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? Why isn't practically every nation a magocracy, where those with magic power have taken the majority of political power (through persuasion or force)? Why aren't the royal bloodlines actually sorcerers that use their innate magical power as a justification for their rule similar to how real-world monarchies have claimed to have a divine mandate for their rule (European and Chinese royalty, for example)? If the dominant economic system of the setting is inherently capitalist, the guilds/corporations that control the majority of trade should be mainly controlled by those with magical power (wizards and artificers).
This has been a problem that has been bugging me for a while now. Many settings in D&D don't seem to consider the fact that magic would completely change how the world's politics and nations would function compared to the real world. There are settings in D&D's history that address this issue (Eberron and Dark Sun are my two favorite examples), and I find it kind of baffling that more settings don't answer it. I think that this should be mentioned in the DMG's section on worldbuilding. If magic is superior to mundane power, then there is no reason why mages wouldn't just consolidate most of the socioeconomic and political power in the setting to them.
If mages haven't taken over the setting (yet), you should probably have a justification for that. For example, in Thedas, the setting of Dragon Age games (which is pretty similar to D&D), mages used to rule over the entire continent where the games take place. However, the non-mages discovered a way of using lyrium (a magical crystal) to teach templars (religious knights) how to cancel out magical power and imprison mages in circle towers where they could practice magic but only under the close supervision of the templars. In Thedas, most countries aren't ruled by mages because they used to until a means of countering magic power was discovered. This also introduces an interesting dilemma in the setting: whether or not it's okay to discriminate against mages because if you don't, they start to take over the world again (which already happened two separate times in the Tevinter Imperium).
So, for your setting, if the Mages have taken over major aspects of the setting . . . ask yourself which types of mages do and how the world is different because of it. Here are some options (there's often overlap between these groups):
Mages have taken over the setting's political power: The Dark Sun approach. In Dark Sun, mages are fairly rare because the most powerful mages in the world (the tyrannical Sorcerer-Kings) have taken over most of the political power in the world and use their magical power to consolidate the political and magical power in the world to prevent others from getting powerful enough to rival them. The Unity of Riedra in Eberron is a fascist Orwellian nation controlled by a godlike extraplanar entity of nightmares that uses a similar approach, where the Inspired have used psionics for the past 1,300 years to maintain their power over almost all of Sarlona. This is typically best suited to magic systems where magic is innate (like Sorcerers and inherently magical races), but it's also possible for Wizards, Bards, Warlocks, and other magic-using classes to take over the setting's political power.
Mages have taken over the setting's religious power: This is true in most D&D worlds, where the leaders of most religions are Clerics, Druids, Paladins, or Warlocks. In D&D settings, it's very common for religions to be ruled by those with magical power, because normally those with magical power logically have a stronger claim to be the "chosen leaders" of the religion. However, settings could lean into this fact a bit more and call out the fact that mages are more likely to be respected and put into positions of religious leadership due to their magical powers, regardless of which type of spellcaster they are, or have the most powerful religion either absorb the other ones (like the Roman Pantheon did) or try to root out the others and execute/condemn "heretics"/"pagans" (like Catholicism). (A good example of magic being the focus of a fantasy religion is the Cosmere, where most religions have something to do with the setting's magic system.)
Mages have taken over the setting's economic power: The Eberron approach. In Eberron's main continent, Khorvaire, the 12 true and surviving Dragonmarked Houses have formed giant magical corporations that form an extreme capitalist oligopoly. In Eberron, if it exists in the real world, there's a magic version of it somewhere in the setting. You can go to plays where illusion magic and shapechangers are used to enhance the experience, or go to a tavern with magically-flavored beer run by halflings, or buy magically bred and trained pets, or go to a magic hospital that can heal you beyond modern medicine would be able to. Just like in the real world, giant corporations own and produce much of the world's assets, influence the politics of various nations, and take advantage of people with less power to make more money.
Additionally, you should consider which types of magic helped mages take over certain aspects of the power in the setting. For example, Enchantment magic like domination spells could more easily be used to take control of political power than transmutation magic.
If mages haven't taken over major sources of power in the world yet . . . ask yourself why not? Here are some possible options for why it hasn't taken over yet:
Magic can be (and is) countered by something else. The Dragon Age approach. In Thedas, Templars use Lyrium to cancel out spells and vials of blood that let them track down mages that escape. This allows specially trained non-mages to be able to counter mages in battle, which is necessary to prevent them from being able to rebel. A D&D equivalent could be magic items. Perhaps modern nations prevent mages from taking power through the use of magic items (possibly from an ancient, dead civilization like Netheril or Aeor that left them behind after the civilization fell)? Or there could be some material that cancels out magic?
