PDA

View Full Version : Why don't wizards run things?



Lysander
2009-07-25, 11:32 PM
In your campaigns why don't wizards or other magicians run the world (assuming they don't)? One level 20 wizard should be able to control an entire nation with minimal effort. Here are my possible explanations:

A) There are no wizards powerful enough to take over the world
B) Magic works better in some places than others. High level spells can only work in magically strong places, and those areas are the only ones wizards control.
C) Wizards police themselves with a non-interference policy
D) If a wizard ever tries to take over the world a divine force attacks them for disturbing balance (or powerful clerics do it)
E) Any wizard powerful enough to take over the world is more likely to leave it for a more interesting plane
F) Wizards do run the world, but normal matters of state are far below them that they ignore most kingdoms and nobles, and take no part in law making
G) There are artifacts more powerful than wizards and the people with those are the ones who rule
H) Dragons or demons or some other kind of monster prefers humanity weak and kills off powerful wizards before they reach the height of power
I) Non-magical warriors or assassins are powerful enough to kill or oppose wizards
J) Magic items are plentiful, so having many powerful spells isn't much better than being rich and having many powerful items
K) Any wizard that powerful is likely a hermit more obsessed with magical research than rulership
L) Wizards do occasionally take over kingdoms, but those kingdoms usually fail because magic ≠ leadership and the wizard gives up after years of famine/riots/etc.

Any reasons of your own?

quick_comment
2009-07-25, 11:37 PM
Wizards have low cha.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-07-25, 11:40 PM
A level 20 anything in my games is pretty rare.

And if they do exist, yeah they are probably ruling the world.

edit: In fact, just imagining what it would take to reach that level of power is baffling. How long do your characters in games actually last? I think the longest I've gone without a death is something like 6 levels or so. Adventuring is dangerous business. If your not the hero of the story it is far, far worse.

Talic
2009-07-25, 11:42 PM
Control and administration sap resources that the caster would otherwise use to research, learn, and generally be a better wizard.

Who wants to control other people, when doing so drains your resources, creates additional sources of enemies, and retards your advancement in the base of your power?

jmbrown
2009-07-25, 11:43 PM
A level 20 anything in my games is pretty rare.

And if they do exist, yeah they are probably ruling the world.

This. Level 20s aren't (supposed to be) common. There are very few mundane monsters with CR over 15. Once you hit that point you're turning to the greater planes for challenges or fighting creatures in the deepest, darkest recesses of the earth that control things from behind the scenes.

FMArthur
2009-07-25, 11:49 PM
High-level wizards are too busy crafting contingent spells and contingency plans for anything they might possibly be in danger from, and then thinking of new ways they might come to harm in order to prepare for those, too.

Salt_Crow
2009-07-25, 11:49 PM
In my books, superintelligence + ultra-awesome power to bend the reality itself doesn't always equal love for politics. Unless it's all magically-controlled empire of mindless slaves, I'd imagine being one person would take its toll after a while. A coalition of wizards perhaps could do it I guess.

penbed400
2009-07-25, 11:52 PM
In my current campaign that I'm working on Wizards are a small group, there is only one wizard that is probably about level 15 who learned from his master who died and everybody else is arouned level 5 wizards or lower.

Sorcerors rule most of the world due to their agreements and pacts with devils. (It's a LE centered nation)

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-25, 11:54 PM
If I ever get around to running one it will be because:
1: There are no level 17+ characters. Even the players don't reach that high(campaign ends at ~15). So casters don't get 9th level spells. 7th/8th are far less gamebreaking.
2: Certain abusable spells(also feats and magic items) don't exist. So casters/characters are somewhat more limited.
3: I am conceptually adapting Frank&K's economicon proposal in that high level characters don't bother with gold, since it is so easy for them to earn cash. Not sure what they'll use, but since GPs are infinite after a certain point, why use them as money? This prevents the Wizards from even inadvertantly breaking the economy.
4: ToB classes etc mean that casters don't get it all their own way.

That said, PC classes do rule the lands. Evil adventurers conquor kingdoms, good ones get married to royalty(the royalty does this so that they don't get killed). High-level characters rule the world, but they are supported by all of the minor aristocrats that ran the kingdom before the adventurer showed up and still have the real power.

Lysander
2009-07-26, 12:05 AM
In my books, superintelligence + ultra-awesome power to bend the reality itself doesn't always equal love for politics. Unless it's all magically-controlled empire of mindless slaves, I'd imagine being one person would take its toll after a while. A coalition of wizards perhaps could do it I guess.

That falls under "they don't care", which I guess would be option K. I suppose a "hands off" magician ruler could just teleport into a throne room and do this:

*poof*
Wizard: I'm in charge now!
King: Yes! Please don't kill me! I'll obey you!
Wizard: Okay, good. Anyway, keep things running for me. I'll let you know if I want anything.
*poof* (Kingdom doesn't see wizard again for years)

I suppose being in charge of people isn't that lucrative when you already have supreme arcane power. I could see three reasons why a wizard would want to take command:

A) They're a megalomaniac villain
B) They want to become a benevolent ruler and help people (this could be a good person OR a misguided villain I suppose)
C) Controlling everything makes it easy to gather rare spell ingredients

valadil
2009-07-26, 12:05 AM
Mostly because high level wizards are crazy. This is a recurring theme in fantasy worlds. And if they aren't crazy, they're paranoid.

Wizards have power beyond petty politics. Who cares about taxing peasants when you can stop time?

A really common BBEG in my games is the wizard who has decided to seize power.

EleventhHour
2009-07-26, 12:07 AM
M) The local populace don't LIKE having an all-powerful wizard lording it over them. :smalltongue:

PId6
2009-07-26, 12:08 AM
Psst, by level 17, wizards have their own demi-planes. Who needs kingdoms?

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 12:08 AM
I generally don't have many high level NPCs in my game worlds. And, those that are high level and also Wizards don't necessarily run things because the ability to turn yourself into a dragon/blow up the moon doesn't make you a good ruler. In fact, pursuing nothing but wizardry would probably make you a poor ruler (although you might be able to 'convince' everyone else otherwise). Unless you have all the time in the world, to get to level 20 AND be a master of politics, it's just not going to work out. Furthermore, Wizards don't have much reason to have good WIS or CHA, which would be pretty important, if you ask me.

The same would go for all of the classes. Only those blessed with extraordinary charisma and some good social skills are going to be readily followed, and even then, followings might be fleeting if the leader doesn't know where he's going. Perhaps you might get a Paladin as King, but his old Wizard buddy would be the one who offers insights on how to solve most of the realm's problems.

Unless you've got great mental stats all-around (which will be exceptionally hard for anyone in a reasonable point-buy setting) or take levels in Aristocrat (which would make a Wizard significantly less powerful), I'd say your chances of being head of state are slim.

Xenogears
2009-07-26, 12:08 AM
Because the bard/rogue with REALLY high Charisma convinced him to let them be his "advisor." Sure the wizard sits on the throne but hes not the real ruler...

Shpadoinkle
2009-07-26, 12:09 AM
Because most of them too smart to get invovled in politics.

PId6
2009-07-26, 12:10 AM
Furthermore, Wizards don't have much reason to have good WIS or CHA, which would be pretty important, if you ask me.
Contact Other Plane. Mass Suggestion. When you're a caster, those kind of mundane things don't really matter.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-26, 12:12 AM
Mine:

There are materials and processes that can ward fixed areas against hostile magic fairly easily, as well as moderate the use of magic within them. The materials are in most regions, widely available and cheap enough that trying to take over/attack a settlement of any real size with magic would be pointless. They aren't really suitable for personal gear or use on adventure but they serve to protect the world's population from casters & dragons, and whatever else run amok.

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 12:18 AM
Contact Other Plane. Mass Suggestion. When you're a caster, those kind of mundane things don't really matter.

Contact Other Plane. Sure, a magic 8-ball is useful, but uh...I think you're overstating that spell's effectiveness.

Suggestion. Make someone take a course of action. Say, "Believe me, I'm great!" Works for uh, 1 person/level. No two of which more than 30ft apart.

Yeah, that's the be-all-end-all for ruling a Kingdom, right?

Actually, that feels like a rather underwhelming argument. Maybe you should try, uh, giving it context.

Doc Roc
2009-07-26, 12:19 AM
My reason is three-fold:
Wizards are incredibly smart, virtually unkillable, almost wholly solitary, top-tier predators who are remarkably common.
Why bother with the Prime? Nothing good happens there if you are a wizard.
They do run things, things bigger than governments. Their schemes are so large as to be imperceptible.


Deepblue, heard of a spell called Mindrape?

Mando Knight
2009-07-26, 12:20 AM
Mostly, though, it's because neither TSR nor WotC hired Tippy to write their official settings, and neither have most of us. :smallwink:

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-26, 12:23 AM
Suggestion. Make someone take a course of action. Say, "Believe me, I'm great!" Works for uh, 1 person/level. No two of which more than 30ft apart.

Yeah, that's the be-all-end-all for ruling a Kingdom, right?Feudal system. The King and his Barons are the ones who make decisions. Peasants have no choice. Couple hundred people, at best, rule the land. They control their armed forces, you control them. The Knights and lower have no real power to influence who leads the government. Yes, they might mount a revolution, but it takes a lot of bad decisions on your part to make them do so.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-26, 12:24 AM
Generally, high-level wizards in my settings make deals with the ruling parties of whatever land they're interested in to ensure that they don't need to deal with petty politics; basically, something like this:

"Hey, Mr. King. I'm chasing after Phenomenal Cosmic PowerTM and am willing to do whatever it takes to get there. So here's the deal: I don't care about your throne; I can make more comfortable chairs in my sleep, and I've got better things to do than mind-control your population. I do care about getting what I need and want, though, and this is a convenient piece of land, so I'm going to ward off your area as best I can against hostile magic (which is pretty freakin' well). In return, if I show up and need a few thousand gold worth of crushed rubies, or a bunch of prisoners to zombify, or a few adventurers to go get something for me, I'd better damn well get it immediately or possible sooner. You keep your power, I gain more power, you stay alive as long as you're useful. Now, let me know if you have heirs so I can explain this to them; meanwhile, I'll be playing chess with Cerberus for a few high-level scrolls while solving eleven-dimensional equations in my head. Ciao."

It explains national wards without requiring high-level wizards living there, it gives plot hooks for adventuring parties, it explains the proliferation of items adventurers need (since the wizard can pop in and want them at any time), and explains a bunch of other things.

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 12:26 AM
Deepblue, heard of a spell called Mindrape?

Heard of "If you think you're clever with magic, howabout suddenly get a letter from Wizards of the Epic-Level Invisible Ethical Agency that says Stop That"?

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 12:33 AM
Feudal system. The King and his Barons are the ones who make decisions. Peasants have no choice. Couple hundred people, at best, rule the land. They control their armed forces, you control them. The Knights and lower have no real power to influence who leads the government. Yes, they might mount a revolution, but it takes a lot of bad decisions on your part to make them do so.

I dunno, there can be a lot of lords to consider. Maybe if it's a tiny kingdom, you'll only have to deal with a handful of nobility. If you're talking significant, you have a lot of noble families to answer to, and they're not necessarily pushovers.

Suggestion is a sentence-or-two of convincing. Gather everyone together, and you can make them do reasonable-sounding things. There's a save for each person you target; there's a fair chance some will still argue with you anyway. And, with more uses of magic, you might eventually make it apparent that you're using magic. So, in time, things might get ugly, unless you spend some time actually learning politics.

PId6
2009-07-26, 12:34 AM
Contact Other Plane. Sure, a magic 8-ball is useful, but uh...I think you're overstating that spell's effectiveness.

Suggestion. Make someone take a course of action. Say, "Believe me, I'm great!" Works for uh, 1 person/level. No two of which more than 30ft apart.

Yeah, that's the be-all-end-all for ruling a Kingdom, right?

Actually, that feels like a rather underwhelming argument. Maybe you should try, uh, giving it context.
Suggest the king and nobles obey you? Know which course of action is good? What possible reason would a high level wizard have for Wis and Cha that they can't replicate and better with spells? Sense Motive? Detect Thoughts. Diplomacy? Charm Person. Bluff? Mindrape. What can a mundane king give that a wizard can't do infinitely better?

AstralFire
2009-07-26, 12:47 AM
Prepared casters who make it above 6th level spells are immediately and irrevocably stabbed in the face of their soul by a Fighter with lots of divine ranks.

And then cannot be resurrected.

ondonaflash
2009-07-26, 12:47 AM
They did, but constant warring with other, better wizards, and necromancers caused a fairly dramatic societal collapse.

Then they tried to take control again, only to be confronted by a man with a brilliant, ruthless, and cunning tactical mind, and a sword (given to him by the goddess of magic) that allowed him to redirect any spells cast towards him.

He also mastered and trained his troops in a set of specific martial arts designed to disable the advantages of wizardry.

And have since been discriminated, and kept weak and incapable by any government with sense.


Wizards have never recovered.

Jergmo
2009-07-26, 12:48 AM
Originally, wizards did rule the main continent in my campaign. There were entire floating cities ruled by wizards, and steampunk/awesome magic artifacts were common, and various wizards ruled over the puny folks that lived below. However, due to their own petty squabbles, they often warred with each other. This infighting, along with hostility from other sources (Outsiders, Dragons, etc.), their power base crumbled to dust and their cities crashed to the ground. Meanwhile, a good amount of the wizards that lived on the ground and were overseers went "Aw, nuts", as the very upset bronze age folks backed up by divine spellcasters beat them to a bloody pulp, and there was something similar to the Spanish Inquisition for arcane spellcasters. Over time, some of these spellcasters offered their services in return for their lives, and they found this niche to prosper. These mages now have their own magic prison, kind of like Azkaban, only actually competent at locking up mad wizards, and their own little city, but they're not in a concrete position to be taking over the world again.

Note: Sorry for the wall of text.

imp_fireball
2009-07-26, 12:52 AM
In your campaigns why don't wizards or other magicians run the world (assuming they don't)? One level 20 wizard should be able to control an entire nation with minimal effort. Here are my possible explanations:

A) There are no wizards powerful enough to take over the world
B) Magic works better in some places than others. High level spells can only work in magically strong places, and those areas are the only ones wizards control.
C) Wizards police themselves with a non-interference policy
D) If a wizard ever tries to take over the world a divine force attacks them for disturbing balance (or powerful clerics do it)
E) Any wizard powerful enough to take over the world is more likely to leave it for a more interesting plane
F) Wizards do run the world, but normal matters of state are far below them that they ignore most kingdoms and nobles, and take no part in law making
G) There are artifacts more powerful than wizards and the people with those are the ones who rule
H) Dragons or demons or some other kind of monster prefers humanity weak and kills off powerful wizards before they reach the height of power
I) Non-magical warriors or assassins are powerful enough to kill or oppose wizards
J) Magic items are plentiful, so having many powerful spells isn't much better than being rich and having many powerful items
K) Any wizard that powerful is likely a hermit more obsessed with magical research than rulership
L) Wizards do occasionally take over kingdoms, but those kingdoms usually fail because magic ≠ leadership and the wizard gives up after years of famine/riots/etc.

Any reasons of your own?

On the basis that powerful people run things with power, nobles and aristocrats replace wizards because most settings assume relatively low magic with very modicum deity involvement (but any number of deities). Period. That's it.

tiercel
2009-07-26, 12:54 AM
Well, if we are talking about one wizard, I'd assume any one wizard in general doesn't do it because taking over a kingdom paints a great big series of concentric circles on your back for every up-and-coming wizard/CoDzilla in the land (if you've done it, why shouldn't they overthrow you to do it themselves/free the populace?). Plus, it sticks you with presumably having to live or at least occasionally appear in less secure surroundings in order to actually have contact with your subjects or at least advisors, unless you really want to be the unseen monarch in the Black Tower (which will only double-dog-dare any would be rivals to call you out).

If we are talking about a cabal of wizards, well, because wizards are notably independent spirits. They might form a guild to share a big library or lab space or whatever, but getting a whole group of wizards on board with a single political agenda is probably tough because (1) most of them are probably more interested in other things and (2) N wizards probably have at least N different major political agendas amongst them anyway. This may go so far as Terry Pratchett's vision of early wizardry, where "the plural of wizard was war."

