Creating a govement based on D&D reality

[Woas]

What about power of the purse? I don't want to start any debates that would be against the CoC. But I'd just like to point out that a lot of politicians, both today and in our worlds history came to power cause they knew who to give money to, or where to invest, or how to make ducats/guilders/piece of eight/dollars, whatevers work for them.

 

[drothgery]

Another related issue is to what degree battles to the death occur. Lots of D&D battles are over because neither side flees.

In D&D, it's quite often the case that one side can't flee unless the side that's not fleeing chooses to let them. Heck, in the typical case of similarly-armored low-level warriors fighting each other, neither side can flee unless the other side chooses to let them.

My own, oft-stated opinion is that rulers in D&D will almost always be relatively high-level. For one, ruling isn't easy -- it'll take a few years before successfully managing a kingdom even in peacetime is sufficiently simple that the king gets no XP for it (unless the Grand Vizier is actually running the country). And for two, low-level characters are extremely vulnerable to a lot of things that would be devastating if inflicted on a ruler (dominate and other mid-level mind-control spells come to mind).

 

[painandgreed]

In D&D, it's quite often the case that one side can't flee unless the side that's not fleeing chooses to let them. Heck, in the typical case of similarly-armored low-level warriors fighting each other, neither side can flee unless the other side chooses to let them.

I would disagree, especially in large melees. If you're a fighter in the third rank back of a unit. Your first rank has fallen and the second is getting worn down and you think the outcome is fortold. You can run instead of step up. Enemy forces cannot chase you or they will suffer AoO from your second rank. Even if they do, they cannot catch you if similarly armored. Even the second rank can probably withdaw and not get attacked as long as the movement between the chaser and the chased is the same. From there it becomes a matter of con to see who can run farther unless they can reach the treeline and use hide.

Once everybody is running and not attacking, the mounted units come into play as they can run up to the enemy, then take a standard move action and an attack. The person on foot can then either take an AoO and run or withdraw at twice speed with no AoE usually setting themselves up for another attack by mounted attacker. This is how cav runs down routed troops.

Back to governments, one should not discount the emotional motivators besides game mechanics. Rallying under "the son of good King Robert" will have greater effect than rallying under some unknown with twice the levels. Lawful societies are going to want orderly means of inheritance and a kingdom will prosper greater by having an easy transition to a low level king that a rough one, with possible civil war, to a high level adventurer.

I also think that the act of ruling will probably be the adventure. The king won't have to take time off to adventure as his duties will probably require him to do so. Leading his men into combat. Chasing down monsters that threaten the kingdom. Fighting in wars and riding the kingdom of bandits. Sure, he could always allow others to do this, but it would be fully within a kings duty to ride out and do this themselves and gain XP and support from the kingdom for doing so.

Then you also have to consider that the game has gods and clerics. Most coronations probably include some amount of divination to justify the kings rule, possibly passing a king over if the divination is bad. There is also the possiblity of actual divine right. The king and his family may claim right of rulership due to celestial bloodline or because they are actually blessed by the gods. If a god sends messages to all their clerics telling them who should be king, its pretty sure who they will support to be king.

 

[taliesin15]

Actual divine right...I was wondering if someone was gonna bring that up...

I think economics play a major part (perhaps needless to say), not to mention natural resources. Reflecting on earlier posts about rich adventurers coming to town wielding their wealth, I can't help but think of a story of a caravan setting out from Timbuktu across the Sahara, hundreds of camels loaded down with gold, finally reaching Egypt, and the influx of this man's gold apparently totally destabilized the economy in that region for a decade.

On the other hand, there have been some famous revolts over taxation, notably the Wat Tyler Rebellion.

I doubt either scenario gets much play in RPGs...perhaps not heroic enough...

 

[WayneLigon]

What are the ramifications of the rules and assumptions of charater advancement and wealth on government?

None whatsoever. Those are 'game' constructs to make things simpler for the GM and players, and to equalize things so that people don't waste game time with arguements like 'I'm bringing in a new character at 10th level; what do you mean he doesn't have any magical armor?'. This idea of 'D&D reality' is really getting out of hand. Y'all are really over-thinking things, here.

