D&D General Politics (in your game)

[Larnievc]

I keep it simple. Toffs at the top. Plebs at the bottom. The party in the middle trying to take advantage of both.

 

[Thunder Brother]

I like thinking about politics primarily as a background element for worldbuilding. If I can really nail down what makes a kingdom or empire tick, for example, then it makes it easier to spin off other elements from that foundation. I don't usually expect my players to actively engage with it, and I don't think I'm clever enough to run a campaign that features a large amount of political intrigue.

I also like avoiding or playing with certain medievalism such as divine right and the generally patriarchal attitude we see in history.

Monster politics is also fun to brainstorm. I have the idea for a campaign based in a massive haunted forest (think Mirkwood for LOTR) that is divided between a hag coven, a green dragon, a necromancer, and a "spider god", plus a bunch of mortals caught in between. Thinking of how these different factions might interact is a lot of fun, because their motivations and goals can become quite alien.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It depends on the campaign, but I typically lean into it quite a bit, and like being involved in fantasy world politics as a character (like my Changeling Hexblade that's trying to conquer Faerun and destroy the Lords' Alliance).

In my current Eberron campaign, it's absolutely essential to the game. Not just because of the fallout of the Mourning and who wants to become the monarch of all of Galifar (they're currently supporting Prince Oargev of New Cyre), but also because my players have made their characters be rivals of many of the Dragonmarked houses through stepping on their toes (the Warforged Artificer understandably hates House Cannith and is trying to ruin them, the Mark of Making Wizard is an outcast from House Cannith West and doesn't like the other factions of the Dragonmarked House, and the Firbolg Monk doesn't like anyone that has too much power).

In my homebrew world, Tor-eal, the world's politics is a major part of the world. The Free People of Wadhaven are close allies with the Speakers of Silvaryn and the Barony of Balgara, even though they have (currently) irreconcilable differences (Wadhaven is a democracy where every citizen votes on every matter, Silvaryn is a Gerontocracy-Republic where the oldest/most experienced members of the nation are voted to a Senate to make laws, and the Barony of Balgara is a feudal-style plutocracy where the aristocratic families/baronies are elevated in status over those less wealthy/influential than them). These 3 nations are dedicated rivals to Nevumber (a mago-dictatorship that is ruled by a triumvirate of nigh-immortal evil mages), Mindathar (a brutal militocracy that is ruled by minotaur warlords and tyrants), and both the Draconic Empire and the Kingdom of Klörvak during their 4-centuries long war that destroyed many innocent lives. There's also the Celestial Council, which is an "all-powerful" bureaucracy that is hindered by endless debates on where, when, and how much they should intervene in the world that results in inaction and incompetence (which is why the Great Dragon-Giant War was allowed to go on for so long) that tries to avoid intervention whenever they possibly can. Finally, there are the endless rivals; the Yikkan Contingent ("Yikkan" coming from them worshipping the Yikare, this world's "deity" of magic) and the Sheiohn Foulen (translates to the "One-Mind Foundation"). I've described their conflict in more detail here and here. To put it simply, a major part of my world is the complexity of its political systems and provoking questions and scenarios where one wonders which side is in the right and which is in the wrong in any given situation (granted, some are more obviously in the wrong than others, like Nevumber and Mindathar).

 

[Aging Bard]

If you want a rich, living campaign, you need politics, particularly religious politics if you want to avoid racial or tribal conflict. Fantasy religions can be sufficiently divorced from real faiths to add the needed color and intensity without out-game conflict. Warring against distant lands also works, where little is known except that they are not "Us" (and this sets up future changes in relationships once contact is made). Closer to home, family and settlement rivalries are a good way to introduce court intrigue, again avoiding racial or tribal conflicts if they are objectionable.

 

[guachi]

I always include politics, factions, social, religious elements. Any of these are easy for characters to grasp without having to overexplain them.

A few years ago when I started DMing 5e I ran the old module N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God. It's originally set in Greyhawk but I moved to Mystara and put it in the default country of Karameikos near the default starter town of Threshold. The leader of Threshold dual hats as Baron and religious leader. But there are two dominant religions in Karameikos, that of the ruling Thyatians and that of the majority and native Traladarans.

I rebranded the church in the town in the module as one of the few old Traladaran churches that wasn't destroyed by the invading Thyatians. Had an NPC tell the PCs that the local Baron couldn't send troops from Threshold to check out what was wrong with a heavily Traladaran hamlet and look around in a holy Traladaran church. It'd cause a scandal.

It not only provided exposition and background but it also explained why the NPCs couldn't just solve their own problem.

As a DM, I always try to include some kind of religion, political, social, racial tension at all tiers of play. I think it adds meaning to the PCs' success.

That entire campaign, barring one small adventure, was entirely done through various old modules but I always included consequences beyond the obvious XP and loot, whether that was PC-centered or all the way to involving entire nations. I think the PCs appreciated it.

 

[ECMO3]

Not everyone has political stuff go on in their game- in some campaigns, you don't ever even know the name of the country you're in, or whether there's a ruler, much less their name. But in some, politics are either a major feature or a major element in the background. And it doesn't have to be politics like "kingdom A is trying to steal land and resources from kingdom B"- political tensions and conflicts can exist solely within a society, too.

If your game includes politics as either a pc-facing thing or as a background element, what is that like? What kind of political tensions are dominant? Do you have lots of factions, racial tensions, social stratification, a struggle between church and state for dominance? Is there a monarch with unlimited power or a council of wise men or a dictator grimly holding on to power by playing the aristocrats against each other?

I think in my next game I am going to have the local king enact an assault weapons ban - confiscate all weapons classified as "heavy" and all missile weapons that do not have the "loading" property.

These are weapons of war and have no place in the hands of adventurers. Although "light" weapons account for 90% of deaths caused by weapons, assault weapons are the prefered weapons of murderhobos and are used in a large perceantage of mass murders.

Adventurers with the soldier or city watch background would be allowed to keep their assault weapons.

That is a sure-fire political hot potato that will get people at my table riled up.

 

[CleverNickName]

I keep it simple. Toffs at the top. Plebs at the bottom. The party in the middle trying to take advantage of both.

This is the way.