Democratic Republics in Fantasy Worlds?

[Sociotard]

I finally snapped.

I bought the Exalted sourcebook recently. Now, the setting is mildly dystopic (so Players are motivated to change the world) and most of the governments suck. However, the governments that feature strong oligarchies or monarchs tend to be at least somewhat effective, while anything resembling a representative or deliberative form of government is hoplessly broken.

I understand this is a standard trope of fantasy fiction. The best goverments are headed by philosopher kings and anything else is impotent and corrupt, aberations from the rightful order of things.

I just hate it.

I tolerated this trope for a long time, but I really want something different. Are there any novels with other fantasy elements (medieval tech, wizards and dragons) but which also feature Democratic Republics that are presented as being effective? Do any RPG settings feature such governments? (I haven't bought any HERO fantasy settings)

[Sociotard]

Oh, and sorry if this came accross as something of a rant. I just always hated the idea of living under a King.

[Curufea]

President, King, not a lot of difference ;-p

Seriously though, there are some Constitutional monarchies. They seem to be kinda common in fantasy - a council or senate that advises or may over-rule the king or emperor. Absolute monarchies tend to happen more in fantasy literature meant for young adults, rather than adults.
There are various oligarchies too - guilds and magic groups that have say in government.

Mythic Greece is obviously the first setting I think of for fantasy democracy
Any fantasised version of history could be used for different government types.

I have noticed that most fantasy absolute monarchies aren't like real life medieval monarchies. In the middle ages the church itself had a fair chunk of the political power.

I can't really talk about setting in games though - nearly all the ones I'm in, was in, or ran were created settings - not published settings.

[assault]

I can't really think of any.

Funnily enough, the Hobbits in LOTR are probably pretty close. They have the Thain, of course, but he doesn't really seem to be much more important than, say, the Mayor of Hobbiton. It's not clear what kind of government exists in Bree.

I wouldn't describe these as democratic governments, but they could pass for fairly broad oligarchies, where local chieftains and dignitaries tend to run things, but aren't really separated from their followers.

Another possible case of this would be in Fletcher Pratt's Well of the Unicorn, where the good guys exist as a bunch of disunited provinces, facing a centralised opponent. The hero spents a lot of time worrying about what kind of society is going to result from the conflict.

While there isn't a huge amount of stuff in published material (and I just know that an example is going to jump out at me as soon as I post this), there are plenty of interesting historical examples that could be worked with. There is no need for democracies and republican oligarchies to be so horribly under-respresented.

I remember when the DnD Birthright setting came out, I spent a bit of effort thinking about how to model a republic under their system. It worked well enough, if you used figurehead rulers.

I suppose that it could be argued that in high-magic settings, it would be inevitable that the most powerful members of a society would tend to become rulers, and the least powerful their subjects. That doesn't necessarily follow. In particular, it would be entirely plausible that the most powerful members might be religious leaders, who aren't interested in secular power, as long as the society generally conforms to their religious teachings. As long as the secular authorities don't mess with the church/temple, then, they are just fine. This kind of system could be sufficiently institutionalised to be relatively stable for extended periods of time. Whether or not it would eventually break down is beside the point, since even the USA has only been around for a couple of centuries, and hasn't proven its long term stability.

I emphasise the religious aspect deliberately, since there is a real risk that a republic or democracy might seem like a dangerous innovation in a world of monarchies, and thus it would be useful for it to have "divine" approval.

Ah! L Sprague De Camp's Novaria books feature a range of different governments. At least one is a classical republic (oligarchy), while some others have stranger forms.

Anyway, I don't have any problem with you ranting about this. I quite agree. In fact, the setting I am gradually working on tends to feature a whole bunch of republican city states, even though they are dominated by a Tyrant with a mercenary army. (He's not the Bad Guy, incidentally!)

[Sociotard]

USA has only been around for a couple of centuries, and hasn't proven its long term stability.

True, the Great Experiment isn't over yet.

In exalted, the "great civilzation that was" consisted of all the people with the best superpowers forming a republican oligarchy. Still, a civilzation where 300 people rule over maybe a billion, and none of the billion gets a vote, is disturbing. I could accept less than universal sufferage in my fiction, like ancient Greece, but that's too narrow.

