Everybody Wants to Rule the World?

[jedipotter]

Greyhawk doesn't make you wonder why all the all-powerful wizards aren't ruling the world; this is my biggest gripe with Forgotten Realms.


So the comment was FR does not make sense as the all powerful wizards should rule everything, but this is generic enough to cover ''most D&D'' and some other games.

So, first off:

1.Ruling the World is Pointless. So your an ultra high level arch mage and you have the power to take over the world, but why do you bother? You don't really get anything from it. If your powerful enough to take over the world, you can already get anything you might want without the bother of ''ruling'' everything. For example, magic can make you a castle or monument a lot faster then tons of slaves can. And you can make tons of money, tons of ways, as an arch mage. And even more so then that is how money does not really matter too much when your an archmage. So what does ''ruling the world'' get an archmage? They can make rules like ''new music comes out on Friday'' or ''hem lines will be this high'' or other such things. But it is kind of pointless things, and if the archmage really wanted to change something, they don't need to rule the world to do it anyway. So what does an archmage get out of ruling the world? Nothing....

2.Ruling is Boring There simply is not much for an archmage to do, day to day, in the traditional ruling style. Ruling a country, let alone a world, is a lot of minor details...and a lot of red tape, procedures, actions and so on. And so much of it is mind numbing boring.

3.Magic can do it Better And without needing to bother ''ruling anything''. Like a king might put a ''sin tax'' on necromacy to discourage it use....but an arch mage would not bother. An archmage can use magic like mass charm for example to get everyone to do what they want, as well as all sorts of other types of mind control or manipulation. A single spell can make an archmage more gold then a year of taxes. And outsider builders can make things much better then commoners.

Then you have the following three problems, if you look at the fictional world as a living breathing place and not a sandbox for a game:

1.Reality In a game snadbox, a couple notes on a paper makes an archmage, but living through the life of an mage-to-be-archmage takes a life time. The game ''logic'' has a 16 year old mage wake up one day, go on an adventure or two, and become an archmage before they turn 18. But that is the ''game logic''. In a setting, it would take years and years to become an archmage. And you can't do things like ''point buy intelligence'', you have to figure things out for real. And the (fictional) reality can not be based off some game books writen by some fools to just cover ''adventuring and killing monsters''. The game rules are not comprehensive alternate reality rules, they are just made to play a narrowly focused game.

2.Living the life It is easy to sit in a basement and say ''archmage Zuth eats conjured stuff'' or ''He reads for 50 days in a row'', but it is much harder to live out a life that does that. And this is something that gets glossed over a lot. A fictional character can ''work 9 to 5'' and do nothing else ever, but few players would ever do that in real life (the fact that they are even playing a game shows they like to have fun and not ''work like a robot'' 24/7)

3.Day One Plus Assuming the archmage-to-be-character is not born on Day One, then the world is already full of lots of powerful characters, beings, creatures and gods that like things just the way they are. And they are so powerful, that they can stop the archmage-to-be before that mage can even learn to read. There would be tons and tons of chances to stop the archmage, long, long before they ever become close to being an archmage. And this dips back to number one above: a powerful being can use divination to see 0 level apprentice might ''be a problem'' someday...and stop him in his tracks....or at least alter them. But ''game logic'' and ''fairness'' says that a 20th level character can't attack a 0 level one. And the powerful must do this, or they will have an apocalypse every so often. And they really only need make the tiniest effort to effect and change things.

Just my thoughts on why archmages don't rule the world....

[NikitaDarkstar]

Honestly, I have more of a problem with a setting that has so many powerful mages that this even becomes a question than I do with the question itself. We're talking about the upper-tier of reality-bending bad-asses here. There shouldn't be enough of them for it to be a generic question, they should be so rare that It's
"Why don't arch mage X rule the world?"
"He doesn't want to."
"Well how about Y?"
"He recently retired to Celestia."
"And Z?"
"Haven't you heard? She fell down the stairs and broke her neck before activating the contingency spells for that day the poor thing."

Also, ruling the world is basically a concept that can't actually function. A country/empire/call it what you wish, can only grow so large. See, the administrative side has to grow with the empire, and the more administration you put into effect the less control the top actually has over the bottom. It also means that it'll take more time to get anything pushed through the system, and less things can be done in a way that many will be happy with because you have to take everyone into consideration. Now you have provinces(/countries) that have a history of being independent, are largely independent anyway due to the system, and unhappy. Hopefully everyone is familiar enough with history to figure out how that will eventually end. :)

[oxybe]

First off, few people who go out to rule the world do so "just because". It's oftentimes more a means to an end rather then the final step of a goal.

1 - Ruling the world means you have access to it's resources and it's distribution. A well-meaning extremist might see conquering the world as one means to divide the wealth and resources where it's needed rather then have them hanging about in a dragon's horde or a noble's coffers, while a more greedy person might simply view ruling the world as means of getting all the magical elf caramilk bars or something.

Either way, the final step and goal is rarely "rule the world" by itself but rather "I want to do _______ and to accomplish it i must rule the world". As such, any sufficiently powerful and ambitious archmage, with goals that reach beyond the limits of his local supermarket and laundromat, might decide to tap into his phenomenal cosmic power and topple a government or three to achieve them.

2 - As for the day to day bookkeeping of ruling, if you've got a bureaucratic rule it might be boring... for some. Note that wizards, at the very least, tend to be of the brainy variety and treating "ruling the world" as a slightly more complex version of Civ V could very well be how the mage amuses himself, finding mundane or magical solutions to whatever problems are brought before him.

