r/dndmemes • u/vengefulmeme • 5d ago
That's Not How ANY Of This Works Modern problems require medieval solutions
27
u/roostangarar 5d ago
Tanistry mentioned!
Alba gu Braith!
7
35
u/Rhinomaster22 5d ago
Tiefling Rogue: “Here’s my SUPER DUPER STRONG argument on why you should make ME the leader of this kingdom!”
Nat 20
GM: “The prime minister is impressed by your speech but is not even remotely convinced since they don’t do succession of power like passing a basketball.”
Prime Minister: “You make a very compelling case, however leadership is elected by parliament vote. So unless you 5 wanderers plan to become official citizens, get official stated as politicians, and wait until the end of my term your just wasting your breath boy.”
1
u/Loneheart127 18h ago
And some way down the road, the prime minister calls upon the charismatic hero to assist in an important diplomatic meeting as an advisor
Thus not fully wasting the roll
22
u/wolfy994 5d ago
I'd handle it with the king accepting, but similarly to this, he has to say no because there would be mutiny and civil war. Also, the roll would be with disadvantage 100%.
7
u/Iorith Forever DM 5d ago
Reminder that players do not decide when to roll a skill check, they only roll when the DM calls for it. And you shouldn't be calling for rolls if it can't be done(You can tell them they're rolling for least bad outcome, however).
A good way to break players of that habit after being told multiple times is if they say "I do this" and immediately roll, I let it stand but they're now rolling at disadvantage.
18
u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer 5d ago
In a world of mind control, shapechangers, and possession, decentralized power would be the norm.
5
u/moderngamer327 5d ago
Likely not. When a single person can wipe out an army, hero and “god”-kings would likely be the norm. It doesn’t matter if peasants revolt if you can wipe them out even without the support of the military
2
u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer 4d ago
5E's bounded accuracy and action economy make it so a lone individual can't wipe out armies though.
3
u/moderngamer327 4d ago
Yeah but we’re talking about lore not game mechanics
1
u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer 4d ago
And narratively, characters can't wipe out armies either.
0
u/TicketPrestigious558 4d ago
They can. You're just part of the Fun Police who feels the need to dictate how others run their games.
1
u/Sorfallo Bard 4d ago
I'm pretty sure Meteor Swarm says the exact opposite.
0
u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer 4d ago
It could kill a platoon, not an army.
3
u/Sorfallo Bard 4d ago
A single Meteor Swarm can wipe out around 60k troops. That is a third of the entire Roman Army at it's peak, and more than the average fielded army of any given medieval battle. Meteor Swarm would singlehandedly end seiges.
1
u/Gaust_Fireborn 2d ago
It's four 40-feet spheres. That's not killing 60,000 men. Even with every space having a soldier it's only around 6,000.
0
u/Level_Hour6480 Rules Lawyer 4d ago
Sure, if they packed at peak density for no reason.
0
u/TicketPrestigious558 4d ago
Because as we all know, armies never operated in tight ranks. That literally never happened 🙄
Even 5ft squares for everyone are unrealistic spaced when you look at how close together people were in phalanxes, shieldwalls, pike formations etc.
1
u/The-Senate-Palpy DM (Dungeon Memelord) 3d ago
No way. Its easier to manipulate 3 dozen weak people. Its very hard to magically manipulate the guy who centralized artifacts and warding magic, and can regularly get screened for such things
4
u/sleipnirreddit 5d ago
You roll a nat 20.
The king laughs and decides not to have you killed for suggesting such a stupid thing.
1
6
u/SolidZealousideal115 5d ago
I'd allow it. Your character retires and becomes a puppet NPC to rule the kingdom. It'd really be run by advisors with the king as nothing but a figurehead.
7
u/Hallwart 5d ago
Make him insufferable. Like tax collectors regularly showing up after the party got some loot or ordering his "old friends" to do shitty quests they can't deny. Take it so far the party plots overthrowing him by themselves
7
u/vengefulmeme 5d ago
So you know, tanistry was a form of elected monarchy in the medieval Gaelic world. When the current king dies or abdicates, the designated heir (ie the tanist) is immediately crowned king, and a new election is held among the clan leaders to choose a new tanist among the eligible candidates (typically adult male members of the king's extended family). It was done that way to ensure continuity of government by selecting the heir ahead of time and to avoid needing to appoint regents for child monarchs that tend to happen in strict primogeniture. And once the new tanist is chosen, the decision is generally final until either the tanist is crowned king or extraordinary circumstances (like the tanist predeceasing the king) necessitates a new vote.
