How to Build a Fantasy Government (Worldbuilding Tips)

[@ronecotex]

When you mention the collective resources that made me think what is someone could own their own River be a great source of tension

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

Access to water is always tension inducing.

[@jaisenmahne2832]

In my world, the Modkarian people live by the will of their gods; there are fifteen, each of whom controls a different faction in the world. This video has inspired me with ideas on integrating various governance styles into my story. As usual, your KZbin channel has given me food for thought. So, thank you! Keep it up! I find it refreshing to be able to brainstorm ideas from listening to your channel.

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

You're very welcome :)

[@emeralddraegon]

This sounds very interesting! 😀

[@Redacted-NA]

Currently running an old school style D&D game set in the Known Worlds of Mystara. Your videos are quite informative and helpful when it comes to thinking about the politics and social dynamics. Keep up the good work.

[@pyzziie6712]

So funny cuz my world is called Mytara but I am writing a fantasy series 🤣

[@bluejayblaze1180]

My Drakalfar run on "one dragon, one vote"---that is, if your dragon has hatched, you get a vote... if you show up. All votes are held at a specific location people have to travel to. Naturally, some issues get more people to attend than others. And a number of positions are based on merit, bloodlines, or what kind of dragon a person rides.

[@maxpowers9129]

I tend to prefer a magocracy of some type in fantasy stories. A noble not having magic or a commoner finding out they have magic is interesting to me. It also helps explain why commoners with magic don't just overthrow the government. If nobility tends to have magic more often, it explains how and why the nobles are in power.

[@Thesirrabbit]

WAAAY TO UNDERRATED luv ur vids this helped so much

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

Thank you so much and thank you for the comment :) Research* shows that leaving a comment is best way to make the algorithm love a video *Research = what other, bigger, KZbinrs say :D

[@subhamraj5365]

These gave me some Ideas. There is a purely human Nation in my fantasy world(It's very rare in it for there to be purely human nations). Basically, the bureaucratic/Government Officials(Including the Judiciary) are chosen through rigorous exams. The Priests of the Official Religions(The Religions recognized by the state are given state funding) are chosen by Both Divine Right(Through whatever means), but the candidates are chosen through how much education one has in their religion(Understood if they currently follow the faith and have full belief and if they get a satisfactory score in a test about Theology). The Kings and Nobles are chosen through Birthright, and Soldiers are chosen through competitions of Fighting, Co-ordination and strategic planning

[@wulfhardoftoxandria7680]

Yeah! Politics! 🤗

[@matthewdevictor1442]

What about a mix of a king and a senate similarly to the government of ancient Rome or in the united kingdom

[@matthewdevictor1442]

This adds to the story I'm doing. I thank you all of this. Could I use all four of these for a story

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

You could indeed use all 4 to create a government. For example: You could have a monarch as executive head (higher power), an elected law maker body (democracy), judges appointed for their legal acumen (competence), and an army that controls external regions (might makes right). And that's more or less an expansionist imperial government :) Or any other combination of course.

[@matthewdevictor1442]

@@JustInTimeWorldbuilding thank you so much for this. You really have me thinking on my Atlantis story and other to follow

[@rosalind1635]

@@matthewdevictor1442 you are describing a constitutional monarchy

[@matthewdevictor1442]

@@rosalind1635 yed I am I realized after I sent the question

[@Anika38d]

Listening to the descriptions of legitimacies, I realised my story may have all four XD In my world there are two sentient species: regular humans and creatures who are very powerful, but few in numbers - just a couple hundred for an entire planet of humans. All human nations have a shared tradition to grant these creatures the highest titles they can offer, but most of the creatures abstain from politics because the goddess who created them also left them a command to "keep humans an independent species", i.e. let humans rule themselves. For this reason, and also because human rulers usually don't like sharing power, the creatures' titles are purely symbolical; however, they're still revered by common folk, so if any of them does decide to overthrow a human ruler, they're likely to have popular support. The nation which the story centers on is initially a democracy, until one human ruler - let's call him A. - gathers power after getting elected, becomes a dictator and shifts his legitimacy to that of might. As time goes, the problems A.'s dictatorship creates start to catch on, the most prominent one being a war that spells the nation's demise if they lose, and by the time the story starts, they're already losing. Fortunately, this nation's creature - let's call her W. - has an attitude of "if to follow our goddess's command means to allow suffering, then I won't follow", so she goes to A. and demands to take his place. A. obliges, all too happy to be freed from his dire situation, and W. becomes the nation's leader. So now, her legitimacy is technically of all four types: first, A. didn't change the constitution, so the position held previously by him and now by W. is still technically elective; second, W. is a member of her species, which are recognized to have something akin to a divine right; third, W. is very powerful herself and builds a powerful army to change the course of the war, so might is also present; and finally, the main reason W. ends up so universally supported is that she saves the nation from defeat and brings about an era of prosperity, proving herself to be a competent leader. Though W. herself leans exclusively on the last justification for her rule and denounces the other three as "unfair advantages".

