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

[Chaosmancer]

No, for the same reason that censorship and media control--practiced by essentially all medieval European monarchs--did not make the ruling class uniformly well-educated. Exerting supervisory control is not the same thing as applying it to yourself. Many medieval monarchs were nearly illiterate, having received almost no formal education, and some did not even speak the native language of the country they ruled, e.g. Richard the Lionheart did not speak English. For much the same reason that economic and secretarial concerns were often fobbed off onto civil servants, despite being of absolutely vital importance to the state, control over knowledge and magic does not imply that the monarchs MUST become spellcasters in their own right.

Some would have. Cleopatra, for example, or Alfonso X of Castile (also known as Alfonso the Wise.) But many would not, because politics often doesn't leave room for research or religious vows. Political power is difficult to maintain, and doing that and being a devoted practicing priest or avid scholar is not easy.

The point is though that, since the ruling class would censor all knowledge of magic, then only the ruling class COULD access magic.

Also, unlike speaking a language or reading, there are tangible benefits to knowing magic. After all, many posters have taken the position that those with magic wouldn't deign to rule, because it is so beneath them, so there must be some value in learning magic that would tempt the ruling class into using the knowledge they have consolidated.

And while it is difficult to be a noble and an avid scholar MANY did so. We don't actually have many written works created by peasants before the Rennaissance. Most things were written by church authorities, nobility, or those adopted by the nobility and in their social circles. The more knowledge is restricted, the more knowledge is difficult to acquire, the more LIKELY it is that only those who have wealth and power can access it. Even if they aren't the heads of the family.

It is already an established fact that people must learn how to use magic, yes? Even Sorcerers, "born" with their power, do not manifest full 20th level spellcasting in childhood. Hence, power structures will form before magical knowledge is gained, not the other way around. As a result, there will be at least partial--and much more likely full--non-magical aristocracies formed well before any magical aristocracy can form. Because all it takes to get an aristocracy started is bigger-army diplomacy.

Some magic, sure. But Druidic and Clerical magic is older and requires no study. It is also the most useful to burgeoning societies, even at the low levels. This is another thing we aren't really discussing, but most of the biggest effects happen from level 1 and 2 spells. That is a minor investment of time and energy, compared to reaching the heights of power.

And frankly, who is going to get the bigger army? The guy with the big sword or the guy who can stave off death with a touch, feed the starving, and cure diseases? If I'm 100% selfish in my choice of who I want as a leader, I want the miracle worker, not the guy with the shiny stick.

But, firstly, "magic is an intrinsic part of the ruling class" isn't what is being argued. What is being argued is "the aristocracy will be EXCLUSIVELY comprised of magic-users, being a magic user will make you part of the aristocracy, and this state is completely and absolutely inevitable." Magic being factored into--subservient to, and at times conjoined with, the ruling class--is a completely different state of affairs, and quite compatible with what I described, yes.

I don't think that the argument is that the Aristocracy will be EXCLUSIVELY comprised of magic-users, just that they would be the clear majority and tend to float to the top of the social order. I don't think anyone has argued that being a magic-user would make you part of the aristocracy, just like no one is arguing that being a warrior makes you part of the aristocracy. However, I think,as I stated, the idea that magic can be censored by the nobles does lead to the only access of magic being through the noble ruling class.

And, here is the problem, look at the history of the Catholic church. The Catholic church was subservient to the ruling kings. They didn't hold territory, they were merely the advisors to the kings of Europe... until they started realizing that the kings needed them more than they needed the kings, and we end up with the Holy Roman Empire and the Church enforcing political power on the states, til some states broke with the church. The issue with making magic users subservient to the ruling class is that Magic = Power. And if you are more powerful than your boss, if he needs you more than you need him.... why aren't you the boss?

Sure, maybe the Boss is so good, and so kind, and so well-respected that no one would ever betray them. But how often was that the case in history? If this is the logic we want to go with, that the nobles are so goodly and kind that they have never in all of history been overthrown, then we can never do corrupt noble stories, which are VERY common stories, because power tends to corrupt.

Secondly, as already stated (by me) and, indeed, already granted by the OP, Clerics--as in, true ordained priests, not just allegedly-deified leaders (a practice very unlikely in a world where deities actually exist and compete with one another)--have something interfering with their plans for global magocratic domination: doctrine. Interventionist deities enforcing moral rules are gonna be a real pain for Clerics. Further, any religion which is likely to have a lot of followers is essentially guaranteed to have pro-social doctrines, because religions with anti-social doctrines will lead to the destruction of the societies that host them, that's literally what "anti-social doctrines" means. So these are spellcasters already (a) part of a separate hierarchy, and (b) bound by rules that inhibit them or lacking sufficient followers to declare hegemonic control, on top of being (c) limited by actual deities who, even if they're evil, have a vested interest in maintaining certain kinds of social order.