Mages are limited by some other force that prevents them from taking over. Perhaps in this world mages (and magic in general) are way rarer than they are in most other D&D settings or it's so extremely difficult to increase magical power that most mages only have access to spells roughly as effective as the world's most used weaponry. Or maybe magic is new and mages haven't had sufficient time to learn enough about magic to consolidate power? Or material components/spellcasting foci are super rare and thus it's nearly impossible to practice magic without the proper funds/resources. The only powerful mages in this world might be the villains and some of the main characters, with everyone else not having magical powers. 5e wasn't designed around this assumption, but it would be fairly easy to add something like this to a world.
Mages can't focus on taking over the world (for some reason). If mages typically live young life-spans or the world is extremely deadly and magic is necessary to ward off the hostility of the setting, then mages might not have sufficient motivation to try and take power.
tl;dr - Mages in D&D logically should be able to consolidate political, religious, and/or economic power more easily than non-mages, and thus the setting should either be controlled by/heavily influenced by mages or have some justification(s) why mages haven't taken over (yet).
Note - In this thought experiment, I'm defining Mages as any spellcasting class, not specifically Wizards or any other arcane spellcaster. This thought experiment is about why anyone with sufficient magic wouldn't be able to take advantage of the world's socioeconomic system in a way that would grant them a higher likelihood to have great political/economic/religious power than non-spellcasters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It’s not an easy question, to be sure. I could say that most mages aren’t that powerful, and that they’d be heavily outnumbered by non-mages (which could have plenty of high-level folk). But rulership is rarely about everyone on top being able to beat up everyone on the bottom.
If I were to make some lore surrounding this concept, maybe there were great magocracies in the past, but they quickly fell prey to the “Peter Principle”. Turns out magical might doesn’t always translate to knowing how to run a country. Then again, the same might be said of all means of gaining power.
It would also be unlikely to run into a situation where it’s every mage vs. every non-mage. Several mages might prefer someone else dealing with politics and economics so they can focus on their studies. “Only those with magic should rule” is by no means a guaranteed sell even to magical folk. But that doesn’t prevent a civilization from drifting into magocracy unintentionally. Those kinds of societal changes are a lot harder to predict, and thus counter.
It seems like most powerful mages end up being more interested in studying magic than in ruling. And they’re smart enough to know the headaches that come with being in charge are rarely worth the effort it takes. Good ruler or bad ruler, it’s a lot of work. They’re rather figure out a new spell and get their name on. Achieve the kind of immortality that Melf and Tenser have.
It’s not an easy question, to be sure. I could say that most mages aren’t that powerful, and that they’d be heavily outnumbered by non-mages (which could have plenty of high-level folk). But rulership is rarely about everyone on top being able to beat up everyone on the bottom.
It's very difficult to get people to revolt. If we decided to, the citizens of every nation around the world could choose to kill all billionaires and corrupt world leaders. But we don't. Mages would be protected by the same principle and additionally protected by their access to spells.
If I were to make some lore surrounding this concept, maybe there were great magocracies in the past, but they quickly fell prey to the “Peter Principle”. Turns out magical might doesn’t always translate to knowing how to run a country. Then again, the same might be said of all means of gaining power.
That could be interesting. After reading a bit about the Peter Principle, I do have some major problems with it. Maybe hubris could be the factor that doomed them? Or is that too cliche/overused?
One of my current ideas that I was brainstorming an idea that there used to be a giant magical empire that ruled the whole setting, until it fell. The non-mages in the setting's present now use the magic items found in the ruins of this ancient civilization to prevent another huge magocracy from forming.
It would also be unlikely to run into a situation where it’s every mage vs. every non-mage. Several mages might prefer someone else dealing with politics and economics so they can focus on their studies. “Only those with magic should rule” is by no means a guaranteed sell even to magical folk. But that doesn’t prevent a civilization from drifting into magocracy unintentionally. Those kinds of societal changes are a lot harder to predict, and thus counter.
Oh, it definitely wouldn't be every mage trying to take over the world. The vast majority of mages probably wouldn't be even want to take over. However, it would be the greedy/overly ambitious ones that would cause the magocracy to form.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It seems like most powerful mages end up being more interested in studying magic than in ruling. And they’re smart enough to know the headaches that come with being in charge are rarely worth the effort it takes. Good ruler or bad ruler, it’s a lot of work. They’re rather figure out a new spell and get their name on. Achieve the kind of immortality that Melf and Tenser have.
Like I said in the OP, in this thought experiment, I'm calling all spellcasters "mages". Only Wizards have to study to get new spells. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and even Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers wouldn't have that problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Mages are limited by some other force that prevents them from taking over. Perhaps in this world mages (and magic in general) are way rarer than they are in most other D&D settings or it's so extremely difficult to increase magical power that most mages only have access to spells roughly as effective as the world's most used weaponry. Or maybe magic is new and mages haven't had sufficient time to learn enough about magic to consolidate power? Or material components/spellcasting foci are super rare and thus it's nearly impossible to practice magic without the proper funds/resources. The only powerful mages in this world might be the villains and some of the main characters, with everyone else not having magical powers. 5e wasn't designed around this assumption, but it would be fairly easy to add something like this to a world.
In most D&D worlds, there is such a force -- PCs. Any wizard forcibly seizing power from the generally-considered rightful rulers (whether their mandate derives from the people, royal blood, or watery tarts lobbing scimitars), finds themselves getting shanked by a bunch of wandering ne'er-do-wells who want to kill them and take their stuff.
More seriously, the sheer prevalence of wielders of magic power will tend to keep them in check. In most settings, the wizards tend to end up being the powers behind the throne, with a lot of influence without having to deal with the tedium of actually ruling. Of course, given the tendency of evil overlords to be wizard-types, and theocracies, and all that, it's not like it doesn't happen.
The kind of personality that wants to take over the world struggles to work constructively with others. That problem is exacerbated by the strictures of Vancian spellcasting... If you share your spells with another wizard, those spells can be used against you. If you create potent items of power, those objects can be stolen and used against you. If you create a cabal of like-minded individuals, they are necessarily specialists in using your tools and exploiting your weaknesses. But the most damning point, I'd say, is that your opponents--organized groups of non-mages--have inverse relationships. Warriors benefit from intelligence gathered by spies. Clerics are stronger when their faiths complement one another. Rangers, barbarians, and druids can easily form a triumvirate of aligned intention.
It seems like most powerful mages end up being more interested in studying magic than in ruling. And they’re smart enough to know the headaches that come with being in charge are rarely worth the effort it takes. Good ruler or bad ruler, it’s a lot of work. They’re rather figure out a new spell and get their name on. Achieve the kind of immortality that Melf and Tenser have.
Like I said in the OP, in this thought experiment, I'm calling all spellcasters "mages". Only Wizards have to study to get new spells. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and even Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers wouldn't have that problem.
Oh, poor phrasing on my part. When I said new spell, I meant researching to create an entirely new spell, not just the ones you add to a spellbook. (Like homebrewing, except what it would look like in game for a character to do it, not a player) Non-wizard classes can do that as well, through prayer, experimentation, practicing their lute, study of nature or whatever is class appropriate.
In general, achieving a high level of mastery of something requires an almost single-minded dedication to it (Ever see “Whiplash”?) So the caster, of whatever class, is probably so invested in advancing in their chosen field that dreams of political power fall by the wayside.
Also, it will often come down to personal motivation. If I’m a level 20 wizard, I can Wish for anything I want. Why would I care to rule? What would be the point of it? Gaining power typically isn’t the end unto itself, it is a means to something else. If I can already re-shape reality to my whim, what will I gain by being king?
An idea that I don’t use but that would be hilarious is the Discworld method, which is that mages are too preoccupied looking over their shoulders for other mages to take over the world. It’s even said that “when a mage is tired of looking for glass in his food, he is tired of living.”
I can think of a few reasons that I would use to explain the lack of Mage political power in future settings.
-Mages consider themselves separate from the general populace. Mages have their own political structures, and don’t see a reason to control the non magical folk. They don’t care about the non-magic rules and laws, since their magic gives them an easy way around any of them. (Using enchantment and illusion spells, mostly). They find non-magic politics and wars boring, or don’t think it is wise to get involved with them, since one mage should not control the fate of nations (depending on alignment).
-Mages do not reach a very high level. Experience points are hard to come by, and the danger it takes to grow in magical ability (level up) is often deadly. Especially if the mages don’t have allies, like other adventurers who can protect them while they cast their spells.
-There is a large underground presence, with a lot of very powerful rogues. At high level, the assassin rogue is incredibly dangerous to mages. A rogue’s maximum sneak attack is 10d6. With the assassinate feature, this becomes 20d6 of sneak attack damage, plus the two weapon dice on a hit. Mages don’t have very many hit points, especially if they are low level because the underworld group kills them off as soon as they learn of their existence. One assassin could do a lot of damage, but what if the underground sends two or three as a team? And since the mage is surprised, the assassins could even have 2 turns before the mage gets to cast one spell.
It's possible some spellcasters could leverage their spellcasting abilities to achieve worldly power in a game setting. Those people would be instances; but there's nothing I see about a spellcaster compelling them to seek worldly power as a universal trait of spellcasters. And while magic may help facilitate the acquisition of power, it's not the only way to acquire power.
Look at wealth in the real world. People exist now who could have more impact on the conduct of the world through their wealth ... but instead invest substantially into rocket ships, or just accumulating more wealth. A spellcaster could reorder their world to some degree, but could just as easily leave the world to someone else's bother and use their magic for more vain or esoteric pursuits.
You could construct a D&D world where magic is key to how the world is ordered, but it's not at all an obligation to do so. I mean, in some game worlds literal gods could take literal seats on the literal thrones of a game world. In other places divinities are much more abstract. Magic's place in a world has similar variable possibility. There's precious little that's absolutely obligated for world building.
So I’ve been thinking of my own world in relation to this thread.
To the people of Elucinor, magic is more than a tool. A nation, tribe, or convergence’s ideology and philosophy plays a big role in what kind of magic they practice. E.g. one group might think it best to trust the future to fate or the divine, thus depreciating divining the future; while another exalts the same spells, because they think of fate as something to be prepared and on guard for. Some places favor wizard, others clerics, yet others monks, and so on. (There’s one city were you can find multiple types of casters hobnobbing together, but they have something weirder identifying them).
With this view of magic, I realized that caster rulers would probably be common here. Not only that, but most people would not see this as improper or tyrannical either, because a king using their cultural magic is just showing that they’re one of them. If the ruler uses a magic the culture is against, however, it could very well cause a revolt.
It is an interesting thought, but we have seen things like that in D&D lore and then we try to evolve things with human understanding.
First we did have Netheril, and that is a very cautionary tale of what happens to Magocracies. But if you can imagine as powerful as magic can be it is limited, and with the class of people who weld magic is also limited, don't expect cities to spring up from it, although there are execeptions.
But before you think that you can enslave a group with you magic, go adventuring and see how long your spell slots last without dedicated help. Then you have to account for magic resistance, plots, assignations, general politics. The kinds of things most sane people don't want to mess with. And if you spent your decades learning magic for power, chances are you are good at researching, and probably want to be left to that. The few that succeed go the route of Vecna and won't try to rule until they reach deity status.
There are smaller groups that manage themselves that you read about in other stories who belong to orders. These are usually societies within kingdoms as most in the society are not leadership material. But the real leadership in larger communities are either democratic, or bloodline when it comes to leadership. Most smart mages wouldn't want the headaches and petty problems that come with leadership, so they are usually advisers who rule with a puppet. If the people turn on that puppet, they can just get a new puppet.
There are just so many reasons why you don't have a series of Magocracies, but the main problem is having enough users of magic in order to create them. And then holding onto that power requires a covenant instead of a show of force.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am not sure what my Spirit Animal is. But whatever that thing is, I am pretty sure it has rabies!
The short answer to your question is, "Other spellcasters, and their agendas."
You propose a worthy worldbuilding experiment, but I would caution that there is a whole spectrum of solutions other than "spellcasters rule" and "spellcaster rulers are hard cancelled by a setting truth." It is possible for a fantasy setting to exist in equilibrium, without such absolute set pieces, and I'd argue that it is much more challenging and satisfying to sell such a world to a reader or player.
The short answer to your question is, "Other spellcasters, and their agendas."
You propose a worthy worldbuilding experiment, but I would caution that there is a whole spectrum of solutions other than "spellcasters rule" and "spellcaster rulers are hard cancelled by a setting truth." It is possible for a fantasy setting to exist in equilibrium, without such absolute set pieces, and I'd argue that it is much more challenging and satisfying to sell such a world to a reader or player.
Oh, absolutely. This thought experiment is merely meant to provoke thoughtful discussion on how magic might affect the economy, religion, and politics of D&D worlds. There are possible equilibriums beyond the two extremes of "mages rule everything" and "non-mages oppress mages to keep magic from taking over". However, I do think that it requires a careful balance and thinking to keep that from happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Gary Gygax didn't like "mages" because he thought Heroes were Melee Badasses. But he allowed himself to be convinced that there should be a place for magic wielding characters in this fantasy game.
He stated at some point that if magic users became too powerful they would always rule the world.
For the sake of your question, it depends. The most plausible reason I can come up with is the most powerful mages don't trust each other and wouldn't have it where one of them was The Boss. So, this would suggest that other mages would work to discredit, undermine or outright oppose a mages rule.
It might be something that happens only in one kingdom and because of a special set of circumstances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I have a simple house rule: On a failed save, a barbarian can expend a Rage use for a new save. Also, barbarians are basically immune to mind affecting magic when raging. Effect: If you don't want the barbarian to carve you into ribbons, you basically better stay on friendly terms. It's worth noting that I play lower levels exclusively, so mages aren't quite as strong as they become later.
In addition, all magic items (with the exception of potions, some scrolls and some wands) are unique. There is a Frostbrand, a Holy Avenger, a Staff of the Magi - and no simply +1 armors or the like. It's still possible to create magic items, but each is unique, requires unique ingredients, and you don't get to know what it does until after you make it. Although if you make an amulet using drake scales, dragon breath and sulphur from the heart of the elemental plane of fire - it's not going to become an amulet of protection. That's not to say you can't state what you want it to do - but it's not an accurate science.
Also, as a result of this, there are no magic item shops. And as a result of that, there is no gold>power mechanic.
In terms of world building, high level mages are beings of legend. There are no known max level mages around (actually, there are at least 4), and mages of lower level are revered, but they don't have the personal might to become sorcerer-kings or the like. And obviously, since you can't grind out an endless stream of teleportation gates or traps of create food and water or whatever, this world isn't governed by industrial magic.
In essense - to me - this creates a ... 'proper' fantasy world. You're actually more afraid of a well trained force of mixed infantry/archers than you are a mage. And if a mage actually wants power in the mundane world, he will need infantry and archers to supplement his use of fireballs or lightning bolts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Along the lines of the OP, you could create a Mageocracy in a country adjacent to the one where your main campaign is expected to take place. How does the common peasant of your main country feel about their Mageocratic neighbor? How do the Mages of your country feel about the Mageocracy? How does your country's leaders feel about their neighbor? And what do you know about how they feel about you?
Next, what sort of things happen "over there" that are unthinkable "over here"? Are they believed to open portals to other planes and letting in terrible perils into the Material Plane, or are they much more cautious about such things than your own country?
We often develop the country where our campaign exists in some detail, but we leave the neighboring kingdoms of elves, dwarves and other men as stereotypes of what we normally believe and just reference them in conversations that way. "Y'know, they're like elves." But if you developed a mageocracy and thought through what that means, then you could come up with something unique, or nearly so, in our game world.
Would a Mageocracy be something other than a nation where the nobles were all Mages? Certainly I would not expect every citizen to be an NPC mage. But would they have access to magically enhanced tools to accomplish their labors? Would a Mage-Plow operate without a team of oxen, all day and night, without guidance? Would a Mage-Axe chop down a tree, limb the tree and cut it into eight, ten or twelve foot logs automatically? These are all ideas that could really make a mage-focused nation a true wonder. With all the rural labors largely automated, how much could the populace devote to crafts and the arts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
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? Why isn't practically every nation a magocracy, where those with magic power have taken the majority of political power (through persuasion or force)? Why aren't the royal bloodlines actually sorcerers that use their innate magical power as a justification for their rule similar to how real-world monarchies have claimed to have a divine mandate for their rule (European and Chinese royalty, for example)? If the dominant economic system of the setting is inherently capitalist, the guilds/corporations that control the majority of trade should be mainly controlled by those with magical power (wizards and artificers).
This has been a problem that has been bugging me for a while now. Many settings in D&D don't seem to consider the fact that magic would completely change how the world's politics and nations would function compared to the real world. There are settings in D&D's history that address this issue (Eberron and Dark Sun are my two favorite examples), and I find it kind of baffling that more settings don't answer it. I think that this should be mentioned in the DMG's section on worldbuilding. If magic is superior to mundane power, then there is no reason why mages wouldn't just consolidate most of the socioeconomic and political power in the setting to them.
If mages haven't taken over the setting (yet), you should probably have a justification for that. For example, in Thedas, the setting of Dragon Age games (which is pretty similar to D&D), mages used to rule over the entire continent where the games take place. However, the non-mages discovered a way of using lyrium (a magical crystal) to teach templars (religious knights) how to cancel out magical power and imprison mages in circle towers where they could practice magic but only under the close supervision of the templars. In Thedas, most countries aren't ruled by mages because they used to until a means of countering magic power was discovered. This also introduces an interesting dilemma in the setting: whether or not it's okay to discriminate against mages because if you don't, they start to take over the world again (which already happened two separate times in the Tevinter Imperium).
So, for your setting, if the Mages have taken over major aspects of the setting . . . ask yourself which types of mages do and how the world is different because of it. Here are some options (there's often overlap between these groups):
Additionally, you should consider which types of magic helped mages take over certain aspects of the power in the setting. For example, Enchantment magic like domination spells could more easily be used to take control of political power than transmutation magic.
If mages haven't taken over major sources of power in the world yet . . . ask yourself why not? Here are some possible options for why it hasn't taken over yet:
tl;dr - Mages in D&D logically should be able to consolidate political, religious, and/or economic power more easily than non-mages, and thus the setting should either be controlled by/heavily influenced by mages or have some justification(s) why mages haven't taken over (yet).
Note - In this thought experiment, I'm defining Mages as any spellcasting class, not specifically Wizards or any other arcane spellcaster. This thought experiment is about why anyone with sufficient magic wouldn't be able to take advantage of the world's socioeconomic system in a way that would grant them a higher likelihood to have great political/economic/religious power than non-spellcasters.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It’s not an easy question, to be sure. I could say that most mages aren’t that powerful, and that they’d be heavily outnumbered by non-mages (which could have plenty of high-level folk). But rulership is rarely about everyone on top being able to beat up everyone on the bottom.
If I were to make some lore surrounding this concept, maybe there were great magocracies in the past, but they quickly fell prey to the “Peter Principle”. Turns out magical might doesn’t always translate to knowing how to run a country. Then again, the same might be said of all means of gaining power.
It would also be unlikely to run into a situation where it’s every mage vs. every non-mage. Several mages might prefer someone else dealing with politics and economics so they can focus on their studies. “Only those with magic should rule” is by no means a guaranteed sell even to magical folk. But that doesn’t prevent a civilization from drifting into magocracy unintentionally. Those kinds of societal changes are a lot harder to predict, and thus counter.
It seems like most powerful mages end up being more interested in studying magic than in ruling. And they’re smart enough to know the headaches that come with being in charge are rarely worth the effort it takes. Good ruler or bad ruler, it’s a lot of work. They’re rather figure out a new spell and get their name on. Achieve the kind of immortality that Melf and Tenser have.
It's very difficult to get people to revolt. If we decided to, the citizens of every nation around the world could choose to kill all billionaires and corrupt world leaders. But we don't. Mages would be protected by the same principle and additionally protected by their access to spells.
That could be interesting. After reading a bit about the Peter Principle, I do have some major problems with it. Maybe hubris could be the factor that doomed them? Or is that too cliche/overused?
One of my current ideas that I was brainstorming an idea that there used to be a giant magical empire that ruled the whole setting, until it fell. The non-mages in the setting's present now use the magic items found in the ruins of this ancient civilization to prevent another huge magocracy from forming.
Oh, it definitely wouldn't be every mage trying to take over the world. The vast majority of mages probably wouldn't be even want to take over. However, it would be the greedy/overly ambitious ones that would cause the magocracy to form.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Like I said in the OP, in this thought experiment, I'm calling all spellcasters "mages". Only Wizards have to study to get new spells. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and even Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers wouldn't have that problem.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In most D&D worlds, there is such a force -- PCs. Any wizard forcibly seizing power from the generally-considered rightful rulers (whether their mandate derives from the people, royal blood, or watery tarts lobbing scimitars), finds themselves getting shanked by a bunch of wandering ne'er-do-wells who want to kill them and take their stuff.
More seriously, the sheer prevalence of wielders of magic power will tend to keep them in check. In most settings, the wizards tend to end up being the powers behind the throne, with a lot of influence without having to deal with the tedium of actually ruling. Of course, given the tendency of evil overlords to be wizard-types, and theocracies, and all that, it's not like it doesn't happen.
The kind of personality that wants to take over the world struggles to work constructively with others. That problem is exacerbated by the strictures of Vancian spellcasting... If you share your spells with another wizard, those spells can be used against you. If you create potent items of power, those objects can be stolen and used against you. If you create a cabal of like-minded individuals, they are necessarily specialists in using your tools and exploiting your weaknesses. But the most damning point, I'd say, is that your opponents--organized groups of non-mages--have inverse relationships. Warriors benefit from intelligence gathered by spies. Clerics are stronger when their faiths complement one another. Rangers, barbarians, and druids can easily form a triumvirate of aligned intention.
Oh, poor phrasing on my part. When I said new spell, I meant researching to create an entirely new spell, not just the ones you add to a spellbook. (Like homebrewing, except what it would look like in game for a character to do it, not a player) Non-wizard classes can do that as well, through prayer, experimentation, practicing their lute, study of nature or whatever is class appropriate.
