PDA

View Full Version : The King is Dead! Long live the King! [I got 99 succession problems]



Morph Bark
2013-01-28, 03:30 PM
Earlier today, even before finding out our queen will be abdicating the throne, funny coincedence, I was thinking about how leadership of countries functions in a D&D setting.

Wouldn't many kings and emperors with the wealth and magic available arrange for a Raise Dead upon death? Or better yet, a Reincarnate, bringing them back to young adult age? There are just so many ways to continue living (and ruling!) forever, it's hard to think of a reason why someone who might want to wouldn't do it. Oh, he died of old age? Well, then he is a sucker, because he didn't suicide himself the day before and got a free ticket back to age: 15.

Of course, this also brings problems with it for succession, as their descendants and other family members might want a shot at the throne, or even high priests or high-ranking members of the military.

Now, I already got my own lampiche (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101944), who rules a city-state with his vampire court, ruling over humans and lesser undead. Many other forms of undead are easy to put in positions like these. A king-turned-construct could serve just as well, just look at the God-Emperor of Mankind okay that's a bad example for this. Other creature types might even fit, if they bestow immortality or very long age with it, but Outsider (native) isn't one of them if all the class capstones featuring it are any example.

Warforged and Elan have no age limit and will never die of old age, and even if they die, they're entirely valid for Raise Dead and the like.


Becoming immortal is very easy in DnD, so why don't more rulers do it? Succession problems? With a very long life, our King could easily have many offspring vying for the throne. With a Raise Dead or two, he could even have children from one life and grandchildren from another (and greatgrandchildren from yet another) competing for it. With Reincarnate, they could even all be a different (half-)race!

I suppose it could be easy for him, if they get uppity, to gather them all up in the grand royal hall and tell them from his kingly balcony, "we have gathered you all here today to decide my successor. Last one to remain alive gets it."

Then catapult the winner over the palace walls. Okay, this last bit might be problematic for non-Evil kings (and maybe Chaotic Stupid ones), but Good kings probably wouldn't even have that problem, or at least not as often.


Of course, there's the problem that Marut (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/inevitable.htm#marut) might come after you (though this depends on the chosen method, as Raise Dead and the like don't usually ping its radar), but they can be easily dealt with. After all, at this point, I am immortal, I have inside me blood of kings. I have no rival, no man can be my equal.

So why fear the retribution of a Marut, where a PC man can easily get on his level and further? I doubt Mechanus is going to send ALL of... oh. Oh boy. This just in, there are a couple hundred Maruts at my door. Best make this quick!


So, Playground, what ways to deal with these succession problems are there? And are there perchance any homebrew versions of immortality, to offer a wider range of possibilities to our League of Immortal Kings and Emperors?

Whoops, that was the door. Gotta go!

Jormengand
2013-01-28, 03:38 PM
Even a true resurrection spell cannot bring back someone who has died of old age. At least in PF. A similar effect could be made in 3.5e.

That doesn't work for people who never die of old age, true, but you could easily set an age limit for resurrecting people.

Lapak
2013-01-28, 03:48 PM
A big problem with all the life-extension plans you suggest is that they require action after you are dead. Some of them even involve you killing yourself. If you're a perfect, benevolent, loved-by-all-ruler, maybe you can get away with this. If you're not, I can't see it being that hard for Crown Prince Joe to build a little rapport with your resurrectionist, wait for you to die, then slip him a quick title and estate whilst claiming your crown.

Andrewmoreton
2013-01-28, 03:56 PM
A good reason is the one taken by the King in OoTS. He is dead after having ruled justly for many years and as a result is in paradise. To rule forever you have to give up paradise when it can be proven you get paradise for a good life.
Further if you are a divine-king like the Pharoah's you have a vital role to play in the afterlife leading your people

Morph Bark
2013-01-28, 04:13 PM
If you're not, I can't see it being that hard for Crown Prince Joe to build a little rapport with your resurrectionist, wait for you to die, then slip him a quick title and estate whilst claiming your crown.

Craft Contingency would work around that, as it would kick in automatically, though if the king isn't capable of crafting the spell himself, he'd need to hire someone else.


A good reason is the one taken by the King in OoTS. He is dead after having ruled justly for many years and as a result is in paradise. To rule forever you have to give up paradise when it can be proven you get paradise for a good life.
Further if you are a divine-king like the Pharoah's you have a vital role to play in the afterlife leading your people

True, true, some very good reasons. Perhaps I should ask for good reasons NOT to do it as well, such as the ones you provided.


On the homebrew immortality front, all I've got so far is this bunch of stuff (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Methods_of_Immortality_(3.5e_Other)). I'm sure there's more out there.

Doug Lampert
2013-01-28, 04:17 PM
Even a true resurrection spell cannot bring back someone who has died of old age. At least in PF. A similar effect could be made in 3.5e.