Also note that if you're ruling the world and capable of maintaining that rule, you can generally do whatever you want with little impunity. If you want to rename the Kingdom of Cyre into the Duchy of Fudgee-O even if Duchy is an entirely inappropriate word for the realities of the area and it's ruling caste, who's to stop you? The masses you've already proven you can subjugate?

Different rulers will rule how they see fit.

3 - You're quite right that in D&Dland magic does it better and that alone might be why our potential wizard overlord decided to depose all those mundane kings and their stupid sword and pokey bit armies and replace them with a ruling class that does it right. You dump all the farmers and their kids into a Druidic for Dummies class and have them learn how to farm for realsies, or at least until you can setup enough self-resetting trapped chests of create food and water in various towns to keep them healthily fed.

as for the "problems"

1- Reality and it's conceits stopped trying at the part of the game that introduces you to the concept of wizards or elves, either of which become better basket weavers by inserting swords/arrows/magic into goblins until they become in a perpetual and permanent state of "not moving", whichever comes first. D&D has a long and proud history of saying one thing with it's narrative and have the game mechanics absolutely fail to back it up.

Then again, the novels themselves take more then a few liberties with how it expresses the game mechanics (if it even tries to do so at all) and will sometimes create some out of the blue, because most people care more for an interesting story rather sitting comfortably knowing in their minds that Peter Puffypants is an accurate representation of a 7th level paladin.

2- for the most part we can't live our character's lives minute-per-minute, if only because the medium we use is one of telling rather then showing. The other is that I generally only have 3-4 hours week to play in the game, so rather then focusing on the day-to-day activities of Peter Puffypants, like his routine prayers, eating breakfast toast and then going to work as Brindley's Basket, Bathtub & Bedding Bazaar... unless, of course, something interesting does happen during that time, like someone answering his prayers, his toast becoming sentient or the bazaar is held hostage by skittish modrons but at this point this is hardly a day-to-day day. This is the main reason the game tends to focus on adventuring and combat: combat is a very easy source of conflict to invoke and allows the players to have a nice little power fantasy while doing so.

3- nothing beyond the GM not doing so, is stopping this from happening. Hell, it's one of the main conceits of a darker version of the tippyverse, where a paranoid wizard does rise to power and keeps mindraping any potential upstarts into being his bestest-will-never-betray-friend-ever. It's definitely not in the rules of any edition to forbid it from occurring, though it is frowned upon for reasons that should be obvious (in that there is a chance any PC with PC-like thoughts might get targeted with the Friend Stick).

The main reason I tend to see as to why a big anything doesn't rule the world is simply "because GM said so". D&D, and many other TTRPGs, tend to be games where if my Big Numbers are larger then your Big Numbers, I will win if all else is equal. Hell, big numbers can even make up for some disadvantages though being versatile in how you can use your Big Numbers helps quite a bit and can Not-so-Big Numbers win out in the end.

Wizards in D&D and the like are the kings of versatility (in D&D it's mainly because the devs have decided magic can do anything if it's written down in spell format rather then give it hard limits on what it can actually effect) and can pull out rather big numbers if they feel like it.

GM doesn't want a wizard or singular power to be the ruling caste and left unchecked so there isn't one.

because.

[Eldan]

Yeah, looking at myself... idealism. Ruling the world because you tihnk you can make it better. Not even really for yourself, but for everyone.

[Joe the Rat]

Indeed. Thankfully we have all these demonic invasion cults Mad Archmages and Evil crimson-themed magocracies and upstart ancient monsters and hideous-things-that-live-in-the-dark-and-would-totally-eat-everyone's-face-if-it-weren't-for-that-cursed-sun and gnomes to keep the Ultimate Forces of Good (and each other) from ruling everything.

Why hasn't some Archwizard taken over the world? Because there are other Archwizards... and other powerful beings or groups... that say otherwise.

No, the real question is why hasn't a group of Archmages come together to form a Secret Council and take over the world behind the scenes.

[The_Werebear]

No, the real question is why hasn't a group of Archmages come together to form a Secret Council and take over the world behind the scenes.

Because the type of people who would join the Omniscient Council of Vagueness for Ruling the World tend to be very bad at sharing power. Honestly, a secret council would just make it easier for them to find each other and kill each other off.

It'd be like Highlander played in x16 fast foward, but with Save or Lose's rather than swords.

[Kid Jake]

No, the real question is why hasn't a group of Archmages come together to form a Secret Council and take over the world behind the scenes.

Maybe they already have. :smallcool:

[Honest Tiefling]

Or you want to rule the world to force your will upon it. To destroy a certain nation, city or peoples. To enforce that your religion is best, if not the only religion. To utterly annihilate anything that might rise up against you and become a potential threat.

[Red Fel]

Not every ambition needs to have a reason, or be well thought out.

Why climb Everest? Because it's there.

So, looking at your list: It's pointless. Who cares? So is swimming the English Channel. Won't stop people from doing it. It's boring. So what? So is climbing a mountain. There's some hiking, them some climbing, then more climbing. Yeah, there are thrills if you stumble, but you can get those facing down the armies who want to stop you from conquering the planet. So, it's comparable. Magic does it better. Big deal. Magic does everything better. We still have classes other than Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. And what about low-magic or non-magic settings? Sure, in FR, there's magic everywhere. There are also Fighters, Rogues, and Monks. People will do what they'll do, even if magic can do it better. As for your other objections, it boils down to this: If you become an all-powerful spellcaster, regardless of how you got there, you can pretty much do what you want. If what you want is world domination, there's no reason not to follow your dreams.
My guess is that archmages don't rule the world because of narrative expediency - unless your setting requires archmages to be in charge, they'll come up with reasons not to. Because if they wanted to? Let's face it, they totally could.

Not effectively, mind you. There's a difference between ruling the world in title and in deed. But they could technically acquire the authority, if not an effective way to exercise it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Eldan
Yeah, looking at myself... idealism. Ruling the world because you tihnk you can make it better. Not even really for yourself, but for everyone.



"No!" cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. "With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly." His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. "Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it…."








The Fellowship of the Ring
Chapter 2: The Shadow of the Past

.

[mephnick]

I find that FR doesn't fit 5e at all. So I ignore it.

*annnd I'm in the wrong forum again, oh well, point stands

[jedipotter]

1 - Ruling the world means you have access to it's resources and it's distribution.

The point is the ruling a whole world, just to change a couple things just is not efficient. The archmage can change anything they want, with a couple spells, and does not need to control the world to do anything.



Also note that if you're ruling the world and capable of maintaining that rule, you can generally do whatever you want with little impunity.

But again, this just wastes an archmages time. The mundanes need governments and social structures to have real power. The archmage already has real power....magic.




No, the real question is why hasn't a group of Archmages come together to form a Secret Council and take over the world behind the scenes.

Though, if they did...you'd never know.

[oxybe]

You're not really sure what you're asking though Jedi.

Depends on the goal the person has in mind. If the "few things" are famine, inequality between castes, war between tribes/countries/races/planes then world conquest is very much a means to an end. Alternatively a rather selfish person could go and conquer the world because he wants all the finer things for himself, turning the planet into his own pleasure palace.

We're talking about people who want to rule the world here. Their line of thinking is probably already warped in some fashion. Efficiency, like world domination, is a means to an end.

To go the paladin route, why should he try to convert people when it's simply more efficient to kill all the heathens? Because it's the right thing to do. Killing them without giving the choice of seeing the right wayTM may be more efficient but it's an act that goes against what they stand for.

Different people, be they paladin or commoner, have different values and if they feel strongly about them they'll probably be more then happy to drop a bit of efficiency for the sake of their personal values.

Power in itself is never the final goal. People want power for a reason, be it safety, pleasure, whatever. I've never seen or played any high level PC who just sat on their power and did nothing with it. They wanted that power for a reason... they didn't just get up and start adventuring like a mindless robot. Over time they probably succeeded at some goals and got new ones, but they have some sort of motivation that led them to gain that power.

You're trying to argue the point that there is no reason at all anyone would even want to do so and in a game where several classes get access to abilities that can change how their civilization works, I have no issues believing someone who was ambitious enough to search for REAL ULTIMATE POWER is also most likely the person ambitious enough to attempt to enact their will on the world, be it paved with good or ill intentions.

[jedipotter]

You're not really sure what you're asking though Jedi.

You're trying to argue the point that there is no reason at all anyone would even want to do so and in a game where several classes get access to abilities that can change how their civilization works, I have no issues believing someone who was ambitious enough to search for REAL ULTIMATE POWER is also most likely the person ambitious enough to attempt to enact their will on the world, be it paved with good or ill intentions.

I'm trying to point out that it is pointless for an archmage to want to rule the world. They get nothing from it. And anything they want, they can do or get, without ruling the world.

And even if they did, the world would not change much. First off, it's possible no one would know. One or more archmages take over...and life goes on.

And more so is the life goes on part. Even if Zod took over the world, what would change? Almost nothing. Sure Zod could make laws he liked, but that is not that much change. And even if he did something radical like ''kill all the lawyers'' it would only make a slight ripple for a while.

[Honest Tiefling]

It's also pointless to pimp out your invincible fortress with something exotic like Blink Dog leather or Red Dragon scale. People, including archmages, need hobbies, and eh, why not take over the world in a weekend? Its there, begging to be taken over! You seem to be assuming that all archmages are rational individuals when a great deal probably tanked wisdom. An archmage somewhere is going to do something utterly pointless and inefficient because they can and its there to be done.

[oxybe]

Just to point something out: Permanent Teleportation Circle.

If you can't begin to imagine what a ruler who beings connecting major cities to one another via instant teleportation can accomplish, there isn't much to say... you're applying a very mundane or limited mindset to someone who is decidedly not mundane.

One of Rome's biggest reasons it was capable of such expansion was it's implementation the road and how it allowed goods and, most importantly, military to more easily and quickly move between destinations.

Now cut that travel time to what amounts to a rather fast loading screen in a videogame. You step in the portal, VREEP VREEP VREEP VREEP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kvjP3mpG8), you're across the country.

If you still honestly believe
And even if they did, the world would not change much. First off, it's possible no one would know. One or more archmages take over...and life goes on. is true when we're talking about a ludicrously ambitious person who's capabilities are more then just superhuman, but capable of defying conventional wisdom I have little else to say.

A powerful D&D mage, one capable of 9th level spells, is capable of things we, in the modern and real world are simply unable to replicate and given that our mage is likely very much capable of putting his plans into motion, his presence will be felt.

[oxybe]

An archmage Someone somewhere is going to do something utterly pointless and inefficient because they can and its there to be done.

Fixed that for you. Archmages are human (or elven, or dwarven, or warforged, or half-flumph) too.

[NichG]

The thing is, you can come up with a particular archmage who you've constructed to have the hobbies and personality to want to rule the world. But by the time you've done that, you've gone a very long way from 'it is inevitable that arch-mages should be ruling the world, because they can, and any other scenario is simply implausible'.

