| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Roman Republic has had a huge influence on how the Roman Empire, and by extension, the rest of European Civilization has progressed. Half the reason anyone ever made any claim in Europe was to claim that they were the true successors to the "Legacy of Rome." And it's only ever Kings and Queens and their petty dynastic squabbles that are ever present in Fantasy Settings.
I dunno, would it be so bad if the patrons of PCs were senators instead of Princes? If city intrigue plots were based around not one Royal Advisor trying to frame the other for a plot, but the PCs trying to get their patron (or maybe a party member) elected? Maybe if the PCs led an uprising of the plebes like the Gracchi (but with less the PCs getting assassinated, hopefully).
I feel like these parts of the development of Western Civilization are never touched upon by Fantasy Settings, and I want to know why.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never is awfully strong. See Andoran.
That said, the Roman Republic/Empire and Ancient Greece (think Athens) don't get much fantasy literature or RPG exposure (notable exceptions in RPGs being White Wolf's Requiem for Rome (suggested alternate title: Rise and Fall of the Roman Vampire) for Vampire: The Requiem, and Legendary Games Studio's Mazes and Minotaurs (note: now they also advertise Vikings & Valkyries).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vive le Galt!!!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think this depends on the kind of game you want to play.
I know one of my first thought about Golarion was a certain sadness that there are no "classical" kingdoms - no castle to where the heroes could be summoned by a benevolent ruler to go forth and save the kingdom.
Though most fantasy settings take place somewhere in the middle ages (or at least the middle ages as seen in movies, books and similar things).
And the iconic ruling system in those times were kings, queens, nobles and the clergy. I'm not a great history buff (so maybe I'm part of the problem?) but I don't think there really was a republic in between the Roman empire and all those revolutions (France, Britain, America). Not in Europe at least.
Because sure, they CLAIMED to be heirs of rome ("Holy Roman Empire of German nations" leaves little room for interpretation there), but "democracy" is such an ugly word. God gave me the right to rule, and why should I share?
That said, there are plenty of settings I know of where there might be a king or emperor, but with limited power. Where he technically is the ruler, but is being held in check not by advisors, but by a council of people (though they are usually nobles as well).
And let's be honest - how much cooler is it to say "The king of the land honored me!" than to say "The currently elected leader of this one party honored me, but they screwed up the tax system in the years after and now they are not really elected anymore but oh well, I got this shiny medal out of it"?
I do think there is a reason some Western countries have kings and queens to this day, however limited their power might be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though most fantasy settings take place somewhere in the middle ages (or at least the middle ages as seen in movies, books and similar things).
And the iconic ruling system in those times were kings, queens, nobles and the clergy. I'm not a great history buff (so maybe I'm part of the problem?) but I don't think there really was a republic in between the Roman empire and all those revolutions (France, Britain, America). Not in Europe at least.
IIRC, and I may not, some of the Renaissance-era Italian city-states were republics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^The Republic of Venice, at least. Also, Switzerland had a federal system for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, and I may not, some of the Renaissance-era Italian city-states were republics.Though most fantasy settings take place somewhere in the middle ages (or at least the middle ages as seen in movies, books and similar things).
And the iconic ruling system in those times were kings, queens, nobles and the clergy. I'm not a great history buff (so maybe I'm part of the problem?) but I don't think there really was a republic in between the Roman empire and all those revolutions (France, Britain, America). Not in Europe at least.
... and in the early 1940s, half of Europe was controlled by fascist dictatorships. Wait, we're not supposed to be throwing random incompatible historical periods around?
As the OP pointed out, everyone in the middle ages was totally hipped on the "Legacy of Rome," but they're specifically talking about the Roman EMPIRE there. (Read Dante's Commedia for an example, or if you're a real history geek, Monarchia.) One of the major philosophical principles behind medieval political thought was the Great Chain of Being (with the attendant Divine Right of Kings), the idea that God Himself had ordained a social hierarchy with the king at the top, and followed by his nobility, and us plebs somewhere between the king's horse and our own cows....
Basically, it's the pseudo-medievalism again. How can you have knights in armor if you don't have any knights?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC, and I may not, some of the Renaissance-era Italian city-states were republics.... and in the early 1940s, half of Europe was controlled by fascist dictatorships. Wait, we're not supposed to be throwing random incompatible historical periods around
Yeah, well, the Republic of Venice, was apparently founded in the 7th century AD and lasted until 1797. I think the Middle Ages were in there somewhere.