None of what you are saying is countering my argument, and in fact, my ENTIRE POINT is predicated on gods with pro-social doctrines.

Let's get into some nitty gritty details here, to help show my point. Torm, God of Duty, Loyalty and Righteousness. Just from his name, he is the god of doing your duty and being loyal. So he is going to be all about a well-run society where people follow the social order.

What is his dogma/doctrine?

Salvation may be found through service. Every failure of duty diminishes Torm and every success adds to his luster. Strive to maintain law and order. Obey your masters with alert judgment and anticipation. Stand ever alert against corruption. Strike quickly and forcefully against rot in the hearts of mortals. Bring painful, quick death to traitors. Question unjust laws by suggesting improvement or alternatives, not additional laws. Your fourfold duties are to faith, family, masters, and all good beings of Faerun.

Salvation through service? What greater service is there than the devout serving the state? What higher service to the state is there, than being the King who serves the needs of the people?

Strive to maintain law and order? How better to maintain law and order than being the government which enforces the laws? Would you not be FAILING in your duty to Torm if you simply sat back and watched others enforcing the laws of the land?

Strike against rot, kill traitors, stand alert against corruption, Question unjust laws and suggest improvements? All of these require being high in the social order. You can't be a pig farmer and deal with traitors to the country, you have no authority to do so. The seamstress in town doesn't get to question the laws or suggest improvements to them. These rules are specifically for the leadership of the country.

Which comes to the only one you might be able to argue would prevent the Church of Torm from taking over. Obey your Masters. But, well, this is very vague. Firstly, it could be argued that this is more about following the social hierarchy, the peasant obeys the noble who obeys the king, but the king also has masters. Torm could be the Master of the King, as many medieval societies did place God as the highest authority. So, if Torm is the highest authority, then the King must follow Torm, and therefore they would make logical sense as a Paladin or a Cleric. It flows naturally.

But, also, Torm tells his followers to strike down corruption, traitors, and rot in the government. So what happens when there is a corrupt and traitorous king? They would strike him down. And after striking him down, they aren't going to turn to society and say "we destroyed the social order, good luck with that." They are going to place themselves as the authority making sure that the people are cared for and that law and order is maintained, because THAT is their duty. And maybe they put the king's son in charge, but they are effectively ruling the country. And after a few generations... why wouldn't the royal family that is constantly watched by the church, who decides who stays in power and who doesn't not end up as high-ranking members of the church?

Again, the who was the highest authority in the Church of England? The King of England. Who was the highest authority amongst the Egyptian priests? The Pharoah. Rulers were quite often in charge not just of this mortal realm, but were high-ranking authorities in the religious community. And nothing about Torm's dogma prevents this from happening, and in fact, it lays out a clear path for it happening. Pro-Social Dieties invested in making sure society functions properly would inevitably end up with their messengers and followers in highly placed positions in that society, to make sure it functions properly.

Actually, as I'm given to understand, most early civilizations--which usually had absolute monarchs--began through that person being the in charge of the food. Because if you were the one overseeing the food stores, you had the power. Other forms included controlling access to water (the "hydraulic empire," believed to be responsible for stuff like Mesopotamia and early China), or being the war-leader everyone else looked up to (more common in nomadic or pastoralist cultures, e.g. Arabia or Mongolia.) "Protection" was usually less important than either administration (getting resources from where they were abundant/excessive to where they were deficient, e.g. the bureaucracy in China needed to control floods and support rice farming) or conquest (because land was WAY more valuable than people until the Industrial Revolution.)

And how do you prevent your neighbor from conquesting you except by being able to protect your lands?

And doesn't magic make access to food and water easier? You are also STILL a capable warrior. Remember, even the lowly wizard gets 6 hp, 150% what the commoner gets. And the Bard/Cleric/Druid all get weapons, armor, and are twice as tough as the average citizen. They are all warriors. And if we absolutely need that d10 HD, then we still have Paladins and Rangers. Magic-users are not helpless in the face of the fighter, and many of them are nearly as good in raw combat as the fighter.

So, they seem to have an edge on all the things that would lead to the creation of the state.

It...really doesn't though. There have been wealthy non-ruling-class individuals for tens of thousands of years, and there have been members of the ruling class who possess almost no money but who have loyalty or faith behind them to keep them going. Money is far from a guarantee of being part of the ruling class.

And how often are the needs and concerns of the wealthy ignored? Even in your earlier examples, you mentioned making sure that people were paid properly as a major component of keeping the government stable. How much easier is it to make your voice heard when you have vast amounts of wealth? Such as access to food and water, two of the foundations of government.

