D&D Political Systems

[I'm A Banana]

Given that all forms of power in D&D (including skill ranks and wealth) are tied to level, it is just unfeasible that a low-level character would wield real power (not mere figurehead power) when high level characters exist.

I'd disagree that it's unfeasable. I would say that it probably doesn't happen a lot, but that it's still entirely possible for all the reasons PS posted. Loyalty and obedience come from more than just the ability of the one demanding it to punch you in the face. They could respect him because his bloodline is all aasimar, obeying him because he is obviously touched by the gods (kind of a "power by rarity of type"). They could obey him because he can command troops or champions that are high-level, and the only reason he does that is because he's the one who controlls the massive golems guarding his treasure valut that he uses to pay his champions or troops (more economic power). They could obey him because he is RELATED to powerful champions or troops (power through association), or because a prophecy spoke about his bookmark (power through fantasy magic), or because he's the only one who the dragon will deal with (power through the random chance of danger).

Why would a D&D world, with its massive variation in personal power levels and its daytime-soap-opera frequency of problems, manage to have rulers who were actually fit to rule when we've rarely managed it in thousands of years of history in the relatively tame real world?

Because there are ways of getting 20th level paladins to obey you when you're first level, and, sometimes, if you're 23rd level, the 20th level paladins won't obey you.

 

[Hussar]

I think there is a major assumption in the original poster's argument that was simply not true in the feudal medieval world and is generally not true in most fantasy settings. There was no single heirarchy of authority, but instead multiple heirachies (or fonts) that often interacted with each other in exceptionally complex ways.

The best and simplest example is the relation between the King and Bishop. The King had of course the loyalty of the lords under him, and their military powers (assuming they weren't fighting each other that is). But the king wasn't considered letigimate unless he was consecrated by the bishop. His "knights" although pledged to him, were made possible by the orders of the Church. Even within a heirarchy, deligation of authority was the order of the day.

Might did make right in terms of getting your own way. But it didn't help get the crops in, you need to get an expert for that, it didn't get goods and services from the city ports, it didn't help you form alliances with other fonts of law or nearby lords. And since no one person can enforce the law everywhere at all times, even enforcement has to be deligated.

Then we get into blatent nepotism. Families were large back then, and each son was given a specific task to do, in order that the estate not be too badly divided. So the local lord probably had a brother who was an imprtant abbot, priest, or bishop somewhere, and one who probably made a name for himself as a guildsman in the city. Connections are really key to successful management. Under pure feudalism the equivalent of high level fighters were given their own piece of revenut generating land to manage, but in a hybrid system as was the case with the rise of the merchant class, getting paid well was often all they needed.

Finally when you get to the deligation parts it is often the case that the people with the real power are the ones who have to make the decisions on a day to day basis. The Chaimberlain, the Commander of the Guards and so forth. Then you add the fonts that are not visible to the general public, the thieves guild, the assassin's guild and various evil temple heirarchies, and you discover that the king is more of a pawn than a king.

QFT

I've been trying to say that but never managed to put it so well.

So many of the things that keeps a king a king have very little to do with the actual power of the king. Direct rule could work, but only so long as those under you don't decide that a little collective bargaining at knifepoint isn't a better solution. For you to have the "Lich queen" scenario, the queen would have to be SO much more powerful than those under her as well as any threat coming from the outside.

All it really takes to topple such a regime is a neighbour with a slighly more enlightened view of sharing power.

 

[rounser]

All it really takes to topple such a regime is a neighbour with a slighly more enlightened view of sharing power.

But as an earlier poster implied, the only loyalty that can truly be trusted is family, because of the mutual genetic investment they represent to one another. Sharing power out to non-family more or less guarantees it's loss some generation or other.

That calls for adventuring families, to ensure that all the brothers and sisters are of sufficient level that they're sufficiently useful to one another as a unit, and do their jobs well enough as bishop, guildsman and knight.

This combination of "snip the tall poppies" and "keep it in the family" seems to superficially resemble the real world....the specifics of how this is implemented and to who and what are the D&Disms....that and the fact that a political opponent can scry/teleport/disintegrate you in your sleep, turn your castles to mud, or route your armies singlehandedly, making keeping the tall poppies snipped a really urgent priority for any realistic D&D ruler, IMO.

Random ideas related to this include magical crowns, coronets and tiaras that are more than just symbolic (without them the royal family is open to the more obvious magical espionage), and perhaps tournaments to help sort out who is a potential threat to the crown (although in "RAW cause & effect reality", this would be insufficient, especially when powerful nobles smelled a rat given that tourney winners kept disappearing, and more rigorous methods of finding high level characters would be required).

Such measures might seem to violate the RAW's demographics (given that a large metropolis can assume an 18th level cleric and a 16th level wizard, I gather from another thread), but the answer to this problem is obvious; they're members of the royal family.