My apologies, master of pedantry, for spilling my first thoughts before going and looking shiznit up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I don't think, but again, I could be wrong, that the Roman Republic, the Republic of Venice nor the Old Swiss Confederation ever claimed to be "democratic." It was just the elites deciding amongst themselves which member of the elite got to be Doge (for life) or Consul (for a year?) or whatever.
[Goes back to reading about the Old Swiss Confederation]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you vote for kings?
[Clicks over to the Florentine Republic; links it cuz it was an interesting read]
The Blue Rose setting has a "representative monarchy" (as it were): the golden hart chooses the new monarch from among the people - usually the nobility (which merely means someone who has both been educated - which is free for any who seek it - and passed a divine test to get a job to aid the people), but can also come from peasants, fishers, adepts, Warriors, merchants, and so on - who rules with a greater weight (two votes) on a four-person counsel of the head of noble's' council, the head of merchants' council, and the head of the rhy-folk (psychic animal) council (each of which get one vote).
Not exactly a republic - the only voting is by the noble for their council members and council head, the merchants for their council members and head, and the rhyfolk for their council head - but it's similar to the concept of an electoral college voting to represent the will of the the people.
Definitely not a democracy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you vote for kings?
If you were the Holy Roman Empire? Yeah.
Well, I mean, it was technically only ever 7 guys who actually did the voting. And eventually all 7 of them just starting electing Hapsburgs.
But it was an elective monarchy in the loosest sense of the word!
The Blue Rose setting has a "representative monarchy" (as it were): the golden hart chooses the new monarch from among the people - usually the nobility (which merely means someone who has both been educated - which is free for any who seek it - and passed a divine test to get a job to aid the people), but can also come from peasants, fishers, adepts, Warriors, merchants, and so on - who rules with a greater weight (two votes) on a four-person counsel of the head of noble's' council, the head of merchants' council, and the head of the rhy-folk (psychic animal) council (each of which get one vote).
Not exactly a republic - the only voting is by the noble for their council members and council head, the merchants for their council members and head, and the rhyfolk for their council head - but it's similar to the concept of an electoral college voting to represent the will of the the people.
Definitely not a democracy.
Well, once you have active benevolent deities in the picture, everything changes. Some kind of monarchy is probably the best form of government - if you can ensure the right monarch. In the real world, you can't, so other forms limit the damage the wrong one can do and provide a better means of selection than "son of the last guy".
A setting in which the king actually rules by divine right (and said divinity is actually a benevolent one) is probably better off than anything else.
Yes and no.
In this setting's case, even the gods aren't exactly infallible (it's a matter of doctrine that all the evil in extance originated in the seven sins of one of 'em, and the ofthe three of the four creators weren't exactly saints - that's what the seven gods of light are for); rather, the "divine" test for nobles is kind of a once-in-a-lifetime version of detect good: if they're educated, they pass their nobility exams, and they pass their "totally got the best interest of others at heart" divine test they become noble and from there on unfortunately no divine test remains to continue to prove if they're still good or not.
The monarchy at least has the benefit of, "if they get really bad/corrupt/insane/incapable, the hart will come back and repudiate them by removing the mark from their forehead and give it to a new one" - but that's only happened a couple of times, despite the fact that a few rulers have had... poor diplomatic relations with other countries and not been the wisest (though none have been truly terrible that haven't been corrupted through evil outside forces after the fact).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because republics and democracies have too much chance of bringing in real world politics to the game world, I'm already twitchy about Paizo inserting their political views in to game materials, I don't need to worry about a GM being given a preset setting/adventure to vent their frustrations with a fantasy stand in of whichever political candidate they oppose.
I also think that the potential for this and alienating the customer base by seeming to lord one fantasy version of a certain political viewpoint over others or as inherently good would be the other reason.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a tad bit reminded about Ephebe, a country on the discworld. They were a Republic.
Everybody could vote!
Except for women, of course. Politic is for men.
And slaves, nobody would want slaves to vote.
Mad people don't get a vote too, because that would be insane.
