Politics in Fantasy

[Aqua Buddha]

How do you handle politics in your worlds? Do you have defined political parties or factions?

Also, have you ever incorporated current political hot topics into your stories? And is there a way to do that without pissing too many people off?

 

[Mdnight Falling]

My story doesn't so much have political issues as it does race issues LOL I suppose those could be categorized in the same same area but then again I dunno.. It pretty much comes down to in my novel who's the lesser of two evils.. the Wolves or the Dragons

 

[Chilari]

Yes I have political issues. In the story I am currently writing (not meant to be, was meant to be writing the one I've been planning since Christmas, but just started reading through the old stuff for this one and started rewriting it), my main character is an immortal and also a king. He's expanding his empire by making peace treaties with cities and attacking those that don't. His people want him to bring home lots of loot, like all the other cities do when they attack other cities, but he's looking at a longer term goal and leaves the loot so he can have the co-operation of the people of the defeated city.

I've got other political things going on too. Various other cities have different types of relationships with the one he's invaded, so they react in different ways. Within the city, there are different groups working against him, with him, or independantly for their own aims. There are also individuals who have various goals, both personal and idealistic. The colonels have wildly conflicting views on issues including torture of prisoners (ie rebels), whether there should be a curfew, freedom of movement, etc. All of these issues feed into how my character handles things and this ultimately determines how the citizens react and how the rebels go about rebelling.

 

[Ophiucha]

I have politics in my story, and indeed, the climax of the story is about the change of power in the kingdom. Molusk (as I have so temporarily named it) is a single continent and single kingdom, long since brought under the power of the Austral capital. There are likely other continents in the world, however the seas have been impassible for years, and only one man has figured out a way to get further than a mile out to the ocean. The kingdom was once split into two courts, the Boreal and the Austral courts. The northern court, however, broke away from the politics of the kingdom and became a crime organization, after causing a minor plague in the Occident. After that, the Austral capital became the head of the kingdom and started giving some people the title of Royal Father, which is sort of like a king, and sort of like a prime minister. Originally, the Royal Father was hand chosen by the court (now called the Advisory), but that lead to corruption, so it became a competition, called the "crowning", which is a death match between any eligible and willing contestants (usually 100 to 300 people).

My main character starts the story out putting a bullet in the head of the second-to-last 'contestant' of the crowning and becoming Royal Father himself. Politics in the modern day are basically the same, save the addition of voting, which is where the people elect someone to represent their interests in certain fields. It's rather similar to the Presidential Cabinet in terms of what interests are served (public safety, health care, etc.), except that these are the only ones elected by the common people. The kingdom itself is sort of... quasi-socialist, if you will. All the needs of people are paid for. Bread, water, light clothes and a coat in winter, a shelter, education, health care, and public safety (police/fire department). That said, these are hardly nice, and the system thrives on human (well, elven) greed and need for luxury. You need to work in order to get anything like, say, jam for your bread, any furniture that isn't little more than a pile of leaves and a rough blanket, etc. And the 'everything's paid for' bit tends to make things more (comparatively) expensive. Want a paperback work? That's a day of minimum wage labor. Still, you can obtain wealth - there are still classes - but the issues of basic survival and upward mobility are far less problematic. Current politics are mostly ignored, but some of the more general issues are touched upon. The society is very liberal in terms of social policies, and gay marriage and polygamy are legal. Though it is left rather subtle, there is also mention of my main character giving his younger sister a certain tea every morning after she's had sex that can induce miscarriage. There isn't another country to go to war with, so nothing much there, but as stated above, they have free health care and education, which is still an issue.

 

[Ravana]

Waaay too broad a question. I find it hard to imagine "politics" not playing a role in anything longer than a short story; in most of my longer works, it plays a, even the, central role in the story. The level of detail will vary depending on the centrality of politics to the conflict. Even shorter works will often have implicit politics in them… look at my "Swordpunk" story in the Showcase: while factions and issues are not defined in any detail, it's obvious that politics is the reason behind the action; that assumption in turn plays a controlling role in determining what the action can and cannot involve.

Yes, I include current events in my stories all the time, sometimes in (thin) disguise, sometimes openly (the latter will be more common in SF than fantasy). And when I do, I'm rarely worried about pißing anybody off; as often as not, I intend to piß someone off in doing so.…

 

[Worldbuilder]

As people may have guessed from all the GRRM fangirling, coming up with complicated and dangerous politics is one of my favorite parts of worldbuilding! My current main worldbuilding project is based (very) loosely on the late Roman Empire, so it's full of multiple different ethnic groups jostling around for power and fighting over religion and trying to stay alive in the face of invading hordes of barbarians. It's fun.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

Politics, in its broadest sense, plays no part in my fantasy world. It's ruled by a tyrant, and as such (despite timid opposition) the opportunity to canvas for the popular vote is quite limited. Personal politics, however, reign supreme. A world where everyone does what they can to survive provides plenty of fertile ground for a writer to hoe/dig/bury dead bodies. Were my setting more medieval-oriented (as much fantasy fiction seems to be) then politics would no doubt play an integral part, but as things stand they don't. So no need. Should I progress past my current endeavour and carry on the story then political factions may well play a part. Nothing's been ruled out at the moment, and nothing's been ruled in.

