D&D Political Systems

[Hussar]

Interesting stuff.

I'm still not convinced that DnD mechanics would lead to any sort of democracy though. If anything, it would lead to anarchy. Democracy has to be based on the idea of equality between citizens. Whichever group gets to vote has to be equal.

But, in DnD terms, we know for a fact this isn't true. We have imperical evidence that this isn't true. The entire level structure shows that Person A (Com 1) is not equal in any meaningful way to Person B (Wiz 12). The existence of magic and levels throws any concept of equality out the window.

After all, while real world Person A might be a member of mensa, and Person B is a crack addict, both are more or less equal in many ways. Both die when you stick a sword in them for example. This is not true of high level characters. Neither can physically do much more than the other. This is certainly not true of others. Both can use technology to do various things, true, but the same things. Commoner A cannot fly but Wizard B sure can.

An anarchic system, where power is based entirely on the individual's ability to sway those around them (if I'm using the term correctly) seems more likely IMO. People will cluster around the HLC simply because the HLC can protect them from threats they cannot possibly defend themselves from.

 

[big dummy]

Interesting stuff.

I'm still not convinced that DnD mechanics would lead to any sort of democracy though. If anything, it would lead to anarchy. Democracy has to be based on the idea of equality between citizens. Whichever group gets to vote has to be equal.

But, in DnD terms, we know for a fact this isn't true. We have imperical evidence that this isn't true. The entire level structure shows that Person A (Com 1) is not equal in any meaningful way to Person B (Wiz 12). The existence of magic and levels throws any concept of equality out the window.

After all, while real world Person A might be a member of mensa, and Person B is a crack addict, both are more or less equal in many ways. Both die when you stick a sword in them for example. This is not true of high level characters. Neither can physically do much more than the other. This is certainly not true of others. Both can use technology to do various things, true, but the same things. Commoner A cannot fly but Wizard B sure can.

An anarchic system, where power is based entirely on the individual's ability to sway those around them (if I'm using the term correctly) seems more likely IMO. People will cluster around the HLC simply because the HLC can protect them from threats they cannot possibly defend themselves from.

You have the same disparities in power in the real world, and you still (at least in theory) have democracy. Bill gates is much more powerful than I am than a Wiz 12 is over a Com 1 (arguably). I mean, he could buy my city. But we each have one vote.

Also, you are incorrect about anarchism. Anarchism (as defined by actual anarchists themselves) really means a kind of radical direct democracy.

BD

 

[fusangite]

You have the same disparities in power in the real world, and you still (at least in theory) have democracy. Bill gates is much more powerful than I am than a Wiz 12 is over a Com 1 (arguably). I mean, he could buy my city. But we each have one vote.

But of course you're not going to argue you and he have an equal amount of political power...

As I mentioned earlier, disparity in gear value is only half the story. Disparate gear value leads to a certain degree of social hierarchy but when this is combined with dramatic physiological disparity, and when physical power almost always varies directly with gear value, the synergy between these things creates an even less horizontal society. I mean just imagine if part of the reason Gates had billions was because he could shoot fire out of his hands at people.

Also, you are incorrect about anarchism. Anarchism (as defined by actual anarchists themselves) really means a kind of radical direct democracy.

Government by the busybodies is another way of looking at it.

But Hussar was talking about anarchy] not anarchism.

 

[Hussar]

Bugger. I always got those two terms mixed. Thanks for the catch.

One thought about religion in this sort of setup. Instead of a given principality (I use the term to mean any group of people from a thorp or clan all the way to a nation state) having a number of small (ish) competing religous groups, it would greatly help both a religious group and a temporal leader to unite.

In this concept you wind up with a sort of patron system where Religion A backs Political Leader A and together, they have the power to run the principality. Whether or not competing religions are tolerated would vary wildly, but, in each principality, you would have one single dominant (or perhaps a very small number of dominant) religions, all with very close ties to the crown (or whatever the leader is).

Thus you wind up with something like Athens, if Athene actually existed and her priests could actually cast miracles. A powerful city state where the rulers and the clergy work hand in hand to maintain power.

To me, this could be a very stable relationship. Both sides benefit and neither side benefits if the other is disadvantaged. And, neither side really benefits from the other side ceasing to exist. If the given religion takes over the principality, their god may come into direct conflict with the god of another principality. Most pantheons frown on this. And, a principality without patronage is greatly disadvantaged.

Scarred Lands, in some ways, uses this system. Each group of people has a patron diety and the patron dieties are reluctant to get involved personally with day to day issues. Thus, there is some separation of church and state, but, both lean heavily on eachother in a symbiotic relationship.

 

[big dummy]

Bugger. I always got those two terms mixed. Thanks for the catch.

One thought about religion in this sort of setup. Instead of a given principality (I use the term to mean any group of people from a thorp or clan all the way to a nation state) having a number of small (ish) competing religous groups, it would greatly help both a religious group and a temporal leader to unite.

In this concept you wind up with a sort of patron system where Religion A backs Political Leader A and together, they have the power to run the principality. Whether or not competing religions are tolerated would vary wildly, but, in each principality, you would have one single dominant (or perhaps a very small number of dominant) religions, all with very close ties to the crown (or whatever the leader is).

