PDA

View Full Version : Logical kingdoms?



Balor01
2013-07-18, 06:05 AM
In most pre-written adventures, you have kingdoms. Empires. Duchies. Etc. You have Free cities and independent tribes.

But my question is - is that really logical?

DnD has some special species in its bag. Dragons that live thousands of years. Liches. Vampires.

Now I can totally imagine a few bugbear tribes banding together because they just about had it being XP source for low lvl adventurers, but I can also imagine puny, unstable human empire being brootaly outplayed and integrated by an adjecent Dragon empire, lead by Dragon cabal consisting of nine old wyrms.

Then again, dragons may have no interest in ruling a kingdom. It is a pesky job at best of times.

Would beholders have such aspirations? Aboleths? Mind flayers?

So, playground: Which species are logical to claim a land, call it their own and prhaps shape it into a kingdom?

BWR
2013-07-18, 06:31 AM
DragonStar is a setting based on this idea. The dragons are tired of living in caves and being adventurer meat, so they band together, take over the fledging gnome society that has just barely invented space travel, then colonize the galaxy 500 light years in every direction and expanding.

The dragons are on top. Even the nicest, most egalitarian of dragons still knows, deep down, that he's better than the lesser beings. Depending on which province of the Dragon Empire you are in, life is better or worse for non-dragons, but even in the best places laws are still skewed in favor of the dragons. One of the most interesting bits about the setting is there is no metaplot point about humanoids eventually overthrowing the dragons - they are simply too powerful, too entrenched and too vital to the political system. A dragon here or there might be slain by some vicious murdering criminals but that's all.


The illithids used to have an enormous spelljamming empire with thousands of worlds to its name. They even created an artificial world, Penumbra (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/planejammer-setting/wikis/ancient-penumbra)(think Ringworld only bigger).

Grinner
2013-07-18, 06:36 AM
No, it doesn't, but since when has D&D ever made sense?

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292969), for example, points out the numerous inconsistencies of Fantasy-land governments.

DigoDragon
2013-07-18, 06:46 AM
I think just about any intelligent species with language, math, and some ability to use tools can form at least a city (Assuming they want to). :smallsmile: In once case from my last campaign, a red dragon overthrew the mayor of a small city and ruled it with an iron fist...

...and then realized that running a city is damn near nerve-wracking! So in order to keep the citizens from banding together or hiring the PCs to kill her, she worked at trying to improve conditions to keep her citizens happy. The PCs even helped out by taking out enemies of the city. So the campaign then had a place run by this red (and three other young dragons who were intrigued with politics).
Not a bad town to live in. It has some flaws, but it could be worse.

There was a town once founded by giants in an even older campaign. Pretty small by their standards, but it was open for caravan traders and if you can get around the difference in scale, it was a fun place to explore. The PCs found that they only needed to rent one bed for the whole party. :smallbiggrin:

Zombimode
2013-07-18, 07:20 AM
In most pre-written adventures, you have kingdoms. Empires. Duchies. Etc. You have Free cities and independent tribes.

But my question is - is that really logical?

I think the term you want is "plausible", not "logical".


Also, I would rephrase the question to:
"Under what circumstances would it be (im)plausible?"


Vampire are often as lone abominations with no overarching organization. Their undead nature may also leave them with a reduced set of motivations.

Beholders, Aboleths and Mind Flayers are aberrations and thus do not need to conform to humanoid rationality. Their motivation may be (in part) incomprehensible.
Or they are just content with the setting's Underdark.

Dragons may have radically different goals for life then running a civilization.


Another important thing is to consider that there may be narrative reasons for why humanoids are often the only ones with a civilization: On real-life earth, humans are the only civilized species and we have not (yet) encountered another civilized race. Thus, civilization is a human(oid)'s "shtick".

When designing a setting with space for civilized races, it comes naturally to fill those with humanoids.
If you want to use some other species for that, you run at risk to bend their lore and mythology to their new roles, "humanizing" them in the process.

Thus, there are reasons why many settings look like how they look, and good reasons at that.

