Government in D&D.

[Arkhandus]

A government cannot allow another agency to use force within it's domain unless that agency has been given a right to do so by the government; it also punishes all uses of force which are deemed illegitimate to maintain it's monopoly. So on what grounds are you asserting your statement?

Huh?

When Ozrogarth the Obliterator enters the country, you don't have to intervene when he obliterates some peasant that offended him. But you can if you have your own archmage around to intervene for you. As long as Ozrogarth the Obliterator moves on once he's done with his business in the country, you can just deal with any such problems later. The high-level wizard is like a force of nature, you can't just always hope to keep it in check; sometimes you just have to clean up in the aftermath. If you can afford to, you'll keep a high-level wizard of your own on-hand to warn off Ozrogarth the Obliterator. Otherwise, he's only a problem if he decides to depose you. That's when the next band of scrappy young adventurers comes in and deposes Ozrogarth the Obliterator, to restore you or your heir or some other legitimate party, to the throne. Or whatever.

Now, you may have plenty of low-level Warriors and Fighters to deter the average uppity peasant from starting a rebellion, and to deal with criminals. But you don't have to be a despot to do so, and you don't need a monopoly on the use of force. Countries have been using mercenaries and soldiers of fortune for ages. Doesn't necessarily prevent a rebellion though, if the people have sufficient reason to try and enough power or skill to succeed.

But you don't need to maintain absolute control over the use of force in your country or whatever. When a high-level monster or spellcaster passes through, you can try to mitigate the damage, and you can try to fix things afterward, but you don't necessarily have to stop it in the first place. Besides, that's what adventurers are for. You hire them to deal with the problems that are too big for you to handle without losing too much of your own powerbase (or without diverting too many of your valuable resources away from other important fronts).

Also: Keep in mind the sort of medieval setting that D&D typically uses. It's more like the Wild West than a stable modern country. Some lands may allow folks to settle their own disputes, so long as innocents or important officials etc. don't get dragged into it. Paladins and other adventurers may be allowed to smite evil-doers in the region so long as somebody makes sure that those evil-doers were actually doing something wrong or were actually evil and deserving of it. A simple Detect Evil or Speak with Dead or the like from even a low-level local cleric can discern it.

 

[milest3hr4t]

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?

take the total value of all treasure that any one dragon has, and multiply that by the number of dragons... I'm pretty sure if all dragons pooled their monetary resources, they could easily buy up all the resources of all the kingdoms of any given race, and what they couldn't buy, if they all went at once, any kingdom would fall. Thousands of dragons siege a single kingdom? its gone over night. the only reason that doesn't happen is that dragons are solitary, and chromatic/metallic dragons are... well... you know.

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.

Depends on the government really. It depends on the political system they use, the monetary system they use, and the over all wealth of the people.

in any totalitarian state there's no way a private citizen would own so much as a single bullet, and by extension, in a fantasy setting, it would likely follow that teaching of magic, or even the written word, would be forbidden, and young sorcerers would likely be either rounded up and executed, or 'sacrificed' to some god that may or may not be made up.

In communism, no private citizen would own the means of production, that's equivalent to all anvils being inside the castle walls, and all the smiths are rounded up and brought in to serve.

in an absolute monarchy, taxes would likely be so high as to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the peasantry, to prevent them from ever affording anything capable of usurping them, IE the blacksmith could never afford to make himself full plate, shield and weapon of choice, let alone arm a revolution.

In a capitalist state, everyone would probably think themselves adventurers, and constantly try to take control of anything and everything. the result is so much in-fighting among individuals and groups, that the government would always be larger than any one group, and thats assuming that the capitalist state isn't also a monarchy, dictatorship, socialist, or anything else that could easily become a totalitarian military state.

If you look at it, that is probably closest to many kingdoms. its a monarchy, but people are free to profit and expand as they choose, not as the monarch chooses. Adventurers are born, gather enough gold to arm themselves, and go do basically whatever they want. none of the individual interests however are ever powerful enough to truly overthrow the monarchy. Lets say a local thieve guild, or even gang, attempted to overthrow the monarchy? they'd all be slaughtered. a school of magic vs the state-sanctioned academy? the state sanctioned casters have the most resources, and access to long forgotten spells, artifacts, etc, AND the addition of the military, and lets not forget any assassins the monarch chose to hire, AND the resources to publicly make them pariahs.

I suppose the thing to say here is that, government DOES exist in most fantasy settings, but it's largely ignored in favor of 'Hey let's go have an ADVENTURE you guys'. Not many people want to worry about the global politics when they want to go blow up the BBEG and take his stuff. I personally like having politics in setting at times, it meansthe BBEG can actually be an entire government to be overthrown. though it would never work if you have to hamfist role-play into the rollplay.