Thus you wind up with something like Athens, if Athene actually existed and her priests could actually cast miracles. A powerful city state where the rulers and the clergy work hand in hand to maintain power.

To me, this could be a very stable relationship. Both sides benefit and neither side benefits if the other is disadvantaged. And, neither side really benefits from the other side ceasing to exist. If the given religion takes over the principality, their god may come into direct conflict with the god of another principality. Most pantheons frown on this. And, a principality without patronage is greatly disadvantaged.

Scarred Lands, in some ways, uses this system. Each group of people has a patron diety and the patron dieties are reluctant to get involved personally with day to day issues. Thus, there is some separation of church and state, but, both lean heavily on eachother in a symbiotic relationship.

I think this is a good analysis.

Actually in Greece you had the Oracle at Delphi who apparently had an incredible spy network. They functioned a lot like a real magic capable priesthood, at least on the level of gathering intelligence. Whoever they backed seemed to come out ahead, for a long, long time.

BD

 

[Hussar]

That's a point I hadn't actually thought of. The patron church as the Royal Spy circle. This might actually cement the bonds between the ruler and the religion well enough that it would outlive the life of the ruler and the religious leader. After all, sure, the HLC can come in and probably defeat the ruler in combat, but, then again, the ruler can be warned ahead of time by the religious leader and have the HLC nicely bought off/poisoned before he even gets close to the city.

Given powerful enough allies, the leader could be fairly weak, so long as his allies see the alliance as better than betrayal. Fits nicely with Japanese history where the emperor was rarely any sort of warrior - at least in Edo period Japan - and it was the office of the Emperor which kept all the warlords in line. No one could afford to let anyone else get too far ahead.

So, you could effectively have a low level aristocrat ruling a principality surrounded by much higher level individuals, none of which wants the other to get a leg up.

 

[Doctor Bomb]

Aside from the Brahmin system in India, one cannot be a generalized priest; one must be a priest of a single particular god. And clearly, the D&D rules are not talking about Hindu polytheism; there is no Brahmin equivalent in D&D. Priests are always of a single particular god and their acolytes and initiates are members of the cult associated with this god.
.

Whoa up there, fusangite! The RAW specifically state that a Cleric need not have a patron deity, and can even ignore the Prime Philosophies of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos when choosing spells and domains. Also, one must include druidic faiths in this discussion - most of the tree-hugging hippies are worshiping the abstract power of Nature, which explains their 90+% different spell selection (even though there are deities in the rules that have nature in their Portfolios).

Now, put that back in the equation (and if you are able, even though it's not core, consider Psionics - an organization of royally-funded Telepaths and Egoists? Oh, THAT's who those pale men in brown robes are that live in the Royal Church. And here I thought they were Monks that just didn't adventure that often.) and kick that argument off again. I would really love to see both you and KM kick those ideas around a bit. Certainly would lead to a different flavor of person in power.

Mostly, the rest of your arguments are fine, and I agree with your points, (and it is DREADFULLY painful to try to emulate supply and demand economics with DND rules) but I am more in line with the Kamikaze when it comes to verisimilitude in my games.
While I don't want to go all modern and try to generate a bunch of calculator programs to emulate falling damage based on Newtonian physics and such, I do try to use as much real-world info as possible to mesh with core rules to fill in the gaps and prevent exploits by my pet POWERGAMERs. For example, string theory explains a whole lot to me about arcane magic, its source and limits, and everyone's favorite planar magic spells.

big dummy and Hussar: Forgotten Realms has the Harper organization that (sometimes without the knowledge or consent of the nobles) fits the bill of Official Spy Network. I would think that a clerical order with domains of Knowledge and Evil would make the most effective spy network ("Interrogation, to Death and Beyond!", followed by and organization of specialist wizards of the Divination school, followed by Psions and Bards - each has it's own benefits and drawbacks, but I would think (as Hussar pointed out) that any ruler/ruling group without the benefit of an alliance/pact with one of these know-it-all groups would be overtaken by a neighbor within a generation.

Now, if I could just figure out how to get Bill Gates to give me his money, I can start working on getting fire to shoot out of my hands...

 

[Snoweel]

Can I just re-make the point that many of you are seeming to miss.. A character's martial ability as a criterion for rulership isn't all about his ability to hurt his underlings. The main factor is his ability to hurt the things that can hurt them - ie. protection. Though, as we know from the popular form of the word, pretty much equates to the same thing.

Don't underestimate the likelihood of people defering to an individual or group who can protect them from the big, bad D&D world.

 

[Hussar]

I would certainly agree with this. Although, to be fair, if protection is the criterion, then wouldn't monsters make for better rulers? There seem to be at least as many of the big ones as HLC's, so shouldn't many areas start looking to that local big nasty critter for protection?

 

[Imp]

The local big nasty critter is probably worse. Thinks humans are yummy, thinks their pack animals are yummy, turns 'em into mindless slaves, etcetera and so on. The HLC's at least share some kinship with the LLC's most of the time.