Because, as stated above, these magic-users are explicitly taking power from existing rulers. One cannot usurp the power of existing, legitimate rulers without...y'know...being a tyrant.

Okay, but every single kingdom since the formation of the Akkadian Empire has formed from taking power from existing rulers. Power always changes hands over time, unless you have built an empire that never crumbles and never faces adversity.

And then three generations later, that authority is legitimate. William the Conqueror could have been a Tyrant, but that doesn't mean that his great-grandchild was inevitably a tyrant. We aren't pleading any special cases here. Also, the overthrow of the government and taking of power DOES NOT make you a tyrant. George Washington overthrew British Rule from the United States. George Washington has no historical evidence to my knowledge of being a tyrant. It is common for revolutionaries to become tyrants, but it is not inevitable.

For any of a variety of reasons. Understanding that mortal proxies are imperfect, and that the training to become a monarch leads in rather different (and often contradictory) ways to the training to become a devout proselytizer. Knowledge that such concentrations of power lead to undesirable abuses. Potentially, outright prescient knowledge.

Some deities will want cleric-queens and priest-kings. Some won't. Many will understand that upending the social order solely to put someone you like more in charge is a great way to break everything. Even the evil ones. Overturning existing hierarchies is always a dicey business, and some kind of existing temporal authority is almost guaranteed to exist separate from ecclesiastical authority.

Why? In many many many times and places there was not a separation between temporal authority and ecclesiastical authority. They were one and the same.

Also, the training to be an accountant to make sure the church doesn't become destitute also is different than the training to become a proselytizer. Churches are often built on the backs of many roles. Why can "leaders of the nation" not be one of the roles held by people in the church, just like accountants and paladins?

And, again, if maintaining the social order is your goal, you need your people in positions to actually do that. Being outsiders to the system doesn't help you make sure the system runs properly, unless you are working under the auspicious of an authority that the system must obey... and in that case you are kind of in-charge anyways.

I didn't say it was completely impossible. I said it was a huge impediment--which it is. Druids cannot wear metal armor, nor use a variety of weapons that are kind of important. They are instructed to avoid the creation of large urban settlements and industries. That's a huge problem for any prospective druid-queen. How can you develop an aristocracy, a druidic magocracy, while not having urban centers and not using industry?

Who cares if druid's can't wear metal armor? Lacquered wood armor and linen armor was very common in Japan, and that didn't cause the collapse of their civilization. Nor did it cause the collapse of the various Meso-American empires. Or the Pacific Islander cultures. Why is being able to wield a sword important at all? Many cultures didn't have swords.

Also, I think you are misunderstanding the druid's goals. They are not instructed to avoid the creation of large urban settlments. They are instructed to avoid harming nature. Many elven cities take the approach of creating urban cities via the growth of live trees. This is no more harmful to the trees than birds or squirrels nesting in them, especially if the trees happen to be large enough.

Textiles can be created as an industry without harming nature, same with leatherworking. I've seen plenty of fantasy settings where woodworking is done by "singing trees" into shape. That wouldn't cause undue harm.

It would be a very different type of society, but that doesn't prevent the creation of a nation-state, aristocracy or anything else. And, how better to preserve nature against the damage of civilization than to be in charge of that civilization and shaping it to avoid damaging nature?

Now who's inventing worldbuilding? What's good for the goose is good for the gander: you don't know what kinds of entities are present. Thus, we must assume that if they grant great power, they ask for great power in return. Isn't that the most logical state of affairs, in the absence of further information? That they expect an equal exchange?

Fair enough, but how does this immediately cause revolt and ruin? Again, many nation-states had agreements with powerful nations and exchanged goods and services. I'm merely copying a story I've seen told many times on how a warlock pact could trivially work for a ruling family. Mostly because everyone seems to be assuming that it will be a fiendish pact where the rulers are terrible people selling the souls of their populace, and not considering the other approaches.

Heck, going back to the religious angle. Maybe it is really hard to train a cleric and be a king. No where near as hard to have the King's Coronation be the acceptance of a Celestial Pact with the God to uphold their wishes in exchange for the power to rule well and long.

Useful, but with little utility in actually taking over. Which is the assertion involved here: that magic-users are guaranteed to eventually usurp all political authority and replace or absorb any existing ruling class into themselves. Also, Crawford has explicitly said you are incorrect: you can read the writing, but you are not given instantaneous understanding of all coded messages. The writing will appear to you in code, but it being written in Old High Jinnistani calligraphy won't prevent you from reading the words. You just might not have any idea what "sunset dog potato" means. According to the official Sage Advice entry, you can get the linguistic meaning of a magical rune. That's quite different from being able to decode coded text.

They don't need it to take over. This is one of those things that would be tempting for a ruler to make a pact FOR. Warlocks can come from the ruling class going and making a deal, not just from peasant warlocks taking over kingdoms.

