Vote me up a Kingdom!

[ngilop]

Hello Everybody! I just found a scrap of paper (well not really a scrap more like 3 or 4 pages) detailing several NPCs villages, points of interest of a medium sixed kingdom in my campaign world, everything is generic enough and unspecified to allow this particular kingdom to be anything, well almost anything!

SOme specifics follows!

It is Human centered, is bordered on the south by a mountain range, the west by a lake, the north by a canyon and the east by a line of demarcation.

By medium sized I mean the population is around 2 million people. ( my world is very much medieval)

though not a weak nation, this kingdom hold no esteem or reverance for any part of their military, its not that the are bad, its just they are average and the average guy never gets remembered.

Their biggest trade are Lumber, Honey, pelts (not in any particular order)

SO I am going to give a week for each voting and first up is the ype of government that rules this kingdom.

The rules are simple, you get 1 positive and 1 negative vote. The positive is to add a vote to one selection you support, while the negative is to take away from that. You do not have to spend both votes if you chose not to. So if you do not really care for or find your selection is so far ahead you can chose to just 'down vote' the closest selection to that, and the opposite stays true. You do not dislike any of the choices but favor one in partifual so you disregard your negative vote.

When voting make your slection in size 3 and bolded SO it will be easy to find.

ROUND 1 Final: Democratic Matriarchy.

ROUND 2 Final: Chaotic Evil drow wannabes

[Dragonfire]

Democracy +1

Matriarchy +1

A twist upon the ancient greeks!

[Icedaemon]

Republic -1
Plutocracy +1

Matriarchy +1

In a fairly realistic setting, pre-industrial democracy will most likely not work. The commoners are not educated enough to tell which candidates are actually supporting real policies and which are simply making empty promises. Without reasonable mass communication, getting all the information to everyone in a nation larger than a city-state will be nigh-impossible even if there was public education.

[paddyfool]

Mageocracy +1
Matriarchy +1

[Maraxus1]

What about a plain, old Dictatorship (or, if you prefer -achys, a Stratocracy - "Military in power" - nation)

My vote however:

Democracy +1
Patriarchy +1

Every male freeman age 15+ is allowed to vote for a mayor of his city- or town district, village or area (one mayor for every ~5,000 people, so ~400 total). People get an additional vote per son under age 15, half a vote for a woman and each unmarried daughter and 1/3 of a vote for each slave (there are more freemen then slaves at total but not much more).

Senators (120 total) get elected by lottery for 4 years. They may be dismissed prematurely, if a majority in the Senate and among the mayors, or a 75% majority in the Senate wants them gone.

[The Witch-King]

Mageocracy +1

Patriarchy +1

[The Witch-King]

Mageocracy +1

Patriarchy +1

[Mo_the_Hawked]

-Mageocracy
Mages get enough love, they don't need a nation.

+1 Oligarcy
The classic council of elders, with a slight pre-reqs.

Nil-gendered

[Relecs]

Theocracy +1

Mageocracy -1

Matriarchy+1

Monotheistic worshipers of a Female Fertility Goddess with an exclusively female clergy. They provide guidance and instruction for a male only cast of warriors who believe the female clergy to be divine in nature.

[Watchdog]

Democracy -1
Oligarchy +1

I'd suggest a mercantile republic led by a cabal of the most powerful merchant families, a la medieval Venice. They gained power through trade and economic manipulation, which explains how they became a powerful nation despite having an army that is merely 'average.'

[Landis963]

Mageocracy +1
Oligarchy -1

Matriarchy +1

[ngilop]

Ohh, a very close race but A Democratic Matriarchy slid by the skin of its teeth. Will update OP with the final and here is round 2!

Same rules apply , You get 1 up vote and 1 down vote. Size 3 and Bolded On what the predominate Alingment should be and put a VERY short definit0on of what the alignment means in my world ( so you do have people for instance saying lawful good and then thinking of a robin hood def of LG which in my world is most definitly chaotic good) and then modifiying said alignment definitons to suit a governing body, and nation LOL

Lawful Good works towards bringing the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. Believes that a stable and well ordered society is the best hope of happiness for the majority of people

Lawuful Neutral wants a nice quiet world in which everybody has the security of knowing their place and nothing ever changes. Believes in routine and everybody having a set duty and dislikes surprises

Lawful Evil work to gain the greatest long term benefit. Believes if other people get hurt in the process, well, so what. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, right? To them the end justifies any and all means

Neutral Good not really bothered about the amount of social freedom granted by government, only whether the people are happy or not. Believes that people will happily work with other people or alone as the need dictates.

Neutral believes that Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all intrinsically necessary to the world and its people - part of a vital balance of forces that should not ever be allowed to tip too far in any direction

Neutral Evil will accept any reasonable opportunity to gain personal benefits or self gratification, but will tend to weigh the risks before doing so. Doesn't care if other people get hurt, but certainly cares about whether they will have to face any consequences as a result.

Chaotic Good wants to help people 'now'. Believes that it is up to every individual to do what they can to help others when they can. Individual freedom is the best way of guaranteeing happiness for all.

