I need some help describing a kingdom (that uses kingdom building rules) that jumped from rulers that provided Loyalty 38, Economy 30, and Stability 35 to Loyalty 66, Economy 80, and Stability 82.
The scenario is a young prince (PC) fled his kingdom when his uncle orchestrated his father’s death and took the kingdom. The kingdom believes the prince is also dead, and the protector deity of the realm has made their divine displeasure know by withering the grand “Protector tree”. Over time the PC learns of his uncle’s purging his father’s loyalists from the court/positions of power.
The PC and his adventuring party now returns 15-20 years later to find that his uncle is a hyper competent ruler, his father’s kingdom is flourishing under the uncles rule. Experiencing prosperity, a growing middle class, and equal rights for human and non-human residents. Like Bhelen Aeducan from dragon age, a total Jerk, but Fantastic King.
This will lead to difficult questions/introspection/and role-playing opportunities for my players.
I need help describing the differences between old vs. new, and any other suggestions you might have to help flesh this idea out.
Thanks in Advance
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old: patronage system where favors are exchanged for favors between extended families. Think the modern mafia, but given status as legitimate rulers. Those outside of the old families are prevented from gaining political influence even when they gain wealth, with their only way advancing socially is by marrying into a family (which at once makes their wealth the family's wealth, so the individual who was outside the family really hasn't advanced, but traded one for the other). The economy is directed by these families to maximize their individual wealth and stability, which has a net positive for the kingdom, but nowhere close to what a free market society can accomplish.
New: patronage system has given way to the rule of the PC's uncle, which has stripped them of all power outside of social influence, so they can be patrons of their cities or patrons of world-famous artists, but the families as a whole no longer pull the strings. Individuals can advance in both social standing and economic position based in their merits in either, or both, with the result of a more efficient bureaucracy within cities and greater trade between. Outside influence on the economy has increased with the families' control loosened, so the state has greater tax revenue from trade tariffs, which reduces the tax burden on individuals, making the uncle very popular up and down the social ladder (with the exceptions of the old families who miss the old system).
But for the PC's role and introspection, there's bigger decisions that could direct their actions, mostly depending on their alignment/personalities.
I would look at the How or Why the uncle took over. If they are revenge seeking types, that would make them allies among the old order but enemies of everyone else in society who benefited from the changes. If they are pragmatists, they could ally with him (perhaps begrudgingly) or simply seek to replace him while keeping everything else intact. But How or Why he took over adds the intrigue and nuance.
Maybe he had good intentions but accepted the help of a demon who ultimately seeks to destroy the kingdom from the inside out. Whether the party wants revenge or not, they have to weigh the justice of his actions along with the potential dangers they have led to.
Maybe he is a nefarious egomaniac who just so happened to lead the kingdom in the right direction, but those in the know realize that the kingdom's stability is a facade. Although material wealth has increased, essential freedoms of dissent and public disagreement have been curtailed to the potential point of becoming a brutal autocracy.
The more details surrounding his past decisions give the party more ways to discover their role as individual leaders and more approaches to either deposing him or having him atone for his actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between the two rulers could simply come down to competence and effectiveness (at least in terms of how they're perceived). The PC's father may simply not have been capable of reigning in corruption and inefficiency. He may have been the last in a line of benign rulers whose stewardship of the realm gradually worsened. The king wasn't wicked, but his nobles and ministers alike nonetheless drained the realm's resources, leading to growing dissatisfaction among the people.
What most don't know is that the corruption was in large part the doing of the uncle, who was the slain king's chief minister. Like Richelieu in "The Three Musketeers," he excelled at covering his own tracks and laying the blame on others. When the uncle was crowned king, the lightning-quick pogroms he led (as part of "reforms for justice") were against the same nobles and ministers who had been his (often unknowing) cronies. This allowed him to clean house, but to also get rid of any remaining evidence.
The Protector Tree withering is a visible reminder to people that all is not as it should be, but most freemen and landowners feel their lives are nonetheless materially better and more stable. More to the point, since they don't know the uncle orchestrated the king's death, much less that he was behind all the corruption, they have no reason to turn those concerns against their new ruler.
The PC's biggest challenge could thus be convincing the people that there's anything wrong with the uncle to begin with.
Old: patronage system where favors are exchanged for favors between extended families. Think the modern mafia, but given status as legitimate rulers. Those outside of the old families are prevented from gaining political influence even when they gain wealth, with their only way advancing socially is by marrying into a family (which at once makes their wealth the family's wealth, so the individual who was outside the family really hasn't advanced, but traded one for the other). The economy is directed by these families to maximize their individual wealth and stability, which has a net positive for the kingdom, but nowhere close to what a free market society can accomplish.
New: patronage system has given way to the rule of the PC's uncle, which has stripped them of all power outside of social influence, so they can be patrons of their cities or patrons of world-famous artists, but the families as a whole no longer pull the strings. Individuals can advance in both social standing and economic position based in their merits in either, or both, with the result of a more efficient bureaucracy within cities and greater trade between. Outside influence on the economy has increased with the families' control loosened, so the state has greater tax revenue from trade tariffs, which reduces the tax burden on individuals, making the uncle very popular up and down the social ladder (with the exceptions of the old families who miss the old system).
That is Fantastic and a great way to look at each system!
What most don't know is that the corruption was in large part the doing of the uncle, who was the slain king's chief minister. Like Richelieu in "The Three Musketeers," he excelled at covering his own tracks and laying the blame on others. When the uncle was crowned king, the lightning-quick pogroms he led (as part of "reforms for justice") were against the same nobles and ministers who had been his (often unknowing) cronies. This allowed him to clean house, but to also get rid of any remaining evidence.
I like it, the grand chess master angle! I need to look more into Richelieu in "The Three Musketeers" I have never read the book.
Richelieu was a Cardinal of the Catholic Church who served as the chief minister of King Louis XIII. He is a cunning politician and schemer who (in the novels by Dumas) ostensibly acts for the good of his nation but in doing so manipulates his king, orders the imprisonment and murder of innocents, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely different idea, but you could make the new society somewhat like Ankh-Morpork in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. Not too closely, of course, since the books are satire.
The Patrician is still the absolute ruler of the city and can basically do whatever he wants. Rather than force everyone to conform to his progressive vision for the city he instead put guilds in charge of various aspects of city life. And if guilds aren't moving things in the way he wants, the leaders of the guild are the ones who have to answer to him. So he basically gets his way because the guild leaders want to keep their positions (and their heads).
That's an extreme - and silly - example but it shows the overall idea. There are plenty of more mundane guilds like the Guild of Bakers, Blacksmiths' Guild, and Seamstresses' Guild.
So the uncle could still be a tyrant with all the perks and luxuries he wants. He tells the people in charge of these factions (guilds, or whatever) to implement policies that will improve the country and the life of the majority of the people. There's a small cadre of people with their own power bases who fear (and maybe hate) him. But the common people see how much better their lives are under his rule while not directly experiencing oppression by him.
So the uncle could still be a tyrant with all the perks and luxuries he wants. He tells the people in charge of these factions (guilds, or whatever) to implement policies that will improve the country and the life of the majority of the people. There's a small cadre of people with their own power bases who fear (and maybe hate) him. But the common people see how much better their lives are under his rule while not directly...
That would be a fun angle, My players/I love discworld. RIP Terry Pratchett