Or foreign people. What do they know about Ephebian politics?!
And poor people, don't forget about poor people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because republics and democracies have too much chance of bringing in real world politics to the game world, I'm already twitchy about Paizo inserting their political views in to game materials, I don't need to worry about a GM being given a preset setting/adventure to vent their frustrations with a fantasy stand in of whichever political candidate they oppose.
I also think that the potential for this and alienating the customer base by seeming to lord one fantasy version of a certain political viewpoint over others or as inherently good would be the other reason.
There's no reason a fantasy republic would have to touch on modern political conflicts any more than any other setting would.
A Roman Republic model or a Greek demos would have little to nothing in common with Democrat vs Republican or Conservative vs Labour or whatever other modern conflict you want to avoid. The worlds are different. The time periods are different. The conflicts and issues of the day are different.
You sure? The matter of plebs vs patricians was a BIG thing throughout all of Rome history. You have people like Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus and the land reform and the way they were both killed for menacing the interests of the ruling elite. On a similar vein you also have the conflict between Marius and Sulla.
In a way the Empire came to be as a reaction to the power of the senatorial class (and conversely a lot of later roman sources are "suspect" when they malign emperors simply because the writers were from the disgruntled senatorial class or their clients).As for the OP: there's no logical reason why you can't have republics in a fantasy setting and in fact in many cases you actually have them.
In Golarion you have Andoran and Galt (in a manner of speaking). In the world of ice and fire (Essos continent to be precise) you have Braavos (modelled on Venice). In several others you have city states that are repubblics. The fact that monarchies and empires are more common is true but repubblics belong to the fantasy genre too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because republics and democracies have too much chance of bringing in real world politics to the game world, I'm already twitchy about Paizo inserting their political views in to game materials, I don't need to worry about a GM being given a preset setting/adventure to vent their frustrations with a fantasy stand in of whichever political candidate they oppose.
I also think that the potential for this and alienating the customer base by seeming to lord one fantasy version of a certain political viewpoint over others or as inherently good would be the other reason.
There's no reason a fantasy republic would have to touch on modern political conflicts any more than any other setting would.
A Roman Republic model or a Greek demos would have little to nothing in common with Democrat vs Republican or Conservative vs Labour or whatever other modern conflict you want to avoid. The worlds are different. The time periods are different. The conflicts and issues of the day are different.You sure? The matter of plebs vs patricians was a BIG thing throughout all of Rome history. You have people like Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus and the land reform and the way they were both killed for menacing the interests of the ruling elite. On a similar vein you also have the conflict between Marius and Sulla.
In a way the Empire came to be as a reaction to the power of the senatorial class (and conversely a lot of later roman sources are "suspect" when they malign emperors simply because the writers were from the disgruntled senatorial class or their clients).If you're going as generic as masses vs the elite, sure. But you can do that with any form of government.
You could take your cues from any number of medieval Peasant Revolts, for example.
Aside from the fact the concepts of patricians and plebs were not generic at all in ancient Rome and even in contemporary times one could argue some of the ways to keep the lower classes subdued were actually invented (or codified) in ancient Rome (ever heard the expression panem et circenses for example?)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you vote for kings?
I've heard there's a planet where they vote for adolescent queen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if patricians and plebs aren't generic then they don't generalize to bringing in real world politics.
Well, the specific concepts are contestualized in a precise historical period, but they bear more resemblance to contemporary politics than you could expect imo, more than most medieval equivalents for sure.
The plebs were politically represented, they actually wielded power and the patricians could NOT ignore them (technically the equites class were plebs who got rich enough to be able to buy an horse fight for horseback, they later became a class on their own, a sort of proto bourgeoisie if you want). Most peasants during medieval times were serfs, they did not belong to a person but they belonged to the land, they were not represented and to their masters their lives usually mattered far less than those of horses or hunting dogs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a wider variety of governing organizations in my fantasy RPGs, too. Instead of just monarchies, why not some theocracies? Or a country ruled by a council of wizards? How about a deathless lich as a totalitarian dictator? I think the presence of magic and other planes would have a dramatic effect on government, which isn't really represented well by most fantasy RPGs.
