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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

These two lines make it explicit: magic-users should be replacing the existing aristocracy, not getting absorbed into it or having the existing aristocracy train their family members to become spellcasters.

Actually, I did intent the thought experiment to include multiple different ways for mages to "take over". I don't really care if that happens through a mage coup where the aristocracy is replaced with a new aristocracy or the current aristocracy learns magic in order to maintain their power or even if the aristocracy was made up of mostly mages since the very beginning (because magic has been around at least as long as a noble class has).

 

[Ixal]

Nah. I think it's more likely than not whoever could employ bigger-army diplomacy. Spells aren't very good at mass control of thoughts/minds.

Here you are very mistaken. Spellcaster do not need to mind control people.

Who would someone rather fight and possibly die for and assume that this person is so special that they deserve to live a better live and can tell you what to do. The person in a more shiny armor than you having a sword or the guy literally flying through the air, not eben having to touch the ground like you do and who can shoot fire from their hands?

Even, or rather especially, in monarchic systems a ruler requires a form of legitimacy why he is allowed to rule over others. In a magical world spellcasting would be the most obvious form of legitimacy as it allows the spellcaster to objectively do things which is impossible to do for the common men.
That would be especially true in systems were magical talent is exclusively inborn and heredetary, but that doesn't apply to D&D.

I don't see how this follows.

Tradition. With more and more nobles being spellcasters eventually spellcasting will become linked to nobility and not being a spellcaster will be a stain on a nobles legitimacy and makes it more likely for an ursurper finding support.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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

Can't blame you (I had to double-check it myself) but Magic Aura cannot hide spells on a creature. PHB pg 263:

The False Aura (the effect that hides magical auras) paragraph explicitly references an object (multiple times). Therefore it's clear that this use is only intended for objects (like magical items).

It's the paragraph below that (Mask) that functions on creatures. And that just allows you to make a creature detect as a different creature type or alignment.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Here you are very mistaken. Spellcaster do not need to mind control people.

Who would someone rather fight and possibly die for and assume that this person is so special that they deserve to live a better live and can tell you what to do. The person in a more shiny armor than you having a sword or the guy literally flying through the air, not eben having to touch the ground like you do and who can shoot fire from their hands?

Well, based on actual history, the one who is more likely to actually take control. And the guy with the shiny sword? He's already got an army at his back because he's already in a leadership position. The guy "literally flying through the air" is certainly impressive, but impressive doesn't inspire loyalty.

You act like each and every person is a homo economicus. That's just not how humans work. People do not flip on a dime simply because a shiny thing is dangled before them. There are far too many social connections in play, far too many subtle and emotional factors. Loyalty is a difficult thing to acquire and preserve, and genuine loyalty is one of the few things magic really has no control over.

Even, or rather especially, in monarchic systems a ruler requires a form of legitimacy why he is allowed to rule over others. In a magical world spellcasting would be the most obvious form of legitimacy as it allows the spellcaster to objectively do things which is impossible to do for the common men.
That would be especially true in systems were magical talent is exclusively inborn and heredetary, but that doesn't apply to D&D.

Not at all. Bloodline inheritance is almost always more important than specific skills. Otherwise, there would have been a LOT more, ahem, "Klingon promotions" in medieval Europe. Particularly with people like the final king of the Habsburg dynasty, Charles II of Spain.

Further, there have been several instances in human history where a very talented advisor could easily have become a king (e.g. Imhotep in Egypt), or where talented individuals who failed to play to the interests of the crowd failed while others who did play to the interests of the crowd succeeded. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids--three of the four at least partially "academic" spellcasters--do not specifically develop or focus on the skills and talents necessary to play to the crowd. I would absolutely expect, for example, a charismatic Fighter to outdo the vast majority of Wizards, who have no need for charisma in their academic studies.

This leaves, as noted, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards. Sorcerer is completely unreliable, as the bloodline frequently skips generations or fails to manifest for reasons never established. Warlock is a huge risk for a number of reasons, and (as argued above) one would generally expect an equitable deal, which means giving up something great in exchange for something great. Bard is the only remaining option, but...well. The culture surrounding storytellers and wandering minstrels does not lend itself to "respected leader." At all.

Hence, if you're going to make this argument, you have to actually defend why spellcasting specifically would be so actively sought out, and would have such an overwhelmingly beneficial impact instead of actually relevant skills like leadership, diplomacy, and strategy.

Tradition. With mioe and more nobles being spellcasters eventually spellcasting will become linked to nobility and not being a spellcaster will be a stain on a nobles legitimacy and makes it more likely for an ursurper finding support.

Then you are making a slippery slope argument, because you haven't actually shown how this will inevitably result in "more and more nobles being spellcasters."

Perhaps it interests only a few, and their interests don't spread to their children. Perhaps their attempts to combine their lines with plausible sorcerer bloodlines fail (after all, sorcery is usually a surprise, not a family business.) Perhaps those trying to use magic get cornered and beaten down by those who don't use magic, creating a counter-tradition of "magic users shouldn't have power."

I could go on. There are many different other exits from this slippery slope. You have yet to prove that this cascade of events inevitably happens.

 

[Ixal]

Well, based on actual history, the one who is more likely to actually take control. And the guy with the shiny sword? He's already got an army at his back because he's already in a leadership position. The guy "literally flying through the air" is certainly impressive, but impressive doesn't inspire loyalty.

You act like each and every person is a homo economicus. That's just not how humans work. People do not flip on a dime simply because a shiny thing is dangled before them. There are far too many social connections in play, far too many subtle and emotional factors. Loyalty is a difficult thing to acquire and preserve, and genuine loyalty is one of the few things magic really has no control over.


Not at all. Bloodline inheritance is almost always more important than specific skills. Otherwise, there would have been a LOT more, ahem, "Klingon promotions" in medieval Europe. Particularly with people like the final king of the Habsburg dynasty, Charles II of Spain.

Further, there have been several instances in human history where a very talented advisor could easily have become a king (e.g. Imhotep in Egypt), or where talented individuals who failed to play to the interests of the crowd failed while others who did play to the interests of the crowd succeeded. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids--three of the four at least partially "academic" spellcasters--do not specifically develop or focus on the skills and talents necessary to play to the crowd. I would absolutely expect, for example, a charismatic Fighter to outdo the vast majority of Wizards, who have no need for charisma in their academic studies.

This leaves, as noted, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bards. Sorcerer is completely unreliable, as the bloodline frequently skips generations or fails to manifest for reasons never established. Warlock is a huge risk for a number of reasons, and (as argued above) one would generally expect an equitable deal, which means giving up something great in exchange for something great. Bard is the only remaining option, but...well. The culture surrounding storytellers and wandering minstrels does not lend itself to "respected leader." At all.

Hence, if you're going to make this argument, you have to actually defend why spellcasting specifically would be so actively sought out, and would have such an overwhelmingly beneficial impact instead of actually relevant skills like leadership, diplomacy, and strategy.


Then you are making a slippery slope argument, because you haven't actually shown how this will inevitably result in "more and more nobles being spellcasters."

Perhaps it interests only a few, and their interests don't spread to their children. Perhaps their attempts to combine their lines with plausible sorcerer bloodlines fail (after all, sorcery is usually a surprise, not a family business.) Perhaps those trying to use magic get cornered and beaten down by those who don't use magic, creating a counter-tradition of "magic users shouldn't have power."

I could go on. There are many different other exits from this slippery slope. You have yet to prove that this cascade of events inevitably happens.

For some reason you seem to be stuck in this noble + army vs. lone spellcaster mindset.
Why wouldn't the spellcaster have an army? He would in many cases have a bigger army as more people would swear to follow the person with actual superhuman abilities who is clearly destined to lead and rule than the guy who could be from next door and only says that he is special.

