PDA

View Full Version : You're King? Well I didn't vote for you...



Rolaran
2008-02-28, 03:45 AM
Hello!

I'm working on a new campaign setting, and I need some help with something. The campaign is going to have a lot of politics, and one of the plot points is that the rulers of the various nations are dying with alarming frequency. So I was thinking of various methods of determining a new leader after the current one kicks the bucket. So far I've got...

1. Direct blood heir (basic monarchy, allows for interesting "he died without a son" situations)
2. Chosen by the people (direct democracy, unfortunately I don't see a lot of roleplaying hooks with this but maybe I'm overlooking some)
3. Chosen by a select committee (thinking of doing something similar to the papal elections)
4. Named by the current ruler while he's still alive (Similar to 1, if someone dies without naming a successor it could be interesting)
5. Named by the previous ruler in a will (If I wanted to really screw with the players, I could pull a Shojo and leave everything to the cat :smalltongue: )
6. Named by the previous ruler via Speak With Dead (I like this one just because it's so totally impossible in real life)
7. Rulership is sold to the highest bidder (Need to work on my auctioneer voice for this one)
8. Whoever can obtain the X of Y (Sword in the Stone, an old classic)
9. Trial by great test of courage (Bring me the head of the dragon to the south and you can be king, always a good D&D staple)
10. Whoever can get himself crowned supreme ruler first (race to the throne room!)

Any other ideas? Comments on the ones I've got?

EDIT: New ideas I particularly like:

1. Speak With Dead homebrew variant to allow all the previous leaders to form a council and decide the new leader. Really cool, and I am absolutely not going to let this one go unused.
2. Random Lottery. This would be extremely fun, thinking it could be one of the lowly shopkeepers or stablehands that tend to get casually abused by PCs the world over. The shoe is on the other foot now...
3. Reincarnation. I like this idea, especially if the BBEG decides to try to find and corrupt the new king while he is "young" and defenseless.
4. Rigged Trial. One country in particular, I was planning to have your classic shadowy background cabal that runs everything without people knowing. If the PCs were to somehow prevent their intended future king from winning the challenge, it could make for an interesting secret war.
5. Whoever kills the king. This one I like. In fact, I have one country that it would work absolutely perfectly for, as they value shrewdness and ambition, and see even a momentary lapse in either as a fatal flaw. So anyone who became king would be respected until he allowed himself to be killed, and then would be reviled for letting his guard down.

Finally, I can't believe that the plot hooks of good old vote tampering allow for. I was considering not using democracy, but now I think I may have to...

Cuddly
2008-02-28, 03:50 AM
Omens.
Birthmarks.
The Gods actually coming down and choosing the next ruler.
Anarchy- there was no protocol for the perma-death of the ruler, since as the Living God of Humanoids of Some Place, he was thought to be immortal (maybe a lich, a deathless, or kept magic jarring around).

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-28, 03:55 AM
Try this: Homebrew a stronger Speak with Dead that allows a soul to be summoned back and actually consider new knowledge and all that fun stuff. Use said spell to call back all the rulers past, and have them select the new ruler from a certain number of petitioners by council and vote.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 03:55 AM
Kings advisers squabbling
Contest of champions fighting either for themselves or paid by someone
Civil War

Funkyodor
2008-02-28, 04:54 AM
You can try blending some of the above. Kingship is passed down via direct hereditary lines unless the King chooses a Successor. If there is no Successor or Heir, then the King is chosen by a committee who uses divination and speak with dead to choose the best candidate. Oh and candidates are presented to the committee via popluar vote, or a drinking contest, or something resembling a grand melee.

Miraqariftsky
2008-02-28, 05:55 AM
Meritocracy: no destiny is set in stone. Whoever deserves something, gets it. No fat, stupid generals. No dumb bureaucrats. No corrupt clergy. No overly egocentric mages. ...

...well, ideally. Basically, it'd be an extremely competitive society...

Regarding the succession of rulership, I'd say it'd be whoever is most loved by the people, favoured by the gods and is able to protect and uphold the nation's sovereignty and honour through valour of both arms and arts.




-snip-
1. Direct blood heir (basic monarchy, allows for interesting "he died without a son" situations)
-snip-
4. Named by the current ruler while he's still alive (Similar to 1, if someone dies without naming a successor it could be interesting)
-snip-
I highly urge you to watch Kull the Conqueror. Not only is it a good movie with a good plot, it also tackles the issues of succession that you are asking about.

