Going Beyond Kingdoms in Fantasy Worldbuilding

A king who inherited his throne from his father. Under him, a host of squabbling dukes, barons, and other lords, each seeking to claim their stake of land. Sound familiar?

For many fantasy stories and worlds, the setting takes the form of some brand of medieval feudal society. Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this; the shifting alliances, political intrigue, and earth-shaking wars that it provides are perfect for telling any number of stories.

Still, it never hurts to expand our horizons and consider what other types of political systems and forms of rulership there are. The ones that go beyond the typical kingdom or empire and explore some other, potentially lesser-known, methods of rulership that have sprung up over the ages. I promise, there are plenty of untrodden stories to tell buried within them.

The Messy Political Reality

One thing to keep in mind is that most medieval territories did not fit neatly into a single category of rulership. It wasn’t uncommon to see an empire, for example, whose emperor had to compete with local governors for power and work with them to get work done in their territories. Or, to see a powerful, de facto independent city-state that still technically (de jure) owed fealty to a lord.

The classic example of this is the Holy Roman Empire. While often romanticized as a unified empire headed by an ultimately powerful emperor, the reality is it consisted more of a patchwork of power bases each ruled by its own lord. There were areas where local governments had more power than the emperor, despite that not being the intended, on-paper result. 

That’s to say, don’t be afraid to mix and match these a little. If you get a little merchant republic in your elective monarchy, all the better!

Other Political Models

Mercantile Republic

A single city, grown rich off the lucrative trade routes it has established overseas, its wealth funding armies and allowing its rulers outsized weight on the political stage. This is a merchant republic.

These independent cities were ruled by a class of wealthy merchants and banking elites rather than strictly hereditary nobles, although over time those wealthy families often sought to create hereditary rules to entrench their power further. This leads to an interesting contradiction where the aristocracy becomes mostly hereditary and wealth alone is no longer enough to move up. The lines can easily be blurred between a nobility that earned its position through wealth and trade, and those who simply inherited the position.

Under this type of rule, councils and elected leaders were common. Venice, for example, was ruled by an elected Doge, while also having significant power invested in its great council. There wasn’t a single person with unlimited authority like typically depicted for absolute monarchs.

The classic examples in history are the Italian city-states like Venice, Genoa, and Pisa. That’s not to say you can’t have larger or overland Mercantile Republics. The Novgorod Republic, located in modern-day Russia, controlled vast tracts of territory and dealt mostly in the fur trade overland.

The key idea is that the rulership is based on wealth and trade, and no single person controls absolute power. It’s the lucrative trade routes, and the vast wealth they bring with them, that allow these relatively small city-states to punch above their weight on the political stage. Wealth also gives them the ability to hire large mercenary armies and build vast navies, both important deterrents to aggressive neighbors. It also allowed them to create trade deals and broker alliances with powerful neighbors, which was often as important, and sometimes more so, than military strength when trying to dissuade a powerful neighbor.

Trade being vital to maintaining wealth and therefore power, if the trade ever dries up, so does the republic. An idea to explore might be the failing city-state, which rapidly lost prestige after a new trade route bypassed it.

You can also look at the fortunes of individual families: a single bad trade of enough magnitude could ruin a family. Since their power and social standing are directly tied to their wealth, losing that wealth also means losing the former as well.

Theocratic Rulership

For most places, religion is an important part of life. Adherence to the faith is generally a given, and many high-ranking ecclesiastical members enjoy privileges beyond that of the common man. Here, though, under a theocratic government, religion is not just an important piece of culture, but holds the weight of law.

Theocracies are ones where the religious elite create the laws and hold the power. In many cases, a council or elected head runs the government. That’s not always the case, though, and there are absolutely hereditary theocracies. The distinction is not in how the elite comes into power, like the mercantile republic example, but in how that rule manifests and combines secular duties under religious laws and leadership.

The Teutonic Knights are an interesting case, being a group of warriors bound by religious vows. They elected a grandmaster who oversaw the group as a whole. They controlled vast tracts of land in the Baltics, and expanded with the goal of spreading their religion, and ruled from the same doctrine.

Interestingly, the grandmaster of the Teutonic Order eventually became the duke of Prussia, secularizing the order’s Prussian territory, which highlights the interplay between religious theocracies and their secular neighbors. Neither exists in a vacuum, and both were willing to work with each other if it furthered their goals.

The key idea in both is that the religious elite are the ones with power. They make the laws, they control the army, and they run the economies. This is all supposed to be in the name of god, or gods depending on your world, but there are plenty of examples from history of high-ranking religious members using their influence to enrich themselves.

