D&D Political Systems

[I'm A Banana]

Institutions are powerful things, but there have been people in history who smashed them flat. Sometimes the change only lasted for their lifetime. The Pharoh who tried to introduce monotheism springs to mind. Sometimes a whole new set of social institutions spring up at their command, like Ieyasu Tokugawa.

Yeah, I'd agree. I'd say that those that lasted a lifetime (like Ankhenaten, or even the Huns to a large extent) didn't manage to manipulate the institutions right, or failed to introduce ones that were better than the ones before, while those that spawned new systems (like Tokugawa) managed to be the kind of adventurers who put ranks into the appropriate rulership skills.

If you honestly want to come up with a good system of goverment for DnD, construct one that co-opts the power of adventurers as they come up in ranks, and brings them into the system and inculcates them with it's institutional values as they grow in power. That system I can believe in. A strictly hereditary feudalism that ignores the 20th level fighter because he was born a peasant? That system lasts exactly as long as it takes that peasant hero to get ticked off.

Yeah, I see it kind of like a knighthood, shogun, or mamluk caste. They're powerful, maybe even more powerful than the true king or emperor, but as long as they're occupied fighting monsters in far away lands and defending the institutions, they're supporting the system rather than trying to co-opt it for themselves.

 

[fusangite]

Kamikaze Midget,

I could go through you post paragraph by paragraph and point out all the ways that a study of anthropology, scociology or history would show your claims to be in serious need of revision. A few posts back, you stated that you did not need to provide real world examples or any academic theory to justify the positions you were taking.

I just can't be bothered debating with someone who repeatedly makes up various generalizations that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

I have provided ample game mechanical, historical and sociological reasoning in support of my statements challenging yours. You have responded to my challenges by just making up more stuff while declaring that you are not obliged to provide game mechanical, historical or sociological reasons in support of your positions. Instead, you simply declare various things to be true as a matter of personal convenience.

And when that's not enough, you move the goalposts. For instance, you make a claim about priests. I challenge it with hard evidence. And you then turn around and refute it by talking about what kings do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I could go through you post paragraph by paragraph and point out all the ways that a study of anthropology, scociology or history would show your claims to be in serious need of revision. A few posts back, you stated that you did not need to provide real world examples or any academic theory to justify the positions you were taking.

It's not self-evident that feudal monarchy outlived any individual feudal monarch? That imperial governance outlived any individual emperor? That one cannot rule by personal power alone, but must be supported by an entire network of social norms, conventions, and mores to effectively get people to listen to you?

I'm not really making that bold of a claim, here. Perhaps I'm not making it clearly, or not making it well (which I think is the real problem), but it certainly shouldn't need me to go through the effort of pointing out the existence in history of institutions, norms, systems, that outlive individuals. Thus, it only follows that it is the systems that have the power of control, not the individuals.

I just can't be bothered debating with someone who repeatedly makes up various generalizations that have no basis in reality whatsoever.

This kind of statement is insultingly dismissive, man. Can I ask you to stop?

I have provided ample game mechanical, historical and sociological reasoning in support of my statements challenging yours. You have responded to my challenges by just making up more stuff while declaring that you are not obliged to provide game mechanical, historical or sociological reasons in support of your positions. Instead, you simply declare various things to be true as a matter of personal convenience.

More likely, I haven't been making my point clearly enough, as shown by your statement below. I'm not engaged in an argument with you, I don't need to be right or have a debate or somehow "win." My position was never crafted or intended to be The Truth, just more fuel for the discussion, another point of conversation.

And when that's not enough, you move the goalposts. For instance, you make a claim about priests. I challenge it with hard evidence. And you then turn around and refute it by talking about what kings do.

"Priests" was probably too specific of me. The true intended thrust of the point was that there will be social structures built before the PC's come on the field in which personal power is not the measure of a ruler, but rather the ability to manipulate those structures. To get people to do what they want to do will require more than acts of personal heroism, it will require a talent at manipulating the social structures in place or for being able to get the people to accept a new one (as shown by the fictional "Profession: King" skill).