Spoilers!
Kull is a barbarian who just got recruited into the Valusian army. Suddenly, his regiment is recalled to the capital because the king has gone crazy and killed nearly all his princes, all his heirs. The only two blood-heirs left are Kull's commander (an LE general) and a cultist noble. Whe Kull enters the room, the old king engages him in a duel and Kull wounds him mortally... with the old king's last breath, he names Kull as immediate heir and successor.

During the coronation, the Oracle draws her cards for then-King Kull and predicts that "The fate of the kingdom shall be sealed with a kiss"

Zincorium
2008-02-28, 06:16 AM
The eternal problem with Meritocracies are the questions of what merits are being chosen, and who judges the merits. Is the merit well defined enough to give a clear result? Is it too specific and cuts out what could be the best overall candidate? How impartial and objective are the judges? Are the judges being given all the neccessary information?

If you can solve the problems of choosing the ruler in a meritocracy, the actual resulting head of state is likely to be extremely good at the job.


Also, the OP noted that it might be hard to come up with plots for a democratic election. The biggest is simply any kind of voter fraud. Misrepresentation makes people see red, makes them march on the streets to protest their votes being uncounted.

Have the players actually vote, and then publicize it that their 'district' (so the players will get clued in) had no votes for the most popular candidate(s) among the PCs. Have the guy who does get them be the sleaziest, most corrupt guy imaginable. If recent history is any indication, the PCs will start a revolution by supper time.

Arakune
2008-02-28, 06:28 AM
Hello!

9. Trial by great test of courage (Bring me the head of the dragon to the south and you can be king, always a good D&D staple)


And the the dragon was not so evil (it was the previous one), and you bring the head of the dragon with the rest of it! Hey, they didn't said he has to actually KILL him. And having a dragon in your side sure facilitate to convince the council.

Cuddly
2008-02-28, 06:39 AM
And the the dragon was not so evil (it was the previous one), and you bring the head of the dragon with the rest of it! Hey, they didn't said he has to actually KILL him. And having a dragon in your side sure facilitate to convince the council.

Ahhhh, diplomancers.

Tengu
2008-02-28, 06:47 AM
Lottery. I am 100% positive that maybe not the actual ruler, but some high-rank chairs were chosen in that way somewhere.

Jokes
2008-02-28, 06:48 AM
How about Reincarnation? Could be a good plot hook to find any children born the same time the ruler died. Preferably before the Bad Guys get to them.

Arakune
2008-02-28, 06:59 AM
Lottery. I am 100% positive that maybe not the actual ruler, but some high-rank chairs were chosen in that way somewhere.

Like in the Bible? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheOldestOnesInTheBook)

UglyPanda
2008-02-28, 07:40 AM
For 9 and 10, it could be that those tasks are just put there to make it appear to the peasants that anyone could be king. In fact, it's chosen by council immediately after the former king's death, and they use magic to make it nearly impossible for anyone else to succeed. This could cause problems when some lowly ranked military officer who isn't in on it finds a way to succeed.

You could have a kingdom that transfers kingship to the murderer of the previous one. Each king would only last for about a week, with the majority dying the night of their coronation.

Zenos
2008-02-28, 08:16 AM
2. Chosen by the people (direct democracy, unfortunately I don't see a lot of roleplaying hooks with this but maybe I'm overlooking some)

No plot hooks? Think about stuff like Watergate and similar cheating with elections. Let the players try to find out why the least popular kid got the largest amount of votes.

FatherMalkav
2008-02-28, 08:22 AM
You could have a kingdom that transfers kingship to the murderer of the previous one. Each king would only last for about a week, with the majority dying the night of their coronation.

I was just thinking of that Futurama episode yesterday...odd.

Anyway, I like the idea of the kings killer having to publisize it, and then becoming king. That would most likely lead to a very cut-throat sociey. If regicide = reward, what about killing your boss?

Toliudar
2008-02-28, 08:29 AM
I echo Zenos in this. You're in Saskatchewan! Home of the second-freakiest set of provincial politics in Canada, after BC. Just open a paper.

Vote buying, election rigging, influence peddling, shifting the question on the ballot so that it confuses some of the voters. Adventurers doing stupidly brave things to merit public attention. Adventurers faking/creating an invasion from neighbouring country/demons/mind flayers/terrorists that only THEY can stop. Democracy offers a fabulous number of plot hooks.

Indon
2008-02-28, 08:41 AM
2. Chosen by the people (direct democracy, unfortunately I don't see a lot of roleplaying hooks with this but maybe I'm overlooking some)

A PC gets nominated as the leader. PC's can get popular fast if they're doing good stuff in the area.

Meat Shield
2008-02-28, 08:44 AM
My suggestions:

1) Bring back members of the ruling family as Deathless/Undead. All sorts of ewwwwww to RP through on that one, as well as allowing for 1000-year reigns.

2) Who ever is made king by that select committee would of course allow him to be king in name only. The real power would be with Baron von Evil-Guy, leader of that committee.

Indon
2008-02-28, 08:53 AM
Ooh, and another idea: Ruler must be of a specific race or template.

Say there's a small nation which traditionally, has always had an Elven king. And the people like it that way. But, oh no! The elven king has died and there are no more elves in this now exclusively human nation! We need to find some elf and... name... him... king?

Alternately, a Ravenloft-esque (Strahd wouldn't name a successor, but still) scenario, in which the new ruler is selected by the old one by giving him a template.

Iku Rex
2008-02-28, 08:58 AM
- Meritocracy, as mentioned. The king is the winner of a huge contest among qualified applicants. The rules of the contest are laid down in stone (literally) by the nation's first king.

- The nation is a publicly traded corporation of sorts. The ruler is elected by a vote among the shareholders.

- The king is elected by the nobles.

- Some farcical aquatic ceremony, where a strange woman lying in a pond lobbs a scimitar at the future king.

- The ruler is elected by the people, only votes are based on how much taxes you paid in the last year. 1 gp = one vote.

its_all_ogre
2008-02-28, 08:58 AM
an earlier adventure in my campaign had the pcs paid to help garner votes for their candidate. so they went amongst the people spreading word of his plans, how he was going to spend public money, improve life etc.
and of course spread bribes!
this system was openly availble for abuse and in fact encouraged people to 'sell' their votes as it encouraged the wealth to be spread around.
in this city there was a landmark arch which was enchanted with various dispelling magics aimed at breaking enchantments just before people walked through.
everybody got to vote and the winner was the one with the most votes, but could not have more than 5% of their votes from outsiders (meaning people not living in the city).
was a fun adventure, pcs just bribed, diplomanced, did odd jobs (side quests) and whatever needed!
also got into a ruckus with a rival contenders hired help, set up for murder etc

Arakune
2008-02-28, 10:44 AM
I echo Zenos in this. You're in Saskatchewan! Home of the second-freakiest set of provincial politics in Canada, after BC. Just open a paper.

Vote buying, election rigging, influence peddling, shifting the question on the ballot so that it confuses some of the voters. Adventurers doing stupidly brave things to merit public attention. Adventurers faking/creating an invasion from neighbouring country/demons/mind flayers/terrorists that only THEY can stop. Democracy offers a fabulous number of plot hooks.

Meh, it's like home. I want a little bit of escapism... :smallbiggrin:

TempusCCK
2008-02-28, 11:12 AM
Try this: Homebrew a stronger Speak with Dead that allows a soul to be summoned back and actually consider new knowledge and all that fun stuff. Use said spell to call back all the rulers past, and have them select the new ruler from a certain number of petitioners by council and vote.


I absolutely LOVE this idea. I'm stealing it so hard for a nation in my campaign world.

You Mr. Void, Win this thread.

Starbuck_II
2008-02-28, 11:24 AM
Hello!

I'm working on a new campaign setting, and I need some help with something. The campaign is going to have a lot of politics, and one of the plot points is that the rulers of the various nations are dying with alarming frequency. So I was thinking of various methods of determining a new leader after the current one kicks the bucket. So far I've got...

