Politics

I made my elves communists.

But that's the exact opposite of chaotic good

Meant to reply to

I made my dwarves ancaps

My character became the god of capitalism by having 20 balors and 20 solars commit ritual suicide during an eclipse.

No it's Chaotic Good.

>Equitable distribution of society's resources
>Elvish workers control the means of production
>No state to order elves around, everyone cooperates out of mutual benefit
>Magic makes work a hobby instead of a chore every one needs to do, and the long lives of elves lets them do most jobs rather than just one like a mortal worker

Sounds like Chaotic Good to me.

>No it's Chaotic Good.
On paper. Until you get to the whole dictatorship of the proletariat phase, where you suddenly realize that everyone who has money has fled the country so you have to divide the money of the kind of poor among the really poor. Unless you're part of the Communist Party, then you can suddenly feast night and day.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially the delusionally utopian ones.

Communism is not a utopian solution. It is simply the more just and logical system than that of capitalism, which continues to have crises every 5-7 years as it overproduces in the pursuit of profit and fails. Furthermore, there would not be a communist party as a political body under communism; again, there is no state. Also, as communism needs to be international (communism cannot exist in a single country, as stated by Marx and Engels), where would these people with "money" (an imaginary measure of wealth as I'm sure you know) go?

Oh that's super easy, just rob the rich before they can leave.

>No state
>Everyone works to their capacity and takes to their need
>Not utopian

It is utopian because it goes against the very nature of humanity. It either assumes humans are inherrently good and selfless (false) or that humans can be molded into becoming good (which leads to totalitarian attempts to create the "Soviet Man" in preparation for the communist paradise). It's utterly unrealistic unlike the system of capitalism you dislike so much, which functions on the basis that humans want to buy stuff to enrich themselves (which is observably true behavior).

So you're saying capitalism works because it assumes people are naturally... evil?

>Communism is not a utopian solution
If it's not attainable and every single time it is tried it results in more misery, it might as well be utopian.

yep, that's what he's saying

>So you're saying capitalism works because it assumes people are naturally... evil?
People are tribal. Most people are not radical cutthroat ancaps. They care about their family, friends, and community. However, these same people do not care about some randos they don't know who lives hundreds of miles away.

My Humans were always in some kind of political upheaval (normaly due to some noble fuckery) what ends in a civil war and a military junta. (Unless the players intervene)

Yeah. It works because it's the system that appeals to human nature, which is selfish. Or evil, as you choose to label it. I'm not saying we should indulge in it or promote it, I'm saying that a system works best if we assume what's true rather than what's nice. This is also why a strong sense of religion (another thing socialism hates) is so important in curbing the vices of man. Again, these religious systems (at least in the West) presuppose the vile nature of man rather than turning man into the ideal of morality (through the use of such loaded terms as 'humane' et cetera).

Human nature is a fictional and anecdotal concept. You might as well be basing your argument on saying that a ghost told you communism is bad:

All I'm hearing is that it's morally correct to modify humans to suit communism rather than the other way around.

>There is no such thing as human nature
Which is a very convenient thing to say from the communist perspective. If there is no human nature, then man is mallable and you get this: >it's morally correct to modify humans to suit communism

Well, we certainly were not built biologically to use the internet, heal others using medicine, and more but we have adapted quite well and in such a short time span. Perhaps the reason why humans appear greedy is simply because they adapted to a system that rewards greed and a better system would mitigate or remove such things?

that typically isn't the case, humans are animals as much as animals are animals.

if a sunflower got the ability to take all the resources it would

that's why communism will always have corruption or rule-breaking.

What massive overhaul of human nature does the internet require? Or using medicine? It's just an extent of what we've always been doing, namely using tools. This is on an entirely different order than all humans suddenly becoming infallibly selfless to the point of no longer needing a state to keep them in line.

>Perhaps the reason why humans appear greedy is simply because they adapted to a system that rewards greed and a better system would mitigate or remove such things?
Then explain why all attempts to create such a system have failed. We see in both Christian scholasticism (Civitas Dei) and classical liberal thought (Locke) that a perfect system is impossible precisely because man is fallible. This is why liberalism invokes popular sovereignity and checks and balances. As Locke brilliantly put it: if man were angels, they'd need no state. If man were ruled by angels, they'd need no system of checks and balances.

