Creating a govement based on D&D reality

[Evilhalfling]

What are the ramifications of the rules and assumptions of charater advancement and wealth on government?
What have you read or created that reflects the following assumptions?

1. Power comes not from inherited wealth or military might, but from enormous personal wealth and strong personal bonds

2. In order to gain wealth you have to spend most of it upgrading your equipment.

3. personal bonds are nearly unbreakable, except by death. Replacement friends can be found quickly.

4. people can rise to great power in a single year.

5. Rulers need time to adventure.

5b. rulers need loyal and competant stewards.

Perhaps a series of Baronial grants? Galantri had a system where younger rulers were given small outlying baronies then slowly promoted each time moving closer to the capital. Baronies could band together to form larger dominions.

You would also need a system for declaring groups acting outside the system "Villians" who would become fair game for other groups to hunt and kill. Along with strong disincetives and penalties for attacking those in power (as well as under condtions for the suspecions of these rules)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

First off, there are actually two likely ways to gain wealth in a D&D setting, although only one is explored in most of the material. The first is to be an adveturer. The second is to be the child of a successful adventurer.

If your parents take you on monster hunts at 13, you could conceivably be 3rd level or higher upon reaching adulthood. There are so few ways to permanently kill the child of a wealthy adventurer, much less a pair of wealthy adventurers, and such parents are themselves so used to danger and excitement, that the typical young adventurer going off, gaining levels and perhaps even getting himself killed and raised a few times before reaching age 18 is hardly out of the question. Of course, parents want the best for their children, so in addition to encouraging them to gain levels they'll share enough of the wealth to overwhelm low-level monsters. Giant rat infestation? Give little Timmy the bracers of armor +5, the amulet of natural armor +5 and the wand of magic missile he's been learning to use since balanced on Mum's knee. If he succeeds, he'll grow stronger; if he fails, well, that's why Dad's old chum the cleric of St. Cuthbert built his cathedral-fortress next door to the manor.

Since the children of exceptional people (like PCs, who have PC classes and usually higher point buys or equivalents) are likely to have at least a slight disposition toward being exceptional themselves, and the generational wealth involved defers the per user cost of magic items considerably, a few generations of this 'breeding for adventure' can easily establish an adventurer-aristocracy in which the average heir to a barony reaches adulthood as a 4th level PC class character kitted out with 15th level gold, and his younger siblings range from 1st to 3rd level in PC classes with 4th to 10th level gold. With such a head start, not to mention a network of immensely powerful contacts (10th+ level relatives), these characters don't need to give others a strong disincentive not to attack them - actually, they should welcome rebels as a good source of XP.

 

[taliesin15]

Really, there's a couple of questions at hand here. I find it kind of odd that the assumption is that PCs will ultimately become the rulers, and retire comfortably. Perhaps it all points to a great deal of unrealistic parameters inherent even in a fantasy role playing game. Almost like nobody's read the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. Then again, one can easily imagine the whining from players if their mid level characters ever got their house with all their booty and both their girlfriends torched, ended up working as mercenaries and drinking themselves to oblivion every night at a seedy bar, only to one night have some spellcaster put a Geas on them, which has them halfway across the world, etc. The notion that their characters could ever end up poor, hungry and scrounging for pennies (but still 6th level) is anathema to most players. Probably says something about class and society in the west, but no politics...

The main thrust of the first post seemed to be at governments, and again I find myself scratching my head. IMC, as I think most, you have a mixture of monarchies, tyrannies, theocracies, plutocracies, family (clans) or class(social)-based rule, and maybe the occasional republic. Gygax's essay on this in the first DMG has yet to be surpassed vis a vis RPGs, AFAIK. Try there first.

 

[painandgreed]

First off, there are actually two likely ways to gain wealth in a D&D setting, although only one is explored in most of the material. The first is to be an adveturer. The second is to be the child of a successful adventurer.

