Why wizards don't rule (as a rule)

[torbenm]

I compare classic D&D wizards to modern-day scientists. While they do possess knowledge which is potentially powerful, they are not normally interested in the bother that ruling implies. So they (mostly) prefer doing their own research, only bothering the rulers to keep in funding and, in return, advising the rulers on matters close to their speciality.

Like some modern-day scientists start up their own companies and get rich, some wizards would use their knowledge to gain wealth. But, again, I don't see them doing it by setting themselves up as rulers: It is much more fun (and usually less risky) to earn money by doing what you are good at. Since magic is rarely industrial, wizard are more likely to earn money by services than by production (though some may specialise in producing enchanted items). If your services are such that they would gain a ruler a specific advantage over hos competitors, you can usually charge quite well.

[nesciomancer]

I agree that many individual scientists don't seem terribly interested in politics- but that's not true of all scientists everywhere. I think the main reason why individual scientists aren't ruling nations by now is not that scientists don't want power, but that scientists aren't intrinsically powerful as individuals. Sure, science can create nuclear bombs- but that's a team of scientists, working with external funding under tight government supervision. It's not one guy in his basement. But at least some rpgs have magic systems where incredible destructive power can be unleashed by a mage who IS just one guy (given inherent powers like sorcery or psionics, they may not even need the basement :) ).

If this sort of magic is relatively common (as it is in many rpg settings), then even if 90% of mages don't care about politics, the number who do is probably high enough to have a noticeable impact on the political system, at least at a local level. It's not just that you rarely seem to see mage-kings- it's also that you rarely seem to see mage-mayors.

[Oskar Breytenbach]

Isn't the Chinese government largely composed of scientists and engineers?

[Mirkady]

Isn't the issue likely to be this, for any wizard with a power drive: if I can bend reality to my will, unleash undreamed of power from my fingertips and humble the greatest potentates with a glance, why on earth would I have any interest in running a civil service?

Genuinely ruling involves a fair amount of hassle. Hassle you can neatly out-source to the local king/queen/prince/duke/count/burgomeister/guildmaster/whatever - let them carry on doing those parts just so long as they keep taking your 'advice'.

[Argonnosi]

Isn't the issue likely to be this, for any wizard with a power drive: if I can bend reality to my will, unleash undreamed of power from my fingertips and humble the greatest potentates with a glance, why on earth would I have any interest in running a civil service?

Genuinely ruling involves a fair amount of hassle. Hassle you can neatly out-source to the local king/queen/prince/duke/count/burgomeister/guildmaster/whatever - let them carry on doing those parts just so long as they keep taking your 'advice'.

Civil service? Hassles?

Maybe from the political angle of things there will be some hassle, as you have to work to maintain a consistent power basis, but as far as other hassles go, that's what your flunkies, I mean apprentices, are for.

The idea of civil service, however, is not one that is accepted or even understood by the majority of political systems. If you are based in an area using Roman or modern considerations, then their might be some issue with that. However, for early Medieval European societies, the idea of civil service from government would have been an alien one, and even in the late period it would've been very unpopular.

It was understood that people in power, and who wanted more power, were not in it for the people or the greater good, they were in it for the power. With that premise it could actually be very easy to see wizards, people with the highest potential for power, taking a direct hand in politics, if not to directly rule, then to at least increase their personal privileges and access to the channels of societal power.

[Gaming Poet]

Let's not forget that in most RPGs and most fantasy tales, it is fairly difficult to become a wielder of significant magic.

In some systems or tales, a person needs innate talent. In others, he or she needs the favor of the gods, or the correct birth horoscope, or the correct birth order (e.g. seventh son of the seventh son of a seventh son).

In some systems or tales, a person who wishes to wield magic must make personal sacrifices of the sort most avoid. Often, he or she must remain a virgin or at least swear to ongoing chastity from the moment learning begins. There may be special diets or special hours-long meditations which must be performed daily.

In some systems or tales, magic costs a tremendous amount of personal energy, leaving a wielder of magic inept at many other tasks, including procreation. This can be seen in the AD&D habit of giving magic-users or wizards a maximum of 4 hit points. By the time an AD&D wielder of magic is powerful enough to rule, he or she has had to make a lot of bargains with a lot of people just to avoid being killed by a house cat or a single arrow!