 

[Hussar]

And, of course, membership in the royal family doesn't have to be direct blood relationship either. Marriage is a tried and true method for gaining loyalty. Sure, you might be that umpteenth high level mage, how about you marry my daughter, we'll give you title and some land and let's work together?

 

[rounser]

And, of course, membership in the royal family doesn't have to be direct blood relationship either. Marriage is a tried and true method for gaining loyalty. Sure, you might be that umpteenth high level mage, how about you marry my daughter, we'll give you title and some land and let's work together?

That fits very neatly. When the alternatives are exile (probably to another plane, no good exporting powerful enemies to neighbouring countries), imprisonment or death, the offer looks even more attractive.

Such measures do raise the question of whether a Paladin King could exile on this basis, compromising the autonomy of some of his people, and remain in adherence with his code and the lawful good alignment. I doubt it. But then, there's something about being a king who intends to stay in power that makes machiavellian measures par for the course, so good kings probably have short reigns constantly wracked by civil war and assassination attempts. Do the right thing and you end up like King Arthur letting Lancelot into his house.

This suggests that the PCs will get a visit from the authorities once they reach a certain level....this may be just the thing to keep the campaign fresh, because they'll either end up with lands and titles and responsibilities, exiled from the kingdom (leading perhaps to planar adventures), as outlaws on the run, or seeking to take the throne.

 

[The Shadow]

I've found this discussion absolutely fascinating, but I notice a persistent flaw, at least in how *4e* rules will affect politics.

In 4e, NPC's don't follow PC rules. If you want the king to have 25 ranks of Diplomacy and 30 ranks of Profession: King (if there still are Profession skills, which I doubt), you just give it to him. It isn't even really necessary to give the king a level at all. (Though probably wise, just in case your players get uppity.

 

[S'mon]

I've found this discussion absolutely fascinating, but I notice a persistent flaw, at least in how *4e* rules will affect politics.

In 4e, NPC's don't follow PC rules. If you want the king to have 25 ranks of Diplomacy and 30 ranks of Profession: King (if there still are Profession skills, which I doubt), you just give it to him. It isn't even really necessary to give the king a level at all. (Though probably wise, just in case your players get uppity.

If he's not otherwise statted to be as resilient as a high level PC, though, he can be charmed, fireballed, or shot dead with an arrow - or decapitated, if raise dead is easy.

I ran the Mystara Dawn of the Emperors campaign, where the second most powerful mover & shaker in the entire Empire of Thyatis is the villainous Senator Angelarian Canelocarious, a Normal Man with 4 hit points. I gave him a ring of anti-magic and some tough gladiator bodyguards, but the PC still managed to assassinate him eventually.

I think it's notable that in the 1983 World of Greyhawk set, not a single ruler is listed as being under 10th level! That model still heavily influences my own campaigns; I've experimented with low level rulers but it rarely feels right and unscrupulous PCs tend to kill them & take their stuff.

 

[Clavis]

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.

The 4th Level aristocrat would probably have the benefit of experience, family contacts, and social inertia on his side. Just being able to swing a sword is not enough to make people follow you. You might be personally powerful, but individuals cannot stand against an entire society. Remember, people do not know what level they are. The peasents might know that Gort is a greater warrior than the local Baron, but still feel that the Baron is a legitimate ruler, while Gort is just an unclean, uncouth adventurer. People like social stability, and social stability means people prefer predictable mediocrities! It why repressive social orders are often so stable - people want stability, even if it means they are oppressed by incompetents.

The 15th Level fighter who usurps the 4th level Aristocrat will probably wake up to a 15th Level Assassin (who only wants money and doesn't care about political power) stabbing him in the throat. That 17th Level sorcerer needs only to be grappled by a mob to be brought down, and neutralized.

Ruling countries also isn't always fun. The 15th Level fighter might well decide he really wants to drink and have sex with the harem girls, but doesn't care about setting a sustainable taxation level. So he brings in a vizier, maybe a 4th level Aristocrat, to do all the boring work. Soon the Aristocrat is the one with the real political power, and soon the nominal ruler is little more than a figurehead.

In real life, skilled people are routinely controlled by people who are incompetent at everything but politics. Just ask anyone who works in an American corporation!

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I've found this discussion absolutely fascinating, but I notice a persistent flaw, at least in how *4e* rules will affect politics.

It's alive! After 18-months in the grave, the thread is alive!

Heh.

Actually, Shadow, I don't think you're point will have much impact. The tendency to describe a country as a "mage" nation or "fighter" nation will continue. It is a useful way to describe a nation for fantasy gaming purposes, it will describe the bulk of the power mongers in a nation and some NPCs probably will be statted out.