D&D Political Systems

[Hussar]

I dunno, I think I could live with a Solar running my city. Not every Big Bad is evil. And, if you don't want extra-planar, there's always good dragons as well.

 

[Imp]

Well, yeah... I figure with big good dragons, they're either mixing it up with people in their human forms most of the time (therefore usually indistinguishable from HLCs), or they're this Power that lurks in the wilderness that come to help in times of need (b/c of the whole kinship thing - they like to see that things in their domain aren't horribly screwed up, but they don't care/understand enough about people to make minutiae their daily business) – but the Power that lurks is pretty well supported by fantasy literature...

What do good dragons eat, anyway?

 

[Doctor Bomb]

Dietary Habits of the local BBG

That's the rub. While I would much rather have a red dragon as my Lord and Protector, it's not bloody likely. So, I must defer to the much weaker and short lived HUMANS. Ugh. If I were a fantasy critter, I would most likely look to Treants and the like, followed by Elves as de-facto rulers - they live FOREVER compared to most races, have a reputation for being fair-minded, and aren't going to go all berserk on you if food is short.

And according to the MM, good dragons make a habit of eating jewels and light snacks of the local flora and fauna, which goes a long way to explaining the value of all those gems in their hoards, as most of the rest of the gems mined by the Small Folk must have been eaten.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

WHile this is a very enlightening, and interesting thread.. I think the core question was phrased poorly and started a base assumption that no-one has jumped off of yet.

The threads core assumption is that might makes right when it comes to being a ruler.

Take a break from that for a minute and consider, while seated on the throne..what skills/abiities does a *good* ruler need {good not in terms of alignement }

• Diplomancy - to convince people to go your way
• Intimidate - another way to convince people to go your way
• Sense Motive - to check for when folks are lying to you
• Bluff - for when you have to lie back
• Knowledge: Politics - So you know what the court, barons, Houses, etc.. might try
• Knowledge: Local - so you know what your citizens are putting up with
• Knowledge: Religion - to keep tabs on those pesky clerics and thier ideals
• Knowledge - Arcana - understand the abilities of the mages, both freind and foe
• Knowledge - Dungeneering - understand the threat facing you from the critters in the world
• Knowledge - War - understand the conventional threats facing you from neighboring kingdoms

A couple ways to do this,
- be a Rogue or Bard and spend your entire career focused on ruling...
- be an NPC classed Aritoscrat or Expert and spend your entire career focused on ruling..
- be the figurehead of an organization/group that advises you on all the areas you lack knowledge of..

This means the default setup for ruling is a group of advisors who have some measure of personal power themselves and support your existance as the ruler.

The rare setup would be a single individual who is capable of all the above on thier own. If they are not capable, any one of the factions they do not pay proper attention to will take advantage of the situation to 'save' the country from the evil despot and install a fair and proper ruler..who just happens to be a figurehead for their faction.

Lots of stuff in DnD mess with what we would consider 'politics as usual'.. but not really that much. Raise Dead only affects things if the assasinated target has freinds

One of the things that mess with 'politics as usual' is the poorly crafted non-combat rules in the D20 system. Check out Penumbra's "DYNASTIES AND DEMAGOGUES" for a much more detailed set of rules for running politics.

And.. for an interesting take on politics and death in a fantasy world, read Stephen Brust's Taltos novels..

 

[Snoweel]

WHile this is a very enlightening, and interesting thread.. I think the core question was phrased poorly and started a base assumption that no-one has jumped off of yet.

The threads core assumption is that might makes right when it comes to being a ruler.

Umm, no.

The core assumption is that might (of whatever sort) is a requirement for becoming a ruler, especially in a dangerous environment.

The ability to rule fairly or justly or 'right'-ly has historically never been a requirement for rulership (even if ostensibly, it is).. It's something that isn't discovered until a ruler has already been installed/taken power. I mean,

Given that all forms of power in D&D (including skill ranks and wealth) are tied to level, it is just unfeasible that a low-level character would wield real power (not mere figurehead power) when high level characters exist.

Why would a D&D world, with its massive variation in personal power levels and its daytime-soap-opera frequency of problems, manage to have rulers who were actually fit to rule when we've rarely managed it in thousands of years of history in the relatively tame real world?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Interesting.. apparently the thread has morphed a bit...

General - D&D Political Systems

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi.

I've been thinking for a long time about the political systems that would arise in a world that featured the massive difference in individual power levels inherent to D&D.

I've always thought that all forms of social power - political, social, economic - would be dictated by the personal might of an individual, ie. class levels/hit dice. I just don't think it could be any other way. Democracy, especially (generally not a feature of D&D nations anyway) would surely never even be entertained. The idea that all men and women are equal just doesn't fit when a 17th level sorcerer can decimate an entire army single-handedly.

I think heredity of political power would likewise only be as sure as the scion's ability to personally ensure his/her position, as well as protect his/her people.

Remember that rulership was originaly directly related to the ability of the ruling individual or group to protect the common people.

So I can't see a 4th level aristocrat ruling a kingdom where 15th level fighters lead the army - and there are no historical parallels here, historically there's never been a 15th level fighter. This is an individual who is truly capable of getting away with breaking the law. Hell, he's capable of being the law.

The core assumption is that might (of whatever sort) is a requirement for becoming a ruler, especially in a dangerous environment.

First quote is peppered with 'political system', 'ruling' {present tense, inferred continuity}, and political power passing on to scions. All instances of a *being* a ruler...not *becoming* a ruler.

