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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6784963" data-attributes="member: 82106">Were they? Really? They were both great leaders, though I don't know of any specific personal exploits attributed to either one of them. Not to say they couldn't have been fine warriors, but even if they were nobody is arguing that there were NO warriors who were kings.OK, but again, was he in any sense a particularly competent warrior? Or just one of the soldiers? Also 'King Leonidas' didn't RULE Sparta. The position he held was one of being assigned to lead an army, not ruler of a country in anything like the sense we mean when we would say "King Henry II of England" or something. The point being, his ONLY function was as a warrior/general.Perhaps. I don't know of any personal exploits attributed to Persian Emperors. They are ALWAYS described as being commanders directing things from the rear.He became Shogun, which means something like "Barbarian-Expelling General". Tokugawa Ieyasu is a very well-known historical figure who's actions are quite well attested. I don't think there's any indication that he was personally an extraordinary warrior. He was certainly an able general and politician. I'd note that he was almost assassinated on several occasions and he had a number of highly regarded warriors whom he tended to surround himself with, probably for protection.Yes, numbers of kings fought in the Crusades, but recall that Richard the Lion-Hearted, one of the most important, was particularly known as a great warrior (and a terrible king). If all these kings were all such great warriors then why is that Richard is so esteemed for this trait? Isn't it more likely that most of these other guys were NOT warriors. If you examine the history of the French Kings you will find that practically NONE of them were warriors, or even great generals. Neither the Spanish, nor the various dynasties of Holy Roman Emperors, etc. Scotland was pretty much 'barbarian' up to the 17th Century, and Chaka Zulu etc were all pretty much leading 'primitive' tribes. Even so Chaka Zulu is remembered for raising a large army, training it to a high standard, and using effective tactics against the British, not personal warrior exploits.Some were, some weren't. Every man-at-arms (0 level human with d6 hit die, or veteran with d8 hit die) is 'trained in the art of the sword', that doesn't make them high level classed NPCs. There's nothing 'ludicrous' about what I stated. Its the objective truth. The vast majority of kings and similar leaders probably wouldn't stand out as particularly skilled warriors. They weren't chosen for their prowess in most cases, and aren't remembered for it in most either. The majority of your counter-examples, where they have some merit, are specifically instances of warriors who MAY have had a secondary political function, such as the Greek heroes.Its a descriptor, not a value judgement. I was responding to the notion that it was NECESSARY to make all these high level classed NPCs because otherwise the PCs have no incentive not to just run amok and make a mess of the campaign world. Such a world seems shallow to me. Having high level NPCs in all the positions of power OTOH doesn't automatically make a campaign shallow. I personally feel that it is limiting and fairly unrealistic, but that's just my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification