? If you answer no to any of these questions, this is a bad analogy. There is a major difference between the capabilities of mages and hackers/warriors.

I mean, if you want all of your world's governments to be run by mages, that's fine. If you want mages to desire political power, but have some obstacles (like DA's templars) that's fine too. I just disagree that it's inevitable like you suggest.

I actually think that a magocracy would be the exception rather than the rule.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that I want every form of government in every world to be some form of magocracy. This thread is a thought experiment meant to help worldbuilding and encourage critical thinking. I am absolutely okay with settings where mages don't rule everything. I like Ravenloft quite a bit, and most of its "rulers" aren't mages. They're just terrible people from throughout the Multiverse that the Dark Powers decided to condemn to eternal(ish) damnation for unknown reasons. Ravenloft has a very valid explanation for why not all of its domains of dread are ruled by mages: because mages don't have a choice in the matter. The godlike Dark Powers choose the Dark Lords of Ravenloft. There is a strong limitation on the political capabilities of mages in Ravenloft, so the "mages aren't in control of everything" is a very justified trope in the setting, just like it is in Dragon Age.

This thread is meant to point out that if left unchecked, mages will take control of basically everything. This is a fact. It's inevitable. They will take control eventually, and if they don't, the setting either ignores this fact or chose to introduce some factor to justify why they haven't yet. The Mutants in X-Men haven't taken over yet because a) Mutants are relatively new to the world and b) other heroes prevent Magneto from taking over. If the world isn't largely controlled by mages, there should be an explanation. And I think finding those explanations can be really interesting and great for making the world feel more dynamic and real.

That's the point of this thread. To encourage making the worlds feel more real. Not encouraging people to add more Magocracies in their settings, but to explore the fact that they probably haven't taken control of everything yet for a variety of reasons.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.



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.

If you had the powers of Superman the entire universe would be your oyster. I guess you could settle for ruling a tiny blue speck in that universe, but that seems small minded. Plus, you know, then you'd actually have to rule that blue speck. As in administrate it. I'd love have superpowers, but you couldn't pay me to rule the world. At most I'd throw a few dictators in a supermax and then let the people of those nations work out how to proceed from there.

If the nation has yet to be founded, then that means little to no existing infrastructure. Which means that mages are even more likely to be off doing their own thing in the pursuit of magical power. This is the sort of nation that will require a lot of attention for very little immediate payoff. They probably aren't rich or have ancient lore. It's probably mostly just a disorganized bunch of poor farmers or hunter-gatherers.

The only mage who might put their studies on hold to help out such a nation would be humanitarians, but they would also be the least likely to seek power for themselves. And even if they did, there's no guarantee that their descendents would be powerful magic users. I wouldn't really count a country with a king who's a level 1 sorcerer to be a magocracy. That's more like a country whose king has sorcerous blood.

Magic doesn't transfer across generations the way wealth does. The child of a 20th level wizard isn't born a 20th level wizard. In fact, they might never even become a 1st level wizard.

 

[bloodtide]

There is a basic reason mages don't take over:

They don't need too.

Any mage that makes it to a bit of power (roughly 10th level) they can live a happy, full life with just magic. Lots of spells can provide a home, food, water, and nearly any item they want. With near zero effort and a finger wiggle they can have just about whatever they want.

Plenty of spells can make a mage a tons of money, more then enough to break any economy. More then enough money for a mage to buy nearly whatever they want.

And with even a tiny bit of effort, they can live like a king of kings.

And with some effort, they can even transcend life and become immortal.

So why even take over a nation? What does it get the mage? They can control people all day and night, but it won't get them anything more then magic does.....and in fact, mundane things are of a far lesser quality.

And, again with magic, a mage can make more money then exists in the whole nation (and, ahem, world) so it's beyond pointless to rule a nation to get rich.

So with magic meeting every need, a mage could waste time "ruling" sure....if they want to waste time telling people what to do for no benefit.

Maybe some mages would want to rule for the "fun" or such......but it's a bit pointless.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But the aristocracy would be paranoid that the mages would overthrow them (because mages have more power than they would). So in that situation, either the mages eventually overthrow the aristocracy and become the new aristocracy, the aristocracy learns magic in order to maintain their power (Bard/Wizard school, selling their soul/children to become a Warlock, etc), or the aristocracy has a non-core 5e way of controlling the mages.

