Can anybody give a reasonable explanation?

[mindstalk]

Yeah, an empire might sometimes subordinate kings as it expands, but it's hardly guaranteed or I think even that common. Kings and emperors both prefer appointed governors, not hereditary nobles or sub-kings, if they can pull it off. Provinces of the Roman empire were overseen by governors, under the Senate or Princeps.

[Cluedrew]

The rate of high level characters doesn't really matter. In some ways, you get a more pronounced effect if there are less high level characters. It's not about how much magic there is, it's about how you deploy the magic that does exist. You could easily imagine setting where there are a small number of powerful Wizards, or a large number of weak ones, or anywhere in the middle.

Most of the other points kind of boil down to "well its a matter of degree and it kind of goes by feel so I can only kind of state what I feel". There is no unit to measure variety of stories.

I am however willing to stand on the statement that there is a positive correlation between the number of people with magic (or any type of power at any power level) and how accessible magic (or that power at that power level) is generally in that setting. No it is not a perfect 1-to-1 relationship but still it is there. Now rereading I realized you might not actually have been saying "decreasing the amount of high level magic (users) in a setting increases the general accessibility of high level magic in the setting", but if you were I'm going to disagree with that.

[hamishspence]

The regional "rulers" WERE the satraps.

Yup. Satraps or regional governors could be separate from "the local client kings", in cases where client kings existed.

https://www.ancient.eu/Persian_Governor/

The Parthians also kept the Achaemenid satrapy system but allowed a looser confederation with less emphasis on the central government. Client kings (also known as vassal kings) were allowed to retain their positions and appointed satraps were given greater freedom in making and enforcing policy.

Kings and emperors both prefer appointed governors, not hereditary nobles or sub-kings, if they can pull it off. Provinces of the Roman empire were overseen by governors, under the Senate or Princeps.

It wasn't unheard of for a place to have both a governor, and a client king.

[Nifft]

The claim was that everything else other than a monarchy has zero kings. Which I have demonstrated as false. An Empire is a form of government with more than one king.

Sorry, I can't agree. It seems like "vassal king" is different from what is meant by "king".

[hamishspence]

An empire made up of subordinate monarchies is still an Empire. Emperors might dislike having to deal with sub-kings, but sometimes they're stuck with the situation.

[Nifft]

An empire made up of subordinate monarchies is still an Empire. Emperors might dislike having to deal with sub-kings, but sometimes they're stuck with the situation.

Do these kings have sovereignty over their state?

Is this "empire" some kind of treaty organization, in which signatories pay tax to the "emperor", but have sovereignty as independent states?

That's the way I could see this theory working with non-vassal kings, but at that point you've got an empire which isn't the government for most constituent states, and a bunch of constituent states which belong to a (biased) treaty organization.

[hamishspence]

The usual approach is a degree of sovereignty - but the empire still having some of its own soldiers in place, and a governor.

[NigelWalmsley]

If we really want to play the "you're not even technically correct" game, Sparta had two kings. Also, while some modern countries technically claim to be monarchies, and have kings (or queens), they're democracies in every meaningful sense.

OTOH you also get king-run empires despite a dominance of heavy infantry: Hellenistic empires, later Rome, China.

The institution of the feudal king is different from the way those empires behaved, and the model on which D&D is based. It's a model that is actually very well suited to D&D's mechanics.

Would there be more people training than when a country decided to give everyone who can run faster than X a high paid gouvernment job in the countries runner brigade for life ?

Yes, if you gave people government positions based on magical ability (to drop the analogy), that would result in more Wizards. But that would also be a mageocracy. It would be a different form of mageocracy from one where the title of Mage Emperor went to the best Wizard, but it would be one, just as both England and the USA are representative democracies, despite different political specifics.

Now rereading I realized you might not actually have been saying "decreasing the amount of high level magic (users) in a setting increases the general accessibility of high level magic in the setting", but if you were I'm going to disagree with that.

I'm saying you don't particularly need high level characters for a high magic setting. In fact, most of the magic that's useful for civilization-building is mid or low level. True Resurrection is a neat trick, but ultimately Fabricate or Animate Dead is a lot more useful to society.

[Nifft]

If we really want to play the "you're not even technically correct" game, Sparta had two kings.

IIRC those were even accurately describable as kings, so I think we can count that example as solid.

Point accepted.

[Satinavian]

Yes, if you gave people government positions based on magical ability (to drop the analogy), that would result in more Wizards. But that would also be a mageocracy. It would be a different form of mageocracy from one where the title of Mage Emperor went to the best Wizard, but it would be one, just as both England and the USA are representative democracies, despite different political specifics.