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-26, 12:56 AM
In my campaign world, it's the magic system itself that pretty much prevents that.

Unlike standard D&D, you won't find a "Generalist Wizard" - because the way magic functions makes that impossible.

The system isn't done yet; but conceptually no magic user is going to be able to have power over more than one domain of magic. (In standard D&D terms, it'd be like being able to choose only one school to cast from. Essentially a Specialist Wizard who loses *every* other school than their speciality)

That said magic isn't broken down on the same lines as the D&D schools; so the effect is slightly different than it might sound. (There's a reason it isn't done yet >.> it's kinda complicated and involves a lot of house rules <'x'> and once that's done I gotta make sure it's actually playable).

But yeah, long story short; there's no practical way for any spellcaster to know enough varied spells that they'd be unassailable due to contingencies and whatnot.

There's also the fact that resurrection is incredibly hard to come by, and Teleportation exists pretty much only in the form of Epic level magic/artifacts. So a lot of the tactics a regular 3.5e wizard would use aren't functional.

Course on the other hand, if the wizard is near an appropriate ley-line attuned to their specialty - they're going to be quite potent with what spells they do have access to. (This handily explains "sit and plot for long periods of time" bad guys. After all - if travel is something of a pain, and you've got a piece of magical real estate that boosts your powers ten-fold; why not sit there and use that expanded power?)

Still very much a work in progress though <x_x>

Nano
2009-07-26, 01:02 AM
...What are you guys talking about? Wizards run things.


WotC runs everything. :smallconfused:

Doc Roc
2009-07-26, 01:06 AM
Not (http://www.peginc.com/games.html).... Everything (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/).

I am hoping that soon Gottlieb will drag Rosewater back to his watery bier.

Xenogears
2009-07-26, 01:07 AM
In my campaign world, it's the magic system itself that pretty much prevents that.

Unlike standard D&D, you won't find a "Generalist Wizard" - because the way magic functions makes that impossible.

The system isn't done yet; but conceptually no magic user is going to be able to have power over more than one domain of magic. (In standard D&D terms, it'd be like being able to choose only one school to cast from. Essentially a Specialist Wizard who loses *every* other school than their speciality)

That said magic isn't broken down on the same lines as the D&D schools; so the effect is slightly different than it might sound. (There's a reason it isn't done yet >.> it's kinda complicated and involves a lot of house rules <'x'> and once that's done I gotta make sure it's actually playable).

But yeah, long story short; there's no practical way for any spellcaster to know enough varied spells that they'd be unassailable due to contingencies and whatnot.

There's also the fact that resurrection is incredibly hard to come by, and Teleportation exists pretty much only in the form of Epic level magic/artifacts. So a lot of the tactics a regular 3.5e wizard would use aren't functional.

Course on the other hand, if the wizard is near an appropriate ley-line attuned to their specialty - they're going to be quite potent with what spells they do have access to. (This handily explains "sit and plot for long periods of time" bad guys. After all - if travel is something of a pain, and you've got a piece of magical real estate that boosts your powers ten-fold; why not sit there and use that expanded power?)

Still very much a work in progress though <x_x>

I had an idea once of making a base class that only had access to one school of magic. Then have one for each school and replace generalist wizard with a sorcerer. Sure you've got every school but only a handfull of good spells. I thought it would be interesting. Much less complicated than yours tho. Can't devote myself to a project for too long after all....

Doc Roc
2009-07-26, 01:08 AM
Mist, when you're done, I'd like to be involved in the playtest. :|

imp_fireball
2009-07-26, 01:09 AM
C) Controlling everything makes it easy to gather rare spell ingredients

Also makes it easier to draw attention from any million other epic level casters in the multiverse.

BlueWizard
2009-07-26, 01:09 AM
Wizards do run things in my world. It is rare for a non-caster in my world to achieve even Baron status. I found this also eliminates weak PCs from wreaking havoc. My nobles are trained from a young age, and sent to combat to gain experience. The mighty leaders had to live through a lot.

PId6
2009-07-26, 01:11 AM
Then they tried to take control again, only to be confronted by a man with a brilliant, ruthless, and cunning tactical mind, and a sword (given to him by the goddess of magic) that allowed him to redirect any spells cast towards him.
There are plenty of ways to beat someone who can only stop spells cast at him. What can his magic sword do against a wizard that controls the weather to rain hard enough to drown him? What about a wizard that destroys the ground around him and makes him fall into a gigantic pit? What about conjuring mundane items and dropping them onto his head? Heck, what about just flying out of his reach? There are so many ways to circumvent magic immunity it's not even funny.


He also mastered and trained his troops in a set of specific martial arts designed to disable the advantages of wizardry.
Well unless that martial arts style involve being able to scry up wizards, use True Seeing, teleport long distances, and create anti-magic fields with larger than 30 ft radius, it won't work. And if they really can do all those things, then they are wizards.


And have since been discriminated, and kept weak and incapable by any government with sense.

Wizards have never recovered.
I can't imagine how they can detect wizards without using magic themselves, and a single wizard 15th level or higher can circumvent any magic regardless.

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 01:12 AM
Suggest the king and nobles obey you? Know which course of action is good? What possible reason would a high level wizard have for Wis and Cha that they can't replicate and better with spells? Sense Motive? Detect Thoughts. Diplomacy? Charm Person. Bluff? Mindrape. What can a mundane king give that a wizard can't do infinitely better?

Suggest everyone obey you? How few nobles are there in these kingdoms, anyway? What if you fill your slots with Suggestion spells and then come across a problem that actually requires you to have prepared something else?

CHA is your ability to influence. You can convince a portion of noblemen with Suggestion spells, sure. But if we're talking a kingdom, you can't constantly be suggesting everyone on EVERYTHING unless you have a lot of spells/day at your disposal. You can't just say "Obey everything I say, forever". The spell doesn't work like that.

WIS is judgment. You know, that thing you need to determine whether or not your decisions are, you know, wise. You can get help through magic, sure. But Contact Other Plane doesn't tell you if it's better to try to determine if it's smarter to order peasants to work harder or to give them a break so that they don't revolt, unless you ask both questions, and ask them right.

But Detect Thoughts? Really? A Ring of Mind Shielding isn't exactly expensive. Might work against an inexperienced, unwealthy and unlanded Knight, but please, you're not giving nobility any credit for wealth, which is the only thing consistent for depictions of nobility in pop-culture.

Charm Person will make people view the things you say in the most favorable way. Sure, that's nice. But trying to give it orders means an opposed charisma check. Honestly, I think social skills would do a better job than these spells you're listing.

Mindrape? One of few exceptions, but we're quickly leaving Just Rulership behind. If anyone gets any wind of this, you're going to have to start ruling through fear, which means that if you fail to intimidate all of your enemies, they might just hire other wizards to come assassinate you.

What can a mundane King can't do that a Wizard can't do infinitely better? Who said a King is mundane? Sure, King + Magic is better than King - Magic. There, you win that argument. Savor it. It still doesn't touch the fact that a Wizard who depends on spells for everything involved in his courtly issues will lose reputation if anyone comes to realize what's up, which will happen because there are simply too many ways it can fail when you consider how many people you have to deal with in a day. A Wizard can probably control a King rather easily, but be King? I just don't see it happening very often.

PId6
2009-07-26, 01:46 AM
Getting a little contentious here? :smallconfused:


Suggest everyone obey you? How few nobles are there in these kingdoms, anyway? What if you fill your slots with Suggestion spells and then come across a problem that actually requires you to have prepared something else?

Or, you know, just suggest to the "prime minister" whatever you want and let them do the messy stuff. Dominate a single charismatic person to rule in your stead and just control things from there. Really, there's no limit to what a wizard can do if you play them intelligently.

CHA is your ability to influence. You can convince a portion of noblemen with Suggestion spells, sure. But if we're talking a kingdom, you can't constantly be suggesting everyone on EVERYTHING unless you have a lot of spells/day at your disposal. You can't just say "Obey everything I say, forever". The spell doesn't work like that.

Read above. If you don't have Cha, nothing prevents you from suggesting/charming/dominating someone who does.

WIS is judgment. You know, that thing you need to determine whether or not your decisions are, you know, wise. You can get help through magic, sure. But Contact Other Plane doesn't tell you if it's better to try to determine if it's smarter to order peasants to work harder or to give them a break so that they don't revolt, unless you ask both questions, and ask them right.

"Would it be a good idea to make the peasants work harder?" Um, why isn't that allowed? I'm sure outer planar beings have far more Wis than a mortal ever would anyway. And a wizard ruler probably wouldn't care about such trivial details anyway, leaving such to their normal taskmasters. It's a feudal system, after all.

But Detect Thoughts? Really? A Ring of Mind Shielding isn't exactly expensive. Might work against an inexperienced, unwealthy and unlanded Knight, but please, you're not giving nobility any credit for wealth, which is the only thing consistent for depictions of nobility in pop-culture.

Detect Thoughts is still a great convenience. Maybe the nobles have protection but do their mistresses? Do their servants? Do their entire family wear such rings 24/7? And if so, there are still numerous other ways to find out someone's true intentions. Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Scrying, basically exactly what the entire school of divination was designed for. Are you going to say they all have access to Mind Blank now?

Charm Person will make people view the things you say in the most favorable way. Sure, that's nice. But trying to give it orders means an opposed charisma check. Honestly, I think social skills would do a better job than these spells you're listing.

Only if they would normally be opposed to such an action. And besides, such things are only for a few situations. Normally, you'd let your dominated slaves run the kingdom while you go on with your arcane research or something. And if you really need skill checks that you can't circumvent in any way (unlikely), you can always craft some +skill items or just use Moment of Prescience for a +20 boost to the important ones.

Mindrape? One of few exceptions, but we're quickly leaving Just Rulership behind. If anyone gets any wind of this, you're going to have to start ruling through fear, which means that if you fail to intimidate all of your enemies, they might just hire other wizards to come assassinate you.

Hardly something you'd use commonly. Why would anyone detect it unless you use it in a really stupid way? And if another wizard is high enough level to be a threat, why would they bother with being hired to do it? They can just as easily take over their own kingdoms.

What can a mundane King can't do that a Wizard can't do infinitely better? Who said a King is mundane? Sure, King + Magic is better than King - Magic. There, you win that argument. Savor it.

What's with the hostility? :smallconfused:

It still doesn't touch the fact that a Wizard who depends on spells for everything involved in his courtly issues will lose reputation if anyone comes to realize what's up, which will happen because there are simply too many ways it can fail when you consider how many people you have to deal with in a day. A Wizard can probably control a King rather easily, but be King? I just don't see it happening very often.

Does it really matter who carries the title of "king"? Why can't a wizard study all day in his ivory tower while his delegated (and dominated) ministers do all the real work? It's not far off from plenty of historical rulers in our world. The wizard need only bother doing anything for the kingdom if there's some task nobody else can solve. And why would people automatically mass rebel against him even if they know a wizard is ruler? If the wizard can keep droughts away and make food with a wave of his hand, people will probably be willing to forgive plenty.

Omegonthesane
2009-07-26, 02:23 AM
Basically - and I say this having read the thread, but without the will to give any detailed criticism of any specific post - wizards don't run things because of the setting, and most wizards don't really run things even in Tippyverse because they can't be bothered.

Of course, we do now have to stat up the Wizard Emperor, LN Wizard 20, rules the whole world himself because he rolled straight 18s for Con, Wis, Int, and Cha at character generation. And made magic items to go even further.

Hawriel
2009-07-26, 02:33 AM
There was an episode of the Simpsons whare all the smart peaple in springfield governed the city. I think this is a perfect example of why a wizard would not be ruling the world.

PId6
2009-07-26, 02:43 AM
There was an episode of the Simpsons whare all the smart peaple in springfield governed the city. I think this is a perfect example of why a wizard would not be ruling the world.
Right, because the Springfield intelligentsia also had the ability to alter reality with their minds.

GoC
2009-07-26, 02:53 AM
I see it as a combination of A, C, D, E, F and K.

Also: "the plural of wizard was war."

Deepblue706: At-will item of dominate/charm/suggestion.

Coidzor
2009-07-26, 02:54 AM
In my world, the last person to become Epic and ascend to godhood was a batman-esque wizard who realized that he was level 20 in a world where his nearest rival was about level 15 and stuck in the underdark. (essentially, he didn't really have anything all that much to worry about after he spent a long time scrying and astrally projecting from his demiplane) So he decided he'd take over the world and use it as a bargaining chip to get into god's pants.

Literally.

In the ruins of what happened after that, independent low level wizardly types are fairly unpopular due to the whole taking over the world thing, sanctioned low level wizardly types aren't viewed much better but after more feared than hated generally. High level wizardly types are the sort of thing that cause the demons that can get through the barriers and into the world to have to change their pants. There have been several wizard cabal ruled kingdoms in the past anyway, but a single arcanist ruling a kingdom has never lasted for long due to the whole adventurers' bullseye on someone usurping in such a way. About half of the nobles who take PC classes take on the usual martial stuff, and the other two quarters are sanctioned/official magic-users or the other options.

In vanilla DND, I'd have to say the sheer number of adventurers running around sort of makes the entire world a colossal stalemate if you're in a world-variant that has people reaching mid-to-high levels with any degree of regularity.

Irreverent Fool
2009-07-26, 03:22 AM
Nobody with any sense wants to rule the world. When you are powerful enough that you can already get anything you could possibly dream of, what's the point of bossing a bunch of peasants around?

obnoxious
sig

PId6
2009-07-26, 03:26 AM
Nobody with any sense wants to rule the world. When you are powerful enough that you can already get anything you could possibly dream of, what's the point of bossing a bunch of peasants around?
For fun of course. "Hey, you! Throw this pie in that guy's face!" "Okay milord." "Ahhhhh! The pie is full of acid-spitting beetles!!!" Hilarious.

oxinabox
2009-07-26, 03:50 AM
hhmm.
Why rule the world when you can rule a plane.
Why stop at a plane?

There were wizards once, who decided to take over a plane, and then another couple, and so on and so forth.
there still known today, in most settings.
We call them Gods


most gods can cast arcane spells, as well as divine

Alleine
2009-07-26, 03:55 AM
Wizards don't run things because they're all NPC's and thus too stupid to do anything besides make magic items for the PC's all day long.

At least until the DM chooses one to be intelligent. Then their job is to be the BBEG who, ideally, is killed by the PC's for *gasp* trying to take over the world.

Yora
2009-07-26, 03:56 AM
In the case of my custom setting, mortal characters can only advance to 10th level (like a E10 game). There are lots of more powerful spirits and dragons, who would just grab and eat a 10th level wizard.
And even a sizeable team of 4th to 6th level fighters should be able to take him out.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-26, 03:58 AM
Those too smart to take part in politics are punished by being governed by those dumb enough to
- Plato

Way I figure, a wizard has all the food, clothing, shelter, and basic necessities he needs, so all that's left is to have a good time with your friends and research spells when you reach level 20. Politics is pretty stupid, so mote intelligent people, at least if you subscribe to Plato's views, would probably avoid the hassles associated with it.

oxinabox
2009-07-26, 04:07 AM
ooh! ooh! I know this one
*raise hand and bonces up and down excitedly*

It's because whenever they reach lvl 11 an lvl 20 beguiler (read CHA god) comes and makes them his 'pets'

PId6
2009-07-26, 04:09 AM
It's because whenever they reach lvl 11 an lvl 20 beguiler (read CHA god) comes and makes them his 'pets'
Actually, beguilers don't really need good Cha. Their spellcasting is also based off Int, so nothing stops them from dumping Cha like 90% of other characters.

lord_khaine
2009-07-26, 04:18 AM
-Because they are smart enough not to bother.

as several other people have allready said, whats the fun in ordering a bunch of pesants around?

Dizcorp
2009-07-26, 04:45 AM
Because all the other wizards plot against them?

Because wizards tend to law, and a lawful ruler with ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER would cause society to stagnate?

Because high-level wizards have everything they need already, up to and including the ability to make their own demiplanes?

Because other planes are more interesting?

Because of the "adventurers' bullseye" effect that you lot have already mentioned?

... all points are valid, I guess, for vanilla D&D...