[assault]

Anyway, this is an interesting topic, and I've repped you for bringing it up.

[The Weapon]

Bear in mind that in reality most medieval kings had FAR less effective power than presidents in the modern world. Presidents can actually change the tax rates significantly without getting their heads cut off. Kings often couldn't. They often lacked a standing miilitary to enforce their will, and that military that they did have was subcontracted out to lords with interests of their own. They couldn't raise credit without having to make massive concessions and lacked a professional investigation team to snoop on their enemies. They were put in place to maintan the law, if they made a fraction of the changes that modern states made every year they'd have a revolt on their hand. Large numbers of influential people (university staff, priests, residents of some towns) were almost totally beyond their control.

Of course places were stable without any government at all. Saga period iceland was peaceful and prosperous without any actually enforcing State law for 290 years. Disputes were solved with a kind of privatised law enforcement and judicary. It lasted longer than the United States has with less change in it's system and can thus be described as "more sucessful" than modern republics.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ...d/Iceland.html

[Sociotard]

The President (of the United States, anyway) can't change tax rates. The most he can do is ask Congress to.

[Vondy]

The President (of the United States, anyway) can't change tax rates. The most he can do is ask Congress to.

Which doesn't change the fact that he has far more actual power in practical terms than medieval kings did.

He may have more limited authority in theory, but in practice kings had less sweeping power. Also, while its true America has a Constitution that limits government power, the restrictions are not meaningfully greater than what the British monarchs, and later His Majesty's (elected) government operated under following the Magna Carta and some later documents. The difference was that the lords, and later the electors, is who he answered to, as opposed to the masses. But then, if you look at the original voting structure of the United States, only land owning males could vote, which was essentially the British system (at the time) ported over to America. And the President's powers reflected those of the Monarch as he related to the elected government at the time.

Indeed, Americans today pay many taxes and fees that are rooted in medieval custom (and which free men shouldn't pay according to American philosophical tenets, but this is a discussion in of itself - and it shouldn't be confused with the tax rate) without even thinking about it; and several of the President's powers are truly monarchal in scope (the power to declare war without congress, pardons, vetoes, etc). The Founding Fathers were Englishmen who decided to elect their King and call him a President. And American common law is british common law, but with a divergent historical point. Indeed, with some very difficult constitutional questions, the Supreme Court actually cites British Common law and rules according to it.

I would also note that Medieval kings could not effectively wage war or enforce law without the consent of their lords, because the lords were supplying the muscle. The President can put a military medieval kings could only dream of into action for sustained periods of time, and can federalize local forces by presidential caveat. A medieval king could never tell his local lords "hand over your troops" because those troops didn't even owe him allegiance in most cases. At best he could say: bring them, but what if the lords as a whole didn't feel like coming? It happened more frequently than modern man with his stable modern super-state and love of military adventurism commonly believes.

You're right, the president can't levy taxes without cutting a deal with congress, but then, medieval kings couldn't levy taxes without cutting a deal with their lords, hence the comment on concession made earlier. The difference is in definition rather than result. But, a President can control interest rates via the Fed without Congressional consent, which has a sweeping impact on the economy medieval kings never had. Indeed, many kings were crippled because there was no way to control interest rates.*

This isn't to say there isn't a difference, but the simple fact is, the function of all governments throughout history has been the same, only the form and practice differs. And in truth, the President of the United States has more practical power than any leader who preceded him with the exception - perhaps - of some of the Roman Emperors. Indeed, his powers are very monarchal in character (most heads of state who have them are in authoritarian regimes) and directly parallel those of Rome's Emperors and medieval kings in many cases. Americans love authority - its like a golden calf - they claim to be rebels, but they are some of the best behaved, most obedient, and unquestioning subjects in the world.

The most popular presidents - the one's Americans revere above all others - were high-handed authoritarians who abused the authority of their office and tread upon the Bill of Rights. But they won wars, so Americans love them without reservation.

Its a striking psychological dichotomy.

*which led to a lot of propaganda against a small ethnic group who shall not be named (and whose only viable option in many places was lending or running taverns due to church edicts), as well as expulsions as a way of cancelling debt.

[Enforcer84]

I finally snapped.

