30th-level PC versus kingdom--who wins?

[trancejeremy]

I disagree. By that reasoning just substitute any number N for the level and say "there should be many more higher level NPCs" --> end result, there must be infinite-level NPCs in any world.

More reasonable is to pick some "highest level" for your campaign world when you start out. If the PCs advance past that level, then recognize the fact that they're the most powerful figures in the world.

It wasn't meant to be a mathmatical statement, my point was just that worlds are dynamic. If the PCs can go from 1st to 30th level in the time during your campaign, then surely NPCs had the time to do so as well, and some of them probably did. And guys who started out sooner are probably higher levels.

 

[Warren Okuma]

To me, it is hardly a matter of doubt that in most settings a group of 30th level PCs could easily kick down and take over an average nation.

The far more interesting question to me is: Once they have taken over, what are they going to do with it?

And it is here that the adventure possibilities become truly interesting.

Why? It's only a dungeon. A really big dungeon. Best move on to fight epic monsters and such. Loot the nation and move on.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Why? It's only a dungeon. A really big dungeon. Best move on to fight epic monsters and such. Loot the nation and move on.

Well, if you want to do it the boring route, sure.

But at least in my campaigns, the point would be this: You have the power of life and death over tens of thousands of people. You can try to shape their society into something more to your liking. Will you turn your kingdom into the shining jewel of the world - or will it collapse under its own hatred, intrigues, and corruption?

I mean, why should the PCs "move on"? Are their goals in life really so petty that they are just about slaying bigger monsters and looting bigger treasures? Or would they grasp power over other people if they get the chance - power they could use for good or for ill?

Nation-building offers a vast range of adventure possibilities even if the PCs are the most physically powerful people in the world - for combat power does not equal the wisdom you need to be a leader of people. If the PCs have a strong code of ethics, they will need to restrain their power, or they will be seen as arbitrary and no longer able to be lead by example. And if they decide to rule by just bullying everyone into submission, their subordinates will act this way as well, resulting in a nation defined by the rule of the strongest. And, of course, any effective ruler requires faithful and competent subordinates to manage the smaller stuff - but where will they be able to find people they trust?


Really, treating whole nation simply as "yet another dungeon" is wasting a grand opportunity for role-playing for the highest stakes. When the PCs reach levels that are sufficient for toppling nations, it is high time to let them face the responsibilities that come with power.

 

[pawsplay]

Really, treating whole nation simply as "yet another dungeon" is wasting a grand opportunity for role-playing for the highest stakes. When the PCs reach levels that are sufficient for toppling nations, it is high time to let them face the responsibilities that come with power.

So... responsibilities equal fun?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Aren't places like Waterdeep already loaded with epic level NPCs? They have all sorts of ways of dealing with major threats, and if things really get dire, there is always Elminster and various good-aligned groups.

 

[Nifft]

So... responsibilities equal fun?

Yes... if you use it irresponsibly.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ruleslawyer]

Aren't places like Waterdeep already loaded with epic level NPCs? They have all sorts of ways of dealing with major threats, and if things really get dire, there is always Elminster and various good-aligned groups.

Yeah. FR settlements of considerable size are unlikely to be conquerable/destroyable by an NPC of anything less than "high epic" level.

Spoilers follow for players in the Realms:

Spoiler

For example, Luskan has the Arcane Brotherhood, which includes an archmage or two plus some undead members of the order, who are liches;

Waterdeep is probably the most difficult of the lot to conquer (even over Cormyr), due to the presence of Khelben Blackstaff (Chosen of Mystra Wiz23/Acm4), Laeral Silverhand (formerly CoM Wiz25, although they nerfed her power by multiclassing her), Maskar Wands (Wiz23), and a host of lesser spellcasters, plus Malchor and Savengriff (both archmages) within call.

 

[Victim]

It depends on the overall setting assumptions. For FR, the bar is set pretty high, especially for places like Waterdeep. In fact, I think taking out a nation state like Cormyr would be easier, since its power is largely diffused throughout its institutions instead of being concentrated in a double handful or so of ultra-powerful guys.

Standard wealth might be the biggest advantage for the PC character. High level NPCs often totally suck because they have many or good magic items. A 15th level PC fighter type could take several Drizzts at once.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

So... responsibilities equal fun?

In Real Life, maybe not. Within the game, sure!

I mean, in many if not most campaigns the actual player characters often have a throughly miserable time - getting savaged by monsters, having to trek through inhospitable wilderness, and so on. Yet the players enjoy it! Why should being responsible for the lives of thousands of people be any different?

Besides, part of the appeal of gaming comes from the power fantasies. And what says "power" more than ruling an entire nation?

 

[Warren Okuma]

Well, if you want to do it the boring route, sure.

Yup. Boring. Like raiding hell, travelling the multiverse, and trying to kill Demogorgon and the like.

But at least in my campaigns, the point would be this: You have the power of life and death over tens of thousands of people. You can try to shape their society into something more to your liking. Will you turn your kingdom into the shining jewel of the world - or will it collapse under its own hatred, intrigues, and corruption?

If you have the skills that is. But having primary spellcasters and epic level crusaders come after you would mean a nice change of pace. Rough on your city though.

I mean, why should the PCs "move on"?

You are sitting targets. You gotta stop those who want to dethrone you before they mass their attack.

Are their goals in life really so petty that they are just about slaying bigger monsters and looting bigger treasures?

And saving the universe, plane etc... Yeah. Petty.

Or would they grasp power over other people if they get the chance - power they could use for good or for ill?

Yeah, hold an election, then leave.

Nation-building offers a vast range of adventure possibilities even if the PCs are the most physically powerful people in the world - for combat power does not equal the wisdom you need to be a leader of people. If the PCs have a strong code of ethics, they will need to restrain their power, or they will be seen as arbitrary and no longer able to be lead by example. And if they decide to rule by just bullying everyone into submission, their subordinates will act this way as well, resulting in a nation defined by the rule of the strongest.

Or hold an election, then leave.

And, of course, any effective ruler requires faithful and competent subordinates to manage the smaller stuff - but where will they be able to find people they trust?

Really, treating whole nation simply as "yet another dungeon" is wasting a grand opportunity for role-playing for the highest stakes. When the PCs reach levels that are sufficient for toppling nations, it is high time to let them face the responsibilities that come with power.

What's wrong in letting the locals decide who they want and what kind of government they want?