In general, achieving a high level of mastery of something requires an almost single-minded dedication to it (Ever see “Whiplash”?) So the caster, of whatever class, is probably so invested in advancing in their chosen field that dreams of political power fall by the wayside.
Also, it will often come down to personal motivation. If I’m a level 20 wizard, I can Wish for anything I want. Why would I care to rule? What would be the point of it? Gaining power typically isn’t the end unto itself, it is a means to something else. If I can already re-shape reality to my whim, what will I gain by being king?
An idea that I don’t use but that would be hilarious is the Discworld method, which is that mages are too preoccupied looking over their shoulders for other mages to take over the world. It’s even said that “when a mage is tired of looking for glass in his food, he is tired of living.”
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXI?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
This is very interesting!
I can think of a few reasons that I would use to explain the lack of Mage political power in future settings.
-Mages consider themselves separate from the general populace. Mages have their own political structures, and don’t see a reason to control the non magical folk. They don’t care about the non-magic rules and laws, since their magic gives them an easy way around any of them. (Using enchantment and illusion spells, mostly). They find non-magic politics and wars boring, or don’t think it is wise to get involved with them, since one mage should not control the fate of nations (depending on alignment).
-Mages do not reach a very high level. Experience points are hard to come by, and the danger it takes to grow in magical ability (level up) is often deadly. Especially if the mages don’t have allies, like other adventurers who can protect them while they cast their spells.
-There is a large underground presence, with a lot of very powerful rogues. At high level, the assassin rogue is incredibly dangerous to mages. A rogue’s maximum sneak attack is 10d6. With the assassinate feature, this becomes 20d6 of sneak attack damage, plus the two weapon dice on a hit. Mages don’t have very many hit points, especially if they are low level because the underworld group kills them off as soon as they learn of their existence. One assassin could do a lot of damage, but what if the underground sends two or three as a team? And since the mage is surprised, the assassins could even have 2 turns before the mage gets to cast one spell.
Now I want to make this world!
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
It's possible some spellcasters could leverage their spellcasting abilities to achieve worldly power in a game setting. Those people would be instances; but there's nothing I see about a spellcaster compelling them to seek worldly power as a universal trait of spellcasters. And while magic may help facilitate the acquisition of power, it's not the only way to acquire power.
Look at wealth in the real world. People exist now who could have more impact on the conduct of the world through their wealth ... but instead invest substantially into rocket ships, or just accumulating more wealth. A spellcaster could reorder their world to some degree, but could just as easily leave the world to someone else's bother and use their magic for more vain or esoteric pursuits.
You could construct a D&D world where magic is key to how the world is ordered, but it's not at all an obligation to do so. I mean, in some game worlds literal gods could take literal seats on the literal thrones of a game world. In other places divinities are much more abstract. Magic's place in a world has similar variable possibility. There's precious little that's absolutely obligated for world building.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is a really interesting thread. Really makes me think. Thanks.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they.
So I’ve been thinking of my own world in relation to this thread.
To the people of Elucinor, magic is more than a tool. A nation, tribe, or convergence’s ideology and philosophy plays a big role in what kind of magic they practice. E.g. one group might think it best to trust the future to fate or the divine, thus depreciating divining the future; while another exalts the same spells, because they think of fate as something to be prepared and on guard for. Some places favor wizard, others clerics, yet others monks, and so on. (There’s one city were you can find multiple types of casters hobnobbing together, but they have something weirder identifying them).
With this view of magic, I realized that caster rulers would probably be common here. Not only that, but most people would not see this as improper or tyrannical either, because a king using their cultural magic is just showing that they’re one of them. If the ruler uses a magic the culture is against, however, it could very well cause a revolt.
Gave me something to think about, at least.
It is an interesting thought, but we have seen things like that in D&D lore and then we try to evolve things with human understanding.
First we did have Netheril, and that is a very cautionary tale of what happens to Magocracies. But if you can imagine as powerful as magic can be it is limited, and with the class of people who weld magic is also limited, don't expect cities to spring up from it, although there are execeptions.
But before you think that you can enslave a group with you magic, go adventuring and see how long your spell slots last without dedicated help. Then you have to account for magic resistance, plots, assignations, general politics. The kinds of things most sane people don't want to mess with. And if you spent your decades learning magic for power, chances are you are good at researching, and probably want to be left to that. The few that succeed go the route of Vecna and won't try to rule until they reach deity status.