This is exampled, game-mechanically, in the difference between the Intimidate and Diplomacy skills, for one. Both can be used to make a target friendly, but only one forms that position with any lasting credibility, and it's not the one that cows them into submission, but the one that makes them want to follow you.

The fact that the game has an Aristocrat NPC class also provides evidence that people without powerful magic or martial skills can and often do become rulers, leaders, and champions, without the virtue of character levels or stat-boosting items or heroic deeds. They get this way because of the institutions of rulership rather than their own personal might (which is probably less than many others').

Your example about how a circumstance bonus would outweigh an NPC's skill focus ignores the difference between making someone obey you and getting someone to follow you, which is substantial, as shown by the division between the Intimidate and Diplomacy skills.

If I've clarified my point, good, we can talk about it's relative merits if you care to. If you'd rather talk about how poor a debater I am, you can PM me.

 

[Snoweel]

What's most frustrating about Kamikazee Midget is that he's taken a discussion on political systems in a D&D world and turned it into his own forum for long-winded dissertations on real world history.

KM, your arguments have almost nothing to do with D&D. You fail to explain how all of your beauracracies, 'capable' governors and much-lauded institutions would even arise in the first place, given the existence of D&D-type power levels.

As I see things, nations would remain small, or at least directly proportional to the power level of the ruler. In many cases, if not most, a D&D world would be full of city-states ruled by powerful individuals or groups thereof. Alliances might form between these states, or a short 'civil war' (pretty much the duration of an encounter between high-level D&D entities, including the accompanying slaughter of however many hundreds or thousands of foot-soldiers) could lead to the rulers of one settlement taking over another settlement, forming larger nation-type political units that would last as long as the leadership of that state remained stable (and in most cases, alive).

Heredity would only be as strong as the power level of the heir, though I do believe that the scion of a high level character would have ample oportunity to gain levels relatively quickly during the life of their parent.

That said, I envisage something of a 'ruling class' consisting of individuals who share both high levels, and interpersonal relationships. Basically, states run by 'adventuring parties' (for want of a better term), with new members joining as they reach similar levels, and old members dying or leaving due to personality clashes. There might not even be an official ruler, which would also work against heredity becoming a factor in succession - this would be a meritocracy of sorts (rule by those most able to guarantee their own position).

Of course this would include aristocrats, but only the high level ones. I actually see the aristocrat class as the middle-tier 'nobility' of such a system - the ones engaged in the day-to-day running of the realm.

So in all this I just don't see large states forming. I certainly don't see 'ability to rule' as being a factor either. I dare say many if not most states would eventually fail (as they generally have done throughout history), and peace and stability would be very rare. The world would pretty much be a playground for the powerful, and rulership of a state might change hands very frequently.

 

[Baron Opal]

I see city-states as the natural governmental form, but as a consequence of the hazardous nature of the world rather than the limitations of rulership.

 

[Someone]

Snoweel´s analysis depends on the assumption that high-level characters are common enough and at least a good amount of them have an interest on ruling. It´s not unreasonable to think so, but I think people here are focusing the problem wrongly: the OP and other posters affirm that given the power that individuals can archieve in D&D, it´s inevitable that high level characters will rule the land. Their opponents reply that it´d be so difficult for a character alone, no matter how powerful, to hold power and effectively rule that it´s not the case.

I think that´s the wrong approach because we´re discussing fantasy settings: they are not real. We use those settings to play, and some would prefer a world with large kingdoms, instead of tiny pieces of land governed by warring super characters. I agree that high level characters and high CR monsters would have in any world an impact that most gaming worlds neglect to mention. In that regard I´d agree with the OP. As written, most settings are unrealistic.

However, there are mechanisms we could use to explain how the world arrived at the desired circumstances, say, a large kingdom ruled by a lowish level character.

Let´s say that in the primordial chaos of clashing Conan wannabes there´s a powerful character that doesn´t want to rule, but has an interest on the stability of the kingdom. Let´s suppose he´s a wizard. Said wizard puts King Puppet the First on the throne, lets him decide what peasant owns the goat, and dedicates himself to investigation, drawing a generous portion of the microscopic kingdom to finance it.