Also, I'd never heard crawford's answer, but I was thinking more in terms of imagery codes or substitution codes that look like illegible gibberish, which this presumably could still help with. Besides, the "I can read all missives from any dignitary" is still really good.

Technically, not always armored; not even "always magically protected from blows." Yes, you can cast mage armor at-will, and it has its usual 8-hour duration. That means needing to remember to maintain it at all times (something far from guaranteed, just as "wearing armor whenever you're outside your bedchambers" is far from guaranteed)--and it also means never sleeping more than 8 hours at a stretch, ever.

Finally, Armor of Shadows isn't some total-protection thing--it's literally 13+Dex AC, and provides no special help while you're asleep. Enemies who attack you while you sleep have advantage, and if they make the attack within 5 feet of you then all hits are critical hits. Even if they only have a pitiful +3 to hit and you have maxed-out Dex, they'll hit more than 50% of the time (51%, if you want to be precise.) Mage armor is not particularly effective protection against assassination.

... And?

Every three hours you take six seconds of focus and you are the equivalent of wearing a chain shirt (but better) basically whenever. In the bath? You are armored. At the wedding? You are armored. At dinner? You are armored. Also, the sleeping is an issue taken care of later, but casting it before you go to bed and being armored for eight hours while you sleep? How many assassins attack while you are sleeping because you are vulnerable? Again, this is insanely useful. The idea that it would be difficult to remember to do this is ludicrous. It is rather trivial to remember to go and do something every few hours.

Edit: Didn't see that second part I moved up til later.

Law of Averages man. An assassin who his hitting a target with an Ac of 10 has an easier time than hitting a target with an AC of 13. It isn't about "and I'm invincible" it is about "and I'm more likely to survive."

And if you are more likely to survive, that is something that people will seek out. And the more people who have it, and are more likely to survive, then the more likely others will adopt it, because selection pressures will push them in that direction.

Skills anyone can acquire purely through background.

And gaining them for free means you can train other skills. Kind of useful for someone who has so little time to do anything because ruling and being part of the ruling class demands every second of your day.

Okay. I genuinely don't see how this leads to inevitable victory. Is it useful? Sure. All magic is useful. I don't see it providing some utterly uncounterable absolute-victory edge here.

It doesn't. This is something that the RULING CLASS would WANT. And thereofre they would seek out warlock pacts, and BECOME magic-users.

Again, useful, but all it really does is give you firsthand accounts. Spies don't suddenly become obsolete because you can do that--and the target humanoid must be willing, so you already have a planted spy to make use of this. Genuinely not seeing the utility here.

You see absolutely no value in the ability to see what your spy sees, in real-time.

I'm just going to give you one. Military Movements.

Certainly useful if the dead have useful secrets to tell. Good for extracting info from dead scouts, for example. But, again, this is no slam-dunk "magic inevitably wins forever, period, no questions," neither in isolation nor in concert with the others.

So no noble would ever seek a warlock pact to gain the ability to contact the dead? Weird. I've seen these big long epics where nobles went on long journeys to the underworld to question the dead. If they would be willing to go on a multi-year quest around the globe, why not seek a fey or angel who can give them the ability in exchange for a deal?

Useful. Still not seeing the slam-dunk.
I'm well aware of the utility of not needing sleep. It's still not a slam-dunk win button, neither in isolation nor in concert with the others.

Repeating myself. These were things nobles would want, and therefore seek out deals. Not things that peasant warlocks would use to overthrow the country.

You are FAR to focused on this idea of the magic-users needing to overthrow the country. That isn't the point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

You know, I don't want to derail this further, but this is the most telling argument since it keeps coming up over and over and over and over again.

Whenever we have discussions about "How do we make Fighter's better at shaping the world" we get the answer that Fighter's should be leaders of men, that becoming a ruler would give them the power to rival wizards.

And here we are asking why spellcasters aren't rulers, and we've had, what? Fifteen different posters all make the same claim? "Magic-users wouldn't waste their time ruling a nation, they have better things to do."

No wonder people keep saying fighters should be the rulers of nations, most of them probably think that merely ruling a nation is a waste of their precious wizard's time in mastering all of reality and ascending to godhood.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I did not. Becoming a proper cleric is a long and involved process. It requires a great deal of learning. That's literally where the Western university system got its start: From the Encyclopedia of the Developing World, "Europe established schools in association with their cathedrals to educate priests, and from these emerged eventually the first universities of Europe, which began forming in the eleventh and twelfth centuries."

