Reconciling Political Structures

[Avaran]

I'm not sure if this is more of a West Coast thing or not (the stories I've heard strongly suggest that it very well could be), but I wanted to bring up a topic of discussion with regard to the politics in the world of Fortannis.

I have noticed, especially over the last year or so, a larger push on the part of players to push the in-game political structure away from a monarchy and more toward a democratic structure. This has been illustrated through in-game laws and in individual group and organizational structure, and I've seen and heard many character and group concepts based democratic premises.

It has been my observation that people don't like to accept the concept of someone being able to tell (order) them to do something; the main assertion being that everyone should have the freedom to choose and do what they want to do, and that we're all peers and that nobody is better than anyone else.

I am curious to hear other people's thoughts, experiences with this, and overall perspective on things. Have you ever had to deal with this kind of things? If so, how did you handle it, or how have you seen it handled? If this kind of thing hasn't been directed toward you specifically, what has been your reaction or thoughts when such things have cone up? What are some ways that you've seen chapters handle things like this? How has nobility acted? How important is it to stick to this political structure for the game world? If you have been fortunate enough to play on both the East and West coats (especially within the last 2-3 years) have you noticed a difference? If so, what differences have you noticed?

 

[stonegolem]

Our present-day concept of democracy is
a foreign idea to the people of Fortannis. There
may be some places that have a very limited
version of democracy—for example, the nobles
are allowed to vote on certain issues—but that
is the extent of it. Even peasants who revolt
against unfair nobles never think to replace their
government with a democracy, but only to replace
it with a fairer monarch. ARB, pg. 29

This is a concept that's been discussed fairly heavily among those I talk about Alliance with. Ultimately, I believe the way the system is set up like it is is specifically so that the adventurers have someone who can legitimately say "THIS IS THE LAW" and in doing so have an iron-clad argument for a code of behavior and a standard by which every lawful citizen is judged. It creates points of contention and allows a plot team a leg to stand upon as far as how their chapter functions in unextraordinary circumstances (such as when not under attack by liches, for example), and provides for meaningful verisimilitude - in other words, it makes the world the players exist in a richer, fuller and functional realm for their stories to continue in, rather than simply a series of set pieces to pop loot pinatas in front of.

Essentially, what it comes down to is this: there will, by Plot fiat, always be someone big enough, strong enough, and influential enough to force a tyranny and establish their own ineffable law, for the simple reason that the PCs aren't there to enforce their own rules every day of the year. There has to be a reason for the world to keep functioning without descending into anarchy, and the monarchy and the military that supports it is a convenient and sensible one.

 

[ASFDan]

This is probably one of my greatest frustrations as a longtime staff member in multiple chapters.

Interestingly enough, while there are similar themes of dislike/mistrust of the feudal system among some of my players, here it results in a push for a somewhat anarchistic bend, rather than democratic or meritocratic.

This, of course, frustrates the hell out of the players that are trying to stick to the feudal system, but no one is willing to be "that guy" that enforces compliance. On the rare occasion someone does stand up for their position we end up fielding an inbox full of complaints about favoritism and how the mean and terrible nobility are oppressing the common person.

It has been my observation that people don't like to accept the concept of someone being able to tell (order) them to do something; the main assertion being that everyone should have the freedom to choose and do what they want to do, and that we're all peers and that nobody is better than anyone else.

I would tend to agree with that assessment, though I believe that PC nobles bear the brunt of this attitude. After all, if the PCs assault Baron Enpeecee the plot team can bring the collective might of the kingdom down on them, but there is an (often) unspoken expectation that Baron Peecee does not have those same protections. It's metagaming, plain and simple, but unless your plot team is willing to unleash an army on the PCs over PVP antics then that expectation will remain fulfilled (and thus perpetuated).

As for how to handle it, that's a question I've been wrestling with for years. I believe it is important, as a game writer, to stand up for the world you want to present, but also that it is possible to do so without a relentless heavy-handed approach. I'd happily trade ideas with you privately, but I'm planning to implement some of them in our upcoming campaign and I don't want to spoil things for my players, so I'm not going to post them here. :ninja:

 

[Deadlands of Old]

Part of the problem, I think, is that much of what gave legitimacy to the monarchs of old was the belief (or fear) that the kings, queens, emperors, and so on, were chosen by divine hand.

One could always argue about another who happens to be in charge because he or she was son or daughter to such and such, but one cannot argue with a perfect deity if one believes in that deity, and if the belief structure of the church is entwined with the state in such a way that the ruler has been deemed fated to rule… there is not much a believer can say about it.

One of the ways around our modern predilection for democracy is if your kingdom is in a crisis, and your ruler has characteristics, and has accomplished deeds, worthy of reverence, if not worship.

When SHTF, and HARD, people will often give up the ideal of democracy long enough to find someone who will lead them out of the disaster.

For folks who want the pcs to embrace the monarch with greater zeal, ask yourself, does S have to HTF harder in this chapter?

 

[Mike Ventrella]

One of the big problems is the worry that the game will be hijacked by the players.

If the PCs get to vote on who their leaders are, then you could end up with the same problem we have in all democracies: The person who wins may not have the interests of everyone at heart. They may be a terrible leader who just happened to be popular. They may be completely corrupt, a metagamer and a cheater. They may ruin the fun of the game for everyone else.

By having NPC leaders at the top with control over the situation, we can prevent the game from becoming one where the most powerful, powergaming PCs take over.

Seriously, that's the main reason.

In Ashbury, where we are admittedly trying to run a High Fantasy King Arthur-like game, nobles are not chosen by heredity. Anyone can become a noble, which in and of itself is pretty democratic by medieval standards. When someone moves up the ranks from squire to knight to baron, they have to have the support of the population or the Plot Committee won't approve them. And we do look at the characters OOG as well, admittedly, although sometimes it's for things like "Does this PC attend enough events per year?"

 

[Simon]

Thing is that Alliance is a medieval Fantasy game. Okay...so maybe its more renn. than medieval in ways but the fundamentals of power are largely the same. The Divine right of Kings always sounded good. The Centralization of wealth and patronage was more a day to day reality than that however. Nobles who were unable to carry out the obligations of wealth and leadership ended up becoming more and more ineffective. People did expect strength from their leaders. Those who did not fit that model were greatly unpopular. If you do not believe that read about Richard I and John of England.

Now of course there were Parliments and councils in a few countries. Truth be told we have them in the Game world. In Ashbury for example the Nobles gather and talk through the major decisions....rather like a house of Lords. They often talk to the rest of the players....kind of like a consultation with the house of commons. I do not know about other chapters....but I am willing to bet the structures are similar...so in the end you are already closer than you might like to believe.

Joe Siegel