Is the current US a military dictatorship because the whole military is paid and employed by the gouvernment ? Is modern day Germany a technocracy because all university professors are paid and employed by the gouvernment ?
A gouvernment can employ a lot of people for tasks beyond actually gouverning. And in a fantasy setting it could and likely would employ wizards for spellcasting (and research and teaching). And because spellcasting is so useful, it would try to get every spellcaster it could to cast spells dor the country.

[Clistenes]

Yeah, an empire might sometimes subordinate kings as it expands, but it's hardly guaranteed or I think even that common. Kings and emperors both prefer appointed governors, not hereditary nobles or sub-kings, if they can pull it off. Provinces of the Roman empire were overseen by governors, under the Senate or Princeps.

Rome had plenty client kings: Egypt, Numidia, Judea, Mauretania, Armenia...etc.

Yes, most were eventually assimilated, but some existed for generations.

[Tanarii]

Rome had plenty client kings: Egypt, Numidia, Judea, Mauretania, Armenia...etc.

Yes, most were eventually assimilated, but some existed for generations.

Interestingly I googled client king to see how it was different from king, and most of the links are about Roman client kings.

[Alcore]

Did we ever find out if a reasonable explanation was given?

[Lkctgo]

Did we ever find out if a reasonable explanation was given?

Honestly, having read the thread, there are two camps. One is the "hey a wizard won't want to be a ruler because it takes effort and distracts from their study" and "hey people respect hierarchy and tradition" vs "a wizard could use the kingdom to further their studies (by providing themselves with financial support etc)", "a wizard/mage ruling class would solve most of the kingdom's problems and would be far easier to accept as a ruler due to their high intellect/charisma etc", "there won't be a traditional feudalistic king if we were in a magic-laden world".

I'd say nope, no consensus explanation could be reached.

[Max_Killjoy]

Honestly, having read the thread, there are two camps. One is the "hey a wizard won't want to be a ruler because it takes effort and distracts from their study" and "hey people respect hierarchy and tradition" vs "a wizard could use the kingdom to further their studies (by providing themselves with financial support etc)", "a wizard/mage ruling class would solve most of the kingdom's problems and would be far easier to accept as a ruler due to their high intellect/charisma etc", "there won't be a traditional feudalistic king if we were in a magic-laden world".

I'd say nope, no consensus explanation could be reached.

In part because there is no universal answer, it depends on the setting and the specific polity.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Did we ever find out if a reasonable explanation was given?

Several, actually. Just not one perfect, inescapable explanation.

[Cluedrew]

I would forward that the fact there is a debate shows that there are reasonable explanations for both sides.

It is getting harder to say that in general but I also read both sides, found them reasonable and have a relatively high opinion of the average forum goer around here.

[Tanarii]

Did we ever find out if a reasonable explanation was given?

Yeah.

The rules only allow Fighters to rule a domain.
Magic-users just get to build a tower with a dungeon underneath it.

[Alcore]

Yeah.

The rules only allow Fighters to rule a domain.
Magic-users just get to build a tower with a dungeon underneath it.

I thought that was liches...

[Jay R]

The simplest explanation is that being a caster is a full-time profession. And being a ruler or conqueror is a full-time profession. They each require lots of time, with very different skills.

Yes, of course many spells would be useful for a ruler. But the primary skills she would need are knowledge(government), knowledge (local), Knowledge (legal system), etc. She must spend full time talking to people, dealing with problems, and the like. She can't spend an hour a day just memorizing spells, rater than thinking through the issues of the day.

By contrast, a full-time scholar or engineer (the closest mundane equivalent to a caster) spends lots of time thinking about abstruse concepts, or engineering design, etc. The trope of the absent-minded professor is based on the reality than many of them never quite stop thinking about their subject, even in social situations.

Neither being a caster nor being a ruler can be done well around the other.

But the crucial observation is that the idea pre-dates D&D. Arthur leads the kingdom while Merlin advises him because they require fundamentally different skill sets. Gandalf doesn't rule, but he helps Aragorn claim his throne.

[mindstalk]

The simplest explanation is that being a caster is a full-time profession. And being a ruler or conqueror is a full-time profession. They each require lots of time, with very different skills.

Being a warrior is a full-time profession, with very different skills than being a ruler, and yet warrior-rulers have dominated most of history.

Because "full-time" is vague. It can take a lot of intense training to become good enough, but then you can stop and do something else.

And being a ruler doesn't have to be a full time profession at all. That's what grand viziers/prime ministers/Hands of the King are for. You appoint someone else to do most of the work, while you skim off the taxes and make the final decisions.

