D&D Political Systems

[Aust Diamondew]

If the 15th level fighter is the leader of the nations army he could easily perform a coup against said 4th level aristocrat, which has happened historically many times.
I wouldn't be surprised either if the fighter was the de facto leader of the country.

Heroes are dangerous people, particuarly when they are 'greater' than the monarch, the wise monarch would have such a person killed or sent far away unless he was extremely loyal to the crown.

El Cid comes to mind.

 

[Aristeas]

In real life, the ruler is the person the army supports; he doesn't need to be personally powerful, because there are a large number of people who, for whatever reason, are willing to enforce his decrees. This is no different in a D&D world, except that instead of a great big army, the important thing to have is a loyal cadre of high-level characters, the knights of the Kingsguard or the wizards of the royal magical college or what have you. They can be loyal for any of the reasons that real world armies are loyal: tradition, religion, training, sense of honor, fear that the others will turn on them if they step out of line, etc. Of course, sometimes these reasons won't be enough and the king's high level enforcers will oust him. But real world armies do that too.

Now, someone high enough level could still wander into the palace and disintegrate the king and all his bodyguards, but that wouldn't really help them run the country. It takes cooperation from the ruled to run a country, and one man simply can't oversee enough things personally to ensure that the country is being run his way. And he has to sleep sometime. Such a person might take over a country, but it really takes an organization to run one permanently. And if the attacker brings his own organization, it's not very much different from a real world invasion, with high level characters instead of armies.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You're completely right of course. But that still leaves low-level ruler at the mercy of those capable of either protecting or ousting him/her. If high-level bodyguards go away on an adventure, said low-level ruler better hope high-level threats don't surface.

Soooo... virtually every ruler since Alexander the Great? Face it, the emperors of Rome were protected by the Guard (any of which could kill the emperor), Hitler had his loyal cadre of killers, and the U.S. president has the Secret Service.

Personal power doesn't work if you don't have the skills to actually rule. The best you can hope for is a warlord status who runs a city-state that is barely above subsistence level. Ultimately, this harsh environment you created will spawn either a movement of low-level individual (aka traditional civil war) which in d20 will eventually result in a nat 20 death or it will result in a hero that rises up and smites you.

 

[SWBaxter]

Personal power doesn't work if you don't have the skills to actually rule.

Sure, but in D&D ability in the skills to actually rule are directly related to personal power since maximum skill rank, number of feats, etc. are governed by level. Not all powerful individuals will have those skills, but those who do will be enormously better at them than non-powerful types with the appropriate skills. To some extent, a world run by D&D rules implies a very machiavellian meritocracy.

Historically, a small group ruling over a large population was driven by two major factors, agriculture and religion. Agricultural societies needed large populations and some kind of oversight to keep the population as a whole functioning. Religion provided the rulers by establishing the parameters for society's conduct. Taking these in combination, you could have a patchwork of theocratic city-states with lots of shifting alliances and conflicts, but probably very little full-scale war.

Another approach could be to take a further step back and say "why would humans (or any other 1 HD types) rule the land, anyway?" There are lots and lots of critters that are at least as smart as humanoids and are much more individually powerful. It's not inconceivable that you could have a society where all the humanoids are just slave populations working for powerful dragon/outsider/undead/whatever tyrants. Said tyrants are probably very careful to look out for any signs that a humanoid is levelling up, in order to squash such threats before they truly become powerful enough to matter. Or possibly they groom such individuals for use as a secret weapon against their rivals.

 

[Balgus]

WOW- I can't believe that this has not been mentioned yet:

HIGH lvl fighters don't want to sit on the throne!
Most of the DND classes are not made to lead a kingdom of political leaders. (Stereotyping0 The Bard sings and entertains, Barb bashes, Cleric leads a church, Monk meditates to improve self, Fighter fights and protects the kingdom, Wizard researches magic, Sorc shows off skills, and ....

Think Conan- the greatest Barbarian in the history of fiction. Do you think he weas happier as Conan the Barbarian taking on Thulsa Dune, or as Conan the Destrioyer, when he finally inherited the throne. What happened after he got the throne? I don't know either- but Iu think the series ended.

Wizards adventure to further their research. Once they reach high lvl, they still adventure, just more safely and wisely. But which one would really enjoy sitting around making mundane decisions like tax rates and hiring new soldiers to defend the eastern borders?

