Players want to overthrow a king and install democracy. What can go wrong? ;)

[Notafish]

Are they looking to replace anarcho-monarchy with an elected monarch so that power transfer is (eta: theoretically) less murder-y, or are they interested in convincing the frogs to form a parliament and draft a constitution?
The first one seems easier to run, and better for focusing on election shenanigans more quickly. The latter seems like there would need to be a revolution first, and focus more on the complexities of forming a government.
Some things that could go wrong with elections might be candidates being corrupt, candidates being hard to tell apart, candidates bribing voters, ballot-stuffing, double voting, stealing the ballot box, confusing ballots, bad spelling of write-in candidates' names, everybody voting for themselves, no majority winner (and no clear plan for a run-off), or a tie vote.

[goodpeople25]

My question is: What kind of societ(y)(ies) are your PCs from?

If they're from democracies, like Breland, then their goal makes sense. It would probably still fail because the bullywugs have no reason to listen to them.

If they're from, say, Cormyr, I would suggest asking them gently, "Why do your characters want the bullywugs to adopt a government type they've, at best, heard of once as someone's unrealistic idea? Shouldn't they be, instead, going for something like 'the king should be someone you all trust, respect, and are loyal to'?"

That's not true historically, why would it be that way in an RPG? Sure the idea you mention exists in both but it seems strange to have a GM provide in-universe propaganda as fact.

Also are your examples from different universes?

[faegames]

What do you want to happen? Is there any benefit to the BBEG in your campaign if this happens? Someone else mentioned that the newfound stability might make the bullywogs more prosperous and a new regional power. This might gain enough political and military power to threaten nearby regions, causing instability that can be exploited. They also might gain a lot of capital and technology that they're willing to sell to the BBEG that other countries didn't want to. They might be very friendly to the BBEG's forces and don't understand why the party is so upset if they host their army.

So lots of opportunities to make the democracy a resounding success and still have it end up less than positive for the party. They might always be welcomed as the bringers of prosperity and stability, but they might be unable to actually wield the bullywogs' new power.

[GloatingSwine]

Are they looking to replace anarcho-monarchy with an elected monarch so that power transfer is less murder-y, or are they interested in convincing the frogs to form a parliament and draft a constitution?
The first one seems easier to run, and better for focusing on election shenanigans more quickly. The latter seems like there would need to be a revolution first, and focus more on the complexities of forming a government.
Some things that could go wrong with elections might be candidates being corrupt, candidates being hard to tell apart, candidates bribing voters, ballot-stuffing, double voting, stealing the ballot box, confusing ballots, bad spelling of write-in candidates' names, everybody voting for themselves, no majority winner (and no clear plan for a run-off), or a tie vote.

Anyone who thinks an elective monarchy would be *less* murdery hasn't played enough Crusader Kings. Can't lose a vote if your rivals have an accident at dinner, can you? Elective monarchy just means you have to kill off everyone else who might have been able to become king as well as the king, and then you're in by default.

Primogeniture from within wedlock with a religious blessing for the heir in the Carolingian fashion was the closest attempt to work at making everything less murdery (and its success rate was p. low), because then everyone knew not only who the heir was but that you couldn't automatically become a new valid candidate by bumping them off. That's the thing that makes the murder, it's how many valid candidates there are for the position, when the stakes are infinitely high (near complete power), the temptation to whittle down the field is equally infinite.

[Notafish]

Anyone who thinks an elective monarchy would be *less* murdery hasn't played enough Crusader Kings. Can't lose a vote if your rivals have an accident at dinner, can you? Elective monarchy just means you have to kill off everyone else who might have been able to become king as well as the king, and then you're in by default.

Primogeniture from within wedlock with a religious blessing for the heir in the Carolingian fashion was the closest attempt to work at making everything less murdery (and its success rate was p. low), because then everyone knew not only who the heir was but that you couldn't automatically become a new valid candidate by bumping them off. That's the thing that makes the murder, it's how many valid candidates there are for the position, when the stakes are infinitely high (near complete power), the temptation to whittle down the field is equally infinite.

Haha, fair enough. I edited my comment. I don't know the setting, but does sound like the current system for the bullywugs in the OP's scenario has the maximum possible valid candidates for the monarchy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Primogeniture from within wedlock with a religious blessing for the heir in the Carolingian fashion was the closest attempt to work at making everything less murdery (and its success rate was p. low), because then everyone knew not only who the heir was but that you couldn't automatically become a new valid candidate by bumping them off. That's the thing that makes the murder, it's how many valid candidates there are for the position, when the stakes are infinitely high (near complete power), the temptation to whittle down the field is equally infinite.

Nice example.
Eastern Roman Empire, about 325 to 1204, has many examples to support your point (albeit choosing the Emperor wasn't strictly elective, it was more about getting some connections, public acclaim, and support of the soldiers).

Game management wise, it's easier to have a king or a duke, etc.

[Paladin777]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I apologize if this has been said before, but how about the people not be informed enough to vote well and they instead vote for the best speaker... who is a power hungry wannabe despot who fully intends to break any promises anyway!

Wow, that just hit a little close to home!

[KorvinStarmast]

One bullywug, one vote, one time...which may be how the current bullywug king got into his position in the first place!

[Unoriginal]

Worth noting the current king's CHA stat is literally twice the one of the average Bullywug.

[Ogre Mage]

Well, the French Revolution aftermath, for one example. The fires of revolution burned a lot of innocent people and even a lot of the revolution leaders before it all stabalized.

I was thinking of something similar but in a fantasy TTRPG -- the kingdom of Galt in Pathfinder. Galt bloodily deposed the tyrant ruler and executed many nobles. Within a few years the heads of the new government rolled down the steps of the guillotines. This was followed by more bloody executions as each successive government was overthrown. And the Feywild is a place known for chaos ...