By the time you've specified a particular set of likes and dislikes that mean that only 10% of archmages will be that guy, you need there to be about 10 all-powerful archmages before you end up with one who takes a shot at it. And the other 9 may just as likely decide that they don't want to deal with political BS such as their favorite restaurant getting shut down incidentally because of their ambitious colleague decided to shadowpocalypse that city. If the high levels are stratified, then not only does that guy have to be high enough level to be an all-powerful archmage, but he probably has to be the highest level one among the circle of his peers if he wants to just succeed despite being contested.

So the question then becomes, for the particular mages in that setting, does there happen to be that guy who wants to take a shot at ruling the world? And if so, is there insufficient resistance from his peers such that it's basically over an done with and not really contested?

I'd say that generally the sort of mindset that leads one to studying esoteric magic to the level of becoming an archmage doesn't necessarily lead one into world conquest. Resources are generally not going to be an issue - part of the consequence of being able to single-handedly conquer and successfully rule a nation is that there really isn't all that much left for ownership of a nation to give you that you couldn't get in other way. If a given mage has the power to enforce his will over the entire world without anyone actually willingly cooperating with them, its likely that they're exploiting their own self-generated populations (e.g. chain-gated solars, armies of undead, ice assassins, what-have-you). So adding a bunch of existing people to the mix isn't likely to really improve what they can accomplish.

So that basically leaves mages who conquer the world not because they need to do so for any greater goal, but because somehow it is either mandated by their philosophy or necessary for their ego. However, once someone is that powerful, it should start to become clear that the organizations that people build such as towns, cities, nations, cultures, and so on are less significant than the cosmic constraints imposed from above. So for the egotists and the idealists, I'd say its more likely that they try to take potshots at the gods rather than play emperor.

Now, ruling particular small nations I could certainly see, simply because it's probably a lot more convenient to the mage for things to generally be peaceful around them while they go and pursue other things. Just as they wouldn't want their favorite restaurant closed by their colleague's misguided ambitions, they wouldn't want Random Bandit Leader #3 to interrupt the vegetable shipments. So I could see a lot of smaller scale 'power behind the throne' sorts of shenanigans - the mage sends a few magical servants to help keep things running like clockwork and has a deal with the king/baron/etc to basically make him unassailable so long as the mage gets left alone and his favorite stuff doesn't get messed with.

So if there is some vector for mages getting into the world-ruling business, probably the most likely thing is that they get pulled in by their puppets getting a bit too involved in conflicts. Mage #1's pet baron offends mage #2's pet baron in a way that words can't simply fix, and something has to be done or no one is going to have enough peace to go about that plan to induce the existence of a fifth element into the cosmos.

[Wardog]

Any mage that wants to take over the world will have to contend with:
1) All the other mages that also want to take over the world.
2) All the mages that don't think anyone should take over the world.

[Milo v3]

I think it's less "why would a mage want to rule the world", and more there have been people in history who have attempted to take over the world. Now, if those people had access to even seventh level magic or are allied with someone with that magic, they would likely be able to take over the world.

[Arbane]

1.Ruling the World is Pointless.

2.Ruling is Boring


[evil overlord]
Nonsense! Anyone who looks around at the world as it is now can see it needs to be fixed. Chaos, waste, needless suffering.... the world needs ORDER imposed on it! MY order.

And it's fairly obvious you've never ruled anything. There's a feeling you get when addressing a legion of your devoted followers, yelling "WHO WILL DIE FOR ME?" and hearing their shouts of enthusiasm.... well, it's at least as great a rush as some of my more amusing spells.
[/evil overlord]




1.Reality

2.Living the life


So, what are you trying to argue here? That there can't be any archmages (or whatever) because nobody has the needed combination of obsessive focus and natural talent?

There's people in REAL LIFE who do things like meditate for days on end or carve statues out of individual grains of rice. In a FANTASY universe, I think the bounds of the 'possible' are even wider.



3.Day One Plus Assuming the archmage-to-be-character is not born on Day One, then the world is already full of lots of powerful characters, beings, creatures and gods that like things just the way they are. And they are so powerful, that they can stop the archmage-to-be before that mage can even learn to read. There would be tons and tons of chances to stop the archmage, long, long before they ever become close to being an archmage. And this dips back to number one above: a powerful being can use divination to see 0 level apprentice might ''be a problem'' someday...and stop him in his tracks....or at least alter them. But ''game logic'' and ''fairness'' says that a 20th level character can't attack a 0 level one. And the powerful must do this, or they will have an apocalypse every so often. And they really only need make the tiniest effort to effect and change things.

Your argument here seems to be 'the archmage can't take over the world because the archmage who's ALREADY taken over the world won't let them.' I hope you can see the small flaw in this argument.

[Nagash]

So the comment was FR does not make sense as the all powerful wizards should rule everything, but this is generic enough to cover ''most D&D'' and some other games.

So, first off:

1.Ruling the World is Pointless. So your an ultra high level arch mage and you have the power to take over the world, but why do you bother? You don't really get anything from it. If your powerful enough to take over the world, you can already get anything you might want without the bother of ''ruling'' everything. For example, magic can make you a castle or monument a lot faster then tons of slaves can. And you can make tons of money, tons of ways, as an arch mage. And even more so then that is how money does not really matter too much when your an archmage. So what does ''ruling the world'' get an archmage? They can make rules like ''new music comes out on Friday'' or ''hem lines will be this high'' or other such things. But it is kind of pointless things, and if the archmage really wanted to change something, they don't need to rule the world to do it anyway. So what does an archmage get out of ruling the world? Nothing....

