M.A.R. Barker, author of Tekumel, also author of Neo-Nazi book?

[Mannahnin]

Thus my point about lampshading.

I'm confused by your usage of "lampshading". The way you're writing sounds like you're using it to mean "elide", "ignore" or "sweep under the rug", but the verb "lampshade" means "to intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent, or clichéd nature of an element or situation featured in a work of fiction within the work itself." Which is the opposite of hiding it.

I'm not aware of Greyhawk or the FR campaign materials making a lot of jokes about how implausible or absurd their systems of government are. But maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Mannahnin]

Rights are not dependent on whether you vote in leaders or not. Jumping from the buck stops with the rulers to they are all autocratic dictatorships worse than North Korea is a huge jump that you seem to feel is self evident but does not seem to follow.

What rights there are is going to depend on what the system in place is and the specific culture. This is often rarely defined for fantasy settings.

In a fantasy game with a mythic romantic pseudo-medieval flavor this can mean a variety of things from full modern society with an overlay of platemail and people with the title king or lord, or a full on historical medieval based society, or a different system entirely because of magic and gods or just because fantasy and the sky is not the limit. This can vary for things like Waterdeep, different DMs could run Waterdeep by the book and portray it as a mostly modern base with a light overlay, try to match historical guilds and nobility models for a coastal trade hub city state, or play it as a fantasy society different from both. There is a lot of ways to go with a D&D setting.

There is no must on how it must be in a fantasy RPG setting.

Yup. The way most D&D settings are depicted is with ordinary people having some degree of personal freedom and human rights.

The extent to which this is accurate to pre-modern societies varies quite a bit. Some definitely had very little, but many had broad "freeman" classes to which nobles and authorities were beholden to give at least some respect and protection.

More brutal ones, like the period in Japan when a Samurai could get away with just randomly cutting a peasant's head off with no real repercussions, were, to my understanding, more the exception than the rule.

 

[Faolyn]

And you don't find any of that absolutely dystopian horrifying? We're randomly testing citizens with detect evil - note that in 2e that doesn't actually work, but, that's a separate issue. Paladins wandering around with Helms of Opposite Alignment to correct citizens and ensure maximum goodness.

Who said anything about random? Also, detect evil did work that way in 1e and 3x.

And, no, if your employee commits an evil act, that doesn't change your character's alignment. I'm not even sure where you are getting that.

Try looking at older descriptions of paladins and with whom they can associate.

But also you have an employee and you know they are committing evil acts in your business's/kingdom's name and you do nothing to stop it and allow them to continue, thus giving tacit approval... can you say that you're actually good?

The point being, the citizens not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishments is part of the lampshading. They absolutely are. It's just that we elide over those facts.

Really? Where? The list of crimes in Dragon Heist (for instance) are all things that are considered crimes today (i.e., gossip isn't a crime) and the punishments are in most cases far less severe than real life medieval/renaissance punishments (no maimings, pillories, trials by ordeals, or being burnt at the stake on the list).

And vote? What setting has votes?

Again, Greyhawk, as several of us have pointed out. Several places in the Realms and in Eberron do as well.

My point is, only evil cities are places where evil things are done is part and parcel of the lampshading. You just got through talking about state run mind control to enforce alignment.

No, I didn't. I said that it was an available spell.

Anyone who is evil, even if they haven't done anything evil, is called out as evil. I wonder what happens to them then? That's an nightmare that would scare Orwell.

If you aren't committing evil acts, then you probably don't have an evil alignment. Unless the DM insists on racial alignments, of course. I don't think any D&D setting, outside of Ravenloft perhaps, would make someone be evil because they have evil thoughts they never acted on. And even in Ravenloft, the Dark Powers don't react to reward a person until they actually commit an evil deed.

Edit: can you actually give us examples of D&D non-evil governments trampling all over the rights of the citizens or ruling with ultimate authority?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have to admit, I could not have asked for better examples of how far people will go to ignore the underlying icky stuff.

By the way, I'm not saying I'm any different. I mean, I play D&D too and I certainly don't play rebels who are out to overthrow the monarchy or spread democracy. And the settings I create for homebrew games are every bit as deep in the shade of the lamp as anyone else's. Like I said way upthread - lots of people like Grand Theft Auto or First Person Shooters. I know I do.

But, I just find it really funny when people will absolutely flip out over something like The Wall of the Faithless or The Cataclysm in Krynn but have no problems with a centuries old government of anonymous rulers governing a city without anything remotely approaching any sort of democratic principles. Well... it's Good, so, it's no problems.