Quietus
2009-07-26, 04:47 AM
In the setting I'm writing, Wizards don't necessarily rule the world, but they DO take a heavy advisory role - meaning they have power within the system, as a conduit for their enormous intellects and vast power, but they don't have to bother with the tedium of politics themselves, nor need worry about whether they can make that next Cha check. Because climbing to that level of arcane mastery (note : Current plans for my setting involve the highest stock Wizard NPC being level 13) requires a significant investment of time and energy - in gaining real, measurable power. Politics provides a different, passing sort of power, so outside of manipulating events to ensure the outcome they desire comes around (read : give advice to the leaders that makes what they want to see, happen), they don't really care to worry about what the masses think of them. They'd rather be holed up in their libraries, studying the mysteries arcane and coming up with new, ever more creative ways to bend reality over their knee.

Bouregard
2009-07-26, 04:49 AM
That falls under "they don't care", which I guess would be option K. I suppose a "hands off" magician ruler could just teleport into a throne room and do this:

*poof*
Wizard: I'm in charge now!
King: Yes! Please don't kill me! I'll obey you!
Wizard: Okay, good. Anyway, keep things running for me. I'll let you know if I want anything.
*poof* (Kingdom doesn't see wizard again for years)

I suppose being in charge of people isn't that lucrative when you already have supreme arcane power. I could see three reasons why a wizard would want to take command:

A) They're a megalomaniac villain
B) They want to become a benevolent ruler and help people (this could be a good person OR a misguided villain I suppose)
C) Controlling everything makes it easy to gather rare spell ingredients

I am the only one thinking of a Vetinari-esque ruler getting 15 visits of that sort a day, pledging his loyality to each of them and then forget about it as soon as the fireballspittingmageofdoom is gone?

Would be cool if two of such wizards meet each other while conquering a kingdom that way... hrhr...

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 05:29 AM
-Because they are smart enough not to bother.

as several other people have allready said, whats the fun in ordering a bunch of pesants around?

+1.

Really, leading a country takes a LOT of worck. Would you really be wanting to spend most of your day handling politics so your dominion doesn't colapse when you could be researching more cool magic

Of course, now and then a wizard may butt his interest with the local king, but hey, don't super private companies also interfere with official government decisions now and then?

Bouregard:No, you're not the only one. Actually that may be how the king rose to power, promising his loyalty to several wizards, and then granting them services now and then, while still ruling most of the time.

Telonius
2009-07-26, 05:44 AM
As a practical matter, entering politics greatly increases your number of enemies. Just as a matter of dumb luck, the more minds that are working against you, the greater the possibility that they will find a flaw in your perfect defenses. Having more enemies can also muddy up your defensive divinations.

Zenthar
2009-07-26, 06:11 AM
Getting a little contentious here? :smallconfused:

I completely agree with your post. Some people don't seem to grasp that to rule a kingdom you don't have to be the king.. you can just control the king.

Nothing easier than that. Dominate the king, voila. You don't even have to dominate him - just threaten him.

If any of the nobles (it depends how powerful the king is, too, if anyone would dare to oppose him) "disagree" with his (the wizards) decisions, well, that's tough. The king can send assassins, threaten him and what-not.. but if all else fails, the wizard pays the noble a visit.

The point about if they notice you're using magic to control the king they might hire other wizards to kill you.. ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha. Good luck hiring a 20th level wizard :smallconfused:

What could you POSSIBLY offer them? It's very likely the assassination attempt would end up with them dying.. why take the risk?

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 06:32 AM
What could you POSSIBLY offer them? It's very likely the assassination attempt would end up with them dying.. why take the risk?

Because if a wizard is dominating a king, he's up to no good. Can the other wizards allow to ignore one of their own driven power hungry, probably wanting to use the country's resources for some sinister plan?

The trick is, the hired wizard won't directly engage the other wizard.

He'll use his magic to discern his plan, then hire lesser adventurers and guide them against the other wizard, trying to lure him out. The other wizard, not wanting to expose himself, sends his own pawns to face the adventurers.

And so a new campaign is born.

Learnedguy
2009-07-26, 06:37 AM
Sure they would. If there were just one of them. Thing is though, there's seldom just one powerful dude (they don't have to be wizards), there's usually many. Not to mention the less powerful dudes who band together to be as strong as one actually powerful dude through numbers.

And all these powerful dudes yeah, they don't exactly see eye to eye. Especially if one tries to lord it over the others. The result is that if someone ever gets an advantage, someone else will soon pull him down back to his place again.

Just like in the real world:smallamused:

shadow_archmagi
2009-07-26, 06:38 AM
Wizards don't run things. Running things is dull. Oh, sure, they might decide to up and Move Earth/Stone Shape/Stone Wall/Fabricate/Iron Wall an entire kingdom into existence, but they're not going to be RUNNING things.

Too much book-keeping. Far easier to just use Gate to travel to the Plane of Happiness.

Zenthar
2009-07-26, 06:53 AM
Because if a wizard is dominating a king, he's up to no good. Can the other wizards allow to ignore one of their own driven power hungry, probably wanting to use the country's resources for some sinister plan?

The trick is, the hired wizard won't directly engage the other wizard.

He'll use his magic to discern his plan, then hire lesser adventurers and guide them against the other wizard, trying to lure him out. The other wizard, not wanting to expose himself, sends his own pawns to face the adventurers.

And so a new campaign is born.

No, it doesn't have to be an evil wizard to dominate a king. And as I said, he might not have to dominate the king - the king might even come to the wizard for help. Or he might realize someone as powerful as that being the real ruler of the country only benefits everyone.

It would be very hard for the other wizards to find it out, for starters. And then they might not even dare to go against the one pulling the strings. If they do, they'll never even get close if the Wizard is smart enough.

I really don't see why some random wizard would just go "Haa! A wizard ruling a country! I will kill him! Bwahhaha! I might die but at least I will kill this random wizard I don't know anything about!"

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 07:38 AM
I really don't see why some random wizard would just go "Haa! A wizard ruling a country! I will kill him! Bwahhaha! I might die but at least I will kill this random wizard I don't know anything about and gain fat experience and loot!"

There's your reason. It's hard to find proper challenges when you're a 20th level wizard.

Zenthar
2009-07-26, 07:41 AM
There's your reason. It's hard to find proper challenges when you're a 20th level wizard.

Yeah.. do you want to risk dying for some experience? You wouldn't find any real loot from a smart wizard.

mint
2009-07-26, 08:11 AM
I was looking for examples for what an ability score in d&d would mean in real life when I started playing.
I don't think it was core at all but for intelligence, one example I came upon was that every 1 of INT could equal 10 IQ.
So the average in d&d would be the average in the real world.
There would be fewer and fewer people able to cast spells of a given level, the higher the level of the spell.
Maybe there would not be very many people with int 19, class levels, and ambition.

Abstruse
2009-07-26, 08:45 AM
In my books, superintelligence + ultra-awesome power to bend the reality itself doesn't always equal love for politics. Unless it's all magically-controlled empire of mindless slaves, I'd imagine being one person would take its toll after a while. A coalition of wizards perhaps could do it I guess.
This. Hell, even Zagyg got tired of playing Mayor to Greyhawk after a couple of centuries. Largely because he grew more fascinated with the magics of the realm to be found beneath his towers and became a demigod, but hey, you gotta have priorities... :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2009-07-26, 10:12 AM
Getting a little contentious here? :smallconfused:

You seemed a little dismissive.



Or, you know, just suggest to the "prime minister" whatever you want and let them do the messy stuff. Dominate a single charismatic person to rule in your stead and just control things from there. Really, there's no limit to what a wizard can do if you play them intelligently.


I was talking about being the ruler, in my original post. Sure, being the power behind the throne can be good enough, but it doesn't actually give you the title of King.



Read above. If you don't have Cha, nothing prevents you from suggesting/charming/dominating someone who does.


Then you may as well be anyone, and have a friend take care of it for you.




"Would it be a good idea to make the peasants work harder?" Um, why isn't that allowed? I'm sure outer planar beings have far more Wis than a mortal ever would anyway. And a wizard ruler probably wouldn't care about such trivial details anyway, leaving such to their normal taskmasters. It's a feudal system, after all.


Well, if peasants are halting work all-around the kingdom and it's actually causing a problem, as far as production goes, then you might have to get involved.

As for it being a proper question, you have to realize the whole vagueness of "good idea". Generally, it's a good idea for peasants to work. That's kind of their thing.


Detect Thoughts is still a great convenience. Maybe the nobles have protection but do their mistresses? Do their servants? Do their entire family wear such rings 24/7? And if so, there are still numerous other ways to find out someone's true intentions. Clairvoyance/Clairaudience, Scrying, basically exactly what the entire school of divination was designed for. Are you going to say they all have access to Mind Blank now?

No, but it seems like if you're going to be spending all of your time spying on your own lords and their families, you might not actually get around to do other stuff. They might have their own wizardly servants who don't quite have Mind Blank, but can at least detect scrying, and perform other spells to protect their lord.



Only if they would normally be opposed to such an action. And besides, such things are only for a few situations. Normally, you'd let your dominated slaves run the kingdom while you go on with your arcane research or something. And if you really need skill checks that you can't circumvent in any way (unlikely), you can always craft some +skill items or just use Moment of Prescience for a +20 boost to the important ones.


Except if you're not running the kingdom, then you're only controlling it from behind the scenes. I was talking about having the rulership position, namely being the King.


Hardly something you'd use commonly. Why would anyone detect it unless you use it in a really stupid way? And if another wizard is high enough level to be a threat, why would they bother with being hired to do it? They can just as easily take over their own kingdoms.


Well, if you've got low WIS, maybe you might use it in a really stupid way. Other wizards might not have the proper spells for rulership, or they'd perhaps rather not have the responsibility of being King.


Does it really matter who carries the title of "king"? Why can't a wizard study all day in his ivory tower while his delegated (and dominated) ministers do all the real work? It's not far off from plenty of historical rulers in our world. The wizard need only bother doing anything for the kingdom if there's some task nobody else can solve. And why would people automatically mass rebel against him even if they know a wizard is ruler? If the wizard can keep droughts away and make food with a wave of his hand, people will probably be willing to forgive plenty.

I didn't say they'd automatically mass rebel once they found a wizard is their ruler. But learning that someone is using magic to convince everyone of everything is generally not something that sounds particularly good. Having to ask everyone else for advice on every matter (including other planes of existence, even if it might be impressive the first time) could be skewed as a weakness, and if anyone who doesn't like you learns of it, then it'd probably be used to defame you.

Sure, a wizard can retreat to his tower. Doesn't make him a good ruler. And if he's not King, he's not designated the ruler, despite his mass influence. He won't be running "things", but running the guy who runs "things". Actually having that ruling position would put him in charge of having all of those responsbilities, which he probably won't want, and if there is too much of his nobility that is strong enough to see/resist his magic, then he won't be able to control every aspect of the kingdom, which will make the magical approach seem less vastly superior to all other means of governing.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-26, 10:23 AM
Wizards don't run things. Running things is dull. Oh, sure, they might decide to up and Move Earth/Stone Shape/Stone Wall/Fabricate/Iron Wall an entire kingdom into existence, but they're not going to be RUNNING things.

Too much book-keeping. Far easier to just use Gate to travel to the Plane of Happiness.

I think you vastly underestimate how much people enjoy imposing their will on another people. I think one of the first things anyone with near limitless cosmic power would do is start getting petty and controlling with it.

McBish
2009-07-26, 11:12 AM
Because it isn't fun. Or if it is maybe they do. Because in a world DM's beat Wizard's. That is a fact I will not argue with anyone, and if anyone tries to argue with me, well they can have fun and loose. Any wizard can be killed if the DM wants to. As for NPC's well rule of plot takes over here, if plot needs a wizard to rule it will otherwise they won't.

Simple.

Berserk Monk
2009-07-26, 11:18 AM
It all has to do with genre conventions. Wizards are unrelatable to most people: being able to reshape reality so people can't look up to them. That's why they're always the villain. Fighters, brave, strong warriors, are easier to connect with so they're the ones in charge of the group.

kpenguin
2009-07-26, 11:22 AM
Wizards does run things, ever since they bought TSR.

aje8
2009-07-26, 11:40 AM
Wizards don't rule the world because:
1). Not worth the effort.... ruling a kingdom is overrated.
2). Busy being paranoid and unkillable.
3). Why would they want Prime? They can just make a plane of super-fast time and use their vast arcane powers make it the IDEAL world for their use.


hhmm.
Why rule the world when you can rule a plane.
Why stop at a plane?

There were wizards once, who decided to take over a plane, and then another couple, and so on and so forth.
there still known today, in most settings.
We call them Gods
I love this idea.... seriously. Every god is a former Big 5 class who took over a large piece of the world.



*poof*
Wizard: I'm in charge now!
King: Yes! Please don't kill me! I'll obey you!
Wizard: Okay, good. Anyway, keep things running for me. I'll let you know if I want anything.
*poof* (Kingdom doesn't see wizard again for years)

I suppose being in charge of people isn't that lucrative when you already have supreme arcane power. I could see three reasons why a wizard would want to take command:

A) They're a megalomaniac villain
B) They want to become a benevolent ruler and help people (this could be a good person OR a misguided villain I suppose)
C) Controlling everything makes it easy to gather rare spell ingredients

Also love this idea.

PLUN
2009-07-26, 12:22 PM
I guess to me the big obstacle is that wizards don't actually KNOW how to be rulers. They have no skills suited to negotiation, delegation or administration. Sure, they're powerful in the physical manner, but if your king is making all the decisions and jets off to aquire artifacts or murder people who don't kneel before Zod every twenty minutes your kingdom is going to fall to ashes. So they'd be giving up power by implanting themselves on the global scale. They're a highly specialised role, just like well, Noble.

You're going to need a man behind the man to assign competent subordinates ("can it cast Cloudkill? is a great question when picking a minion, less so for Minister of Education). Lets hope your old adventuring party had a bard.

Umael
2009-07-26, 12:55 PM
Wizards. No wizard.

The original question mentioned the plural, not the singular. Xykon, as great of an example of megalomaniac villain as he is, is just one example. Most wizards are, well, most wizards. The broad spectrum of people with various personalities and alignments and alliances and goals and fears and everything - that is what wizards are. To prescribe a ultimate truism that all wizards would actively seek out political power denies the one thing that all wizards hold in common - they are wizards, beings who have sought out magical, arcane, written power.

Any wizard CAN be a politician, leader, statesman, warlord, tyrant, king, or pope. But the collection of entities we call "wizards" are NOT politicians, leaders, statesmen, warlords, tyrants, kings, or popes. They are wizards.

With that in mind, most wizards would NOT be running things because they have their own interests that are not political.

(Unless, of course, the DM thinks that this would be a Cool (TM) idea, in which... okay, fine.)

Example: Xykon. Who runs the administration of Azure City? Red-Cloak. Why? Because getting food for the goblins and making alliances with other nations and all that is not something that interests Xykon or really something that he even believes is necessary.

Who said anything about level 20?

The power level of the world really depends on the DM. In some worlds, the NPCs and the PCs run the gambit from 1st to Epic All-My-Gods. Just about all the time, the lower level ones greatly outnumber the higher level ones, so you have a pyramid-like structure of power, until you have just a very few with Phenomenal Cosmic Power!!!

Of course, in some worlds, you have only a few people who ever make it above 5th level, and some worlds where being level 20, even if you are a spell-caster, isn't that big of a deal (Iron Heroes comes to mind).

But for "normal" "vanilla" D&D, we can assume that there is going to be the full gambit, but that leads to the next point.

With great power comes other people with greater power.

Unless things are already set up a certain way, those in power who have it set up a certain way are going to keep the status quo and prevent those who have not quite as much power from changing the status quo.

There is an excellent mini-example of this, two of them in fact: drow and githyanki. In both cases, the race in question is ruled by a power that eliminates its followers when they get too powerful in order to prevent them from threatening their own. While that might have changed in the canon world(s), the example illustrates this point.

In this case, the status quo is that wizards, even those with great power, focus more on being wizards than on being rulers. Again, yes, there is always the exceptions, but the way things tend to work is that when a wizard tries to break the rule, he or she often gets thwarted, and this happens in three different ways.