Also, in a lot of tales (including much Arthurian lore), wielding of magic is treated as a hazardous profession -- there is something spiritually unseemly or even corruptive about becoming a wielder of magic, so most people avoid putting their souls into such precarious positions, and only a few have the power of self-restraint and virtue necessary to wield magic without turning evil.

Many worlds, whether worlds found in RPGs or fantasy fiction, offer fairly believable reasons why mages and the like have not taken over the world!

[Argonnosi]

Let's not forget that in most RPGs and most fantasy tales, it is fairly difficult to become a wielder of significant magic.

In some systems or tales, a person needs innate talent. In others, he or she needs the favor of the gods, or the correct birth horoscope, or the correct birth order (e.g. seventh son of the seventh son of a seventh son).

In some systems or tales, a person who wishes to wield magic must make personal sacrifices of the sort most avoid. Often, he or she must remain a virgin or at least swear to ongoing chastity from the moment learning begins. There may be special diets or special hours-long meditations which must be performed daily.

In some systems or tales, magic costs a tremendous amount of personal energy, leaving a wielder of magic inept at many other tasks, including procreation. This can be seen in the AD&D habit of giving magic-users or wizards a maximum of 4 hit points. By the time an AD&D wielder of magic is powerful enough to rule, he or she has had to make a lot of bargains with a lot of people just to avoid being killed by a house cat or a single arrow!

Also, in a lot of tales (including much Arthurian lore), wielding of magic is treated as a hazardous profession -- there is something spiritually unseemly or even corruptive about becoming a wielder of magic, so most people avoid putting their souls into such precarious positions, and only a few have the power of self-restraint and virtue necessary to wield magic without turning evil.

Many worlds, whether worlds found in RPGs or fantasy fiction, offer fairly believable reasons why mages and the like have not taken over the world!

D&D, however, has none of these things. Even the d4 hit die merely puts him at the level of the common man. 'Sides, the problem with historical references is that magic doesn't exist. If it had, and if it had been anything like what it is in 3e, things would likely have been considerably different. 'Course, there are usually two or three different ways things could've turned out, but in any case they'd be very different.

[Pandora Caitiff]

I would compare magic users to the military.

Mostly they dont rule because either they dont care for it, or they support those in charge (stable economy means magic materials available and for sale)

But occasionally one goes a bit power-hungry, declares himself boss, and takes over a country.

The evil necromancer ruling by fear, is kind of like the third world general-turned-dictator ruling by fear.

[Argonnosi]

I would compare magic users to the military.

Mostly they dont rule because either they dont care for it, or they support those in charge (stable economy means magic materials available and for sale)

But occasionally one goes a bit power-hungry, declares himself boss, and takes over a country.

The evil necromancer ruling by fear, is kind of like the third world general-turned-dictator ruling by fear.

What about Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, or George Washington?

[Pandora Caitiff]

What about Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, or George Washington?

I did say "mostly".

I'm sure there's a precendent for a good wizard leading a country in time of strife.

[Argonnosi]

I did say "mostly".

I'm sure there's a precendent for a good wizard leading a country in time of strife.

... I think you missed the point. Comparing wizards to the military is a bit of a problem since the military organizations of most countries throughout history, though most explicitly in the Middle Ages, not only supported the ruling class but often were the ruling class. Using your corrolation would actually put wizards in more of the ruling majority.

[Pandora Caitiff]

... I think you missed the point. Comparing wizards to the military is a bit of a problem since the military organizations of most countries throughout history, though most explicitly in the Middle Ages, not only supported the ruling class but often were the ruling class. Using your corrolation would actually put wizards in more of the ruling majority.

Probably. I had contemporary military arrangements in mind, and didn't think it completely through.

I'd recently had the "why does the military tolerate civilian government" debate, and came in half-cocked :D

[Spectral Knight]

I agree that many individual scientists don't seem terribly interested in politics- but that's not true of all scientists everywhere. I think the main reason why individual scientists aren't ruling nations by now is not that scientists don't want power, but that scientists aren't intrinsically powerful as individuals. Sure, science can create nuclear bombs- but that's a team of scientists, working with external funding under tight government supervision. It's not one guy in his basement. But at least some rpgs have magic systems where incredible destructive power can be unleashed by a mage who IS just one guy (given inherent powers like sorcery or psionics, they may not even need the basement :) ).

