What are good alternatives to feudal kingdoms in a medieval fantasy world...

Map?

Sorry, I've made the screenshot before even Horse Lords.

Absolute monarchy

Take inspiration from states like this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic#Government

rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

You could literally do any of these, or even make up your own shit. go crazy!

> Rational wiki
user, you what

*dibs bedora*

I know of a city ruled by beer brewers (cause lets not kid us here: they have full control over THE most important good in the world)

I could see Dorfs having a brewocracy.

Expansionist empire in pursuit of dominance led by a charasmatic overlord and his advisors for the sake of an ideological goal, such as exterminating the most horrible of horrible races (like Drow, mindflayers, all evil dragons, Orcs).

I don't know if pogroms necessarily carry the same implications if there exist races classified as "always chaotic evil"

Hitler would've been a saint, or even the God-Emperor of mankind, had he been born in any fantasy land. You can't tell me that Mindflayers and Drow have any moral high ground to stand on against the flood of their annihilation.

Exactly. The "ork baby" dilemma and whatnot is only immoral assuming these evil races are the result of nurture vs nature.

Gavelkind a shit.

Massive elf empire organized by a massive beauracracy and led by ancient god emperors. After all, imagine if Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan lived to be 500-1000 years old.

And even if it is their nurture, how do you stop a closely knit, isolationist, society comprised of one race, from passing on their asshole ways from one generation to the next and constantly churning out cockmongling dickweed villains. The Answer: Kill them to the brink of extinction, destroy all traces of their society and force their children to go through government approved education, while maintaining a secret police force to make sure that none of the survivors of the previous generation are wielding their influence to pass on their evil customs. Now if Drow or Orc were to go on and still turn out to be a bad egg, they can't say "but muh Society made me do it".

Republics a best.
Kingdoms can get fucked.
A meritocratic empire based on popular sovereignity and civil rights is fine too.
>B-But muh fantasy tho
Rome, half of medieval Italy and half of the Greek city-states want a word with you.

>rome
>republic
L
O
L

You ever heard of the Roman Republic?

> Being this uneducated

Not only was Rome a Republic for about five centuries, but even the empire was often referred to as the "Res Publica" and the motto "SPQR" (Senatus Populusque Romanum, or Senate and People of Rome in pleb-speak) never disappeared under the empire because the emperors (at least on paper) still saw themselves as representatives of the people. Augustus actually never used any imperial titles and simply called himself "First among Equals".

That's where the "meritocratic empire based on popular sovereignity and civil rights is fine too" comes form. That and Napoleon, who knew his classics very well and fashioned himself a neo-Roman Emperor rather than a European, Ancien Régime monarch.

tl;dr: Try being less of a pleb, pleb.

I think in a fantasy setting where the gods can be seen to have active, transient influence on the world then more rulers would be chosen by "chance" or by religious ways (i.e. by lot, by trials, etc).

Isn't that just a meritocracy with a specific view of merit?

...

Republic al-la Rome? Parliamentary Democracy such as post English Civil Wars? Commonwealth like Poland-Lithuania? Monarch elected by provincial barons/princes such as in the Holy Roman Empire?

>a fantasy setting where the gods can be seen to have active, transient influence on the world
THis is off topic, but I absolutely despise any setting that does this whatsoever.

It cheapens the influence and spirituality of religion to just some servitude thing to a sky wizard. Not only that, but it makes everything extremely boring and status qou like.

Also also, you never have wars over religion or religious reforms because the god just walks into the church and says "yo, that's not what I meant. So, when's dinner?"

It's fucking stupid.

I ahte it I hate it I hate it.

>It cheapens the influence and spirituality of religion to just some servitude thing to a sky wizard. Not only that, but it makes everything extremely boring and status qou like.
>Also also, you never have wars over religion or religious reforms because the god just walks into the church and says "yo, that's not what I meant. So, when's dinner?"