That doesn't work for people who never die of old age, true, but you could easily set an age limit for resurrecting people.

Nor can it in 3.x. Which is why Reincarnate, which brings you back YOUNG is mentioned in the original post. You have to arrange to gain one level per adult life-time, but do so and you're fine for as long as people will obey your orders even if you're not there to give them at the instant.

Badgerish
2013-01-28, 04:29 PM
Kings IRL are about transferable power. The oldKing transfers their money, land and soldiers to the newKing (either by retiring, their will or succession conflicts) and then the newKing is powerful.

That <bleep> doesn't fly in D&D. You get to be powerful in D&D by some combination of: being a caster, having magic items and being high-level. Armies of tiny men are only really good at fighting other armies of tiny men and oppressing peasants.

Forget IRL-style kings/queens and start with the concept of: "I'm a powerful caster and want to run a country".

Reasons for a caster-king to retire:
bored
tired of running the country
want more time for research/decadence/adventuring
access to 9th level spells (I must go, my people need me! *planeshift*)
you want to set up a different type of government and are setting safeguards to prevent other casters from interfering

Jormengand
2013-01-28, 04:36 PM
Nor can it in 3.x. Which is why Reincarnate, which brings you back YOUNG is mentioned in the original post. You have to arrange to gain one level per adult life-time, but do so and you're fine for as long as people will obey your orders even if you're not there to give them at the instant.

Ah, fair enough. A Reincarnation limit per person might be a plan.

Anxe
2013-01-28, 04:36 PM
The suicide-reincarnate thing always bothered me. You'd have to kill yourself which would be terrifying. And then you'd come back in a body that was completely unfamiliar to you. Possibly not even a race that would be capable of ruling the kingdom. Plus, you'd have to find a druid willing to cast it on you. I don't think any druid is going to think making a king live forever really fits within the balance of the natural world.

You also might want to time the suicide just right. But if you do it in your final year, the DM might rule that the reincarnate can't function. Technically you didn't die of old age, but the DM may say that it was close enough.

Then we have deaths from injury and poison (Disease isn't going to be killing any kings with magic around). I often have these people raised. They continue to fight whoever killed them. Sometimes I don't have them raised as they are satisfied with the afterlife they receive. Andrewmoreton already mentioned that.

Resurrection spells are expensive. For Raise Dead you need the whole body and 5,000GP. Resurrection requires part of the body and 10,000GP. True Resurrection needs 25,000GP. My players often go for the True Rez to avoid level loss, but sometimes its required because their body was taken by the villains. Plus, they need to buy all their gear back if their body was captured. It ends up being really expensive to die. If the king is taking risks and dying all the time in wars, he won't be able to afford coming back to life.

Final thing, you need to find a cleric capable of casting these high level resurrection spells. In most settings there won't be a cleric who can cast True Resurrection. All the villains need to do is kill the king and take his body with them. Then there's no one around to True Resurrection.

Contingency was also mentioned. The spell can't do resurrection magic as it only works on wizard spells. Craft Contingency gets around the "capturing body" problem, but then you're still in the same situation as before. You could still be naked while an assassin stands over you, armed with a poisoned knife. He just stabs you again, and you're gone.

One spell we're all forgetting is Clone. I think that gets around all the problems I mentioned. It's 8th level, so there should be at least one person who can cast it. It evades the capturing body problem and the assassin with a knife problem. The only thing it doesn't get around is level loss.

Crazyfailure13
2013-01-28, 04:39 PM
This Comic has a sort of answer to it:comic (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090826)

Simply put, if you die and are brought back, you lose the right to your throne, crown, Etc. and this is inforced by not only the people but other rulers, and kingdoms.

It really kicks in if you were a tyrant.

Jane_Smith
2013-01-28, 04:48 PM
I agree with the above, in D&D I can state matter-of-factly that 90% of the rulers would be spellcasters of some type, though which would be entirely based on the region/specific king or queen in question. Sorcerers, wizards, necromancers, illusionists, beguilers, paladins, clerics, druids, rangers, dread necromancers, you name it, and I would bet the others would be warlords, marshals, or nobles (pathfinder, complete miniatures, and dragonlance in that order) that just have the sheer charisma to pull it off, if not the power.

It has nothing to do with the way things "should be" or how the way kingship should work, no matter how many of us have romanced opinions of the feudal days which is usually wrong, most kings were tyrants, cruel, or just had the money to be in there position, surfs were still just a fancy word for slave, etc. And in a fantasy world, frankly, the best tyrants or controllers/schemers/etc would be spellcasters, even if they did not use there magic, a wizard would be boasting a intelligence in the 20-30's easily, that kind of mind behind a military force would be horrific if he was inspired to expand his control around the world. The only problem is, he is not the only one in DND, and you have to take into consideration supernatural creatures who also want power;

That brings us to dragon kings, lichs, vampires, etc. Joy.

