D&D Political Systems

[Deuce Traveler]

It´s obviously possible for a powerful individual to teleport into the throne room, kill the guards in twelve seconds, assesinate the royal family, and coerce thr court into obeying him. But we all know what happens then: a baby is miraculously rescued from the castle and given to a peasant family in adoption, and grows into a honorable and healthy, if somewhat naïve, man. He then learns about his past (an event frequently involving an old man, family heirloom or birthmark), learns the arts of war and starts a quest to get his throne back.

So, seizing the throne by force is like putting a death sentence on you, only delayed 18 years. That´s why adventurers stay away from thrones.

So far I like this theory the best.

 

[SWBaxter]

I don't think it is necessarily personal power, but rather experience.... The more you've been around and know, the better you are at overcoming obstacles.... That's why there are NPC classes like the aristocrat and commoner... these people don't face dragons to gain experience... the do their jobs (whatever that may be).... They can gain the levels to get all those skill ranks and feats.....

In D&D (unlike the real world), experience maps directly to personal power. If you're following the rules as written, the only way to increase your Diplomacy (and Profession: Noble Despot, etc.) skills is to level up, and levelling up in any class (even the NPC classes) means you have more hit points, better saving throws, and eventually a higher BAB. Your personal power has increased. That's the way D&D works, that's what we have to deal with in order to think about how a world that strictly follows D&D rules would differ from ours.

The thought experiments about a first level expert or aristocrat or whatever cherry-picking feats and such to get a high skill check are kind of silly, because all they mean is that somebody following the same strategy but one level higher will have an advantage, and somebody five levels higher will have a significant advantage. Hence the higher level types will still rule, saying "but wait, it's only higher level types with Skill Focus: Diplomacy" doesn't change the basic fact that levels are going to be what matters.

I don't believe this means that every campaign should dump the pseudo-historical government systems, IMHO the most useful aspect of this kind of thinking is to identify the point(s) at which a given campaign setting is making changes to the most likely implications of the D&D rules. This allows a DM to anticipate questions the players might ask, and also to work out why exactly things developed differently. This sort of critical thinking can only help to flesh out a setting.

 

[Hussar]

I think the biggest thing people are forgetting in this discussion is not the existence of the divine, but the existence of numerous creatures that are FAR more intelligent and longer lived than anyone else. Dragons come to mind, but, then again, dragons are so bloody big that it would be difficult to think why they would bother running a kingdom. Far more peace of mind to simply eat people and go back to sleep on that bed of gold.

But, there are any number of creatures out there that, without any class levels, would make pretty intense rulers. Yuan-Ti, Aranea, Dopplegangers, Rakshasa, heck, possibly even Treants would all make fairly decent rulers. Highly intelligent and very powerful.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You don't have to be the toughest fighter in the realm to rule.

However, you probably have to have the highest Profession: King skill.

Of course, this is all relative to the power level of the rest of the realm. If the PC's are unique exceptions and 90% of the world are dirt farmers, things are a bit easier for your low-level aristocrat. You really don't have to have that high of a Profession: King skill to rule over dirt farms.

So the petty lord of the plague swamp probably isn't an epic-level paladin, but the High King of the Dwarves may very well be.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Adventures don't like rulling over dirt farmers either. I think the key is to find your niche.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Bards and rogues do have the skill potential to rule. Of course, I don't see either of them ruling by force. Both are still too soft to not be put down by poison or ye olde hail of arrows from afar.

Not compared to a mid-level aristocrat, they aren't!

As for "appropriate items," that goes for anyone, doesn't it? Had Mike Tyson a Ring of Diplomacy +10, an amulet of Charisma+6, and a headband of Intellect +4 and he'll give Jesse Jackson a run for his money.

True, but those items work even better in the hands of a high-level PC-class character with the appropriate skills.

With access to magic items, so can everyone. Rulers tend to be quite wealthy ergo they can afford magic items. The question is, who ends up ruling?

Well, according to the wealth by level guidelines and the minimum power necessary to make the things in the first place, only high-level PCs really should have such stuff. In any event, a more skilled character still experiences an incremental gain in using such items; compare Mike Tyson with that stuff to Malcolm X with it.

Let's say that an adventurer carves out a kingdom. Through his dominion he ensures few heroes exist and the ones that do are crushed quickly or rewarded with cushy properties far from any adventures. He has kids and grows old. Does he a) throw his crown in the gladiatorial ring as prize for the strongest or b) establish an organization that will protect his offspring so they can rule?

SNIP

Ah! Now *this* is where it gets interesting, and I agree with you 100%.
Adventurers can found dynasties, but ultimately it's their children who have to carry them on. (Of course, if the adventurer has access to life-extending magic, that's not necessarily the case; he could be an undying god-king presiding over his people for millenia.)

So yeah, an adventurer's descendants (probably aristocrats) will end up being the ones to rule... until some evil warlord or wizard PC shows up, slays the royal family, and seizes the throne until the Chosen One comes forth to reclaim it for its rightful rulers.

 

[drothgery]

So yeah, an adventurer's descendants (probably aristocrats) will end up being the ones to rule...

"Look, son, I don't care if you don't want to practice swordwork. Your mother and I got this throne by destroying the lich-king a few years after he turned the old royal family into zombies, and we don't want that happening to you. Understand?"

 

[kigmatzomat]

Yup, warrior-kings tend to have warrior offspring. Unfortunately, some of them die while waging war (Philip of Macedonia -> Alexandar the Great) while others suck at waging war (Henry VIII's son was sickly and died from a disease caught playing tennis).

Aristocrats really isn't a bad class. Rogue BAB, decent weapon & armor profs, reasonable hit points and a wide skill selection. All it lacks is the "specials" of a PC class. IMC many of the common "gentleman adventurers" are 3-4th level aristocrats; the 4th or 5th sons of minor lordlings who are tough enough to be a challenge and still smooth and suave. They also make decent company-level commanders, if they spend some points on Profession:Military (or the equivalent).

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, I'm assuming there are metasetting reasons as to why princes and lordlings are aristocrats as opposed to bards, clerics, paladins, or rogues, since if not, I can't see why a king wouldn't want all of his offspring trained as one of those classes. My assumptions have always been as follows (of course, I play Iron Heroes these days):

1) Not everyone is cut out to be an adventurer. Only certain individuals blessed with the right combination of heredity, temperament, and plain luck can be PC-classed characters. Everyone else is an NPC.

2) NPC-classed individuals advance in level for different reasons than do PC-classed individuals. Running a kingdom may net Arthur the Aristocrat some class levels, but Furnald the Fighter is unlikely to gain anything unless he constantly engages in battles. This also means that the kinds of pursuits required for adventurers to gain levels are far too hazardous for ordinary folk to pursue and tend to "cull the ranks" a bit.

In my old (epic-level) campaign, the player of the baron PC (a wizard) rolled his sons' ability scores, and is trying to train his two sons to be a wizard (high Int) and a bard (high, well, everything) respectively. I've thus had to grapple with this problem rather immediately. My sense is, though, that any ruler with the choice will train his son to be a bard or rogue rather than an aristocrat; the question is whether that element of metagame choice is present in the setting.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You're also forgetting choice and aptitude. Lordlings have to have a relatively strong will if they are going to rule and may fight their parents. Lordlings may also not have the aptitutde to either master the supposedly elite path of the adventurer.

The aristocrat is the best of the NPC classes as it mixes education with combat training. Barring those with exceptional traits suitable for PC classes, aristocrats are significantly superior to the other unexceptional individuals.