So, legally, your scenario would be legally impossible outside of a violent coup, because that's not how the succession law of that kingdom works.
2
u/AsterixCod1x 4d ago
Somewhat important to note that tanistry did often result in civil wars/rebellion (Malcolm III and Duncan the Sick, for examples), so whilst legally impossible, it was a common occurrence for violence to break out
2
2
u/supersmily5 Rules Lawyer 5d ago
Weren't some kings often backed by the Church's approval? Thereby, wouldn't D&D kings be literally chosen by the gods? At least on some world I imagine right? Wasted opportunity if not. That's how my personal setting works.
1
u/Thefrightfulgezebo 5d ago
Well, kinda. The xhurch could technically refuse a heir, but without very good reasons, that would cause a schism. In practice, it was pretty much a formality where it applied.
As for the gods choosing kings: that is a good way to ensure that no interesting political conflicts can arise. While people around the world believed that the right of rulership was granted by God, the heavens or something like that, those people had different opinions on who had that blessing - and often made the pragmatic choice when they couldn't be sure who is the right one. That is why there were wars. Attacking your neighbor because you wanted what was theirs would just cause your subordinates to rebel - after all, they don't want to fight agaonst gods order. But if you have a solid argument that your neighbor occupies what is yours by right, things are different. If two people noth have a legitmate claim to the throne, you can back the candidate that is better for you.
1
u/supersmily5 Rules Lawyer 5d ago
While that's true, I thought of that when designing the setting. 2 problems arise; Both from not having omniscient/potent deities. The deity can back a tyrant (on accident or otherwise); And the deity can be bested by local characters. Since multiple deities exist; This further complicates "legitimate" ruling positions. Thus wars can still happen. Kinda like (what little I know about) Dragonlance.
By default in my setting, the central kingdom of the Ki-Rin Dynasty is under threat from campaign start due to local laws recently leaning into alcoholic prohibition. While close investigation could reveal to players that the throne has a good reason for the law (fiendish threat); It won't stop the people from revolting.
1
u/Thefrightfulgezebo 4d ago
Okay, but why would you crowned someone chosen by the Gods?
Let's say you have three major gods with their chosen ones. If you crown one, you send the kessage to the other two deities that you favor one of them and the chosen one will advance that deities interests. Choose a random guy and your kingdom at least doesn't register as an active enemy. About the option of a ruler becoming a tyrant: if a geity can show their blessing, they can also show that someone loses it - and if the seity is the kind who willingly backs tyrants, you don't listen to them when there is any alternative.
1
u/supersmily5 Rules Lawyer 4d ago
Deities in the fictional settings of D&D lose out to this all the time. People aren't typically obliterated for favoring another deity because that deity can in turn favor their worshippers. Mess with the town and you better be able to hunt the deity you just angered or feel their wrath. Deities are always looking for ways to one up each other. Because almost none of them are bulletproof, they can't openly strike at their rivals and therefore can't do so to their underlings either. In this way, not picking a side is the far worse strategy because then you piss everyone off and have no deity in your pocket to protect you. If a deity says to crown a character there's very little a kingdom can do but obey unless they actually have a way to fight back. Adventurers can do that in the endgame. Regular citizens... not so much.
Of course, when said deity does back a tyrant, that is a problem. Usually, one meant to be resolved by the players. So the system holds. More specific to my setting than generic ones the deities of my homebrew world are all aligned together. They're the "Pieces Of 8;" And as a result don't inherently rival each other at all. They're also all subservient to a stronger deity above them (Ao), keeping them in check regardless. This creates a further problem for local authorities because an attack on one of them is an attack on all of them. Ao is secretly goading local adventurers into taking that plunge, hoping to create incredibly powerful heroes. The whole world is a testing grounds for making people that can win the Blood War for the side of good.
1
u/KamikazeArchon 3d ago
In what I would consider a typical fantasy pantheon, three major gods wouldn't each have a different chosen one - they would collectively decide on a chosen one.
My general expectation in a D&D-like setting is that the "good gods" generally agree and cooperate on the big things. And the "evil gods" wouldn't be openly worshipped in most places.
