Lords and kings in fantasy - do you like them to be benevolent or cruel? Powerful or weak? Young or old?
Also, what's your ideal level of government you like players to interact with? Local magistrates, barons, or all the way up to the king who somehow sees a random group of adventurers on a whim?
Other urls found in this thread:
It's tropey as fuck, but I REALLY like going the "Fire Emblem" or "Dynasty Warriors" route with things where most figures in positions of leadership or nobility are in those positions because they earned them with their strength.
I find it makes them much more interesting than "LOL level 2 Commoner stat block that you could probably kill, along with all his guards, because you're a level 4 ADVENTURER with a PLAYER CHARACTER CLASS LEVELS! King's basically just some normie who got the throne from Daddy, LOL."
Noble, strong, and divinely ordained.
This fucking guy.
I run high fantasy, fairy tale inspired games.
There are no counts, barons, or dukes. You might call a master theif the Duke of Shadows as a title, but nobody with the actual rank and title if duke.
The King lives in The Castle and you can walk right in to have an audience with him. And then you say "my lord the turnip crop has been terrible this year, and we cannot pay your taxes!" And then the King will scratch his beard and think.
If he's a good king, he'll get a young boy from the village to go on an adventure in the woods to find a fairy of harvests to help the poor farmers. If he's a bad king he'll wear all black and drag the villager away to the dungeon with an evil laugh.
Hope that answers your question OP.
In general I try to have some variety in governments and what the nobles/officials in them are like - after all, that's half the fun of a large world to run around in, you can have just about anything you can reasonably justify, even stuff that might not work in reality.
But generally I guess I prefer the idea of a philosopher king - someone who attempts to be wise and benevolent, and earns adoration just by being good and knowledgeable. But generally PCs will only interact with mayors and minor nobles and the like - it'd take quite a campaign to get them up to the point where they meet a king that's a demigod.
Competent king is all I ask.
Often you get the trope of the enlightened monarch who has corrupt officials who go behind his back for their own schemes. I'm curious how you have your philosopher king deal with his internal politics. Is his word law? Do your characters face rebelling villainous vassals, or is conflict generally of a non-human or external nature?
Well, that's the only correct way to play them in high fantasy, as it provides a plausible answer to the question "why hasn't [powerful mage] overthrown him yet?".
In terms of sheer governance, most of my kings and rulers are mediocre. But I'm a sucker for the grand and noble king who rules righteously and leads from the front in both combat and administration, but dies (either due to some tragedy or old age) and leaves his far less competent heirs to fight among themselves for the scraps. It's a pretty subconcious thing, but if there's a really powerful kingdom in my setting you can bet your ass that the king is either old or about to land in an early grave.
>Lords and kings in fantasy - do you like them to be benevolent or cruel?
Either or, both have their place.
>Powerful or weak?
Poerful but not absolute in their power. There is more incentive for players to actually interact with rulers if they have the power to get shit done. On the other hand, having other people and factions around who wield some power and aren't just loyal lackeys of their lord opens up all kinds of intrigue-related possibilities.
>Young or old?
Again, either or.
>Also, what's your ideal level of government you like players to interact with? Local magistrates, barons, or all the way up to the king who somehow sees a random group of adventurers on a whim?
Depends entirely on the setting, the power and fame of the PCs and the general tone of the campaign. In general, though, I prefer kings being distant figures as far as the average person is concerned. I guess that means that I mostly prefer using local lords.
Varied. I mean they are ultimately normal people but they run the gambit from warrior princes who have fought in several wars to fat bastards content to sit in their palace fucking concubines while advisors run the state and local governors gain increasing autonomy.
It depends a little, but generally I like the idea that while the king himself is great and good, they don't have much control outside of where they personally are, so there are greedy and scheming nobles under them that profit through discord and fight against each other. A little cheesy and stereotypical, but fun if done well, or could show political guile in how a wise king can manipulate his unruly subjects to keep overall peace.
I really only have a 'their word is law' sense when either their realm is small and centralized enough they essentially control everything as a benevolent dictator, or they have some sort of magical or religious authority and power that makes it so that their edicts are almost superhuman and people want to obey them. An external or non-human conflict kind of goes against the idea of a philospher king to me, since that requires them being more warlike or militaristic, and I generally save that for other parts of the setting. Benevolent wisdom and pragmatic conquest seem dissonant to me.
Another point this topic touches on is legendary bloodlines. Personally, I'm not a fan, and it always bothered me a little that most of the noble houses in Westeros go back like 3000 years, since it seems unrealistic they didn't lose power in all that time. I suppose since its fantasy that's par for the course, but I prefer shortlived dynasties, maybe five or so kings on average.