If this sort of magic is relatively common (as it is in many rpg settings), then even if 90% of mages don't care about politics, the number who do is probably high enough to have a noticeable impact on the political system, at least at a local level. It's not just that you rarely seem to see mage-kings- it's also that you rarely seem to see mage-mayors.

There is another reason, too.

Four words: POWER BEHIND THE THRONE.

If you're a wizard in that position, you've got power, prestige, a respected position, and a king who believes you know it all (and you just may, or at least believe you do). Also, you've got a patsy in case a bad call comes back to haunt you (It was HIS idea, my loyal countrymen! The king betrayed you!).

Not that it's without risks. If you're one of several advisors, and not the likeable type, you likely intimidate the rest because of your power and (seeming?) all-knowingness, which means they're going to be scheming against you. Also, the king has a patsy as well: you. Watch your step. Technically, he still rules the realm. You're just the advisor.

But your time will come, yes...

[Noliar]

A successful general or politician or bureaucrat or captain of industry alters the world towards his desires by getting large numbers of of other people to act towards his goals. A wizard casts a spell. Being in his own person a power in the world, collective power is alien to a wizard and the levers of collective power are not apt to his hand.

[Argonnosi]

A successful general or politician or bureaucrat or captain of industry alters the world towards his desires by getting large numbers of of other people to act towards his goals. A wizard casts a spell. Being in his own person a power in the world, collective power is alien to a wizard and the levers of collective power are not apt to his hand.

Who says? What's your basis for this argument? A wizard, being more in tune with the ephemeral nature of the forces of the universe, might be even more aware of the potential of collective power and could be very skilled in its use. The simple fact is that most of us base our images of what wizards are like on the stories we are told. Tales of Merlin, Gandalf, and Jafaar fill our heads, with the only one interested in being a ruler also being manipulative and evil (something many of us think of politicians in general), and as such we create wizards with those particular themes.
There's no rule saying they have to be that way. In fact, there's no rule even saying that they should be that way and there are a lot of good reasons, even in DnD, for why they wouldn't. Wizards have many good reasons for keeping a finger on the political pulse of the community they are a part of, not least of which is the fact that the last thing you need are a bunch of superstitious crums showing up at your door with pitchforks and torches because they decided that problem x was your fault. The more separated and alien you are from those around you, the more likely this is to happen, but if you are perceived as being a pillar of the community you are far more likely to avoid being targeted by such reactions and supported in your goals.
The truth of the matter is that anyone with a voice to speak, financial backing of any kind, and an axe to grind can turn themselves into a political force, and wizards have magic to boot. Mind, a lot of the voice and backing stops being important after the fall of Rome, so in any feudal setting wizards actually become even more potentially powerful. After all, who better to grant protection than someone that holds the keys to mysteries you cannot even imagine and, more importantly, can hurl fireballs.

[JQP]

Wow, lots of good arguments on all sides. I'll have to give this discussion some thought, but the first thing that springs to mind is that it all depends on the particulars, and that the take-home point is that asking the question (and coming up with an answer that works for you) is the important part.

[Drifter]

I've always assumed, in a baseline D&D setting that the reason wizards don't lord it over all is the check-and-balance of clerics.

[Argonnosi]

I've always assumed, in a baseline D&D setting that the reason wizards don't lord it over all is the check-and-balance of clerics.

This being possible you could then ask an even more important question. Why aren't Clerics in charge? Well, actually that would have a pretty simple answer. Their god says no... so evil gods win!:p

Seriously, though, power has rarely been accumulated through active assent of the majority. A cabal of the powerful, no matter what their skills, acquire power by taking it, not requesting it.

[fmitchell]

Another possibility is that wizards can only use their full power in adventure settings.

Some possible justifications:

As in White Wolf's Mage, the more people observing magic, the more "paradox" generated against the accepted laws of nature. Wizards can only display their power among other magical creatures or close friends, but not among crowds of ordinary people.

