D&D Political Systems

[The Grumpy Celt]

I still find it interesting that so many play heroes idealizing oligarchies and autocracies and disparaging democracies and republics. It is a disappointing statement about our society tat even if we don’t admit it, we are in our games now seeking to emulate Stalin, rather than Churchill.

Turmish, in the Forgotten Realms, is depicted as a functional democracy. There may be other examples of democracies in various settings, but I am not aware of them. In any event, at least one such nation exists.

In any event, the fetishistic attitude towards autocracy is amply demonstrated by all the smallish nation-states and city states that litter (one could argue clutter) most traditional fantasy settings, as compared to larger nations or empires.

That said, a more plausible system would see some potent Oligarchy form, ruled and driven by various powers, none of which were able to eliminate the others, similar to the government that developed in England following the signing of the Magna Carta. For example, a handful of wizards, clerics and fighters work together – more or less – to protect their interests more effectively together than they could do so alone. This is not a democracy and is confused for one only by the ignorant.

A good case could be made that the lack of empires is a flaw in most campaign settings. There is, to my mind, nothing like a fantasy version of the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Empire of Alexander, the British Empire or the Frankish Empire. The few that do exist are usually evil, like the Empire of Iuz.

Instead a grab bag of petty tyrannies are presented, which the people pretending to be heroes eat up like candy.

This, of course, does not include chaotic and evil groups, which going to be governed by ochlocracies or anarchism.

However, even with the addition of rules for ruling, such as those found in Empire, Fields of Blood and Power of Faerun, D&D is at heart a system of rules for governing lethal combat as the only means for adjudicating intrapersonal differences of any sort. Dickering over nations ruled by fighters, wizards, archwizards is all besides the point and a waste of time, as all the rules they have are for killing, not ruling a fiefdom.

 

[ruleslawyer]

You're also forgetting choice and aptitude.

"Forgetting"? My entire post was about choice and aptitude, I thought.

 

[Hussar]

I still find it interesting that so many play heroes idealizing oligarchies and autocracies and disparaging democracies and republics. It is a disappointing statement about our society tat even if we don’t admit it, we are in our games now seeking to emulate Stalin, rather than Churchill.

Turmish, in the Forgotten Realms, is depicted as a functional democracy. There may be other examples of democracies in various settings, but I am not aware of them. In any event, at least one such nation exists.

In any event, the fetishistic attitude towards autocracy is amply demonstrated by all the smallish nation-states and city states that litter (one could argue clutter) most traditional fantasy settings, as compared to larger nations or empires.

Well, it could quite possibly be that democracy, at least any modern definition of the word, would be unbelievably anachronistic in a fantasy setting. You don't find democracy until well after medieval times. Yes, Greece was democratic. As long as you were male, owned land, not a slave, and were a citizen. That's not exactly democracy as it is usually envisioned.

The reason democracy isn't thought of in fantasy settings is two fold. One, kings are sexy. Being able to rescue the princess and win the kingdom is one of the oldest conceits of the genre. Secondly, feudalism WORKS. In a setting where you have a small group of people who are vastly more powerful than the majority, why on earth would you see democracy?

How could there possibly be any talk of equality among people when A) your neighbour can raise up an army of zombies and B) your other neighbour has been appointed by a GOD to do X and Y and C) it is virtually impossible to define what would be considered a person in a DND setting in the first place?

 

[Squire James]

Actually, when the United States was founded, they used exactly the same criteria (male, not slave, owned land, citizen) that the Greeks did. It was only later, after one non-belonging class ceased to exist and two others gained enough persuasive power to change the law, that we have democracy as we see it today. One could even argue that the last remaining non-belonging group is gaining momentum, but that way lie Dragons and Irate Moderators...

 

[fusangite]

First of all, as others have said, "Yay! He's back."

With that out of the way, my feeling is that D&D's geometric power increases are one of the things that actually makes it more suitable for a faux-medieval gaming. Medievals perceived greatness in battle in much the way D&D models it. Medieval legends and stories share with modern Chinese wire-fu films a tendency to depict individuals or small groups winning battles, holding passes, slaying hundreds. Even within their supposedly Christian framework, medieval magic stories also have this attribute with some priests having the power to find lost shovels while other, more powerful saints can command fire. (Yes. Martin of Tours could cast Flame Strike, it seems.)

