M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok, let's try this one last time, because the pedantry is getting too annoying.

You're grossly misusing words. It is no wonder your point doesn't get across. (And you have one here with which I partly agree.) It might be wise to aim to express yourself with a tad more precision. We don't need academic precision here, but your posts were genuinely confusing.

Any form of government that is not fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law is, IMO, evil. Someone upthread pointed to Athens as democratic. If that's your definition of democracy, well, there's a reason that we're not understanding each other. That's democratic in the sense that some people get a vote, but, not if you're disqualified for the heinous crimes of being a woman, poor, or various other reasons.

Yet that was progressive compared to autocracies that were norm at the time. It's not a binary, there are degrees in this. Just like in a modern world a non-corrupt multi-party democracy with proper proportional representation is better that a heavily lobbied two-party system with voter suppression and all sort of archaic structures that actually mean the vote is not proportionally representative.

To be honest, I'm finding this absolutely baffling. That anyone would actually defend any state that isn't fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law boggles my mind. It's actually rather frightening to be honest. That people would look at something like Waterdeep and think, "Yeah, that's not too bad. I wouldn't mind living in that system"

I would mind living in such a system. But I would also mind going into caves armed only with a sharp piece of metal fighting monsters ten times my size.

But, yeah, I'm done here. This was a minor point that was meant to reference how wargames elide (see, I can learn, I didn't use lampshade) the horror of what's being made into a game. I didn't quite realize that people actually believe that undemocratic systems of government without universal enfranchisement and basic human rights was a good thing. Who knew?

Like I said earlier, I agree with the part of your point. And I think the issue arises from the alignment system or other such simplistic moral frameworks. Just present the things as they are, and let the players decide how they and their characters feel about it. I don't mind morally dubious things existing in the game world, but I mind the game telling me that those things are actually good!

 

[Hussar]

You're grossly misusing words. It is no wonder your point doesn't get across.

Considering the point before yours uses virtually the exact same language I have been using - "autocracies" - I'm finding your lack of understanding somewhat dubious. Unless you want to have a go at @Staffan as well.

Unless you think that despotic dictatorship is particularly different in form from an autocracy, I suppose. Given that despotism is literally a form of autocracy, I'm really not feeling the particular misuse. Additionally, since others have had no problems understanding my point, I'm kinda left at a loss as to how to explain more clearly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Considering the point before yours uses virtually the exact same language I have been using - "autocracies" - I'm finding your lack of understanding somewhat dubious. Unless you want to have a go at @Staffan as well.

Unless you think that despotic dictatorship is particularly different in form from an autocracy, I suppose. Given that despotism is literally a form of autocracy, I'm really not feeling the particular misuse. Additionally, since others have had no problems understanding my point, I'm kinda left at a loss as to how to explain more clearly.

Yes, 'despotic dictatorship' is a type of autocracy. It of course has other connotations too. But you also lumped various forms of oligarchies in that. And then there was your constant misuse of 'lampshading.' And I think I get your point now, but there were several pages of people not getting what you were saying, and I don't think the issue there was solely on the side of the reader.

In any case, it was just friendly advice, do what you will.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Any form of government that is not fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law is, IMO, evil.

I find this conversation unnecessarily binary. They are either pure 'good' or 'evil'.

1. As others have pointed out this is a game of magic and dragons. It does not have to be historically accurate. We could be playing King Arthur and the Round Table or some gritty roman noir.

2. Even so, I don't think 'good' governments started with New Zealand in 1893 when they allowed women to vote. It was certainly an improvement, a good thing and an important milestone in the journey. It didn't lead immediately to equal rights or representation. It didn't do it for South Australia in 1894 or Western Australia in 1899. It didn't dramatically improve the lives of indigenous people in those places.

In these cases, there was not a binary line where on one side is evil and on the other is good. It is a continuum that is moved along. Sometimes getting closer to one ideal or another.

Also, there are innumerable factors about which come into consideration. Many of which are more about their actions rather than their processes (ie treatment of minorities, workers rights, women's rights, indigenous rights, etc). It is a many factored score card.

As DMs or players we can view focus on a different aspect depending on the context. This week the rulers are protecting the lives of their people from slaughter with good grace, and next week suppressing a worker's strike and demanding taxes.

3. Before you were talking about making evil governments visible to players. Even an authoritarian government doesn't need to appear as obviously evil, if it is stable and rules well enough. Outwardly everything looks similar to those countries that are fully enfranchised, democratic and having the rule of law with no more extra police visible. While, out of site, a small section of society is being stood over, tortured or killed on some 'publicly' acceptable pretext. Of course the players will find out eventually.

 

[Willie the Duck]

To be honest, I'm finding this absolutely baffling. That anyone would actually defend any state that isn't fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law boggles my mind.

People aren't. They are suggesting treating all non-modern-democracies (in their elfgames) as all-equally-evil villain states where their villainy must be addressed or loudly acknowledged is not a gaming priority they consider of utmost importance.

It's actually rather frightening to be honest.

That you are trying to extrapolate people's positions on how much they want to come down on fictional societies created for purposes of gaming to some kind of real world judgement on them (like this sentence seems to do)? Yeah, that is frightening.

That people would look at something like Waterdeep and think, "Yeah, that's not too bad. I wouldn't mind living in that system"

Point to the person in-thread who has done so.

 

[the Jester]

Sorry. I thought we were talking about DnD.

And it’s dodging nothing. If 99% of the settings for DnD are despotic tyrannies, it’s not really unfair to call that out.

(Citation needed)

 

[the Jester]

It doesn't really matter what the exact form of government here is. They're all autocratic dictatorships. At best you could call them anti-democratic. The populace has no rights, and any laws are made from decree. IOW, a setting that makes places like North Korea look like a bastion of civil rights.

That's not accurate to how most governments in D&D worlds work, or how most governments worked historically. Populations almost always have rights of some kind; laws are often made by legislative bodies, or councils, or with the input of nobles, and sometimes even from straight up democracy. You're making this assertion that all D&D governments are functionally the same, but that's simply not true.

 

[Alzrius]

But, I just find it really funny when people will absolutely flip out over something like The Wall of the Faithless or The Cataclysm in Krynn

I find it funny when they flip out over those, too.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

(Citation needed)

I think Hussar meant that 99% of D&D tables are despotic tyrannies.

To which I say ... (1) Duh, and (2) Get me some pizza.

 

[the Jester]

(Citation needed)

I will say that this discussion has gotten me curious. Has anyone ever made a list of the various D&D states and their government types in order to look at how many are e.g. autocracies vs. have some kind of democratic or representative system?