2.Ruling is Boring There simply is not much for an archmage to do, day to day, in the traditional ruling style. Ruling a country, let alone a world, is a lot of minor details...and a lot of red tape, procedures, actions and so on. And so much of it is mind numbing boring.

3.Magic can do it Better And without needing to bother ''ruling anything''. Like a king might put a ''sin tax'' on necromacy to discourage it use....but an arch mage would not bother. An archmage can use magic like mass charm for example to get everyone to do what they want, as well as all sorts of other types of mind control or manipulation. A single spell can make an archmage more gold then a year of taxes. And outsider builders can make things much better then commoners.

Then you have the following three problems, if you look at the fictional world as a living breathing place and not a sandbox for a game:

1.Reality In a game snadbox, a couple notes on a paper makes an archmage, but living through the life of an mage-to-be-archmage takes a life time. The game ''logic'' has a 16 year old mage wake up one day, go on an adventure or two, and become an archmage before they turn 18. But that is the ''game logic''. In a setting, it would take years and years to become an archmage. And you can't do things like ''point buy intelligence'', you have to figure things out for real. And the (fictional) reality can not be based off some game books writen by some fools to just cover ''adventuring and killing monsters''. The game rules are not comprehensive alternate reality rules, they are just made to play a narrowly focused game.

2.Living the life It is easy to sit in a basement and say ''archmage Zuth eats conjured stuff'' or ''He reads for 50 days in a row'', but it is much harder to live out a life that does that. And this is something that gets glossed over a lot. A fictional character can ''work 9 to 5'' and do nothing else ever, but few players would ever do that in real life (the fact that they are even playing a game shows they like to have fun and not ''work like a robot'' 24/7)

3.Day One Plus Assuming the archmage-to-be-character is not born on Day One, then the world is already full of lots of powerful characters, beings, creatures and gods that like things just the way they are. And they are so powerful, that they can stop the archmage-to-be before that mage can even learn to read. There would be tons and tons of chances to stop the archmage, long, long before they ever become close to being an archmage. And this dips back to number one above: a powerful being can use divination to see 0 level apprentice might ''be a problem'' someday...and stop him in his tracks....or at least alter them. But ''game logic'' and ''fairness'' says that a 20th level character can't attack a 0 level one. And the powerful must do this, or they will have an apocalypse every so often. And they really only need make the tiniest effort to effect and change things.

Just my thoughts on why archmages don't rule the world....

Totally agree. The whole "tippyverse" concept is pure stupidity that ignores economics, politics, faith, and human nature.

[Sartharina]

Archmages don't rule the world because:
- Archmages don't get along, and any such council would fall apart because of 'Creative Differences'. Their petty squabbles and dramas make high school, rock bands, and furry cliques seem tame.
- One archemage ruling the world cuts off the possibility of another archemage ruling the world. You start to take over, and the rest "NOPE!" you down.

[Nagash]

Then theres always the one arch mage gets uppity and the servant who makes his food slips something real nasty into it which his crappy fort save cant beat and suddenly the all powerful arch mage dies crapping himself to death.

Even in D&D rules terms wizards sleep and a few decent rogues or ninjas with some nasty, expensive poisons could close him out pretty easy.

[Sartharina]

Then theres always the one arch mage gets uppity and the servant who makes his food slips something real nasty into it which his crappy fort save cant beat and suddenly the all powerful arch mage dies crapping himself to death. Oh really? Why would it do that? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unseenServant.htm)


Even in D&D rules terms wizards sleep and a few decent rogues or ninjas with some nasty, expensive poisons could close him out pretty easy.Not in 3.5. Well, they do sleep, but only in their private, inaccessible and heavily-warded time-accelerated demiplane for sleeping. And he's also Immune to Poison thanks to spells and acquired templates, especially Shapechange and Polymorph.

And even if you do manage to kill a wizard, it doesn't stay dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm).

Unless, of course, we're talking 5e wizards instead of 3.5e wizards.

[Milodiah]

If you want to be technical about things, if one were to assume that most monarchs have PC class levels, and that there's a representative spread of them on the thrones (the latter assumed because frankly I'm afraid of what arguments would ensue from not doing so) then archmages and wizards would rule a fair chunk of the world.

But as for the personality types argument, that's simply not true. How could you make a blanket statement like "wizards aren't really all that into politics" when the 40th President of the United States was an actor who was really into politics?

[Frozen_Feet]

Everybody most certainly don't want to rule the world, some for the reasons jedipotter listed. Many of the really powerful preternatural beings would've buggered off to some other planet or dimensions of existence to play god or just sleep. The lower you get on the cosmic totem pole, though, the more incentive there is for a mage to get involved in wordly business, because they actually *need* to. High-level wizards might be near-immortal and close to omnipotent, but lower-level ones most certainly are not. They need someone to grow their food, to do their laundry, to guard their big honkin' towers while they're studying, or to slay all the magic-resistant jellies and what-not they accidentally create with their experimentation. To such folks, ruling the world might be too big of a goal, but ruling a village, a city, even a nation? Most certainly worth it, just for the amount of cheap labour and test subjects you can squeeze out.

[Kami2awa]

Well, wizards in my experience are always trying to rule the world. That's what evil wizards do!

A little known class feature at high level is the army of minions and huge black tower. Where do you think Dark Lords come from?

But somehow, every time they get close a group of level-appropriate adventurers kick their door in and kill them after a climactic battle. Every. Damn. Time!

[Honest Tiefling]

There's also the case that a wizard might wish to do this to get everyone unified because behind the veil of reality there are unspeakable things that'd love to drop by for a visit and make a summer home in your brain. Sure, you have to kill a few good heroes, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs! And the wizard would quite like his omelet to keep existing and needs the world to be in order to keep an eye on things like cults, magical experimentation and people poking world ending terrors with sticks or letting them out of their cages.