This can lead to the same type of problems that we see in non-theocratic governments where those with power use it to benefit themselves at the expense of the common person. Internal issues could become problematic as well. History has many examples of disagreements over doctrine and religious authority leading to conflict, like the Reformation in Christianity or the Sunni-Shiite schism in Islam. When political legitimacy is closely tied to religion, these types of conflict not only affect the stability of the religion, but the government itself.

Elective Monarchy

The votes are in; each elector, powerful princes and clergy called from the four corners of the empire, casts one vote to select the new emperor. For weeks beforehand, political favors are called in, alliances are brokered, and deals are made all in an effort to secure votes. When the dust settles, a new, duly elected monarch sits crowned as emperor.

Elective monarchies are ones where the next ruler is picked by a council or similar institution instead of simply inheriting their position. That’s not to say that the next monarch won’t be the one in line hereditarily, or that the vote is fair, but the fact that there is some sort of election process is the key.

The classic example is the Holy Roman Empire, which had a small group of Prince-Electors that picked the next emperor. These were high-ranking nobility and clergy. 

While the Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy, for long stretches of history the title was kept in the Habsburg family, which mimicked a more hereditary style of rule. They were able to accomplish this through a variety of means, including diplomatic negotiations, dynastic influence, and political agreements. It’s a good example that shows how powerful groups or individuals could influence the voting and that the elections were not necessarily fair, at least how we might think of them in the modern sense. Wealth, loyalties, and personal interests all came into play when selecting the next monarch.

The fact that an elective monarchy exists also says nothing about the power of the elected monarch. They could have wide-ranging powers, or be checked by various other layers of administration or councils. History is full of examples of monarchs, elected or otherwise, hemmed in by the nobles or clergy below them.

As noted above, these elections were often filled with backdoor dealings. Each time a new monarch was elected, it opened new doors for negotiation, and noble families absolutely took advantage of that. This even extended to foreign powers who might back a specific candidate and support their election efforts if it appeared beneficial to them. In that way, electing a monarch could become a point of interest and conflict far beyond the borders of the kingdom.

Nomad Coalitions & Pastoral Confederations

Great clans rule the steppes, each bound by the laws their ancestors laid down generations ago. They travel across the lands, always in search of new grazing lands for their animals. While alone, each tribe is but a tiny community; united, they pose a powerful force. One so much that even the largest powers in the area are forced to pay them tribute, lest they overrun their lands and take what they will.

Nomadic Coalitions are groups of small clans and tribes that form together into larger groups. In many cases, the uniting of the tribes is driven by an external factor, usually a powerful neighbor that needs to be defended against, or threatened for tribute, but can also come about due to economic or political reasons. In these times, power may temporarily centralize in a central figure, but is often decentralized and held by the various chieftains or tribal leaders.

A key concept of these nomadic tribes is that their borders are not fixed. They tend to move around, searching for grazing lands for their livestock. Still, these lands are often considered property of the clans; another clan cannot simply move their flock onto another’s land without expecting repercussions. These “property rights” weren’t necessarily the same as we might think in a modern sense, and might be seasonal, for example.

Due to the roving nature of these clans, population centers were slower to develop than in more agriculture-based societies. That’s not to say that settlements and complicated political structures didn’t develop, the laws and customs of tribes could indeed be quite complex indeed.

Probably the most popular example of this is the Mongol Empire, which made up one of the largest land empires ever created during the 13th and 14th centuries. What started as a variety of separate, often warring tribes was united under the single banner of Genghis Khan. It would go on to be one of the most feared fighting forces in the medieval world. This is a good example of how these smaller, nomadic clans can coalesce into a larger empire.

One problem that these sorts of coalitions have, and indeed what happened to the Mongolian Empire, is that leadership and succession can be weak. Power and the connection keeping the tribes united are largely held by personal prestige, and as these leaders die, it can be difficult to replace them. This can often lead to fracturing of loyalties, and a breakup of the large coalition as powerful members vie for power and regional leaders seek greater independence.

It also requires constant attention to keep the tribes united and orderly. This often required distributing wealth, grazing rights, and allocating beneficial marriages to leaders of the subordinate tribes in order to keep them loyal and prevent infighting. The Mongol Empire, for example, required constant expansion in order to pay for the loyalties of united clans. Without a motivating factor, individual tribes might withdraw support, seek new alliances, or seek greater independence from the larger confederation.

