Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snoweel" data-source="post: 2881648" data-attributes="member: 4453">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.</blockquote>

Verification