D&D Political Systems

[Imp]

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....

And they do destabilize things. It's what we're seeing in the world today, as technology becomes more widespread. The outcome of this is not preordained.

If you're talking about what would prevent a larger country from taking over theocratic city-states in D&D, you're looking at a) divine mandates and b) a monopoly on miraculous healing. It's hard to put down high priests if they won't stay down. That really changes things. And if necessary, they can offer those services to other independently minded high-level people. It's a powerful bargaining chip. The best I figure a by-the-book relatively-secular D&D government could do is play off theocracies against each other.

 

[Turjan]

Upon reading through this thread, I notice that many people try to rationalize the D&D political system, which is mostly modeled after a historical European Baroque or newer epoque, a time, where personal power stood already back behind technological and monetary power. It's definitely not modeled after the medieval feudal system.

Most people seem to forget that medieval dukes and kings were war leaders. They led their armies themselves and, often enough, died during wars. They constantly struggled with rivals over their positions, and the more powerful ususally won. In early medieval times, the position of king was often elected, and the candidates had to subjugate their contenders before (or after ) their election.

Coming from a noble family definitely helped, though the situation wasn't that clear cut in early medieval times. If you didn't have a proper history, you invented one. In late medieval times, this changed, and class borders got more rigid. But as I said before, this went along with the fact that individual power took a back seat to technological and monetary power during that time. In the Holy Roman Empire, emperor Maximilian I. (around 1500) got the suffix "the last knight", although he was already a child of modern times and was more interested in cannon design.

For D&D, this means that I expect all rulers without personal power to lose their position. In a world where power is pretty much a personal thing, this only makes sense.

 

[Kragar00]

And they do destabilize things. It's what we're seeing in the world today, as technology becomes more widespread. The outcome of this is not preordained.

If you're talking about what would prevent a larger country from taking over theocratic city-states in D&D, you're looking at a) divine mandates and b) a monopoly on miraculous healing. It's hard to put down high priests if they won't stay down. That really changes things. And if necessary, they can offer those services to other independently minded high-level people. It's a powerful bargaining chip. The best I figure a by-the-book relatively-secular D&D government could do is play off theocracies against each other.

True. And that's where the allies help protect your power structure.... A leader can't do everything himself, which is why chosing the right allies is so important..... The leader of a kimgdom doesn't have to be the most powerful, just have the most powerful allies...

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Only if they apply themselves. Humans with two feats at 1st level, decent stats, bonus skill points and only a couple of levels can be quite impressive. A 3rd level aristocrat with 14-15 stats, Negotiator, Persuasive, and Skill Focus(Diplomacy) can have skill 6+2 stat + 2 feat= 10 for sense motive, bluff, intimidate and 13 on diplomacy checks.

A fighter of 20th level could rely on high stats (acquired through magic items) and a few skill points to be competent but without burning a lot of cross-class skill points OR picking another class they will be outmaneuvered socially by the 3rd level aristocrat.

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.

Full scale war will occur with the same frequency; resources will get scarce or the local despot will go on an ego trip. Only when the ruler can completely dominate the populace to the point that they can keep a starving populace from waging war on a well-fed neighbor will wars be prevented.

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.

My campaign is kinda like this; dragons have superceded the kings as the ultimate authority once the wizards and clerics lost their power. Unlike a traditional fighter, elder dragons have the skill points to burn on social skills and can be quite effective leaders. Wars were limited simply because they rarely had any concern for their populaces and feared the retribution of other dragon lords.

They are, however, challenged by a newly-powerful religious movement and at least two dragon lords have been funding adventurers to go and cause trouble elsewhere. They have some of the most loyal citizens, which means their military could *almost* hold off a major dragon on their own (at horrible, horrible losses) but that means the other dragons aren't quite willing to commit themselves to an attack.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Only if they apply themselves. Humans with two feats at 1st level, decent stats, bonus skill points and only a couple of levels can be quite impressive. A 3rd level aristocrat with 14-15 stats, Negotiator, Persuasive, and Skill Focus(Diplomacy) can have skill 6+2 stat + 2 feat= 10 for sense motive, bluff, intimidate and 13 on diplomacy checks.

A high-level rogue or bard, or any high-level adventurer with appropriate items, will open a big can of whup@$$ on such pathetic skill checks. They really are the best candidates for rulership; they can negotiate better, they know more (Knowledge skill ranks: go!), they are virtually immune to attempts at assassination, poisoning, or ensorcelment, they can travel the length and breadth of their kingdom in a day, and they have the ability to quite literally charm the socks off whomever they want.

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.

 

[Tonguez]

I haven't read the other post yet but just giving my opinion

IMHO a DnD World would create a system uncannily like - Manorial Feudalism,

which ironically is the default-ish system many people use in DnD

Manorial Feudalism is a about a few powerful individuals and a populace who swear loyalty and give service to him/her, in exchange for protection from powerful external threats.

