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

[Malmuria]

 

[see]

Let's get into some nitty gritty details here, to help show my point. Torm, God of Duty, Loyalty and Righteousness.

Yeah, sure, Torm's clergy are going to try to do all those things. And those of Bane are going to try to set up a tyranny, and those of Lliirra are going to try to make the laws less rigid, and those of Cyric are going to try to bring strife and anarchy, and those of Silvanus are going to be in favor of converting things back to wilderness, et cetera.

Anywhere that winds up under the tight dominion of a small number of allied faiths is going to be a target to be brought down by rival faiths, or possibly even by direct divine intervention. Such places might well emerge, and some might persist, but it's not going to be the usual state of society.

Anywhere not under tight dominion, the natural compromise is non-clerics in positions of power, because there are dozens of religions who will object every time a cleric of Torm is given a position of authority. Clerics have substantial power, but they're going to be using that power against each other. Trying to collude as a class isn't going to work; even if the clerics of Shar and Selune personally like the idea of a comfy society where the clerics are in charge, their gods are going to demand mutual conflict.

In the FR context, we can subsume druids, paladins, rangers, and warlocks into that general mutual equilibrium of non-governance. If you've gotten your magical power by becoming a follower of a mighty supernatural being, the numerous followers of the rivals of that being will exert themselves to deny you a position of authority.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, sure, Torm's clergy are going to try to do all those things. And those of Bane are going to try to set up a tyranny, and those of Lliirra are going to try to make the laws less rigid, and those of Cyric are going to try to bring strife and anarchy, and those of Silvanus are going to be in favor of converting things back to wilderness, et cetera.

Anywhere that winds up under the tight dominion of a small number of allied faiths is going to be a target to be brought down by rival faiths, or possibly even by direct divine intervention. Such places might well emerge, and some might persist, but it's not going to be the usual state of society.

Anywhere not under tight dominion, the natural compromise is non-clerics in positions of power, because there are dozens of religions who will object every time a cleric of Torm is given a position of authority. Clerics have substantial power, but they're going to be using that power against each other. Trying to collude as a class isn't going to work; even if the clerics of Shar and Selune personally like the idea of a comfy society where the clerics are in charge, their gods are going to demand mutual conflict.

In the FR context, we can subsume druids, paladins, rangers, and warlocks into that general mutual equilibrium of non-governance. If you've gotten your magical power by becoming a follower of a mighty supernatural being, the numerous followers of the rivals of that being will exert themselves to deny you a position of authority.

And yet Bane is the dominant religion in Mulmaster. The Seldarine have no rivals for the elvish worship, and thus can have an elvish pantheon leading their cities with little trouble. Same with the Dwarves, who suffer no additional trouble by all aligning under Moradin. The Gnomes with Garl, or the island which was ruled by Gond. The Drow with Lolth, The Giants under Anam. Ect, Ect, Ect.

Seems that many places have very strong ties with their gods, and not a lot of effort goes towards destroying them.


You are basically proposing that the only reason non-spellcasters rule is because all spellcasters are too busy countering each other to ever rule. Sort of like how a raven gets the meat, because the wolves and the coyotes are too busy fighting to drive it off.


But, there is a problem with this proposed solution, beyond the general derisiveness towards the muggle population. These gods and powers are at war anyways. And they are in wars of people, wars that require resources. Why then would the Gods not seek to gain and consolidate resources. Sure, if Torm takes over a city-state, then it becomes a target, but the Temple of Torm alone on the hillside was ALSO a target, and can Torm and his followers not more easily protect and more easily project power from a centralized location? Are they not more effective as a nation with a nation's resources, than as a collection of temples with a handful of knights? Doesn't Torm ever SUCCEED in creating the society his doctrine preaches? We know Bane has often gotten very close to succeeding, we know Lolth and the other non-human gods have absolutely succeeded. Why is it so impossible that others could also succeed?

Society itself is under constant threat of annihilation by the forces which despise it, yet society persists. Why would conflict inherently mean that no kingdom could ever form under a god?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For example, you keep referencing the "upper echelons of magical power". But very few people have even addressed that as a point.

I genuinely 100% do not believe that anything less than 6th-7th level spells would confer a sufficient advantage to make magocracy inevitable.

You seem to think the inequality will inevitably lead to collapse. The mages can't be in charge, because they will need support from non-mages, and non-mages won't stand for it.

I am saying that an absolute magocracy, which IS definitely what the OP has presented even if that wasn't their intent, would almost guarantee oppression of non-mages. For God's sake, this happened in real societies! People have cited this exact thing in this thread! Rebellions against rulers who ceased to address the concerns of the governed. Absolute magocracy is going to cause unrest because anyone who can't use magic will be at best a second-class citizen and at worst a slave. The Servile Wars are calling, they want to know why they're being ignored, and the answer has to be "because magic will let me suppress rebellions" if it is any answer at all.

Additionally, you seem to claim that Good-Aligned gods won't allow inequality to exist in the government. But this is.... fundamentally wrong.

No. I'm saying Good-aligned (and even most Neutral-aligned) deities would not stand for absolute magocracy, which this thread has presented as a guaranteed and inevitable state of affairs without actually defending it. "The ruling class is all, and only, mages." Even people who have explicitly said that that isn't what the thread is about immediately fall back into it, by saying (for example) that sorcerers who pop up at random pose a serious question because they are implicitly part of the magocracy, part of the ruling class, purely because they have spellcasting powers, which can only be the case if there is an exact equivalence between "X is a member of the ruling class" and "X has the ability to cast spells."

Society exists in a stratified manner. There is always inequality between the social levels.

Not true, but not a fight I intend to actually wage in this thread. Suffice it to say this is WAY WAY WAY more complicated than you are making it sound. Hierarchy is not the only social organization method, and even in hierarchy, the stratification need not be based on inequality.

The gods not standing magic-users in charge because that's inequality can be equally applied to the gods not standing the wealthy being in charge, because that's inequality. But the Gods themselves enforce inequality, because the gods reward those that serve them well and do not reward those who do not serve them. Since that reward takes the form of power, it is an inequality.

That's...not...

sigh

Having strata is not the same as inequality. Inequality is the OPPRESSION of lower classes by higher classes in the social order. The existence of a social order does not equal oppression.

Additionally, while there are many violent revolutions that came from the lower classes rising up, the single depredations of a single noble were never the cause. The inequality itself wasn't the cause. The causes can often be traced back to extreme and systematic abuses, or breakdowns in the social order caused by disease or famine. Which, again, magic-using societies can actually do something about that non-magic using societies can't.

And I'm saying that absolute magocracy will, actually inevitably, lead to oppression of non-magic-using population. Because in an absolute magocracy, if you can't cast spells, you aren't a person. Not a full one anyway.

And I think this is the source of the "inevitability" that you keep claiming we can't prove. Magic = options. Options that cannot be accomplished by other means.

People claim this "it ABSOLUTELY cannot be imitated by ANY other means" and I'm...skeptical. It is quite a big claim to say that it is 100% impossible to get the same thing done in other ways. This is part of my skepticism.

Even if it is true that non-magical people can create magical items... doesn't that just lead to artificers? The power then becomes less having personal power and more having access to the magical items. But magic is so useful, solves so many problems, that those societies which utilize it heavily will succeed more than those that don't.

That's...not...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the aristocracy becoming 100% mages nor mages supplanting and taking over the aristocracy! Now you're talking about a completely different thing altogether, which is simply the idea that magic will be employed. Of course it will! That's trivial! If you can hire a wizard, why wouldn't you? But that is COMPLETELY different from either the inevitable conquest of spellcasting aristocrats or spellcasters replacing aristocrats!

This is maddening. Three times now I have tried to actually address the topic and it keeps moving.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Society itself is under constant threat of annihilation by the forces which despise it, yet society persists. Why would conflict inherently mean that no kingdom could ever form under a god?

Again, you use the "isn't it possible?" argument, but that isn't what is being opposed here.