I always enjoyed that in Gene Wolfe's Urth of the New Sun series, the 'enemy' country was like an extreme expression of Marxism - the government not only assigned jobs and regulated trade and wealth so that no one could be better off than anyone else, they even controlled what words people could use to communicate. Everyone spoke as though they were reading aloud from the novel's equivalent of Mao's Little Red Book. If it wasn't in the book, they couldn't say it. I don't think there's any reason you couldn't have something similar to that in a magical fantasy setting. You could make the whole population of the country be doppelgangers or homonculi or golems if you wanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a wider variety of governing organizations in my fantasy RPGs, too. Instead of just monarchies, why not some theocracies? Or a country ruled by a council of wizards? How about a deathless lich as a totalitarian dictator? I think the presence of magic and other planes would have a dramatic effect on government, which isn't really represented well by most fantasy RPGs.
I always enjoyed that in Gene Wolfe's Urth of the New Sun series, the 'enemy' country was like an extreme expression of Marxism - the government not only assigned jobs and regulated trade and wealth so that no one could be better off than anyone else, they even controlled what words people could use to communicate. Everyone spoke as though they were reading aloud from the novel's equivalent of Mao's Little Red Book. If it wasn't in the book, they couldn't say it. I don't think there's any reason you couldn't have something similar to that in a magical fantasy setting. You could make the whole population of the country be doppelgangers or homonculi or golems if you wanted.
Let's check on what Avistan and Garund have to offer:
-Theocracies: Razmiran surely qualifies. Check.
-Magocracy: Nex. Check.
-Deathless lich: Geb is a deathless GHOST (and crazed) who rules a country named after him. Since Geb doesn't really concern himself with government the contry is actually managed by an undead council (the bloodlords) and chief among them is a vampire. Check, I believe.
-Totalitarian dictator: Almost too easy. Cheliax qualifies and Molthune does too for example, don't forget Hermea and its draconic overlord. Check.
And you can also get:
-A pirate republic of sorts: The Shackles.
-A Country in the grip on anarchy: Galt.
-Several small nations ruled by bandits: the River Kingdoms.
-An island secretly ruled by an assassin cult: Mediogalti Island.
-Plutocracy: Druma
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't remember the last time I wrote a protagonist nation that wasn't either a republic or a parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch. I pretty much always go with universal suffrage, too. Even the dictatorships try to masquerade as democratic governments. My setting has, as a core conflict, the rejection of divine rule and of the abusive behavior of the gods in favor of humanity ruling itself, so democracy is a perfect thematic fit. I embrace 20th century social mores and politics across the board, which drives the fit further. Finally, my setting is meant to be American fantasy as opposed to Medieval European fantasy. All in all, popular rule or the illusion thereof fits my Pathfinder world like a glove.
Also, if I do shift focus to European Fantasy, it's either an analog of 20th century Britain or of Germany, and my Germany analog is very "What if 30s and 40s Germany managed to remain a republic, the Nazi analogs are a tiny number of scattered militia types with no power or support, and the German government was closely allied to Britain and America and will fight alongside them in The Big One". Also 20s Berlin LGBT culture develops into something even greater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the Roman Republic has had a huge influence on how the Roman Empire, and by extension, the rest of European Civilization has progressed. Half the reason anyone ever made any claim in Europe was to claim that they were the true successors to the "Legacy of Rome." And it's only ever Kings and Queens and their petty dynastic squabbles that are ever present in Fantasy Settings.
I dunno, would it be so bad if the patrons of PCs were senators instead of Princes? If city intrigue plots were based around not one Royal Advisor trying to frame the other for a plot, but the PCs trying to get their patron (or maybe a party member) elected? Maybe if the PCs led an uprising of the plebes like the Gracchi (but with less the PCs getting assassinated, hopefully).
I feel like these parts of the development of Western Civilization are never touched upon by Fantasy Settings, and I want to know why.
Keep in mind that both the Roman and Greek Republics weren't democracies as we understand them today. To be a Senator for example in Rome, you were the head of a powerful family. You weren't "elected" to the position by the plebian population.
Athens operated along similar lines. Spartans were relatively equal, but only a very small part of the population weren't slaves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion has some oddities
Absalom is ruled by a grand council. Not wizards, but not a monarchy either.
Geb is a undead dictatorship. I'm not sure if Geb himself is a lich, but whatever he is, he seems to be a deathless necromancer at the very least.