What you fail to understand is how important legitimacy is for monarchies and what great lengths they went to appear to be better than common people and to their subject nobility with ever more elaborate court rituals ect.

People did not follow kings because they just inherited a title and thats just the way it us, they followed them because they believed god wants them to rule or that they are literally gods themselves and no normal person.
And if someone lost this legitimacy there were "klingon promotions" by lords installing someone differently or there being mass rebellions.

And in a magical world a priest just saying that god wants it doesn't cut it. Its much more convincing when the person who claims the right to rule over others posesses superhuman abilities.
And that is, among the obvious reasons for personal power, why nobles would seek out to be spellcasters. It sets them apart from normal people and underscores their right of ruling over them.
And the more that happens and the longer it goes the more it is expected for a noble to be a spellcaster as otherwise there might something wrong with him.

 

[Minigiant]

I am just seeing families of nobility turning to patrons to boost their house and the machinations of the various patrons getting out of hand for the noble warlocks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For some reason you seem to ve stuck in this noble + army vs. lone spellcaster mindset.
Why wouldn't the spellcaster have an army?

Because, as already granted by others, magical knowledge requires time to develop. Ruling classes do not. Almost as soon as you have settled existence--which is required for all casting traditions except Warlock and Sorcerer (and maybe Druid)--you have class distinctions and rulers. In order for an actual "we focus on studying magic" class to develop, you need to already have a relatively stable, steady society, because it takes a LOT of time to become a truly powerful spellcaster.

He would in many cases have a bigger army as more people would swear to follow the person with actual superhuman abilities who is clearly destined to lead and rule than the guy who could be from next door and only says that he is special.

You have not actually defended this; you are just asserting, yet again, that having spellcasting is simply, always, universally superior in all ways, and that's simply not true. Unless and until you actually defend that the spellcaster is obviously superior, you are making a circular argument: spellcasters are superior because spellcasters are superior, so obviously spellcasters are superior.

What you fail to understand is how important legitimacy is for monarchies and what great lengths they went to appear to be better than common people and to their subject nobility with ever more elaborate court rituals ect.

Not at all. I understand that quite well. I also understand that spellcasting does not automatically guarantee legitimacy. In fact, it may cause a serious deficit of legitimacy! It's absolutely not an unequivocal ticket to eternal legitimacy.

People did not follow kings because they just inherited a title and thats just the way it us, they followed them because they believed god wants them to rule or that they are literally gods themselves and no normal person.

Uh...actually, I hate to break it to you, but...that's actually exactly how vassalage came to become the dominant political situation in medieval Europe. The "divine right of kings" stuff only came centuries later. (Warning, that linked blog post is a bit long, but it's actually really good, and written by an actual professor of history!)

Rome had maintained a large and complex bureaucracy by having a large and broad educated middle-class that could fill such positions. However, as the Western Roman Empire collapsed, the stability and interconnectedness required to maintain such an educated middle class disappeared, meaning when it finally fell apart, there was a dearth of actual administrators to manage society. Regional leaders--warlords who set themselves up as "kings"--had to default to something, so they went with the comites (singular comes, pronounced "co-MACE"), from which we draw the modern word "count" in English and "comte" in French. Literally, the "companions" of the warleaders. And then the Missi Dominici ("Lord's Envoys" or "Ruler's Envoys") ensured that the comites actually adhered to the king's commands. Except...the missi ALSO declined in power as the early post-Roman kings started to weaken and lose direct control of their territory. As a result, the vassalage system literally was a matter of "this is the person who inherited this title and that's just the way it is."

And if someone lost this legitimacy there were "klingon promotions" by lords installing someone differently or there being mass rebellions.

