Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
I dispute that definition.
Government in D&D.
- Thread starter Hunter99
- Start date
anest1s
First Post
If a Government is strong enough, there is no need to keep the spellcasters out.
If it isn't, then it also can't throw them out, because they are too strong.
In either case, they can benefit from them- crafting magic items, taxes, solving problems, assisting in war- so they don't absolutely have to kick them out.
If it isn't, then it also can't throw them out, because they are too strong.
In either case, they can benefit from them- crafting magic items, taxes, solving problems, assisting in war- so they don't absolutely have to kick them out.
Actually, all government has to have a monopoly on the use of force within it's domain.
Which means that force is extracted from human relationships, and human beings deal with one another by means of reason and not force.
(This is not an issue of gun rights by the way, which I support.)
Which means that force is extracted from human relationships, and human beings deal with one another by means of reason and not force.
(This is not an issue of gun rights by the way, which I support.)
The capacity for one person (or a group of people) to cause sudden catastrophic damage does not make a government somehow non-existent. The attacks against the WTC, and even more relevantly, the Oklahoma City bombing did not suddenly render the US government irrelevant.
Likewise, on a smaller scale, if we're walking down the street, and I see you, I can absolutely shoot you in the head, killing you. The government can't stop me. It's illegal, and I will almost certainly get punished. But the damage is done.
It's in how the goverment reacts afterwards that matters. Your high level caster is probably not the highest level caster. And odds are the government has many more casters, who could gang up on the one walking nuke before he does much damage. And then, the government would be there to step in and resolve things, one way or the other.
The important part is that the government works because the people think it will. Sudden acts of violence are one thing, and if the goverment deals with them, prevents more, and has some deterrent effect on others who might do the same, the people will think the government is doing its job. If they accept that taxes must be paid, they will pay taxes.
Likewise, on a smaller scale, if we're walking down the street, and I see you, I can absolutely shoot you in the head, killing you. The government can't stop me. It's illegal, and I will almost certainly get punished. But the damage is done.
It's in how the goverment reacts afterwards that matters. Your high level caster is probably not the highest level caster. And odds are the government has many more casters, who could gang up on the one walking nuke before he does much damage. And then, the government would be there to step in and resolve things, one way or the other.
The important part is that the government works because the people think it will. Sudden acts of violence are one thing, and if the goverment deals with them, prevents more, and has some deterrent effect on others who might do the same, the people will think the government is doing its job. If they accept that taxes must be paid, they will pay taxes.
Dandu
First Post
kitcik
Adventurer
Say no more - I just ordered it on Amazon.
Note that is "Kingkiller" whereas you originally said "Kingslayer" --> Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Logic fails in a world where logic is the first thing that is disregarded in order for the world to even exist. Why don't dragons and giants or some other of the most powerful monsters control the lions share of power and wealth?
Not only is this not historically true it's not currently true. Anywhere that an armed revolution can or does occur disproves this. Anywhere that a military commander can conceivably side against his own government and even assume power himself through the use of the troops and weapons under his authority disproves this.
Governements attempt to exercise control over the ability to exert force to safeguard its own citizens from force, or to safeguard ITSELF from force. Failure to control non-governmental force, either willingly or not, is not abdication of power though it clearly does affect the governments ability to securely perpetuate itself.
As noted by others, modern governements can and do allow private citizens to own tanks and all manner of other military hardware, especially small arms. As far as high level casters are concerned it is VASTLY easier for a government to exert control over what citizens have access to than to control WHAT THEY ARE. In any land where the government attempts to limit the movements and abilities of spellcasters you're likely to get an immediate movement by spellcasters to counter it. Even if spellcasters are generally WILLING to accept government limitations there will ALWAYS be those who simply defy the government. These people are typically labeled criminals whether they actually are or not.
Only that the blanket initial assumptions here are simply incorrect. The inherent INability of governments to establish and maintain a control over the use of force leads to interesting political situations both in the real world and with D&D governments. The 20th century is packed with cases of totalitarian, despotic governements being toppled, not one of which abdicated its supposed monopoly on force. If anything the more they tightened their grip the more power slipped through their fingers.
Jimlock
Adventurer
Guys, sorry for the highjack... I simply... somehow... HAVE to answer to this:
with this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpOhEN_5qiA]YouTube - JEREMY CLARKSON : PLAYING WITH CARS AMAZING[/ame]
with this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpOhEN_5qiA]YouTube - JEREMY CLARKSON : PLAYING WITH CARS AMAZING[/ame]
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
This is not and has never been true.
Similar Threads