Hermea is an experiment ruled by a gold dragon.
Razmiran is a theocracy ruled by a wizard pretending to godhood.Just as some examples.
Geb became a ghost because of his psychotic worry about the fact that he couldn't find out what happened to his archrival Nex. The Lich Arazni is the one who pretty much runs everything at this point.
Aroden is slowly slipping back towards ogliarchal rule. Absalom seems to besomething between a meritocracy and and an ogliarchy.
Democracy as we know it requires a lot of things not generally found in such settings. Among them would be a higher general education and emancipation level of the general public.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Democracy as we know it requires a lot of things in short supply in our own setting . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is probably part of the reason why the earliest experiments with Democracy limited voting to the educated social classes.Golarion has some oddities
Absalom is ruled by a grand council. Not wizards, but not a monarchy either.
Geb is a undead dictatorship. I'm not sure if Geb himself is a lich, but whatever he is, he seems to be a deathless necromancer at the very least.
Hermea is an experiment ruled by a gold dragon.
Razmiran is a theocracy ruled by a wizard pretending to godhood.Just as some examples.
Geb became a ghost because of his psychotic worry about the fact that he couldn't find out what happened to his archrival Nex. The Lich Arazni is the one who pretty much runs everything at this point.
Aroden is slowly slipping back towards ogliarchal rule. Absalom seems to besomething between a meritocracy and and an ogliarchy.
Democracy as we know it requires a lot of things not generally found in such settings. Among them would be a higher general education and emancipation level of the general public.
Nope. They limited the right of voting on census, gender and belonging to a city state. "Education" (and we'd need to discuss the meaning of the term during ancient times) wasn't even a factor.
When we talk about ancient democracies we are usually talking about larger forms of oligarchy.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Greyhawk had two republics, complete with elections, representatives, etc.:
1) Perrenland (loosely based on switzerland, including export of mercenaries) ;
2) and the Yeomanry, with a government of the warrior people by the warrior people.
Not en expert on FR or Eberron, but it seems that "never any republic" in classic D&D settings isn't factually correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you vote for kings?
The Poles did. As did the Swedes up until the 16th century (the campaigning usually consisted of "I have *this* many men at arms and knocked the head of the previous king, how about you?")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series is probably my all-time favorite fantasy series. It's basically ancient Rome but if it had maintained its quasi-republic into the middle ages, oh and everyone's a kineticist. Well, almost everyone...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series is probably my all-time favorite fantasy series. It's basically ancient Rome but if it had maintained its quasi-republic into the middle ages, oh and everyone's a kineticist. Well, almost everyone...
The one guy who wasn't did alright for himself, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series is probably my all-time favorite fantasy series. It's basically ancient Rome but if it had maintained its quasi-republic into the middle ages, oh and everyone's a kineticist. Well, almost everyone...The one guy who wasn't did alright for himself, though.
I mean I guess he turned out OK. Fade is still best character though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is probably part of the reason why the earliest experiments with Democracy limited voting to the educated social classes.Golarion has some oddities
Absalom is ruled by a grand council. Not wizards, but not a monarchy either.
Geb is a undead dictatorship. I'm not sure if Geb himself is a lich, but whatever he is, he seems to be a deathless necromancer at the very least.
Hermea is an experiment ruled by a gold dragon.
Razmiran is a theocracy ruled by a wizard pretending to godhood.Just as some examples.
Geb became a ghost because of his psychotic worry about the fact that he couldn't find out what happened to his archrival Nex. The Lich Arazni is the one who pretty much runs everything at this point.
Aroden is slowly slipping back towards ogliarchal rule. Absalom seems to besomething between a meritocracy and and an ogliarchy.
Democracy as we know it requires a lot of things not generally found in such settings. Among them would be a higher general education and emancipation level of the general public.
No the earliest experiments with Democracy limited voting to those who controlled the wealth. Owning classes never give up their power in history unless forced to by situations.
BTW, in my earlier posts I wrote Aroden when I meant Andoran.
Well there is, as stated, Andoran. It's a true republic.
Andoran is rapidly becoming a republic in name only,as the old families are recreating an ogliarchal society. That's the problem with republics, as it happened and Greece and Rome, they're fragile constucts at best.