As long as my character is allowed to openly carry two-handed swords in public I know it's a just and free and righteous society. If the king abuses his power in other ways, it's only to protect my right to carry my sword, so it's totally worth it.

 

[Baron Opal II]

And you don't find any of that absolutely dystopian horrifying?

No, Hussar, we're playing a blessed game. Some of us like more complex backgrounds and have fun reading history, weather, geopolitics, shipbuilding, economics, biology, anthropology, &c. and throw it all together.

Sometimes if we create or adapt something objectionable we listen to feedback and adjust as necessary. But we're doing this to have fun and relax. Sometimes that fun is through catharsis and drama, rather than direct victory or comedy. But still, we're not actually creating worlds that others suffer and die in.

As long as my character is allowed to openly carry two-handed swords in public I know it's a just and free and righteous society.

Actually, you can do that in Oregon. Just sayin'.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's try this one last time, because the pedantry is getting too annoying.

Any form of government that is not fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law is, IMO, evil. Someone upthread pointed to Athens as democratic. If that's your definition of democracy, well, there's a reason that we're not understanding each other. That's democratic in the sense that some people get a vote, but, not if you're disqualified for the heinous crimes of being a woman, poor, or various other reasons.

Now, it's true that I misused the term lampshading, sorry. My bad. I did mean it as "sweep under the rug". Again, my misuse.

To be honest, I'm finding this absolutely baffling. That anyone would actually defend any state that isn't fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law boggles my mind. It's actually rather frightening to be honest. That people would look at something like Waterdeep and think, "Yeah, that's not too bad. I wouldn't mind living in that system"

But, yeah, I'm done here. This was a minor point that was meant to reference how wargames elide (see, I can learn, I didn't use lampshade) the horror of what's being made into a game. I didn't quite realize that people actually believe that undemocratic systems of government without universal enfranchisement and basic human rights was a good thing. Who knew?



You all have a good day now.

 

[Aldarc]

Think about it for just a second how horrifying the Masked Lords of Waterdeep would actually be as a system of government.

I suspect that Ed Greenwood was going for a Florentine Republic / Italian Renaissance + "fantasy veneer" vibe with the Sword Coast city-states. These were nominally republics but in practice were oligarchies dominated by ruling families and guilds. But it feels pretty sophomoric as far as governing bodies go. Historically, republics and democracies were fairly messy, bureaucratic with lots of various bodies, offices, and cabinets.

See the Venetian Republic:

Republic of Rome:

 

[pemerton]

To be honest, I'm finding this absolutely baffling. That anyone would actually defend any state that isn't fully enfranchised, democratic and ruled by law boggles my mind. It's actually rather frightening to be honest. That people would look at something like Waterdeep and think, "Yeah, that's not too bad. I wouldn't mind living in that system"

<snip>

I didn't quite realize that people actually believe that undemocratic systems of government without universal enfranchisement and basic human rights was a bad thing.

I think you dropped a "not" in that last quoted sentence (or "bad" should read "good").

There's also a bit of irony in it, given the thread topic.

 

[pemerton]

I suspect that Ed Greenwood was going for a Florentine Republic / Italian Renaissance + "fantasy veneer" vibe with the Sword Coast city-states.

Agreed. And for what it's worth I think that @Hussar's point stands, that these are not political forms for which widespread support is normally expressed among liberal democratic publics. There's an interesting question as to how much contemporary non-liberal democratic countries that seem to enjoy a wide degree of internal popular support might be compared to them, but I think addressing that question might break board rules.

 

[Staffan]

The problem with most governments in D&D is that they are usually autocracies or oligarchies. Many of them are considered "good" because the people in charge happen to be good, but that depends on that person staying in power (and staying benevolent). Queen Aurala ir'Wynarn is listed as Neutral Good, and so the realm of Aundair under her rule generally acts in a benevolent fashion, but should her heir turn out to be rotten, or should Aurala be turned astray by bad advisors, the only real remedy for that is the sword.

To some degree, this is appropriate to a game like D&D where some people are able to amass an enormous amount of personal, physical power. In real life, there is a pretty tight ceiling on how much one person can accomplish on their own. Pit the best fighter in the world against a dozen competent fighters, and that fighter is going down. But in D&D, a single person can defeat a hundred people, or more with magic. So it makes sense that rulers have at least a fair portion of such personal power, or else make sure they have the protection of those who do.