There are smaller groups that manage themselves that you read about in other stories who belong to orders. These are usually societies within kingdoms as most in the society are not leadership material. But the real leadership in larger communities are either democratic, or bloodline when it comes to leadership. Most smart mages wouldn't want the headaches and petty problems that come with leadership, so they are usually advisers who rule with a puppet. If the people turn on that puppet, they can just get a new puppet.
There are just so many reasons why you don't have a series of Magocracies, but the main problem is having enough users of magic in order to create them. And then holding onto that power requires a covenant instead of a show of force.
I am not sure what my Spirit Animal is. But whatever that thing is, I am pretty sure it has rabies!
You propose a worthy worldbuilding experiment, but I would caution that there is a whole spectrum of solutions other than "spellcasters rule" and "spellcaster rulers are hard cancelled by a setting truth." It is possible for a fantasy setting to exist in equilibrium, without such absolute set pieces, and I'd argue that it is much more challenging and satisfying to sell such a world to a reader or player.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Oh, absolutely. This thought experiment is merely meant to provoke thoughtful discussion on how magic might affect the economy, religion, and politics of D&D worlds. There are possible equilibriums beyond the two extremes of "mages rule everything" and "non-mages oppress mages to keep magic from taking over". However, I do think that it requires a careful balance and thinking to keep that from happening.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Gary Gygax didn't like "mages" because he thought Heroes were Melee Badasses. But he allowed himself to be convinced that there should be a place for magic wielding characters in this fantasy game.
He stated at some point that if magic users became too powerful they would always rule the world.
For the sake of your question, it depends. The most plausible reason I can come up with is the most powerful mages don't trust each other and wouldn't have it where one of them was The Boss. So, this would suggest that other mages would work to discredit, undermine or outright oppose a mages rule.
It might be something that happens only in one kingdom and because of a special set of circumstances.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I have a simple house rule: On a failed save, a barbarian can expend a Rage use for a new save. Also, barbarians are basically immune to mind affecting magic when raging. Effect: If you don't want the barbarian to carve you into ribbons, you basically better stay on friendly terms. It's worth noting that I play lower levels exclusively, so mages aren't quite as strong as they become later.
In addition, all magic items (with the exception of potions, some scrolls and some wands) are unique. There is a Frostbrand, a Holy Avenger, a Staff of the Magi - and no simply +1 armors or the like. It's still possible to create magic items, but each is unique, requires unique ingredients, and you don't get to know what it does until after you make it. Although if you make an amulet using drake scales, dragon breath and sulphur from the heart of the elemental plane of fire - it's not going to become an amulet of protection. That's not to say you can't state what you want it to do - but it's not an accurate science.
Also, as a result of this, there are no magic item shops. And as a result of that, there is no gold>power mechanic.
In terms of world building, high level mages are beings of legend. There are no known max level mages around (actually, there are at least 4), and mages of lower level are revered, but they don't have the personal might to become sorcerer-kings or the like. And obviously, since you can't grind out an endless stream of teleportation gates or traps of create food and water or whatever, this world isn't governed by industrial magic.
In essense - to me - this creates a ... 'proper' fantasy world. You're actually more afraid of a well trained force of mixed infantry/archers than you are a mage. And if a mage actually wants power in the mundane world, he will need infantry and archers to supplement his use of fireballs or lightning bolts.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Along the lines of the OP, you could create a Mageocracy in a country adjacent to the one where your main campaign is expected to take place. How does the common peasant of your main country feel about their Mageocratic neighbor? How do the Mages of your country feel about the Mageocracy? How does your country's leaders feel about their neighbor? And what do you know about how they feel about you?
Next, what sort of things happen "over there" that are unthinkable "over here"? Are they believed to open portals to other planes and letting in terrible perils into the Material Plane, or are they much more cautious about such things than your own country?
We often develop the country where our campaign exists in some detail, but we leave the neighboring kingdoms of elves, dwarves and other men as stereotypes of what we normally believe and just reference them in conversations that way. "Y'know, they're like elves." But if you developed a mageocracy and thought through what that means, then you could come up with something unique, or nearly so, in our game world.
Would a Mageocracy be something other than a nation where the nobles were all Mages? Certainly I would not expect every citizen to be an NPC mage. But would they have access to magically enhanced tools to accomplish their labors? Would a Mage-Plow operate without a team of oxen, all day and night, without guidance? Would a Mage-Axe chop down a tree, limb the tree and cut it into eight, ten or twelve foot logs automatically? These are all ideas that could really make a mage-focused nation a true wonder. With all the rural labors largely automated, how much could the populace devote to crafts and the arts?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
They have no HP. Like if a wizard ruled the world and got stabbed, they would just die.