Technocracies & Magocracies

The council of mages always meets in person to discuss matters as serious as war. Chosen from among the most powerful and wisest of the magic-using population, this council is effectively the kingdom’s government. Using their knowledge and power, they work to guide the people towards what they see as best; although many claim the interests of the common man are often given the lowest priority.

Technocratic and Magocratic societies are two sides of the same coin, essentially ruling through “expertise”. In these societies, it is those who hold that expertise who have the power and rule. Technocratic is ruled by those with specialized knowledge, while Magocratic is one where their power is derived from their magical powers; that significant overlap is why they are both included here. The core idea of both is that these experts wield the political power instead of simply being advisors.

Of course, that’s not to suggest that things like inheritance can’t play a role. We saw in merchant republics how those in power created laws that favored their bloodlines, and there’s a chance that same thing would happen here too. You can even extend this and ask, “Who can become an expert?” If magic powers are a prerequisite for governance, a council that limits who can study magic is effectively limiting who can participate in government.

There’s also the question of bias and what it means to be an expert. Does the leadership make decisions based on the common good, or do they favor certain groups of people? Just because they are experts does not mean that they aren’t susceptible to any number of biases. A powerful mage might be the most powerful magic user in the world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they understand the intricacies of diplomacy and statesmanship.

A true technocratic government also tends to be less democratic as it prioritizes experts over popularity. This can lead to a population that feels disconnected from their government, which is the perfect situation to breed unrest and rebellion. A successful technocratic or magocratic society needs to be able to bridge the gap between expert consensus and popular sentiment to stay in power.

Decentralized Communes & Stateless Alliances

A small town on the fringes of the known world; no kingdom claims it as its own, and no lord demands tribute from it. The people here are self-sufficient and toil for only themselves and their neighbors. Elders of the community meet to resolve disputes as needed, and the law is largely customary and based on tradition. Danger lurks outside, however, a single community is easy prey, so loose alliances are formed between the nearby communities for mutual protection.

Our last form of governance is similar to the nomadic coalitions, but has the distinct difference in that these groups are typically sedentary and rely more on farming. Their communities typically remain small, which means a direct democracy is often practical. While nomadic coalitions form under the command of a powerful leader, these contrastingly prosper without a central authority. Instead, they rely on local governance that often has a large amount of input from individuals. This could take the form of a direct democracy, but things like elders and elected councils were also common.

Together, these independent groups can form loose, decentralized alliances similar to the nomadic coalitions above. The key distinction I want to make here is that these alliances tend to be more focused on retaining their own individual independence and identity. Each piece retains a good deal of agency instead of submitting to the absolute will of an individual or governing council.

A problem these sorts of communities often run into is how they deal with problems that extend past their own borders, such as use of shared resources, defense from powerful neighbors, or extra-village disputes. In some cases, this leads to new institutions being set up which begin to pull the commune towards a more “kingdom-like” construction. Others, instead, will resist this type of homogenization with neighbors and fiercely defend their independence.

Who Really Controls Power?

You might have noticed a sort of theme through all of these different government types; they’re all ways to show who has the power. Each is unique in its own right, but make no mistake, there is always the underlying implication of who has the power to make decisions.

To broaden that idea, I wanted to put together a quick chapter on what it means to hold power. These can be applied to any of the above, as well as ones not listed here, to get a sense of how leadership works. Remember, as a leader’s ability to control and project their power diminishes, so does their ability to control their land and population.

Legitimacy

Legitimacy asks the question “why do people recognize someone’s right to rule?” and is potentially the most important question any ruler has to answer. If they are not seen as legitimate, then their ability to rule is seriously compromised. An example of this is Henry IV, who famously usurped the throne from Richard II. Much of Henry's reign was then spent trying to justify his rule to both the general population and ambitious nobles.

Legitimacy can come from a lot of places and is often tied to the style of government. A hereditary kingdom often sees bloodline as a key aspect. A merchant republic, on the other hand, might be more concerned with wealth.

Legitimacy on its own, though, is often not enough. For example, the rightful king who lacks the ability to project his power can often be ignored and is little more than a figurehead. Legitimacy is essential to rulership, but on its own can be less useful.

Legitimacy also isn’t a universal given, different groups can have different opinions. A king might have the support of the military, but lack the backing of the clergy. This in turn sets up interesting conflicts which can lead to rich stories.

Resources

Who controls valuable resources is often another important source of power. This can be anything from food and land to knowledge and magic depending on the culture. Having control of these resources imparts power to their holder. How much power depends on the types of resources and how much they have.