BlckDv
2013-01-28, 04:54 PM
One things is the question seems to make an assumption of a ruler with the mindset/skills of an adventurer. Most Rulers are much more a bureaucrat than a monster slayer, and while the Adventurer-Kings live large in legend, they often do not rule well from a national prosperity and growth perspective (I'm thinking of some examples from the Crusades, but am hesitant to name any real world names). If they extend that rule over several lifetimes, the kingdom may not have the means to keep bringing them back, or rival kingdoms may gain a power edge to conquer the land, and they sure are not going to tolerate the vanquished ruler coming back all the time.

The more reserved ruler probably is eager for the end of his reign, tired of the headaches and glad of the reward in the afterlife his dedicated lifetime of work have afforded him, and presumably having trained up his heir to carry on his work and hopefully keep expanding the power of the kingdom.

Let's also not forget the benefit of change and the risks of stagnation. A kingdom with one eternal ruler would after just a century or two likely be very hidebound and unable to assimilate new ideas and developments, passing up new chances at wealth and becoming unable to react to changes in society. A bizarre amount of throwback culture and old ways is often a tell of an undead ruler for a reason.

Their is also the issue of diplomacy and alliances. Politcal marriages have power because of the ability to link your bloodline to another and have influence over future generations, if a King was known to just rule forever, he would not have any political capital to use to marry his children, and his kingdom would rapidly become estranged politically from neighboring realms.

Just what I could think of off hand.

Geostationary
2013-01-28, 04:58 PM
Another problem with the plans that involve dying first- legally, if you die your estate and whatnot will likely go to creditors and heirs, and any hereditary titles would be passed down. The impatient heir can just claim that, despite the king currently being alive, they did in fact die and as such they have a legitimate claim to the throne. Any attempts to claim that you should hold onto your rights, privileges, and positions can be met with arguments that you gave them up upon death and that you're trying to seize more power/be made out to be a bad dude who is usurping the throne from its rightful heir(s).

A society where resurrected dead have less/different rights to resolve problems of inheritance and succession could be rather interesting, especially as I see some families getting rather inventive in ways to 1) kill people dead dead when needed and 2) exploit the legal standing of the recently deceased for political and material gains.

Morph Bark
2013-01-28, 05:04 PM
Contingency was also mentioned. The spell can't do resurrection magic as it only works on wizard spells. Craft Contingency gets around the "capturing body" problem, but then you're still in the same situation as before. You could still be naked while an assassin stands over you, armed with a poisoned knife. He just stabs you again, and you're gone.


The contingent spell used for Craft Contingent Spell is set off as soon as the conditions set are met, so if you weren't naked when you died, you won't be when you wake up.


This Comic has a sort of answer to it:comic

The thing you put in there in place of the URL was just "comic", not the URL for the comic you wanted to link to. Could you try again? I'm interested in what example you have to offer.

Crazyfailure13
2013-01-28, 05:26 PM
fixed it sorry, the comic is just a page of a much longer story and not much to it, explains basically what i wrote.

Comic (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20090826)

Morph Bark
2013-01-28, 06:00 PM
Yes, that's one of the possibilities I'm going for with my setting. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, since there are so many ways to reanimate and achieve immortality in Girl Genius, not to mention other sources of fantasy material, I'm still on the lookout for more DnD homebrew in that direction.

Jane_Smith
2013-01-28, 06:09 PM
The only problem with that logic is, why law/etc may state your dead-dead and say you have no claim to your property/authority/etc, if you were some kinda all-mighty badass adventure-king or just a near-immortal being who managed to get near/above the epic levels, or were a dragon in disguise, etc, if you DID get resurrected back, who in the 9 hells would challenge your claim? You have the power to destroy what you created, after all.

Crazyfailure13
2013-01-28, 06:19 PM
That is the problem, if you have enough power the law stops being applied to you, any law really, if your strong enough to destroy armies.

ArcturusV
2013-01-28, 06:24 PM
Well, I suppose it entirely depends on the setting.

As I view, and craft, most settings... people don't GET to Epic Levels. In fact in most of my settings even hardcore adventurers tend to retire sometime around level 12-15. This stops some of the stupidly broken stuff, or getting REALLY far into the gap where certain classes carry the whole game and everyone else is there just to fanwank along at the Mary Sue goodness of the guy who can do everything and solve every problem.

In a setting like that? Most of the standard "Immortality" options are out. Raise Dead doesn't actually give you youth. Reincarnate does, but Druids tend to be difficult little creatures even in the best of times. It'd be rare for one of them to really go into helping you gain immortality, and basically going against their Ethos as Death and Decay are a part of the natural cycle, and a pretty key part.

The undead thing? Well... it's a neat theory in part I suppose. But Undead never struck me as an option a SMART person would want. There are entirely too many cheap, easy ways to make an undead's life miserable. Much less Vampires... gods... vamps have so many weaknesses (Including Bad Erotica Writing, I consider that a weakness. xD), I don't fear them. I pity them. And it's hardly a route to immortality. I mean you're weak to Sunlight and Water, two of the most common things on almost any given setting, common as common can be.

