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.
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.
Last edited: