Every 50 years, or after the death of the King, a new King is selected from the population

If he's a man, the same as any other, then surely he has a reason for his actions.
Does he merely aspire to power?
In any case, it seems like he can be opposed with magic. There's got to be at least one adept, if not among the king, then the people, who would rather not be killed or conquered.

Then the people who decide who's the next King will have unchecked power.

And a man kind, wise and pious might not necessarily make a good King. Or a good Knight.

>And a man kind, wise and pious might not necessarily make a good King.
He's probably getting generous assistance in decision-making from the oracle that proposed him as the perfect candidate for kingship.

How do we know the Oracle is a good influence?

You know, there comes a point in these discussions where I think people question things not to be thorough, but just to be contrarian.

I was the one who wrote .

That point being "the beginning"

I like to hope in people's curiosity more than that, user. It's almost certainly misplaced, but oh well.

No. You have to do it so that the King and his Knights are noblebright because that is how the world works.
>The King has always been from one royal bloodline that has always been popular with the population, kind of heart, wise and pious, just because that's the way things go
>The Knights protecting him are never corrupt and anything but good hearted - because that's how things work

Nah. The kingdom is a constitutional monarchy where the nobles are strongly encouraged to see their seat of power as a responsibility they shoulder, not a position of elevated status. Nobles see democratically elected officials in the smaller towns of their domains and primarily use their wealth to protect and benefit the common man. The working class is still less wealthy than their rulers (the reward of their service), but they are comfortable and homelessness and poverty are fairly low and an important issue to most people. The tradesman and the laborer are probably their own merchants, supported by guilds that protect their rights and guide them in fair costs for their services. Moneylending, one of the few inherent evils of the real world, does not exist.

There are bad eggs and bad times, but generally speaking these have always been overcome *somehow*, and the biggest problem about this when facing the looming threat of disaster or war is that the people know that. They protect themselves, but most lack the initiative to act without some heroic figure, preferring to simply endure a hard time or flee until one shows up. Enter the PCs.

>The Knight is protected at all times by his Knight

Have you never heard of pyramid schemes?

I've already got this in my setting.

The heir is whoever can pull the sword from the stone, in this case an artifact blade forged from the adamantine blood of the Sun God. As long as the heir wields that blade within the borders of the kingdom, the heir is given 16 free Paladin levels and gradually increasing stat boosts, only as long as the heir (called a "Solaire", or "heir of the sun") continues to do good works and questing within the kingdom.

When the king dies, the Solaire returns the sword to the stone and the call is made for any lusty lad or lass with a calling in their heart to make their way to the capital, where the feast and festivals of coronation and sword drawing are one in the same.

How do you pick between the PCs?

Whichever one tickles my fancy. If none of them seem particularly good or kingly (aka, I don't think a character arc like this would suit them) I pick an NPC commoner they've met before.

Why assume evil is greater than good?

Well, the king would have a kingdom.

>the kindest hearted, wisest, and most pious young man
So how are these traits valued? I mean it is unlikely that one person will fit all three criteria so is being kind more important than wise? Will you end up with a nice idiot as king or an evil but wise king? Do you have to score a minimum score in all three categories to prevent a very wise asshole or a nice idiot from becoming king?

>Not watching your bros back

Why do you think it's a noblebright setting?

>all these fedoras over thinking it

'God did it' is equivilant to 'a wizard did it' but with infallibility.

GG no re, tipsters.

I prefer the: "The Goddess who formally owns all the land picks the greatest fuckboi in all of her domain."-solution.

There's also "Mystic animals declare somebody who could probably make a really good head of state as such."

I prefer grimbright, thank you.

This is how you make some horrible dystopia (probably via mind control or an extremely efficient secret police) masquerading as an utopia.

Maybe in this setting the Divine Right of Kings comes with some sweet buffs for the duration of your stay on the throne.

So you want magic !not-France under Napoleon with a free people in arms?

I don't see how the existence of such a place wouldn't cause massive upheaval in the social strata of other nations. All that revolution and rebellion would make for some shitty conditions for a lot people...and we're back to grim dark.

This isn't noblebright, not really. It's more like some tumblr-level shit or the setup to a self-insert harem story about a pure and good peasant boy being made king. Real noblebright has a hero who saved the realm and now guides it, not 'cuz some fancy tart said he was good for it, but because he proved he was an honorable and valiant leader through deeds. And his descendants share his same pure and honest spirit, though they may differ in temperament or methods.

After bad old king died, regency council got the power before new king could be found.
Council enchanted the stone so the chosen can't pull the sword.
Council is actually very competent and benevolent so kingdom enters an era of great growth and prosperity, without having some random illiterate peasant chosen at random as head of state.

On his death bed one of wizards admits that he enchanted sword in the stone and says that X is rightful ruler. X decides to press his claim PCs have to choose between good rulers of council or rightful but unexpired candidate.

>strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

How is that tumblr-level?

>How is that tumblr-level?
I dunno but it seems like a vaguely insulting thing to say to people on here.

>or the setup to a self-insert harem
M8 if you jump to that conclusion, you honestly have something wrong with you.

Or was it a bad experience? If so, I want a story time of that shit

Random mentionings of harems aside, I'm with this user.

Honestly, this is how I'd set up a grimdark setting. I mean, why does the kingdom need to have a magically aided search for the most noble king every 50 years? Was a previous ruler so dark and terrible that the wizards and clerics of the realm, in order to prevent his/her evil from rising or happening again, created a magical aid in finding the Noblest Scion of the realm? And what of those found undeserving, but still of great and noble heart; do they then get positions in the kingdom equivalent to their virtue, or are they simply cast aside in favor of the paladin with the slightly shinier pauldrons?

No; this setting promotes grimdarkness because the word of a wizard trumps the customary hereditary line, the great questing of heroes, or the chance for nobility of spirit to be gained. Only the purest may be king... and even then, the check is only done once. What happens when the dread villain, the demon queen, or the avatar of nothingness and oblivion removes the Crown of Alternate Alignment after their virtue is assured?

In a noblebright setting, virtue is shown and respected for its virtue. It does not require the aid of external judges to be believed, but radiates out without judgement or malice from the hearts of the good and great alike.

It can be salvaged however, by the simple allowance of Potential Rightousness to be seen; perhaps the criminal of today is the saint of the morrow, as is often the case in many religions around the world. (see Saint Nicholis as an example of sorts, lived as a thief but gave to the poor, or for a precise example, SAINT AUGUSTINE.) I'm just worried about the nature of the spell only detecting the good that exists, but failing to look for potential problems later on, or possible diamonds in the rough.

So JoJo ?

That's a first BBEG right there. What's the problem?

Warhammer fantasy nations aren't particularly grimdark. Franz and Louen are like, straight up paragons of good loved by their populace.

When life is shit EVEN when you're ruled by a paragon of good, well, it's at the very least a bit grimdark I'll say.

I know this is a joke, but What would this look like?

Maybe a previous bad situation being recovered over time?

A time of heros direly needed coming to an end as the BBEG is killed. but his forces still lurk and cause issues here and there.

A campaign might be focused into going to various settlements to get rid of the darkness that still lurks.

Am I getting close? Cause that'd be an interesting idea to me. A chance to visit various places, growing stronger as the road you've travelled grows longer. Earning praise and spreading good.

A fascist society where you are on the side of the winners.
ie: the future is bright for you but there are sharp edges in plain sight.

It's just dark fantasy. Trying to plug things into alignment-tier pidgeonholes doesn't really work.

So America ?

I've tried to avoid real-life examples.

>s

Imagine a world of bright shining castles and wondrous art. Its people are fed well, and culture flourishes. To all external eyes, the world is good, kind, and lovely.

The world's reality is like a pitcher plant however. The sweet, enticing smell and color is only there to cover up the fact that if you pierce through and investigate it, you will be devoured slowly and painfully. Nobles once thought to be good are only self-centered at best, actively hiding infernal pacts and draining the land of its future for their own purposes. The clergy preach well the virtues of the just, but every note and psalm they sing is internally hollow, and they do not believe but only voice that which the crowd strains to hear. Merchants sell things under the table that should never have been unearthed, and the peasants are ignorant that they are serfs and slaves for those who don't even believe they are people.

PCs may know the truth, but must walk the razor's edge. Combat the internal rot, and they may be called traitors and heretics, or else dismissed as the unwise and inane babble of the mad. Fall in line, and you're just as hollow as the world even if the sun shines across your back. The world is a corpse, and the maggots fester within; to fight and live in such a world is to be an outcast for virtue or a parasite seeking one more morsel to eat before another reaches it. The illusion cannot hold; either the corpse must burn, or else the rot finally spreads to the surface. Do you hold back the revelation of the Lie, or do you expose the monsters lurking in plain sight?

Woops, this is the correct response, not what I posted; I always get the two confused.

Carry on, brave user. I tip my hat to you.

>King and Knight
>always capitalized

If I may interject for a moment: Unless these words are being used as pronouns, then they should not be capitalized.

Quick grammar tip:
>"The king summoned the prince."
Correct. Neither the king nor the prince are pronouns - they're generic nouns in all regards. Why would a king or prince be capitalized, but not a construction worker or librarian?

>"What does King Loric want?"
Correct. Now we're addressing someone by title and name, so the words together form a pronoun.

>"This is the president."
Correct. A president is a president, even if it's THE president. Just because presidency arguably plays a more important role in society than some other career choice doesn't mean the term president is automatically a pronoun. Ditto for kings and knights and princes.

>"This is the President of the United States."
Correct, because now it's a title.