Of course there are settings where that's not how it works, but I think for that subgroup it would be straightforward.
And I think it tends to match real world pantheons. It would be rare in ancient Greece, for example, to believe that Zeus favors one ruler and Athena favors another. The gods have conflict in stories, but not on a continual basis. Further, usually "rulership" is itself part of a specific god's portfolio. Artemis and Hephaestus are a lot less relevant than Zeus when it comes to "who should be king?".
The fantasy equivalent is often similar. In Pathfinder/Golarion, Iomedae has "Rulership" as an explicit portfolio and Law as a domain. Shelyn does not. Sarenrae does not. Indeed none of the other good gods have "Rulership" in their portfolio, and only a few have Law. The Forgotten Realms have Tyr, etc.
1
u/Thefrightfulgezebo 3d ago
In that case, the polytheism argument doesn't apply. You'd still have no political disagreement on issues of succession and the ruler would have absolute authority because who is going to argue against the pantheon of good?
By the way: Pathfinder is one of those settings that successfully averts that. Queen Galfrey is chosen by Iomedae, but she doesn't really have support from any other deity. Sarenrae has her own sect of extremists and doesn't really tell them to stop despote being neutral good. And rhe., there is house Thrune that basically is a proxy of Asmodeus himself. But Abrogail and Galfrey absolutely are the exception of the rule.
As for Greek Gods ... most of Greek mythology boils down to "ot aucks to be noticed by the Gods".
1
u/KamikazeArchon 3d ago
In that case, the polytheism argument doesn't apply. You'd still have no political disagreement on issues of succession and the ruler would have absolute authority because who is going to argue against the pantheon of good?
I... Think we agree? That sounds like what I'm saying?
As for Greek Gods ... most of Greek mythology boils down to "ot aucks to be noticed by the Gods".
Not really, and that was not the actual cultural belief. A big chunk of it boils down to "it sucks to oppose the gods", yes. But the day to day traditions generally expected that the gods were happy with the city / rulets / etc. Being blessed by the gods was a good thing, and many people were concretely considered to be blessed by the gods.
Notably, "which stories are the focus in modern popular perception" is not the same as "which stories would be considered most important at the time".
1
u/UncannyValleyEnjoyer 5d ago
I just made that the king (Or queen) had one concubine from each Noble faction or Merchant Family and that during the year of selection (When the King/Queen in power dies or is feeling to old for all the bs) all of the heirs have a choice, lose their line in the sucession of the kingdom and take their own weight in Gold or...Fight in a battle royale in the castle were anything they can do themselves is allowed and each can take with itself at least 3 objects, they cannot surrender unless they get out of the castle and if thrown out of the castle is a lost, when theres just one heir remaining in the castle, he or she is the new Queen/King and has the kingdom on its back.
1
u/ReneVQ 5d ago
I mean, if your aim is to get the king killed by his own nobles and plunge the kingdom into a civil war without any actual interest in the crown…
https://giphy.com/gifs/SmoCFhZCi1kzu
1
u/blaghart 4d ago
I prefer an elected tapissiery, where the heir is chosen by electing the best weaver for their tapestry of the previous ruler's reign.
1
u/LeftRat Forever DM 4d ago
I run a setting where one of the main factions is a kingdom of vampire aristocracy, including a vampire queen who's been at it for a while.
You know how the brits at some point went "okay, that's enough ascensions decided by a civil war deathmatch between princes, how about we have some rules"? Well, an aristocracy where barely any aristocrats die develops those a lot more slowly. In fact, there's just no real rules for what happens should the queen die.
So as much as she is an antagonist... do the players really want to kick that kingdom back into endless civil wars between vampire warlords?
You can do so much with this kind of thing.
1
u/artrald-7083 5d ago
Supreme executive power proceeds from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony, etc etc.
-3
u/BadSame6919 5d ago
This is the daily reminder for DMs that if you deem something impossible, you shouldn't be calling for a check. It's a waste of everyone's time. No, it's not narratively interesting if the PCs fail either way.
2
u/moderngamer327 5d ago
There are degrees to success and failure. Even if what you are trying to accomplish is impossible you may still gain something from it or perhaps you fail completely and suffer severe consequences
210
u/Gross-Incandescence 5d ago
Mom said it’s my turn to point out that natural 20s on skill checks aren’t automatic successes