Rulers that are actually chosen by gods

[linguistcat]

I've been thinking about this in regard to a story I'm working on. I'd probably do something closer to the Mandate of Heaven from China than Divine Right of Kings found in Europe, since MoH allows for the loss of favor (and rebellion) if the ruler doesn't keep the people's welfare at least somewhat in mind. But I'm wondering, if these were real tangible things in human social structures, what would change from real life?

I mean first off, unless you have one God, or a god who is the one to choose rulers, you could have different gods backing different people or families, which might lead to more civil wars. Or the gods could work things out so both groups rule but have their own lands near each other.

The rulers and their subjects would probably be watching closely for signs of continued favor or loss of it. Or there would be a specific class of people to look for signs, but that's not much different from irl anyway.

I guess in the case of DRoK, there wouldn't be much use in rebellion, since the person on the throne would be chosen by literal God (or the strongest god in a polytheistic setup, maybe even being descended from them), but maybe the god in charge would make sure that the best option within the family always became the ruler and might even have a way to make sure the ruling family stayed "good" or at least aligned with the god's values. (Whether that would be good or not is arguable.)

Anyone else have thoughts?

[spindlestar]

Maybe this will spark some ideas:
typically the state cult in a european polytheistic society is going to revolve around that city-state or tribe's patron god anyway. it's not a bug but a feature that each group of people has their own set of gods. clashes between states/tribes were also seen as clashes between the respective gods--if you win, clearly it's because your gods were stronger than theirs--and the Romans actually made a practice of making offerings to their enemies' gods before a battle, to show them that the Romans were Good At Doing Worship and therefore the gods should defect to the Romans' side! honestly, IMO not much really changes about any of this if you decide for sure one way or another whether these things are literally true.
as far as rebellion/the gods ensuring maintenance of values—think of, for example, Zeus Xenios, whose cosmic purpose was to enforce the laws of hospitality. frequently via horribly punishing people who break that social contract. if those types of stories are definitely literally true—if being the ruler imposed certain expectations of behavior and it was known that a bad ruler would be deposed by the gods themselves—it will probably encourage those behaviors, but you're probably always going to get rulers who get hubristic enough to chance it. and consider also: perhaps the god stirs up the rebellion themself in order to deal with a bad king!

[linguistcat]

Maybe this will spark some ideas:
typically the state cult in a european polytheistic society is going to revolve around that city-state or tribe's patron god anyway. ... perhaps the god stirs up the rebellion themself in order to deal with a bad king!

True. Also might explain why cultures far apart still end up worshiping certain types of gods, like sun or moon or storm deities, since those gods might actually be the same despite different names and details, or they would be similarly powerful. This wouldn't counteract different cultural details, so different cultures, even if they both worship the sun for example, are going to view that god differently.

[Richard W]

The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles come to mind, especially for the northern kingdom.

[linguistcat]

The books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles come to mind, especially for the northern kingdom.

I haven't looked into a Bible since I left the church, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to take a peek and make some notes.