I would disagree with that in that I think that taxes and trade would still make much more money than adventuring. The yearly income for a decently sized kingdom should be in the millions of gold peice value. Even if 95% goes to upkeep, it would still leave the king with at least several hundred thousand a year to spend. If adventurers made that much money, the D&D realism solution would be for governments to tax adventurers. After all, that treasure was taken from the king's people, and stored unlawfully on the king's lands, and the adventurers are only being allowed to keep a finders fee for going and returning it to the proper authorities.

As far as gaining personal power, I think that in a D&D culture, the rich would train their children in PC classes and possibly gather then together into parties. They'd also have higher level people adventure with them to power level them up in level. Young lords and the like would be taken on patrols or missions given to higher level servants of the government inorder to gain experience. People who are not in power, would be prohibited, prevented, or at least taxed from adventuring to make sure they did not come into power. Adventuring would be a rich person's occupation, or at least an occupation for their children.

 

[taliesin15]

If adventurers made that much money, the D&D realism solution would be for governments to tax adventurers.

IMC, adventurers often have to pay taxes. If anyone has a problem with the notion of town authorities noticing that this group of well armed toughs showing up to sell load after load of goblin/orc/hobgoblin arms and armor, I'd like to hear about it. Seems abundantly clear to me that the powers that be would start to notice rich well armed rakes walking around town like they owned the place pretty fast. Not to mention the local Thieve's Guild. And well organized highwaymen just outside of town. Who would have no problem paying the innkeeper for information about who they are and where they stay.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I would disagree with that in that I think that taxes and trade would still make much more money than adventuring. The yearly income for a decently sized kingdom should be in the millions of gold peice value. Even if 95% goes to upkeep, it would still leave the king with at least several hundred thousand a year to spend. If adventurers made that much money, the D&D realism solution would be for governments to tax adventurers. After all, that treasure was taken from the king's people, and stored unlawfully on the king's lands, and the adventurers are only being allowed to keep a finders fee for going and returning it to the proper authorities.

But unless the king and his elites are adventurers themselves, eventually a group of adventurers who will apply the same economic solution to the government they do to everything else: kill it and take its stuff.

At which point they become kings by their own hands, possibly continuing to adventure AS WELL AS collecting taxes - which they can use to get better stuff, which allows them to kill more powerful things, which allows them to further enrich themselves and the kingdom.

Unless, of course, the king and his elites have been doing that for generations and thus are seriously badass in their own right.

Even then, the tax collector who goes about taxing adventurers is in for either a storied career or a very short one. LN and, in countries with good rulers, LG and NG PCs may turn their cut over willingly, and LE PCs may just try to cheat to pay less - but CN, CG, TN, NE and CE PCs, and LG and NG PCs in a country with an evil ruler are not going to cough up the cash without a fight.

As far as gaining personal power, I think that in a D&D culture, the rich would train their children in PC classes and possibly gather then together into parties. They'd also have higher level people adventure with them to power level them up in level. Young lords and the like would be taken on patrols or missions given to higher level servants of the government inorder to gain experience. People who are not in power, would be prohibited, prevented, or at least taxed from adventuring to make sure they did not come into power. Adventuring would be a rich person's occupation, or at least an occupation for their children.

Now, this, I agree with.

Really, there's a couple of questions at hand here. I find it kind of odd that the assumption is that PCs will ultimately become the rulers, and retire comfortably. Perhaps it all points to a great deal of unrealistic parameters inherent even in a fantasy role playing game. Almost like nobody's read the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories. Then again, one can easily imagine the whining from players if their mid level characters ever got their house with all their booty and both their girlfriends torched, ended up working as mercenaries and drinking themselves to oblivion every night at a seedy bar, only to one night have some spellcaster put a Geas on them, which has them halfway across the world, etc. The notion that their characters could ever end up poor, hungry and scrounging for pennies (but still 6th level) is anathema to most players. Probably says something about class and society in the west, but no politics...

