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

[Baron Opal II]

In all D&D settings magic exists, can be controlled, and can perform feats of power unrivaled by non-magical means . . . why haven't those that practice magic taken over the setting?

Fun question (for us worldbuilders, anyway)!

In much of the fiction and games that I see this addressed, the main limiter is that use of magic requires inborn talent and there are not many with this talent compared to the rest of humanity. Human waves of desperate people have overwhelmed smaller yet technologically superior forces in the past. Also, no one rules alone. Regardless of personal might, the ruler needs those to work in their name to control the country's populace and economy.

That said, there are also plenty of examples in history where a smaller in-group has ruled over a larger out-group for generations. If magicians coordinate they can comb the population for the talented. Once recruited, train and indoctrinate them as a new part of the in-group and elevate the family to semi-group status. This can perpetuate this particular social order. The out-group endures poorer treatment with the (vain) hope that they, their children, or a close friend will find themselves elevated.

This, however assumes a level of cooperation. If there is one thing that I've learned in health care, getting highly educated autonomous professionals to simply adhere to the same treatment protocol is like herding cats. It doesn't necessarily matter how much data is behind it, there are so many excuses why it won't work for them. Department meetings can be stormy. If you want them to comply, you have to print provider specific metrics to goad them into competition with each other. It works especially well if the department underdog leads the metric.

There are a lot of assumptions riding on ruleset and edition. I would say that AD&D has a greater ability for development of magocracies that 5e, for example. Ars Magica ennumerates several restrictions on the use of magic and activities of magicians for the greater good of magical society. That's a game where wizards are explicitly the most powerful "class" in the game. If not everyone can use magic, then, yeah, I have no problems in imagining that a particular magician's magocracy lasts only as long as they do, with the swords coming out to herald the end or pick a non-magician as the next in line.

 

[Baron Opal II]

This leads to a question I've always had about D&D worlds- if the Gods are demonstrably real, to the point that devout worshippers actually can cast magic spells, then why would anyone worship an evil God? You literally know that heavens and hells are real, you know demons and devils are a thing, do you really think serving an evil God will lead to rewards in the afterlife?

Let alone why anyone would become a cultist to some jumped up Archdevil or Demon Prince....

Well, the worshipper thinks along the same lines as the god and the god's hell seems to them a heaven. You get the afterlife that fulfills what you think how the world should function. As to Archdevils and Demon Princes, well, short-sightedness is a thing.

 

[Oofta]

See, I think you skipped right past this though. I think you are right about why Warlords don't work and how public works may not work.

But what prevents the ruling family from making a Warlock pact with a Celestial or a Fey? "We will honor you, give you gifts, and in exchange you give us the power to rule and keep our people safe" this is actually a pretty common deal in folklore for Eastern Nations. And would be a powerful alliance that puts you on the throne.

Because they don't want to pay the price? Because if there's enough infernal interference the gods will step in with their own powers to counterbalance and vice versa? Perhaps that doesn't happen because of mutually assured destruction? In many stories, people are pawns to greater powers but the greater powers have their own agenda.

Bloodline inheritance? What prevents the family from having a bloodline connection that allows for Sorcerous powers? You don't need to study to have sorcerous powers, you just do. In fact, marriage between bloodlines with power would be prime candidates for political marriages.

I have an island kingdom that does that. But how much interbreeding can you have before you have serious issues? How strong is the inheritance over the course of generations if you don't keep it in the family?

You also can't dismiss the phenomena of second and third sons. Many first-born children were devoted to the continuation of the connections with the nobility, but the second or third born were given to the church to work as priests, and to make an alliance with the church. After all, if the local deacon is your Uncle, you have more power than the guy whose family has no connection to the church.

Clerics get power based on serving a god. Depending on campaign, the gods may or may not favor any specific government.

Many nobles learned arts and histories. Why could this not lead into Bardic magic? They are born through the study of art and history.

Many nobles were knights. What prevents them from having a divine oath of the crown and being a paladin, or studying magic and becoming an Eldritch Knight? As far as we can tell, becoming an Eldritch Knight is no more difficult than becoming a cavalier, banneret, or battle master.

While your nobles were learning that, the people who ultimately pull the strings have been plotting and studying courtly intrigue. Being a successful politician is it's own skill and requires significant training and dedication. Being a bard is, in large part, being an entertainer. Kings aren't entertainers they get entertained.