But if you want to make a setting in which non-humanoid species take a more active role in civilization, thats cool too :smallsmile:

Balor01
2013-07-18, 09:10 AM
@Zombimode
Awesome. Humanoids it is.

BWR
2013-07-18, 10:52 AM
One Mystara trilogy of dubious canonicity had dragons having their own kingdom and territories. They just tended to ignore the political boundaries of lesser beings and kept their own secrets so the lesser beings had no idea about the dragon realms overlayed on the same land masses, nor of the intricate political and religious structures in place. In short, the dragons didn't really care much about most humanoid realms (except the über-magical realms of Alphatia and Glantri) and didn't bother with trying to micromanage human/elf/goblin/whatever settlements in the area, so long as other dragons respected their borders and the lesser beings stayed out of the dragon's lairs.

Jay R
2013-07-18, 11:37 AM
So, playground: Which species are logical to claim a land, call it their own and prhaps shape it into a kingdom?

In our world? Humans, beavers, rabbits, groundhogs, ants, and many others.

Carnivorous animals are often very territorial, and will fight any of their own species who hunt on their grounds.

Wild horses seem to think in terms of the herd, less than the land they roam on. I don't know how two herds would react to each other.

I'm bringing all this up, because I want us to open all the options.

I expect a dragon (or a dragon family) would consider any other nearby dragons to be threats - to their lives, to their hunting, and to their treasure. They would defend their lands from other dragons, but actually favor any other colony moving in. From a dragons point of view, and small village is simply farmland, growing food for the dragon to harvest when he's hungry for human.

The goblinoid races I treat like Tolkien did. They mostly want to be in a small group of raiders, and only form larger armies under a powerful leader. This means that small villages or caves would be common, but not kingdoms. And an orc kingdom would be filled with resentment.

The basic political unit of elves is a hidden valley. Elves want to live in a forest, which they have lived in for many centuries without disturbing its nature. They probably think of human settlements as an invasive species, which, if left unchecked, will soon destroy the forest.

In Dwarf, I expect that there is no distinction between the words for "kingdom" and "mine". The concepts of "farmers" and "trading partners" are similarly confused. Dwarves can live near other races relatively comfortably (though with suspicion), because they want to live in mines, and need to trade for food that others grow. However, they know that mines are valuable, and that many want to take the mines from them, so distrust runs deep.

Carnivorous non-intelligent monsters should be classified as herd animals, pack animals, or loners. Then you must decide if they feel strong enough to face the intelligent races, or if they routinely flee when possible.

Obviously, giant ants form giant anthills. But what would a party do if they saw a forty-foot round structure hanging from a tall tree. How close to they get before they think of giant hornets?

[How do basilisks eat? Do they close their eyes, so the food won't turn to stone, or are they carrion-eaters?]

Lots of new ideas have just opened up for me based on this thread. Imagine the PCs finding three cute baby owlbears. Then they hear a sound behind them. Or they set out to capture the lone pegasus they saw, and are now being attacked by a flying herd.

Hiro Protagonest
2013-07-18, 11:40 AM
See Tippyverse.

Seharvepernfan
2013-07-18, 06:49 PM
In my world, any given group (noble/royal families, mostly), do not gain power without some kind of backer (source of power - dragon(s), fiends, powerful casters/priests, etc). It's too easy for creatures like dopplegangers, vampires, dragons, fiends, and so on to secretly control a given society.

Dwarves, elves, and gnomes typically have enough powerful individuals to retain "control" over their own people - that is, dwarves are led by dwarves, not fiends pretending to be dwarves (or whatever). Orc and goblinoid societies are surprisingly not often controlled by such creatures, as though it may be easy to do, and will provide an army of meatheads, it is often not as lucrative as taking over a human society. Human societies have more advanced infrastructures and trades/goods/etc, that these insidious monsters want to have. Therefor, most human societies are ruled, secretly or not, by nonhumans. Some human societies are ruled by powerful humans, but these are not the norm.