Much like GURPS's "mana levels" or Ars Magica's Realms, available magical energy may wane in some places. Perhaps magic only really works in the wilderness or abandoned ruins; in towns and cities it's much weaker.

A facetious idea I've played with is that "dungeons" contain high-tech "reality distortion" devices, generating magical effects and monsters from the subconscious of those who venture within. Wizards and clerics only have power because their studies allow them to shape this distorted reality. Not only does this explain why magic doesn't dominate the civilized world, it also explains how monsters can wait patiently in their 30'x30' rooms without starving or eating each other.

[brianm]

In the games I run, wizards command a lot of power and respect. Most don't necessarily run nations, organize a court system, command armies, or any of that. But why should they?

When a sorceress moves into town, everything changes. When a sorceress is hungry, she grabs whatever food she wants. When she wants to build a tower, she rounds up the strong-backed fellows and makes them build her tower. When she doesn't want anything from the common folk, she ignores them. Whatever the sorceress wants, she gets.

It's not all bad. After she's pretty much set up with her tower, her demands are probably pretty light. She'll grab a few of the handsome lads for "personal services", and people will settle into adjusting to her daily needs. They'll send fresh food up to her tower, so she doesn't have to come into town. Yearly gifts of vellum and beeswax candles are also offered to her, or whatever other supplies her researches require. The locals make themselves useful to her, and she comes to depend on them for the little creature comforts of life.

After that, the local sorceress can be a blessing. Since she likes getting fresh cream and berries delivered to her door every morning, she'll take a personal interest in resolving anything that interrupts that service. So things like marauding brigands or a ravaging chimera aren't quite the disasters they would have been before she moved into town. Her magic comes to the aid of the villagers after a natural disaster, to help them get back to the important work of cow-milking and berry-picking all the sooner. Droughts and floods become non-issues when your neighbor can command the elements. Yeah, it's true, you have to watch yourself around her because if she wants somebody dead, that person is as good as a corpse. But otherwise, it's not that bad, having a sorceress in town.

- Brian

[Argonnosi]

Brian, you just described the foundation of a feudal society. Did you know that? :D

[brianm]

Brian, you just described the foundation of a feudal society. Did you know that? :D

Of course! Power is power, and people react to it the same way, whether it comes with flashy special effects or is just a pointy stick. People create stability as best they can. Whatever doesn't kill them outright will be acclimated to.

- Brian

[Argonnosi]

Of course! Power is power, and people react to it the same way, whether it comes with flashy special effects or is just a pointy stick. People create stability as best they can. Whatever doesn't kill them outright will be acclimated to.

- Brian

Yes, but in your argument you first stated that wizards wouldn't run nations or lead armies, then you developed a process of power building which would inevitably lead to them running nations and leading armies.

[Parfait]

It seems to me that any system that posits magic and sorcerers must inevitably face this dilemma: Are the sorcerers ruling the world and, if not, why?

I think that any answer to this question will always end up being setting specific. How common are magicians? Are they organized or free-roaming? How potent and direct is magic?

If working magic involves living in a swamp near ample supply of eye of newt and the only things you can concoct are love potions, they would be rare and relatively impotent. On the other hand, if they wielded ultimate cosmic power and did whatever they wanted all the time... yeah, chances are that they would be telling people what to do.

If everyone was a wizard, obviously wizards would rule, but it wouldn't be a big deal because everyone is a wizard. If there was only one dude who was a wizard, it would probably depend on how powerful his magic is; if all he could do was hypnotize people now and again, he would probably sit on the sidelines and pull strings rather than step up and sit on the throne.

In the case of Star Wars, the Jedi easily wield the sort of power that would lead to ruling. In fact, the Jedi naturally fly around the galaxy and do whatever they want and in war time, they lead the armies. However, at the end of the day, every Jedi answers to the regulating body of the Jedi Council, who in turn answers to the senate. And then some dude went and changed all that, but my point is that powerful people can self-regulate without dominating.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think that there can be any one reason that wizards don't rule because wizards themselves come in all shapes and sizes. It seems to me that the onus is on the setting's author to decide whether or not the wizards should rule and balance it to enforce this decision.

------------

On another note, I think this might be my first post despite the fact that I have been lurking here for years.:D