On the way there or even once in power, a wizard, although greater than most, encounters people who attempt to stop him or her. These are the jealous nobles and pious crusaders, the scheming rivals and the valorious knights. For whatever reason, this is the very definite chance that someone out there doesn't like the wizard's plans and is not only moving to stop them, but that this person might succeed. A wizard will have to devote some effort into protecting those interests, and most likely, the wizard's own person. It is conceivable that the wizard, for all that power, might actually fail.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe the wizard will defeat all who stand in the way of ruling a kingdom, or more. Perhaps the wizard is the most powerful individual in the world and has a system in place much like Lloth has over her drow, a system that ensures that the wizard will stay in power.

At which point, the threat to the wizard's power will come from... himself (or herself). Assuming even age itself has been defeated as a threat, the wizard will simply feel the years slip by and more and more the wizard's goal is to just hold on to that power. The wizard becomes the status quo in this case, afraid of change because change will bring about the end of that power.

Or does he (or she)?

If boredom and paranoia and ennui take their toll, maybe the wizard will realize that what is keeping the wizard from actually enjoying all this is the wizard himself (herself). Anyone who is familiar with Vampire: the Masquerade, especially the way the developers at White Wolf researched how the Elders would behave, will understand this point.

Yes, you can always have the exception, but the exception is what makes the adventure. Look at Xykon - he can just sit on his power and enjoy being a lich (as much as any lich can), or he can engage in something that will make him enjoy his unlife - a risk, a gamble that he will take over the world.

The final threat to the wizard's power is those with greater power, namely the gods.

Now a god might not take a hand personally in defeating a wizard, but if the god does, there is a good chance that the god will win.

"But a level 20th wizard can-"

Cork it.

I'm not interested in the details of what a level 20th wizard can do. If you will, I'm not going to discuss game TACTICS with you, but rather, game STRATEGY. And strategically, all I am going to say, is that there is a good chance that a god will win in a fight with a wizard.

Why?

Because a god pretty much has the same two things that the wizard has, only more of it - power and intelligence.

When the wizard has epic spells, the god has epic spells and divine powers. When the wizard has a 28 Intelligence and plans 50 years into the future, the god has a 36 Intelligence, plans 100 years into the future, and an oracle that never fails.

As the above (hopefully, tongue-in-cheek) example shows, the gods are gods for a reason. They have got the vast power and they have been dealing with the Byzantium power politics and intrigue since before the wizard was born.

"But the rules say-"

Rubbish.

Those are the same rules that the gods use. If there is a loophole that permits cheap access to power, then the gods would know it and either prevent it or exploit it themselves. Why not? Wouldn't you do that if you were a god?

Wizards, even powerful ones, do not, by and large, go around defeating gods. Yes, it has happened, and yes, it will happen again. But these make for great stories, great adventures, not routine.

I suppose you could have a world in which the wizards DID find a way to take over, killing gods left and right, and it might even be an interesting world. But when you look at the worlds, you will find that there are more of them with gods ruling them than with a successful wizard-lead revolution against gods that casts them down and puts the wizards in their place.

So when the wizard starts plotting against the heavens (or the hells), or getting too powerful for some god's comfort, or even just upsets a few too many of that god's followers*, that god just might come to visit and there just might be one less wizard in the world.

* - Scenario for why a wizard might not even obtain political power. Wizard takes over kingdom. Cleric, not as powerful as wizard, appeals to god. God notices the cleric's prayer, notices that the wizard is preventing the worshippers from worshipping how they want, goes and pays wizard a visit. Again, not an unreasonable or inconceivable possibility.

Yahzi
2009-07-26, 01:11 PM
In your campaigns why don't wizards or other magicians run the world?
Because clerics run the world.

None of your objections work for clerics: they are, by definition, interested in and capable of social leadership.

What stops one 20th level cleric from taking over? The 20th level clerics of other religions.

Wizards, like warriors, ultimately wind up working for the clerics, because the clerics have the most insidious, powerful form of mind control possible: they simply convince the wizards that their cause is the right one.

Also, in my world, you would have to consume the souls of 2 billion ordinary human beings to become 20th level, so there aren't a whole lot of them around.



Not sure what they'll use, but since GPs are infinite after a certain point, why use them as money?
In my world, I use souls. Check out my sig for my campaign guide. :smallsmile:

Yukitsu
2009-07-26, 01:51 PM
The last time I made a wizard who essentially ruled the world, he did so by creating an academy of magic in a mostly backwater planetary setting. Then he offered free food, water, dental etc. for anyone that enrolled. There are now something like 114 000 000 wizards, to something like 5000 commoners on the planet. And a ton of food creating magic items. Then he took his top students, declared them professors and administrators, declared himself dean, and went off adventuring. So now it's a planet composed of 95% self sustained academics.

Diagoras
2009-07-26, 02:09 PM
The senior wizard in a world of magic had the same prospects of long-term employment as a pogo stick tester in a minefield. - Moving Pictures

Magic isn't a toy to be played with. Magic is a dangerous, ancient force that demands respect. Anyone crazy enough to volunteer to use this force is already dangerously cracked, and by the time they hit level 20 are unlikely to be thinking like you or me. Ever wonder about all the Celerity/Contingency/Super-Duper Impenetrable Demiplane nonsense that comes from wizards? Fighters don't do that. Paladins don't do that. Only dangerously paranoid minds do that, the kind that have been stretched just a bit too far in the wrong directions. But there's also a good reason for the paranoia.

And for those dumb fellows that don't treat the forces of arcana with respect, that spam epic spells and seize control of nations, they increase greatly the caster's visibility to...things. These things may just be minor deities and demon princes, aggravated by extravagant displays of power. Or they may be even more unpleasant things, the kind with too many tentacles and eyeballs in all the wrong places. And once they're aching to drink your sweet, magic-imbued soul, you'd best stay on your demiplane.

So, the very strength of wizards is their greatest weakness. A fighter will always be so mundane that they are ignored. But the wizard stupid and arrogant enough to think that altering the fabric of reality has no consequences? Well, read the quote at the beginning of this post.

Yukitsu
2009-07-26, 02:16 PM
My DM tried the above a bit, but when I kept emerging from the smoke alive, with several dead comrades, he started to pull them back a bit. When I started calling them "EXP farms" he stopped. :smalltongue:

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-26, 02:28 PM
Mist, when you're done, I'd like to be involved in the playtest. :|

<^.^>b noted!

It'll be awhile though <~_~> I'd been hoping to be ready for a playtest within a month; but... yeah, it's gonna be a bit longer.

(The biggest problem - though I think it's a problem that, once solved, will make for a better experience all around - is that the world itself is one I'm writing for a novel. The hoped for being that I can translate the novel version to the tabletop with a minimum of fuss.)

*gets off lazy arse and gets back to work >.>*

Diagoras
2009-07-26, 03:17 PM
My DM tried the above a bit, but when I kept emerging from the smoke alive, with several dead comrades, he started to pull them back a bit. When I started calling them "EXP farms" he stopped. :smalltongue:

Oh, then he wasn't doing it right. The vibe should become less D&D and more Call of Cthulhu. :smallbiggrin:

PLUN
2009-07-26, 03:22 PM
The World is a far better DM than your DM when it comes to playing hardball. I mean, how to Wizards level up? By going on Adventures. What are Adventures? Neat little packs of combat, loot and experience, doled out by a DM, generally in a bubble. Most people see a continuous stream of combat scenarios as a bad thing. They happen all the time, yes, but there is no continuous element. You want nothing but war, conflict and looting all the time, you travel and you keep informed. Like a PMC.

So adventures are not common, and spread out.

The thing is, for a wizard, experience is a field test. A fighter goes to war for all sorts of reasons, but comes back a better combatant because he happened to survive the experience. A rogue, generally, is in it for the challenge or the money, but may themselves be there for purely academic reasons, depending on the presence of traps. A cleric wins favour with their divine agents. A wizard? A wizard tries out his new toys in a practical environment.

So wizards that want power know a day in the field beats years in the lab casting at a wall.

So:

- 'adventures' aren't common
- wizards really want them

So wizards would be agressive, proactive in pursuing adventures. At high levels this competition gets severe and fatal. There are not a lot of adventures suitable to test your incredibly powerful spells in... but you can make them. There are some adventures that get you a lot of funding, an opportunity to finish rivals once and for all and provide nice, expansive environments to test your new theories in. Fighters call them war.

I picture the party being small, two or three people. All arcane spellcasters. They can aquire NPC allies - allies therefore not obliged to stay onboard 'for the sake of the game'. They can compete for the loyalty of that ally within the group, the closest one literally manipulating the combat actions of the NPC barring DM intervention. They can wheedle, manipulate, be recruited by and fight against the dozens, hundreds of competing wizard factions that desperately want to offer their service solutions to get another feel of real power. They find their allies dropping away as their power comes more dangerous and realise that there's a bunch of potential conquerors that they have come to rely on in error. Their 'friends'.

This concept has really lit a fire under me actually. Thanks.

Yukitsu
2009-07-26, 03:23 PM
It was an aberrant mage, so I'm pretty sure I would have already started at the failing end of sanity if it were CoC. :smallconfused: If I can't beat them, may as well join them. :smalltongue:

On that note, I played a caster in a CoC game, and learned one spell that let me run faster. It's all I ever used.

Tallis
2009-07-26, 03:36 PM
In your campaigns why don't wizards or other magicians run the world (assuming they don't)? One level 20 wizard should be able to control an entire nation with minimal effort. Here are my possible explanations:

A) There are no wizards powerful enough to take over the world
B) Magic works better in some places than others. High level spells can only work in magically strong places, and those areas are the only ones wizards control.
C) Wizards police themselves with a non-interference policy
D) If a wizard ever tries to take over the world a divine force attacks them for disturbing balance (or powerful clerics do it)
E) Any wizard powerful enough to take over the world is more likely to leave it for a more interesting plane
F) Wizards do run the world, but normal matters of state are far below them that they ignore most kingdoms and nobles, and take no part in law making
G) There are artifacts more powerful than wizards and the people with those are the ones who rule
H) Dragons or demons or some other kind of monster prefers humanity weak and kills off powerful wizards before they reach the height of power
I) Non-magical warriors or assassins are powerful enough to kill or oppose wizards
J) Magic items are plentiful, so having many powerful spells isn't much better than being rich and having many powerful items
K) Any wizard that powerful is likely a hermit more obsessed with magical research than rulership
L) Wizards do occasionally take over kingdoms, but those kingdoms usually fail because magic ≠ leadership and the wizard gives up after years of famine/riots/etc.

Any reasons of your own?

I haven't read the rest of the posts yet, but my first thoughts are:

1) If one powerful wizard tries to take over the world other wizards don't like it so they rise to stop him.
2) Being a powerful wizard takes a lot of work, if they take the time to take over the world they won't have time to keep up on their wizardly studies.
3) Some kingdoms are run by wizards, but not every wizard has the skill or desire to run a nation
4) Wizards would rather manipulate rulers than be one
5) They just have more interesting things to do

only1doug
2009-07-26, 03:38 PM
It was an aberrant mage, so I'm pretty sure I would have already started at the failing end of sanity if it were CoC. :smallconfused: If I can't beat them, may as well join them. :smalltongue:

On that note, I played a caster in a CoC game, and learned one spell that let me run faster. It's all I ever used.

Heh, spellcasting in CoC, the quickest route to insanity.

"Hey, I just learnt a spell that can either save the world or destroy it, unfortunately if I ever cast it to save the world I'll inevitably go mad and cast it again to destroy the world...."

Edit: on topic: Wizards don't rule the world for the same reason I don't run the country, it takes more effort than its worth. Things might not be exactly how I want them but if I went to all the effort of taking over I'd have to spend all that time making sure it keeps running smoothly, time that I'd rather be spending doing something else.

It's a trade off. If the government got to the point that I couldn't tolerate the ways they irritate me then I'd step up and get involved in making it something I could tolerate (I'm not ever expecting it to be something I'd like at all times, that would be intolerable for others, who would then step up and make their opinion known).

GoC
2009-07-26, 03:47 PM
...
The problem here is contradictory canon.
The official stats and official history contradicts the official mechanics.

dspeyer
2009-07-26, 04:49 PM
I'm disturbed that no one has suggested this yet, but maybe they have consciences? In a world where Right of Birth is generally accepted for legitimacy, a wizard taking over would require killing or mindraping a large number of people. And that would be wrong. What use is ruling the world if you don't like yourself anymore?

Furthermore, is there any reason to think wizards would be better at ruling? It's an art in its own right, and one they've never studied. Better to find someone who's really good at it and support them.

As for wizards who are already evil, they are opposed by good wizards. And since good wizards collaborate freely and evil wizards guard their secrets and spend half their energy watching for backstabs, good is stronger.

quick_comment
2009-07-26, 04:54 PM
As for wizards who are already evil, they are opposed by good wizards. And since good wizards collaborate freely and evil wizards guard their secrets and spend half their energy watching for backstabs, good is stronger.

Working together is a law/chaos thing, not good/evil thing.

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 04:58 PM
Working together is a law/chaos thing, not good/evil thing.

Backstabbing, on the other hand, is a very evil/good thingy. A LE overlod is a lot less trustworthy than a LG paladin, since the overlord will only acept an alliance if it has holes he can exploit later. He'll never do a fair contract with you.

quick_comment
2009-07-26, 05:01 PM
Backstabbing, on the other hand, is a very evil/good thingy. A LE overlod is a lot less trustworthy than a LG paladin, since the overlord will only acept an alliance if it has holes he can exploit later. He'll never do a fair contract with you.

Why does unfair mean it has loopholes?

A LG lord will make sure his contracts are fair to everyone involved.

A LE lord will make sure his contracts are fair to him.

Neither one wants loopholes.


Example:

A lord wants to buy your land.

LG Lord: I will offer you fair market value.

LE Lord: I can offer you half market value. Oh, did I mention that there have been several orc hordes rampaging through the area? If you dont leave they might kill you and your family. Oh no, those rumors that the orcs answer to me are just lies spread by Lord Goodypants.

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 05:18 PM
Hmm, good point.

Still, an LE overlod will probably still try to slip a microscopic line where it's stated that along with the farm you also give the overlord your daughter as a slave. The lines are so small, and the threat of the orcs is so dire, that you don't notice them untill you've signed, and then the overlord points at the mictoscopic line, takes your daughter AND your land laughing.

quick_comment
2009-07-26, 05:22 PM
Hmm, good point.

Still, an LE overlod will probably still try to slip a microscopic line where it's stated that along with the farm you also give the overlord your daughter as a slave. The lines are so small, and the threat of the orcs is so dire, that you don't notice them untill you've signed, and then the overlord points the mictoscopic line, takes your daughter AND your land laughing.

I see LE lords more like the head of a mafia, rather than scheming lawyers.

He will make a contract, and do exactly what it says, without any funny business, but dont expect him to make a contract that doesnt screw you over. You go to him when you need a favor and are willing to pay a steep price for it.

If you get a reputation for cheating people, nobody will come to you. If you get a reputation for being able to do anything, then people who need big favors, and are willing to pay big prices will come to you.


Nobody goes to the LG lord to have his competitors killed.

The LE lord will do it, but charge you tons, and then later on, when he wants a favor from you will extort it from you by threatening to have you arrested for murder-for-hire.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-07-26, 05:26 PM
A level 20 anything in my games is pretty rare.

And if they do exist, yeah they are probably ruling the world.

edit: In fact, just imagining what it would take to reach that level of power is baffling. How long do your characters in games actually last? I think the longest I've gone without a death is something like 6 levels or so. Adventuring is dangerous business. If your not the hero of the story it is far, far worse.
Plus on this post.

Some older school DM's make level 20 an almost inhuman level of perfection. And this is doubly so given the intended lethality of D&D. People who seek that kind of mortal perfection are single-mindedly devoted, to the exclusion of nearly everything else.

Tyrmatt
2009-07-26, 05:32 PM
I always take the Discworld approach as to why there isn't a constant mageocracy (or magedom) in every single fantasy world with magic: Wizards are lazy. They don't like to be bothered with the mundane. They like flashes, bangs, good food, fine wine and intricate magical theories. Civil policy is boring to them. Because they know the best answer and are frustrated that humans/elves/etc refuse to follow the best course of action through greed or ambition or honour or whatever.

