I love the Traveller government tables.  They are great fun to add into fantasy games if you want something beyond traditional fantasy monarchies.  

It is important to note that kings are only as powerful as their vassals are loyal.   A good king surrounded by useless, self-serving fops is going to need daring adventurers if he ever hopes to bring his goodness to his people.

IMO, we westerners have had a rough going with our monarchs. Even those of us who have one harbor deep distrust or at least a healthy suspicion. Asian monarchies are also dying out (Nepal, Kampuchia) but the ones that remain are tolerated and even loved:

- The king of Thailand wields enormous influence and is worshipped and loved. Every time the Thais come out in yellow t-shirts, that's because they love their king. Thais are pretty contentious when it comes to politics, but never when it comes to the king.
-The king of Bhutan is so well loved that folks don't really see much need for anything else. The king created 4 color coded political parties and held a vote in an attempt to 'educate' the people about modern democracy. He personally banned smoking to little if any resistance. If the Dalai Lhama came to power in Tibet, this is what it would look like.
-The Sultan of Brunei has lined his pockets to overflowing, but you won't hear anyone in Brunei say that. He's given them jobs and homes - more than can be said for any democratic politician around the world. They keep his picture on the walls between photos of his two wives.

IMO, for a 'good king' to rule, the culture must be willing to accept the divine right of kings. After that, fair and just rulership is just gravy. In other words, you are crowned king and then the people learn to love you (or not).

Quote from: S'mon;232842Your rights can be severely curtailed in a democracy, too.  Usually in the name of 'Democracy', 'Human Rights', 'The People's Democratic Revolution', 'Feedom' et al.

I mentioned that, but one thing I'm not going to waste my time doing is debating monarchy against democracy. If you can't tell the difference, that's not my issue.

I think in real medieval and ancient societies there were several things better, and worse, than feudalism - especially if you don't limit yourself to Europe.

For example 'hydraulic empires' which often worshipped their kings as gods.

Revolts such as those of Wat Tyler, Spartacus etc.

'Savages' with 'no government', as European observers often claimed.

Serfdom not existing in the cities, so peasants could free themselves if they managed to get that far.

Or just going 'into the mountains', in territory claimed by a government but effectively out of their control - the characters might begin to wonder why the peasants aren't thanking them for taming the dangerous forests and clearing out the bandits.

I tend to salt my games with a heavy dose of realism. I make up cultures and histories then go from there. A "good" king in my world is based on that culture perception. Sure I have absolute good and evil but the gods have chosen to operate by faith rather than divine intervention. So there is no magic deer enforcing some arbitrary moral code. The only exception is the granting of clerical magic even then it is within the context the same system of magic as mages use.

Example

The Tharians are horse nomad. Their culture is clan based and I based some of it on celtic tropes both historical and fantasy. 200 years ago in my campaign's history they conquered city-state and formed a confederation of the clan ruled by the Overlord. Disputes between the Overlord and the Clans are adjudicated by a Senate comprised of Clan Chiefs. The Overlord adjudicates disputes between the clans and commands the army.

Before the Tharians, City-State was ruled by the Ghinorians who believe they were the chosen people of Mitra. The Ghinorians is an order of magnitude more sophisticated than Tharian.

The Overlords

Halius II
First Overlord very much a George Washington type figure. Very charismatic and a brilliant tactician. When the Tharians faced conquest by the World Emperor of Viridstan, he united the clans and brought the war to a stalemate effectively insuring their independence. Very much viewed as a "good" king during his rule.

Lucius the Great
Equally as brilliant and charismatic as his father with an appreciation for Law and Philosophy on top of it. Unlike many of his contemparies he understood the advantages the older cultures surrounding his people have. He conquered City-State in the name of his father and then became Overlord after Halius' death.

He is known as the great lawgiver and organized the confederation in it's present form. He lays the foundation of his dynasty power by creating the first march out of conquered territory. Rather than dividing it among the clans he keep the land as his own personal territory.

What gave his title of the Great was that his reign was a time of general economic prosperity as trade and commerce resume after being disrupted for a century.