[NichG]

Everybody most certainly don't want to rule the world, some for the reasons jedipotter listed. Many of the really powerful preternatural beings would've buggered off to some other planet or dimensions of existence to play god or just sleep. The lower you get on the cosmic totem pole, though, the more incentive there is for a mage to get involved in wordly business, because they actually *need* to. High-level wizards might be near-immortal and close to omnipotent, but lower-level ones most certainly are not. They need someone to grow their food, to do their laundry, to guard their big honkin' towers while they're studying, or to slay all the magic-resistant jellies and what-not they accidentally create with their experimentation. To such folks, ruling the world might be too big of a goal, but ruling a village, a city, even a nation? Most certainly worth it, just for the amount of cheap labour and test subjects you can squeeze out.

The question then I suppose is, what is the balance of rewards/interest at the level at which an individual mage can feasibly take on and control the world? That is, lets say that at Lv13 mages universally decide to go hie off to the planes because it's more interesting and they just got their hands on planeshift. Furthermore, lets say that below Lv7 when Wall of Salt comes online, mages are still sufficiently limited by the availability of monetary resources that they're willing to work for other people than just themselves.

Can a Lv12 mage still personally (e.g. without forming any particular alliances except those imposed by force) conquer the world within the realm of practical optimization rather than Tippyverse-level stuff and TO tricks (because once you hit TO the world is split down the middle by Pun-Pun and an Omniscificer, and the discussion is otherwise kind of irrelevant), assuming that mages and clerics below Lv7 will still be sufficiently motivated by resources/etc concerns to be serving in or assisting the militaries of the various nations on a paid basis, and a handful of higher level (~Lv10) idealistic 'heros' come into play if the conquerer does something severe enough to enter the realm of existential threat (e.g. shadowpocalpysing the countryside)?

[Arbane]

Can a Lv12 mage still personally (e.g. without forming any particular alliances except those imposed by force) conquer the world within the realm of practical optimization rather than Tippyverse-level stuff and TO tricks (because once you hit TO the world is split down the middle by Pun-Pun and an Omniscificer, and the discussion is otherwise kind of irrelevant), assuming that mages and clerics below Lv7 will still be sufficiently motivated by resources/etc concerns to be serving in or assisting the militaries of the various nations on a paid basis, and a handful of higher level (~Lv10) idealistic 'heros' come into play if the conquerer does something severe enough to enter the realm of existential threat (e.g. shadowpocalpysing the countryside)?

I'd guess no. There's only so much you can do singlehandedly, even with Simulacrum. It's much easier when you get followers.

What level spells did Genghis Khan cast?

[BeerMug Paladin]

Everyone knows the rogue is the real ultimate conqueror of the world. Once they've got that sweet +35 bonus to diplomacy, they just talk all their mortal enemies into becoming friends. The DC is only 35 to make someone who is hostile to you friendly.

By level 7, without magic you can get a +23 to diplomacy before any rolling, without even any charisma bonus. That is just shy of a guarantee that you can make people otherwise hostile to you be indifferent instead. By level 10, you can get a +36 (taking 10 with skill mastery). Again, not even taking into consideration charisma bonuses or buffs. That's a guarantee that a hostile target is going to be friendly afterwards.

A 20th level rogue can reliably turn a hostile enemy into a friend with only a full round action. She just tells the most awesome joke to an NPC and they're friends now.

It doesn't work on PCs. But who cares if the half dozen (or fewer) people are immune to the totally non-magical effects? You've already got everyone else. Don't confront PCs. Just teleport with a scroll into the throne room of kings, entertain everyone with a few seconds of snappy dialog, then build a network of allies and move onto the next empire to bend to your will. Maybe tell your new friends about those jerks who've been bugging you.

This is also optimal, because the evil, world conquering rogue leaves every political structure still in place and just gets what she wants from people directly by just asking for it.

"Oh, darn. I just used up my last teleport scroll and there's somewhere I really need to be as soon as possible. Is there any chance I might be able to get one while I'm here?"

[Nagash]

Oh really? Why would it do that? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unseenServant.htm)

You want to rule the world but you spend your whole life hiding in a bubble, terrified of assassins and all your food is prepared by a mindless automaton with no skill in cooking or tastebuds?

Have you ever cooked professionally? Its not easy.

This hypothetical wizard lives in terror with bad food and no one to trust.

Hell he'd have a better life as a mid level merchant.

I couldnt articulate a better argument AGAINST the wizard ruling the world then you just did if i spent a week trying.


Everyone knows the rogue is the real ultimate conqueror of the world. Once they've got that sweet +35 bonus to diplomacy, they just talk all their mortal enemies into becoming friends. The DC is only 35 to make someone who is hostile to you friendly.

By level 7, without magic you can get a +23 to diplomacy before any rolling, without even any charisma bonus. That is just shy of a guarantee that you can make people otherwise hostile to you be indifferent instead. By level 10, you can get a +36 (taking 10 with skill mastery). Again, not even taking into consideration charisma bonuses or buffs. That's a guarantee that a hostile target is going to be friendly afterwards.

A 20th level rogue can reliably turn a hostile enemy into a friend with only a full round action. She just tells the most awesome joke to an NPC and they're friends now.

It doesn't work on PCs. But who cares if the half dozen (or fewer) people are immune to the totally non-magical effects? You've already got everyone else. Don't confront PCs. Just teleport with a scroll into the throne room of kings, entertain everyone with a few seconds of snappy dialog, then build a network of allies and move onto the next empire to bend to your will. Maybe tell your new friends about those jerks who've been bugging you.