Except...that didn't happen nearly as often as you're claiming. Like, that should have happened the instant there was a stronger claimant, or a weak ruler, or whatever else. And....it didn't. Repeatedly. You almost always had actual conflicts resulting in wars of succession rather than everyone defaulting to one ruler or another. Further, subjects outright abandoning a weak ruler simply because the ruler was weak? Never happened. Your description of medieval history is simply completely inaccurate.

And in a magical world a priest jzst saying that god wants it doesn't cut it. Its much more convincing when the person who claims the right to rule over others posesses superhuman abilities.

Again...that only cropped up after vassalage became the default organization system of Europe. So you're literally talking about only after the rise of a mundane aristocracy, adding in this need to appeal to religious authority.

Besides....there are quite openly interventionist deities. Which is why I dismissed "deified kings" much earlier in the thread. Gods can very quickly tell you whether your deified king is actually deified or is just a dude who knows some nifty tricks. That's gonna put a pretty major damper on people claiming such specialness.

And that is, among the obvious reasons for personal power, why nobles would seek out to be spellcasters. It sets them apart from normal people and underscores their right of ruling over them.

Again: you haven't actually defended this. You've just asserted it, and then worked from that assertion as though I should simply accept it because it was asserted. That's not an argument.

And the more that happens and the longer it goes the more it is expected for a noble to be a spellcaster as otherwise there might something wrong with him.

This is just repeating the slippery-slope argument from above. Unless you can actually back up the inevitability of this progression, there's no reason to accept this argument.

 

[Ixal]

Because, as already granted by others, magical knowledge requires time to develop. Ruling classes do not. Almost as soon as you have settled existence--which is required for all casting traditions except Warlock and Sorcerer (and maybe Druid)--you have class distinctions and rulers. In order for an actual "we focus on studying magic" class to develop, you need to already have a relatively stable, steady society, because it takes a LOT of time to become a truly powerful spellcaster.

You left out clerics and paladins. Basically the mainority of spellcasters require extensive training. Most do not and would thus already be around once a social hirarchy forms.
And the guy who can make water appear, close wounds with a touch or make things burn with his hand is a very good contender for the top spot as he is "better" than normal people

You have not actually defended this; you are just asserting, yet again, that having spellcasting is simply, always, universally superior in all ways, and that's simply not true. Unless and until you actually defend that the spellcaster is obviously superior, you are making a circular argument: spellcasters are superior because spellcasters are superior, so obviously spellcasters are superior.

You should stop thinking in terms of HP, skill checks and who would be stronger.
Spellcasting allows a person to do things the vast majority of people can't do. It literally makes them superhuman in their eyes. And thats the real power, not how much damage a fireball does. By appearing superhuman they can claim to be better than other people which is why they should rule and not others.

Not at all. I understand that quite well. I also understand that spellcasting does not automatically guarantee legitimacy. In fact, it may cause a serious deficit of legitimacy! It's absolutely not an unequivocal ticket to eternal legitimacy.

Spellcasting, the ability to do things ordinary persons can't do is a very big plus on the list of reasons why you should rule and not someone else and why people should follow you.

Uh...actually, I hate to break it to you, but...that's actually exactly how vassalage came to become the dominant political situation in medieval Europe. The "divine right of kings" stuff only came centuries later. (Warning, that linked blog post is a bit long, but it's actually really good, and written by an actual professor of history!)

Rome had maintained a large and complex bureaucracy by having a large and broad educated middle-class that could fill such positions. However, as the Western Roman Empire collapsed, the stability and interconnectedness required to maintain such an educated middle class disappeared, meaning when it finally fell apart, there was a dearth of actual administrators to manage society. Regional leaders--warlords who set themselves up as "kings"--had to default to something, so they went with the comites (singular comes, pronounced "co-MACE"), from which we draw the modern word "count" in English and "comte" in French. Literally, the "companions" of the warleaders. And then the Missi Dominici ("Lord's Envoys" or "Ruler's Envoys") ensured that the comites actually adhered to the king's commands. Except...the missi ALSO declined in power as the early post-Roman kings started to weaken and lose direct control of their territory. As a result, the vassalage system literally was a matter of "this is the person who inherited this title and that's just the way it is."