[Cluedrew]

For the record I don't think fighters would make good leaders generally either. Boxing has about the same usefulness in politics as theoretical physics. But those that do make the jump might be better described as general-kings, as their accomplishments usually have to do with leading an army, not fighting in it. Not that I have the number on that but going off of the ones I can remember.

For skills staying the same once you get good, in D&D land maybe, but it is also designed to show people on an adventure actively using their skills regularly. So getting rusty is not really a concept they bothered to cover. Also if they did you might get some weird results about how stopping the adventure to build a house can cause you to loose craft ranks unless you repeatedly clear the basement of rats.

[Tanarii]

The difference is becoming a better Fighter involves conquering things. Becoming a better magic-user involves studying.

Or, you know, looting GP for XP for either.

[mindstalk]

"For the record I don't think fighters would make good leaders generally either."

As I said multiple times: sure, but they were the leaders nonetheless.

[Marcelinari]

I would posit that the reason that there aren’t more Magocracies is that wizards are actually too good at projecting personal power.

Traditionally, kings and rulers derive their personal power from their skill at arms. They may or may not be particularly skilled at arms, but their ability to project personal power was demonstrably less important than their ability to project institutional power. This institutional power manifested in the ability to send armies, make and enforce laws, mete out judgement, and so on. This power is derived not personally, but from the willingness of others to carry out the king’s command.

Institutional power derives from the consensus of the ruled. This was fundamentally true even in historical absolute monarchies, where tax laws were almost always passed with the consent of the taxed. Without the support of the nobility, the priesthood, the merchants, or the peasants, a king had no chance of getting anything done, and even with the support of at least 2 of those demographics it could be hard going. The reason that individual people would support a monarch like this, I posit, would be to share in that institutional power. By aligning themselves with it, they allowed it to work for their purposes, and in consensus, power could be successfully projected.

We return to the problem of personal power. A wizard is capable of reducing a castle to rubble, and army to cinders, and a number of other miracles. This would make a Wizard-king able to project a great deal of personal power. However, it also means that other wizards are capable of projecting similar power. These other wizards are not incentivized to support the claim of one particular wizard over their own, and therefore don’t feel the need to share in that institutional power. This weakens the wizard-king’s institutional power, and the trust and support that the other demographics may invest in the current ruler. Without that foundation of institutional power, a wizard-king is little more than a petty tyrant, and vulnerable to betrayal, usurpation, and rebellion. Anyone replacing him also faces these problems, until a person takes power who maintains the support of the non-mage demographics, and can convince the mages that he is a better choice for the leadership of the realm than continued internecine conflict.

And thus, a magocracy naturally evolves into a non-magocratic feudal society. Exceptions exist, surely, but if the argument I made is fairly solid, then it explains why the world is not covered with magocracies from end to end.

[NigelWalmsley]

But the primary skills she would need are knowledge(government), knowledge (local), Knowledge (legal system), etc. She must spend full time talking to people, dealing with problems, and the like. She can't spend an hour a day just memorizing spells, rater than thinking through the issues of the day.

Classes that get those skills: Wizard.
Classes that do not get those skills: Fighter.

Explain to me again how the class that gets every Knowledge skill and has wants to max Intelligence is going to be worse at Knowledges than the average person.

But the crucial observation is that the idea pre-dates D&D.

That doesn't mean it automatically holds in D&D.

They may or may not be particularly skilled at arms, but their ability to project personal power was demonstrably less important than their ability to project institutional power.

Yes, but that was because historically institutions were more powerful than people. That's not necessarily true in a fantasy setting. There are plenty of stories where archmages are capable of slaughtering entire mundane armies (or would be if people in those stories fielded purely mundane armies).

These other wizards are not incentivized to support the claim of one particular wizard over their own, and therefore don’t feel the need to share in that institutional power.

Why did a particular Duke, Earl, or Baron support the claim of the King over their own? Once again, this is a problem common to any political system, not just ones where the guy in charge is magic.

[Satinavian]

Classes that get those skills: Wizard.
Classes that do not get those skills: Fighter.

Explain to me again how the class that gets every Knowledge skill and has wants to max Intelligence is going to be worse at Knowledges than the average person.

The D&D skill system (all editions) is horrible.

But this is a general thread. There are no reason to assume 3.5 rules. Otherwise we could argue that aristocrat is the ruler class and anyone ruling would only get levels in aristocrat which is why wizards avoid it or something like that.

[Marcelinari]

Yes, but that was because historically institutions were more powerful than people. That's not necessarily true in a fantasy setting. There are plenty of stories where archmages are capable of slaughtering entire mundane armies (or would be if people in those stories fielded purely mundane armies).



