An 'Epic Levels' (or close to them) rant

[Mark]

Why do important figures have to be epic or nearly so?

They don't, IMO. They have to be particular levels to have a particular skill set that a DM or designer might want them to have but if they don't need much and the background doesn't require them to have much, I don't think there's anything wrong with a low-level king. There's an old actors' adage that says that the king isn't the king because he says so, he's king because everyone around him treats him like the king.

 

[Bryan898]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I found that the amount of high level characters as rulers bothered me as well. IMC I toned down a lot of the rulers in FRCS, but equipped them with rather powerful items. I figure most rulers will have plenty of funds at their disposal, and will spend some on their own protection. A 7th level fighter in full plate with a Ring of Protection +5 and a Helm of Brilliance, and a vial of stone salve can make quite a threat. Especially when you consider his guards protecting him.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Another point in favor of moderatly high level rulers (8th -12th) is that you are thinking that sucession is normally peaceful. In the history of the middle east (during crusades) each and everytime a king died, there was a struggle for power. Salidin's Son ruled nearly the same empire as Salidin, but he had to defeat a uncle, two other sons and take at least 2 cities by force (and intrigue) to do so. When he died a newphew of his warlord ended up with everything.

In D&D the wars would be very differernt and much of what armies did, could be done instead by adventurers, as long as the king was along for the trip - hmm sucession war campaign.

 

[Monte At Home]

I think the way to approach this (and the way I do approach it in products I write, and my own campaign) is not to look at it like, "this person is powerful or influential, therefore they need to be high level," but rather to look at how they got to be powerful or influential.

If they worked their way up through the ranks and had to go through a lot to get where they are (and maybe go through a lot to stay there), then they're probably at least mid-level.

If they got where they are because of factors external to them (birthright, dumb luck, appointment, etc.), then there's no reason to think that they are anything but low level.

So you could easily have a 2nd level aristocrat king who's only king because his father was, surrounded by 10th level expert advisors and seneschals who fought their way up the ladder to get where they are.

Level represents competence, and nothing more.

 

[drothgery]

It seems to me that running a kingdom in a D&D world for twenty years is likely to result in at least a modestly high-level ruler or a corpse (though this is probably true only for whoever's doing the actual work of running the kingdom; if a nominal advisor is the ruler all but in name, that would probably be the high-level person). Holding back the $INSERT_HOSTILE_RACE_HERE$ hordes while keeping the merchants and farmers happy and -- if you manage all that -- keeping your neighbors from invading and preventing hostile high-level characters from killing you or seizing your throne is hard work that should merit large chunks XP.

 

[drothgery]

If they got where they are because of factors external to them (birthright, dumb luck, appointment, etc.), then there's no reason to think that they are anything but low level.

So you could easily have a 2nd level aristocrat king who's only king because his father was, surrounded by 10th level expert advisors and seneschals who fought their way up the ladder to get where they are.

It's unlikely this will persist in a D&D world, though. Either the advisors support the king, and so are encouraging him to take more power into his own hands (and learn how to weild it), and therefore earn XP for ruling reasonably well, the advisors are going to depose the king, or the advisors are going to manipulate the king into letting them run things, in which case the king isn't really the ruler; the advisors are.

 

[Psion]

It's unlikely this will persist in a D&D world, though. Either the advisors support the king, and so are encouraging him to take more power into his own hands (and learn how to weild it), and therefore earn XP for ruling reasonably well, the advisors are going to depose the king, or the advisors are going to manipulate the king into letting them run things, in which case the king isn't really the ruler; the advisors are.

I'm not precisely seeing how this is at odds with the real world.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I commend all of you on your civility during this discussion.


I'm not concerned so much about epic rulers as the number of them. Did ALL of them go on adventures similar to the Illiad or Elminster's life? Even with the exp earned from ruling, I find it hard to justify giving near epic levels to all socially influencial NPC's, especially considering what players have to go through to get there.

As I understand it, many players don't play kings or lead large groups. Most have a hard time dealing with the Leadership feat (my cohort is handling it...). It means too much work and having to stay at home to handle the land. In essence, they lose out on adventuring (ie they don't earn nearly as much exp).

Guess I just find it hard to believe that someone under the same circumstance can achieve such high levels...

Or mabe I can't see how so many folks can survive the trials to gain those levels...

 

[Jdvn1]

If they got where they are because of factors external to them (birthright, dumb luck, appointment, etc.), then there's no reason to think that they are anything but low level.

So you could easily have a 2nd level aristocrat king who's only king because his father was, surrounded by 10th level expert advisors and seneschals who fought their way up the ladder to get where they are.

Level represents competence, and nothing more.

Well, they might have more hit points than most people, in order to survive assassination attempts.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not concerned so much about epic rulers as the number of them. Did ALL of them go on adventures similar to the Illiad or Elminster's life? Even with the exp earned from ruling, I find it hard to justify giving near epic levels to all socially influencial NPC's, especially considering what players have to go through to get there.

I generally assume, as with the WoG 1983 demographics, that rulers can get to 10th level with little risk, just from the regular challenges of active rulership, so only figureheads/pawns and novice rulers are low level. To get to 16+ you have to be more of a Genghis or Alexander, though, or at least a Richard the Lionheart.