>what political systems do your countries use ?
It depends.
> Fantasy
Democracies and oligarchies mainly, with some monarchies, theocracies, primordial matriarchies.
> Modern
Whatever political system the country has.
> Steampunk (that I've never run yet)
Dictatorships, republics, and monarchies with inclusions of communist and anarchist terrorists.
> Dieselpunk (that I've never run yet)
Corrupt democracies, dictatorships, occasional parliamentary monarchies.
> Cyberpunk (that I've never run yet)
Technocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy.
> Space opera (that I've never run yet)
Technocracy, oligarchy, republics, monarchies, meritocracies, hiveminds, theocracies, a whole mess.

>has it worked in their favor ?
To some extent.

>did they ever change it ?
> Fantasy
Not all of them.
> Others
Absolutely.

>which political system is the best for drama and intrigue ?
Any can do.

>which is the best for inspiring groups of PCs ?
Any can do.

>which is the best in general ?
The one that is relevant to the level of development of the society. Which is some of what I have written.

My orcs have a weird mix of Noble Republic and Steppe Horde leadership. Basically Klingons.

The head of a particular Island in the confederacy is determined by a ritualistic duel. The lead up to the duel is a ritual, but after that it is a duel to the death on the top of a tower. The winner rules the island, and leans on the local nobility to fill in the different tasks, like Master of the Guard and dockmasters. It is an absolutist system within the island, the new 'king' has no requirement to fill the system with nobles, but by convention they do. A system of patronage comes from whoever wins the duel for leadership. Some islands hold elections for minor government offices, and even have a senate that advises the kings.

The archipelago is then united in a loose alliance that meets to deal with outside threats in inter-island issues, like trade and pirates. The orcs have been so busy with just managing this, they haven't invaded anyone for a hundred years. All the nearby targets for boats are already in the confederacy.

The players got to take part in a recent leadership-duel, they backed a candidate.

>primordial matriarchies
Please tell me that those involve leadership of massive earth ur-elementals that fought against the gods at the beginning of time.

Greco-Roman Digital Direct Democracy

Nah. Those are tribes led by old crones, like the ones that predated first money. The tribe structure is:
Mother (the high priestess of goddest of fertility and the oldest woman in the tribe)
Elder (Mother's brother, the leader of tribe's male half)
Brothers and sisters (they don't fuck each other because goddess forbids so, instead they go to other tribes to fuck, all children are considered to be Mother's children)

But your variant is OK too.

Pursuing self interest isn't evil. It is good.

In the middle ages, greed/profit-motive was a vice. They thought that the best of human history was in the past. The economic pie would just shrink from here on out, or keep steady.

So, if you got rich from business, it is because another was driven into poverty. Same reason why the nobles went so ridiculous into fancy clothes and food. No reason to invest if the economic pie stayed the same size.

So, who else runs Halflings as fantasy-Dutch or Englishmen in the early modern era?

Mostly dynastic monarchies that use the palatial system and redistibutism, but you also have nomadic herdsmen who are a kind of tribal democracy with a parallel matriarchy.

How do they get to make the duel ? Can anyone just say "I'll be king" and get a duel ?

my game has an economy built on owning m^2 of a Dyson sphere. those people get the energy that their land generates.

the richest company has 56% of the sphere right now.

>inb4 Le 56%

Sort of. I stole it from an Adventurers League adventure.

The challenger has to start at a gate at one end of the city, and raise their banner at dawn (simulating an invasion). In practice, this means that they either have the gate guards on board, or they massacre the gate guards. If they kill, well, I guess it is an invasion.

Next, they have to take the main road through the city towards the Tower. This means that the entire city can resist or aid their progress. Again, if they are actually invading, this is the route they take.

Finally, they arrive at the Tower, and declare their intent to duel. If the current king accepts, they duel at noon at the top of the tower. If they don't, they get to besiege the keep from inside the city walls.

In practice, it is basically a palace coup, with factions from within the city supporting or resisting the coup. Most of it is pretty bloodless, because most non-noble factions try to stay neutral during the coup.

I have a few different ones. Confederation, ecclesiastical, three kingdoms.

>what political systems do your countries use ?
>why ?
>has it worked in their favor ?
>did they ever change it ?

