ruleslawyer said:
A high-level rogue or bard, or any high-level adventurer with appropriate items, will open a big can of whup@$$ on such pathetic skill checks.
Bards and rogues do have the skill potential to rule. Of course, I don't see either of them ruling by force. Both are still too soft to not be put down by poison or ye olde hail of arrows from afar. As for "appropriate items," that goes for anyone, doesn't it? Had Mike Tyson a Ring of Diplomacy +10, an amulet of Charisma+6, and a headband of Intellect +4 and he'll give Jesse Jackson a run for his money.
They really are the best candidates for rulership; they can negotiate better, they know more (Knowledge skill ranks: go!), they are virtually immune to attempts at assassination, poisoning, or ensorcelment, they can travel the length and breadth of their kingdom in a day, and they have the ability to quite literally charm the socks off whomever they want.
With access to magic items, so can everyone. Rulers tend to be quite wealthy ergo they can afford magic items. The question is, who ends up ruling?
Let's say that an adventurer carves out a kingdom. Through his dominion he ensures few heroes exist and the ones that do are crushed quickly or rewarded with cushy properties far from any adventures. He has kids and grows old. Does he a) throw his crown in the gladiatorial ring as prize for the strongest or b) establish an organization that will protect his offspring so they can rule?
A) will likely result in chaos as the new warrior-king is unlikely to have the management skills. Plus, his kids could quite likely win if they use his toys or use his wealth to buy their own even if they aren't the strongest in the land (amazing how dangerous a 3rd level punk kid is when given the equipment of a 15th level adventurer).
B) will mean that you have non-adventurers on the throne and an army with bodyguards that was designed
by an adventurer to
stop adventurers.
So ultimately you will wind up with non-adventurers on the thrones in just a few short generations. This has occurred in our history (e.g. English King Henry II to King John, Spain's King Ferdinand the Great to Philip the II) where an accomplished ruler with military skill gives way to soft children.
The fact is that succession wars reduce the wealth of a region, causing other adventurer-types to throw their lot in on the side of stability. Wizards have trouble studying and researching during war, bards' art is often ignored when the masses fear being gutted, and rogues like having rich, content people to fleece. Fighters like having reliable sources for weapons, armor, food, drink, and (ahem) entertainment; war makes all of them uncertain.
Plus, when the original warlord is a competent ruler who has the ability to gain a solid following (Leadership) his influence will be transferred, at least temporarily, to his offspring out of habit. "His dad's a good ruler, his son will have had plenty of opportunity to learn from the best!" It goes double if the warlord ruled a long time (30+ years) as there will be entire generations who grew up under his rule and will be programmed by his party line.
So the entropic evaluation of rulership is that non-adventurers will rule more often than adventurers. Especially once smart non-adventuring rulers figure out ways to manipulate the society so that only villainous adventurer types will consider it possible to become ruler. And you can't stop them from considering it but if you've got enough brain-washed heroes who uphold "King and Country" you can probably keep them from trying it.