On a bit of a side note, if a setting has multiple kingdoms, and therefor multiple governments, wouldn't the setting have multiple forms of currency, and therefor different exchange rates? wouldn't one region also have more or less of any given material and therefor change prices of any given goods by region? What happens in a setting if a government issues paper money, it gets widely accepted, but then the government is overthrown? was the paper-money backed in gold? silver? bags of grain? bottles of fine wine? plots of land? loans to be paid back at interest? a fraction of the royal crown? stock options? If a group of adventurers overthrow a government that used paper money, and then take all the wealth, would they be evil for withholding the wealth that rightfully belongs to its people who still only poses the paper money backed by that very wealth? what PC would just start handing out the gold for these now useless pieces of paper?

Point is i'm amazed government was mentioned without its financing. that's kind of a big part of how any government actually runs. I'm pretty sure kings pay their courts and armies with gold collected by tax from the peasantry, tax which is implied to be for protection and rights which they may or may not receive, but if you had say, a democratically elected board of officials managing a large communist state, providing all the needs in exchange for servitude, there would not only be no need for tax, but no need for currency of any kind. fill out requisition form, collect goods, repeat. It's a fantasy setting so it could work, which would have very dramatic repercussions for any adventurers stumbling into their domain.


btw I'm miles and this was my first post at enworld. I'm not sure how I should feel about that.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Depends on the government really.

It does, and that's why I didn't say, "ALL modern governments..." One has to be careful about phrasing things in absolutes in internet discussions like this because people jump on such things and the topic gets derailed.

in any totalitarian state there's no way a private citizen would own so much as a single bullet, and by extension, in a fantasy setting, it would likely follow that teaching of magic, or even the written word, would be forbidden, and young sorcerers would likely be either rounded up and executed, or 'sacrificed' to some god that may or may not be made up.

But that just isn't true. A totalitarian state may WANT to own all the bullets, it does it's best to prevent use of bullets if people do own them, but it does not have a monopoly. It only takes the right circumstances to prove that any supposed monopoly on force is temporary, conditional, or delusional. Even if it means that weapons or spellcasters come in from the outside, that monopoly is clearly leaking. Just because you have things in check now doesn't mean you always will or always did. Just because there's no current ongoing proof that someone else in your land can exert force without the government being able to control it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It DOES exist. The idea that governement - any government - has a MONOPOLY on force is incorrect in the OP.

In communism, no private citizen would own the means of production, that's equivalent to all anvils being inside the castle walls, and all the smiths are rounded up and brought in to serve.

And then someone who wants to make swords to arm his friends gets an anvil from a neighboring country, or hides one of his anvils when they come to take them all away, or smuggles one back out of the castle, or a foundry is set up somewhere remote where the government won't find out about it, or the soldiers were bribed when they came to search and sieze the village of Um.

in an absolute monarchy, taxes would likely be so high as to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the peasantry, to prevent them from ever affording anything capable of usurping them, IE the blacksmith could never afford to make himself full plate, shield and weapon of choice, let alone arm a revolution.

Which only means that the revolution occurs - or is at least CAPABLE of occurring by other means, thus disproving the idea that the government DOES retain a monopoly on use of force.

none of the individual interests however are ever powerful enough to truly overthrow the monarchy.

But they don't have to be actively exerting the force they are capable of to disprove the idea that the government doesn't have the monopoly on force that it WANTS to have.

On a bit of a side note, if a setting has multiple kingdoms, and therefor multiple governments, wouldn't the setting have multiple forms of currency, and therefor different exchange rates?

Yes, and once upon a time people wrote such things into campaign settings but in time it was probably just seen as too much of a bother for anyone but the hardcases so they were dropped. Much the same with language. Races have languages, different human kingdoms often don't. Or even if they do there is still the COMMON tongue.

Point is i'm amazed government was mentioned without its financing.

D&D economics is a discussion all its own. Look around the boards and you'll see.

btw I'm miles and this was my first post at enworld. I'm not sure how I should feel about that.

Welcome to ENworld!

 

[thompsja]

What you are running into is the "superhero" problem. What does government mean when singular individuals are as powerful as a combat brigade? Think of the X-men comics/movies: Magneto.

Governments would be deeply threatened by individuals with a high degree of personal power. So governments would be formed by stakeholders with the power. In the past that was people would had such wealth as able to field large armies. This would still be important, but having a 16th level wizard wouldn't be bad, either.

