Players want to overthrow a king and install democracy. What can go wrong? ;)

[Odessa333]

Hey all!

So yea, my players are trying to teach some bullywogs that killing the previous King to become King for a week/month/etc is not an ideal government, and they should rely on democracy. There are just.....SO many ways this can go wrong. Talking with them out of character, they really want to make this work for reasons I do not understand. Still, I am going to roll with this. They are getting their shot, and I am left wondering about all the possibilities, of all the ways this can go horribly, horribly wrong.

Any fun suggestions you'd like to offer up? Skies the limit here lol.



Context, this is a modified take of Downfall from Witchlight Carnival, a place in the Feywild. Party is level 2.

[Keltest]

Hmm... Well, to start with, the simple one is every single one of them could vote for themselves. But if you want to get more elaborate, you could have them not really get the idea of one vote per person, and they start killing each other to "absorb" their votes, like they were doing with the king. "I killed Glerg, so now I have his vote too." sort of deal.

[kingcheesepants]

So my players often do stuff like this and we have a lot of fun with it. But it seems like you want them to fail, or at least have a very uphill battle and regret their choice to engage in local politics, is there any particular reason for this?

As far as things which can go wrong, anything that happens in the real world to hinder democracy would work. Buying and selling votes, smear campaigns, threatening other candidates or voters, misinformation campaigns, fake ballots, gerrymandering, refusing to accept results, etc etc. But all of it supercharged because there is literal magic, so things like illusory script, simulacrums, dominate person, modify memory, suggestion, and so on making manipulation of candidates and the public very bad.

[Unoriginal]

Hey all!

So yea, my players are trying to teach some bullywogs that killing the previous King to become King for a week/month/etc is not an ideal government, and they should rely on democracy. There are just.....SO many ways this can go wrong. Talking with them out of character, they really want to make this work for reasons I do not understand. Still, I am going to roll with this. They are getting their shot, and I am left wondering about all the possibilities, of all the ways this can go horribly, horribly wrong.

Any fun suggestions you'd like to offer up? Skies the limit here lol.



Context, this is a modified take of Downfall from Witchlight Carnival, a place in the Feywild. Party is level 2.

I would make so that the Bullywugs are actually much more politically savvy than the PCs and much more adept at government work than them, and that they're pretty offended to have foreigners show up and presume they can "teach the Bullywugs better".

However, since they're politically savvy, I would have two Bullywugs enthusiastically agree to hold a democratic election once the PCs tell them about it, with the rest going along when they understand there is a scheme going on. Then the enthusiastic Bullywugs would convince the PCs that to hold a proper electoral campaign, they need funds... which they are sure the PCs will contribute greatly, since starting democracy was their idea and if this first electoral campaign doesn't work a wannabe-king will take advantage and get crowned the moment the PCs are gone.

The money the PCs have on them is not much? Don't worry, they can pawn their equipment at the village's shop. Every silver coin given can make the difference between success and failure,after all. And each candidate promises they'll pay the PCs back with a generous extra once they're elected and can access the old king's treasury.

Then comes the day of the election (which should be the next day, for extra hilarity), and one canditate starts by stating "anyone who wants to keep the old royalty system raises a hand", and every single Bullywug raises their hand. Then the second candidate states "anyone who want to kick the butts of those arrogant jerks (*pointing at the PCs*) raises a hand", and every single Bullywug raise their hand too.

Then the PCs are given a head start corresponding to how much money they've given, as part of the "payback with generous extra" promise the candidates made.

[Sigreid]

Well, the French Revolution aftermath, for one example. The fires of revolution burned a lot of innocent people and even a lot of the revolution leaders before it all stabalized.

[Segev]

If the Buluywugs already kill their king every month and then get a new one, how do they choose the king each month now?

[Unoriginal]

If the Buluywugs already kill their king every month and then get a new one, how do they choose the king each month now?

In the module, it goes like that:

Whoever is strong and skilled and cunning enough to say "I'm the king" without getting overthrown is the king.

[NecessaryWeevil]

The bullywugs give democracy a try, discover that they actually like the stability, and now there's a new regional power disrupting the previous balance.