From the PHB

"Harnessing Divine magic doesn't rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and and an intuitive sense of a diety's wishes"

It's...not convenient at all. Those systems weren't medieval Europe. They worked by VERY different rules and did not actually have a nobility/aristocracy of the kind present in medieval Europe. Vassalage was not the primary means of control; a centralized bureaucracy was, and that bureaucracy depended on the King(/Pharaoh/Emperor/Etc.) for its support and continuity. In the absence of that central authority, government would collapse entirely. This is what I referred to earlier as a "hydraulic empire." Hydraulic empires require extensive bureaucratic structures in order to manage flooding and irrigation, and those needs, being based on environment rather than elective choice, ensure that this governing pattern recurs even if it is disrupted. Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire did not have such environmental pressures ensuring the return of a bureaucratic administration, and thus had to turn to other methods of organization in order to function.

So all fantasy worlds must be based on Medieval Europe and how it was based on the systems left behind by the collapsed Roman Empire?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is make-believe and you can come up with plausibleish explanations for most setups if you want.

That being said, it might be a good idea to think about these things at least a bit. How common are people capable of casting magic, and how hard it is to learn? And how common are "high level" NPCs? What is the general attitude towards magic? Are there laws or other societal limitations for its use? How common are countermeasures against magic?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alright. Perhaps it would be useful to go back to the start, and re-consider this whole thing from the beginning. There are a number of factors that are left unspecified, but often assumed in one way or another. So, let's turn this into a series of questions rather than answers.

Does comprehensive magical knowledge form before or after the rise of political bodies/"countries" (recognizing that's a...very loose word)?

• If it happens before countries, then you probably need to think a lot about how magic affected it. Classes that depend on formal study or special bloodlines are unlikely to form this early unless you give a reason why they would, so informal or spiritualist traditions are more likely to take hold. Consider what, if any, effects are felt due to the beliefs and doctrines of these traditions.
• If it happens after countries, then you need to determine whether magic is seen by the aristocracy as a tool to employ, usually through experts; as a skill to master, usually personally or through heirs/relatives; or as a threat to be controlled, usually through laws and penalties. The first and third are unlikely to result in magocratic societies, while the second makes magocracy likely but not guaranteed.

How much time is required to develop comprehensive magical knowledge that would have a meaningful impact on one's ability to govern? Can this be mastered at the same time as mastering the skills required for a ruler?

• If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and cannot be learned while also learning to govern, it is unlikely that there will be a lot of intersection between the ruling class and those with magic expertise. Instead, they will take a position more like physicians, lawyers/judges, and engineers: positions that require a lot of training and knowledge, but which are largely pursued by functionaries and civil servants, not proper "ruling class" members, who have more important things to do.
• If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and can be learned while also learning to govern, then a tension between the two skills is likely, leading to an unstable situation. Powerful magocratic leaders will be old leaders, and thus unlikely to hold onto power for a long time unless they also pursue lifespan-extension. This may lead to nefarious uses, and produce great social unrest, unless a highly dominant nigh-immortal spellcaster is able to gain a durable foothold.
• If it doesn't take a long time (e.g. only a few years) but cannot be learned while also learning to govern, then things are likely to result in a sort of "graduate school for rulers" situation: monarchs will want their heirs to study magic after learning the skills needed to rule, meaning there will be an interest in prolonging adult reigns at least long enough to allow heirs to master both sets of skills.
• If it doesn't take a long time and can be learned while learning to govern, then answers to the previous question shift more toward likely magocratic dominance. E.g., if comprehensive magical knowledge predates mass social organization ("countries"), and such knowledge can be relatively quickly acquired, and it can be a double-major alongside a bachelor's in rulership, then there's a pretty strong likelihood that magic and political power will conglomerate.

Are the skills/talents/bloodlines/etc. easily acquired, or are they rare and special with few being able to develop meaningful magic power?

• If these things are rare, cannot be reliably passed to heirs, and/or sporadic in the population, then it's going to be a struggle to keep magic in the leadership. Heirs will be chosen more based on their personal skills, meaning magic-users are likely to be treated as important advisors/experts (analogous to "court physician" type stuff) rather than seeing magic as a prerequisite for or path toward rulership.
• If these things are moderately common but somewhat unreliable, instability is likely, rather than settling into any consistent pattern. Monarchs and mages alike will struggle to ensure magocratic dominance, which may lead to either oscillations (sometimes "mundane"-ocracy, sometimes magocracy) or a meta-stable equilibrium favoring the selection of mages as co-rulers or marriage partners to ensure that magic continues to have a part even if the monarch does not have such skills personally.
• If these things are common and/or reliable, then magocracy is likely simply because magic is cosmopolitan--almost everyone could theoretically become a powerful mage if they could just put in the time to get there, and as a result, the upper classes with more free time are much more likely to develop and refine such powers. Sorcerers add a wrinkle,

Do the gods and/or other powerful entities take an interventionist stance on these issues?