I could see a bunch of wealthy families allying with a church for mutual protection: see Saudi Arabia. Depending on the interested parties' relative power would determine how things shook out. Some place may have wizards running it, others could be a bunch of nobles ( who have been secretly murdered and replaced by dopplegangers), or anything else. The point is that there is a source of power controlled by the rulers, enabling them to be in charge. In our world, it's called money. (sorry to be inflammatory)

And if some outsider comes around and starts causing trouble? Well, they stamp him out. If he's too strong they cut a deal with him, or flee. My point is that every King in a D&D setting is going to have some sort of alliance to a magical force in order to maintain power. If they don't someone will just kill him and take his stuff.

Certainly, the players could come upon a town and take it over easily. Assuming a government that been around, and therefore competent, they scry the people, cast commune or legend lore, then manuever people around wherever. Then, they have their casters blast them with multiple spells at the same time. They would have absolutely no interest in fighting fair, or being CR appropriate.

Just like players.

 

[milest3hr4t]

Words words words, don't wanna flood the page.

When I was describing the government types, I was implying a closed system of only that government, to describe how the governments try to run, not how they may or may not be successful. the point is governments do get overthrown and collapse. The first large democratic society was very powerful, but then collapsed... twice technically. the largest communist society lasted a few generations and was a force to be reckoned with before it abruptly collapsed. the first national socialist government exploded like a bomb and took most of Europe with it. the current largest democratic and communist societies have been on the edge of collapse and backed away from it quite a few times. they to will collapse some day... maybe next year, maybe in 50 years or 100, but they will, and some other government will always take its place.

the same can happen in D&D, it just happens in different ways. fantasy worlds don't get bombed back to the stone age, they get fireballed into the stone age. they don't get invaded by guerrilla fighters, they get overwhelmed by undead. they don't get bought out by rothschild, they get bribed and charmed by demons and devils. they don't worry about gun regulation, they monitor who starts studying magic.

What you are running into is the "superhero" problem. What does government mean when singular individuals are as powerful as a combat brigade? Think of the X-men comics/movies: Magneto.

Funny you should call it that, after all, what happened in those settings? wasn't there Mutant registration? sentinels? Superhero registration? the outlaw of masks in watchmen? the government tries to use their authority and it blows up in their face.

What we seem to have forgotten that it's not really up to us what fictional governments actually do, but what the fictional people in charge of those fictional governments would try to do, and that depends on the situation and, is so meta even this acronym.

On another note, despite it being a colossal failure the first time IRL (as I mentioned above), National socialism in D&D would work extremely well, if it doesn't already exist. How about we try this on for size, a nation has one race, and one church, and typically hate everyone that isn't their race or faith... in the context of D&D that sounds really familiar doesn't it. technically those governments are totalitarian, provide for everyone because everyone is a soldier... National totalitarian socialism. The irony is that aren't there just a few of those states that fall under the lawful good banner? kill the orcs because they are orcs, kill the kobalds because they are kobalds, kick out the dwarves and elves, kill the drow, kill the undead, if you actively worship the 'wrong' god(ess)(s), everyone trys the old 'convert or die' routine. Just some food for thought.

 

[wlmartin]

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?

Interesting... I think you are trying to liken a government from a world we live in now to one in D&D... You have to think more back to the days of Knights and Kings to come close to the type of political structure that would exist.

A D&D Government is not as all knowing as one of our time, no phones or cameras or internet. No tvs or cars. It is very likely that a lot could go unknown under the nose of the D&D Government and the ability for people to do what they want is much more rife.

Think of it... if a Big Bad Wizard terrorizes a small set of mining villages weeks travel from the nearest big town - who would know he was even doing anything apart from the villagers? The last convoy of ore merchants arent due back for 2 months and it is going to take a good deal of time for someone to ride out and warn anyone that cares.

In our world, such activity couldnt go on for more than 5 minutes without someone uploading it to YouTube let alone calling the police.

In such societies, political intrigue is rife because there is some much that can go on behind the scenes and although in our world people couldnt own tanks and drive them around their neighbourhood... it is very likely that there were people who would threaten and terrorize people in their neighbourhood for money or power because no-one cared and there was so much corruption in such a society that as long as the right people were paid off no-one who cares would ever find out.

It is an interesting point though no matter what... The biggest difference between a society now and one even 100 years ago is that there is a greater equality between people of all classes. There will always be the rich and the poor but there is less ambiguity for trouble to grow out of.

Our world within the last millenium has had to learn to become more civilised but the level of disorder that would allow people to do whatever they chose only improved to the state we enjoy now after all the lines on the map were written in permenant ink. In D&D the players enjoy an area often no bigger than a small state in the USA, even then you have 10s of competing governments and races... now imagine you are looking at one of those Governments taking over everything and expanding out to a much wider like the Americas - at that point you would start seeing something similar to what we have now, the police, the control, the order..........

...... until that would happen, we are stuck with D&D Governments that don't have the resources to care about every speck of dirt in their kingdom and this leaves lots of dark places for evil to grow... muhahahahaha (love it)