Take the example of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Something a wizard with 20+ Int would easily write as a treatise as to how he could solve all of the worlds problems through a fair system. And on paper, Communism is ideal. The problem is, people are not. A society of robots would exist flawlessly under Communist rule as they're bound to follow their programming. Humans can of course defy their own "programming" through free will. It's a case of applying set parameters to creatures that by their definition, ignore them.

quick_comment
2009-07-26, 05:38 PM
And on paper, Communism is ideal.

No its not.

comicshorse
2009-07-26, 05:39 PM
I must be doping something wrong, I'm playing a ( admittedly terribly designed) 22nd Level Cleric ( Started at 1st level) and it never even occured to me to take over a kingdom.
On the other hand the campaign is set in the Forgotten Realms

Oslecamo
2009-07-26, 05:45 PM
I see LE lords more like the head of a mafia, rather than scheming lawyers.

I see the LE lord more like a corrupt politician. He's always technically inside the law, and thus cannot be acused of anything, but he uses the laws in a greedy way to increase his own power.

Granted probably both views are correct.

Kilremgor
2009-07-26, 06:03 PM
The more interesting question is - why don't clerics run things?

Especially of certain Lawful and/or Evil gods.

It's understandable that Wizards, and, say, Druids will have other priorities.

But clerics... if you, as cleric of Lawful or Evil (or both) god assume leadership, you can make religion / worship of your deity mandatory. Sacrifices are daily. Prayers are hourly. Heretics are publicly burned. Miracles for all loyal followers. All high-ranking nobles / advisers get resurrected when killed (with kingdom's resources, diamonds are easy) - adding a lot to their loyalty. All that stuff, won't your deity be pleased with that much belief, followers and glory?

Clerics also have huge Wis that makes them effective guides / judges / leaders of people (for purely intelligence-based things like economics, you can use advisers; and unlike wizards you don't need much Cha - you are convincing people with power of your deity and miracles, not with just your words). They are also less paranoid about open display of power, as their protective buffs (persisted, of course) and stamina are decent, and they don't get many paranoid tricks anyway.

So, why most kingdoms aren't theocracies?

Laurellien
2009-07-26, 06:30 PM
Well, in my campaign setting, the following are true:

1) Some of the more powerful nations in a specific area are vouched for by elder titans.
2) One nation is ruled by an elite caste of demi-gods
3) One nation is home to a large number of dragons, the largest of which desires stability and order
4) One nation WAS ruled by a high level wizard, but he picked on the wrong people in his war and was crushed.
5) Other nations have their long dead rulers as undead or deathless guardians. Including the high level wizards that have ruled them.

dspeyer
2009-07-26, 06:30 PM
Working together is a law/chaos thing, not good/evil thing.

Forming explicit organizations is a law/chaos thing. Being genuinely helpful to eachother is a good/evil thing.

The members of a lawful evil organization are still primarily in it for themselves. Every report will be a political ploy. Blackmail will dominate over recognition of talent. The one thing no one will ever do is communicate honestly.

The members of a chaotic good common-interest group are still compassionate and supportive of eachother. While they may not commit to anything, they'll still help give honest help when asked as an act of personal friendship, respect or generosity.

Compare a Dilbertesque IT department with a Linux User's Group. Which one will actually fix your computer?

quick_comment
2009-07-26, 06:33 PM
The members of a lawful evil organization are still primarily in it for themselves. Every report will be a political ploy. Blackmail will dominate over recognition of talent. The one thing no one will ever do is communicate honestly.


That is not how the mafia worked, how the drug cartels work, etc. No organization can survive that way.

KBF
2009-07-26, 06:37 PM
Compare a Dilbertesque IT department with a Linux User's Group. Which one will actually fix your computer?

Immediately? Neither.

But the metaphor is quite apt. The IT department will be skirting around the issue and avoid doing anything about it, while getting paid. The Linux Users Group will be genuinely attempting to help you, but resources are so scattered and the system itself can be so very confusing. In the end the Linux User Group has it's heart in the right place and relatively simple issues can be cleared up quickly, while the IT department is simply not going to do it unless you threaten them somehow.


That is not how the mafia worked, how the drug cartels work, etc. No organization can survive that way.

Yet that's how people come in to power in those organizations.

The irony is almost poetic.

Lysander
2009-07-26, 07:00 PM
The more interesting question is - why don't clerics run things?

Especially of certain Lawful and/or Evil gods.

It's understandable that Wizards, and, say, Druids will have other priorities.

But clerics... if you, as cleric of Lawful or Evil (or both) god assume leadership, you can make religion / worship of your deity mandatory. Sacrifices are daily. Prayers are hourly. Heretics are publicly burned. Miracles for all loyal followers. All high-ranking nobles / advisers get resurrected when killed (with kingdom's resources, diamonds are easy) - adding a lot to their loyalty. All that stuff, won't your deity be pleased with that much belief, followers and glory?

Clerics also have huge Wis that makes them effective guides / judges / leaders of people (for purely intelligence-based things like economics, you can use advisers; and unlike wizards you don't need much Cha - you are convincing people with power of your deity and miracles, not with just your words). They are also less paranoid about open display of power, as their protective buffs (persisted, of course) and stamina are decent, and they don't get many paranoid tricks anyway.

So, why most kingdoms aren't theocracies?

Clerics aren't in charge for a few reasons. First, most deities have narrow portfolios. So a cleric wants prayer for the sun lord and solstice sacrifices, not necessarily to rule everything. Since the deity doesn't want to be in charge, and can't overthrow the other deities, it won't give spells to a power mad cleric.

Also, clerics kind of are in charge in the sense that they tell everyone what's good and what's evil. They don't control governments, they control societies. Why conquer by force when you can just tell someone "make a tithe to the church and visit every sunday or you'll go to the lower planes"

PId6
2009-07-26, 08:04 PM
I see the LE lord more like a corrupt politician. He's always technically inside the law, and thus cannot be acused of anything, but he uses the laws in a greedy way to increase his own power.

Granted probably both views are correct.
Wait, corrupt politicians are inside the law?


You seemed a little dismissive.
It was a joke. I didn't think you'd get so serious about it.


I was talking about being the ruler, in my original post. Sure, being the power behind the throne can be good enough, but it doesn't actually give you the title of King.
A king is a king if he's called the king. Wizard calls himself king, then hires/dominates ministers to do all the dirty work. Delegation of power doesn't take away the title.


Then you may as well be anyone, and have a friend take care of it for you.
Except a wizard doesn't need friends to do it; he can just have mind slaves.


Well, if peasants are halting work all-around the kingdom and it's actually causing a problem, as far as production goes, then you might have to get involved.
Peasants don't halt work for no reason, especially not in large groups; they're not organized and they don't hold "strikes". In the feudal system, a peasant works to feed himself and his family, while giving a portion away to his lord. If a peasant doesn't work, his family starves. Now why would they do that?


As for it being a proper question, you have to realize the whole vagueness of "good idea". Generally, it's a good idea for peasants to work. That's kind of their thing.
If you want to get literal genie about it, you can easily come up with more specific questions. "Would making peasants work harder cause them to rebel?" Regardless, a wizard ruler wouldn't be making most decisions anyway, just like most kings; he'd leave them to his underlings.


No, but it seems like if you're going to be spending all of your time spying on your own lords and their families, you might not actually get around to do other stuff. They might have their own wizardly servants who don't quite have Mind Blank, but can at least detect scrying, and perform other spells to protect their lord.
Who said anything about all of them? If you're suspicious about someone, and you're unable to detect their thoughts, you scry or otherwise spy a bit to see if your suspicions are well-founded. Again, it's not something you need to do often, especially since you can easily quash any kind of real, active resistance if they do anything openly.

And Detect Scrying is a 4th level spell that only works on self. Unless you're in a very high magic setting, most nobles won't be able to cast that on themselves and they'd need to hire a 7th level caster to cast it every day and then follow them around everywhere. That's 280 gp per day at the very least, not including the cost of having the caster following them around. It adds up to at least 100,000 gp per year, so I doubt any noble would have such precautions around continuously, especially if they don't know you're a wizard.


Except if you're not running the kingdom, then you're only controlling it from behind the scenes. I was talking about having the rulership position, namely being the King.
Call yourself king, then rule through your ministers. Plenty of historical rulers have done the same thing.


Well, if you've got low WIS, maybe you might use it in a really stupid way. Other wizards might not have the proper spells for rulership, or they'd perhaps rather not have the responsibility of being King.
Huge Int and the experience of having lived this long has gotta be worth something. And you shouldn't have abysmal Wis or Cha either, since at such high levels, an item of +4 is pocket change, and an item of +6 isn't too expensive and is easily worth the investment if you intend to rule a kingdom. Plus, you've assess to Wish, in various flavors, so that's another +5 to all stats for you. It's not hard to get 19 in both Wis and Cha even if you started with 8, and that's already superhuman, much more than enough to stop you from making such stupid mistakes.

As for other wizards, why would they attack you though? It's a huge risk making an enemy of a level 20 wizard, and what would they get in exchange? Nobles may be rich in comparison to commoners, but they're still beggars compared to high level PCs. An aristocrat only starts with 270 gp average, after all. Also, a noble's wealth is usually tied to land and properties rather than coin. They'd have nothing to offer a wizard of sufficient level to take such a risk.


I didn't say they'd automatically mass rebel once they found a wizard is their ruler. But learning that someone is using magic to convince everyone of everything is generally not something that sounds particularly good. Having to ask everyone else for advice on every matter (including other planes of existence, even if it might be impressive the first time) could be skewed as a weakness, and if anyone who doesn't like you learns of it, then it'd probably be used to defame you.
You'd be surprised what people are willing to tolerate when given incentives to do so. Being able to control the weather to ensure never having droughts or floods, being able to call magics to repel any invaders, being able to summon up food to stave off famine, being able to make brilliant firework displays for all to see. A benevolent wizard doesn't even have to hide his powers. And being able to Wish anything into existence? The ultimate carrot for good behavior right there.


Sure, a wizard can retreat to his tower. Doesn't make him a good ruler. And if he's not King, he's not designated the ruler, despite his mass influence. He won't be running "things", but running the guy who runs "things". Actually having that ruling position would put him in charge of having all of those responsbilities, which he probably won't want, and if there is too much of his nobility that is strong enough to see/resist his magic, then he won't be able to control every aspect of the kingdom, which will make the magical approach seem less vastly superior to all other means of governing.
Define "good ruler". Running a prosperous kingdom? Check. No famines, droughts, or hunger? Check. What more do you want? And again, why can't he just designate himself king? Responsibilities are easily delegated, especially if you absolutely trust those delegates. And he wouldn't have to control every aspect of the kingdom, just enough so that no plot against him would ever succeed, which is easy enough to do for one of his powers.

Ormur
2009-07-26, 10:19 PM
I've been thinking a little about this for my campaign since magic pretty much screws the whole martial medieval aristocracy. If aristocrats rule by virtue od being melee characters how can they maintain a monopoly of power with sorcerers and wizards running around?

My solution is that with all the monsters and evil races out there commoners would need powerful characters and organization to protect their fields and lives in general. But why should wizards do that? They are far more interested in knowledge and esoteric magic to bother with organizing people to slay ogres, orcs and dire beasts. Since becoming a wizard means lots of study it probably also means that they are from privileged backgrounds. You either need a good mentor or lots of money to go the "school of witches and wizards". That means wizards would probably have a stake in the already present power structure. I imagine that they'd be like the younger sons of nobles. There are probably some wizard rulers but organizing an expansionist state wouldn't appeal to most of them. You need some charisma and preferably an ideal to gain followers that are willing to enlarge the empire. Sure the freak high-level ambitious wizard could all by himself mind-rape a few minions but hardly the entire world. Plus there would be other wizards for whom such radical change would interfere with their research so they'd resist him.

Frankly I think sorcerers present a bigger threat to the established order. Don't they sort of pop up randomly?

Alysar
2009-07-26, 11:50 PM
E, F and L seem like the most likely answers.

Especially L

ericgrau
2009-07-26, 11:58 PM
First they tend to dump charisma. They aren't very good at leading, nor do they tend to have an interest in such thing. Evil ones might be interested in domination, but they'd delegate out most of the kingdom management.

Second, wizardly power is highly exaggerated on the internet. Unless maybe you have 7 different splat books. Vaarsuvius is already, what, 15th level? With 8th level spells. But how close do you think he is to taking over a city, much less a kingdom by herself?

Even given ideal circumstances, the ability to utterly dominate an encounter against a few monsters then hide, rest and repeat once per day is not the same as taking over a kingdom. You'd need some cheesy splatbook trick to do that, and then the DM whacks you over the head with a PHB and the campaign continues as it was.

PId6
2009-07-27, 12:08 AM
Second, wizardly power is highly exaggerated on the internet. Unless maybe you have 7 different splat books. Vaarsuvius is already, what, 15th level? With 8th level spells. But how close do you think he is to taking over a city, much less a kingdom by herself?
Believe me when I say that Vaarsuvius is a very, very unoptimized wizard. I mean, dropping Conjuration? Evocation specialist? She's seriously bottom of the barrel when it comes to wizard power. It's a very flawed argument to use her to measure the capabilities of all wizards.


Even given ideal circumstances, the ability to utterly dominate an encounter against a few monsters then hide, rest and repeat once per day is not the same as taking over a kingdom. You'd need some cheesy splatbook trick to do that, and then the DM whacks you over the head with a PHB and the campaign continues as it was.
And secondly, most of the necessary spells for running a kingdom are core. Dominate Person, Mass Suggestion, Detect Thoughts, Scrying, Contact Other Plane, Foresight, all of these are core only. A few non-core options, like Mindrape, are certainly helpful, but by no means necessary.

And we're more arguing about in-setting wizards, not PCs. Besides, arguing that wizards can't do something only because of DM fiat is called the Oberoni Fallacy.

ericgrau
2009-07-27, 12:16 AM
Response 1: What about all the other OotS wizards? Perhaps comrades of V's mentor? No, I do not think such a wizard is even remotely plausible in the OotS-verse. And what about most actual campaigns, for that matter? This is not a matter of the DM saying no, this is a matter of the DM inflicting blunt trauma on the player with the most readily usable object, for suggesting something so cheesy and rule-stretching.

Response 2: All only affect a limited number of creatures at best (up to 20), exactly like I said. And that's assuming all 20 fail their save, the chance of which is next to none. Even dominating a king or the like would be hard to make useful, since you have to convince others to still listen to him. And that's a fairly low sense motive DC to discover that he's dominated. Heck even consider how easy it'd be to figure out without using game mechanics. EDIT: That's not even considering easy low level defences that might be prepped in expectation of such. Like magic circle against evil.

PId6
2009-07-27, 12:34 AM
Response 1: What about all the other OotS wizards? Perhaps comrades of V's mentor? No, I do not think such a wizard is even remotely plausible in the OotS-verse. And what about most actual campaigns?
Huh? What are you saying? That other wizards would stop you or that the other wizards are not optimized either? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.


Response 2: All only affect a few creatures, exactly like I said. Even dominating a king or the like would be hard to make useful, since you have to convince others to still listen to him. And that's a fairly low sense motive DC to discover that he's dominated. Heck even consider how easy it'd be to figure out without using game mechanics.
Are you arguing that wizards can't become rulers or that wizards would make bad rulers? There's a difference, and what you said beforehand, that "they tend to dump charisma" and "they aren't very good at leading" suggest the second, which is what I'm arguing against. They can become rulers like anyone else, inheritance or whatever, not just by usurpation, so I'll argue against the second supposition.

So let's say, a level 20 wizard who has massive Int but dumps Cha. Now why would the wizard be a bad king? If you're not a good leader, hire/dominate someone who is and make them your general. If you're not a good diplomat, hire/dominate someone who is and make them your minister. If someone doesn't like you or doesn't like that you dominate people, charm them, mindrape them, or bribe them with Wishes. A wizard can keep his kingdom prosperous by controlling the weather and keeping away droughts and famines. A wizard has many ways to spy on his enemies and nullify them. Why would a wizard make a bad ruler?

Now, as for not being interested, I can understand. But a wizard can rule quite well if he feels like it.

Chaelos
2009-07-27, 12:47 AM
My most immediate thought is: "Who wants to run things?"