Even a Low Level Cleric could easily prep a mob to take out some Vampire Court by blessing a ton of holy water and passing out a ton of vials of it. 2d4 doesn't sound like much. But as I recall it bypasses all undead damage reduction. It's a splash weapon so it's really easy to hit.. and an anrgy mob of 70 peasants throwing them at you is going to ruin your Vampire King's day REAL fast.

Of course there is also the knowledge that a lot of "immortality" fixes are Evil in nature. Like Lichdom being described as a thoroughly evil act. And considering the bevy of weaknesses and the ability for Peasant Mobs to MORE easily take you out because you are Undead now, it's a surefire ticket to suffering eternally in the abyss. People may not like that.

Even still... if you DO have an immortality fix. There's always the chance you get left behind. I mean think about the problems WE have with our own world and it's governments often being run by "good old boys" who are several generations out of step with the world. Stupidity like a lot of the "online piracy" acts that no one with any real knowledge of how things work would think is a good idea, but almost passing anyway, comes to mind.

Imagine the cultural rift and inability of someone to adapt considering they are about 2000 years removed from the time they were first alive.

Chances are, their subjects would either find a way to do away with them because they are ruling DISASTROUSLY due to not being aware of the true realities of the world... or like a lot of old people they'll just be push aside, appeased, and the lower levels of government will run how they see fit trying to minimize the impact the doddering old king of senility might have.

avr
2013-01-28, 11:39 PM
The Curse of Chalion (a novel by Lois Bujold) has as part of its background an off-and-on again war between a king and his impatient son. If your heir decided that he/she wasn't going to wait another decade & tried to directly overthrow you, what would you do? If you won, would you kill them or leave them alive to try again? Decisions, decisions ...

Morph Bark
2013-01-29, 07:28 AM
The only problem with that logic is, why law/etc may state your dead-dead and say you have no claim to your property/authority/etc, if you were some kinda all-mighty badass adventure-king or just a near-immortal being who managed to get near/above the epic levels, or were a dragon in disguise, etc, if you DID get resurrected back, who in the 9 hells would challenge your claim? You have the power to destroy what you created, after all.

That is the problem, if you have enough power the law stops being applied to you, any law really, if your strong enough to destroy armies.

A Good and/or Lawful creature would likely still follow the law (unless it were an Evil law). It's not so much that it stop being applicable to you, but that you have the power to face anything the law might attempt to do to you.


Even still... if you DO have an immortality fix. There's always the chance you get left behind. I mean think about the problems WE have with our own world and it's governments often being run by "good old boys" who are several generations out of step with the world. Stupidity like a lot of the "online piracy" acts that no one with any real knowledge of how things work would think is a good idea, but almost passing anyway, comes to mind.

Imagine the cultural rift and inability of someone to adapt considering they are about 2000 years removed from the time they were first alive.

Chances are, their subjects would either find a way to do away with them because they are ruling DISASTROUSLY due to not being aware of the true realities of the world... or like a lot of old people they'll just be push aside, appeased, and the lower levels of government will run how they see fit trying to minimize the impact the doddering old king of senility might have.

This is a very good point indeed. Of course, it depends a lot on how development would go over those hundreds or thousands of years. In Medieval times, a few hundred years did see some progress (especially politically), but not all that much. In Ancient times, Egypt for instance, a thousand years could pass by and little would change (aside from maybe a transition from Stone/Copper/Bronze/Iron Age to the next). In the modern day world though? Twenty years is enough to create a bit of a generation gap. Sixty years makes it hard to keep up. Two hundred years would make it virtually impossible, unless the country were very capable of autarky and was very isolationist, which generally isn't very feasible either way.


What examples of rulers like these exist in fiction, though? I haven't personally seen more than a literal handful of them so far, but I can easily miss out on a lot.

Traab
2013-01-29, 09:25 AM
I read this story once, it had a bad guy who was obsessed with planning for everything. His contingencies had contingencies based off of 15 steps being needed to make them happen, and he had backups for those too. The way he avoided death was, he created what amounts to 23 phylacteries. You see, he found a way to actually regenerate his soul somewhat. So he kept splitting off chunks, regenerating most of it, then splitting THAT off as well.

But that was just the first step. He then proceeded to keep one on hand, with every servant in the castle spellbound to enact his resurrection ritual if certain conditions were met. For example, he had his primary accomplice, whom he had a mutual resurrection pact with enforced by magical vows. So if either died, the other would right away bring him back. If for whatever reason said person COULDNT do it. For example, someone spots this loop and kills both at once, another member of the castle suddenly is taken over by a compulsion to carry out the ritual themselves. Its something like, "If I remain dead for longer than 12 hours, x person will be magically activated to bring me back. If I stay dead for 12 hours after that, the next servant is activated"

That is just barely scraping off the top level. His other phylacteries are spread out far and wide. Some are in possession of various enspelled and geased people who also have specific orders about what to do and when, others are hidden behind more wards than a dozen hogwarts with automated processes to bring him back in case everything else fails, and a few are just outright hidden in secret as backups in case someone finds a few of his more active bits of soul and destroys them.

There is even a theory that the soul continues to age, so eventually even with these things his soul may not last forever, so he has one locked down under temporal spells so it is basically in total stasis. Its his final phylactery and under orders that if the protections cannot sense his soul for 100 years, the stasis spell will automatically end and he will be brought back with this hopefully far younger soul fragment to start over again.

That just covers his methods of coming back after he dies. I could go on for the next 50 pages listing all his protections and plans to avoid getting killed in the first place and still not cover them all. The story was intense, though it got pretty complicated once the heroes started learning how hard to stop the big bad REALLY was.

Kornaki
2013-01-29, 12:48 PM
I think the king would just get bored. People are basically motivated by two things: personal pleasure and legacy. If you're not going to die then legacy basically dies as a motivation, and all that you have to worry about is doing whatever the heck you want. And ruling a kingdom is stressful as all get-out, much better to just pass it on to the kids and go on vacation

nedz
2013-01-29, 02:47 PM
I think the king would just get bored. People are basically motivated by two things: personal pleasure and legacy. If you're not going to die then legacy basically dies as a motivation, and all that you have to worry about is doing whatever the heck you want. And ruling a kingdom is stressful as all get-out, much better to just pass it on to the kids and go on vacation

Well some rulers get bored and move on, but many don't. Tyrants in particular are addicted to power. I could easily give many RL world examples, but that might break forum rules.

Succession would often be the result of conflict in this case — be that assassination or civil war.

Lost Demiurge
2013-01-29, 03:36 PM
Well, the problem arises is that even in the most well-run country, you can't make everyone happy all of the time. So long as free will exists, there will be people who disagree with you. And over the years, disagreements tend to grow more extreme.

So yeah, in a magical society you MIGHT be able to find ways to live forever, but SHOULD you?

The longer you keep going, the more enemies you're going to rack up, and the more damage it's going to cause to your society as your enemies get more and more annoyed with your existence and your way of doing things.

Eventually it's going to come to the point where you're either an uber-pragmatic tyrant who spends all of his time ensuring that he stays alive and in power, or you step down and let someone else have a go at ruling people. Maybe even one of your enemies, after all, what better way to teach someone "Be careful what you wish for?"

There's a reason in fantasy fiction why most "Undying Emperors" and "Immortal god-kings" are total douches. Even when you start out with the best of intentions, if you aren't willing to put down the ultimate power then it's going to eventually consume you, and in the process of trying to make things work well, things go to hell.

Better to have a change of rulers every few decades or centuries. That makes people happier, when they can say "Sure, things are bad right now, but when a new guy comes along, well, we'll be better off!"

endoperez
2013-01-29, 05:06 PM
In Ancient times, Egypt for instance, a thousand years could pass by and little would change (aside from maybe a transition from Stone/Copper/Bronze/Iron Age to the next).

I'm pretty sure this is mostly because we don't know enough about Ancient Egypt. There's less change than in modern digital era, yes, but still. I started from 1300 BC, and already when I got to 1000 BC it was apparent that lots of things were going on. Even if technology doesn't change, politics do...


It starts with Egypt near the peak of its power. Ramesses II rules for nearly 70 years, fighting the Hittite empire with specific military formations and tactics. War chariots were in heavy use. Glorious conquests!

Ramesses II's grandson Seti II warred against his half-brother, who might have ruled Thebes for a while. Civil war!

Seti II's son was a puppet king, while the real power was held by "an Asiatic commoner who served as vizier behind the scenes", powerful enough to have his own tomb in the Valley of Kings - but then he was executed as a traitor and was seemingly never buried in his tomb. The puppet king and the vizier!

Then Egypt was raided by the Sea People. While Egyptians were probably victorious, the empire was running out of money, the world might have darkened by volcanic eruptions, food became scarce and the pyramid/tomb-builders went on a strike. Raiders and omens of doom!

The power of Pharaohs continued to wane as droughts wreaked havoc and clergy gained power. Eventually Egypt was divided between two de-facto rulers, the pharaoths/kings in the north, and the High Priests of Amun at Thebes in the south. A realm divided!

nedz
2013-01-29, 05:24 PM
The longer you keep going, the more enemies you're going to rack up, and the more damage it's going to cause to your society as your enemies get more and more annoyed with your existence and your way of doing things.

Eventually it's going to come to the point where you're either an uber-pragmatic tyrant who spends all of his time ensuring that he stays alive and in power, or you step down and let someone else have a go at ruling people. Maybe even one of your enemies, after all, what better way to teach someone "Be careful what you wish for?"

I think that you are almost right here, except that most tyrants tend to be uber-paranoid and ruthless rather than pragmatic.

ArcturusV
2013-01-29, 10:51 PM
Well, the most obvious example of "Out of touch" I can think of in regards to immortals in literature is actually Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire, and related novels.

Despite the fact vampires are pretty much nigh immortal unless exposed to sunlight in that world, they point out that there aren't really that many vampires over 400 years old. And the reason why isn't that people are killing the vampires, though occasionally it happens and one bites it via Sunlight, etc. It's because they feel "out of touch" with the rest of the world, so far removed from the time that they originally came from they in fact commit suicide.

It's even the main reason the main character is Turned, so the guy who turned him could have a friend he could relate to from a more modern time period and help close the gap between his old world (Pre-Columbus days in Southern France if I remember), and the new world of 1800s Louisiana.

It's not really the only example, I'm willing to bet. Just the first one that jumps into mind of Immortality not really meaning you lasted forever in that fashion.

endoperez
2013-01-30, 04:36 AM
Hey, hey, I just got an idea inspired by Pratchett.


So, let's assume that a king does become immortal. This means that his kingdom, regardless of whether it prospers or not, becomes accustomed to the idea of an immortal king.
It becomes part of the kingdom's identity, part of the citizens' world. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, the important thing is that they have faith in their king. Worship might not be the right word for how the citizens think of a tyrant, but it would be something very close to religious.

And in Discworld, faith creates a god...

After a century of living under the rule of a single ruler, the process would begin.
After two, the citizens would put their faith on the king's ability to keep them safe, or oppressed, or whatever it is that they're doing. They're have these little rituals that they'd do, these little phrases, but only a select few think the king is divine.
Sometime during the third century, the king would start moving towards Divine Rank 0. They can't grant spells, but the worship would shape them to better match how the citizens think of him. A noble king would go ever more noble, an evil one ever more evil. A king known for his strength would find himself growing ever stronger. The cult of the king would start growing in numbers.
Then, sometime during the fourth century, the Immortal King stops being a mortal, and becomes an aspect of the deity known as The King Eternal. He is worshipped in various countries in various ways. From this point on, the king's original identity starts dissolving into the divinity of the The King Eternal, trying to exert his views on kingship across all the realms where The King Eternal is worshipped...
His thoughts would turn to his own little kingdom less and less, but his worshippers would continue on carrying his will. The monarchy becomes a theocracy. The original Immortal King might give up his individuality and assimilate itself into The Eternal King, perhaps leaving behind a dynasty of Kings with Divine Blood in their veins and a divine mandate to rule.


Personally, I think this is pretty nifty. There would be "immortal" kings everywhere, some lasting longer as individuals, some governing their countries as Avatars of The King Eternal, etc. It ties into all of these myths of kings leaving or sleeping or hiding, to return later... with divine authority to punish the wrongdoers.

genericwit
2013-01-31, 04:02 PM
Dying is not a pleasant thing. To come back only to die again... Is also not pleasant. Look at Rhulad in the Malazan Book of the Fallen--cursed to reincarnate after every time he dies, eventually goes insane.

Plus, a revolt could kill off a king AND his resurrectionist.

Really, though, it all depends on how far into the Tippyverse you are. If he's some sort of God-Emperor King, chances are there's some equally powerful God-Emperor Wannabe Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Psion who could just wipe him out of existence with a careful assortment of spells.

Reltzik
2013-01-31, 05:44 PM
First thing to remember is that high-level casters are RARE. Your average mid-to-large size kingdom will typical have one or two casters capable of Raise Dead. (Smaller nations are likely not to have any.) This doesn't mean that the casters are WILLING TO CAST IT, though. Typically, they'd be clerics to this-or-that god, who may not be willing to support said king, or interfere with politics at all, or make worse the immensely complicated issues involving probate or succession. This could touch off a civil war, after all, especially if the heir apparent has ascended to the throne. So figure maybe half the Raise-Dead casters are willing to try. Furthermore, Raise Dead doesn't work if the King's been beheaded. For that you need Resurrection, which'll probably be one or two casters per CONTINENT. Again, not necessarily willing, ESPECIALLY if they're loyal to another nation.

If it's an evil king, sure, make him immortal through magical restoration. Great catch for a villain. Good way to make him a REAL challenge.

If it's a good king? This brings us to our final catch. The King has to WANT to come back. And if the succession is in good hands and the nation's not in serious need of the king's return.... well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html)...

Kurald Galain
2013-01-31, 08:09 PM
Of course there is also the knowledge that a lot of "immortality" fixes are Evil in nature. Like Lichdom being described as a thoroughly evil act. And considering the bevy of weaknesses and the ability for Peasant Mobs to MORE easily take you out because you are Undead now, it's a surefire ticket to suffering eternally in the abyss. People may not like that.