>"Excuse me, Princess!"
Also correct. Although *a* princess is normally a generic noun, directly addressing a person with a noun (i.e. exchanging their name for said noun) elevates that noun to a pronoun. Similarly,
>"Thank you, Brother."
is also correct, for the same reasons.

And since people often get this wrong as well,
>"An elven mage, a dwarven fighter and a human cleric all went adventuring together."
The names of species / races are not capitalized, just as species like dog or cat aren't capitalized. Even fantasy races like elves and dwarves and drow are all lower-cased.

That's fine and gives the players almost an objectively good civilization to defend, so the campaign naturally lends itself to a kind of Redwall-esque noblebright themes.

Just because the setting is noblebright doesn't and shouldn't mean that Good has no challenges. If the Kingdom is all powerful, the players have nothing to do. Noblebright just means that the Good is really Good, not "the best of multiple evils."

So all the people yelling about how the King is chosen are way off base. In a noblebright setting, that system ACTUALLY WORKS and delivers a wise kind king.

Despite my previous post... I find myself compelled by this reasoning. I've always thought of it as a "before the PCs work their will" sort of thing, and my PCs would see a land of good and think to themselves "what's the catch?"

>The entire Kingdom is magically and meticulously searched for the kindest hearted, wisest, and most pious young man
>The Kingdom has a wise and powerful King
>powerful

So you are say that the kingis a good manager of the civil government, a great leader of men in war, kindest hearted, wise, and pious? That is a very wide range of skills and positive character traits. Truth is that even with the best means of getting a ruler the end person of a compromise of desired skills and traits. Your system is a better then possible one, thus will get better results.It is just that not every king will be a 'great'.

Also your system would have the some of the same issues that medieval democracy. Lack of trust of from their neighbors. Who will be the next ruler is unclear, especially to outsiders. Also they can not really rig the opinion of the future ruler. If someones mother is from a given place the child will like better understand its people ( being rised by someone from there) and a better out look on them. In fact if that place is ruled by say a uncle or first cousin that they have known since childhood they may think very highly of that place.

>Plus the Knights are powerful warriors on their own.

Just going to throw this out there but in a meritocracy of the nature you are talking about a great many of the skilled warriors will just leave their homeland. IRL the wider the list of traits and skills NEEDED to advance in rank in a military the less effective as a fighting force is. A knight is highly skilled warrior but not a "kindest hearted, wisest, and most pious" will just seek employment somewhere else.If they are truly skilled they will find it easily and if they are not they will push themselves to try to be. Before you say only the king needs to be like that stop and think what the background of the king would need to be in order to get the needed skills in the first place to be king. The leadership positions...

... of the army would have to be used to groom a large number of possible future kings. How else is the kingdom going to get a large number of people to pick from that have the right skill set? It would make a lot of sense because it would cause the knights to see the king as one of their own, or at lest a lot like themselves.

It would also mean that anyone who wanted to pick a fight with them could just hire a few ex pats with no love of their homeland and get insight into the finer details of the kingdoms army. A helpful edge to be sure.

>... of the army would have to be used to groom a large number of possible future kings
With tea parties and philosophy nights?

Grimbright is living in an overall good world but having little ability to change it as a whole.

I had a GM who would, in every game he ran, hook everyone's character up with an NPC waifu regardless of the tone or length of the game. It was fun the first time it happened but after a while it just got annoying. It got to a point where even other GMs started doing the same thing.

>With tea parties and philosophy nights?

Less tea parties and more philosophy nights.

They would likely end having to read up on what passes for classical philosophy and especially ethics theory. They would also likely be encouraged to sit in on some criminal court cases to learn how the theory is applied. These would be in addition to learning horsemanship, tactics, outdoorsmanship, how to calm down a group of scared men, and lastly how to use a large range of weapons. Lets just call those the core skills.

They are already a tall order. Every knight needs know all of those skills and ideally should be good with those skills. Very good in fact. Plus to be realistic every knight/soldier will need a degree of people skill if they want to be promoted. After the first few ranks or so they will need to learn logistics and learn it well. At this point the core skills stop mattering in who gets promoted but the needed levels of people skills become much higher.

At everyone point a position opens up the commander will have to judge the candidates on both the core skills and the grace of they have learned the political baggage. It divide the focus of the career minded soldier. The highly skilled candidates who get pasted over will likely get rather pissed. Some will quit, others will become demotivated. In a era were jumping ship to a another army is a thing they will do it.

FYI I am think of china, both now and classical for what I wrote. Many Chinese dynasties had a exam system for their officers that covered ethics. Not a bad idea on paper because they could easily find themselves enforcing martial law. In effect it caused a lot of issues of which I covered the biggest one.

This sounds like Brettonia, which means it could work in a not-so Noblebright setting as well.

There was an animu/ln about a concept fairly similar.

The point was that even truly good people can end up doing bad things.