• If no, then magocracies are somewhat more likely because we lack one of the plausible checks on magocratic power accumulation.
• If yes, then you'll need to think carefully about the ratio of different kinds of entities (e.g. deities seeking Clerics vs patrons seeking Warlocks) and the various ideologies they hold, as they could be either pro- or anti-magocratic.

Can ordinary (non-spellcasting) individuals create magic items or otherwise learn to "even the playing field" without becoming spellcasters?

• If yes, magocratic societies become significantly harder to maintain, as it is possible to compensate against them. This will depend on the level of difficulty required for non-spellcasters to produce magic items.
• If no, this again increases the likelihood of at least partially magocratic societies, because magic items are very powerful tools and people who can create them are very useful.

Can magic-users hold their own against mundane uprisings, or do they need to rely on non-spellcasting help in order to deal with such things?

• If they can deal with these problems on their own, magocracy becomes significantly more likely, especially if magical skills are relatively common. This allows a magic-using aristocracy to deal with whatever issues come up while still consolidating their power, and without needing a population of non-magic-using lackeys that might become rebellious.
• If they cannot deal with these problems without non-spellcasting retainers/servants/etc., it becomes a lot harder to achieve or maintain magocracy, due to the inherent need for a subservient non-magic-using underclass. This is nearly guaranteed to create resentment and produce at least some abusive practices from the magic-using ruling class, which will at the very least lead to instability, if not outright witch-hunting against spellcasters who have secured power.

-----------

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that neither "mages conquer and take over the aristocracy" nor "the aristocracy simply chooses to all become mages" is particularly more likely than unlikely, and certainly don't think either of them is some completely 100% inevitable, guaranteed thing. I have yet to see a single argument that defends how this is a completely 100% inevitable situation; people just act like it's trivially self-evident when it emphatically is not.

I'm very much of the opinion that:
Societies and politics predate comprehensive magical knowledge/skills in most settings;
Truly mastering magical skills takes a long time (at least a decade) of dedicated study, making it incompatible with focusing on learning to be a monarch;
Even for those who can learn it, most are not going to have the ability, nor the drive, to reach the upper echelons of magical power, which means many will focus their efforts in other areas;
Interventionist powers, particularly good- and neutral-aligned deities, will exist and be generally opposed to dominance of spellcasters over non-spellcasters, as this is an inherently unequal and likely oppressive society which only LN and various E beings would support;
Magic items can (almost) always be created by non-magic-users because that's both more folkloric, and because it's just generally more interesting, severely weakening the exclusivity afforded to spellcasting power;
Magic-users cannot deal with a significant swathe of the problems facing a typical leader/administrator without relying on a very large population of non-magic-using people, meaning they must keep at least some of the aristocracy/bureaucracy staffed by influential non-spellcasters and weakening the absolute control that spellcasting could potentially acquire.

As a result, for (what I consider) a typical fantastical world, magocracies face some pretty significant power gaps that they must overcome with more than just magic in order to become absolutely hegemonic. This does not mean that every world makes difficult. But it does mean that the explicitly pushed ABSOLUTE INEVITABILITY of magocratic rule is simply not correct.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Since this is for 5e, this is the write up for Apprentice Wizards on Volo's Guide to Monsters:

Apprentices are novice arcane spellcasters who serve more experienced wizards or attend school. They perform menial work such as cooking and cleaning in exchange for education in the ways of magic.

This is the picture given, looks like a teenager to me, and that's a 1st level Wizard. Wealthy individuals should be able to pay gold to learn without needing to work in menial services, so to learn the first few levels of spells shouldn't take so long.

Of course, this is entirely setting dependant.

 

[James Gasik]

The amount of time it takes to learn how to use magic is...unclear. When we had different starting ages for characters, it was clear that it took longer for a Wizard to learn his spells than a Cleric, but this has varied a lot over time.

For example, in 2nd edition, Human starting age for all classes was 16.

In Spelljammer sourcebook "Lost Ships", by Ed Greenwood, one of the adventures, "The Sacred Firefall", has a young girl being sacrificed by a cult. Alathaera is a 1st-level Mage, and is all of nine years old!

3rd edition starting ages are class-based. Sorcerers, of course, require no training, and a Human Sorcerer has a starting age of 15+1d4 years. Human Warlocks have the same starting age.

Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, however, have a starting age of 15+2d6 years, which does imply this takes considerable training.

However, in the Eberron campaign setting, the current leader of the c̶u̶l̶t̶ church of the Silver Flame is a 3rd level Cleric named Jaela Daran, who is all of 11!

5e comes with no rules for starting age, of course, leaving it up the DM to decide.

In 3e, Nobles are trained in the use of weapons and armor, which would certainly take some time. IMHO, there's no reason to believe that a noble trained in magic instead of warfare, would be unable to learn the ins and outs of diplomacy and statecraft as well.