[JonBeowulf]

Dancing on the very edge of what's allowed here, but democracy without the checks and balances of legislative and judicial branches does not work and never will. It becomes a dictatorship very quickly... which is really what the bullywugs have now anyway. Let the players have their fun, but if you want the game world to be at least mildly believable, they're not going to create a democracy. At best, they'll install a stable dictatorship in which the ruler has advisors he can trust not to kill him in a few weeks.

Dictatorships are stable and decisive (none of the chaos and debate that slows down democracies) so they could still become a bit of a regional power.

[KorvinStarmast]

Dancing on the very edge of what's allowed here, but democracy without the checks and balances of legislative and judicial branches does not work and never will. It becomes a dictatorship very quickly... which is really what the bullywugs have now anyway. Let the players have their fun, but if you want the game world to be at least mildly believable, they're not going to create a democracy. At best, they'll install a stable dictatorship in which the ruler has advisors he can trust not to kill him in a few weeks.

Dictatorships are stable and decisive (none of the chaos and debate that slows down democracies) so they could still become a bit of a regional power.

A DM will hopefully appreciate this answer. The default medieval setting of a feudal baseline makes things a bit easier, game play wise, for a variety of reasons.

But

I've been reading up in detail on the Eastern Roman Empire (315 - 950 AD) and the chaos of that system (I can't call it feudal, it had its own logic) is something I am trying to fold into my Great Kingdom in my World of Greyhawk setting ... because I think that is what EGG used as a model for Aerdi/The Great Kingdom originally.

[Unoriginal]

The bullywugs give democracy a try, discover that they actually like the stability, and now there's a new regional power disrupting the previous balance.

Dictatorships are stable and decisive (none of the chaos and debate that slows down democracies) so they could still become a bit of a regional power.

If they're anything like in the module, the Downfall village is already the top regional power. Aside from the Hag who's responsible for the region being what it is.

[Sorinth]

I would suggest having the things that go wrong to be more lighthearted and fun. Like surely my pet snake can vote and he votes for me. Would also be a lot of vote buying since that isn't against the rules, some of which could be humurous but could also make the PCs worried if for example one candidate promises every Bullywug a slave/servant that will be taken from a nearby village for example. There would probably be bullying for votes but hopefully the PCs tamp down on that quickly. Worth mentioning that the Olympic games were a way of showing strength/power without resorting to going to war. So there could easily be some sort of athletic competition.

I guess a big question to answer is what's the time frame for things going wrong. Are the PCs going to install democracy, leave, and then months/years later will encounter the "reprecussions" or are they sticking around the area and will be visiting the place as a regular safe spot/home base.

[Mastikator]

If they're anything like in the module, the Downfall village is already the top regional power. Aside from the Hag who's responsible for the region being what it is.

That's the answer, the hag becomes democratically elected.

[Derges]

Seems like a good basis for a few suitable level 2 encounters:
Rival gangs of Bullywogs getting into tussles over the rights to put up posters.
Overzealous canvassers threaten the populace to vote a certain way.
A scheme to stuff the ballots.
Some social speech writing/researching exercise to help their chosen candidate.

[Hairfish]

Presumably they still have a king (unless the PCs killed them) who is going to object to this challenge to their rule. If they don't have one, there's probably going to be fighting in the streets as challengers and their underlings square off against each other until one faction's leader comes out on top.

[Segev]

The first thing that a people used to having whoever declares himself king and can force the point being king will see with democracy is that it just means whoever wants to be elected bullies people into voting for him. Then the winning side bullies the losing side into agreeing.

Introducing the secret ballot will see the counter of ballots being intimidate into counting the number the scariest would-be ruler demands.

Securing that will see the would-be king just bossing the elected government around.

Actually securing democracy will be hard, and one of the challenges will be that a popular position will be to go back to how it was before, since this isn't something the bullywugs came to on their own.

[JonBeowulf]

That's the answer, the hag becomes democratically elected.

She gets my vote! I think that'd be a freaking blast -- both as a DM and a player.

[Arkhios]

Evil King is easier to replace than a group of like-minded evil politicians. Poor allegory: democracy is more prone to evil.