Wizards, as a trend, seem more wrapped up in their own pet projects and interests and specialties than in exerting political power. The main times you get a wizard flexing his (metaphorical) muscles into politics are:

-When he's a truly humanitarian sort who realizes that his tremendous intellect/power will safeguard his people (or, as a subset of this condition, when the Powers That Be of the land are so vile that his conscience forces him to act)
-When he's a megalomaniac who was never hugged as a child
-When the hassle of rulership is sufficiently outweighed by the expediency that comes through political power that it becomes worthwhile to expend the necessary energy inherent in a power grab
-When its convenient for a DM to establish a BBEG of the "Dark Lord" variety

But, yeah, for the most part, I see wizards mostly tied up in their own little worlds. Literally. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/genesis.htm)

Umael
2009-07-27, 08:34 AM
The problem here is contradictory canon.
The official stats and official history contradicts the official mechanics.

...forgive me if I seem disinclined to go with your witty retort.

It seems to be lacking a bit of effort and foresight into countering my original reply.

Zenthar
2009-07-27, 08:52 AM
Even dominating a king or the like would be hard to make useful, since you have to convince others to still listen to him.

Huh? An average king does not have to convince anyone. What he says, goes. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a king.

Indon
2009-07-27, 10:30 AM
Heard of "If you think you're clever with magic, howabout suddenly get a letter from Wizards of the Epic-Level Invisible Ethical Agency that says Stop That"?

Oh, noes, censure!

Wizards aren't in charge because any time spent not studying the True Nature Of Reality is time the other guys are gaining on you!

So, reasoning K, with "If I don't keep studying magic some other wizard who did is going to come up and kill me!" thrown in.

PC wizards are a massive exception because they gain the trancendential power to gain experience at the arcane arts without really needing to study the arcane arts. And of course, they aren't generally in charge because they're PC's, with all the baggage that implies.


Yeah.. do you want to risk dying for some experience?

You've just summed up all PCs everywhere, you know.

PId6
2009-07-27, 10:33 AM
You've just summed up all PCs everywhere, you know.
But PCs are, by definition, crazy.

Oslecamo
2009-07-27, 10:57 AM
Huh? An average king does not have to convince anyone. What he says, goes. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a king.

Quite on the contrary. This only hapened for a very short time during the reinassance, when it was decreed that the king was inspired by God, thus he could never be wrong. It pretty much ended when everybody else revolted and royalty's necks started to be choped left and right.

During all the other centuries, kings always had to deal with the local nobles and the local clerics.

The nobles controled a good chunck of the military, since they normally were trained directly by him and thus were more loyal to him than to the king.

The clerics claimed to speack in the game of the gods, and thus it wasn't considered very wise for the king to go directly against them.

Thus altough technically the king was on top, he still had to be carefull so the priests and nobles wouldn't band togheter against him. This included making consessions now and then and rewarding those who served him best to increase their loyalty. A king who doesn't give some respect to his more powerfull underlings won't last very long.

Remember Leonidas, the spartan king? Even he didn't dare to go against the priest's will that he couldn't use the army during the celebration time.

PId6
2009-07-27, 11:27 AM
Okay, and nitpicking time.


Quite on the contrary. This only hapened for a very short time during the reinassance, when it was decreed that the king was inspired by God, thus he could never be wrong. It pretty much ended when everybody else revolted and royalty's necks started to be choped left and right.
Gross overstatement. Only one I can think of that actually got beheaded for that was Charles I. Louis XIV was considered much more of an absolutist than any Renaissance king, and he lived until 1715.


During all the other centuries, kings always had to deal with the local nobles and the local clerics.
And they had also claimed divine right. They just were less able to control things under the feudal system, since it included so many ancient laws, pacts, and traditions.


The nobles controled a good chunck of the military, since they normally were trained directly by him and thus were more loyal to him than to the king.
The nobles were the military. Under the feudal obligations, every noble contributes men when the king declares war. Standing national armies developed not coincidentally at the same time as the rise of centralized authority, since they allowed kings to stop relying on nobles for military aid.


The clerics claimed to speack in the game of the gods, and thus it wasn't considered very wise for the king to go directly against them.
There has been many clashes between monarch and pope, triggered by kings attempting to control matters of clergy within the state or tax papal lands. Before 1300, most of them weren't too successful, leading to concessions made to the papacy such as the Concordat of London and reaffirming Papal Supremacy. However, after Pope Boniface VIII was captured and nearly executed after a conflict with Philip IV of France in 1303, Papal Supremacy went downhill from there.


Thus altough technically the king was on top, he still had to be carefull so the priests and nobles wouldn't band togheter against him. This included making consessions now and then and rewarding those who served him best to increase their loyalty. A king who doesn't give some respect to his more powerfull underlings won't last very long.
Which a wizard can easily do with the best reward of all, Wish.


Remember Leonidas, the spartan king? Even he didn't dare to go against the priest's will that he couldn't use the army during the celebration time.
No, my Greek history isn't nearly as good as my knowledge of Western European history.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 02:19 PM
I don't see why wizards are any more or less likely to rule kingdoms. Sure, some of them will and some of them won't. Not all wizards are low CHA or low WIS, not all of them are obsessed with study. Still, it does take a certain kind of person to WANT to rule a kingdom. If power is the main motivation, wizards certainly have other avenues for getting it that don't involve the subjugation of large communities.

If magic use was determined through heredity or chance rather than years of study, then yeah, wizard would probably rule the world. As long as magical power is a component of years of study, then wizards are more like engineers. Some engineers may be able to build atomic bombs or super-sonic planes but our world sure isn't run by them. Of course, this doesn't mean a certain engineer couldn't become a ruler just as much as anyone else.

Really, it's hard for me to imagine most PC classes wanting to rule a kingdom unless they had grown too old/feeble to do anything else.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 02:48 PM
Really, it's hard for me to imagine most PC classes wanting to rule a kingdom unless they had grown too old/feeble to do anything else.

Well, not all people with PC classes are PCs--if you want to rule the kingdom and think arcane magic is the best way to get there, you'd probably become a wizard; it only takes one person who thinks wizardry is the quick path to power to result in the wizard-ruling-the-nation scenario.

Umael
2009-07-27, 02:59 PM
I don't see why wizards are any more or less likely to rule kingdoms.

Powerful wizards get to be more powerful wizards by studying arcane lore, not ruling kingdoms.

But, yes, any single wizard could decide to branch out and add "Ruler of the Kingdom of Whatever" to his or her resume, and there you go.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 03:16 PM
Well, not all people with PC classes are PCs--if you want to rule the kingdom and think arcane magic is the best way to get there, you'd probably become a wizard; it only takes one person who thinks wizardry is the quick path to power to result in the wizard-ruling-the-nation scenario.

In terms of PC class choices, I agree, but it's hard for me to believe someone who's only interest in magic was to rule a kingdom would be willing to devote years of study to get it instead of taking a shortcut (finding a powerful artifact, making deals with fiends, procuring powerful allies, etc.) For the highest levels of magic, you must have super intelligence to even cast the spells. A modestly intelligent yet ambitious person can't hope to compete with smarter wizards or those more dedicated to the craft.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-27, 03:25 PM
In terms of PC class choices, I agree, but it's hard for me to believe someone who's only interest in magic was to rule a kingdom would be willing to devote years of study to get it instead of taking a shortcut (finding a powerful artifact, making deals with fiends, procuring powerful allies, etc.) For the highest levels of magic, you must have super intelligence to even cast the spells. A modestly intelligent yet ambitious person can't hope to compete with smarter wizards or those more dedicated to the craft.

You don't have to go in with the interest. Once someone gets to that level of power no matter what intentions or goals they went in with, it will likely go to their head. Just because they weren't originally learning magic for the purposes of taking over the world doesn't really prevent them from acting like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcTRr6V-fSo) when they've mastered it to the point they could take over the world.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 03:30 PM
Powerful wizards get to be more powerful wizards by studying arcane lore, not ruling kingdoms.

But, yes, any single wizard could decide to branch out and add "Ruler of the Kingdom of Whatever" to his or her resume, and there you go.

By extension, couldn't you say that powerful fighters get to be powerful fighters by killing things, not by ruling kingdoms? Or powerful bards getting to be powerful bards by mastering their instruments? Thus my argument against any PC classes being particularly disposed towards kingdom ruling. Well, maybe a bard if he was more focused on social skills and oration than playing Rachmaninov on his lute.

When it comes down to it, most rulers don't really DO anything--they just manage the people who DO all the real stuff and presumably they're good at being liked if they can stay as ruler for any length of time. They aren't experts in anything and their only significant skills are social ones. If a peasant is complaining about famine, the king sure can't solve it himself but he has people who work for him who might be able to solve it. Similarly if the king wants to know his chances at defeating a neighboring kingdom; his military advisors will tell him because they're the experts in that stuff. Sure he can decide to ignore them but it's at his own peril since a good ruler would have hired advisors that know what they're talking about.

This is why I rarely give much credit to presidents and why I have no interest in being promoted to management. A wizard who wanted a job like that probably wasn't much of a wizard.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 03:34 PM
You don't have to go in with the interest. Once someone gets to that level of power no matter what intentions or goals they went in with, it will likely go to their head. Just because they weren't originally learning magic for the purposes of taking over the world doesn't really prevent them from acting like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcTRr6V-fSo) when they've mastered it to the point they could take over the world.

I agree with you but that would apply to any class then, not just wizards. A fighter who learns he can easily murder anyone who contradicts him is just as likely to be lured by that power as a wizard. Just as Xykon says in OotS, there are many different kinds of power and magic is only one of them. *chuckle* Never thought I'd be quoting Xykon for sagely wisdom... :)

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 03:44 PM
When it comes down to it, most rulers don't really DO anything--they just manage the people who DO all the real stuff and presumably they're good at being liked if they can stay as ruler for any length of time. They aren't experts in anything and their only significant skills are social ones. If a peasant is complaining about famine, the king sure can't solve it himself but he has people who work for him who might be able to solve it. Similarly if the king wants to know his chances at defeating a neighboring kingdom; his military advisors will tell him because they're the experts in that stuff. Sure he can decide to ignore them but it's at his own peril since a good ruler would have hired advisors that know what they're talking about.

This is why I rarely give much credit to presidents and why I have no interest in being promoted to management. A wizard who wanted a job like that probably wasn't much of a wizard.

But that's the point--a wizard can do something about it! If a peasant is complaining about famine, a day's skimming of meteorological texts and a casting of control weather, or perhaps a bunch of create food and water castings, or some other method can easily fix that.

Voldecanter
2009-07-27, 04:04 PM
But that's the point--a wizard can do something about it! If a peasant is complaining about famine, a day's skimming of meteorological texts and a casting of control weather, or perhaps a bunch of create food and water castings, or some other method can easily fix that.


I agree , A wizard dedicated to helping people would make a fine , Philosopher King perhaps ? And if such a kingdom was too large for the wizard to take care of , maybe the creation of a Wizard Circle that operates around the clock for the good of the Kingdom ,could fill in for the big guy when he exhausts himself with other affairs .

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 04:26 PM
But that's the point--a wizard can do something about it! If a peasant is complaining about famine, a day's skimming of meteorological texts and a casting of control weather, or perhaps a bunch of create food and water castings, or some other method can easily fix that.

So can any other class. It sounds like you're assuming that magic is the only viable means of solving a problem. A fighter could threaten the peasant's neighbors who had diverted the river's water to their fields. A cleric could provide food magically or as part of a church food drive. A bard might convince the peasant to make a different career choice. A rogue might steal some food for him. So on and so on.

Even a casting of Control Weather might not do the trick as some people might not want the extra rain. Maybe they run a medieval theme park and no one is visiting because of all the rain or maybe they were getting rich extorting the peasants because of the drought/famine. Either way, using Control Weather to solve one peasant's problems is like using a stick of dynamite to open a stuck door--it may create more problems than it solves. Before the wizard ruler had cast three spells, I expect he'd be spending more of his time mediating between the different groups that want or don't want his spells than actually casting them. He'd be too busy with all the administrative details, all the decisions to be made, rather than actual magic.

Piedmon_Sama
2009-07-27, 04:50 PM
In my campaign, it’s a combination of A (No wizards powerful enough), C (Wizards police themselves), E (Any Wizard powerful enough already rules his own plane), K (powerful Wizards are recluses by preference).

Or more precisely, there are maybe a dozen Archwizards in the whole world higher than level 10 (which means there are 10 more of them than there are Clerics over level 10). These guys generally live in their own pocket-dimensions anchored to the world by some inconspicuous tower or tree-house or whatever. This collection of one dozen or so individuals could, between themselves, flatten every government in the world. They know it, the governments know it, but for centuries Wizards haven’t been involved in the affairs of the outer-world because frankly, it’s too much trouble. Even with godlike powers to grant eternal peace and plenty to your followers. The problem with people is they will always want more. It’s like that story, “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” If your Wizard sets up a country where nobody ever has to work or pay taxes and everyone has enough to live comfortably, people will still find petty bull**** to fight about and of course they will then go to their all-wise, all-providing Godmother (that’s you) and bitch. Bitch, bitch, bitch, all day, and you can’t fireball them or that’s just a whole NEW host of problems.

Who needs to bother with this? If you’re an 18th level Archmage, you can live in your own universe populated by cheerful robot servitors and nubile Dryads, while you research immortality and pry into the far corners of the cosmos. Who on earth would prefer a throne surrounded by feckless idiots to that?

Okay, actually there are a few bighearted humanitarian types who would get off on caring for the commoners. Kind of like owning a living pet, as opposed to playing with your video games all day. The thing is, the other Archmagi (who are definitely the majority) aren’t going to allow that. Because if one Wizard creates a living paradise on earth, then people are going to figure other Wizards can do that too; and then the Wizards will be swamped by would-be apprentices, sycophants, or the occasional nutcase who wants to try and kill them with his sharpened metal stick. It’s not that this puts them in danger or anything, it’s just damned annoying; they would prefer not to live their whole lives in extradimensional fortresses just to avoid the press. So Wizards keep to themselves, they don’t interfere in society whether out of altruism or for mercenary causes. They may, may if they have a use for someone, reward them with a magic item. This is actually how Wizards can collect far-off and obscure regents, materials and artifacts if they barred Conjuration for some stupid reason: promise some dopey Fighter a shiny magic sword if he gets you the Hydra-Brains you need for your perfect panasetic aphrodisiac.

The 12 or so Archmagi who run the show, who can Scry-and-Die on anybody they don’t like and make or unmake kingdoms with the wave of their hands, are the ones who enforce these rules. Younger and more naive Wizards want to “go public” all the time, either for money or public adoration or fuzzy warm feelings; things which will pass as they research deeper cosmic lore and grow less attached to the mortal world. In the meantime, the “Wizards’ Guild” (which is the Archmagi and their servants/apprentices) essentially gets them to toe the line, whether they like it or not, by promising to teleport into their houses and unload a can of whoopass if they break the Arcane Omerta.

comicshorse
2009-07-27, 05:36 PM
If you’re an 18th level Archmage, you can live in your own universe populated by cheerful robot servitors and nubile Dryads

Ohhh I gotta ask. How exactly do you do that cause I may have seen my P.C.s next project

Jergmo
2009-07-27, 05:41 PM
I don't see why wizards are any more or less likely to rule kingdoms. Sure, some of them will and some of them won't. Not all wizards are low CHA or low WIS, not all of them are obsessed with study. Still, it does take a certain kind of person to WANT to rule a kingdom. If power is the main motivation, wizards certainly have other avenues for getting it that don't involve the subjugation of large communities.

If magic use was determined through heredity or chance rather than years of study, then yeah, wizard would probably rule the world. As long as magical power is a component of years of study, then wizards are more like engineers. Some engineers may be able to build atomic bombs or super-sonic planes but our world sure isn't run by them. Of course, this doesn't mean a certain engineer couldn't become a ruler just as much as anyone else.

Really, it's hard for me to imagine most PC classes wanting to rule a kingdom unless they had grown too old/feeble to do anything else.

All retired adventurers become tavern keepers. :smallamused:

Frosty
2009-07-27, 05:42 PM
You know, go for nubile Nymphs instead of Dryads. Dryads can't travel with you.

Dixieboy
2009-07-27, 05:55 PM
Has anyone mentioned thay yet?
A kingdom ruled by lvl 20+ wizards with levels in prestige classes too.