Why did a particular Duke, Earl, or Baron support the claim of the King over their own? Once again, this is a problem common to any political system, not just ones where the guy in charge is magic.

On the first point: wizards may well be more powerful on a personal level than some armies, but the problem is that that power does not require buy-in from the people that are being ruled. The wizard has his power whether or not he is supported by the people, which reduces the leverage that other powerful people can exert over decisions made in government. And since one wizard-king without support is basically interchangeable with another, usurpers and traitors with similar personal power don’t require the broad support that raising a traditional army would require.

As to the second point: a duke, earl, or baron generally owes allegiance to the sovereign who will endorse and ratify their titles, claims, and power. They derive their institutional power from the acknowledgement of those titles and claims, and are incentivized to maintain the existing system. They also recognize that their ability to project institutional power on the sovereign’s behalf gives them leverage in government and makes their voices matter.

If they attempt to contest the sovereign’s claim, they would require a base of institutional power that was enough removed from the sovereign that they could wield it independently. At that point, they have enough buy-in from their own subordinates that ruling them is possible, and winning requires the opposing nobility (who presumably support the existing king) to recognize the rebelling noble’s superior claim (which is ultimately dependent on the number of loyal subordinates that rebelling noble has). At which point, there’s probably a little shuffle in the positional hierarchy, but ultimately the sovereign is the one with the broadest loyalty of the people.

Again, it’s not a 100% thing, this is definitely not how all magocracies would progress. But it’s plausible, at least, that wizards have too much personal power and too little use for the people they rule to be popular and stable leaders of nations.

[NigelWalmsley]

But this is a general thread. There are no reason to assume 3.5 rules. Otherwise we could argue that aristocrat is the ruler class and anyone ruling would only get levels in aristocrat which is why wizards avoid it or something like that.

Well, you couldn't argue that, because that's not how the advancement system works. But regardless, if you'd like to talk about some specific other edition that's fine. But as far as I know, Wizards are better at knowledge-type skills in all of them.

The wizard has his power whether or not he is supported by the people, which reduces the leverage that other powerful people can exert over decisions made in government.

No it doesn't. Those powerful people are still quite powerful. It's just also personal power. Your model of rulership simply does not apply in a world where nobles can kill people with their thoughts. The idea that power flows from the people is, broadly, true. But it's true because power depends on the people. In D&D it doesn't. You can go wander into the wilderness with a few of your friends and come back out a couple of months or years later as a major military power. That's a dynamic that is totally removed from anything that has historically existed, and expecting societies living in a world like that to behave like our own is simply naive.

[Marcelinari]

No it doesn't. Those powerful people are still quite powerful. It's just also personal power. Your model of rulership simply does not apply in a world where nobles can kill people with their thoughts. The idea that power flows from the people is, broadly, true. But it's true because power depends on the people. In D&D it doesn't. You can go wander into the wilderness with a few of your friends and come back out a couple of months or years later as a major military power. That's a dynamic that is totally removed from anything that has historically existed, and expecting societies living in a world like that to behave like our own is simply naive.

So you're advocating for a social hierarchy composed entirely of adventurers? Even if the noble class of society is composed entirely of magic-users (presumably by expelling and disinheriting anyone without the aptitude or skill for casting magic), can you police the church in the same way? Not every lay priest is a cleric after all - do you make them expel those members? Are the merchants all ex-adventurers too, fighters and rogues and bards who went adventuring for a month in their youth and came back with enough for a start-up? Do you strip any merchants without the ability to slaughter a dozen goblins of their license to trade? And the peasantry - do you just ignore their political ambitions, and say 'well, if you want to not be a peasant, go and kill an ogre or three. Then we'll give you a merchant's license'?

The people in this magocracy still have power. They have the power to obey or disobey the laws that the ruler makes, they have the power to trade or hoard or destroy crops and livelihoods. They have the power to answer a call to arms, to riot and rebel, and without cooperation, any so-called ruler will find that they have no nation to speak of.

The core of the argument I'm making is "what makes the wizard-king the king"? Is it the fact that they're the most powerful person in the realm? Then they lose the right to rule as soon as somebody kills them, and the killer earns that title. Is it that they're doing the most good with their vast magical power? Then why do they need to be the king to wield that power? Can they not do it at the behest of a government that rules with consent of the people?

I can feel my argument weakening, but I think it still holds water. Not everyone is going to be a wizard, and those people are going to want a share of the power too. If you deny it to them, you have to kill them - and if you don't have the popularity to maintain the loyalty of the people, you won't find anyone crying when the second-most-powerful wizard ganks you for your pointy hat.