This is also optimal, because the evil, world conquering rogue leaves every political structure still in place and just gets what she wants from people directly by just asking for it.

"Oh, darn. I just used up my last teleport scroll and there's somewhere I really need to be as soon as possible. Is there any chance I might be able to get one while I'm here?"

There we go. The answer to why wizards dont rule the world is because they are all too busy playing gofer for rogues and bards with high diplomacy who are the real powers. There are no spells to protect against diplomancy.

[Kid Jake]

Then theres always the one arch mage gets uppity and the servant who makes his food slips something real nasty into it which his crappy fort save cant beat and suddenly the all powerful arch mage dies crapping himself to death.

Even mundane rulers without the ability to mindrape passersby into unquestioning obedience or summon disposable minions can employ food tasters. Unless our hypothetical archmage is a penny pincher I'd say he's not going down to that trick.

[Sartharina]

You want to rule the world but you spend your whole life hiding in a bubble, terrified of assassins and all your food is prepared by a mindless automaton with no skill in cooking or tastebuds?

Have you ever cooked professionally? Its not easy.

This hypothetical wizard lives in terror with bad food and no one to trust.

Hell he'd have a better life as a mid level merchant.

I couldnt articulate a better argument AGAINST the wizard ruling the world then you just did if i spent a week trying.

Or he has a cleric friend! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heroesFeast.htm) (Or he's a House Ghallanda dragonmarked wizard)

Or any other "friend" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm)

[Frozen_Feet]

You want to rule the world but you spend your whole life hiding in a bubble, terrified of assassins and all your food is prepared by a mindless automaton with no skill in cooking or tastebuds?


At sufficiently high levels, the "bubble" is actually a personal demiplane or some far corner of the outer planes were your Mind Makes it Real and the wizard can basically wish anything they want to existence. Or they've done away with such trivial needs as food and spends their days sitting on some barren space rock and gazing at the stars, listening the music of the spheres and pondering the weight of time. No mortal assassin can reach them, nor would they have any reason to, because they are so far removed from mortal affairs that they might as well not exists.

Even at vastly lower levels, the "bubble" is grand tower or other fancy seclusium with wealth and products flowing in from the countryside and/or other planes of existence, the mindless automatons are expertly programmed or replaced with mentally compelled spirits of cooking and housework, and any would-be assassins will have to deal with traps, golems, experimental monsters and plain human guards.

Seriously. The concept of a wizard's tower or seclusium is well-established. They practically never end up being as bleak as you suggest. On the contrary, they're fantastic and wondrous microcosms which usually make the surrounding terrain seem pretty mundane in contrast! The luxuriousness of a wizard's dwelling are often rather divorced from their ambitions. One who desires nothing more than to live in peace might live alone in a poorly-built hut in the middle of a desert, or might have built a magical mansion full of unseen servants and enchanted woodland creatures and fey catering to their every need. One who desires world domination might live on aforementioned barren space rock, only meddling with human affairs by proxy, or they might have a castle carried on the shoulders of cloud giants, with efreeti as their guards and succubi as their footwives.

Really, looking at the most paranoid and grandiose despots of real world should hint you that being crazy prepared isn't mutually exclusive with living like royalty.

[NichG]

The thing about living in isolated solipsistic microcosms is that it's basically the opposite end of the behavioral pattern from 'ruling the world' style ambitions. Otherwise you have the mage 'ruling the world' the same way that e.g. Ao does in Faerun - absentee in-name-only sort of rule.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, you need something for target practice, and no point doing it in your demi-plane and breaking the good china. Besides, the abominations you make need a place to roam and penning them up away from their food is just so cruel.

[Milodiah]

To be fair, though, all these self-preservation measures are exactly what real-world dictators would do if they...you know...were magical turbo-wizards. They already have giant luxurious personal fallout shelters, so why wouldn't they spring for a personal demiplane should they exist? They already employ body doubles to draw assassins' fire, so of course they would spring for powerful illusion versions of it (or of course just magically alter the body doubles to make them more convincing). Not to mention the hilarious possibilities opened by recruiting one's personal Praetorian Guard simply by casting Summon Horrendously Overpowered TPK Death Monster V!

[veti]

Maybe they do. All of them.

Think about it: how could you tell if someone was ruling the world? What would it look like, from outside?

Well, they'd have basically unlimited resources. Any sufficiently-high-level mage has that.

Then, they'd be above the law - unaccountable to any outside authority, at least in this world. See above.

Access to effectively unlimited labour? Heck, any sufficiently-rich person has that, with or without magic.

Seems to me that everything else is just administration, and that's not a subject likely to hold any high-level mage's interest for long enough to be noticeable.

So what's missing? How would a FR world look different, if every high-level non-lawful mage was "running" it?

[Sartharina]

Maybe they do. All of them.

Think about it: how could you tell if someone was ruling the world? What would it look like, from outside?

Well, they'd have basically unlimited resources. Any sufficiently-high-level mage has that.

Then, they'd be above the law - unaccountable to any outside authority, at least in this world. See above.

Access to effectively unlimited labour? Heck, any sufficiently-rich person has that, with or without magic.

Seems to me that everything else is just administration, and that's not a subject likely to hold any high-level mage's interest for long enough to be noticeable.

So what's missing? How would a FR world look different, if every high-level non-lawful mage was "running" it?

You're missing the social aspect of ruling the world. It's not about meeting your personal, selfish needs - You become a big business guy if you want that. It's about knowing and seeing everyone else march to the beat you set.