[Skrum]

Yeah, absolutely have the hag show up and buy all of the Bullywog's votes with exotic fish. Then have the hag thank the players for their help; she'd be trying to ages to get the Bullywog's in line, but they were more interested in fighting each other for the place of king.

Or have the Bullywog's agree to give voting a try...but then they just fight each other as way of earning votes, decimating their own population and leaving room for some other regional power take over.

========

On a meta-level, I'm torn on this one: part of me knows good DMing is facilitating the players doing what they want to do, even if it's not something that I would choose to spend my time on, but I also get annoyed when players get too...modern aesthetics with their character's actions. Rah rah democracy! from characters that grew up in (presumably) a feudalistic society? Idk. Rubs me the wrong way.

[Segev]

On a meta-level, I'm torn on this one: part of me knows good DMing is facilitating the players doing what they want to do, even if it's not something that I would choose to spend my time on, but I also get annoyed when players get too...modern aesthetics with their character's actions. Rah rah democracy! from characters that grew up in (presumably) a feudalistic society? Idk. Rubs me the wrong way.

Valid concerns. And I think the answer is that, if the players want to do something like this, evaluate what the difficulties would be (including the cultural obstacles), and then just... lay it out for the players as they investigate the problem.

[MonochromeTiger]

Unless the game had politics as a key point to begin with? Easiest complication would be that they just introduced a political system to a group that had absolutely no knowledge of it before or reason to have it to begin with, welcome to several years of in game time trying to prop the system up well enough to be functional at all and stomping out issues of corruption and misunderstandings that lead to all the other scenarios in this thread.

The worst thing to go wrong isn't a Bullywog abusing the fragile new system to become a tyrant and breaking it or the Hag coming in and abusing their ignorance of the new system to effortlessly take over. Those just mean the system is gone, you can pretty quickly move on from that as a failed experiment and go back to the standard adventuring solution of "kill the problem." The worst thing to go wrong is that they've actually made the system and it's somehow working enough to trudge along despite no framework being in place to build it on and now the adventurers have lifelong jobs making sure it stays working instead of just collapsing the moment they turn their back and a Bullywog starts a wistful monologue about "the good old days when you knew where you stood because it was over the dead bodies of anybody who got in your way and we didn't do something silly like letting the weak and sick have a say in things."

On a meta-level, I'm torn on this one: part of me knows good DMing is facilitating the players doing what they want to do, even if it's not something that I would choose to spend my time on, but I also get annoyed when players get too...modern aesthetics with their character's actions. Rah rah democracy! from characters that grew up in (presumably) a feudalistic society? Idk. Rubs me the wrong way.

Been in a similar position a few times where I thought something the players were doing didn't really make sense from somebody in the setting with the backgrounds they had or where something just set off a pet peeve or generally annoyed me. Personal experience was that there are 3 ways to handle it, in no particular order.

You can just run with it because "as DM/GM my job is to be the way players and the world interact not to stand in the way of that interaction." Downsides are that this is obviously the option that leaves you carrying the burden of just sitting back and letting something you don't like happen anyway, that in itself is plenty of reason to find some other option but I've known a few DMs/GMs who felt it was the only real answer and I've used this option a few times myself with some being just as bad as expected and others ending up surprisingly well. Upsides are that your players hopefully realize the effort you're putting in to accommodate them and return the favor, and sometimes those bits of story you didn't expect or consider end up being what kicks off some inspiration elsewhere or spirals into something memorable and worthwhile.

You can just say no and give reasons why you aren't up for it. Downsides are that some players may react badly to you "stifling their creativity" or you might get some comments of railroading, if the refusal to take the approach they wanted directly leads to something negative it may also end up being blamed on you as "just trying to get the bad result" even if that result is tied into other things they've done and could've been avoided. Upsides are that if you've communicated what about it upsets you before most players I know would understand and respect it as being where your line is drawn on the topic. If you haven't this is a good opportunity to establish the option of saying "this is going too far out of the way and I feel it disrupts the tone of the game" so you can discuss other possible actions for the players to take without disrupting their characters or being a massive out of context problem for the setting. This is also the option where I've seen "sure you know that but how does your character know it when it isn't even a concept in the setting" brought up to shut down "I spontaneously advance the setting's technology by centuries using knowledge my character had no way of knowing" moments.