My last example comes from the Incredibles. At the end, Mr Incred asks, "Can we come out of hiding?" and the secret service man's response was, "Let the politicians decide. My job is to make sure you are taken care of..." I may have misquoted but the idea is that some people have talent. And their job is to use that talent to their best ability. Let the politicians quibble about governance, adventurers do what they do despite the aristocrats.

It is very conceivable to have a lvl 10 aristocrat leding a small city, where lvl 20 adventurers come and stay on their way to killing a Black Dragon. Does that mean that the party will say, "Hey, i can kill this guy and take over teh town!" No! They are k=just passing by, and leave things as they are. A tarde town for commerce and rest is much more useful than taking it over and worrying about how to keep the villagers from fleeing.

Just my take

 

[Imp]

I think the presence of independently minded high level characters would tend to destabilize things. Even a fairly low level druid could wreak all kinds of havoc if he's got a grievance.

I also think that, depending on the nature of divine power in the world, you'd be looking at an awful lot of small-scale, ironclad theocracies, and possibly (given the base mechanics) a smaller number of less-powerful, larger-scale, fairly corrupt and anarchic states that may negotiate alliances with said ironclad theocracies, given how good rogues and bards are at skill-based social interactions. I don't necessarily agree with Balgus: bards are definitely made to lead a kingdom of political leaders... actually, it takes just a little bit of flavor changing to make bards into the super-aristocrat class of the setting.

 

[Balgus]

I also think that, depending on the nature of divine power in the world, you'd be looking at an awful lot of small-scale, ironclad theocracies, and possibly (given the base mechanics) a smaller number of less-powerful, larger-scale, fairly corrupt and anarchic states that may negotiate alliances with said ironclad theocracies, given how good rogues and bards are at skill-based social interactions. I don't necessarily agree with Balgus: bards are definitely made to lead a kingdom of political leaders... actually, it takes just a little bit of flavor changing to make bards into the super-aristocrat class of the setting.

Although I agree that there are classes that CAN make great diplomats and aristocrats, That was not what I am saying.

Maybe I am just not expressing myself fully, but I am saying that DND classes were made to adventure. The NPC classes (warriors and aristocrats...) were made to deal with behind the scenes activities like running a city and buying and selling materials.

If an adventuring group set out to conquer a town or kingdom, I am sure they are able, but I am saying they just don't want to.

True that Bards CAN and will make the best aristocrats from the core classes, if they have the intention and ambition. But do they really want to be an aristocrat and deal exclusively with laws and regulations? The etiquette of the court? the mundane of life that is an offical? I am saying no. If a player wnated this, then they would not be playing. Players play to play, not to make rules. If you wnat to make rules, be a DM.

Just my 2c

 

[Piratecat]

As you can see by this thread, I have been thinking far too much.

It's damn good to see you!

Awfully interesting threads, too.

- Kevin

 

[Kragar00]

I think the presence of independently minded high level characters would tend to destabilize things. Even a fairly low level druid could wreak all kinds of havoc if he's got a grievance.

I also think that, depending on the nature of divine power in the world, you'd be looking at an awful lot of small-scale, ironclad theocracies, and possibly (given the base mechanics) a smaller number of less-powerful, larger-scale, fairly corrupt and anarchic states that may negotiate alliances with said ironclad theocracies, given how good rogues and bards are at skill-based social interactions. I don't necessarily agree with Balgus: bards are definitely made to lead a kingdom of political leaders... actually, it takes just a little bit of flavor changing to make bards into the super-aristocrat class of the setting.

So would people who know how to make bombs, can crash vehicles into large quantities of people, buy a gun and go around shooting people.... Independently minded (i.e. people who are not afraid to use the power they have) are destabilizing.... That's why solid social structures appear... to help protect the populace (by enforcing a status quo)....
Besides, what is to prevent an ambitious leader from taking over his neighboring city-states? It only serves to increase the size of his army and the number of resources (including high-level characters) at his disposal.... especially if the people like the new guy better....

 

[Kragar00]

Sure, but in D&D ability in the skills to actually rule are directly related to personal power since maximum skill rank, number of feats, etc. are governed by level. Not all powerful individuals will have those skills, but those who do will be enormously better at them than non-powerful types with the appropriate skills. To some extent, a world run by D&D rules implies a very machiavellian meritocracy.

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.....