Chaotic Neutral craves new expereinces and excitement - now! Always fascinated by new things, and utterly bored without change. Belives doing what you feel at the time and what makes you happy is the rule of the world

Chaotic Evil if they see something that they want and are strong enough to take it., they will do so. Believes there is no point worrying about possible consequences, as they may or may not happen. The strong prey on the weak, and that's just the way of the world.

[erictheredd]

With those definitions: Lawful evil. I want to see a matriarchal democracy that has little dedication to "unneeded pleasantries". Also, as written, this place could very well be benevolent in intention and still be lawful evil

I'm not fond of chaotic good as a government type. Mostly for historical reasons. Its easy to say, and probably what most role players have as their personal preference (we definitely have a chaotic bent)

so +1 lawful evil
-1 chaotic good

[smasher0404]

-1 Lawful Good those are kind of boring
+1 Chaotic Evil anarchy is fun, a chaotic evil society is closer to an anarchy than a stable society. See, want, smash, grab. Crime rate should be high and the police should have minimal control over the situation.

[Landis963]

+1 lawful evil - lots of fun ways to match wits with a group of PCs.
-1 lawful good - boooring!

[Raistlin1040]

+1 Chaotic Neutral
-1 Lawful Evil

[Violet Octopus]

+1 True Neutral
Abstaining from a minus vote.

[Mo_the_Hawked]

+1 True Neutral
-1 Lawful Evil

[Suddo]

+1 Lawful Evil
-1 True Neutral

I assume this is going to be used on PCs.

[Violet Octopus]

While I understand we're voting for the interpretations of alignment as presented above (which is a great way to sidestep alignment arguments), I'm interested in a TN nation which maintains a balance between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos not out of some metaphysical sense of balance, but because they need to play neighbouring kingdoms off against each other to prevent annexation or destruction.

(files idea away for reuse elsewhere)

edit: I'm also interested in a LE kingdom where very bad things will happen to the population if the government fell to an adventurer coup d'état. Something where even high level adventurers can't brute-force their problems.

[Maraxus1]

+1 Lawful neutral
I thing they should be ordered as a society, if they are ment to support a matriachy (Or otherwise, after the first war in which you need to send the men because women are the determining factor in population stability, the men would say: Hey, now we are in charge!). But I dislike the Drow society so nol LE.

-1 True neutral
Because I totally dislike your definition. It makes no sense. Even if someone thinks, evil is part of the universe, why would he work towards making this part of his society, if though everybody is happy with "good"?
Even if leaders are thinking: "Hey, the "good" needs an counterexample of plain, ugly evilness, so that everybody will stays watchful, or evil will grow in secret." Will not greate a neutral society. It will (if it works) be good, because a few "examples" do not shift the mass.
And it will definitly not necessary be neutral on the law/chaos axis. Can be but this way of thinking is already leaning towards law. And adding "and we need a few examples of violent chaos somewhere at our borders, to make the people appreciate order." too, than it is most definitly lawful all the way.

The point is, that only a few weired people would do something for the sake of cosmological balance (especially facing the fact that there are good aligned planes out there where people are happy that show, that the balance is not needed and an unbalanced world works).

You can't make a whole kingdom out of such weirdos. People do stuff because they gain something from it and their life is better afterwards.
Some people think, that a strong society is best suited for everybody inside to gain most, so they do good to others if these need it, so that the others will later be able to repay the favor, or maybe not directly but they'll help someone else looking over the whole society, everybody gives and recieves all the time.
Some take this pattern so deep into their unconcious decission making, that they don't even question it on a case-by-case basis.

Others think, that if they care for themselves, they will be best off. Either because the others will still form a nice, frindly society they can abuse, or because the others will only look for themselves too and trying to build something altruistic up will only get abused by others or because they think that if everybody just acts egoisticly, they will get most out of it because they are the strongest.

And then there are those that think a little egoism is okay / they won't get caught / only if the lure of personal gain is to big, they get tempted / if the antisocial deed is so big, they don't want to imagine anyone else to do it, they stay away from it.

This is the kind of neutral I like. And it's a pretty big range of neutral, just like people are neutral on the law/chaos slider if
-They have a personal codex that does not really effect their decissions most of the time -or-
-They have a personal codex but in a very serious decission, they are willing to make compromises.
(One, whose codex falls under both criterias should be considered chaotic. Or as the Joker said: "This ONE precious rule of you, I will make you break it" - or similar. In D&D terms: "I will make your alignment change towards chaotic. Muhaha!")

[Lord Vampyre]

+1 Chaotic Evil
It's a Democratic Matriarchy, need I say more. Sounds an awful lot like the drow. We definitely need more drow-like societies.

-1 True Neutral
Just cancelling the someone else's vote for True Neutral. :smalltongue:

[ngilop]

Well looks like chaotic evil it is, though i enjoyed (Incoming sarcasm) the thesis i got onw hy my efiniton of the algnemnts sucked and made no sense, open my eyes, made me want to become amish and all that jazz..


I am not going to lie, it pains me that at least 1 perosn only voted CE for the simple fact that
We definitely need more drow-like societies.

and with those 2 points in mind, I think I am going to close the voting down becuase teh last thing I want in my campaign world is Drow only they are humans excpet they are drow.

SOrry if anybody wishes to contiue giving input on this kingdom, sorry, maybe if you send me a private discussing any ideas, im probably game as long as its not X but relaly a thinly disguised attempt at trying to be Y