One important consideration is the differences between theoretical ownership of resources and the ability to use those resources in a practical manner. Owning a goldmine is certainly a boon, but having the mined and processed gold is even more valuable. Having resources is not the same as being able to actually use them. Another example might be a king who relies on wealthy merchants to fund his wars, something that was very common in the Middle Ages. Here, despite not being the head of the government, the merchants have significant power in deciding to lend to the king and at what cost.

Ability to Project Power

This is the ability to enforce one’s will through military or other means. In other words, it’s a ruler's ability to get people to do what he wants them to do. As noted, this is often through the, often unsaid, threat of military intervention, but could also come about through careful diplomacy, marriages, or other means.

There have been many cases in history where a king had the ability to issue orders, but no ability to enforce them. This shows the tight coupling between this and legitimacy. A ruler who cannot project their power is at risk of losing legitimacy, or devolving into a more symbolic rather than practical leader in the eyes of their subjects; what’s the purpose of listening to the king if he has no means to enforce his word?

Institutions

Lastly, we have institutions which over time develop their own sort of power. Things like parliament were constructed to help run larger kingdoms and handle day-to-day administration duties like taxes, and they developed their own sort of power in turn. They also functioned as essential mechanisms to keep governments running during times when leadership is unable to perform its duties.

Take a king dying; if all the power rests with them, then the government grinds to a halt. Instead, the various institutions continue working and keep some semblance of normalcy during turbulent times.

Institutions can also develop into independent sources of power. Taking the parliament example, its role eventually grew to include constraining the powers of the king. This shows the type of power these institutions could develop, and foreshadows the types of conflict that might arise due to competing power bases.

Also, institutions here are being used as a broad term. It could certainly mean the bureaucratic offices and written laws we know today, but it can also be applied to oral traditions, ancestral customs, and other sorts of systems for resolving disputes and making decisions.

Practical Tips for Authors & Game Masters

In this last section, I want to provide some practical tips you can use right away, whether you’re a game master running a TTRPG or an author building a world. The following three ideas are key to building believable and interesting worlds, regardless of who your people are and what type of rulership they live under.

Circumstances Drive Governments

The circumstances, including geography, the economy, religion, and warfare, influence the types of government that form; they don’t just appear out of nowhere. In the same fashion, they also tend to get more formal and develop additional functions as the body they govern grows. It’s fairly easy to deal with a community of 50 confined to a small village, but it becomes more difficult once that reaches hundreds of thousands over an entire kingdom.

When thinking about this, always consider the factors that led to the current political system. What allowed a merchant republic to accumulate its wealth, what factors might be driving a group of nomads to join together? These types of questions will help you dive into the interesting parts of a nation.

Conflict Comes From Competing Interests

Conflict is the core of all good stories, and the type of political system a nation develops all present unique conflicts to explore. Even in a perfectly democratic society, there is always a group that doesn’t get what they want. The bigger the want, the more interesting it typically becomes.

A good place to start with political systems is to focus on the trade-offs that they’ve chosen to create. These are often the pain points that can be explored to find that conflict. An elective monarchy’s electors are open to influence; if that influence comes from a foreign power backing a weak puppet emperor, that’s an important conflict rife with opportunity.

Political Systems Change

And one last note: political systems are fluid; they are always bending, breaking, and changing. The Mongol Empire started as simple tribes that united and formed an empire, which eventually dissolved into khanates before fragmenting further. During each of these transformations, and between them as well, the political makeup changed.

Bringing this back to the above, these changes in politics are often driven by the needs of a nation at that time, or the needs of those with the power to influence the decision. This also means that it’s not necessarily correct to say any of these are better than the others or a precursor. They all have their pros and cons, and tend to solve the needs of a particular time at that point in time. As those needs change, political institutions may adapt, resist change (which is its own source of conflict!), or eventually collapse and become something entirely different.

Conclusion

As I stated, there’s nothing wrong with hereditary rule, kings and queens, and kingdoms and empires. These are tropes for a reason; they are easily recognizable, understandable, and they have worked for countless stories in the past.

Instead, I wanted to provide you with some ideas to go beyond the basics of the standard feudal society. That’s also not to say you can’t take pieces of each to build your own world; there are very few historical examples that fit neatly into a single box. Most had some sort of influence of various government structures that grew and evolved over time as a nation’s needs changed.

Hopefully you learned something, and hopefully it will help you write richer, more detailed, and interesting worlds!