>Whenever correct doctrines are established with 100% certainity and aren't just "that's just like, my opinion man", the religion loses all spirituality

You could always have a monotheistic religion that puts stock in a creator over what are perceived to be natural forces in the universe that will die just like everything else. I know in a lot of settings people can even become gods, but if someone can become a god then they're not really a god at all, are they?

Beer is disgusting, as bad piss no matter what kind

Thoughts on dandelion dynasty?

The greeks managed it just fine.

People have tried this and it always just create a people of depressed alcoholics. Case and point the finns

Yes, but the thing with the Greeks was that it was still fairly ambiguous. They had to consort with Oracles to speak with the Gods.

They didnt just mossy on down into the spirit realm and played pool with Gorogoth, Divine Master of Fire and Creation and What-The-Fuck-Ever while chatting about random bullshit.

Also, most of the stories Greeks tell about Gods and Goddesses interacting with the mortal realm where in an ancient past, long before when those stories were actually written. Herodotus even writes at one point that in his time, the first fully mortal generation was coming into existence. Before then, it had all been semi-divine or one ninth divine lineage.

All in all, the Greeks believed that the gods interacted with humans, but that was a long time ago.

At least with human writ doctrines, there's a measure of faith. And that to me is the most fascinating part about religion. The Faith part of it. You can't have faith if you know things for a imperially measured fact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_(political_model)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_state
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zomia_(region)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montaillou_(book)

In my fantasy settings:
>States aren't defined by borders, but proximity to centers of influence. How close you can get to a city state before you enter its sphere of influence is vague and changes with its current strength.
>City states gain predominance via multiple means (military, economic, or prestige-based) but this is usually represented by ongoing material tribute. Shit gets reversed now and again, and weak territory can owe tribute to multiple entities.
>The form tribute takes is often labor in the form of slaves and serfs, or stand ins for labor in the form of textiles and the like.
>Said slaves and serfs don't take it lying down, but often don't have the means to violently overthrow the warrior nobility above them. Instead they opt to flee to geographically difficult terrain. They swidden, herd livestock, fish, and so on.
>Occasionally they'll get populous enough to stage raiding parties, but they don't get the standing power needed to demand tribute on an ongoing basis usually.
>Notmongols might be an exception and enjoy tribute.
>States try to invade their peripheries. They can nab some slaves or crush some villages, but can't do enough damage to eliminate the roll these places play.

This is why I love love LOVE Eberron, because although divine magic exists the existence of divinity is still ambiguous, which allows you to create conflicting religions that are all potentially valid.

It even encourages religious institutions like the Church of the Silver Flame, which can contain equal measures of good, evil or just plain zealous followers.

Also gods with a wide range of domains are the best, it keeps your church from turning into "this is the god of Paladins, they like swords and are Paladins."

>Senatus Populusque Romanus

Fixed.

I wanted to tell you to pleb harder, but you're right. Damn nigga, I need to step up my game.

My current homebrew campaign is based on Greek city-states. There is still an "aristocracy" of sorts, but they have nowhere near the control over the population as a full on feudal society.

How is it that as soon as I saw the words "gods" and "religion" I knew you were going to show up and sperg the fuck out? Seriously, piss off you smeggin autist, you do this same shite every time on these threads, and just derail them with your autistic rants.

Well you know what they say: if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. But just out of curiosity, what were you referring to with the Finns? I'm not exactly an adept at Finnish history and I don't want to sift through the vast ocean of factoids that is Wikipedia.

Not him but...
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
Finland is pretty high up there. Compare it to shit like pic related. And then there are the Swedish Laws of Jante, which also affected Finnish culture.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

Combine all of that, and it's no wonder Finns get a reputation for being depressed autists. On the chans, at least. Normies think it's yet another Scandinavian country they can't distinguish between with high living standards.

Merchant republics are based

Basically the swedes conqured them, converted them and then proceded to grind down their national pride and identity until the russians won them in a war.