Why are they not ruling the world?
They are too busy killing each other off or trying to gain ultimate power.

Yukitsu
2009-07-27, 08:06 PM
Reading this thread, someone needs to make a motivational poster that says "I wasn't smart enough to be a wizard, so I decided to rule the world instead." I just need a picture to match the text.

Indeed.
2009-07-27, 08:13 PM
Reading this thread, someone needs to make a motivational poster that says "I wasn't smart enough to be a wizard, so I decided to rule the world instead." I just need a picture to match the text.

Stanley the Tool.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-27, 08:24 PM
So can any other class. It sounds like you're assuming that magic is the only viable means of solving a problem. A fighter could threaten the peasant's neighbors who had diverted the river's water to their fields. A cleric could provide food magically or as part of a church food drive. A bard might convince the peasant to make a different career choice. A rogue might steal some food for him. So on and so on.

The difference is that none of the noncasters can do anything directly. The bard can inspire the peasants, and the fighter can threaten them, but that's the same as the king working through his advisors or army; in those cases, as PumpkinJack said, they "don't really DO anything--they just manage the people who DO all the real stuff." Is it the best solution? No, not really, but if you want to be a hands-on ruler it works.

Yukitsu
2009-07-27, 08:25 PM
Stanley the Tool.

Indeed.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Lathian/motivator4a3f8a067afadce1c6b4ff4d1c.jpg

AstralFire
2009-07-27, 09:07 PM
This was the first thing that came to my mind. I wish Stanley had occurred to me.

http://www.theanteheroes.com/Humor/KingSteve.jpg

Dervag
2009-07-27, 09:11 PM
By extension, couldn't you say that powerful fighters get to be powerful fighters by killing things, not by ruling kingdoms? Or powerful bards getting to be powerful bards by mastering their instruments? Thus my argument against any PC classes being particularly disposed towards kingdom ruling. Well, maybe a bard if he was more focused on social skills and oration than playing Rachmaninov on his lute.As a general rule, killing enough things will result in your becoming a king by default in a medieval setting. Sooner or later, you've killed everything in the vicinity that hasn't sworn loyalty to you, which is the key qualification for kingship.


But that's the point--a wizard can do something about it! If a peasant is complaining about famine, a day's skimming of meteorological texts and a casting of control weather, or perhaps a bunch of create food and water castings, or some other method can easily fix that.Yes. The problem is that the wizard has to do it. Eventually, this becomes a ritual that the wizard can't stop without causing chaos. Look at historical societies where the king went through certain rituals to ensure the favor of the gods or make sure the rain came next year. Many people in those societies believed that the king was in fact working magic to make things happen, even without the direct evidence found in a D&D setting.

If the king one day decided to stay in bed rather than perform the Ritual of Bribing the Sun to Rise, or would rather linger over supper than do the Big Funky Dance that Makes the Rains Come, the whole kingdom might be thrown into confusion and hysteria. Not good. Do you really want to be a king that your subjects will hold personally responsible for any disasters you fail to fix?


A) There are no wizards powerful enough to take over the worldSome of this. I figure that most NPC wizards who try to gain power through adventuring alone will fail. Unlike the PCs, they don't have a benevolent DM watching out for them and making sure that most of their encounters are level-appropriate.

So a lot of them take on too great a challenge too soon and wind up dead. The ones who are cautious enough to avoid enemies that could realistically kill them don't die, but they only fight weak monsters, and they spend a lot of time planning or preparing between fights, so it takes longer.

Either way, you wind up with greatly reduced populations of high level wizards (or any other kind of character). Moreover, at high levels, wizards have a hard time improving their magic further because of the dearth of other people who have anything to teach them. To find more powerful magic, they have to start exploring the ruins of lost civilizations, bargaining with powers from beyond, or dealing with even more powerful wizards in hopes of duplicating the very magic that makes those archwizards special. All of which have serious risks, leading to the same problems we see above. There are old wizards, and there are bold wizards, but there are no old, bold wizards.

Powerful wizards are therefore almost invariably old, lucky, or blessed by the gods. Most of them know better than to tempt fate by becoming World Emperor; they've got a good thing going and they don't want to ruin it.

Another way of achieving the same result is to rule that NPC magic-users are (almost) invariably trained by some other magic-user for a period of years. Even for spontaneous casters, it takes years to refine the 'gift' on its own for normal people. Therefore, each powerful magic-user takes on only a few apprentices during their working lives. Some of them aren't competent enough to reach high levels, or die prematurely after taking up years of the master's time. Which reduces the number of magic-users at all levels, from low to high.


D) If a wizard ever tries to take over the world a divine force attacks them for disturbing balance (or powerful clerics do it)This is quite likely in my book. Your basic D&D setting is often a world where there are gods, demons, heroes, or madmen backing almost every possible cause, with immense diversity of religions, cultures, and even species. Someone is bound to oppose anything that you can imagine, for some reason or other. If they have big enough guns, they can stop anyone else from achieving that goal.


Any reasons of your own?Ooh! Ooh!
M: Powerful wizards could rule kingdoms if they wanted to, but are persuaded not to by powerful Diplomancers. Nations are mostly ruled by people with great Diplomacy scores.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 09:24 PM
The difference is that none of the noncasters can do anything directly. The bard can inspire the peasants, and the fighter can threaten them, but that's the same as the king working through his advisors or army; in those cases, as PumpkinJack said, they "don't really DO anything--they just manage the people who DO all the real stuff." Is it the best solution? No, not really, but if you want to be a hands-on ruler it works.

I can see what you're saying but in all fairness my examples were just illustrating the strengths of each class. If we're going to talk about direct action, magic can be substituted with all kinds of direct action, anything that provides food for the peasant. If we take a technological approach, a king could build an aquaduct to direct more water the peasant's field. That's pretty direct, right? Still, the guy who actually builds the aquaduct and the lady who designs it, they're probably not the ruler of the kingdom, right? But why is that? They're obviously capable of solving significant problems for the residents of the kingdom and yet they're not pulling the strings.

In some ways, magic is the opposite of direct action because it forever remains unexplained (i.e. the weather mysteriously changed or the food mysteriously appeared). You can't really say how the wizard accomplishes those tasks, only that he does so you're basically hand-waving the means. At least with the non-casters, their direct actions are obvious. What I'm trying to say is that anything magic accomplishes can be substituted with some other direct actions, none of which will necessarily predispose the actor for governing.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-27, 09:26 PM
Indeed.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c40/Lathian/motivator4a3f8a067afadce1c6b4ff4d1c.jpg

Holy ****, that's hilarious!!! You should get the ErfWorld guys to sell this as a real poster.

PId6
2009-07-27, 09:49 PM
As a general rule, killing enough things will result in your becoming a king by default in a medieval setting. Sooner or later, you've killed everything in the vicinity that hasn't sworn loyalty to you, which is the key qualification for kingship.
First of all, medieval != viking, and just killing people will not earn loyalty from the nobility, especially if you don't have noble blood inherently. If you kill everything that comes before you, the nobles may smile and swear loyalty when you've a blade at their throat, but they'll instantly plot against you as soon as your back is turned.

What can a lone fighter do if they start sending armies against him? If they just refuse to pay him taxes or follow his orders? If they just close the gate and not let him in? Will he never sleep or eat or drink? Heck, I think CharOp has gotten it down to level 10 wizard to beat level 20 fighter, so a mid-level wizard shouldn't be hard to hire against a lone guy with a metal stick.

Dominate Person, however, does earn loyalty, as will granting Wishes to loyal followers. A fighter can do nothing but fight, and violence alone doesn't solve everything.


Yes. The problem is that the wizard has to do it. Eventually, this becomes a ritual that the wizard can't stop without causing chaos. Look at historical societies where the king went through certain rituals to ensure the favor of the gods or make sure the rain came next year. Many people in those societies believed that the king was in fact working magic to make things happen, even without the direct evidence found in a D&D setting.
It's not hard to cast a Control Weather spell once a year. And so what if the wizard says "No" when asked to cast the spell? Are the peasants going to purposefully starve themselves by not taking in the harvest just because of this?


If the king one day decided to stay in bed rather than perform the Ritual of Bribing the Sun to Rise, or would rather linger over supper than do the Big Funky Dance that Makes the Rains Come, the whole kingdom might be thrown into confusion and hysteria. Not good. Do you really want to be a king that your subjects will hold personally responsible for any disasters you fail to fix?
We already hold our leaders personally responsible for everything bad that happens. How's this any different?


Some of this. I figure that most NPC wizards who try to gain power through adventuring alone will fail. Unlike the PCs, they don't have a benevolent DM watching out for them and making sure that most of their encounters are level-appropriate.
We're assuming here that there are high level wizards in the world. If not, this is a moot issue.


Either way, you wind up with greatly reduced populations of high level wizards (or any other kind of character). Moreover, at high levels, wizards have a hard time improving their magic further because of the dearth of other people who have anything to teach them.
Yet they still exist. And if they're already so powerful, then at least a few will realize that why should they bother risking themselves for more power? They can already conquer a kingdom with ease.


To find more powerful magic, they have to start exploring the ruins of lost civilizations, bargaining with powers from beyond, or dealing with even more powerful wizards in hopes of duplicating the very magic that makes those archwizards special. All of which have serious risks, leading to the same problems we see above. There are old wizards, and there are bold wizards, but there are no old, bold wizards.
Not every wizard will bother with the risks when they can settle down in a nice monarch position. It's practically risk free.


Powerful wizards are therefore almost invariably old, lucky, or blessed by the gods. Most of them know better than to tempt fate by becoming World Emperor; they've got a good thing going and they don't want to ruin it.
Who said world emperor? If you try to conquer the world, you'll come up against other wizards, which are a threat. However, taking over the small Kingdom of X? Practically risk-free. Get a few wizards with similar thought processes and you'd have most of the world's Kingdom of X's ruled by wizards.


Another way of achieving the same result is to rule that NPC magic-users are (almost) invariably trained by some other magic-user for a period of years. Even for spontaneous casters, it takes years to refine the 'gift' on its own for normal people. Therefore, each powerful magic-user takes on only a few apprentices during their working lives. Some of them aren't competent enough to reach high levels, or die prematurely after taking up years of the master's time. Which reduces the number of magic-users at all levels, from low to high.
Yet again, irrelevant since we're assuming there are high level wizards out there. Fewer numbers is actually better since it means less competition.


This is quite likely in my book. Your basic D&D setting is often a world where there are gods, demons, heroes, or madmen backing almost every possible cause, with immense diversity of religions, cultures, and even species. Someone is bound to oppose anything that you can imagine, for some reason or other. If they have big enough guns, they can stop anyone else from achieving that goal.
Except in most settings, deities don't intervene directly much, demons have better things to do (i.e. Blood War), madmen have campaigns to run, while out of heroes, wizards are at the top. If we're using the gun analogy, wizards are the artillery.


Ooh! Ooh!
M: Powerful wizards could rule kingdoms if they wanted to, but are persuaded not to by powerful Diplomancers. Nations are mostly ruled by people with great Diplomacy scores.
8 Cha, +6 enchancement, +5 inherent, +1 age = 20 Cha

12 ranks + 5 Cha + 15 item + 25 Moment of Prescience + probably more from other spells = 57+ Diplomacy on a wizard starting with 8 Cha and only using cross-class ranks. Add in an item familiar and possibly Able Learner and you won't even need compulsion spells.

Anything a mundane diplomancer can do, wizard does better.


What I'm trying to say is that anything magic accomplishes can be substituted with some other direct actions, none of which will necessarily predispose the actor for governing.
There is a drought over the kingdom that's killing the peasants' harvest. How can a mundane action possibly fix this without massive construction projects that require huge expenses and lots of labor and time?

Yukitsu
2009-07-27, 09:53 PM
Holy ****, that's hilarious!!! You should get the ErfWorld guys to sell this as a real poster.

I would, but unfortunately, I have a printer that does both colour and larger sizes at work. However, if you want to steal it to give to Rob or Jamie, you're more than welcome to. :smalltongue: Thanks for the compliment, BTW.

Fixer
2009-07-28, 07:04 AM
Why would an intelligent wizard, with the power to bend reality to their will, bother to waste time telling large numbers of people what to do, hold court, produce heirs, command the military, and all the other functions that kings (or queens) perform?

No, wizards have people who do these things for them. Fighters are hard to kill (and therefore replace), normally dumb as posts, and have lousy Will saves. Set one up as a king, let him run things, and when you need something go to him and convince him to give it to you (either fairly or by magic).

All the benefits, none of the responsibilities.

PumpkinJack
2009-07-28, 08:00 AM
There is a drought over the kingdom that's killing the peasants' harvest. How can a mundane action possibly fix this without massive construction projects that require huge expenses and lots of labor and time?

How about importing food from more prosperous regions? Plenty of nations do that. The means and cost are irrelevant. The point is that, no matter what the means, the person capable of performing them will not necessarily make a good governer. See "Bruce Almighty" for more examples of how absolute power doesn't mean good government.

PId6
2009-07-28, 08:15 AM
How about importing food from more prosperous regions? Plenty of nations do that. The means and cost are irrelevant. The point is that, no matter what the means, the person capable of performing them will not necessarily make a good governer. See "Bruce Almighty" for more examples of how absolute power doesn't mean good government.
"The means and cost are irrelevant"? Tell that to any government that has ever been in existence, and see what they say. And not to mention taking the time to import food from some distant place takes, you know, time. What can you do about the peasants who are starving to death in the months or years it'd take to get a trade route going?

And I make no claims that power automatically mean being a good ruler; just that with the power to solve such problems, it is far easier to be a good ruler, simply because you have a lot more ways to solve problems and you're a lot less vulnerable to power struggles. I'd say the same that it's easier for a very rich person to rule well than a poor one, simply because the rich ruler has more resources for solving problems. However, this is to far less of an extent than wizard vs noncaster because a rich ruler might not be willing to spend his own money, while a wizard can cast a spell and get it right back the next day.

ondonaflash
2009-07-28, 11:14 PM
There are plenty of ways to beat someone who can only stop spells cast at him. What can his magic sword do against a wizard that controls the weather to rain hard enough to drown him? What about a wizard that destroys the ground around him and makes him fall into a gigantic pit? What about conjuring mundane items and dropping them onto his head? Heck, what about just flying out of his reach? There are so many ways to circumvent magic immunity it's not even funny.


Well unless that martial arts style involve being able to scry up wizards, use True Seeing, teleport long distances, and create anti-magic fields with larger than 30 ft radius, it won't work. And if they really can do all those things, then they are wizards.


I can't imagine how they can detect wizards without using magic themselves, and a single wizard 15th level or higher can circumvent any magic regardless.

Really, the martial arts were designed to cripple magic users themselves, and destroy their connection to magic for the rest of their lives. And like I said, he had a brilliant tactical mind, he knew what the wizards were capable of and acted to negate those advantages, it wound up being something similar to the lost battles on Krynn, only the wizards were *****, and it wound up being nearly a genocide.

All of his troops were trained to martial themselves within seconds to counter and instantaneous teleport attack, and the man himself was vicious. They called him the Iron King, because he wore an Iron Helmet shaped like a skull, and he had five look-a-likes to distract targets. He'd be a DM PC if he weren't 2000 years dead.

His soldiers were Reflex-heavy, and had high dex's and I pretty much stuck with source, plus the Archmagus at the time was Lvl 15, and got dragged into oblivion by his own magical cloak. Its a long story, and I'd love to tell it, because its awesome, but time/place, eh?

PId6
2009-07-28, 11:40 PM
Really, the martial arts were designed to cripple magic users themselves, and destroy their connection to magic for the rest of their lives. And like I said, he had a brilliant tactical mind, he knew what the wizards were capable of and acted to negate those advantages, it wound up being something similar to the lost battles on Krynn, only the wizards were *****, and it wound up being nearly a genocide.
A brilliant tactical mind really isn't going to help you when the enemy is just not playing by your rules. How powerful are these casters we're talking about here? Because if any wizard has ever had access to 9th level spells, you CANNOT win. Foresight lets him know everything you might do to harm him a round before you do it. That's pretty much an "I Win" button right there.