You and others have insisted that what is 100% guaranteed inevitable is that spellcasters (of whatever type) WILL take over. Always. Period. No exceptions. Either ambitious spellcasters will usurp the political power of non-spellcasting rulers and aristocrats, or existing aristocracy will become spellcasters by choice. Either way, ALL societies will ALWAYS become ruled exclusively by spellcasters. Non-spellcasters cannot, even in principle, rule any nation beyond a temporary measure. They WILL either take up spellcasting or be defeated by spellcasters. Always.

That's a way, way, WAY stronger claim. And all one needs do is provide even a minor or merely plausible reason why absolute magocracy is not inevitable in order to puncture that claim.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

If we're taking the highest levels into account, a huge advantage some magic has is just living very, very long, which should help if they wanna rule things at some point in their lives.

At 18th level Druids get Timeless Body, which just for a human will let them live for hundreds of years, and easily several thousand years for the more long lived races like Elves.

15th level Ancient Paladins also can't age. Sadly the Monk's Timeless Body still lets them die of old age, so they don't get the benefit here.

By 15th level Wizards have Clone, which is basically immortality against aging, and makes people who wanna kill you have to use some more extreme methods like Hellfire Weapons or a Disintegrate to really make it stick. You can also sell immortality to others, pretty much, so extremely good for making people do what you want.

A few Inevitables might come to beat you up, so keep an eye out though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hell is other magi.

Wizards, like most nerds, tend to form organizations of like-minded individuals, then those break down into factions over largely meaningless differences, which then causes them to focus most of their energies into proving themselves to their rivals.

Sure a rogue mage can go and take over a town or a city, but the moment one gets to a place of public prominence, they will be crab bucketed back down by a tidal wave looking to prove them wrong or themselves better.

Even when they do establish something long-lasting, tradition and in-fighting will keep them from expanding in any worthwhile manner.

Meanwhile the normal folk have developed the rocket launcher for solving any wizards who manage to extra their heads from their butt long enough to make a play. It's hard to bend reality with your mind when your neurons are in a 30ft radius cloud of mist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I genuinely 100% do not believe that anything less than 6th-7th level spells would confer a sufficient advantage to make magocracy inevitable.

We have already established that one of the biggest things that created societies is access to food. Plant Growth, 3rd level spell, doubles food production. Another thing we established was access to water. Create or Destroy Water, 1st level spell. Also, what if rats get in the grain and spoil it, or a well is fouled? Purify Food and Drink, 1st level ritual.

Rulers must make important decisions that affect the lives of their people. Augury, 2nd level spell, gives a sign of Weal or Woe to an action you plan to take in the next 30 minutes.

Rulers must make judgements, trying criminals to find who is guilty and who is not. Zone of Truth, 2nd level spell.


I know, I know. "THESE DO NOT MAKE RULING INEVITABLE!! They simply are tools that Warriors and Fighters will force mages to use for them, not put the mages in charge"

But a Cleric of equal level to a fighter can also project personal force. They can also gather followers. They can also make money. And the more tools of the state that make the running of the state function are in the hands of the spellcasters, the more and more likely it becomes that those spellcasters end up as a ruling class. It didn't happen in real world history, because the power of life and death stayed solely in the realm of martial combat, because we don't have magic in this world. But the guy who can cast the spells to create water and double food production can also cast things like Thunderwave and take on a group of three or four men in single combat.

I am saying that an absolute magocracy, which IS definitely what the OP has presented even if that wasn't their intent, would almost guarantee oppression of non-mages. For God's sake, this happened in real societies! People have cited this exact thing in this thread! Rebellions against rulers who ceased to address the concerns of the governed. Absolute magocracy is going to cause unrest because anyone who can't use magic will be at best a second-class citizen and at worst a slave. The Servile Wars are calling, they want to know why they're being ignored, and the answer has to be "because magic will let me suppress rebellions" if it is any answer at all.

Why the hell would that happen?

You know that Nobility treated peasants as second-class citizens, right? And nobles kept power and generally weren't subject to rebellions the vast majority of the time? Oh, and they generally didn't make the peasants slaves (this can change depending on where)

This isn't changing the social order to make all non-mages slaves. This is changing the social order to make all nobles mages. That doesn't change how the nobles would treat the non-nobles at all. Nothing about how the nobles treat the peasants needs to change one iota. Sure, new nobility would be looked down upon until they had heirs that learned enough magic. Just like new nobility was looked down on because they couldn't quote Plato or Thomas Aquinas.