[Kid Jake]

You're missing the social aspect of ruling the world. It's not about meeting your personal, selfish needs - You become a big business guy if you want that. It's about knowing and seeing everyone else march to the beat you set.

Yeah, it's the joy of banning clothes while making nudity a capital offense and then giggling in your tower while the peons figure that one out.

[Milodiah]

Or reorganizing the entire world population into settlements, each composed entirely of people with the same first name.

[veti]

You're missing the social aspect of ruling the world. It's not about meeting your personal, selfish needs - You become a big business guy if you want that. It's about knowing and seeing everyone else march to the beat you set.

Why would you care?

You don't get to be an archmage by being insane. There's a line in Terry Pratchett somewhere, "Genuinely stupid wizards have approximately the life expectancy of a glass hammer".

The "social aspect" of ruling the world would mean, in practice, you get to talk to kings and other bigwigs when you want, they do what you tell them, and you get to remove any who annoy you enough. You could give them orders, in the unlikely event that there's anything within their power to do for you.

But in practice, what stops you from "banning clothes then making nudity a capital offense" is that it's freakin' stupid. That's how you start revolutions, as is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, let alone a world-reshaping super-genius mastermind.

Of course if you wanted to start a revolution, then you could do that. And what would stop you?

[Kid Jake]

If a wizard went to the trouble of subjugating the world, then the only reason I can think for why he did it is for the lulz. Pushing the peasantry until they snap, just to crush them back into submission seems like as good a way to spend your sunset years as any. An archmage with the power to order around kings doesn't NEED to order around kings. He snaps his fingers and fashions alternate realities; no kingdom in the world can offer him anything he can't provide himself. He does it because he CAN and he wants everyone to acknowledge that fact.

That doesn't make him stupid, just an a-hole.

[Honest Tiefling]

But in practice, what stops you from "banning clothes then making nudity a capital offense" is that it's freakin' stupid. That's how you start revolutions, as is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, let alone a world-reshaping super-genius mastermind.

Of course if you wanted to start a revolution, then you could do that. And what would stop you?

I can just imagine it now, a wizard just sets up multiple identities. He has one of his personas ban clothes or other silly things just to see how many revolutions he can spark against himself with yet another persona backing it.

[veti]

I can just imagine it now, a wizard just sets up multiple identities. He has one of his personas ban clothes or other silly things just to see how many revolutions he can spark against himself with yet another persona backing it.

Sounds pretty much like a vanilla high-magic D&D campaign setting to me.

So there you have it. They do rule the world, but being more intelligent than the PCs, they take some minor precautions to prevent them from knowing about it.

[FabulousFizban]

It's also pointless to pimp out your invincible fortress with something exotic like Blink Dog leather or Red Dragon scale. People, including archmages, need hobbies, and eh, why not take over the world in a weekend? Its there, begging to be taken over! You seem to be assuming that all archmages are rational individuals when a great deal probably tanked wisdom. An archmage somewhere is going to do something utterly pointless and inefficient because they can and its there to be done.

Owlbears. 'nuff said

[Jay R]

Taking over the world is only possible if you have more power than everyone else in the world. Indeed, that's the actual meaning of taking over the world.

If there are two or more people with the power to take over the world, then there really aren't any.

[Sartharina]

Why would you care?Why are Tropico, Dwarf Fortress, Sim City, and Civilization such popular games?


You don't get to be an archmage by being insane. There's a line in Terry Pratchett somewhere, "Genuinely stupid wizards have approximately the life expectancy of a glass hammer". It's not insane or stupid.


The "social aspect" of ruling the world would mean, in practice, you get to talk to kings and other bigwigs when you want, they do what you tell them, and you get to remove any who annoy you enough. You could give them orders, in the unlikely event that there's anything within their power to do for you.This shows.


But in practice, what stops you from "banning clothes then making nudity a capital offense" is that it's freakin' stupid. That's how you start revolutions, as is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, let alone a world-reshaping super-genius mastermind.The solution is to turn them into Zoists, though that's not as fun. And you can do lesser things that won't cause people to rebel, because they'd rather deal with your idiosyncratic demands for your entertainment than deal with your arcane wrath. OR army of Shadesteel Golems.


Of course if you wanted to start a revolution, then you could do that. And what would stop you?And this is the fun of ruling the world!

[NichG]

Yeah actually, the clothes thing is pretty much insane and stupid. I'd call it textbook 'chaotic stupid'. It's an action with no real purpose other than being random and cruel, and it's an action which potentially amplifies any threats to the wizard that might nascently exist in the population already. That kind of thing is exactly what gets groups of high level heroes to decide to poke their noses into the wizard's business, and 'private demiplane' sounds to me like 'high level dungeon crawl'.

Putting even that aside, rationally what the populace does under a command like that is to basically ignore it, rather than 'run around in circles trying to figure it out'. Oh look, now living is a capital offense. So basically the big bad wizard is just saying he will occasionally randomly decide to kill us for no reason. So since there's no reason behind it, we might was well just ignore it and invest in the lead mines.

This kind of wizard is less of a 'ruler of the world' and more like a roving natural disaster that occasionally shouts out random orders before killing the people at ground zero anyhow. In a world with dragons, high CR monsters, etc, it's just another thing on the list to avoid. Like 'don't wander into Undermountain' if you live in Waterdeep.

[Wardog]

Taking over the world is only possible if you have more power than everyone else in the world. Indeed, that's the actual meaning of taking over the world.


Not necessarily.

You just have to have enough power to convince enough people to support you, so that together you have more power than the people who would oppose you.