The case for democracy* in RPG settings

[GMMichael]

I wonder if Prismatic Wasteland has read A Song of Ice and Fire, because the Westerosi monarchy is anything but static.

Also, what happens when the democrats elect a despot? Is the game just over? (Go team Joffrey!)

 

[Tonguez]

1. Democracies dont exist beyond a village, Humans are always hierarchical and mostly tend towards some kind of Oligarchy (even families are essentially oligarchal)

2 Monarchies are easier to depose via assasination of the Lord. Conan killing the tyrant Numedides to become King of Aquilonia is a major capstone of his story arc and then Conan has to deal with the intrigue of court politics (back to the Oligarchy)

3 Oligarchies make for better faction play, which gives players choices and DM story seeds

4. Oligarchies give so many more options - Theocracies, Plutocracies, Aristocracies, Bureaucracies, Kraterocracies, Timocracies are all just window dressing to the factional interplay of the Oligarchs

 

[aramis erak]

Democracies actually reduce potential PC impact. With autocracies, only a few people need be convinced to make changes; in republics, the republic's central body needs majority, which can dozens (historical Kingdom of Poland, Traveller subsector moots) to thousands (Star Wars' Old Republic)... and in democratic minded republics, enough of the voter base that the impacts don't get undone next election... and more direct democracies, that can be a dominant plurality of the people needed.

PCs in Trek have little chance to affect the Fed Council... In Star Wars, it's plausible to prevent the empire in 18⋯19 BBY... but stupidly hard.
In L5R, the autocracy makes PC ambassadors quite potent; similarly the Elves of Tolkien's Middle Earth.
Marvel's had entire series (comics and movies) about the darker side of democracies and disinformation...

 

[aramis erak]

1. Democracies dont exist beyond a village, Humans are always hierarchical and mostly tend towards some kind of Oligarchy (even families are essentially oligarchal)

several monastic orders have regional meetings where all the brethren/sisters vote on the direction of their order. technically oligarchies, as only fully professed members vote; this does go above the village level, but the also answer to a representative worldwide body, (Certain Franciscan orders.)

 

[Necropolitan]

Also, what happens when the democrats elect a despot? Is the game just over? (Go team Joffrey!)

With a kingdom the PCs can dethrone King Evilguy Puppykicker and free the people of Happyland from his despotic rule.

Deposing democratically-elected President Evilguy Puppykicker who won office in a free and fair election on the other hand means the PCs now have to deal with the fact that the majority of Happyland voters decided that evil was the way to go and nonvoters felt that the threat posed by Evilguy Puppykicker wasn't worth voting against.

 

[Distracted DM]

It seems like the "simplicity" and "fewer needed points of contact" are big reasons here. With an autocracy, even if you want to get complex, at most you have to worry about the few folks with the keys to power. So the players can feel it they're dealing with sophisticated politics (in a good way) without feeling like there never going to make progress.

 

[MGibster]

Guess im way ahead of the curve on this as political intrigue has been my jam for sometime. Even Monarchs have politics that the PCs should be able to impact.

I suspect a lot of us tend to view monarchs as absolute authoriatarians. Divine right of kings and all that. But for a lot of history, the monarch didn't really have absolute authority. If the king starts pissing everyone off there's always a chance his subjects decide to back the Duke of Earl's bid to be the next king.

In truth, feudualism, insomuch as feudalism was a thing, was an incredibly complex legal, social, economic, religious, and military system of obligation and fealty. Not only did vassals have obligations to their lords but their lords had obligations to them. In England at least, there are legal records showing peasants were able to successfully sue the lord of their manor. (The lords had most of the power so this kind of thing was rare. But it happened on occasion.) If you're a mover and shaker, you might be able to have some serious influence in how the local earl runs his earldom. i.e. Player characters have a direct accss to the ear of the earl and might affect how things are run. Perhaps even gaining the duke's or the king's ear?

 

[Joshua Randall]

I mean… how much fiction is there about democracies where it’s still one (or a few) key person who needs to be suborned / killed / defended / turned? Lots and lots of lots. Many techno-thrillers, every season of “24”, “The Manchurian Candidate”, “Day of the Jackal”, etc. etc. etc.

So you can have your cake and eat it too.

My experience has been that if the GM/players want there to be political schemes in a game, there will be, regardless of (original / purported) governmental system. And if they don’t and they want it to be a background element, then it will be, regardless of governmental system.

 

[OptionalRule]

I think a Fantasy would can include any number of things. Almsot anything can exist. I don't really understand the "should" framing though. Games and settings should have the elements needed to make them fun and engaging backdrops for the kinds of game the DMs want to run. They're fictional places though, so "should" isn't a word that applies.

 

[payn]

I suspect a lot of us tend to view monarchs as absolute authoriatarians. Divine right of kings and all that. But for a lot of history, the monarch didn't really have absolute authority. If the king starts pissing everyone off there's always a chance his subjects decide to back the Duke of Earl's bid to be the next king.

In truth, feudualism, insomuch as feudalism was a thing, was an incredibly complex legal, social, economic, religious, and military system of obligation and fealty. Not only did vassals have obligations to their lords but their lords had obligations to them. In England at least, there are legal records showing peasants were able to successfully sue the lord of their manor. (The lords had most of the power so this kind of thing was rare. But it happened on occasion.) If you're a mover and shaker, you might be able to have some serious influence in how the local earl runs his earldom. i.e. Player characters have a direct accss to the ear of the earl and might affect how things are run. Perhaps even gaining the duke's or the king's ear?

Yeah I think a lot of that is just for expediency. Its much easier to have a king be the lightning rod for mal or benevolent ruling of a kingdom and have the adventure take place mostly outside of the kingdom anyway. So, traditionally thats how its been for many. Killing bandits and beasts without much ado about why the PCs are doing it. I get that too, not everybody wants the nuance of a factional state with political intrigue for their pastime.