But hey, I can go with this anyway

Given that all forms of power in D&D (including skill ranks and wealth) are tied to level

This is where we disagree. Political power is not tied to level. Large masses of commoners, smaller masses of like minded individuals, or little groups of fanatics can vie politically toe to toe with high level characters.
Consider:
- Houses with control over trade
- Guilds with control over thier aspect of the market

The ability to rule fairly or justly ...<snip>... manage to have rulers who were actually fit to rule...

My apologies if you thought I meant DnD rulers would be fair, just, or even fit to rule. The points I laid out above are items I believe a ruler needs in order to rule ably.
Whether they are spoiled despots, insane maniacs, pomopous bigots, or fair and just rulers has nothing to do with the skill set required to avoid getting tossed out on your ear by the next contender for the throne.

 

[rounser]

The local big nasty critter is probably worse.

Now, here's a thing....I've had feudalism and nobility described to me in simplistic terms as a bunch of people serving some others who had swords (i.e. nobles) in return for a promise that said sword-weilders would protect them from others weilding swords.

In "RAW cause and effect" D&D society, this might translate to the ruling powers-that-be stepping in (ahem, read that as "teleporting in") to stop the latest arrival ancient red wyrm (TROGDOR!!!) from burninating the countryside, burninating the peasants, burninating all the people and the thatched-roof cottages...

Again, this suggests a "hands-on" approach to conflict resolution for political figures that might at best map to kings on the front line, but not every threat is a Trogdor, so most could probably be delegated to lesser lords...."I'm sorry sire, but this year's Yggsmoor taxes went into the cost of ressurection spells for the Baron and his fellows after putting down the troll invasion..."

Eh, while it's true that a Feudal Kings power came directly from his control over his nobles, winning their loyalty was almost always a lot more subtle than "King Uber-Knickers the 3rd" threatning to personally go over there and start punching people in the face.

Ah, the Aunty Jack approach to politics...."Do as I say or I'll come over to your place and rip your bloody arms off!" A very hands-on approach to diplomacy....would keep said monarch very busy negotiating with extreme prejudice, I'd imagine, and might lead to a "gunslinger with a reputation" type position for the monarch, where the challenges just keep on coming.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with your view of feudalism Rounser. Essentially a protection racket where those on top promise (and usually deliver) protection from those outside.

Although, it doesn't necessarily follow that the leaders have to do the grunt work. Champions could certainly do it for enough reward. Of course, there is always the risk that your champion will turn on you. But, OTOH, the idea of the pet wizard advising the king isn't exactly a new one either.

 

[rounser]

Champions could certainly do it for enough reward. Of course, there is always the risk that your champion will turn on you.

Exactly. I think that as a result, an effective D&D king would have to take a page from the githyanki lich-queen's book, and deal with anyone who reached a given level....say 12. Maybe kill them if the power-that-be is evil, imprison or exile them if neutral, or buy them off with land and titles in return for an oath of retirement from adventuring if good (an offer that results in exile if refused). Other possibilities include magical enslavement collars, or enchanter/beguiler monarchs who keep all their lords in line with suggestions, charms and dominations...even necromancer lords who regularly subject high level vassals to level drains to keep them manageable.

With no-one else of equivalent level around apart from maybe a few allies (ex-party members maybe), this also results in a dependence on the tyrant when a CR 20 monster drops in. That's a nice side effect which also helps in keeping power, but runs the risk of death in combat to such threats....but real world kings died in combat too.

For reasons that Raven Crowking raised in another thread, a clamp down on magic would be more or less inevitable under such a tyrant. Spellcasting and possession of magic items would probably be illegal, leading to a Dark Sun-type scenario where the enforcers of the law could cast, and all others would have to conceal it. If sorcerous babies could be detected, controls might be put on them, whereas they'd definitely be put on the teaching of wizardry.

Clerics and druids might be restricted to worship of the tyrant as a god-king, so that the tap of their power could somehow be turned off if used against the tyrant....again, this begins to look like reinventing Dark Sun from first principles...

 

[tzor]

I think there is a major assumption in the original poster's argument that was simply not true in the feudal medieval world and is generally not true in most fantasy settings. There was no single heirarchy of authority, but instead multiple heirachies (or fonts) that often interacted with each other in exceptionally complex ways.

The best and simplest example is the relation between the King and Bishop. The King had of course the loyalty of the lords under him, and their military powers (assuming they weren't fighting each other that is). But the king wasn't considered letigimate unless he was consecrated by the bishop. His "knights" although pledged to him, were made possible by the orders of the Church. Even within a heirarchy, deligation of authority was the order of the day.

Might did make right in terms of getting your own way. But it didn't help get the crops in, you need to get an expert for that, it didn't get goods and services from the city ports, it didn't help you form alliances with other fonts of law or nearby lords. And since no one person can enforce the law everywhere at all times, even enforcement has to be deligated.

Then we get into blatent nepotism. Families were large back then, and each son was given a specific task to do, in order that the estate not be too badly divided. So the local lord probably had a brother who was an imprtant abbot, priest, or bishop somewhere, and one who probably made a name for himself as a guildsman in the city. Connections are really key to successful management. Under pure feudalism the equivalent of high level fighters were given their own piece of revenut generating land to manage, but in a hybrid system as was the case with the rise of the merchant class, getting paid well was often all they needed.

Finally when you get to the deligation parts it is often the case that the people with the real power are the ones who have to make the decisions on a day to day basis. The Chaimberlain, the Commander of the Guards and so forth. Then you add the fonts that are not visible to the general public, the thieves guild, the assassin's guild and various evil temple heirarchies, and you discover that the king is more of a pawn than a king.