Also, humans have a history of being ruled by other races as well. There are often human populations inside the territories of other races, who use these humans for infrastructure (farming/mining/hunting/etc) or extra troops. Some races (typically dwarves/gnomes/elves) treat these human populations as a parent would treat a child, and the human societies under them in turn benefit from this deal. Others (typically orcs/goblinoids/dragons/etc) treat them as food or slaves. Sometimes, if the parent race has a large enough territory/population, the humans will have their own pocket nation inside of it, where they have relative autonomy.

Just as often, these other races live inside human territories, but humans usually find it easier to control other humans than to bother controlling other races. It's easier for a human lord to make peasants of other humans and use them as farm/mine/whatever-slaves than it is to try to get orcs or dwarves or whoever to do the same.

However, there are whole groups of powerful people (of all races) who oppose such control, and sometimes they manage to give whichever group their own autonomy.

Mordar
2013-07-18, 07:14 PM
I think it is also worth considering (as hinted at above) that there are layers of "kingdoms" where several different individuals/groups might hold dominion of overlapping areas...and simply don't recognize the other groups as being on a equal-species footing.

For example, a dragon might view (and defend from other dragons) a certain geographical area as their own. That area might well contain parts of two human kingdoms - the dragon knows they are there, and the kingdoms know of the dragon, but neither side thinks of the other as having the ability to usurp their claim (or even consider that the other thinks of themselves as having dominion over that area.

Now, an additional layer might be the three or four "sub-humanoid" tribes that consider parts of the dragon's territory as their territory. The kobolds, goblins, orcs and gnolls have lived on their patches of land for 10+ generations and view it as their own. The humans view them as squatters and XP fodder and the dragon as no more than another food source like the cows.

Now we have three layers of organization, comprising 7 different leadership structures and claims. Add in the vampire and mind flayer community seeking to be shadow masters of human kingdom 1 and 2 respectively, and the drow settlement far below ground in the same area, and now we see real complexity in the regional politics.

Each is plausible, and probably fairly logical (we set up states without much concern for the territories of animals that roam those areas because they are beneath our consideration...just like the dragon doesn't consider the humans), and most importantly, internally consistent with the tropes of the genre and the expectations of most players.

- M

Felhammer
2013-07-18, 08:50 PM
The easy answer is that Adventures eventually topple the evil regimes.

Arkhosia
2013-07-18, 09:58 PM
I think it is also worth considering (as hinted at above) that there are layers of "kingdoms" where several different individuals/groups might hold dominion of overlapping areas...and simply don't recognize the other groups as being on a equal-species footing.

For example, a dragon might view (and defend from other dragons) a certain geographical area as their own. That area might well contain parts of two human kingdoms - the dragon knows they are there, and the kingdoms know of the dragon, but neither side thinks of the other as having the ability to usurp their claim (or even consider that the other thinks of themselves as having dominion over that area.

Now, an additional layer might be the three or four "sub-humanoid" tribes that consider parts of the dragon's territory as their territory. The kobolds, goblins, orcs and gnolls have lived on their patches of land for 10+ generations and view it as their own. The humans view them as squatters and XP fodder and the dragon as no more than another food source like the cows.

Now we have three layers of organization, comprising 7 different leadership structures and claims. Add in the vampire and mind flayer community seeking to be shadow masters of human kingdom 1 and 2 respectively, and the drow settlement far below ground in the same area, and now we see real complexity in the regional politics.

Each is plausible, and probably fairly logical (we set up states without much concern for the territories of animals that roam those areas because they are beneath our consideration...just like the dragon doesn't consider the humans), and most importantly, internally consistent with the tropes of the genre and the expectations of most players.

- M

I totally agree with this idea.
The idea outlined above is a very good and strong provider of quests, obstacles, and the campaign in general. For example:
Dwarves accidentally mine into the large cave of a drow village. This can provide the following:
A. The dwarven clan won't aid the PCs until the drow are dealt with
B. A task to work out a deal with the drow (who will kill dwarves on sight due to past incidents) or to kill the drow and eliminate a threat to the mining operation.
C. The PCs are miners who are captured in a drow raid. Thus begins a campaign to raise a force large enough to slay the settlement, which provides a serious problem to the dwarve's safety.