D&D Political Systems

[Snoweel]

Hi.

I've been thinking for a long time about the political systems that would arise in a world that featured the massive difference in individual power levels inherent to D&D.

I've always thought that all forms of social power - political, social, economic - would be dictated by the personal might of an individual, ie. class levels/hit dice. I just don't think it could be any other way. Democracy, especially (generally not a feature of D&D nations anyway) would surely never even be entertained. The idea that all men and women are equal just doesn't fit when a 17th level sorcerer can decimate an entire army single-handedly.

I think heredity of political power would likewise only be as sure as the scion's ability to personally ensure his/her position, as well as protect his/her people.

Remember that rulership was originaly directly related to the ability of the ruling individual or group to protect the common people.

So I can't see a 4th level aristocrat ruling a kingdom where 15th level fighters lead the army - and there are no historical parallels here, historically there's never been a 15th level fighter. This is an individual who is truly capable of getting away with breaking the law. Hell, he's capable of being the law.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Umbran]

Am I missing something here?

Yep. The fact that one man, even a high-level wizard, simply cannot control the minds and bodies of an entire nation by force. Even if he's the mightiest man around, he simply cannot be everywhere at once personally.

Ergo, whoever leads has to lead by virtue of getting other people to do his bidding for him. One way of doing that is through personal might, but that is not the only, or even the most reliable, way to motivate people to do your bidding.

Remember that people's behavior does not always follow what seems "logical". Religion, philosophy, and tradition are powerful forces in the human (and presumably non-human) psyche. Powerful enough to beat skill with a sword or arcane incantations.

 

[Snoweel]

Yep. The fact that one man, even a high-level wizard, simply cannot control the minds and bodies of an entire nation by force. Even if he's the mightiest man around, he simply cannot be everywhere at once personally.

I agree though I'm not even talking about forcing the people to do his bidding.

Ergo, whoever leads has to lead by virtue of getting other people to do his bidding for him. One way of doing that is through personal might, but that is not the only, or even the most reliable, way to motivate people to do your bidding.

Ah but I think it is. The level of personal might available to a high level D&D character far surpasses anything that ever existed in the real world - a character with class levels in the high teens has the ability and equipment to do just about anything he/she wants. People will naturally defer to such an individual - they need him/her on their side. More so, they will desperately strive not to cross such a character. There is simply no 'great leveller' in place like we have in real life - even the president of the US has very real limitations on his power (look what happened to Nixon), as does the greatest fighter on the planet. I mean, you could pick 4 or 5 guys off this board who could beat Tim Sylvia to a pulp, if they worked together.

Remember that people's behavior does not always follow what seems "logical". Religion, philosophy, and tradition are powerful forces in the human (and presumably non-human) psyche. Powerful enough to beat skill with a sword or arcane incantations.

Do you not think religion, philosophy and tradition would look very different in a world where a high enough level character of any class would make light work of a Large chromatic dragon? These higher concepts arose due to lack of tangibles. I just don't think people are going to philosophise too much when the 'gods' walk amongst them, and your level of personal freedom and security is directly tied to your personal might.

 

[ChristianW]

It's not something that can easily be rationalized. D&D evolved from a wargame mentality where 6th level fighters were meant to fight 6HD monsters on the 6th level of a dungeon. When you try to figure out a powerful PC would influence the political landscape, well, you have to fudge a bit.

In my games I have decided that powerful PCs have been made part of the system, bought off by the powers that be in exchange for land, title, and wealth. Being part of the system encourages thte PCs to smash evil aligned NPCs who are power mad.

I hope this helps a bit, but I do agree with your basic premise that a motivated band of PCs could hack their way through most towns and cities, cutting down the citizenry like wheat.

 

[Snoweel]

In my games I have decided that powerful PCs have been made part of the system, bought off by the powers that be in exchange for land, title, and wealth. Being part of the system encourages thte PCs to smash evil aligned NPCs who are power mad.

I think this is the key - checks and balances. The presence of similarly high level peers would stop a character from doing whatever the hell they pleased, but I still think all the positions of influence will be filled by high level characters - low and even mid-level NPCs just wouldn't be competitive socially. They might exist as figureheads I guess.

 

[drothgery]

I think this is the key - checks and balances. The presence of similarly high level peers would stop a character from doing whatever the hell they pleased, but I still think all the positions of influence will be filled by high level characters - low and even mid-level NPCs just wouldn't be competitive socially. They might exist as figureheads I guess.

Depends. My working theory is that it's going to be rare in D&D worlds for a ruler to stay low-level unless he's a figurehead (because the day to day process of ruling will involve very real challenges, and successfully meeting them gains XP). On the other hand, that may very well mean that an heir who inherits the throne after his mother died an untimely death will have to gain a few levels quickly if he wants to hold on to it. Lawful societies may very well find a hereditary aristocracy useful.

 

[Snoweel]

Depends. My working theory is that it's going to be rare in D&D worlds for a ruler to stay low-level unless he's a figurehead (because the day to day process of ruling will involve very real challenges, and successfully meeting them gains XP).

I'm definitely with you on this one. Heads of nations, priesthoods, guilds, etc. should level at a fair rate - slower than the PCs of course but faster than most of their underlings.

 

[DM_Matt]

A couple scattered points:

1. IRL, religion is a powerful potivator for political power and allegence. Now imagine how much more powerful religion would be if there were a large number of gods constantly and publically involved in the affairs of mortals.

2. The OP assumes that high-level characters are universally politically ambitious. Many do not want political power, but may like stability or good government, value tradition or religion, or just might like particular politicians, political parties, or ideologies. There are all kinds of possible explanations why high-level characters may support the rulership of someone far less leveled than they.

 

[KiwiGlen]

Not only the massive power differences between individuals, what about the effect of so many powerful forces external to whatever political form of organisation exists? For example, the simple knowledge that spawn-creating undead exist, what effect does that have on the societies that these individuals would want to create? Most people want to sleep at night without having their soul ripped from their bodies and transformed.

Even by mid-level most PC parties scoff at wraiths encountered normally in a dungeon corridor (dumb wraith). But what if that same wraith is encountered at the local marketplace, full of commoners?

There are plenty of things to test one's mettle against, and human nature as it is if external forces don't exist, the humans find something petty to take offence of between themselves.

 

[Snoweel]

A couple scattered points:

1. IRL, religion is a powerful potivator for political power and allegence. Now imagine how much more powerful religion would be if there were a large number of gods constantly and publically involved in the affairs of mortals.

2. The OP assumes that high-level characters are universally politically ambitious. Many do not want political power, but may like stability or good government, value tradition or religion, or just might like particular politicians, political parties, or ideologies. There are all kinds of possible explanations why high-level characters may support the rulership of someone far less leveled than they.

You're completely right of course. But that still leaves low-level ruler at the mercy of those capable of either protecting or ousting him/her. If high-level bodyguards go away on an adventure, said low-level ruler better hope high-level threats don't surface.

Either way, it's not the kind of ruler that inspires confidence.