So you've got 99 problems but a lich ain't one. :smallcool:

Lost Demiurge
2013-02-01, 04:37 PM
Hey, hey, I just got an idea inspired by Pratchett.


So, let's assume that a king does become immortal. This means that his kingdom, regardless of whether it prospers or not, becomes accustomed to the idea of an immortal king.
It becomes part of the kingdom's identity, part of the citizens' world. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, the important thing is that they have faith in their king. Worship might not be the right word for how the citizens think of a tyrant, but it would be something very close to religious.

And in Discworld, faith creates a god...

After a century of living under the rule of a single ruler, the process would begin.
After two, the citizens would put their faith on the king's ability to keep them safe, or oppressed, or whatever it is that they're doing. They're have these little rituals that they'd do, these little phrases, but only a select few think the king is divine.
Sometime during the third century, the king would start moving towards Divine Rank 0. They can't grant spells, but the worship would shape them to better match how the citizens think of him. A noble king would go ever more noble, an evil one ever more evil. A king known for his strength would find himself growing ever stronger. The cult of the king would start growing in numbers.
Then, sometime during the fourth century, the Immortal King stops being a mortal, and becomes an aspect of the deity known as The King Eternal. He is worshipped in various countries in various ways. From this point on, the king's original identity starts dissolving into the divinity of the The King Eternal, trying to exert his views on kingship across all the realms where The King Eternal is worshipped...
His thoughts would turn to his own little kingdom less and less, but his worshippers would continue on carrying his will. The monarchy becomes a theocracy. The original Immortal King might give up his individuality and assimilate itself into The Eternal King, perhaps leaving behind a dynasty of Kings with Divine Blood in their veins and a divine mandate to rule.


Personally, I think this is pretty nifty. There would be "immortal" kings everywhere, some lasting longer as individuals, some governing their countries as Avatars of The King Eternal, etc. It ties into all of these myths of kings leaving or sleeping or hiding, to return later... with divine authority to punish the wrongdoers.

Interesting tack, but... I dunno. Pratchett's always had a strong humanist bent. Ankh-Morpork, f'r example, does far better without a king, so much that

When the True King, as signified by birthmark and heirloom sword and destiny comes back and saves the city in its time of need, he pretty much looks around at how the city runs and goes "well, no need to fix what isn't broken." He lets the bureaucrat up top keep doing his job because it's working far better than it would with a True King in his place. The bureaucrat who, mind you, plans to retire or die eventually and has absolutely no truck with that immortal ruler nonsense.

And many of his stories deal with villains and other sorts trying to bring back kings, and divine right, and causing horrible problems "for the greater good." In fact, most of his heroes are ordinary folks who manage to pull themselves up to the point they're extraordinary by skill, luck, or stubbornness.

A Tad Insane
2013-02-01, 10:52 PM
I just justify it with the fact the mortal mind can't handle living that long, regardless of the species. You forget to much, you lose to much, and you try and balance to much. The whole "life goes on/Long after the thrill of living is gone" taken to its most extreme form.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-02-02, 03:35 AM
First thing to remember is that high-level casters are RARE. Your average mid-to-large size kingdom will typical have one or two casters capable of Raise Dead. (Smaller nations are likely not to have any.)
What are you basing that on? By the DMG's demographics, each small city has a decent chance of at least one cleric capable of casting 5th level spells, large cities are guaranteed to have at least three. I don't see any reason to believe that a mid-to-large size kingdom has only one city.

As to the original topic, I'm a big fan of just running with it. Monarchs rule until they die of old age, so exceptionally long reigns (by real world standards) are the norm (Platinum jubilees for all!). As far as ruling beyond one's maximum age goes, there's actually quite a bit of precedent already. Liches and similar perversions of the natural order engineered to feed humanity's desperate yearning for immortality already have a reputation for ruling vast empires. Of course, being obviously evil and an obvious threat to the world that way makes you an obvious target for a ragtag bunch of misfits in this game, so Liches don't end up ruling the world in the long run. The Reincarnation gambit is one of the few options open to Good rulers, but even that has precedent in actual history. How many real world monarchs were said to be the incarnation of a prior ruler or a deity? In a fantasy setting, that just happens to be true.

I think the potential pitfalls of this sort of thing are being overstated, although they might make nice plot hooks in this sort of setting.

endoperez
2013-02-02, 08:39 AM
Interesting tack, but... I dunno. Pratchett's always had a strong humanist bent. Ankh-Morpork, f'r example, does far better without a king,

I wasn't basing this on his views, but on his ideas.