I don't understand why you think mages being in charge automatically would make them worse rulers than non-mages. But you keep hammering on that point. Why? what about being a magic user automatically would make you want to oppress and enslave non-magic users? Would they prevent non-magic users from becoming nobles and royals? Yes, just like nobles have always tried to prevent commoners from becoming nobles or royals. This isn't new behavior.

No. I'm saying Good-aligned (and even most Neutral-aligned) deities would not stand for absolute magocracy, which this thread has presented as a guaranteed and inevitable state of affairs without actually defending it. "The ruling class is all, and only, mages." Even people who have explicitly said that that isn't what the thread is about immediately fall back into it, by saying (for example) that sorcerers who pop up at random pose a serious question because they are implicitly part of the magocracy, part of the ruling class, purely because they have spellcasting powers, which can only be the case if there is an exact equivalence between "X is a member of the ruling class" and "X has the ability to cast spells."

Why wouldn't they stand for it? This is no different than saying all nobles must be able to fight, hunt and command armies. Magic is a learnable skill, warlock contracts don't even require that. If the gods feel someone deserves to be part of the ruling class because they are properly fit for it, then why not make them a celestial warlock, send an Angel to make them a Divine Soul Sorcerer, grant them powers of a cleric or a paladin? All of that would qualify.

Your point seems to be that the Gods wouldn't stand for a system of government that doesn't allow anyone at all to become a leader. And, well, they already DO stand for that. The very existence of a noble class creates the exact disparity you assure me the gods would never tolerate.

Not true, but not a fight I intend to actually wage in this thread. Suffice it to say this is WAY WAY WAY more complicated than you are making it sound. Hierarchy is not the only social organization method, and even in hierarchy, the stratification need not be based on inequality.

You cannot have a ruling class without have a class of the ruled. If the ruling class can make demands of the ruled class, and expected to be followed because of their status, then there is inequality. Maybe you are using the term differently?

That's...not...

sigh

Having strata is not the same as inequality. Inequality is the OPPRESSION of lower classes by higher classes in the social order. The existence of a social order does not equal oppression.

No, oppression is the oppression of the lower classes by the higher classes. Inequality is the state of things being un-equal between the higher classes and the lower classes.

Inequality is inevitable, because people cannot be perfectly equal and have a social order with an upper, middle, and lower class.

Oppression isn't inevitable. Oppression is an abuse of that inequality and a mistreatment of others.

This explains a lot, if we have been using the same term in two different ways.

And I'm saying that absolute magocracy will, actually inevitably, lead to oppression of non-magic-using population. Because in an absolute magocracy, if you can't cast spells, you aren't a person. Not a full one anyway.

Not a single person in this entire thread has made this claim except for you. Of course you are a person if you can't cast spells. You just aren't a noble. Non-nobles are still people. Unless you live in a society that believes that power alone determines your worth.

You are protesting a model NO ONE is supporting.

People claim this "it ABSOLUTELY cannot be imitated by ANY other means" and I'm...skeptical. It is quite a big claim to say that it is 100% impossible to get the same thing done in other ways. This is part of my skepticism.

Can you list another way to guarantee the cleansing of spoiled grain? That's a basic level 1 ritual. Take grain that is diseased and unfit for consumption, and purify it so that it can be eaten. Is there a non-magical way to do this presented in the rules?

That's...not...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the aristocracy becoming 100% mages nor mages supplanting and taking over the aristocracy! Now you're talking about a completely different thing altogether, which is simply the idea that magic will be employed. Of course it will! That's trivial! If you can hire a wizard, why wouldn't you? But that is COMPLETELY different from either the inevitable conquest of spellcasting aristocrats or spellcasters replacing aristocrats!

This is maddening. Three times now I have tried to actually address the topic and it keeps moving.