[Witty Username]

I think it would depend if the players go for a elected ruler or a ruling council.
Kings of any kind are pretty easy to overthrow and be overthrown.
But a council of 9 or other cool sounding number is a lot harder. There is more too it than that but game. The short of it is the more consolidated power is, the easier it is to seize power without disrupting the existing power base. And Coup gives a free reason for the next coup (seize power from the illegitimate ruler will keep working)

Hence why Authoritarian structures tend to be less stable, from a certain point of veiw.

[Segev]

I was thinking of something similar but in a fantasy TTRPG -- the kingdom of Galt in Pathfinder. Galt bloodily deposed the tyrant ruler and executed many nobles. Within a few years the heads of the new government rolled down the steps of the guillotines. This was followed by more bloody executions as each successive government was overthrown. And the Feywild is a place known for chaos ...

So Fantasy Revolutionary FranCe?

[Arkhios]

The recently overthrown king runs for office and wins a democratic election, and afterwards, declares the players as enemies of the state.

How's that for something going wrong ;)

[MonochromeTiger]

So Fantasy Revolutionary FranCe?

Little more complicated than that.

Spoiler: Galt situation up to now

Show

There's a Conqueror Worm, big psychic aberration that looks a bit like a Purple Worm, under Galt pulling the strings. It arranges each leader's descent into tyranny then when it gets bored of them it also arranges the revolutions, picks the winner, then sets up to make them the next tyrant. Wash, rinse, repeat, to keep itself fed and entertained.

All the chaos in the area is just it playing with its toys, the ones it can't corrupt with promises of wealth and power it outright mind controls into doing what it wants. Eventually it ends up being killed in a module but my groups don't usually go in for premade content and the times we do haven't been in that area so no idea what happens to Galt after it stops being forced into an endless cycle of of revolutions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Monarchies are also fragile.

From a post on Quora:

Spoiler: Author is Ben Skirvin

Show

I think every fantasy writer should probably pick up a copy of Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses on Livy. The first being a primer on the nature of feudal government and monarchy. The second an in-depth analysis of the rise and fall of the Roman Republic.

So the thing about ruling a monarchy is that you are continually surrounded by competing interests on all sides. Your vassals all control militaries of their own. The common peasants are MANY. The members of your court are all chasing their own interests. The guilds control the markets and skilled trades people. Neighboring rulers are constantly angling for your lands, resources, vassals. As are their vassals and their guilds and their people.

{snip}

In Machiavelli's estimation, the surest defense of one’s political authority is tending to the nuts and bolts of governance. In a functional kingdom, infrastructure is routinely inspected and repaired. Courts adjudicate in a swift and just manner. Taxes and tariffs are predictable and fair. The farmers grow the grain. The porters guild moved it to market. The bakers can purchase as much as they need. The army can buy as much bread as it needs and so is well supplied. As a result, they can reliably deal with bandits and raiders from other countries. Thus protecting the farmers who can grow the grain and the porters who deliver it and the bakers who bake the bread. Because the king took the time and put in the effort to ensure that all the little things work.

In a dysfunctional kingdom, these systems break down. The infrastructure is not maintained. Instead the money is consumed in corruption or the task is simply ignored. The courts are unfair and adjudicate is a self interested way. Or simply don't exist at all. The king overtaxed his vassals who shift the burden to the peasants. As a result, the farmers are overworked and have nothing left for their own families. Since the roads are badly maintained, the porters can't efficiently move grain. The price at market skyrockets. The bakers can't get enough. The crown must spend huge amounts to procure enough food to supply the army. Which is also corrupt and acts in its own selfish interest. Plundering the citizens and taking pay offs from the bandits.

As the systems break down, the physical state of the kingdom will degrade. The buildings become rundown and fall apart. The roads fall into disrepair. Poverty sets in. Prices skyrocket. Basic necessities become impossible to source. The water is dirtied because filth is allowed to fester. Disease becomes commonplace.

You can create a setting of a kingdom in decline through the details of your world.

Point being: the deeper you go into modeling political systems in your fantasy game, the more you have to understand multiple interactions between multiple factions in any polity in your setting.
Think of it as a network diagram with 15 nodes and all nodes have a relationship/contact with, each other one.

[Arkhios]

So Fantasy Revolutionary FranCe?

Little more complicated than that.

Spoiler: Galt situation up to now

Show

There's a Conqueror Worm, big psychic aberration that looks a bit like a Purple Worm, under Galt pulling the strings. It arranges each leader's descent into tyranny then when it gets bored of them it also arranges the revolutions, picks the winner, then sets up to make them the next tyrant. Wash, rinse, repeat, to keep itself fed and entertained.

All the chaos in the area is just it playing with its toys, the ones it can't corrupt with promises of wealth and power it outright mind controls into doing what it wants. Eventually it ends up being killed in a module but my groups don't usually go in for premade content and the times we do haven't been in that area so no idea what happens to Galt after it stops being forced into an endless cycle of of revolutions.

From what I've gathered, Galt is something of a mix between fantasy revolutionary France and Finland at the time or just before of their (our) declaration of independence. I wouldn't dream of pointing fingers at anyone, but I may have an idea who or what the Conqueror Worm is a reference to.

[herrhauptmann]

After the team gets the idea of voting across, the bullywogs go on the campaign trail. But threaten every one who doesn't vote for them.

Unfortunately democracy means that almost every bullywog is trying to get elected at once. So it turns into a massive, possibly deadly brawl.

The winner/ruler happens to be the outcast runt. Since he was outcast he didn't get the message and ended up as the last only able-bodied bullywog, which let him easily beat all the wounded ones.