Non-Monarchy Governments?

[Tetujin]

I'm in a Kingmaker game right now and while our whole party has their own interest in maintaining a government none of us are really interested in being the leader. It seems really weird to recruit an NPC for leader (But maybe later in the adventure there might be someone perfect for the job, but no spoilers please) and I know either in the book or in one of the Q&A threads it's been stated that other government types are beyond the scope of the rules presented. We think it'd be neat if someone came up with rules for something oligarchical or what have you, and it sounds like our DM is for it, but I'm not sure how I'd do it.

Maybe take the average of the leaders' CHA scores?

[Fluff Master]

You could shift for the role of leader, or choose to install a council-like government where someone (PC or NPC) cover the role of the leader, a representative figure, but without the powers of the leader.
He will add his stat bonus, roll as a leader, yet any decision will be made by the council.

[Hassy]

The other leader characters are already assumed to run some sort of council that guides the Ruler.

I would just rule that a nation that by law is ruled by a ruling council doesn't need a Ruler: as long as at least N (maybe five) members of the council are present there is no vacancy penalty for the Ruler, but they don't get the benefits either.

It's mostly balanced because then you have one extra character to fill a role. Once the "barony" becomes a "duchy" or "kingdom" you are supposed to get extra benefits from the Ruler. You could just replace those with a free +2 to one (duchy) or two (kingdom) stats for the oligarchy.

[Lylo]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more...

[Waiwode]

Golarian does have models to base a kingless government on, so it's not like the players are guilty of wildly anachronistic thinking.

If they fail to elevate anyone to "Chairman" or "President" -- or have a rapidly evolving executive officer for the week, but propose a set of laws and so forth -- that is to say spend some time discussing "proper governance" then I'd waive the bonus, but I'd waive the vacancy penalty as well.

However if they do elevate a party member or NPC to "Chairman" or "President" -- even for a year at a time -- and even if that character is more the "face" than the ruler, then I'd just slot them into the kingship-under-the-new-name and move on.

The system is highly abstract, really knocking yourself out over minutiae takes the fun out of things, in my opinion.

[Goraxes]

Our First 2 was autocracy, with a Council to guide them (Leader was the Healer). This time around (3rd time running it), We are going Feudal System. Kingdom behind the Scenes. The Party will meet Nobles, etc that want land to run. They will have to divide up the land and it will create more quests/Role Play.

[M P 433]

Our "leader" is the voicebox for a ruling council that makes all the law and decisions. There is no independent authority for the Leader, though I'm interested to see if the player ever would put that to the test. Many of the settlers in the area are used to the notion of a king or some symbolic ruler.

I don't see why your "average CHA" method wouldn't work, though it does artificially fill a vacancy, leaving the party less in need of seeking out NPCs and interacting with them to fill other positions.

[Hagen]

I was thinking of implementing the following rule changes for an oligarchy:

The lack of a ruler allows the ruling council to apply an automatic +4 bonus to a kingdom stat. Upon becoming a duchy, the council can apply a +6 bonus to 2 kingdom stats. And becoming a kingdom would allow a +8 bonus to all three stats. This gives an oligarchy pretty decent bonuses, on par with most kingdoms that have 2 rulers, but not as good as a kingdom with very charismatic rulers.

However, the lack of a centralised government and leadership has its drawbacks, reflected in an increase of 10% in all BP costs, to represent monies wasted because of corruption and decision making.

[G.ame O.perational D.irector]

my players went with a feudal city states with a kings council, a nobles council and a court of commons. They still filled all the leadership roles though they renamed half of the but basically they preform the same function.

[Jeremias]

Fluff Master wrote:

You could shift for the role of leader, or choose to install a council-like government where someone (PC or NPC) cover the role of the leader, a representative figure, but without the powers of the leader.

He will add his stat bonus, roll as a leader, yet any decision will be made by the council.

That is what my players did after the previous ruler, a PC paladin, died and his successor was the NPC paladin, previously general.

[Turgan]

Jeremias wrote:

Fluff Master wrote:

You could shift for the role of leader, or choose to install a council-like government where someone (PC or NPC) cover the role of the leader, a representative figure, but without the powers of the leader.

He will add his stat bonus, roll as a leader, yet any decision will be made by the council.

That is what my players did after the previous ruler, a PC paladin, sacrificed himself voluntarily and heroically and his successor was the NPC paladin, previously general.

Fixed that for you