Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 2876560" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't think it's nessecary, I think we're largely talking about the same thing: One needs more skill than a single person (or character) has in order to successfully run a long-lasting political system beyond that one character. You need institutions, and the skills to set up, run, and govern those institutions aren't always in the hands of the charismatic leader that the people want to follow, or the man who comes in and slays the dragon. One person doesn't rule. Organizations, institutions, and systems rule. The Throne rules. The King is just the current guy upon it. Viewing polytheism as a collection of cults is rather inaccurate, though. It's more that the institution of the faith or governance (and those at the head of the institution) are arguably more nessecary for the operation of a kingdom than the king. All the "cults" really work as one whole rather than compete with each other for the most part, as far as the enduring institutions are concerned.Though D&D-ized polytheism isn't like most human polytheisms in this regard, the idea that the institution is greater than the individual still works with comptetative polytheism. It merely means that the locally dominant institution (church of Pelor, church of Hextor, whatever's good in the local region) is what needs to be won over.So if the institution is more important, then the outsiders (adventurers) will still be unlikely to rule it, because they don't have the propper connections and channels within the instititution. The power of rulership is the power to get those you rule to do what you want willingly. The hand that slew 1,000 goblins single-handedly may get to sit on the richly bejeweled throne, but it takes more rulership power ("Profession: King skill") to procure a richly bejeweled throne and invest it with sacred significance than it takes to slay 1,000 goblins by yourself.And that's why adventurers don't rule the world, in general. They are outsiders, and while they may do heroic things of legendary significance, they don't often know the intricate details of the courtly melieu like an aristocrat might. They know how to kill 1,000 goblins, they may have the Cleave feat, but I don't see many adventurers taking the Skill Focus (Political Manuevering) feat unless they ALSO make good institutional rulers. The "real rulers", the ones behind the throne, are the ones who can get the job done. They are the manipulaters of our institutions (which include religious overtones, even today), the ones who can change our daily lives, the ones who make us believe that the system works. They aren't the guy who kills 1,000 orcs, they're the guy who knows that because of the lack of rain the fields will yeild low and that people will appreciate moves to stock up on food for the cold winter ahead. While an adventurer could know that, those that do tend to not last very long when confronted by 1,000 orcs. Thus, you have NPC's who know the system at the head of it, as the builders of the throne, allowing powerful adventurers to sit uppon it. Power isn't in sitting on the throne, it's in working a nation so that sitting on a simple wooden chair is an event worthy of note.</blockquote>

Verification