I bought the Exalted sourcebook recently. Now, the setting is mildly dystopic (so Players are motivated to change the world) and most of the governments suck. However, the governments that feature strong oligarchies or monarchs tend to be at least somewhat effective, while anything resembling a representative or deliberative form of government is hoplessly broken.

I understand this is a standard trope of fantasy fiction. The best goverments are headed by philosopher kings and anything else is impotent and corrupt, aberations from the rightful order of things.

I just hate it.

I tolerated this trope for a long time, but I really want something different. Are there any novels with other fantasy elements (medieval tech, wizards and dragons) but which also feature Democratic Republics that are presented as being effective? Do any RPG settings feature such governments? (I haven't bought any HERO fantasy settings)

Real life doesn't so why should fantasy?
We don't know what one looks like?
No?


There was a comic series about WWII being fought with wizards and dragons. I assume there would be some democracies there.
How effective would a democracy be in a fantasy world?
I mean with a kingdom, you kill the dragon you get knighted
in a democracy they'll form a committee to see that you get the appropriate reward* and then the committee will spend mos of its funding in the districts of the representatives that make up the committee. And if you are really unlucky, the dragon will have been representing a lobbying group and you'll be run out of the country on a rail.



*unless they already have a process for it. In which case you'll get a certificate, be asked to fill out a report in triplicate and then be charged for the damages done to the local environment/Economy/parks system while destroying the beast.


Or worse you'll end up being asked to run for office.

[assault]

I'd like to apologise for having dragged the USA into this thread. Unfortunately it seems to have become a major derailing factor...

[assault]

How effective would a democracy be in a fantasy world?
I mean with a kingdom, you kill the dragon you get knighted
in a democracy they'll form a committee to see that you get the appropriate reward* and then the committee will spend mos of its funding in the districts of the representatives that make up the committee.

I would imagine that a democracy in a fantasy world would be about as effective as, say, Athenian democracy.

If you kill a dragon, you would be everybodies' hero, and be showered with rewards. And then you would fall out of favour and be exiled.

Oh, and lots of money would be spent buying votes.

A republic (oligarchy) would be more or less the same, only the plutocrats/aristocrats would be more openly calling the shots. (In a democracy, or notional democracy, they would have to rely more on wardheelers.)

You know what? This is about as efficient as a monarchy would be!

[Teflon Billy]

I don't think a pure universal suffrage democracy could work very well in a high-fantasy genre world.

Wizards are quantifiably better than mundane people in a secure civil society, they just are. It's partly why the D&D movie was so ridiculous, an archmage is demonstrably more important and valuable than a serf, not bones about it.

This knocking out of the underpinning of a modern republican democracy (that all citizens are inherently equal) makes for difficulty in creating a believable fantasy world where this is so.

I see a more, oligarchical meritocracy developing. You earn your ability to weild power through personal aquisition of temporal/metaphysical/arcane/divine/etc.. power.

TB

[Sociotard]

Worse, you see Star Wars III situations come up. The Jedi have the superpowers. One day they notice their government is corrupt and start planning the coup.

[assault]

I see a more, oligarchical meritocracy developing. You earn your ability to weild power through personal aquisition of temporal/metaphysical/arcane/divine/etc.. power.

This doesn't necessarily happen or happen immediately. It is quite likely that a relatively egalitarian society could evolve into a less equal one, but this would/could take time. That "time" could well be centuries.

Furthermore, there is no reason why a basically "good" society would value one citizen more highly than another, especially if the moral basis of that society was underpinned by relatively direct and active divine contact.

In fact, it would be fair to suggest that societies in a fantasy world would be heavily influenced by the religious beliefs of those societies. A pantheon that essentially behaved like a feudal aristocracy would probably be associated with a feudal society, and so on. Of course there could be exceptions to this. The most obvious would be for the secular organisation of a society to change, while leaving the religious organisation intact, as I have suggested earlier in the thread.

All it would take would be one saint, prophet, sage or paladin, and a society could be radically transformed. (See Roger Zelazny's Lord of Light for a neato story along these lines.)

This points out one of the most interesting aspects about meritocracies of this type - are all the "superior" people members of the elite? If not, can they be absorbed by the elite? What if they identify more with the bottom tiers of the society?

There are few things more embarrassing than having some guy front up to the Pharoah and say "let my people go" - and mean it.