One thing that isn't always considered is communication distance. The king might be great and good, but areas of his kingdom that are mountainous, separated by ocean or simply a long way away probably have local lords whose allegiance is only nominal. I think settings like that can be nice for conflict -
As said, righteous rulers' peace can easily give way to a score of fragmented squabbling states. I suppose that's a whole different discussion of its own - the role of the individual in keeping the realm together.
I like to quietly ignore all the political bullshit that comes with monarchy, and have kingdoms ruled by good and just kings & queens. Their neighbours can be tyrranical assholes, and maybe the odd advisor can be a scheming scumbag, but I like to have a setting where the party has no reason to overthrow the government and install a democracy.
e104029
I'm fond of the young but capable. You can do a lot with it. Shame game of thrones had to get so popular and make everyone expect them to be a cunt or used by their regent.
The positives of a young ruler is you get to see them actually commit their heroic deeds. With old kings it often feels like their heroism all stems from the past.
There does seem to be a trope of talented 'live fast, die young' kings, a la Alexander the Great, which I quite like, since it gives an element of tragedy to the story. However, I don't particularly like the 'sudden military genius' style of ruler, e.g. Robb Stark, unless they are done well.
>Benevolent wisdom and pragmatic conquest seem dissonant to me.
Benevolent wisdom can involve thinking further ahead than other people. What looks today like pragmatic conquest might tomorrow lead to an enriched quality of life for all concerned.
It depends on what you're going for - local lords who essentially run their own kingdoms can be great for conflict, and can get the PCs involved in political intrigue or even give them an excuse to make their own group, claiming more loyalty to the ruler than others.
But something King Arthur-esque, where things just kind of work even if Arthur basically spends all his time in Camelot, can be fun if your players want some room to freely explore dungeons or tackle some ancient evil.
As for the legendary bloodlines point, it is weird to imagine that they're unbroken for 3000 years - sounds like a bit of GRRM exaggeration without really considering the scale. But it could be interesting if whoever was in power now claimed that they were of unbroken descent to an ancient bloodline or mythical ancestor. It doesn't matter that it's not technically true, because the claim gives them and their heirs legitimacy.
I like this, although sometimes I like to make the heroes the cabal of people who follow said ruler, rather than the ruler themself. I like the idea of a young prince trying to fill his father's shoes while surrounded by all his father's still-living friends. Or the "Zelda" route where you have something like a really wise and kind-hearted princess, but she's protected by dedicated heroes and champions rather than being super powerful herself.
The problem is where you draw the line with that - on some level it stops being about 'what is good' and 'what is not really good, but will be good in the future.'
If that's the sort of conflict you want, that's fair, and it can be interesting especially since there might not be a right answer. But I feel like most PCs would start seeing anyone spouting about the greater good as being evil, especially if they're from a viewpoint more sympathetic with the conquered people who probably don't understand or agree with their conqueror's enlightened views.
>pic
I was actually pretty impressed with King Rhoam as a character, especially given how little screentime he received. We see him as a fairly generic benevolent dead king in the starting zone, which then gets derailed by the memory of him chastising Zelda. If you then go and find his journal, it all adds up to a picture of a man who tried to do what was best for everyone, despite what he would have wished to be as a father.
Rhoam is actually a pretty good model for a fantasy king--he has his royal concerns, personal concerns, and imperfections. He has to try to balance those three things against each other in order to rule effectively. He has to be aware of his imperfections so that he can insulate his royal concerns from them, and he has to recognize when his personal concerns must give way to his royal concerns. And, when he finds that his neglect of personal concerns has inadvertently had a negative impact on his royal concerns, the weight of his regret is palpable.
>As for the legendary bloodlines point, it is weird to imagine that they're unbroken for 3000 years
The line of Hughes Capet was unbroken until the French Revolution (the third one, in 1848) considering Valois, Bourbon and Bourbon-Orléans are all cadet branches of the Capets. That's already a thousand years, that's a crazy long time. Now consider that the line would've been unbroken until today if Louis XVI wasn't fucking retarded, and it's not beyond the plausible for a bloodline to remain on the throne for 3000 years.
>There are no counts, barons, or dukes.
>You might call a master theif the Duke of Shadows as a title
Why would someone be called the duke of thieves if dukes aren't a thing?
I mean, I'd argue that few people ever think of themselves as evil, so there's no reason you couldn't have that kind of figure in opposition to the PCs. A wise and benevolent ruler would also recognize when continuing down a path would cost them and their kingdom too much, so the PCs wouldn't even need to battle them to the death.
Adjacent kingdoms and nations conflict all the time. The monarch of invading kingdom from the first part of the campaign might later turn out to be an ally who regrets their earlier conflict, but is willing to put the issue aside in the name of a larger issue.
>it's not beyond the plausible for a bloodline to remain on the throne for 3000 years
First of all, the Yamamoto Dynasty would be a much better example, given that they're dated to either 1,500 years ago or 2,677 years ago, depending on what evidence you accept.