>national pride

>Medieval era

Wew, lad

Its a technocracy with wizards instead of STEMlords

What would you call something rules by the POWER OF MONEY? Merchant republic? Not even sure if that's a real thing.

when push comes to shove, it still comes down to the guy with the biggest club

You haven't tried a good ale, I see?

>Plutocracy/Plutonomy
>Corporatocracy

>inb4 "any modern capitalist country"

To be fair, according to a Princeton study the US today is literally a plutocracy and no longer a democracy. Which is an improvement according to Plato.

Shit man, I dunno just make words up. Mercancracy? Merchaecracy? Mercanticracy? Jewocracy?

>Jewocracy
Oy vey

Plutocracy

>implying that's inaccurate

The United States is by definition a plutocracy. Public opinion has minimal impact on policy.

The more pertinent question is the mechanism by which money influences politics.

Is this a heavy lobbying contemporary US deal?
Is this a south seas bubble colonialist deal?
Is this a setting where senators/councilmen pay portions of the standing army out of pocket, creating units of soldiers with political rather than national loyalties?

There's a big difference between a government directly speculating with its own money and one that simply has a high degree of corruption.

I can't recall, but was it Plato whose argument was that independently wealthy (which at the time probably meant merely landowning) government officials were harder to bribe and influence from the outside? If so, the whole lobbying system seems like more of a worst case scenario.

>I can't recall, but was it Plato whose argument was that independently wealthy (which at the time probably meant merely landowning) government officials were harder to bribe and influence from the outside?
That, and their ability to gather wealth also proved they were more intelligent than the average commoner I think. Probably something like Trump in the recent elections: he's not dependent on party funding or sponsors or whatever, he's simply rich enough to aim for presidency.

Of course plutocracy is still the third worst system, so it's not desirable. Just better than democracy or tyranny.

If the main gist of his argument was that money was merit, I might be thinking of a different writer.

It's weird to see the money as merit argument cropping up so early though. I haven't read up as much on Greece as other civs, but wouldn't wealth have been highly and transparently hereditary at the time of writing?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes#Oligarchy

Of course in the Plutocracy a lot of the money would be inherited, but to maintain that wealth and ideally accumulate more some temperance would be needed. At least it's better than democracy's "gibs me dat" attitude.

Looks like he acknowledges inheritance and class as issues at least. Neat.

Definitely not the piece or writer I was initially thinking about though. It's going to bother me trying to come up with what I was remembering.

Don't forget Poland!

Is this thread true?

archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/49397725/#49397725
>Are hereditary monarchies and aristocracies simply better for storytelling and RPGs in general, whether in fantasy or in sci-fi?

>Politics surrounding republics and democracies are impersonal, hit close to home, and are too touchy at any table. Familiarity breeds contempt, and many of us are jaded towards modern government figures.

>Hereditary royals and nobles have so many easily digestible plot hooks surrounding them. They can resonate on a personal level because they involve families, different types of love, and coming of age stories. People can easily grasp how the princess loves her queenly mother, and how the queen mourns the loss of her son the crown prince. Princes and princesses are also heavily romanticized in general.

>Is there any way to make republics and democracies as interesting and relatable on a personal level? I imagine you could have a plotline involving elections, but that can be a bit too topical.

>How would you put a twist on hereditary monarchies and aristocracies while still keeping their strengths in plot hooks and relatability?

Putting a face on a faction is important, but I prefer some degree of heterarchy just so players have some options of how to align themselves. Also some degree of social mobility so players don't have to stick on the bottom rung, start the game already powerful, or overthrow the whole system just to get a little political power.

Contemporary political models are a mix of implausible, close to home, hard to portray right, and just not good at generating interest. That much is true.

I'd say that narrative is correct for a standard RPG. You just want to be the hero and fight the bad guys, you have no time for politics so all you need to do is identify a single boss-man and you're done. It's simply and easy to digest: he's the king because he's the king, that's all you need to know.

Republics (not neccessarily democratic ones) on the other hand are much better for intrigue campaigns. You only need to explain the most fundamental basics of the republican regime (who is in charge? Who is part of the representative body?) and you've already set the stage. There will be varying interests, representative X and representative Y will have differing views on for example the ongoing war. It can even be the case that one of the representatives wants his country to lose the war. If the PCs are somehow aligned to a certain interest (they're in service of or related to someone with a seat in the representative body, or they have a seat or seats of their own), they can easily get involved. Precisely because power isn't concentrated, there's more room for intrigue.

So I'd say both serve different purposes. Of course they can be used interchangeably (a Repubic for a regular adventure, a monarchy for intrigue) but then you'd be robbing the two regimes of their greatest narrative strengths.

I lived in Alaska for eight years. Seasonal affective disorder is a real thing. Having the sun come up at 10:30 (from behind mountains), hide behind clouds and go down at 3:30 sucks.

Monarchies still have mobility, especially for skilled and useful individuals like PC's.

Just be ready to be hated if you are a commoner who ends up effectively running the country by climbing the religious/administrative/financial ladder.

Currently running a homebrew of Viking tribes, clans and raiding parties vying for power and petty gains, slowly collaborating together to take down larger nations.

Power is earned or taken, leaders are elected yearly, the leader is expected to organise the economy of the region in order to feed everyone and arm everyone for the coming years raids should the crops fail.

Venice bro.

My personal favorite are Meritocracies.

>Empire doing Empire stuff
>Has slaves
>Slaves revolt rallied by a super slave
>Empire falls/Fucks Off/Parleys
>Slaves institute a Meritocracy
>Every position is always fulfilled by the best possible candidate
>Every year anyone can be challenged for their place in society
>The test or tests depending on the job are directly related to that job
>Winner gets the job
>It doesn't matter who it is female, black, old, poor winner takes all
>Every other nation greatly despises them but are mostly helpless against them because of their efficiency and power

The nation state is new but a nation is the people

The goyim know, shut it down.

This seems like a masturbatory utopia. In reality the idea of almost everyone getting replaced every year would probably create massive inefficiencies, and tests can easily be biased, pointless in purpose, or simply be studied by one with tons of free time to ensure success regardless of actual competence.

Look at Imperial China, the eunuchs and bureaucrats were often corrupt and incompetent despite the numerous tests that bureaucrats went through. The only real case of an immensely hated state surviving in the face of numerous enemies was post revolutionary France and that was less due to a superior form of government and more due to high morale among the soldiery and massive armies due to conscription. Even then it didn't stop the constant coalitions from forming, France won five wars against massive coalitions in a row yet a sixth was still formed and eventually defeated Napoleon.

Well if you really want to get in on it its also likely a nation where trying to cheat the system results in getting your head chopped off. The transition would likely take time as well just like the transition of presidencies. Just because they value skill and personal prowess doesn't mean they are stupid about it.

As for surviving while being hated there are many ways to get around that. The hate likely stems from the nobles of other nations being grumpy because they let anyone do anything. They would only war if they had to because they dont want that kind of ideology spreading. They could also have valuable trading resources or routes that cause the merchants to pressure the nobility not to fuck shit up. Maybe they are out of the way enough as to not merit the time and effort to invade and take over. You can be hated and survive just fine.

All that said it is pretty masturbatory because its so anti everything we have in history and real life. Were edging to it slowly with time but will likely never be there. Since we have no real world analogs its all speculation. Could it work? Yes. Could it be good? Yes. Do we know for sure? Not at fucking all.

The closest analogues I can't think of are Oda Nobunaga's court which promoted meritocracy but collapsed after his death because the system created rivalries that then hated eachother leading to divisions when he was assassinated.

Or kind of similar was the Nerva-Antonine dynasty, adopting capable successors based on their potential and merit then having them agreed to by the Senate. Which at times required a little bit of skullduggery but worked out well for a time.

