WizarDru
Adventurer
Several thoughts:
You are correct about several printed settings, Greyhawk chief among them. A leading criticsim of the new Living Greyhawk Gazeeter was that they did not redress the problem stemming all the way back to the 1983 version, in that folks like Overking Xavener were 18th-level rogues and so forth.
The roots of this problem are the game system and the social constructs of the default D&D setting. Core assumption number one is that people in power must be the most powerful, or be thrown down. The second core assumption (and a highly flawed one, IMHO) is that any being more sufficiently powerful than a ruler would automatically desire to supplant that ruler. The third assumption (and this is probably owed directly to characters from Greyhawk like Robilar and Mordankanein) is that if they are not sufficiently dangerous, PCs will walk all over them.
Now, some of these concerns are entirely dependent on the individual game. A setting like the Valus, for example, assumes (as do many games) that social conventions can and do trump actual power levels. A king is a king by divine right and no one questions that fact...certainly the king could be killed, but to do so would not only undercut the very fabric of society, but possibly be both a blasphemy and ensure that no one follows his usurper. History is rife with cases where the established order sides with a weaker ruler due to claims of succession (the converse is, of course, also true). Other settings, such as Midnight, place you against a vastly more powerful rulership that you have no chance of unseating. Most campaign settings settle for a middle-ground.
The claims of needing necessary ranks in skills is, IMHO, over-stated. Excluding the PCs, most NPCs simply don't have or NEED that many ranks in most skills. Someone with 8 levels of Expert or Aristocrat has oodles of skill points to spend, not to mention ranks and feat bonuses galore. The perception of an NPCs eficacy is part of the issue and I think that's one of the things you're discussing. The PCs expect the high-priest of a religion to be his most powerful avatar...but that certainly doesn't have to be the case. However, some old habits die hard, and some folks still see NPCs in the same light as a friendly monster; friendly monsters should be powerful comensurate with the players experience may be the unspoken principle. In the case of clerics and theives guilds, this holds a certain logic.
In my game, the church of Pelor has two powerful figures: the living saints. One is a PC, and he's 25th level. The other is an NPC acolyte and he's only 1st level...but he's blessed by Pelor and everyone knows it. Neither one holds the rank of a bishop...at least the PC didn't until last session, when the uncomfortable clergy INISISTED he take the rank, for forms sake. They then saddled him with lots of paperwork.
By the same token, the PCs are now more powerful than the standing armies of some nations, let alone their rulers. However, that doesn't motivate the citizenry; starving peasants aren't turning to the fireball wielding wizard, regardless of his power...they want the local duke to ensure trade continues and the sale of their goods at the regional fair. They want the assured continual protection of the duke's guards and the law enforcement of his sheriff; Sure, a PC can slaughter that Owlbear threatening his farm with a flick of the wrist...but can they be there every week? For the whole town? The bishopric? The Valley? The Nation?
As an associated notion, the NPCs of a small nation bordering my PCs fortress/town has been fearful enough and the PCs have been dismissive enough that they've made a potentially disastrous decision in their choice of allies. The PCs have never outright threatened the bordering nation...but they are so powerful that since the PCs didn't use diplomacy to convince them of their peaceful intentions, they have forged a pact with some very powerful and evil beings to defend themselves against possible PC aggression.
So, in short, you can play it either way, depending on your tastes. If you have a specific concern, I'm sure we could take a crack at it.
You are correct about several printed settings, Greyhawk chief among them. A leading criticsim of the new Living Greyhawk Gazeeter was that they did not redress the problem stemming all the way back to the 1983 version, in that folks like Overking Xavener were 18th-level rogues and so forth.
The roots of this problem are the game system and the social constructs of the default D&D setting. Core assumption number one is that people in power must be the most powerful, or be thrown down. The second core assumption (and a highly flawed one, IMHO) is that any being more sufficiently powerful than a ruler would automatically desire to supplant that ruler. The third assumption (and this is probably owed directly to characters from Greyhawk like Robilar and Mordankanein) is that if they are not sufficiently dangerous, PCs will walk all over them.
Now, some of these concerns are entirely dependent on the individual game. A setting like the Valus, for example, assumes (as do many games) that social conventions can and do trump actual power levels. A king is a king by divine right and no one questions that fact...certainly the king could be killed, but to do so would not only undercut the very fabric of society, but possibly be both a blasphemy and ensure that no one follows his usurper. History is rife with cases where the established order sides with a weaker ruler due to claims of succession (the converse is, of course, also true). Other settings, such as Midnight, place you against a vastly more powerful rulership that you have no chance of unseating. Most campaign settings settle for a middle-ground.
The claims of needing necessary ranks in skills is, IMHO, over-stated. Excluding the PCs, most NPCs simply don't have or NEED that many ranks in most skills. Someone with 8 levels of Expert or Aristocrat has oodles of skill points to spend, not to mention ranks and feat bonuses galore. The perception of an NPCs eficacy is part of the issue and I think that's one of the things you're discussing. The PCs expect the high-priest of a religion to be his most powerful avatar...but that certainly doesn't have to be the case. However, some old habits die hard, and some folks still see NPCs in the same light as a friendly monster; friendly monsters should be powerful comensurate with the players experience may be the unspoken principle. In the case of clerics and theives guilds, this holds a certain logic.
In my game, the church of Pelor has two powerful figures: the living saints. One is a PC, and he's 25th level. The other is an NPC acolyte and he's only 1st level...but he's blessed by Pelor and everyone knows it. Neither one holds the rank of a bishop...at least the PC didn't until last session, when the uncomfortable clergy INISISTED he take the rank, for forms sake. They then saddled him with lots of paperwork.
By the same token, the PCs are now more powerful than the standing armies of some nations, let alone their rulers. However, that doesn't motivate the citizenry; starving peasants aren't turning to the fireball wielding wizard, regardless of his power...they want the local duke to ensure trade continues and the sale of their goods at the regional fair. They want the assured continual protection of the duke's guards and the law enforcement of his sheriff; Sure, a PC can slaughter that Owlbear threatening his farm with a flick of the wrist...but can they be there every week? For the whole town? The bishopric? The Valley? The Nation?
As an associated notion, the NPCs of a small nation bordering my PCs fortress/town has been fearful enough and the PCs have been dismissive enough that they've made a potentially disastrous decision in their choice of allies. The PCs have never outright threatened the bordering nation...but they are so powerful that since the PCs didn't use diplomacy to convince them of their peaceful intentions, they have forged a pact with some very powerful and evil beings to defend themselves against possible PC aggression.
So, in short, you can play it either way, depending on your tastes. If you have a specific concern, I'm sure we could take a crack at it.