Now, what kind of "martial arts" are you talking about here? If it's the kind that requires contact, you can forget about it. Enter Contingent Dimension Door. And if you're allowing PHB2, enter Celerity. And how can they even detect wizards in the first place? Can these martial artists Scry? Can they See Invisibility? Can they use Arcane Sight? Can they Fly? And if you have a Mind Blanked wizard, how can you ever even find him?

Really, I just can't see how it is possible at all for non-casters to beat casters like that if the casters are played to the fullest extent of their Int scores.


All of his troops were trained to martial themselves within seconds to counter and instantaneous teleport attack,
Well if it took them seconds, then they're seconds too late. With divination spells, a wizard would know what you're going to do before you think of doing it.


and the man himself was vicious. They called him the Iron King, because he wore an Iron Helmet shaped like a skull, and he had five look-a-likes to distract targets. He'd be a DM PC if he weren't 2000 years dead.
Again, no matter how vicious he is, he's not a caster. How can look-a-likes protect him against Discern Location? A mundane, no matter how brilliant, just doesn't have the resources of a caster.


His soldiers were Reflex-heavy, and had high dex's and I pretty much stuck with source, plus the Archmagus at the time was Lvl 15, and got dragged into oblivion by his own magical cloak. Its a long story, and I'd love to tell it, because its awesome, but time/place, eh?
Reflex saves protect you against direct damage spells, which won't help you at all since god-wizards don't bother with direct damage much. But wait, your highest caster was only level 15? Assuming he was taken out by other means, what were the majority of wizards at? Even level 11s should be enough to beat hordes of monk-types if played intelligently, and I really don't see how you can hunt down wizards who don't want to be found.

FatR
2009-07-29, 02:21 AM
In your campaigns why don't wizards or other magicians run the world (assuming they don't)?
Because gods disagree with the idea. All other in-setting reasons stem from this one, in the end. Note, that this only works because the currently active wizards with access to 9th level spells are fewer in number than major continents and there is no epic spellcasting.

GoC
2009-07-29, 02:28 AM
...forgive me if I seem disinclined to go with your witty retort.
If you are disagreeing with my statement please say so (asking for a contradiction between the stats and what a god with a decent int score would actually do) or concede.:smallsmile:

Nightmarenny
2009-07-29, 02:55 AM
I read somewhere that you pass through normal human limits at about level five. Five. By the time you're high level Monks are Outsiders, Fighters are so beyond human capacity it must seem like magic, Rogues are wraiths, and Wizards are everything they want to be. I think at some point in between all PC classes loose much of their connection to Race and Kingdom. Hell do you even really have reason to follow laws? Your alignment or class may demand morality but nothing in the world could stop you, except your brother Player Classes. Doesn't that put you far away from everything about society?

for those who follow Goblins, the Goblins Slayer is the kind of man that would give up adventuring. All of those men would suffer from the same problem. Stagnation(perhaps even level loss) You only get out of the business three ways, Epic Level(when you don't care about such triffles), Death, of Retired stagnation.

FatR
2009-07-29, 04:00 AM
Wizards don't run things. Running things is dull. Oh, sure, they might decide to up and Move Earth/Stone Shape/Stone Wall/Fabricate/Iron Wall an entire kingdom into existence, but they're not going to be RUNNING things.

Too much book-keeping. Far easier to just use Gate to travel to the Plane of Happiness.
It is safe to assume that 99% of people with enough dedication and drive to reach high levels aren't motivated by merely obtaining arcane power for the sake of merely having it. Or even for the sake of using attached pleasures. If you just want to feel happy, you don't risk your life repeatedly and study ardously, you get sloshed with booze. It is safe to assume, that any high-level character has some important and potentially world-changing goals (if good/neutral), or likes lording over people/leveled up specifically to show them, show them all (if evil).

As a result, any sort of equilibrum that actually keeps high-level spellcasters/high-level characters in general from interfering with affairs of normal people is utterly impossible. The high-level characters are a buch of the most strong-willed, determined, adventurous and ambitious people in the world (otherwise they wouldn't be high-level) so there is no way in hell for them to suddenly become too cravenly cautious to advance their freaking agendas. This doesn't even happen in official settings: in FR high-level wizards pretty much run the world and everything in it, it is just that good and neutral wizards often are nice enough not to rub the fact that they are in charge in the people's faces.

FatR
2009-07-29, 04:25 AM
Response 1: What about all the other OotS wizards? Perhaps comrades of V's mentor? No, I do not think such a wizard is even remotely plausible in the OotS-verse.
That's because the OotS-verse obeys the necessities of the plot, not the actual DnD rules. So all spellcasters in OotS are only as competent as the plot requires them to be, which usually means "pathetically incompetent".


Response 2: All only affect a limited number of creatures at best (up to 20), exactly like I said. And that's assuming all 20 fail their save, the chance of which is next to none. Even dominating a king or the like would be hard to make useful, since you have to convince others to still listen to him.
Setting people on fire is said to be quite convincing. You fail to understand the general idea: you don't dominate the king to become a "power behind the throne" or something like this, you declare yourself the king, wipe out everyone who disagrees, then dominate some gifted administrators to be your ministers and run day-to-day affairs of your kingdom.

Dervag
2009-07-30, 09:08 PM
As a result, any sort of equilibrum that actually keeps high-level spellcasters/high-level characters in general from interfering with affairs of normal people is utterly impossible. The high-level characters are a buch of the most strong-willed, determined, adventurous and ambitious people in the world (otherwise they wouldn't be high-level) so there is no way in hell for them to suddenly become too cravenly cautious to advance their freaking agendas. This doesn't even happen in official settings: in FR high-level wizards pretty much run the world and everything in it, it is just that good and neutral wizards often are nice enough not to rub the fact that they are in charge in the people's faces.Of course high-level people will tend to run things, I agree. Governments made up entirely of low-level people will be almost impossible to maintain. But that doesn't mean that any single form of government is out (with the possible exception of pure democracy). There's no reason why all governments must be magocracies.
__________


In some ways, magic is the opposite of direct action because it forever remains unexplained (i.e. the weather mysteriously changed or the food mysteriously appeared). You can't really say how the wizard accomplishes those tasks, only that he does so you're basically hand-waving the means. At least with the non-casters, their direct actions are obvious. What I'm trying to say is that anything magic accomplishes can be substituted with some other direct actions, none of which will necessarily predispose the actor for governing.But the fact that actions are obvious doesn't make them more appealing for kingship. People value results, not "yes, I see how he built that aquaduct."
_______


First of all, medieval != viking, and just killing people will not earn loyalty from the nobility, especially if you don't have noble blood inherently. If you kill everything that comes before you, the nobles may smile and swear loyalty when you've a blade at their throat, but they'll instantly plot against you as soon as your back is turned.Oh, for crying out loud, that was a light-hearted remark. If the fighter has negligible political skills and makes enemies of everyone and everything, he's screwed, I agree. Behind the scenes of my remark, I was assuming people would realize the fighter needed some political skills to keep things together.

My argument is not 'fighters make better kings than wizards'. My argument is that it makes sense that a fighter could become a king, if he plays his cards right. The idea is not insane, and if the fighter keeps fighting enemies and making allies, he may very well end up a king by default.

I mean, hey, it worked for Conan...
______


We already hold our leaders personally responsible for everything bad that happens. How's this any different?The difference is that we accept that some disasters are beyond our leaders' power to fix, or to fix immediately. We don't expect our leaders to do everything at once, because they're not demigods. A wizard with vast personal powers will have this problem, not least because his subjects don't understand his limitations.

It's not an insurmountable problem. I'm not talking about insurmountable problems here. I'm talking about annoying problems, problems that can make a sorceror-king regret ever taking the job without forcing him to leave.

A wizard who uses his personal abilities to solve as many problems as possible is going to end up in a difficult political situation requiring constant effort on his part. It's an annoyance, as is dealing with the constant stream of petitioners, which will be even higher than for normal monarchs because as far as the public is concerned, there's nothing the wizard-king can't solve short of the actual wrath of the gods.

So it will be only unusual wizards who take power intending to rule through massive, constant use of magic. Such wizards must be either extremely altruistic (laboring constantly for the benefit of people who are in no position to reward him to any real effect), or extremely power-hungry (enough so that they don't mind having to fool around all the time with magic because they get their jollies from the sense that they are doing what no one else can).
_________


We're assuming here that there are high level wizards in the world. If not, this is a moot issue.We are? My explanation for why there are non-magocracies in the world is irrelevant? Horrors!

Seriously though, OK, my explanation is irrelevant (to you). Fine. I didn't really expect you to like it; for that matter I didn't specifically expect you to read it. I just thought it was worth addressing the original post from my perspective.

Also, since Lysander specifically listed "(A) there are no wizards powerful enough to take over the world" as an option, I don't see where you get this "we" from. The original poster wasn't making this assumption, even if you are.
________


Yet they still exist. And if they're already so powerful, then at least a few will realize that why should they bother risking themselves for more power? They can already conquer a kingdom with ease. Not every wizard will bother with the risks when they can settle down in a nice monarch position. It's practically risk free.My thesis is that most wizards will be interested in magical power. Because of the XP system, they've had to risk death many times just to reach the level at which they can plausibly hope to rule a kingdom for more than a few weeks, and they've been doing it for the magic. Sometimes, yes, the wizard will view magic purely as a way to achieve political power. But I think it's more likely that they will desire magic for self-gratification, or simply because they think magic is worth having, or for religious or philosophical reasons, or... you get the picture.

And if they want more magic power, and not just more power-in-the-abstract, kingship isn't going to appeal to them. Ruling a kingdom doesn't give you more spell slots. So some wizards will want to run kingdoms... but plenty of others, just as powerful, will settle for a nice tower and a retainer fee in exchange for the support of a government. In which case many kingdoms not ruled by wizards have wizards defending them. which undermines the plans of any wizard who is trying to conquer their own kingdom.
________


Except in most settings, deities don't intervene directly much, demons have better things to do (i.e. Blood War), madmen have campaigns to run, while out of heroes, wizards are at the top. If we're using the gun analogy, wizards are the artillery.In most settings, things are in flux and there are a lot of interest groups that are involved. If a wizard starts shaking things up enough, he's liable to attract the attention of other, equally powerful beings whose toes he is stepping on.
________


8 Cha, +6 enchancement, +5 inherent, +1 age = 20 Cha

12 ranks + 5 Cha + 15 item + 25 Moment of Prescience + probably more from other spells = 57+ Diplomacy on a wizard starting with 8 Cha and only using cross-class ranks. Add in an item familiar and possibly Able Learner and you won't even need compulsion spells.

Anything a mundane diplomancer can do, wizard does better.OK, yes, a wizard who goes for the dedicated "superhuman charismatic" role and has an optimized build will be more effective than mundane diplomancers. So what? Only a percentage of the total of all wizards will be optimized diplomancers. Many of the rest will be equally powerful... and amenable to persuasion by nonwizards.
__________

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that a wizard who wants to rule a kingdom badly enough will fail. I'm saying that there are many reasons why a wizard might not want to rule a kingdom, or might want to stop some other wizard who does. And that there are many factors reducing the total number of wizards who can reliably triumph over all threats to their authority (including Diplomacy checks by high-level court members).

So while it's likely that some kings will be wizards, there is no reason to suppose that all kings will be wizards, as opposed to high-level bards or high-level clerics or noncasters who just HAPPEN to have cultivated the loyalty and friendship of a high-level wizard.

PId6
2009-07-31, 12:28 AM
Oh, for crying out loud, that was a light-hearted remark. If the fighter has negligible political skills and makes enemies of everyone and everything, he's screwed, I agree. Behind the scenes of my remark, I was assuming people would realize the fighter needed some political skills to keep things together.

My argument is not 'fighters make better kings than wizards'. My argument is that it makes sense that a fighter could become a king, if he plays his cards right. The idea is not insane, and if the fighter keeps fighting enemies and making allies, he may very well end up a king by default.

I mean, hey, it worked for Conan...
Sorry, internet doesn't convey tone. It's hard to tell if you're being light-hearted or serious.

I just don't see how a fighter's skills specifically can help him be king in a typical medieval political system. In a more strength=authority oriented culture, maybe, but probably not in most fantasy kingdoms with any hint of civility. Hence, a fighter really isn't much more suitable to be king than a commoner with equal level and equal wealth. I guess he can fight off assassins better or something, but otherwise personally killing people doesn't make you king at all.

And don't make me go into Conan.


We are? My explanation for why there are non-magocracies in the world is irrelevant? Horrors!
I assumed you were arguing something. There's no reason to point out the setting might not have high level mages at all in an argument, since there's no argument there. I completely agree that if there are no high level mages in a world, then the world can't be taken over by high level mages. It's entirely irrelevant because nobody is debating that point.

But okay, I apologize then if you only meant to suggest that in response to the OP and not as an actual point of argument.


My thesis is that most wizards will be interested in magical power. Because of the XP system, they've had to risk death many times just to reach the level at which they can plausibly hope to rule a kingdom for more than a few weeks, and they've been doing it for the magic. Sometimes, yes, the wizard will view magic purely as a way to achieve political power. But I think it's more likely that they will desire magic for self-gratification, or simply because they think magic is worth having, or for religious or philosophical reasons, or... you get the picture.
Bolding/underlining is mine. Yes, you can say that most high-level wizards are only interested in magical research. But it only takes a few wizards to take over most of the kingdoms of the worlds. Since it's not that hard for a wealthy and powerful person to extend their own life indefinitely, it only takes a few such wizards over the course of history to think that way, which I don't think is unreasonable at all.


but plenty of others, just as powerful, will settle for a nice tower and a retainer fee in exchange for the support of a government. In which case many kingdoms not ruled by wizards have wizards defending them. which undermines the plans of any wizard who is trying to conquer their own kingdom.
Why would they bother risking themselves to defend a kingdom? Just because the kingdom is paying them a few gps a year? Why offer protection in exchange for tribute, when they can just blast anyone who doesn't give it to them? Or for that matter, why would they want towers around people that probably hate/fear them when they can travel to other planes or make their own demiplanes? Even beyond all of that, I doubt there'd be more than a handful of kingdoms with such protection, and most of the kingdoms in the world would be ripe for the plucking.


In most settings, things are in flux and there are a lot of interest groups that are involved. If a wizard starts shaking things up enough, he's liable to attract the attention of other, equally powerful beings whose toes he is stepping on.
What powerful being would care about the fate of Small Kingdom of X? Why would outsiders care who's king in some random kingdom? Or dragons for that matter? Or anyone else that can actually do anything about it? Why is one ruler so much more objectionable than the other?


OK, yes, a wizard who goes for the dedicated "superhuman charismatic" role and has an optimized build will be more effective than mundane diplomancers. So what? Only a percentage of the total of all wizards will be optimized diplomancers. Many of the rest will be equally powerful... and amenable to persuasion by nonwizards.
The only part of their build they specifically actually need for that are the 12 cross-class ranks. The rest come from spells or items that they can acquire after they are high level. Anyone planning to conquer a kingdom would probably invest in these ranks, since it really costs them very little.

And even if they are diplomancied, they'd be helpful at best, since Mind Blank protects against being driven fanatic. I don't think a helpful person would give up their rulership just because they're told to; they might give the diplomancer a position or offer help for whatever the diplomancer needs, but I don't think they'd be willing to give up their throne for it.


I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that a wizard who wants to rule a kingdom badly enough will fail. I'm saying that there are many reasons why a wizard might not want to rule a kingdom, or might want to stop some other wizard who does. And that there are many factors reducing the total number of wizards who can reliably triumph over all threats to their authority (including Diplomacy checks by high-level court members).

So while it's likely that some kings will be wizards, there is no reason to suppose that all kings will be wizards, as opposed to high-level bards or high-level clerics or noncasters who just HAPPEN to have cultivated the loyalty and friendship of a high-level wizard.
I agree that most wizards probably won't bother ruling kingdoms, but I think there will always be those that would, and I don't see anything that can or will bother stopping them. As long as they don't overstretch themselves and try to conquer the world or something, I can't see any legitimate threat to a high level wizard becoming ruler of Small Kingdom of X.

And over time, new wizards who desire a throne take over other, yet-unconquered kingdoms, and eventually, the majority of the world would be ruled by wizards. There might be a few hold-outs from kingdoms that happen to be under some wizard's protection or happen to be sacred to this particularly active deity, but with wizards so powerful, logically most of the world should be ruled by them.