In 5e, in fact, the Noble background is allowed for members of all classes, so the idea that a noble would have no time to learn magic seems at odds with the character creation system presented in the PHB.

Any arguments about nobles and heirs not having the time to learn magic is pretty much subjective.

Whether or not nobles in a given campaign would be inclined to seek out magic or skill at arms is still debatable, but my question is, why not both?

Since magic and skill at arms are both equally useful, if you have extra heirs laying around, it would behoove you to train them in whatever skills they have talent for. As I recall, second born sons were often sent to join the clergy in Europe, to be recalled if they suddenly find themselves needing a backup heir?

And this discussion hasn't even touched upon other races yet, which have their own traditions- Elves often pursue magical careers, and the Drow, rather infamously, have female rulers who are Priestesses!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Alright. Perhaps it would be useful to go back to the start, and re-consider this whole thing from the beginning. There are a number of factors that are left unspecified, but often assumed in one way or another. So, let's turn this into a series of questions rather than answers.

Does comprehensive magical knowledge form before or after the rise of political bodies/"countries" (recognizing that's a...very loose word)?

• If it happens before countries, then you probably need to think a lot about how magic affected it. Classes that depend on formal study or special bloodlines are unlikely to form this early unless you give a reason why they would, so informal or spiritualist traditions are more likely to take hold. Consider what, if any, effects are felt due to the beliefs and doctrines of these traditions.
• If it happens after countries, then you need to determine whether magic is seen by the aristocracy as a tool to employ, usually through experts; as a skill to master, usually personally or through heirs/relatives; or as a threat to be controlled, usually through laws and penalties. The first and third are unlikely to result in magocratic societies, while the second makes magocracy likely but not guaranteed.

How much time is required to develop comprehensive magical knowledge that would have a meaningful impact on one's ability to govern? Can this be mastered at the same time as mastering the skills required for a ruler?

• If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and cannot be learned while also learning to govern, it is unlikely that there will be a lot of intersection between the ruling class and those with magic expertise. Instead, they will take a position more like physicians, lawyers/judges, and engineers: positions that require a lot of training and knowledge, but which are largely pursued by functionaries and civil servants, not proper "ruling class" members, who have more important things to do.
• If it takes a long time (e.g. decades of effort) and can be learned while also learning to govern, then a tension between the two skills is likely, leading to an unstable situation. Powerful magocratic leaders will be old leaders, and thus unlikely to hold onto power for a long time unless they also pursue lifespan-extension. This may lead to nefarious uses, and produce great social unrest, unless a highly dominant nigh-immortal spellcaster is able to gain a durable foothold.
• If it doesn't take a long time (e.g. only a few years) but cannot be learned while also learning to govern, then things are likely to result in a sort of "graduate school for rulers" situation: monarchs will want their heirs to study magic after learning the skills needed to rule, meaning there will be an interest in prolonging adult reigns at least long enough to allow heirs to master both sets of skills.
• If it doesn't take a long time and can be learned while learning to govern, then answers to the previous question shift more toward likely magocratic dominance. E.g., if comprehensive magical knowledge predates mass social organization ("countries"), and such knowledge can be relatively quickly acquired, and it can be a double-major alongside a bachelor's in rulership, then there's a pretty strong likelihood that magic and political power will conglomerate.

Are the skills/talents/bloodlines/etc. easily acquired, or are they rare and special with few being able to develop meaningful magic power?

• If these things are rare, cannot be reliably passed to heirs, and/or sporadic in the population, then it's going to be a struggle to keep magic in the leadership. Heirs will be chosen more based on their personal skills, meaning magic-users are likely to be treated as important advisors/experts (analogous to "court physician" type stuff) rather than seeing magic as a prerequisite for or path toward rulership.
• If these things are moderately common but somewhat unreliable, instability is likely, rather than settling into any consistent pattern. Monarchs and mages alike will struggle to ensure magocratic dominance, which may lead to either oscillations (sometimes "mundane"-ocracy, sometimes magocracy) or a meta-stable equilibrium favoring the selection of mages as co-rulers or marriage partners to ensure that magic continues to have a part even if the monarch does not have such skills personally.
• If these things are common and/or reliable, then magocracy is likely simply because magic is cosmopolitan--almost everyone could theoretically become a powerful mage if they could just put in the time to get there, and as a result, the upper classes with more free time are much more likely to develop and refine such powers. Sorcerers add a wrinkle,

Do the gods and/or other powerful entities take an interventionist stance on these issues?

• If no, then magocracies are somewhat more likely because we lack one of the plausible checks on magocratic power accumulation.
• If yes, then you'll need to think carefully about the ratio of different kinds of entities (e.g. deities seeking Clerics vs patrons seeking Warlocks) and the various ideologies they hold, as they could be either pro- or anti-magocratic.