Since Wizard is powerful and everybody knows he´s the power behind the throne, everybody decides it´s better to assault Fighter´s and Barbarian´s kingdoms, and not disturb the one that can teleport away, and then scry and disintegrate you when you´re asleep. King Puppet (by now King Puppet the 2nd) and Wizard live long and prosperous lives. After a while, the kingdom is well proptected by Wizard´s apprentices, who, free from deciding goat ownerships and having a solid stream of gold to spend on investigation, also grew powerful. They fund a magic academy.

Now the small kingdom had two generations of ruling stability. That´s neat for the average innkeeper and peasant! imagine living on a world where taxes don´t change every time your ruler is kicked out of the throne, and you don´t have to worry about your new lord instituting a theocrazy just because he´s a cleric of the god of Chaos. King Puppet´s kingdom flourishes, and the magic academy income also increases.

Now the powers behind the throne, the wizards, decide it´s time to expand the kingdom´s territory (and the academy´s money) by invading their neighbors. An assorted force of wizards and well equipped fighters teleport into King Cleric´s palace and kick his fat ass out of the throne before he´s able to say "Oh my god", while the superior army of King Puppet is greeted by the population, who´s very happy of not having to build the immense temple King Cleric was building.

Now, the kingdom is very resistant to high-level commando attack. If they kill King Puppet, the wizards have only to put King Mannequin in place, after scrapping the would-be usurpers off the walls. They would have to kill the wizards first, and they are relatively many, well organized, and well funded. We can suppose that if Magister in Command dies, he´ll be quickly replaced (after the killer is scrapped off the walls), and his replacement will also be powerful. Those replacement don´t have to interfere with national politics more than having a friendly reminder of what would happen if the stream of gold to the academy diminishes. At this point, national aristocrats, endowed with a vast array of Skill Focus: Diplomacy, Negotiator feats and skills, and actual experience, manage everything, and Magister in Command just has to veto the rulings he doesn´t like.

Puppet´s (now Emperor Puppet) lands increase and evolve after this point, in a variety of scenarios left for the reader. Also, other explanation about how high level characters are integrated in the defense of the goverment without being directly involved in ruling can be imagined; because it´s of course impossible to effectively defend against decided high level D&D characters if you can´t count on more of the same.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, but, aren't city states pretty much exactly how historical Europe looked? The idea of nation states is extremely anachronistic. Even Rome, while nominally ruling the empire, had very little say in the day to day governance of the provinces. And, after the fall of Rome, and before the Renaissance, Europe is pretty much entirely city states or at least small kingdoms.

I'm not sure how city states and beaurocracy are exclusive.

The reason you don't have HLC's ruling countries is two fold. A. Many HLC's are powerful enough to own their own demiplane. Why would they bother running a country? B. Regardless of the level of the HLC, they have to sleep sometime.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You fail to explain how all of your beauracracies, 'capable' governors and much-lauded institutions would even arise in the first place, given the existence of D&D-type power levels.

I'd say they were there before any person achieved D&D-type power levels. I'd argue that adventurers need training, infrastructure, and civilization to support them. Evidence for this includes the DMG's demographic tables, which places more high-level, PC-classed adventurers in larger population centers.

There's also the point that in order to make it to 2nd level, a first-level fighter needs a structure to support him. He needs to get a hold of weapons and armor, meaning he either needs to set up a mining structure, or take advantage of an already-existing one, or he won't survive the challenges to make it to 2nd level. The difference is only increased as he gains levels -- by the time he's 20th level, he needs wizards or sorcerers (who need their own supplies) to enchant magic items for him, smiths with the abiltiy to craft masterwork items, etc., or he won't be able to meet the challenges required of him.

So adventurers are dependant, to a significant extent, on the institutions of society being there to hold them up, and if they don't already exist, they must be created before the adventurer can reach a higher level, or he won't survive the challenges. So, in order to achieve D&D-style power levels, institutions are required, making their growth at least analgous.