So, I see the rules making D&D societies hyper-feudal. Even more so than real medievals, the primary political motivation of people choosing a ruler will be desire for protection. Even more so than in real feudalism, the ability to avoid being killed will be valued in D&D worlds in that, with the hit point mechanic, there will be big measurable differences in how much damage people can endure. Despotisms and democracies would be tough to maintain in a D&D world, as would any social system whose organization was too flat. I think what we'd end up with is medieval-style pyramidal authority but with the sides steeper.

 

[fusangite]

Actually, when the United States was founded, they used exactly the same criteria (male, not slave, owned land, citizen) that the Greeks did.

Except that land was not as directly transferable in Athens. It was not simply a matter of moving fee simple title around.

You don't find democracy until well after medieval times.

But you do find Republican governance systems like Novgorod, Venice and some other Italian states. Such a system would be harder to sustain in D&D, though. D&D's default system is more likely early medieval feudalism when governments were essentially protection rackets, and for good reason.

I still find it interesting that so many play heroes idealizing oligarchies and autocracies and disparaging democracies and republics.

That's because fantasy literature is about an archetypal and idealized past. The fact is that, aside from republican Rome, most of the myths and stories of heroism are set in aristocratic times and places. Courtly love, knighthood -- these are the social forms around which our literary traditions have formed.

One would be hard-pressed to find a lot of stories about heroism and love in medieval or ancient republics, aside from early Rome. And because we tend to see our idealized past as medieval rather than antique, Roman heroism doesn't get much coverage. I think another factor is that medieval republics tended to exert power through trade rather than force. Venice and Novgorod rose to greatness through commercial acumen not strength in arms; and unfortunately commercial success is just not as good reading as military success is. To go a little further, I think episodes like the sack of Constantinople tend to remind us of the venal, plundering aspects of modern capitalism -- something that by both evoking modernity and mild disgust, are unattractive.

It is a disappointing statement about our society tat even if we don’t admit it, we are in our games now seeking to emulate Stalin, rather than Churchill.

I don't think D&D emulates autocracy especially well. I think despotism is as rare in narrative terms and as contra-indicated by the actual rules of the game as democracy is. D&D is more likely to have kings and lords as opposed to the despots, service gentry and bureaucrats that characterize autocratic systems.

In any event, the fetishistic attitude towards autocracy is amply demonstrated by all the smallish nation-states and city states that litter (one could argue clutter) most traditional fantasy settings, as compared to larger nations or empires.

I must concede I'm not very well-read when it comes to setting materials but I had assumed that they were generally describing a feudal rather than an autocratic order.

A good case could be made that the lack of empires is a flaw in most campaign settings. There is, to my mind, nothing like a fantasy version of the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Empire of Alexander, the British Empire or the Frankish Empire.

Instead a grab bag of petty tyrannies are presented, which the people pretending to be heroes eat up like candy.

That's really disappointing to hear. Glad I don't blow money on setting books.

Adventures don't like rulling over dirt farmers either.

Retired adventurers might. The first generation of feudal nobility tended to be just these types -- people with little aptitude or training in politics being rewarded for (or just taking payment for) martial service.

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.

Yes. But a flaw in most political systems, including the one we have today, is that the skills you need to get the job are not the skills you need to do the job.

I'd say that in the world of D&D, the only reason why high-level characters wouldn't dominate everything is if they didn't want to. Put another way, the default D&D assumption appears to be that adventuring is a lifestyle choice: You abandon the tasks of daily living and regular social interaction in order to travel to weird exotic locations and face down death on a regular basis, and in return you amass huge amounts of power and wealth (which, oddly, you then use to go back out and face down death again). It seems to me that adventurers are the Lancelots and Galahads of the world: Champions and wanderers, but not rulers. Retired adventurers, however, have quite the perfect set of skills to run a kingdom, which is why I'd have to say (and FR, for one, agrees) that retired adventurers and similar high-level folk are likely to be the ones running kingdoms.

I have nothing to add here. Ruleslawyer's post is just so great it bears repeating again.