You can allow it then throw in constant complications and undermine everything. Downsides are that unless your players know you're going to intentionally make it as difficult as possible and force them to work for it and constantly run damage control then they're going to feel spited. That's because they are being spited. In picking this option the DM/GM is choosing to give the impression their efforts can work and are viable to try while actively planning for their failure and having seen this from a player and observer perspective a few times if you didn't go in knowing the DM/GM would do that it can absolutely feel terrible especially if they do it for petty reasons like just not liking the idea. I've witnessed a few arguments at tables spawned by this option because it does very easily end up being a case of adversarial DMing and can undermine trust with the players. Upsides aren't that heavy for this approach but there are some. For one if your players are aware you're going to pull things like this and have agreed to it it adds some challenge and complexity to the situation, they have to actually think through their approach to find as many weaknesses to plug as possible and deal with problems as they arise which in my experience goes over pretty well with players looking for a more "politics and intrigue" themed game. Complications can also lead to other interesting or strange story elements that wouldn't have happened if you just said no or the players just had their way with no issues, in one of the best case scenarios of this option that I saw the players and their plan actually ended up far better off than they originally expected because they traced the problems that came up back to their root and ended up earning a metric ton of good will and resources for it.

[Unoriginal]

On a meta-level, I'm torn on this one: part of me knows good DMing is facilitating the players doing what they want to do

Strongly disagreed. Good DMing isn't enabling whatever the players want.

The PCs can try stuff, doesn't mean the DM has to make it work.

Like if the players decide the Hag should be in charge and they'll convince her to be a good ruler, that will just not work.

Rah rah democracy! from characters that grew up in (presumably) a feudalistic society? Idk. Rubs me the wrong way.

Also a bunch of outsiders showing up and deciding the locals need to Be Taught Better because PCs Know Best is... really yikes.

It's not like oppressed Bullywugs begged them for help killing the king or anything like that.

[Segev]

It is also worth noting that if you don't want to deal with it, you can hand-wave "perfect success" and let the players move on, content that they have done their good deed in social engineering. No need to monkey's paw it; they come back and find the Bullywugs are happily living with their elected President or whatnot, still being Bullywugs, otherwise. No need to dwell on it.

It's only worth complicating it if you and/or your players want to keep being involved with the Bullywugs and make their developing democracy a definite part of your ongoing campaign.

[JNAProductions]

It is also worth noting that if you don't want to deal with it, you can hand-wave "perfect success" and let the players move on, content that they have done their good deed in social engineering. No need to monkey's paw it; they come back and find the Bullywugs are happily living with their elected President or whatnot, still being Bullywugs, otherwise. No need to dwell on it.

It's only worth complicating it if you and/or your players want to keep being involved with the Bullywugs and make their developing democracy a definite part of your ongoing campaign.

This, with a side of what Monochrome Tiger said.

If you WANT politics and democracy and all that to be part of the campaign, then work it in.
If you don't, then let it succeed without too much hassle, or let it fail and tell the players OOC that they cannot, within the space of the adventure, succeed.

If you do go "It's not timely to be able to do it," think a little on what kinda epilogue the Bullywugs might get-if a character is still interested in helping them after the immediate adventure, let them do so.

[Kish]

My question is: What kind of societ(y)(ies) are your PCs from?

If they're from democracies, like Breland, then their goal makes sense. It would probably still fail because the bullywugs have no reason to listen to them.

If they're from, say, Cormyr, I would suggest asking them gently, "Why do your characters want the bullywugs to adopt a government type they've, at best, heard of once as someone's unrealistic idea? Shouldn't they be, instead, going for something like 'the king should be someone you all trust, respect, and are loyal to'?"

(I think portraying a humanoid race as organizing their society in a fashion objectively worse than many published human societies, while cringeworthy, is also a ship that sailed the moment one started a game that uses bullywugs and doesn't immediately throw out all their social descriptive text.)

