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

[jgsugden]

Why? Why would a noble that is a spellcaster have any more problems keeping order than a noble that can't cast spells? Especially as the ability to cast spells sets him apart from other people and would be another argument as for why he should rule over others.

Not more power. The same amount of power - but they have to spend those resources.

That noble may have power from charisma, money, connections, that wizards do not generally have. They have to use their arcane power to replace these resources.

Now, if you want to assume that all wizards are rich, charismatic and connected ... well, I'm not sure how they get that way when they spent so much time learning magic.

 

[see]

And yet Bane is the dominant religion in Mulmaster.

Sure. Like I just said, "Such places might well emerge, and some might persist, but it's not going to be the usual state of society."

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.

They would. And then other gods would take them down. The equilibrium state, then, is that while there are always a few places ruled by clerics of a single faith/alliance of faiths, most places are not ruled by clerics.

Why would conflict inherently mean that no kingdom could ever form under a god?

It doesn't mean that. It means that the usual state of the Realms is that most places are not under rule of clerics.

Again, the topic here is "Why Don't The Mages Take Over The World?" Answering that doesn't require explanations that stops there from being some ruling spellcasters, it just requires explanations that justify a substantial part of the world not being ruled by spellcasters. Just as answering the question "Why Don't The Americans Take Over The World?" doesn't require that it be impossible for Americans to rule in the United States, it just requires explanations for why Americans don't run the whole world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Mutually assured destruction.

There's never a winner. Just gridlock ad a lot of funny old men in increasingly elaborate hats kill and get killed.

I know you are mostly mocking, but the fact that states exist and are ruled means that SOMEONE has to win for a while, and MAD doesn't stop them.

Vallcorp International is not responsible for lack of imagination in the PHB. The antimatter rifle in the DMG will have to do.

Which is not available to most settings. Again, I know you are mocking, but as part of a serious discussion, there just isn't much value in looking to Sci-fi tech for a medieval style world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Every setting will have their own answer, but in mine: Power is not a measure of what you control, it is a measure of what you can control less the cost to maintain it.

A powerful wizard that wishes to maintain control over a vast populace will be required to spend vast amounts of their power to maintain control. As the size of a controlled populace grows, the difficulty to maintain it grows faster. In the end, to those with other routes to power, it is a fool's game. The cost of winning the game far exceeds the benefit.

The most powerful beings do not often want to rule vast empires,. They keep their sphere of control optimized for benefit over cost. The charismatic might find that they can hold large populations in their sway - but a wizard with more book smarts than charm might find it far easier to have only a few followers and instead focus on their personal advabcement without caring about the people around them. It is all a product of their capabilities.

And what about a wizard with charisma? Or a Bard, or a sorcerer or a warlock or a paladin?

Also, why is it costing the wizard vast amounts of their personal power to maintain control, but the mundane king is able to keep control with vastly fewer costs? If it is purely a measure of "how charismatic are you" then I remind you the average is 10, and 3d6 offers a bell curve that goes well beyond 10.

I'm not trying to fight about your setting, but your solution is less of an explanation and more just "because they can't"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Show of hands: given phenomenal cosmic power and a lack of itty bitty living space, who here would actually tie themselves to governing this dying blue marble and the insane bald apes on it?

Keep in mind that part and parcel of this power is the ability to just leave. Like, just grab the kids and the wife and bugger off into the planes where you can shop at the city of Brass, grab a drink in Sigil, then enjoy an eternal sunset on Bytopia without listening to the petty sadness of the goofs who thought books were for losers and called your sweet beard scruffy.

I would. I would be overjoyed to finally be able to start making people's lives better. To have fewer people dying of disease, fewer people starving to death. Fewer people dying in pointless wars about who's got the bigger gun or because they feel 50 years ago they were wronged and need to kill other people to feel good about themselves.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Other mages prevent mages from taking over the world…

Clerics too. Deities are…pretty strong.

For almost every power/alliance there is another to check it.

I also like to think there are not a ton of high level characters, let alone spell casters running around. There are a handful of them and higher numbers of mid level npcs.

Okay "take over the world" was a euphemism for "be the ruling class of the country"

Mages would rule this country, that country, the country over there, and the country waaay in the corner. They would, effectively, rule the world. Just like "men" effectively have ruled the world and not "women" for large swathes of human history.