I'm not saying a single casting of Suggestion would let you take over the nation. I'm saying that court mages periodically using Suggestion to change the monarch's position on a certain issue would let them control the government. Also, Mind Blank is an 8th level spell. Suggestion is just 2nd level. Mind Blank would require a 15th-level spellcaster repeatedly casting the spell on you in order to protect a non-mage from their mage servants.

I'll say it again: Unless the government leaders had some way to protect themselves against magic or control mages, the mages could easily and would eventually take control of the government (even if they don't do it obviously and just control the leaders through magic and blackmail).

Can people be born skilled hackers? Can those skilled hackers somehow hack into people's brains and mind control them (even if temporarily)? Can that hacker that learned your secrets and is blackmailing you also spontaneously combust you if you don't do what they want you to do? If you answer no to any of these questions, this is a bad analogy. There is a major difference between the capabilities of mages and hackers/warriors.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that I want every form of government in every world to be some form of magocracy. This thread is a thought experiment meant to help worldbuilding and encourage critical thinking. I am absolutely okay with settings where mages don't rule everything. I like Ravenloft quite a bit, and most of its "rulers" aren't mages. They're just terrible people from throughout the Multiverse that the Dark Powers decided to condemn to eternal(ish) damnation for unknown reasons. Ravenloft has a very valid explanation for why not all of its domains of dread are ruled by mages: because mages don't have a choice in the matter. The godlike Dark Powers choose the Dark Lords of Ravenloft. There is a strong limitation on the political capabilities of mages in Ravenloft, so the "mages aren't in control of everything" is a very justified trope in the setting, just like it is in Dragon Age.

This thread is meant to point out that if left unchecked, mages will take control of basically everything. This is a fact. It's inevitable. They will take control eventually, and if they don't, the setting either ignores this fact or chose to introduce some factor to justify why they haven't yet. The Mutants in X-Men haven't taken over yet because a) Mutants are relatively new to the world and b) other heroes prevent Magneto from taking over. If the world isn't largely controlled by mages, there should be an explanation. And I think finding those explanations can be really interesting and great for making the world feel more dynamic and real.

That's the point of this thread. To encourage making the worlds feel more real. Not encouraging people to add more Magocracies in their settings, but to explore the fact that they probably haven't taken control of everything yet for a variety of reasons.

Paranoid tyrants might be paranoid that the mages will take over. I think most rulers would take some sensible precautions, but that would be the extent of it.

Again, the target of a suggestion knows it has been the target of a suggestion. So the mage can try to shift policy once - and then go directly to the headsman's block.

I'm saying that I don't agree with your assessment that mages would easily and inevitably take over. I don't most mages would want the job (they'd be pursuing magical power) and even if they did, I don't think that taking over with mid level magic would be as easy as you are assuming.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wizarding in D&D traditionally narratively takes focus and training and ongoing study. This is a big opportunity cost for learning rulership skills and building political power bases and taking actions to rule. If the king has to do months of uninterrupted spell research or magic item creation this takes away from rulership time or bettering their rulership skills or making political alliances.

If the wizard is adamant about being a king (or vice-versa), they can delegate their kingly responsibilities. Also, in this thought experiment, I think it would make more sense for monarchs to pursue sorcerous/warlock powers because of the fact that it's less time-consuming. Sorcerers and Warlocks also make more sense because they're Charisma-based which helps with being popular amongst your people.

1. Clerics and druids narratively often serve another master whether that is a god or a church or the druidic secret society. Warlocks have this more so.
2. Many people would not be happy to know their king got his position thanks to making a deal with an archfey.

1. Sure. But if they follow that religion/sect and have magical powers, it's even easier to gain leadership roles among those of that religion
2. "That's the point of lying." - Megamind
Plenty of monarchs in the past have had huge secrets. A king getting magical powers from a Warlock pact and lying about the source of magic would be an obvious solution of that issue.

I agree that power is going to beget power, but that is generally going to be more along the lines of entrenched rulership things like family dynasties

Which could have even more power if they had magic through being Sorcerers or Warlocks.

or organizations enforcing a power privilege (in Thay the Red Wizards have set it up so many power positions are restricted to wizards).