 

[Telcontar]

I enjoy writing political games. Intrigues and plots and schemes, etc, are all very much fun when they don't affect YOU. Also, I find the idea of nobility and nobles families to be highly romantic and incredible when they are the 'true nobles' - the people who actually deserve the title - and from that stems an interest in heredity and lineage. These are also great catalysts for fantasy politics.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

I find the idea of nobility and noble families to be highly romantic and incredible when they are the 'true nobles' - the people who actually deserve the title - and from that stems an interest in heredity and lineage. These are also great catalysts for fantasy politics.

Nobles, historically, were anything but romantic. They were, in many cases, vermin. Totally without worth. Indeed, any who attain rank through bloodline are, to me, due a bullet. It's just one more reason why I hate the fantasy genre and its obsession with worlds ruled by those who are scions of a certain bloodline (oh, you're a farmhand? Normally I'd kick you in the dirt, but as you're descended from royalty I'll follow you without question). Nobles weren't noble, they were predominantly self-serving scum who deserved a knife in the back.

 

[Telcontar]

Often, yes. Power corrupts, after all. Thus why I specified 'those who actually deserve the title.' And with the ones for whom the title of 'nobility' is rather ironic, there are other interesting tales to tell. They're fun to kill off as well.

 

[Amanita]

Nobles, historically, were anything but romantic.

I quite agree. (Even though I might not have phrased it quite as harshly ). I really dislike hereditary nobility as well, though. This is probably one of the main reasons why with the way my magic works it's not unlikely for the down-trodden victim's child to be one of the most powerful magic users of the next generation. The most powerful magical gifts actually often go to people wanting to raise against oppressive structures.
This leads to societies that offer everyone relatively equal chances. (Or to complicated schemes to keep that from happening, depending on time and place.) Noble classes or hereditary oligarchal rulers can never feel safe in my world however.

This doesn't mean that stories about "really noble nobles" can't be fun, though. It worked quite well in Lord of the Rings even though some of it already rubbed me the wrong way but that might have been just me. (Especially this strict hierarchy among the "races". Elves at the top and than the various classes of human where the Rohirrim were already beneath the Numenoreans and the "stupid dark-skinned people from the south who served Sauron" even lower than them so they were still better than Orks.) The idea that everyone should stay at their place and make their contribution there is also very prominent in the books.
I don't like the idea that fantasy has to be that way. But I don't like any ideas of how fantasy "has to be" so this isn't the only one.

 

[Zahantian]

I don't think any story, fantasy or not, can go withoput politics. I suppose to some degree, this depends on your definition of politics though. In my mind, politics are equivalent to motivations- if someone has an agenda then they follow whatever means to achieve this. The politics comes into play when these actions or agendas interlock or clash with those of another character.

 

[At Dusk I Reign]

Often, yes. Power corrupts, after all. Thus why I specified 'those who actually deserve the title.' And with the ones for whom the title of 'nobility' is rather ironic, there are other interesting tales to tell. They're fun to kill off as well.

I don't believe anyone deserves the title. Anyway, ignore me. I have an ingrained hatred of the hereditary principle.

(Even though I might not have phrased it quite as harshly ).

Yes, it was a bit on the harsh side. I don't actually advocate shooting anyone. I tend to go overboard when I'm emphasising a point.

 

[Ravana]

Without disagreeing with the overall generalizations that power corrupts and that heredity is no guarantor of worthiness, I'll point out—for those who want to use nobles in their settings—what advantages a hereditary nobility potentially convey. These, too, are of course overly broad generalizations… as is anything that includes the word "always." (Including the foregoing sentence.… ) But they help to explain why the monarchical system persisted for so long, and the rationalizations that were—to some extent, still are—used by those who sought to justify it. The exceptions and objections to most of these are obvious, so I'll refrain from expanding too broadly on them.