1. Direct blood heir (basic monarchy, allows for interesting "he died without a son" situations)
2. Chosen by the people (direct democracy, unfortunately I don't see a lot of roleplaying hooks with this but maybe I'm overlooking some)
3. Chosen by a select committee (thinking of doing something similar to the papal elections)
4. Named by the current ruler while he's still alive (Similar to 1, if someone dies without naming a successor it could be interesting)
5. Named by the previous ruler in a will (If I wanted to really screw with the players, I could pull a Shojo and leave everything to the cat :smalltongue: )
6. Named by the previous ruler via Speak With Dead (I like this one just because it's so totally impossible in real life)
7. Rulership is sold to the highest bidder (Need to work on my auctioneer voice for this one)
8. Whoever can obtain the X of Y (Sword in the Stone, an old classic)
9. Trial by great test of courage (Bring me the head of the dragon to the south and you can be king, always a good D&D staple)
10. Whoever can get himself crowned supreme ruler first (race to the throne room!)

Any other ideas? Comments on the ones I've got?

On old Sega Saturn game called Dragon Force had a very interesting kingdom (of the 8 in the game):

The king is chosen by who wins the Tournament: kinda like martial arts tournament, but any fighting style allowed.
This kingdom honored strength/power so those who shows his prowess can be ruler.
This is held every so often (2-4 I think) years so one must stay consciously ready to defend crown.

sikyon
2008-02-28, 11:31 AM
Ressurection Fund.

What's that, can't be resurected?

True Res.

Wish.

Ahem

Just joking kids.


I suggest that you go with reincarnation like the deli lama. PC's have to find the reincarnated king! Lots of hooks there. Also king would be a baby. In his absence, the throne is held in trust by... dun dun dunnn his evil advisor who will stop at nothing to stop the king from being found! Gasp! Lots of outside forces at work too.

Riffington
2008-02-28, 11:56 AM
The eternal problem with Meritocracies are the questions of what merits are being chosen, and who judges the merits. Is the merit well defined enough to give a clear result? Is it too specific and cuts out what could be the best overall candidate? How impartial and objective are the judges? Are the judges being given all the neccessary information?

If you can solve the problems of choosing the ruler in a meritocracy, the actual resulting head of state is likely to be extremely good at the job.


This isn't a problem if you embrace the ideas of a meritocracy.
The goal of a meritocracy (invented circa 1776), is not to get a single great ruler. It's to make the pervasive philosophy that for any given job, the qualifications are essentially "good at that job" and not "born to the right family".
It follows the aristocracy is an aristocracy of merit - and that there can be no one judge. Michael Jordan entered our aristocracy via his basketball skills. No central planner would have ever decided that basketball skills should be a path to wealth and respect - but our meritocratic system ensured it.

If you play a D&D game where a general is more likely to be a 5th level Fighter or Marshall than a 1st level Aristocrat, then you've at least partially bought into meritocracy. As nexus points out, you can paste whatever "ruler" you want on that - but unless the government actively interferes, society will basically run itself once you have a meritocracy in place.

Zincorium
2008-02-28, 12:12 PM
Unfortunately you still haven't gotten rid of the nature of the beast, which is that merit, while an incredibly useful trait, is still a subjective one for the most part, especially as it relates to dealing with people as a ruler does.

And subjective traits may not be agreed upon, which leads to schisms between people who have different subjective judgments about who may be the most meritorious.

It's better than a popularity contest, but it's just as fuzzily determined.

The_Werebear
2008-02-28, 12:17 PM
Another good hook for a democracy: Retrieving the votes from a far off province and making it back to the Capitol building without the votes getting change, corrupted, disintegrated, eaten, charred, or detonated.

Citizen Joe
2008-02-28, 12:20 PM
Democracy requires and educated populace.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-28, 12:21 PM
Watch out, there's a good chance that the party will change them in that situation, and depending on the party, they may just hang out in a tavern for three days while the wizard uses Unseen Servants to make a fake ballot box.

Draco Ignifer
2008-02-28, 12:38 PM
My personal favorite would be Contact Other Plane or Commune... ask a few good deities who the greatest possible king who dwells within your country would be ("What's the first name of the person you think would be the best king for this country? OK, now what's his last name,") and whether or not the other choices the others made would be any good. Whoever gets the best votes wins, and you discern location to go find them.

Not sure which one would be better... Commune costs some XP, and only gets you one God per cleric, but they're not going to lie to you or make things up. Maybe Contact Other Plane to poll the masses, and then get a cleric of the chief to confirm things?