The main thrust of the first post seemed to be at governments, and again I find myself scratching my head. IMC, as I think most, you have a mixture of monarchies, tyrannies, theocracies, plutocracies, family (clans) or class(social)-based rule, and maybe the occasional republic. Gygax's essay on this in the first DMG has yet to be surpassed vis a vis RPGs, AFAIK. Try there first.

Perhaps the players read Conan instead of, or in addition to, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? You know, the one-time penniless barbarian mercenary and thief who became king by his own hand? Conan’s hardly the only famous adventurer to retire wealthy, either.

For that matter, Gygax's essay notwithstanding, he also included Name Level with lands and followers as class features. Maybe not PCs as rulers, but PCs as power players of some sort. Including druids and monks *having* to become the heads of their orders - in the druid's case, eventually head of all druids on the entire planet - if they wanted to continue advancing.

Governments IMC are almost always monarchies, with perhaps one or two sinister empires, theocracies or republics menacing them. But the monarchs do keep themselves in fighting trim, their nobles especially tend to be warrior- (or wizard-) aristocrats, and the PCs, if not nobles themselves, definitely have lots of chances to win lands and titles as well as wealth and glory.

 

[Tonguez]

But unless the king and his elites are adventurers themselves, eventually a group of adventurers who will apply the same economic solution to the government they do to everything else: kill it and take its stuff.

At which point they become kings by their own hands

Of course if PCs go around overthrowing legitimate rulers their alignments are going to shift towards evil which then makes them legitimate targets for good adventurers to come and overthrow them

They also become targets for the many elite monsters out there who are also upset by the change in the status quo until eventually the world is destroyed and the creator reassembles a new set of campaign parameters and begins agan

 

[Umbran]

5. Rulers need time to adventure.

I don't accept this assumption. People who are organized on greater than the tribal level don't now, and generally never have, taken the person with actual personal might and prowess as a ruler - they take a person who those with might and prowess will follow as a ruler.

I mean, take even Arthur Pendragon, iconic warrior king - he very explicitly was not the greatest of knights. That honor went to Lancelot (before his fall from grace). Arthur was king because he got people to follow him, not because he could control by personal force.

And that's the general pattern through human history - rulership flows from agreement, not from personal might. There is no particular reason to think it ought to be different in a D&D world - if you have high-power followers, you don't need power yourself.

So, In a D&D world, take any normal form of government you care to, and tack on the fact that said governments are going to be trying to forge alliances with powerful individuals.

 

[Ibram]

And that's the general pattern through human history - rulership flows from agreement, not from personal might. There is no particular reason to think it ought to be different in a D&D world - if you have high-power followers, you don't need power yourself.

However, you must consider that no ruler in the course of human history could single handedly slaughter hundreds (if not thousands) of people before stoping for a late lunch.

When the king, a 5th lvl aristocrat, has a 15th level fighter as his advisor how long would it be before the 15th level fighter was realy incharge. The king and everyone else in the castle would be well aware that if the fighter chose to he and his buds could kill everyone.

I'd imagine that a government based off the D&D rules would be along the lines of a military dictatorship, with a coup ever few generations as a group of adventurers manages to get ahead of the current leadership.

 

[A'koss]

But unless the king and his elites are adventurers themselves, eventually a group of adventurers who will apply the same economic solution to the government they do to everything else: kill it and take its stuff.

However, you must consider that no ruler in the course of human history could single handedly slaughter hundreds (if not thousands) of people before stoping for a late lunch.

Indeed.

One thing people have to keep in mind in a D&D world is that personal advancement is so far beyond what you can achieve in the real world the impact would be far reaching in ways we can only imagine. A high level character is like a demigod to the common folk. They are the best at everything. They are the strongest, most intelligent, skilled, wisest, charismatic people on the planet by a staggering margin.

All real power in the world stem from such individuals - not just because they are the best at it, but because they are the only ones who can hold it. I think clerics would dominate much the ruling class - they are the wisest, organized into powerful churches and are literally the strong right arms of the gods themselves.