In Small Gods, we learn that gods' power wanes and waxes with belief, and quality of belief.
In Wyrd Sisters, the country, the land itself demands attention from its king.
This is referenced in various book, and e.g. the goddess of things getting stuck in the kitchen cupboard becomes more powerful thanks to a certain noticeable miracle being attributed to her.
In Pyramids, the moment Pteppic becomes crowned a Pharaoh, all the mystical and religious baggage that comes with the kingship becomes part of him, as well. Flooding the Nile-equivalent is all and good, but flooding the river Ankh... not so good.
And in Monstrous Regiment, it's shown that with sufficient belief in a person, that person approaches divinity... even after death. Even if she didn't ask for it. Even if the prayers aren't numerous enough to let her DO anything for the people asking for her help.

So if one king rules one kingdom for too long, the combined effect of what the land thinks of the king and what the citizens think of the king will start... changing... him. Or it.


The fact that the Pratchett-inspired process ends up making the king a non-person and leaving the actual ruling to other people is just a happy accident.

Morph Bark
2013-02-04, 05:59 AM
I read this story once, it had a bad guy who was obsessed with planning for everything.

[snip]

...that's awesome. :smallbiggrin: What was the story called? Feel free to lay out the rest of his contingencies, I'd love to know about them.


I think the king would just get bored. People are basically motivated by two things: personal pleasure and legacy. If you're not going to die then legacy basically dies as a motivation, and all that you have to worry about is doing whatever the heck you want. And ruling a kingdom is stressful as all get-out, much better to just pass it on to the kids and go on vacation

As nedz said, some people may be obsessed with the idea of ruling and standing at the top, or eternal (chances of) conquest, such as Alexander the Great.


Hey, hey, I just got an idea inspired by Pratchett.

There would be "immortal" kings everywhere, some lasting longer as individuals, some governing their countries as Avatars of The King Eternal, etc. It ties into all of these myths of kings leaving or sleeping or hiding, to return later... with divine authority to punish the wrongdoers.


Dying is not a pleasant thing. To come back only to die again... Is also not pleasant. Look at Rhulad in the Malazan Book of the Fallen--cursed to reincarnate after every time he dies, eventually goes insane.

I think I got one of the books to that series... just the seventh.


First thing to remember is that high-level casters are RARE.

Entirely depends on the setting.


If it's a good king? This brings us to our final catch. The King has to WANT to come back. And if the succession is in good hands and the nation's not in serious need of the king's return.... well (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0410.html)...

If the king is evil, he also has to want to come back, there's no difference in that. Also, the king might still wish to come back. Shojo was paranoid after all. A different good and paranoid king might wish to come back to make sure the kingdom would be in good hands: his own, because he thinks he cannot trust anyone else to rule as Good as he.


I just justify it with the fact the mortal mind can't handle living that long, regardless of the species. You forget to much, you lose to much, and you try and balance to much. The whole "life goes on/Long after the thrill of living is gone" taken to its most extreme form.

Well, maybe if he has eidetic memory, but most people who have that end up getting annoyed at remembering certain things, and after many lifetimes that'd start stacking up, so the madness thing could very well come into play.

MukkTB
2013-02-04, 06:47 AM
There is a real problem here with regards to levels. The heir is in no way guaranteed to be high enough level in a decent class to be able to hold on to power. IRL its reasonable to expect a slightly evil heir to hunger after the day his progenitor dies. In D&D its entirely possible for the heir to be deadly afraid of his parent's death from a purely self centered view.

The level 3 Bard heir is going to have a hell of a time filling his level 16 wizard father's shoes. When his father's death becomes known he'd be lucky to escape the chaos with his life. Forget about the crown.

Lost Demiurge
2013-02-04, 11:56 AM
There is a real problem here with regards to levels. The heir is in no way guaranteed to be high enough level in a decent class to be able to hold on to power. IRL its reasonable to expect a slightly evil heir to hunger after the day his progenitor dies. In D&D its entirely possible for the heir to be deadly afraid of his parent's death from a purely self centered view.

The level 3 Bard heir is going to have a hell of a time filling his level 16 wizard father's shoes. When his father's death becomes known he'd be lucky to escape the chaos with his life. Forget about the crown.

See, I'd contest that view. Levels aren't necessarily required to be a good ruler. You'd need more levels than the average peon on the street, but you wouldn't have to be the highest level guy around.

Mind you, if your dad was a wizard who invested heavily in life-extending magic, and ruled for centuries, he'd have built up a lot of high level enemies. So in that case, yeah, you'd want the levels. OR you'd want to be able to play along and be a figurehead or puppet king until the time came when you had enough levels (or friends with levels, or a plucky group of adventurers) to take your throne back from dad's foes.

mjlush
2013-02-05, 08:04 AM
In Girl Genius (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20021104) the law is that on death all your titles pass the you descendents. If you get resurrected tough

Slipperychicken
2013-02-05, 08:18 PM
Succession as we understand it is built around the idea that dead people stay dead. Reincarnation means the laws would be completely different to account for it.

The characters wouldn't have especially many succession problems; they would have lawyers working for millenia to perfect it. But we, with the assumption of mortality, have little idea how such laws would be structured.