Okay, but if we assume all other things being equal, then Steve is just as likely to be in line for the throne. Steve can also hire consultants and specialists, and steven can also be good at politics, inspiring people and convincing others to follow them.

You are basically saying "Those in power were either born into it or are good at it" and people with magic can be those things too. And then, during those inevitable moments of turmoil where people are killed and political power is taken or assaulted by force... magic using individuals would be more likely to survive and thrive, wouldn't they?

How many of today's leaders could defend themselves in combat? A kingdom is not an individual, a king commands an army. Few rulers outside of very small kingdoms ever picked up arms and even then it was more of a token presence to inspire their followers than anything.

Becoming a wizard or other caster requires commitment and sacrifice. Being a leader the same. Some people do both but being a leader is completely different from being a frontline combatant. So yes, sometimes the ruler is a wizard. Sometimes they're a warrior. Sometimes, I would say most of the time depending on the setting, they're just a politician.

 

[Kurotowa]

This leads to a question I've always had about D&D worlds- if the Gods are demonstrably real, to the point that devout worshippers actually can cast magic spells, then why would anyone worship an evil God? You literally know that heavens and hells are real, you know demons and devils are a thing, do you really think serving an evil God will lead to rewards in the afterlife?

Let alone why anyone would become a cultist to some jumped up Archdevil or Demon Prince....

Bluntly, because the initial conception was the cosmology of a fundamentalist Christian, just with a light polytheistic paintjob on top. You know the belief that Satan is an active force in the world that is being deliberately worshiped by people who seek to promote evil for its own sake? This is that, but split up into multiple Satans. It still holds that there are objectively evil gods and people who choose to worship them.

It makes no sense internally and has no actual precedent in real world religious practices. Much better models are "That god is the god of our enemies so we hate him too" and "This god is the god of a dangerous aspect of the world, so we make sure to say nice things about her and observe her holy days so that we stay on her good side". But D&D is laden with tradition and it's often hard to change.

 

[Dausuul]

Let's take Bob, common every day dude, and Steve, the sorcerer. They both want to rule over their city, which was just founded.

If Steve and Bob are precisely equal in every way except that Steve has magic, sure, Steve has the edge.

But Steve and Bob are never precisely equal. There will always be traits that differ between them. And traits like "ability to lead and organize people" count for far more than the ability to personally wield magic. If Bob can get half a dozen spellcasters of various classes to support him, while Steve has to rely on his own magic alone, Steve is screwed.

 

[Oofta]

Bluntly, because the initial conception was the cosmology of a fundamentalist Christian, just with a light polytheistic paintjob on top. You know the belief that Satan is an active force in the world that is being deliberately worshiped by people who seek to promote evil for its own sake? This is that, but split up into multiple Satans. It still holds that there are objectively evil gods and people who choose to worship them.

It makes no sense internally and has no actual precedent in real world religious practices. Much better models are "That god is the god of our enemies so we hate him too" and "This god is the god of a dangerous aspect of the world, so we make sure to say nice things about her and observe her holy days so that we stay on her good side". But D&D is laden with tradition and it's often hard to change.

To add on, some people simply don't think of the long term. They only care about the here and now. Perhaps they don't really believe in eternal torment, that it's all propaganda. Maybe they believe that if they do good enough they'll climb up in the ranks of the hierarchy and be rewarded.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It makes no sense internally and has no actual precedent in real world religious practices. Much better models are "That god is the god of our enemies so we hate him too" and "This god is the god of a dangerous aspect of the world, so we make sure to say nice things about her and observe her holy days so that we stay on her good side". But D&D is laden with tradition and it's often hard to change.

Indeed. We have records of prayers and sacrifices to Pazuzu, a sinister demon of wind that could ruin crops. He was the favored rival of Lamashtu who was responsible for many kinds of infant mortality. Neither were Humanity's friend, but one was "the enemy of my enemy".

 

[beancounter]

Then why do we have kings? Good Kings should prevent Evil Kings from taking over the world, so no kings would rule anything.

Well the good kings have their territory, and the evil kings have their territory, and neither can take over the world.

Or in other words, maintaining a kingdom is not the same as taking over the world.

But this is a fantasy game, and these are just ideas. If you don't like my idea, then don't use it.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Whenever a Wizard takes over a city, an anti-magic field covers the whole thing. It's the law.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

They do it, but they are too smart, moving the string from the shadows. And the clerics and other divine spellcasters wouldn't allow they were too much troublemarker. And the magic is too expensive and secret.