In such a system the King rules by consent of the Nobles as first amongst equals - the Bard with good charm may be King even if the Fighter and the Wixzard are higher level.

Commoners are serfs and only slightly above property, classed individuals make up the hierarchy

 

[Balgus]

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.

My point exactly.

And thus, the Rules Lawyer has spoken. The issue is put to rest.

 

[kigmatzomat]

A high-level rogue or bard, or any high-level adventurer with appropriate items, will open a big can of whup@$$ on such pathetic skill checks.

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. 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.

They really are the best candidates for rulership; they can negotiate better, they know more (Knowledge skill ranks: go!), they are virtually immune to attempts at assassination, poisoning, or ensorcelment, they can travel the length and breadth of their kingdom in a day, and they have the ability to quite literally charm the socks off whomever they want.

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?

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?

A) will likely result in chaos as the new warrior-king is unlikely to have the management skills. Plus, his kids could quite likely win if they use his toys or use his wealth to buy their own even if they aren't the strongest in the land (amazing how dangerous a 3rd level punk kid is when given the equipment of a 15th level adventurer).

B) will mean that you have non-adventurers on the throne and an army with bodyguards that was designed by an adventurer to stop adventurers.

So ultimately you will wind up with non-adventurers on the thrones in just a few short generations. This has occurred in our history (e.g. English King Henry II to King John, Spain's King Ferdinand the Great to Philip the II) where an accomplished ruler with military skill gives way to soft children.

The fact is that succession wars reduce the wealth of a region, causing other adventurer-types to throw their lot in on the side of stability. Wizards have trouble studying and researching during war, bards' art is often ignored when the masses fear being gutted, and rogues like having rich, content people to fleece. Fighters like having reliable sources for weapons, armor, food, drink, and (ahem) entertainment; war makes all of them uncertain.

Plus, when the original warlord is a competent ruler who has the ability to gain a solid following (Leadership) his influence will be transferred, at least temporarily, to his offspring out of habit. "His dad's a good ruler, his son will have had plenty of opportunity to learn from the best!" It goes double if the warlord ruled a long time (30+ years) as there will be entire generations who grew up under his rule and will be programmed by his party line.

So the entropic evaluation of rulership is that non-adventurers will rule more often than adventurers. Especially once smart non-adventuring rulers figure out ways to manipulate the society so that only villainous adventurer types will consider it possible to become ruler. And you can't stop them from considering it but if you've got enough brain-washed heroes who uphold "King and Country" you can probably keep them from trying it.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I think it is interesting the way society turns around and twists inside out. Granted, D&D is not a social leader. However, like all “art” it can be taken as something of social indicator, a reflection of a significant portion of social mores.

At some point in the last decade or so, democracy has become a vice – or at least a sign of sentimental weakness – while pursuing totalitarian power has become a virtue – or at least practical.

Egalitarianism has become childish while a take-the-money-and-run, along side a kill-them-all mentality has become the rule of the day. The down trodden are no longer championed, but now exploiting them has become both the path to success and virtuous.

I wonder when that happened.

(And people wonder why I'm grumpy)

 

[Imp]

a few more thoughts:

- you guys are still not considering the clerics in your calculations. Fighters, rogues, wizards, blahblahblah. Consider the clerics! They are going to be either the prime power or directly behind the prime power in all your D&D RAW campaign worlds. (I have various mitigating circumstances that knock them down a few pegs in my homebrew, but...) Everybody else needs them. And of all the classes they're the most likely to have a vested interest in what the social order looks like.

- if monsters are more prevalent, human/ humanoid society will be a lot less strife-torn, as attention is focused on outside threats. It's likely in particularly besieged (but not powerless) societies that adventurers will rule, but they won't kill each other to do it – they need everyone they have to fend off the giants, you know! Probably some sort of trial by combat.

- but, the strife and turnover caused by high-level characters getting ambitious does a lot to explain the millenia of technological stagnation common to a lot of settings, doesn't it?

- it is also possible (reading The Grumpy Celt's comment) that adventurers in general would be interested in upholding the basic social order in a large-scale D&D democracy. After all, it's a pretty good way to live, and they wouldn't have to worry about attacks from the government at least (or at least not as much.) In my setting, there was a massive, bitter war several hundred years ago where large numbers of high-level heroes ran amok when their various alliances triggered - think World War I - causing a great deal of death... so people are aware of the dangers of heroes. There's more to it than that, but there could be reasons people would prefer a more egalitarian form of government.

- it's also certainly possible to structure a D&D democracy along ancient Greek lines: only adventurers are citizens! You have to prove your skill at arms or the like to gain a seat in the assembly. In this scenario there'd probably be a lot of ad hoc alliances and churn and intermittent dictatorships in the Athenian sense.

- but the reason for my discounting of democracy as a likely state for a D&D nation has to do with the direct presence of the divine. I suppose you could have voting be a tenet of the major religion, but otherwise...