>Oda Nobunaga's court

Doesn't really fit because only the elite were in the position like that and once he was gone there was a LOT to gain by chucking the system out. It would be much different if the whole society was like that. Once the masses have the power it takes a lot of time and effort to take it back from them. Any fishy shit from up top would likely elicit a strong reaction of t he public. Just a few common laws to back up their claim of your bullshit and your dead.

>Nerva-Antonine dynasty
I would have to read into them to really say anything on them. From what you said though it runs into the same problem as above. Only the top is like that. The common man cant prove his worth and just up to the elite ranks of society.

...

Well yea, there isn't a system, especially pre-french revolution that particularly gave a fuck about the little guy.

Even in the United States, the average citizen was considered too stupid and unprepared to actually govern.

That said, Hideyoshi Toyotomi was actually a sandal bearer for Nobunaga and he was promoted because Nobunaga saw promise in him. He would later go on to be one of Nobunaga's best generals and unify all of Japan. So there was possibility for nobodies to work their way up. Hilariously enough it was hideyoshi himself who banned peasants from being able to be elevated to samurai.

>Hilariously enough it was hideyoshi himself who banned peasants from being able to be elevated to samurai.
What a dick

That's how it is dude. Once you make you shut it down so nobody can come up behind you.

>Even in the United States, the average citizen was considered too stupid and unprepared to actually govern.
And given the current presidential candidates, I'd say the Founding Fathers may have had a point there.

The idea is that the system would and should (for the sake of actually making the setting interesting) have problems. The threat of death failed to stop plenty of people who made grabs for power, they just had to be more secretive about it, or have enough support that it didn't matter that they broke the rules.

Personally, I like magocracies.

Candidates chosen as figureheads by business concerns.

Yes the public of the USA can choose who they vote for. But they aren't choosing who the candidates are.

Not a big Sanders fan, but you have to admit that the electorate did vote Hillary over Sanders. No more explanation is needed at that point.

Sanders was doomed from the start, Hillary is too deeply entrenched in the party and has too much dirt on people.
Bernie was only allowed to run in order to try to appeal to and draw votes from a wider audience since the party know that Hillary is an awful candidate.

Meanwhile Trump rose to power because too many people in the Rep. party are just too tired of voting for the same conservatives, and because they had no real control over Trump running around like a madman and spending less money on his own campaign than the other candidates (including the Dems) and still staying ahead.

Basically this whole election is fucked from both ends, and I personally hope on election day we get invaded and conquered by a space alien empire so I don't have to worry about this.

Either that, or Micheal Wilson, Funny Valentine, and Senator Armstron just come out of a portal and suplex everyone.

When all that you can muster from your ranks is the brother of a war criminal, some dude whom the majority of the party just wants to drop dead and the descendant of an extremist sect of terrorists who openly despises at least 90% of the population, then you really gotta look into yourself and question where your party went wrong.

>Basically this whole election is fucked from both ends, and I personally hope on election day we get invaded and conquered by a space alien empire so that THE EDF DEPLOYS

youtube.com/watch?v=n5qfWt1ACBw

So Drifters?

>magocracy
>basing a government around a bunch of wizards trying to blast each other to dust

Failed state recipe right there.

when 'God' is just a class of beings in existence, there is definitely still room for a monotheistic over-deity. In my setting I am making I have monotheists - they're like a blend of turks, jews, and arabs, and they're absolute cunts.

Multiplication over addition, many small clubs are better than one big club. It may come down to the big guy at some point but even then he or at least his legacy only has a matter of time. If push comes to shove someone will say "well he can't take on all of use!" and everything goes to shit.
So it's import to have ways of organising and satisfying the over all populence to prevent constant rebellion.

All successful rulerships realise this and balance out military might with some type of -ocracy.

A big club is the simplest and most cathartic of governmental tools. It's vital the process but there is a process.
>Flour and yeast are vital to making bread, but I wouldn't want to eat a bowl of flour and yeast

>there is definitely still room for a monotheistic over-deity.
If you're going that route why don't you also include some Hindus, since they kinda count because of the whole "Permutations of Brahma" thing.