Atelm
2008-02-28, 12:55 PM
One system that comes to mind is a type of Vassalage. The strongest vassal, not necessarily blood relative, of a monarch becomes the successor as the old one passes away. Strenght of a vassal might be judged by, for example, the amount of titles/land (s)he holds or the state of the economy in the land (s)he lords over.

Riffington
2008-02-28, 12:57 PM
Unfortunately you still haven't gotten rid of the nature of the beast, which is that merit, while an incredibly useful trait, is still a subjective one for the most part, especially as it relates to dealing with people as a ruler does.

And subjective traits may not be agreed upon, which leads to schisms between people who have different subjective judgments about who may be the most meritorious.

It's better than a popularity contest, but it's just as fuzzily determined.

1. Merit is objective but fuzzy. It's fuzzy - what makes a good basketball player? Is height more important than speed? But it's also objective. Michael Jordan will kick my buttocks up and down the court every time. He is objectively better than me at it. We might not agree which of two similar players is a better scorer - but one is objectively better, and the meritocratic ways we choose basketball teams ensure that better players tend to be the ones playing.

2. Meritocracy has nothing to do with "who's the King/President/whatever" It has to do with "Is your doctor the guy who did well in school, studied hard, and pleases his patients? Or is he the baron's third son, who isn't inheriting the barony and didn't feel like going to war?"
Once you have a meritocracy, the government (except when it meddles) becomes virtually irrelevant to society's success.

3. Meritocracy embraces schisms about who's best at something. This is not a problem, it's a feature. If there weren't disagreements, then society couldn't react to changes so quickly.

DarknessLord
2008-02-28, 01:17 PM
Don't forget the guy who controls the army.
"What? You don't like me as the new king? Fine, kill him."

Zincorium
2008-02-28, 01:25 PM
We're admittedly a bit off, but I do enjoy a healthy debate without ill will on either side.


1. Merit is objective but fuzzy. It's fuzzy - what makes a good basketball player? Is height more important than speed? But it's also objective. Michael Jordan will kick my buttocks up and down the court every time. He is objectively better than me at it. We might not agree which of two similar players is a better scorer - but one is objectively better, and the meritocratic ways we choose basketball teams ensure that better players tend to be the ones playing.

Objectively better than you, yes. It's when it gets close that merit is problematic, and if you recall the OP was discussing a king, singular. Singular meritocracies show the problems I described.

The general merit-based value system (meritocracy, while a good word, applies only to goverments) works well as long as no one intentionally screws it up. That's the weakness shared by pretty much any system.


2. Meritocracy has nothing to do with "who's the King/President/whatever"

The '-ocracy' part of that word begs to differ. Meritocracy is goverment by merit. And frankly, most goverment defaults to the head of state, whatever you call them.


It has to do with "Is your doctor the guy who did well in school, studied hard, and pleases his patients? Or is he the baron's third son, who isn't inheriting the barony and didn't feel like going to war?"
Once you have a meritocracy, the government (except when it meddles) becomes virtually irrelevant to society's success.

I think you've figured out my position by this point. What you describe is an excellent way of life, but if there is no goverment, by definition there is no meritocracy. What you describe is a very sensible and down-to-earth anarchy.


3. Meritocracy embraces schisms about who's best at something. This is not a problem, it's a feature. If there weren't disagreements, then society couldn't react to changes so quickly.

The problem is that disagreements by nature prevent working together on specifics. If you honestly do not believe that a particular person should be in charge, then you cannot support his particular decisions, because by the very code you live by he is unfit for the job.

Please don't take this as just plain aggression, to quote Heinlein, "I never learned from someone who agreed with me." And if you can defend your points with solid evidence, I may well learn something worth learning.

Riffington
2008-02-28, 02:39 PM
We're admittedly a bit off, but I do enjoy a healthy debate without ill will on either side.]
:)


Objectively better than you, yes. It's when it gets close that merit is problematic,

Difficult but no less objective. It is easy to see that an elephant is objectively heavier than a sparrow. If I compare two crows, one may still be objectively heavier than the other - even though trained observers might have difficulty figuring out which is the heavier.