And you conveniently leave out all the older systems of government with divine rule like the Pharao of Egypt or the concurrent ones to Rome like Zoroastrianism and Judaism with divine rule.
Not that Rome did not have imperial cults worshipping the emperor as divine and keeping Egypt in check by merging the role of Pharao and Emperor.
And from there Christianity adopted this concept, except now the rulers are not gods themselves but divinely sanctioned.

Except...that didn't happen nearly as often as you're claiming. Like, that should have happened the instant there was a stronger claimant, or a weak ruler, or whatever else. And....it didn't. Repeatedly. You almost always had actual conflicts resulting in wars of succession rather than everyone defaulting to one ruler or another. Further, subjects outright abandoning a weak ruler simply because the ruler was weak? Never happened. Your description of medieval history is simply completely inaccurate.

It did happen. From mass revolts in China after natural disasters to nobles backing other candidates.
Legitimacy was one of the core components what made monarchies work. Without giving the people a reason why you are superior to them things fell apart quickly.
You are confusing skill with legitimacy. Just because someone is a bad ruler doesn't mean he is illegitimate.

Again...that only cropped up after vassalage became the default organization system of Europe. So you're literally talking about only after the rise of a mundane aristocracy, adding in this need to appeal to religious authority.

Yes, vassalage in ancient Egypt...
And as you saod yourself, the reliance on a divine mandate increased over time. So would the requirements of spellcasting (=the fantasy version of divine right)

Besides....there are quite openly interventionist deities. Which is why I dismissed "deified kings" much earlier in the thread. Gods can very quickly tell you whether your deified king is actually deified or is just a dude who knows some nifty tricks. That's gonna put a pretty major damper on people claiming such specialness.

No it enforces it even more. The one casting spells must obviously be favored by the gods (unless he is not a divine caster which 99% of people would't be abke to tell).

Again: you haven't actually defended this. You've just asserted it, and then worked from that assertion as though I should simply accept it because it was asserted. That's not an argument.


This is just repeating the slippery-slope argument from above. Unless you can actually back up the inevitability of this progression, there's no reason to accept this argument.

Just look at the proliferation of court rituals and the great lengths nobles had to go to appear proper. They did not do this because they wanted to go through all this but because it was expected of nobles to behave that way. And once enough nobles conformed to a ritual others had to adapt it.
The same would happen to spellcasting, the ultimate "I am better than ordinary persons" and thus sign that you should rule over them.

So, now your turn to defend your position...

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I mean, isn't this kind of the norm for most D&D-flavored fantasy settings? I don't think there's a whole bunch of settings that pretty much look like Crusader Kings (everything is feudalistic warlords) and the magic-users are on the sidelines just ignoring politics.

I mean, the only D&D world I can think of that isn't run by oligarchical cabals of highly magic-powered individuals (wizards, dragons, fiends, divine agents) is maybe Dragonlance? And that had used to an apocalypse-sized hammer to do so.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the main reason is practical. There's generally two ways to gain magical power.

1. Adventure
2. Study, pray etc.

Ruling requires time and effort. That time and effort is probably better off spent gaining more arcane power.

Not every spellcaster will think that way but becoming a ruler makes you weaker. Or you're a bad king. Either way eventually someone more powerful than you is gonna come knocking.

Charisma and political acumen are more useful to rule than raw magical power. Ruling is mostly a mugs game for a spellcaster. Being an advisor or some other gig is better.

Not saying it can't or won't happen but it's not an automatic thing. Even an Emperor needs to listen to the high priest. Well at least wise ruler.

Besides any min maxer knows to be a good ruler you probably need good mental scores. Odds are you've dumped one of them to be a powerful spellcaster. You really want a fool, idiot or contarian a hole as your ruler?