Government in D&D.

[Dannyalcatraz]

To answer the OP, though:

1) The gov't will probablyhave it's own casters

2) if the gov't doesn't, then they may well be S.O.L.

 

[Umbran]

Has anyone given thought to the strange and hitherto unnoted fact that in D&D government would be a difficult if not impossible thing, unless it was despotism?

Well, since we are usually talking about pseudo-Medieval societies in D&D, most of what we work with are monarchies. But even then, I think you overstate the case by going to "despotism".

Even if you buy the idea that the person who controls the military might must be the personally strongest individual (I don't buy it - there's ample precedent for tougher guys loyally serving less-tough guys), government has several functions. The executive power over force and legislative and judicial powers don't have to all sit in the same body.

Government is an agency with a monopoly on the use of force.

As such, it cannot allow any other group within it's domain to exercise such force. To do so is tantamount to abdicating.

There are ample real-world examples that show this to be untrue. There are private mercenary companies that own military-grade hardware in the modern world. In past times, private military units were not only common, they were in some places and times expected.

 

[kitcik]

If you want to demand the papers of the Kingslayer when he waltzes into town for a bit of shopping, be my guest.

Did you watch Game of Thrones?
Great books and season 1 of the HBO adaptation (NC17) was quite good.

 

[Elf Witch]

As others have pointed out the government should have wizards and clerics working for them.

Before the introduction of modern weapons like tanks civilians in the US for example had the same type of weapons as the military.

 

[billd91]

Government is an agency with a monopoly on the use of force.

As such, it cannot allow any other group within it's domain to exercise such force. To do so is tantamount to abdicating.

You're missing what I believe be a necessary component. Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. As such, it doesn't need to have an actual monopoly. And as it turns out, most governments in history have not had an actual monopoly on the tools capable of exerting force.

It's true that any government that has to rely on other power centers for strength (feudal monarchies) may have problems with wayward nobles, but that doesn't mean that the only alternative is despotism. It just means a government that's weak or hampered depending on its relationship with allied power centers. And that's a model that fits in well with the pseudo-medieval world of D&D.

 

[billd91]

Did you watch Game of Thrones?
Great books and season 1 of the HBO adaptation (NC17) was quite good.

I find it interesting that the HBO series has made fairly explicit an implicit element in the books - the strength of the crown depends on the loyalty and unity of its vassals. Too much leeway for the vassals, as well as loyalty to the noble level of the hierarchy and not the crown, and the crown (or noble-led faction) weakens, touching off warfare that the crown can't put down.

George R. R. Martin has mentioned that A Song of Ice and Fire was inspired by the War of the Roses. That dynastic struggle was undoubtedly exacerbated by idle standing armies under noble not central control left over from England's expulsion from France at the close of the 100 Years War.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

How about a king aligning his kingdom with a church? Have the power of a ton of clerics and thier god behind you as you do your thing?

Oh, and the King would need a Captain of his military. Likely a high level melee character with tons of experience. In command of a well trained army.

Than, the King would have advisors, some form of cabinent of individuals to help him rule and do things he could not do.

And a King might want to have an educational facility within his kingdom. perhaps an arcane university? Boy, those casters would appreciate the support and coin of a king backing them, they sure would want to see him on the throne.

Having connections with the criminal underworld, all unoffical of course, but an arrangement that as long as they don't make to many waves, the guards will look the other way. Wow, wouldn't those guys want that King to stay in place?

Not to mention supporting any number of guilds for various purposes, the artificer craftsmen, the freelance bounty hunters, the assassin's guild, etc. A Kind who minitors but permits the existance of such things, earns the support of such things.

This is all Politics 101. A Powerful leader makes powerful allies, who are better off with him in power than with him gone.

Read some of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, any of the books about Ankh-Morpork and the ruling philosophy of Lord Vetinari.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Has anyone given thought to the strange and hitherto unnoted fact that in D&D government would be a difficult if not impossible thing, unless it was despotism?

Government is an agency with a monopoly on the use of force.

As such, it cannot allow any other group within it's domain to exercise such force. To do so is tantamount to abdicating.

A modern-day government for instance, cannot allow it's citizens to own tanks. Yet in D&D, high-level casters are allowed to move freely between towns and this is accepted without consideration of what it would mean for one's neighbor to own a tank.

Any thoughts on this?

I don't quite get where you're attempting to go with this. This is hardly a "hitherto unnoted fact", nor is there any "D&D government" that I'm aware of. Lots of settings put limits on casters, or have high-level NPCs in the government to counter equally high-level threats. Lots of settings also have few, if any, high level casters to threaten the sitting government. And of course, lots of campaigns actually rely on or are driven by exactly this sort of conflict between government and non-governmental powers (I'm playiing in published one now). Moreover, the end state of many campaigns is that the PCs exploit their own power to take control of a domain, legitimately or not; heck, this is practically the default assumption among many groups.

It's an interesting question as far as specific worldbuilding goes, or how that affects the unfolding of a particular campaign. But as some nebulous philosophical musing, it's not very well defined.

 

[Hunter99]

Take the example of a high-level caster who goes crazy.

He can practically wreak destruction equivalent to a nuclear weapon. (Say destroy a whole city.)

I was bringing up the practical difficulty of protecting individual rights under such circumstances, when private persons have the power to do such things.

 

[nijineko]

in many stories, there are elements which naturally counter magical energies, such as cold iron. sometimes it is fey specific, sometimes it includes any arcane. i typically adopt such a general limitation on different forms of magical effects. sometimes a different one per type of effect.