But secondly it has to do with a matter of scope. One dynasty going on for that long? Sure, it's possible. All the noble houses? Starts to be a bit questionable.
However, it's pretty easy to make palatable if it's presented as somewhat legendary in-universe, rather than being considered an unassailable fact. Propaganda and historical revisionism can achieve a lot. Itzcoatl, for instance, burned pretty much all of the historical records so that he could write his own history that posited an unbroken imperial lineage.
They're very good at leading shadows, obviously.
1. Cruel Benevolence
2. Powerful
3. Ancient
What the fuck is tropey?
>Cruel Benevolence
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy
Both. All of them. Yes.
I've got capable Emperors surrounded by scheming advisors who hamper his ability to lead with their plotting.
I've got noble Kings who are too obsessed with battle and slaying monsters and protecting villagers to actually do much governing.
I've got greedy barons tax-farming the ever-loving shit out of their peasants.
I've got Burgomeisters and Town Councils who levy an insane number of very low taxes on minute things to skim off the top. "Ah! Wilkomen to Eisenhoff. That will be a two shilling docking fee. Per leg. We're a very generous people. Of course we don't tax the handicapped. Oh, you're a merchant vessel? Yes, it will be a shilling for every crate of produce you're carrying. Ah, and you're armed. Well, that's ten pennies for the weapons license..."
I've got counts who are just doing their duty, mostly leave their peasants alone, and are just kinda ignored in the distance because they have nothing to do with the story. There might be mention that he defended the county against barbarian hordes.
Maybe a Prince whose horse is his closest advisor and who leads expeditions against imagined fishmen and invents grand engines of war on the side.
>Maybe a Prince whose horse is his closest advisor and who leads expeditions against imagined fishmen and invents grand engines of war on the side.
Plot twist: the horse is actually the power behind the throne and saves the kingdom by launching a pre-emptive attack on a Sahaugin expeditionary force.
>low taxes
Yet the base unit of currency for all but the most reasonable tax to make large is shillings. You've got your shillings and pennies reversed mate.
Crowns - Shillings - Pennies.
>Non-decimalized currency
Twenty shillings in a Crown.
Twelve pennies in a Shilling.
Two halfpennies in a penny.
(Honestly the hardest part of the games I run isn't the monsters but figuring out your wallet.)
Explain your answer
My pre-decimal man.
It's even better when there are several types of pennies in use. Country A uses the Carolingian system (12 pennies to 1 shilling, 20 shillings to 1 pound/crown/whatever), the other uses the Nordic 192-pennies-to-the-mark which is of course different from your mark which is different from the pound/crown...
>"Thorgrim! My head hurts! Get the scales!"
Having history buffs as your regular gaming group is fucking great.
What's the point of this? A shilling was a good deal of dosh back in the day and they you're paying 2 of them per leg. To dock at a port? And this is considered low by the very example giver.
Load of horse shit. Especially given a weapon's permit costs almost but not quite a single shilling.
Lol. I have multiple currencies and exchange rates. But most of the time my adventurers are wandering in rural areas where bumpkins don't know the difference between Norse bloodgold, a proper crown, or a neighboring florin.
Adventurers and Merchants from out of town are assumed to be carrying more cash on them.
But two shillings per leg is not what I actually implement in my games -- it was just part of the funny example.
Best king coming through.
...
And what an awful example. Do you have any idea how many crates and sailors would be on a merchant vessel? The year they try that highway robbery at sea, the town would be black listed by everyone willing to actually believe that sort of insanity.
Shhhh
What kind of meme currency is this shit?
Ayyyy I don't know shit about the Lovecraft mythos but the King in Yellow seems pretty cool.
Currencies being uniform 100s is a very recent thing, user.
royalty in my setting are generally benevolent because they're isolated from the rest of the world by magic space mountains and trapped in an eternal blizzard. life is already too difficult, so why be assholes to the peasants who grow your food? in fact, the peasantry are the ones who act malevolent the most
example
>everyone is albino/deathly pale
>colors are considered exotic, the most people are used to are dyed hair or alchemized eye colors
>trickster demon makes it so that random babes are born with obsidian black skin, hair, & eyes
>royalty is concerned, then intruiged and curious, finally deciding that its harmlessly exotic
>uneducated peasants isolated by the blizzard's path freak the fuck out and start massacring over superstition
>royals & nobles have to deploy their armies to knock that shit off, but by then the damage is done
>now extremely tense relations between classes due to the brutality of the night on both sides
variety is the spice of life
There is the noble kingdom ruled by a great but aged king
there is the upstart kingdom ruled by the young and promising adventurer turned king
there is the evil kingdom ruled by an evil king
there is the good kingdom, whose good king was killed by his evil uncle, who is now in power
there is the merchant rebublic, ruled by squabbling merchant princes
and so on
That sounds inconsistently retarded as fuck.