In a world with magic, shouldn't Royal families have the strongest magic?
no. wrong.
Why?
>>96577773>>96577808Because violence is the supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. If someone else is stronger they'd be in charge.
>>96577821Doesn’t answer my question. Even then, most of the most powerful mages in fiction aren’t monarchs or emperors. Usually they’re dealing with far more important shit to do than rule a bunch of lessers.
>>96577748It depends.
>>96577748It's been done.
>>96577748You would think so, and I imagine they would want to cultivate such an image and suppress any proof otherwise. But the tale of an upstart nobody from nowhere beating some pampered uppity royal convinced of their birth superiority is eternal.
>>96577911I hate it when someone does that and then flips around and says that the nobody was actually a secret prince or some shit
>>96577748Yes it's realistic
>>96577748Yes, they would have the strongest magic but it'd be used for a show of force and theatrics and almost never used in any practical sense. They'd just know it because it's considered the best magic even if there's no real practical use for it in daily life
>>96577748Yes. The royal/wealthy families would hire/fund powerful mages, even if their bloodlines aren't particularly known for potent magic. Depending on how magic in the setting works it might make more sense for the royals themselves to not dabble in the arcane arts, but still fund those who do and keep them in their courts much like knights. Mageknights, if you will.
>>96577748Isn't that the plot of Metaphor: ReFantazio?
>>96577821While violence is the supreme authority, you have a sub-caveman understanding of how that actually works.When it comes to establishing rulership, it's not about individual acts of violence, it's about the ability to do mass violence. It's also about, nominally, the ability to PREVENT mass violence.The best way to make sure that you have a monopoly of violence is to have the loyalty of as many violence doers are possible. There are many ways to do this, but they're generally going to involve skills that aren't "being the best at killing" and will tend to be things like "being the one who's best at leading people" or "being the best at organizing people."And then it just comes a question of math.If it takes 5 of us to take down the local wizard, and we have 20 men, that means that we can probably kick that wizard's ass pretty fast.Now this isn't to say that royalty won't have magic in them, probably. If magic is a heritable trait (IF), then some of those leaders of men are probably at some points going to start thinking "hey maybe we should start getting some of our relatives hitched to wizards." But again, this assumes that magic is heritable.
>>96577748Depends on how the magic works. If it has a hereditary or monetary component, then probably. If the best magic is instead granted by gods or nature spirits that demand strict vows or a lifestyle that conflicts with a royal lifestyle, then you wouldn't have that result. If you're running a game, you can do it however you want to justify whoever or whatever has the best magic.
>>96577748They may not have the strongest magic, but they would definitely employ the best mages they could hire. They'd recruit at the most prestigious magic universities or children born to powerful court mages. Its possible that the true strongest is somewhere they wouldn't even bother looking, but they'd still be stacked enough.Google may have a lot of skilled programmers, but the true best could be some autist NEET living in their parents basement.
Yes and no. In the sense that the ruler should be the strongest, weaker little inbreeding faggots like to play political games to harness more metaphorical power.
>>96577748Not always. Though the idea of them having the "strongest magic" being spread to make everyone fear them is a classic "Trope." Making them fear strong casters not from their lane or under their control.
>>96577748Not really, real life royals were seldom the best warriors in their lands, now this does depend on the limits of magic in your setting and how long it takes to learn, like if the strongest mages are effectively gods and the mage with correct bloodline can get there in less than 2 decades then sure those guys would be kings, but you'd most likely have a series of revolving door monarchs every time each young godmage got it into his head that he should be king.
>>96580364Yeah, it would be more of the idea of Royal families are the heirs of the best Mages and Casters. So they kind of push their offspring will have the best chance of becoming a Wizard King and all. Plus the idea of if a royal should promise of being a god-tier caster. Between being able to get tutors and the best items to help train the child so by the time the kid in their late teens early 20s they can be shown off to prove their family "strong blood" for magic and keep their social power and all
>>96580364If we take D&D as an example - sorcerer lineages are a very possible thing. They get both Charisma and heritable magic, add some public speaking and schmoozing training on the side and you get a decent noble. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to squeeze "fuck a dragon" on their schedule for that extra magic bonus and stronger children.
>>96577748It depends on how the magic works.Ask a better question, next time.
>>96577748Because magic is risky?
>>96577748Avoid the middle ground and have the royal families be completely deaf to magic but served by magical servants or fully attuned to magic and always using magic to show off how attuned to the winds of magic they are.