I think part of your issue is you have a very specific idea of what it means when we say "mages are in charge"

For me, it means literally what it says on the tin. Spellcasters are the nobility, the ruling class, and in charge of the kingdom.

For you it seems to mean non-spellcasters are enslaved, sub-human thralls to the tyranical magical overlords.


So, for me, if the ruling class is constantly using highly specialized magical items, which require knowledge to create, and we know that a level 1 artificer is just as easy to learn to be as a level 1 fighter... why wouldn't the nobles eventually seek more control over the levers of power by becoming more and more specialized in the use and creation of the tools that are needed to leverage power? It doesn't change the model at all, it just addresses it in a different manner.

But for you, this is a non-sequiter, because learning to use magical tools doesn't make you a tyrant enslaving the muggles to enforce your magical lordship on them as lesser beings.

Again, you use the "isn't it possible?" argument, but that isn't what is being opposed here.

You and others have insisted that what is 100% guaranteed inevitable is that spellcasters (of whatever type) WILL take over. Always. Period. No exceptions. Either ambitious spellcasters will usurp the political power of non-spellcasting rulers and aristocrats, or existing aristocracy will become spellcasters by choice. Either way, ALL societies will ALWAYS become ruled exclusively by spellcasters. Non-spellcasters cannot, even in principle, rule any nation beyond a temporary measure. They WILL either take up spellcasting or be defeated by spellcasters. Always.

That's a way, way, WAY stronger claim. And all one needs do is provide even a minor or merely plausible reason why absolute magocracy is not inevitable in order to puncture that claim.

No.

The OP made that claim, but even the OP absolutely stated that it is inveitable "unless something prevents it" and in fact spent a good deal of their post talking about Dragon Age and how it prevents the rise of magic-users ruling the nation by not only having magic-users being distrusted, but a reliable way for non-magic users to shut down magic-users.

It is inevitable over time, unless there are active forces that stop it. And the only active force you have given is that people won't stand to be enslaved. Which... doesn't address the situation at all, because no one is saying that magic users would enslave the populace. Your other point is that magic-users couldn't overthrow non-magic users because armies. But... people with armies get overthrown pretty regularly. And magic-users can ALSO have armies.

This is the key point of the inevitability. Anything a non-magic user CAN do, a magic-user can also do. But there are things a magic-user CAN do that a non-magic user CANNOT do. Within those options then, they will win more often than not. People with power will seek magical power for its benefits, because it has so many benefits. Power tends to aggregate at the top, and magic is power, pure and simple.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Hell is other magi.

Wizards, like most nerds, tend to form organizations of like-minded individuals, then those break down into factions over largely meaningless differences, which then causes them to focus most of their energies into proving themselves to their rivals.

Sure a rogue mage can go and take over a town or a city, but the moment one gets to a place of public prominence, they will be crab bucketed back down by a tidal wave looking to prove them wrong or themselves better.

Even when they do establish something long-lasting, tradition and in-fighting will keep them from expanding in any worthwhile manner.

Meanwhile the normal folk have developed the rocket launcher for solving any wizards who manage to extra their heads from their butt long enough to make a play. It's hard to bend reality with your mind when your neurons are in a 30ft radius cloud of mist.

And how is this different from being a mundane warlord? It isn't like the Roman Generals assassinated the Emperor so often because they found it funny. Whenever someone gets power, others will put themselves against them to take that power.

You proposition seems to assume that no magi could gain power, because other magi would tear them down.... but wouldn't the winner of a magi vs magi fight to determine who is in charge end with a magi in charge?

I also don't see the rocket launcher on the PHB inventory. Could you tell me which page you are pulling that from and how the common people of a kingdom somehow all have rocket launchers that only work against magi, and that magi can't use, to allow the muggles to be the ones who rule?

 

[Voadam]

We have already established that one of the biggest things that created societies is access to food. Plant Growth, 3rd level spell, doubles food production. Another thing we established was access to water. Create or Destroy Water, 1st level spell. Also, what if rats get in the grain and spoil it, or a well is fouled? Purify Food and Drink, 1st level ritual.

Ergo, the historical model of rule by the best individual farmer in the land.