So, with that clarification, your explanation is because other mages will stop them. So, warriors can't take over because other warriors stop them. Kings can't take over because other kings stop them.

Do you see how this doesn't make logical sense? This just leads to NO ONE ruling, and NO NATIONS.

I think every time a mage tries to take over the world, somewhere, somehow, a plucky band of adventurous types is called together. Their quest: To defeat said mage and restore world order once more.

Why only mages? No one wants to stop the Warlords from taking over?

Again, people are far to focused on the "take over the world" and not reading the intent which is "are the ruling class of just about every nation, each ruling their own kingdoms and empires."

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Okay "take over the world" was a euphemism for "be the ruling class of the country"

Mages would rule this country, that country, the country over there, and the country waaay in the corner. They would, effectively, rule the world. Just like "men" effectively have ruled the world and not "women" for large swathes of human history.

So, with that clarification, your explanation is because other mages will stop them. So, warriors can't take over because other warriors stop them. Kings can't take over because other kings stop them.

Do you see how this doesn't make logical sense? This just leads to NO ONE ruling, and NO NATIONS.



Why only mages? No one wants to stop the Warlords from taking over?

Again, people are far to focused on the "take over the world" and not reading the intent which is "are the ruling class of just about every nation, each ruling their own kingdoms and empires."

Clearly meaning there will be churn and no constant of only a mageocracy…

Yes of course people/classes will rule for periods of time. How is that a question? Yes 1:1 spellcaster would be more powerful in a rise to power.

In many games including ones I play in, we don’t suppose a bunch of high level npcs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure. Like I just said, "Such places might well emerge, and some might persist, but it's not going to be the usual state of society."

Why would it not be the usual state of society? Just because the gods may fight amongst themselves doesn't mean that they won't have centralized power. Again, if they are in constant conflict, they will be MORE likely to have centralized their power.

They would. And then other gods would take them down. The equilibrium state, then, is that while there are always a few places ruled by clerics of a single faith/alliance of faiths, most places are not ruled by clerics.

"And when kings rule other kings take them down. The Equilibrium state is then that while there are a few places that are ruled, most places have no rulers. "

It doesn't work like that though. Just because kings and emperors are constantly fighting for land doesn't mean that they don't control any land. A state of conflict between these powers does not mean these powers have no centralized power.

It doesn't mean that. It means that the usual state of the Realms is that most places are not under rule of clerics.

Again, the topic here is "Why Don't The Mages Take Over The World?" Answering that doesn't require explanations that stops there from being some ruling spellcasters, it just requires explanations that justify a substantial part of the world not being ruled by spellcasters. Just as answering the question "Why Don't The Americans Take Over The World?" doesn't require that it be impossible for Americans to rule in the United States, it just requires explanations for why Americans don't run the whole world.

But you are doing the same thing as everyone else, assuming that it must be some sort of global rulership by a single group.

It could trivially be that each god and demon lord and archdevil holds a section of the mortal world under their sway. They already HAVE kingdoms after all, they rule entire planes of existence and those places are the only places they can be harmed, and they are under constant attack by other great powers, but those places STILL EXIST. So, just being in a state of warfare does not prevent the centralized power from taking form.

And, remember, this isn't just that no one rules these places, but that they are ruled by non-casters. And many of the dark powers work to corrupt and take over these non-casters. It is a consistent plot to corrupt kings and nobles to the service of demon lords and archdevils, which is effectively them attempting to take over these places, which means the desire is there for the dark side at least. And, in theory, it would occasionally work. So why do the gods trust non-followers to tackle these demonic kingdoms?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Clearly meaning there will be churn and no constant of only a mageocracy…

Yes of course people/classes will rule for periods of time. How is that a question? Yes 1:1 spellcaster would be more powerful in a rise to power.

In many games including ones I play in, we don’t suppose a bunch of high level npcs.

1) You don't need to be high-level, I've been looking at around level 5

2) If spellcasters are more powerful in a rise to power, then wouldn't they be more often in charge? It doesn't have to be only and ever a mageocracy to be consistently likely to be a mageocracy.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Ruling the world isn't as easy or as fun as it seems...