LibriumArcana.Games

In the vast majority of fantasy novels and games, armed knights and other such militant noblity rules the various kingdoms of the various worlds, but is that how it should be?

In our world Knights and Samurai achieved power because when central authority failed and rule of law collasped, power fell to those who could keep their families and followers safe. That is the basis of the fuedal system at it's core. I'll follow you, you keep others from killing me, raping my daughter/sister/wife and stealing my crap. But who could do a better job of that in a fantasy world where men can call down lightning with a word?

Basically shouldn't the magic users in a high fantasy world be the kings and nobles as opposed to the men at arms? If not, why?

They are in some. In most of the others that make sense they are either distrusted or their are limitations on their powers or both.

I have to agree to a certain point. The strongest man rules, and indeed magic is powerful, but sometimes you have to factor in the amount of people willing to fight for/along side the man that rules.

kinda like the mob....sure the top guy is kinda fat, slow, and cant shoot all that well.....but you gotta fear the shear number of people he can call on a whim (that arent fat, slow, and aimless) that will do what ever he says no questions asked.

back to the point, your right, with the power that mages wield with barley a lift of a finger should make them the rulers. But......I recall usually seeing high society and rules to BE mages. Or at the least the only real power behind a Man of arms ruler.

Can we make a comparison with the real world? In primitive tribes they are also people that believed to be magic user (like the tribe shaman) or such. The fact that magic doesn't exists (in real world) doesn't matter, because the tribesfolks believe and (sometimes) fear the power of the shaman. Yet the shaman is still shaman nonetheless, while the tribe leader is someone else.

I think the balence of power might change a little if the Shamen could kill the chief with a word in real life.

But in most tribes the Shamen is sorta of a judge and a priest combined (not all that unusual in older soceities) so he is keeper of law. Also is the fact that he's in charge of keeping the dead and the spirits (not the same thing) happy and appeased.

It would depend on the role and power level of the wizards in any given world. If it is like Earthsea, the wizards are obscenely powerful, but, IIRC, dont use it that much. They are trouble shooters, they defend the Island if it is attacked, but other than that, they are independant of local authority and use their powers to help till fields, and during the harvest. They are trained specifically for this purpose.

If the fantasy world is like the FR... it doesnt fucking matter that you have an orc horde thousands strong. Iolaum is still going to lay it to waste. And in fact, in the FR, the power may not be directly in the hands of the mages/priests, but they are often the puppet masters. I mean, if the king of <insert realm here> doesnt like what the local archmage is doing, what is he honestly going to do? Assault the wizard's tower? Even a mage of low-moderate power (9th level) is going to be able to decimate any army your average feudal lord is able to send against him with the proper placement of spells.

In worlds like this, Feudal liege-lords exist almost entirely upon the beneficience of the local wizardry. They are lucky the mages do not have, at large the desire to rule, and they they do, there are other mages who oppose them on moral grounds

In a low magic world like the one in the Dragonlance books, force of arms is far more important. Because there are only a handful of truley powerful wizards who can actually lay an army to waste and not be overwhelmed (most mages never reach 7th level ish)

You also have to take into account that in some of the fantasy worlds the warrior class were magic users as well. Or at least used clerical type spells. Paladins in specific. Healing the sick and injured, removing curses, driving away plagues, etc.

Magic would be useful for rule if you had a conclave or other ruling body willing to rule and act together. Mages seem rarely able to do this for a long time, they all want to be top dog. And one mage by themself is rarely able to adaquetly rule due to lack of power. Sure, I can cast fireball and wipe out a hundred troops at a time. But, how many times in a row can I do that before I'm so exhausted I can't stand up? In very few cases do you have an individual capable of such.

It also depends on the type of magic in the setting. A grim, dark setting where magic corrupts and leads to dark temptations, you wouldn't want wizards in positions of power, and those that achieved power regardless would likely have their realms devolve into demon-spewing chaos.

In "classic" fantasy, yeah, we should see more mages in power, rather than dutifully serving a lord.

I don't see why mages would fight for supremacy more than anyone else in such a way so as to prevent organized rule. However, mages clearly can create all manner of nasty situations to increase their personal power. An oracle style mage could easily attempt to twist events to favor them, similar to Eldar Farseers.

Hotfoot wrote:It also depends on the type of magic in the setting. A grim, dark setting where magic corrupts and leads to dark temptations, you wouldn't want wizards in positions of power, and those that achieved power regardless would likely have their realms devolve into demon-spewing chaos.

In "classic" fantasy, yeah, we should see more mages in power, rather than dutifully serving a lord.

I don't see why mages would fight for supremacy more than anyone else in such a way so as to prevent organized rule. However, mages clearly can create all manner of nasty situations to increase their personal power. An oracle style mage could easily attempt to twist events to favor them, similar to Eldar Farseers.

I belive that did happen in a few worlds. Death gate had that so did the sword of truth series.