Can ordinary (non-spellcasting) individuals create magic items or otherwise learn to "even the playing field" without becoming spellcasters?

• If yes, magocratic societies become significantly harder to maintain, as it is possible to compensate against them. This will depend on the level of difficulty required for non-spellcasters to produce magic items.
• If no, this again increases the likelihood of at least partially magocratic societies, because magic items are very powerful tools and people who can create them are very useful.

Can magic-users hold their own against mundane uprisings, or do they need to rely on non-spellcasting help in order to deal with such things?

• If they can deal with these problems on their own, magocracy becomes significantly more likely, especially if magical skills are relatively common. This allows a magic-using aristocracy to deal with whatever issues come up while still consolidating their power, and without needing a population of non-magic-using lackeys that might become rebellious.
• If they cannot deal with these problems without non-spellcasting retainers/servants/etc., it becomes a lot harder to achieve or maintain magocracy, due to the inherent need for a subservient non-magic-using underclass. This is nearly guaranteed to create resentment and produce at least some abusive practices from the magic-using ruling class, which will at the very least lead to instability, if not outright witch-hunting against spellcasters who have secured power.

-----------

Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that neither "mages conquer and take over the aristocracy" nor "the aristocracy simply chooses to all become mages" is particularly more likely than unlikely, and certainly don't think either of them is some completely 100% inevitable, guaranteed thing. I have yet to see a single argument that defends how this is a completely 100% inevitable situation; people just act like it's trivially self-evident when it emphatically is not.

I'm very much of the opinion that:
Societies and politics predate comprehensive magical knowledge/skills in most settings;
Truly mastering magical skills takes a long time (at least a decade) of dedicated study, making it incompatible with focusing on learning to be a monarch;
Even for those who can learn it, most are not going to have the ability, nor the drive, to reach the upper echelons of magical power, which means many will focus their efforts in other areas;
Interventionist powers, particularly good- and neutral-aligned deities, will exist and be generally opposed to dominance of spellcasters over non-spellcasters, as this is an inherently unequal and likely oppressive society which only LN and various E beings would support;
Magic items can (almost) always be created by non-magic-users because that's both more folkloric, and because it's just generally more interesting, severely weakening the exclusivity afforded to spellcasting power;
Magic-users cannot deal with a significant swathe of the problems facing a typical leader/administrator without relying on a very large population of non-magic-using people, meaning they must keep at least some of the aristocracy/bureaucracy staffed by influential non-spellcasters and weakening the absolute control that spellcasting could potentially acquire.

As a result, for (what I consider) a typical fantastical world, magocracies face some pretty significant power gaps that they must overcome with more than just magic in order to become absolutely hegemonic. This does not mean that every world makes difficult. But it does mean that the explicitly pushed ABSOLUTE INEVITABILITY of magocratic rule is simply not correct.

I agree with the vast majority of your post, in particular, I think your questions are spot on.

However, I see a few points that make me scratch my head.

For example, you keep referencing the "upper echelons of magical power". But very few people have even addressed that as a point. For myself, I've never made any claims about anything greater than 3rd level spells. I don't think spellcasters need to reach 8th or 9th level spells. They may not even have any desire to reach those levels of power. After all, we don't assume nobles who are fighters have reached much beyond 5th level either.

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

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

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 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. 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.

It is similar to saying that inevitably medical technology will spread, because those societies which figure out how to safely and consistently treat illnesses will be more successful than those which don't.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

In D&D terms, most are somewhere between near genius to super genius.

Was this suppose to be a debate? I was just offering up ideas. Very strange how people are getting so defensive about this.

No, I just thought that your explanation was weird and unfounded in D&D 5e. I've never thought of Bards, Druids, Rangers, and Sorcerers as "near genius to super genius". I'm not getting defensive, just inquiring why you thought that.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

Magic can do anything, and can only be countered by magic. And it's not really "big" magic, like casting dominate nation it's the small stuff, like casting read minds at a state dinner.

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 not only can you do that with magic, but magic is roughly ten times better. You could order people around all day, but why bother when a snap of your fingers can get nearly anything you want?

Because they are smart enough to avoid politics and let someone else do the dirty work while they have significant influence behind the scenes.

The thing is, a really smart person knows you need the world much like it is. Any influence will disrupt that.

Most people here seem to (purposefully) misunderstand the OP.

The question is not "why doesn't mage X overthrow noble Y", but why isn't the noble also a spellcaster?

Because being "noble" has nothing to do with spellcasting. Sure an individual noble might be born with some inner magic or learn it, but not all of them. And the more important part is knowing what to do with the magic. No every noble is a magic geunus.