Varius
A brilliant military commander but not a philospher as his father. Personally he was difficult to get along with. However he increases the number of marches under his family control for 1 to 3 in a series of military conquests. The people remember him as  king that upheld and expanded his father's legacy. However many economic issues are not addressed which cause problems in later reigns.

Tomius
The first Overlord to be born after the conquest. He attracted much more to the older Ghinorian and Viridian culture than his own people. His preference for living solely at City-State and disdain for traditional customs of his nobles cause the Tharian Nobles of the senate cause him difficulties at every turn. Finally things exploded when when the merchants of city-state revolted over the in ability to change any of the antiquated laws on commerce.

Tomius champions their cause and the disputes are resolved in the merchant favor. The combined wealth of the marches of the Overlord and the merchants of City-State combine to make the rest of his reign uneventful. He is remembered as a weak king who has betrayed the ideals of his people.

During his trouble Tomius begins to invite outside groups as way of blostering his power. Among of them was the Church of Set who builds the Hellbridge Temple. The Ghinorians are NOT pleased with this.

Lucius III
Tomius's son pays more attention to traditional customs winning back some support for his dynasty from the nobles. At the same time he ensures the reforms of his father  are continued thus gaining the support of the merchants.

Meanwhile decades of contact with older cultures is causing massive changes among the Tharian clans. Factions are forming between traditionalist and followers of new ways. The the warrior ethos of the Church of Set in particular appeals.

Likely when Lucius dies he will be remember as a good king who did well in a difficult situation. Not a great king tho.

Quote from: jhkim;232815I'm splitting a more general topic here off from a recent Blue Rose thread.  

So a common feature of fantasy is explicit good and evil.  The heroes and their allies are good, and their enemies are evil.  Another common feature, though, is monarchy -- i.e. a true king, born of royal blood and/or chosen by the holy oracle, yadda yadda.  

However, as modern-day people, we don't generally think of monarchy as good.  So if my PC fights for Aragorn to be king, is my PC a brainless sheep tossing away her right of self-determination?  And yet it seems like a wacky anachronism at best to have your knights in armor and sorceresses pressing for their civil rights within the system.  As I quoted in the earlier thread,

Is this dilemma really a problem for people?  For me, I'm not concerned by it.  I can accept as a premise that a given monarchy really is good within the game, though I wouldn't want all my games to be like that.

Well, my personal favorite is to have rulers that are complex people: King Arthur Pendragon, for example, is the paragon of his age, a larger-than-life figure, but he's also deeply flawed.  The truly great historical rulers, like Augustus, Vespasian, Elizabeth I, etc etc. were all obviously flawed humans that tried to do good things.

That said, is having a setting where people live under Good King Whatsisname inherently an ideological conundrum? Of course not, unless you have an author defining "good" in an extremely narrow way and then suggesting that those who oppose the political system presented by their game are inherently evil. Then you've gone beyond the "premise that a given monarchy really is good within the game" and into the area of preaching a particular ideology. Particularly if you make the metaphysical realities of the game such that they punish characters/players who don't "think" the right way, throw in some Deus Ex Machina that makes it impossible to ever change the system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Patriarch917;232819There's a term I've heard, something like "Ohio Renaissance Fair role-playing," where the characters are really modern Americans with modern American sensibilities, who happened to be dressed up in "fantasy middle ages" clothing.  Especially when presented with issues of race, gender, slavery, etc., players may tend toward modern political correctness.

I've never seen anyone be bothered by monarchy in a game, although having players participate in something like the French Revolution in a fantasy world could be interesting.

(By the way, I've been lurking for a while, and this is my first post.  I didn't see any sort of "introduction" threads, but if there is one, please point me to it).

Around here, we generally introduce ourselves by jumping in and starting to post.

So, welcome to theRPGsite!

RPGPundit

....

þæt wæs god cyning!

In my own campaign, many of the human people are united by a common faith in the Quadrivium, a quartet of four Good deities that are dedicated to the protection and advancement of humankind.  They are represented by the Great Church of the Quadrivium, which is an analog of the Catholic Church (with less sexism and more liberalism).  Like the historical church, it's composed of many sects (Jesuits, Franciscans, Carmelites, etc.).