[@jbann123]

Excellent video

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

Thanks 😊

[@ronecotex]

What do you think of mixing the idea of democracy and theocracy you can have your election for President but then he has to be certified by the Pope

[@alsatusmd1A13]

This is literally how I imagine the kingdoms of musical instruments in the universe of the United Kingdom of Musical Instruments: They are elective monarchies where the Royal Houses are elected and the monarchs are then elected by these Royal Houses to speak for them. For the second part, the musical instruments running anything in these kingdoms are predominantly the humans’ instruments, so the Pope does not simply certify the official’s election, this official may literally be the Pope‘s musical instrument, at least legally speaking.

[@SingularityOrbit]

What's amazing about this idea is that it immediately provides its own political issue. The citizens would be in direct conflict with the papal authority if that approval didn't manifest. Some citizens would head off to meet with the Pope to try to change the decision. Some other religious faction might begin to cause problems for the "illegitimate" elected president. Less religious citizens would resent the Pope's decision and argue for changing the government's relationship with the church. All of the other potential choices for the presidency would take public positions siding with one faction or another. It would be the Holy Roman Emperor problem, but also causing chaos in the entire population because their votes would be compromised by an outside power. That's a seriously interesting situation with many possible outcomes. Will it be Henry IV waiting in the snow penitently to receive the Pope's approval, or will it be _Les Miserables?_

[@ronecotex]

What I'm imagining is the Catholic Church on steroids and if I may into a book I would turn into something other than the Catholic Church I'm using that as a point of inspiration

[@ronecotex]

What are the imagining is the religious authority over the government not the other way around cooking me some influence in dealing within that but that's the general premise

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

Fantastic source of conflict. There was already conflict in Europe when it was kings and the Pope. But throw in democracy and you literally expand the conflict to include the whole population as SingularityOrbit said :D

[@LeonLowe-qs1sg]

The character of culture, such as kindness and duty, which leads to the value of care?

[@JustInTimeWorldbuilding]

So I would count as part of the "core" of your culture. I've got one of these videos specifically about building cultural values and norms :)

[@anathema1828]

PeakContent

[@absolutelycitron1580]

5:45 can you please clip that part so I can show it to my fellow American friends when they say stupid af things like "we're the greatest democracy" the electoral college needs to be abolished

[@ficnonnie6006]

Since the electoral votes are proportional not divied up equally between the states, the vote is not actually that diluted. What you're suggesting is not correcting proportionality but rather removing federalism from the equation and having no state-level voice at all. That's hardly an objective improvement and in fact would likely result in disenfranchising some states from mattering at all.

[@jbann123]

​@@ficnonnie6006 Couple questions: "not actually that diluted" ... What degree of dilution are you okay with? Are you okay with one person's vote not counting? 10,000 votes? 1 million votes? What about your vote? Are you okay with your personal voice being removed? In states that give all electoral votes to the majority, how many millions of votes is that discounting? I understand that you think that number is low, but that number has also been enough to determine multiple presidential elections just in very recent history. That's a big deal. It means that the representatives are deciding our representatives instead of the People. It's putting another layer between the government and its constituents. That's the fundamental issue with the EC. "no state-level voice at all" ... Is the government not of the People? If the government is comprised of people which it governs, are those individuals elected to/appointed in state government not allowed to vote? Because if the people in the state government can vote, they have a voice. Each individual in the state also has a vote. Therefore, since government is comprised of the People, every level of government is given a voice in the form of "one man, one vote." "disenfranchising some states from mattering at all" ... While this is definitely a concern, how is this different from the way it is now? At least in presidential elections (which I understand aren't the end all, be all of government), many states are not given attention. This has the potential to cut some people out of the loop (campaign promises, issues needing addressed that get ignored because they're going to vote the way they vote regardless) and encourages tribalism instead of supporting a national identity. If you're concerned about being objective, don't forget to look at how things are now.