[MoiMagnus]

Strongly disagreed. Good DMing isn't enabling whatever the players want.

The PCs can try stuff, doesn't mean the DM has to make it work.

IMO a good GM is enabling "the kind of things" the players want, even if it's not "the exact thing" the players want.

If they want to create a democracy for the sake of political drama, give them political drama, the don't just give them a "you get tricked and rejected as everyone is against your idea".

If they want to create a democracy for the sake of improving the NPCs' life, give them opportunities to do so, so that the success or failure relies on their moment-to-moment choices (in particular their capacity to compromise and re-evaluate their objectives) and not just "this is an hopeless cause and nothing can be done". In particular, they should have a window of opportunity where they can realise that forcing democracy within a short timeframe is doomed, but that they can make the first steps that will -- after a few decades in-universe -- leads to an improvement of the situation.

[GloatingSwine]

The main thing that will go wrong is that if there isn't a firm desire from within the populace* for democracy, it will fail to take root and will fall over the moment the players turn their bac

*An educated middle class with some prosperity but excluded from the levers of power.

[Unoriginal]

(I think portraying a humanoid race as organizing their society in a fashion objectively worse than many published human societies, while cringeworthy, is also a ship that sailed the moment one started a game that uses bullywugs and doesn't immediately throw out all their social descriptive text.)

Why would the Bullywug society be "objectively worse" compared to many published human societies?

Like everywhere else, the one in charge is the one who can prevent others from taking the job one way or another. Unlike a lot of other places, though, you're not inherently disqualified from being in charge based on which family you happen to be born into or on if you don't develop a specific trait it is deemed the ruler must have.

Or are you talking about the lore where Bullywug leaders sometime have people captured so they call show off the stuff they own in hope of soothing their insecure egos?

That's the case of a lot of leaders in fiction and real life both, the Bullywugs are just even less subtle about it than most.

[rel]

To get a society to do what they want, the PC's will either need to find a faction that likes their idea and back said faction to make things happen or force the societies existing power structure to do what they want.

To get the society to KEEP doing what they want after they leave, they need to give those in charge a compelling reason to keep doing things the way they've been told, and also give them enough power to stop anyone not currently in charge from taking control.

How they go about doing these things is up to the PC's, but that's how you can judge success as a GM.

As a GM, you need to provide a background. Political intrigue needs factions, so create a few of those.
A couple that start off opposing democracy and a couple that are on board with the idea.
And as a complication, those that support the idea are probably the weaker factions.

Once you have your factions set up, ask the PC's how they proceed and have your factions respond appropriately. Those that oppose the idea will be trying their best to sabotage things, while those that are on board will be trying their best to take advantage and see their faction in charge.
Being somewhat stupid monsters, they are probably fairly direct in their approaches. Telling a blatant lie is probably as cunning as they get, with some variant of hitting people being the default. But simple methods are effective too.

The PC's will need to solve a lot of incidental and structural problems to pull off an election and get the result to stick in the short term.
This will probably also involve the creation of a sizeable pile of corpses.

Getting the system stable enough that it persists after the PC's leave is more complicated, and will require getting creative and solving at least some challenges without resorting to murder.

Your PC's have a goal in mind, which is great. As a GM you need to figure out how the world will react when they try to go about achieving it.

[Selion]

Democracy is a very fragile thing, it's not a synonymous of free voting, especially in a context of low education, it's very easy for things to go awfully sour.

If their previous society had in religion a strong social glue, it's only natural that some branches of the cult could obtain power and instantly turn your newly installed democracy in a religious fanaticism even if they worship a good deity, a LN regime could match some of the worst dictatorships of our world

Another scenario could be that they are simply unprepared, and that the new council would ask to their saviors suggestions on any course of actions, making the PCs the new dictators de-facto.

Other more fantasy related scenarios could involve
- mind domination
- hidden cults worshipping devils
- powerful creatures (either good or evil) could present themselves as political leader.
for example I'm imagining an aboleth or a mind flayer who learns about this new trend and works to extend the idea in other tribes, to become the president of a new established little nation