Do remember that there is the other kind of adventurer, though: those who, despite their power can't run anything to save their lives because they are violent, unstable, binge-drinking fools who, regardless what titles are given them will find a way to spend their time exclusively on drinking, whoring and fighting.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

I wonder if DnD mechanics would lead to a leadership system similar to Mortal Kombat? The big bad guy is obviously the highest level (And toughest fighter) while he's got a handful of generals who are almost as high a level to back him up. Leadership is determined by stylized duals.

And in the hideously bad Annihilation movie the Emperor appeared to be conquering the earth with around a hundred mooks and a dozen or so generals. All of them basically unarmed. Obviously they had to be very high level to be pulling that off against the modern world.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Great post, fusangite! I think we sometimes forget how much default D&D government is based around Western fantasy literature, which in turn is based around an idealized feudal past.

Just wanted to note something for those of you bemoaning the lack of non-aristocratic systems of government (and the lack of empires) in D&D settings: FR (the setting I know best) actually has a huge number of these sorts of government. AFAICT, the Realms has only one medieval-style kingdom (Cormyr); the rest run as follows:

-Theocratic empire (Mulhorand)
-Magocracy (Thay and Halruaa, although the practical implications range from an autocracy in Thay's case to a near-republican system in Halruaa's)
-Plutocracy (Amn, Sembian city-states)
-Republic(s) (the Dalelands)
-Democracy (Melvaunt, Thentia, Elventree)

etc. There's a bewildering assortment of governmental mechanisms in the Realms, most of which resemble the premodern states of Venice or Iceland rather than, say, medieval France.

The Realms also has a tradition of imperial government, although the setting materials rather clearly state that this is largely an artifact of the past that has given way to a new type of empire based around mercantile concerns (sound familiar?)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes. But a flaw in most political systems, including the one we have today, is that the skills you need to get the job are not the skills you need to do the job.

Well, rulers come in a lot of forms, too. Warrior-kings were often set up in a binary system between them and the clergy of the national faith. You can't rule on strength of arms alone, you need someone to keep the daily life in line. Arguably, the high priest actually *led* the country, while the king was off defending it in such a system.

So, in that example, the high priest would be the one with the highest Profession: King skill. He'd just be handling all the daily runnings of the realm in the background while Korgath of Barbaria rampaged around the countryside killing their enemies. High-level adventurers could off Korgath and become warrior-kings themselves, but they'd be off having adventures to defend the nation, not doing the daily drudgery of kingly duties for the most part. Unless, of course, they could out-Profession:King the High Priest.

Even in D&D, personal power comes in many different stripes. High levels give some universal benefits, but many that are specific to the character's choices as they gain those levels. SOMEONE probably has the power, at least in a well-functioning kingdom, to actually perform the daily mundanities required of a leader.

Though my issue with Dirt Farms was really to show that you don't need to be high level absolutely, just of *comparatively* high level. If you're the only 3rd level aristocrat in the swamp, you may very well be Grand High Poobah, even if the country next door is lead by a 40th level Paragon Human Ninja. 'course, there's no telling how long you'll be in that position next to such power. It's really an issue of how common those higher levels are. If the PC's are unique and nothing other than monsters and villains have their level of power, then, in general, kingdoms won't be ruled by PC's (though they may certainly rule their own). The "Adventurer Class" may take up ruling, or they may not, depending on their whim (bards, for one, generally aren't depicted as the responsible type). If there is a kind of "Adventurer Caste" in the campaign world (as normal D&D assumes), it's reasonable to assume that, depending on how common they are, that they will often be in positions of power. But that power isn't really absolute, either. A warrior-king is nothing without the high priest's blessing.

 

[Imp]

I still find it interesting that so many play heroes idealizing oligarchies and autocracies and disparaging democracies and republics. It is a disappointing statement about our society tat even if we don’t admit it, we are in our games now seeking to emulate Stalin, rather than Churchill.

I think one thing you're overlooking is that the curse "may you live in interesting times" is a recipe for fun in an RPG. Struggling to overthrow a tyrannical king, carving out your own land to rule, and triumphing over the iniquity of aristocrats, this is the stuff of fantasy heroism and it's pretty much always been. I'm not sure there's ever been much of any adventures about bringing democracy to the drow.

(I'm pretty sure there was a fantasy empire or two in the setting that came with the old Basic D&D boxes...)