• (1) Stability.
(A) You always know who's in charge.
(B) You always know who'll be in charge next.
• (2) Responsible government. No, don't laugh.…
(A) The person who is in charge grew up knowing he would or at least might attain that position, and was educated to assume it. This will not be true of most other people sharing that setting.
(B) The person in charge can take a disinterested view when adjudicating disputes, as he already is as high as he can get. It is further in his own interests to be just and fair, as maintaining the security of his own position may depend on this.
• (3) Security.
(A) Protection against criminal activity. Someone has to guard against highwaymen and bandits, and punish other lawbreakers… and no matter how bad nobles get, "self-policing" communities are notoriously worse.
(B) Protection against external threat. Armies are even pricier than police forces, and generally require some level of training, as well as trained leaders—part of the noble's education.
• (4) Prosperity. An outgrowth of the above… and the noble's prosperity depends on his people's prosperity, so it's in his interest to do what he can to encourage this. You can't collect taxes on production and commerce that isn't taking place, after all.

It's easy for us to look backwards and rubbish the idea of nobility, hereditary or otherwise. But if you look at it from a peasant's point of view, it may not seem too bad. Particularly in an age largely lacking in class mobility, where a peasant has no expectation that it might be possible to be anything other than a peasant some day.…

Of course, that's the ideal noble represented above: most will allow power to go to their heads from time to time. Stupid or short-sighted ones may gouge their people for a little extra gain; idealistic ones can do more damage still (Richard I bankrupting his country to go Crusading, and then a second time to get himself ransomed from one of his "allies"; Frederick V of the Palatinate and Emperor Ferdinand II allowing their religious prejudices to lead Europe into the Thirty Years' War). Greedy ones may pervert justice for their own ends (Philip the Fair—a misnomer if ever there was one—destroying the Templars in France; any number of Roman emperors trumping up charges to seize property). Shallow ones will largely abdicate their duties to others, sabotaging the responsible government ideal. Rival claimants to a title can throw stability out the window… though in Western Europe, these were actually surprisingly rare, largely because everybody did know who was supposed to be next—and any open violation of that order constituted a threat to all nobles holding title under the rationale of heredity; their combined displeasure tended to discourage all but a few claim-jumpers. (When a throne came open due to the absence of any clear heir—then things got ugly. In many Eastern nations, by contrast, siblings were expected to contend for a throne… with the winner often executing all his brothers to forestall further conflict.) And, of course, the same rationale was a disadvantage, when the rightful heir was incompetent, insane, or otherwise undesirable.

And so on. Yes, nobles generally commanded the force necessary to maintain their position, or the wealth to obtain same, regardless of their actions—but only up to a point. Minor "infractions" against the traditional (or even codified) rights of the governed, they could get away with; major ones often led to practical demonstrations of the then-unexpressed principle that "supreme executive power derives from a mandate of the masses"—"of" and "for" the people, if not yet "by" them. Peasant revolts were frequently successful, at least to the extent of getting their complaints redressed… and one principle that was well-known, and violated at one's peril, was that turning an army against the people it derived from—their parents, siblings, other relatives, friends—was begging to have the army turn itself against you. (This was so well-known, in fact, that in larger countries, garrisons might be composed of troops from other parts of the country—or from outside of it altogether, if mercenaries were available and affordable—precisely to avoid this. Nor did this practice end with feudalism: the Soviet Union used it routinely.) Revolts from subordinate nobles who felt themselves aggrieved could be an even bigger threat: just ask "Good" King John, whose barons compelled him to sign the Magna Carta—and then who began the war that led to his death when he refused to implement it. So noble power, even at its height, faced real limits, and any half-intelligent or at least well-advised noble conformed in a general way, if not always in detail, to the "ideals" expressed above.

A good explication of the rationales underlying the monarchical principle is Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Another—this may surprise some people, given its reputation—is Machiavelli's The Prince: while its then-innovative realistic (as opposed to idealistic) view of what a ruler ought to be and do is broadly taken as justification for arbitrary action by rulers, nothing could be farther from what he actually endorses, which is that rulers should command respect through their conduct (which is incompatible with arbitrariness), and that a population that is content is one which will not present a danger to its ruler.

We have the luxury of ignoring any or all of this in our fantasy worlds, shaping our societies any way we please. It's worth knowing what is being given up—and needs to be replaced by something else, whatever that may be—when we do so.

 

[Ophiucha]

Basically, what Ravana said. Growing up in democratic America, I certainly have no interest in living in medieval Europe, but it's just the context of history. We had to learn to walk before we could run, and yeah, walking isn't as awesome, but it's a hell of a lot better than crawling.

 

[Fnord]

This has always been a weak spot for me; as interested in politics as I tend to be in real-life, I've never been able to lock down good intrigues in things I write. Lots of cool perspectives in here I hadn't even thought about. And I have The Prince and should probably yank it out and give it another good read before I start writing.

 

[kolchak]

I'm actually writing a political story set in a fantasy world. I find the allegorical possibilities mind-numbingly exciting.