Those deities have essentially asserted the divine right of kings, and mandate feudal monarchy as the only acceptable form of rule.  The primary purpose of the king is to lead the legions of warriors who protect the common folk from depredation by evil, and to defend the various religious orders founded by the Quadrivium while they go about their various missions, which are all basically "social services" sort of things: education, healing, plague prevention, crop enhancement, etc.

Characters who grow up in the societies where the Quadrivium is worshiped -- which is essentially Thyatis, Alphatia and Karameikos -- don't view Kings as necessarily the rulers of the society, as the king is expected to follow the guidance of the Holy Mother of the Great Church, just as barons are expected to listen to the Bishops.

Royal lines are generally created when some evil wipes out an existing line, or the line goes corrupt -- this does happen, where kings turn from the gods and lead their nation astray.  The gods expect humans to overthrow these corrupted kings or destroy these evils, and generally anoint champions to face these foes -- very much the aquatic farce.  Though my gods tend to prefer flashier feats like rearranging the stars to form new constellations and making personal appearances.   These champions then become the progenitors of new royal lines.  Lines tend to last many, many generations before going corrupt, as these rulers tend to be surrounded from birth by a bunch of Lawful Good types with 18+ Wisdoms, which makes for a lot of wise philosopher kings.  The direct pipeline to the gods provided by the Holy Mother and Cardinals of the Great Church helps to.

Quote from: Thanatos02;232873I mentioned that, but one thing I'm not going to waste my time doing is debating monarchy against democracy. If you can't tell the difference, that's not my issue.

You can have both (in our modern sense of democracy - not the Athenian version), they're not incompatible.  The UK has long been both, though the monarch has now lost all executive functions.

I don't have kings that radiate goodness or evil and thereby imbue these qualities into the societies they govern. The king is the head of a system for the organisation of political power in given territory. A given society may be successful in reproducing its power structure over time or it may not (or it may be successful in reproducing a similar but not identical power structure). The king may be mad, bad, evil, good at economics, a gifted warrior, kind to children or anything else, but his personal qualities are only relevant insofar as they interfere or aid his role.

A king might beat his children while emancipating the serfs, or he might be a personally lovable guy whose kingdom collapses into civil war because he is unwilling to make the necessary reforms to deal with some crisis. I find this much more satisfying and plausible to use in depicting societies than the simple moral character of a king determining the ethical character of the entire society.

Generally Kings in my fantasy campaigns are like what Pseudoephedrine describes but I don't really have a problem with Good Kings as defined in the OP. Neither do I have a problem if there is indeed evidence that the author of such a setting has indeed defined good and evil in a narrow way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jhkim;232815Is this dilemma really a problem for people?

It is not a problem for me. I disagree most vehemently with Blue Rose's collectivist ideals, but they do not trouble me. Shadowrun includes a sourcebook which is about 50 percent "neo-anarchist" propaganda - there's no softer word - and other than feeling like my 15 bucks was being wasted a bit, I didn't care.

First of all, it's fiction. There are too many collectivists in real life for me to tilt against for me to waste time beating the hell out of fictional windmills.

Secondly, hey, people don't always agree with me. They're free - and welcome - to put forth their own morality in their own product. I'll read it and decide whether or not I agree. That's true whether it's the Culture's hedonistic super-individualism or Blue Rose's collectivism.

Finally, many sources of art are vessels for the morality or other worldview of the artist. I think it would be hypocritical of me as an artist to object to the fact of this, while still doing the same in my own art. I don't agree with Blue Rose's collectivism, but so what? If I ran a Blue Rose game, I strongly suspect I would undermine the ideals being set forth in it with my own; one of the marvelous things about roleplaying games is that it's quite simple to do so.

If I hate something, I struggle against that think itself; I don't struggle against the fictional media in which it's set forth.

I prefer shades of grey in my kings, because it's more realistic that way. You can reasonably easily identify the very worst Roman emperors, say, or the worst kings of England, but in the majority of cases monarchs' reigns were mixed. Peter the Great is remembered as...well, "the Great" - but you probably wouldn't agree that he was great if you were one of the peasants who died in the founding of St. Petersburg. Likewise Ivan the Terrible is remembered for being Terrible by most Europeans, but he made Russia the dominant power of his age.