Which make more sense to be Bards, Artificers, and Wizards.

In theocratic Thrane a wizard does not have the same in to political power as they would in Thay.

Sure. But in Aundair they would, because Aundair is more of a Magocracy than the Theocratic Thrane. It depends on the situation. That wizard can gain more political power, it just depends on the specific culture and circumstance.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Paranoid tyrants might be paranoid that the mages will take over. I think most rulers would take some sensible precautions, but that would be the extent of it.

"Sensible precautions"? Let's hear more about those! That's the entire point of this thread! Brainstorming how different worlds would work if mages had taken over and brainstorming precautions non-mages could take to prevent that. Please, go on!

Again, the target of a suggestion knows it has been the target of a suggestion. So the mage can try to shift policy once - and then go directly to the headsman's block.

You're mixing up Charm Person with Suggestion. So long as the person that you cast the spell on doesn't notice that you cast it (ala Subtle Spell), they don't know that they were Suggested. A Sorcerer with Subtle Spell could use Suggestion on a monarch without being noticed (so long as there isn't a Detect Magic spell up, which, again, would require another mage to cast).

I'm saying that I don't agree with your assessment that mages would easily and inevitably take over. I don't most mages would want the job (they'd be pursuing magical power) and even if they did, I don't think that taking over with mid level magic would be as easy as you are assuming.

I think that mages would be at least as likely to be power-hungry as typical humans are. And, again, I don't think it would be easy, at least not for individual mages. It would take time, trial-and-error, and the combined efforts of different people (royal bloodlines, aristocracy, religious institutions, etc).

Survival of the fittest. Power begets power. Unless there are enough of those "sensible precautions" you mentioned earlier, mages can and would take over because even though most mages might not be powerhungry, the ones that are would be able to take power.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There is a basic reason mages don't take over:

They don't need too.

Any mage that makes it to a bit of power (roughly 10th level) they can live a happy, full life with just magic. Lots of spells can provide a home, food, water, and nearly any item they want. With near zero effort and a finger wiggle they can have just about whatever they want.

Plenty of spells can make a mage a tons of money, more then enough to break any economy. More then enough money for a mage to buy nearly whatever they want.

And with even a tiny bit of effort, they can live like a king of kings.

And with some effort, they can even transcend life and become immortal.

So why even take over a nation? What does it get the mage? They can control people all day and night, but it won't get them anything more then magic does.....and in fact, mundane things are of a far lesser quality.

And, again with magic, a mage can make more money then exists in the whole nation (and, ahem, world) so it's beyond pointless to rule a nation to get rich.

So with magic meeting every need, a mage could waste time "ruling" sure....if they want to waste time telling people what to do for no benefit.

Maybe some mages would want to rule for the "fun" or such......but it's a bit pointless.

So, you agree with the premise of the thread that as written in D&D 5e, mages would be able to use their powers to abuse the setting's economic system, gain extreme power that non-mages would be incapable of rivaling, and be able to take over entire nations if they wanted to. Sure, a lot of them might not want to take over, but just like normal humans, there would be quite a few members of these groups of mages that would want that kind of power, even if it wasn't strictly necessary. Narcissism exists. Wanting to give the absolute best for your descendants is a common viewpoint. A lot of people in the world are greedy/powerhungry.

My point is that while a lot of mages wouldn't want to take over, it's the ones that do that you'd have to worry about. They would be able to take over given enough planning and probably decades/centuries of time to execute it.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I think the rules for creating magic items don't say that you need to be a spellcaster to make them, at least the Xanathar's ones, so a non-spellcaster ruler could use those to help out against magic, I guess.

Wands of Magic Detection are absolutely essential. Although there's the handy Magic Aura spell to counter it, so not infallible.

Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location, most definitely, attune it and never take it off.

Brooch of Shielding against annoying magic missile assassinations.

Broom of Flying so they don't have air-superiority.

Lantern of Revealing against invisibility spells.

Lantern of Tracking to know if there's summons nearby.

Not counting the general useful items, a lot of them could make up not having spellcasters for specific things.