 

[Chimera]

On the other hand, there have been some famous revolts over taxation, notably the Wat Tyler Rebellion.

From this, which was posted by someone extremely helpful in another thread;

"For example, Chilperic, a Frankish king who ruled from Soissons, had a treasure-house full of gold that his father had collected more than twenty years before. When he tried to collect taxes in 579 AD, there was widespread trouble, and the citizens of Limoges burned the tax-collector's books. Chilperic ordered all his tax-books to be burned, and promised that he would never again try to collect any taxes!"

An Adventurer who was known to have plundered a Dragon's horde, or found the ancient treasure house of Mu, might find himself in the same position.

Or he can make wealthy lands even more wealthy by relieving them of tax burdens for years at a time; earning himself a generous reputation; while at the same time using his large pile of wealth to build, expand and employ.

 

[A'koss]

I think the odds of any kind of "peasant uprising" in D&D world to be slim at best. HL individuals can slay hundreds, even thousands of commoners with impunity - and they know it. Fear would keep most in line, especially if a few "examples" were made of them every now and again.

 

[Aaron L]

Well, I' say that if its the type of ideal feudal idea of government, where the powerful set themselves up as protectors of the commoners, who then support the rulers financially so that the rulers can devote themselves full time to defending the masses, then high level characters would e the most effective in this position. The archetypal warrior-king.


If its a more modern idea of ruler as adinistrator, someone who can coordinate everything and make things run smoothly, then its more about Charisma and ranks in Profession:Governing.

The Aristocrat class fills both of these role pretty well, I think. The right set of class skills, good skill points, and decent combat ability to fight when necessary.


I think the ideal governing body in a D&D society would be the classic aventuring party, a group capable of defending the commoners when needed, with the combined expertise in various areas to cover all bases. An Aristocrat or charismatic Fighter as the "face" of the group, to deliver proclamations and hold court, a Wizard as the advisor/administrator of the operation, a Cleric to serve as the divine intermediary (needed in a world where the gods are directly involved in mortal affairs) and a Rogue as an intelligence cooridnator, and a Bard as diplomat.

It would probably become dynastic, as the group would groom its descendants in thier roles, or select thier successors, and, as has been stated, equip them and get them levels so that they will have enough personal power to take the reigns of gaurdianship when it is thier time to assume authority.


So basically, I think the classical feudalistic D&D model already in place is the most logical outcome of D&D reality in regards to government. The King with his Court Wizard and High Priest advisors and the head of the Thieves Guild as advisors, all running the show, and the Royal Heral maintaining alliances, all of them passing thier titles down through thier families. Thier woul be knights and such there to fight the mundane threats, but when the rampaging dragon comes terrorizing the countryside, the King and the Royal Court come out of the castle to do battle with the beast and fulfull thier obligation.

 

[Evilhalfling]

peasent upriseings = no problem
coups from scry-buff-teleport raiders - a problem.
some incredible powerful mage deciding that not paying taxes is woth 1000 xp who gates in a balor = dead king, ruined kingdom.

As for the divine right of kings, I like the king template from Magical Medievil society,
it gives king immunity to divinations and some protecions against enchantments.
and varies by the size of the kingdom.

I am working on a nobles heirs campaign idea -from this thread
2nd level start, 5k in equipment, the first level as a gesalt aristocrat.
The children are supposed to be self sufficent after this start but can request 200gp x lvl worth of emergency funds. The parents will have also hired out a few others to round out a party (like a peasent cleric). But this is the sort of idea I would talk over with the players first - just present the idea, and work out the details with them. A variation would be nobles must take 1st level as aristocrat, while commoners start with the normal 900gp funds.

 

[A'koss]

Oligarchies and meritocracies of HLers would provide the most stable governing body. No single ruler to target, significant resources that can be brought to bear in times of need... hell, it's like having your own mini-pantheon running the country.