The '-ocracy' part of that word begs to differ. Meritocracy is goverment by merit. And frankly, most goverment defaults to the head of state, whatever you call them.
Ok, history/linguistics lesson time.
Plato had a notion of a philosopher king, but he never called this system a meritocracy. Indeed, the greeks came up with a -cracy.
-cracy = rule, aristos = best. Thus, aristocracy meant "rule by the best". Perfectly good word. But best was defined in terms of blood, divine right, etc.

But a bit before 1776, new philosophers with new ideas of what is best (most skilled, most clever, etc) had an idea that they would have an aristocracy based on actual merit. From this brilliant idea we obtained the word meritocracy. The idea never implied that there would be a king - only that they would work to make sure the most fit man got each job. The important day-to-day government was thus set; the specifics of the top level of leadership was less clear.




The problem is that disagreements by nature prevent working together on specifics. If you honestly do not believe that a particular person should be in charge, then you cannot support his particular decisions, because by the very code you live by he is unfit for the job.


This is indeed a weakness of our society. People second-guess their leaders (teachers, coaches, bosses) because they (correctly or otherwise) believe those leaders' perceived mistakes make them unworthy of following. A lack of respect for one's superiors is much less prevalent in those societies where position is determined by family, wealth, etc.

Rigon
2008-02-28, 07:05 PM
council of previous kings? sounds like Mulan (well those weren't kings, but whatever).

how about ownership of a crest or an other important item.

birthmark is good too.

how about summoning a celestial (oh and it can make a lot of fun when a summoned celestial is rather... less great. like an orb of light or something)... making him choose the new king from the (departed) king's council then have the council vote in a new member. if celestials can work at trials then they can work in such cases too.

Dervag
2008-02-28, 07:27 PM
One system that comes to mind is a type of Vassalage. The strongest vassal, not necessarily blood relative, of a monarch becomes the successor as the old one passes away. Strenght of a vassal might be judged by, for example, the amount of titles/land (s)he holds or the state of the economy in the land (s)he lords over.There were actual countries that did this.

The problem is that the second strongest vassal is probably going to contest the nomination. Violently.


Once you have a meritocracy, the government (except when it meddles) becomes virtually irrelevant to society's success.Well... your mileage may vary. Sometimes the government causes catastrophe by failing to meddle. Sometimes by meddling excessively. Sometimes by meddling the right amount but doing a bad job.

In fact, almost any level of meddling or not meddling can be disastrous in the wrong circumstances. Which is why it's probably a good idea to keep your government flexible and at least semi-demi-hemi-meritocratic.


Don't forget the guy who controls the army.
"What? You don't like me as the new king? Fine, kill him."OK, so what happens when there are two popular generals?

Wait, wait, don't tell me, I read my Gibbon... a civil war in which both generals promise ridiculous bonuses and rewards to the army in hopes of winning their loyalty!


But a bit before 1776, new philosophers with new ideas of what is best (most skilled, most clever, etc) had an idea that they would have an aristocracy based on actual merit. From this brilliant idea we obtained the word meritocracy. The idea never implied that there would be a king - only that they would work to make sure the most fit man got each job. The important day-to-day government was thus set; the specifics of the top level of leadership was less clear.Well, to be honest the idea of meritocracy had been bouncing around a long time, and it didn't catch on all that fast even in nominally meritocratic societies like the US.

All successful cultures are meritocratic to at least some degree, because otherwise incompetence will dominate at all levels.


This is indeed a weakness of our society. People second-guess their leaders (teachers, coaches, bosses) because they (correctly or otherwise) believe those leaders' perceived mistakes make them unworthy of following. A lack of respect for one's superiors is much less prevalent in those societies where position is determined by family, wealth, etc.Debatable, depending on what you mean by 'respect'. If you mean that people wouldn't dare to contradict their superiors, then yes, you see more respect in aristocratic societies.

Do you see more actual respect as I am given to understand it, in the sense that people will regard their nominal superiors as people who really deserve loyalty? Hard to say.

Overlord
2008-02-28, 08:25 PM
Hello!

3. Chosen by a select committee (thinking of doing something similar to the papal elections)

I recall hearing in a discussion of Beowulf that in Beowulf's culture, the next king was chosen by a "Council of Thanes."

Having the next king be chosen by a council mostly consisting of the candidate's peers would be very interesting. It would certainly leave a lot of room for squabbling, in-fighting, bribery, and general intrigue.