If magic items are only available in ancient ruins or dungeons, or if an alternate "personal power" advancement is used, and if training isn't key, all this could be avoided. The core rules suggest that there's something of a magic item market, which makes institutions quite key to personal power, as they are in the real world.

As I see things, nations would remain small, or at least directly proportional to the power level of the ruler. In many cases, if not most, a D&D world would be full of city-states ruled by powerful individuals or groups thereof. Alliances might form between these states, or a short 'civil war' (pretty much the duration of an encounter between high-level D&D entities, including the accompanying slaughter of however many hundreds or thousands of foot-soldiers) could lead to the rulers of one settlement taking over another settlement, forming larger nation-type political units that would last as long as the leadership of that state remained stable (and in most cases, alive).

Sounds cool.

So in all this I just don't see large states forming. I certainly don't see 'ability to rule' as being a factor either. I dare say many if not most states would eventually fail (as they generally have done throughout history), and peace and stability would be very rare. The world would pretty much be a playground for the powerful, and rulership of a state might change hands very frequently.

Mostly the reason I'd say this doesn't work as a default is because of the need for 20th level folk to have things that society provides them with to get to that point in the first place (magic items, training, safe harbor cities, etc.) But if they're somehow separated from that limitation (and reasonably common in the world), I like the world you've set up. Sounds knock-down-drag-out.

 

[fusangite]

What's most frustrating about Kamikazee Midget is that he's taken a discussion on political systems in a D&D world and turned it into his own forum for long-winded dissertations on real world history.

I'm actually quite tolerant of that, as long as it's based on some actual historical thinking...

As I see things, nations would remain small, or at least directly proportional to the power level of the ruler. In many cases, if not most, a D&D world would be full of city-states ruled by powerful individuals or groups thereof.

I think we are agreeing about geographic scale but I am inclined to think of D&D worlds as being more rural in character. Pre-industrial cities came into being largely due to trade. D&D economics are essentially Aristotelian in character in that value is objective (in that it inheres in physical objects themselves) as opposed to subjective or transactional. Goods are of a fixed value irrespective of supply or demand. This is so deeply embedded in the rules that if one tries to apply modern economic theory to D&D, it breaks. The relative values of metals is fixed; a ratio between XP and GP is mechanically enshrined in item creation; GP values of spell material components are fixed; etc.

In much the way that Aristotelian thought slowed trade and economic development in the Middle Ages by essentially declaring profitable trade and money-lending forms of fraud, D&D economics would, I would like to suggest, even more dramatically discourage the development of market economies in favour of war booty, raiding and tribute collection because Aristotelian economics are not merely a weird theory but a physically-provable reality.

Alliances might form between these states, or a short 'civil war' (pretty much the duration of an encounter between high-level D&D entities, including the accompanying slaughter of however many hundreds or thousands of foot-soldiers) could lead to the rulers of one settlement taking over another settlement, forming larger nation-type political units that would last as long as the leadership of that state remained stable (and in most cases, alive).

Exactly. D&D politics would be all about suzerainty and not sovereignty. I think the Caroligian Empire of 780-880 is basically emblematic of the kind of national or imperial entities D&D is likely to produce. And I think the reaction would be the same as that of the Franks after the empire's collapse: make sure the guy I pay my taxes to can protect survive and protect me next time.

 

[fusangite]

Umm, but, aren't city states pretty much exactly how historical Europe looked?

City states only tended to arise on a large scale in important trading areas. It's a lot harder to find inland city states; and when you do find them, they tend to be on a very important inland waterway. Outside of these areas, the more likely formation are what the post-Carolingian Franks called "Petty Realms." (Tolkien consciously uses the same term for the political reality in Eriador after the collapse of Arnor.

The idea of nation states is extremely anachronistic.

Agreed. What tended to unite places, as you suggest in the case of Rome, was not so much common language, culture and institutions but rather the ability for a single power to militarily dominate it.

And, after the fall of Rome, and before the Renaissance, Europe is pretty much entirely city states or at least small kingdoms.

Actually, after the darkening of the sun in the 6th century, even inside the Byzantine Empire, mid-sized towns basically died-out for a few hundred years.