I'll go country by country for the main nearby ones.

>Name
Capre
>Political System
Democratic Republic/Theocratic Bureaucracy as two equal branches
>Reason
This was the deal between revolutionaries and the church at the end of the great and glorious revolution.
>Has This Worked
For the most part it has created new nobility, the exact opposite of the revolution's original goal.
>Did They Change it?
80 years ago during the great and glorious revolution.

>Name
Vorgotha
>Political System
Theocracy driven by a ordained prophet born each generation
>Reason
A vision was given to their original king that gave him signs of the prophet's birth.
>Has it Worked
100 years ago the last prophet was killed when the capital was sacked, a new one has not been born since and the current government lies to the people
>Did They Change It?
They may soon due to political unrest

>Name
Orlinth
>Political System
Anarchist Carnage, formerly Absolute Monarchy
>Reason
During the revolution triggered by the Capre revolution they summoned outsiders and imbued on them law. The outsiders then proceeded to follow the law to the letter and kill most of the heads of the revolution. They now are bound and roam the country killing those who break the law without compassion.
>Has it Worked
No, because they kill you for even minor infractions.
>Did They Change It?
They did, now they can't change it back.

>Name
The Dennihein Empire
>Political System
Absolute Monarchy/Bureaucratic Nightmare
>Reason
The Emperor of Dennihein has sat upon the throne for 400 years, though he has not appeared in public for the last 100.
>Has it Worked
For the most part the Bureaucracy is tight enough that it can keep the empire self sustaining, though in recent decades it has been losing territory after territory (including Capre)
>Did They Change It?
Not in 400 years.

These are some of the main ones.

>So you're saying capitalism works because it assumes people are naturally... evil?
people are inherently self interested, even john smith talked about this in a wealth of nations the quote about the bread maker.
If you chose to believe self interest is evil that is your prerogative. but i've found often a lot more evil is done in the name of "collective good." than personal interests.

> It is simply the more just and logical system than that of capitalism,
under what logic that man is truely a noble savage? and that labour thoery of value is real?

.
> Also, as communism needs to be international (communism cannot exist in a single country, as stated by Marx and Engels),
i don't know how these loons thought they could during their time
Engels also made note that there would be people unsuited for proper communism and would have to be exterminated. the russians had a term for it i forget.
whatever the point is i wonder how you folks really do see yourself as different from the nazis?

>but but our end state makes everyone happy and there are no races just good times
paid for by the blood of many people if godot ever does show up and your leaders relinquish power ever

>what political systems do your countries use ?
the nation in my setting retains a semi immortal monarchy with the king being a legendary figure welded to a life supporting suit and slowly rotting in his armour.
there are also minor theocracy in the main planet the campaign takes place in but's largely unimportant right now.
>why ?
He's trying to hold his part of the galaxy together and it's always been a brutal wartorn place. he was just the most powerful to get through it.
>has it worked in their favor ?
sort of, it's more of a military dictatorship than anything, he spends most of his time fighting abroad or defensive wars against the expansion interests of arguably worse people.
internally everything is run by chartered corperations.
>did they ever change it ?
some locations were republics others not, this one was a dictatorial colony before molded through of the harshness of the planet's environment. they are tough people.
>which political system is the best for drama and intrigue ?
any really. things don't really change when you go from republic to monarchy. all the powerful people are always in the same spots and have similar backgrounds. people just rise and fall more often in republics
>which is the best for inspiring groups of PCs ?
i don't think there is
>which is the best in general ?
republic or heavily constricted constitutional monarchies with parliamentary supremacy

The kings were basically living religious symbols held hostage by a loose confederation of land-owning warrior nobility (imagine warring states' period japan with several shoguns instead of just one) until the crown allied with the caste of merchants (descended from refugees from a collapsed civilization with different religious restrictions and obligations, destroyed by the savages at the kingdom's borders) to become the premier banker. The Crown is effectively the only legal bank. The Crown exerts a sort of soft power over the squabbling nobility's hard power.

Each marquis is almost a king onto himself. Tasked with defending the kingdoms' borders they are generally left out of the petty wars of lesser nobles, have exclusive rights' to their lands' revenues, are granted better interest rates than all other nobles, have been bailed out of debts at times and own serfs.