High Level Characters, Psychology and their impact on Society

[Trickstergod]

Then turn yourself into a lich and rule the world forever and ever and ever.

Indeed, given that no NPC class offers any advantages over a PC class, why would ANYONE take them? If the surest route to power is PC class levels, anyone who wants power (read: paranoid freaks) will always take those classes and not NPC classes. Rulers with NPC class levels won't be able to do anything about PC class characters who decide to take over -- they won't have enough personal power to survive.

I actually addressed the immortal ruler in my first post. That's the exception, not the rule.

As for the rulers with NPC class levels, it's simply a matter of upbringing and relative comfort. Why train as hard as you possibly can to be a Fighter when you're the son of the king and can get away with enough lessons in combat to only classify as a Warrior? Why spend all that time reading boring books of impossibly mind-bending natures to become a Wizard when you're the pampered child of a merchant lord and would rather be drinking and being merry and would qualify as only an Aristocrat or Expert perhaps for all that? Think how frustrating it would be to have all your advisors and barons talking and thinking circles around you because those class levels in Paladin just don't offer up enough skill points to equal both the education and verbal skills of those Aristocrats and Experts.

For the most part, it's a simple matter of training and convenience. Most ruler types will be studying things that help them rule a kingdom, or will be politicking, or will be doing any number of other things that preclude them from learning spells, receiving an attack bonus equal to their level, rolling with a blow via better hitpoints, or honing their reflexes to dodge fire and ice. The environment itself inspires Aristocrats and Experts to crop up amongst the rulers. They train other people to chop up their enemies. Which is how they deal with most threats. By having other people take care of the problem. Very few leaders are the most personally powerful; they tend to be the most charismatic. Even in a D&D setting, this is going to hold true. For every power-mad sorcerer with a fireball, there's going to be a loyal elite guard with multiple attacks.

The question why someone would have an NPC class is almost entirely a metagamed question, not the sort most characters or individuals realize within the game. They don't have charts and tables laid out before them to choose from. Instead, NPC's should level up in what's appropriate to their position, upbringing, and what just makes sense. I would question just how any nation could reasonably continue existing when those who rule lack any ranks in skills such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) and Sense Motive. If they're ruling a nation, those are the sorts of skills they're training, that they're making use of. If they're being raised to a place of power, that's also what they're being trained in or experiencing. Even if it's side by side with specializing in a weapon.

 

[Werther von G]

Assume that any population contains a certain number of paranoid freaks. Being paranoid freaks, they want to acquire power so as to ensure that others cannot gain power over them.
Now in our world, they usually don't get very far because they need social skills in order to acquire much power. Which they don't have, being paranoid freaks, and so are forced to find jobs in software QA and so on. Even if they do manage to get somewhere, once they start manifesting their paranoid freakishness, the world generally gangs up on them and strips them of their (socially-dependent) power.

Now imagine one of the paranoid freaks as a sorcerer.

I know this is going to sound terribly nitpicky, but, hey. I'll take that hit.

In D&D, your sorcerous power is based on your Charisma. Paranoid, socially-backward people tend to have low Charismas. This doesn't prevent the dazzlingly charming sociopath, but it tends to keep the paranoids at bay.

 

[barsoomcore]

Hey, I'm not trying to say there's only one possible interpretation of how D&D power advancement maps to the real world. I'm just offering up one I think is interesting.

But to address:

ruleslawyer: the answer is simple -- D&D power selects for paranoia. The good guy will always get beat by the bad guy. There's just no contest -- unless the "gods" get involved (as in LotR, which is a great illustration of the notion that without "grace", salvation is impossible) -- the tricky, deceitful, back-stabbing SOB will always win. This doesn't work in our world because our power is social and eventually people will stop trusting you and poof goes your power. Not so in D&D.

And keep in mind I'm not talking about evil. I'm talking about paranoia. I'm talking about self-preservation. The best solution, given D&D power systems, is to kill everyone else who possesses power, because they are a potential threat to you. It's like big countries stomping on small countries -- but it's not exactly like that because of the fundamental difference in power types I mentioned in my earlier post. You can't map these struggles to our world; there's no correlation.

So this is all just speculation. But for me, coming up with reasons why it would be just like our world (or just like our stories) is kind of beside the point. I'm much more interested in exploring ideas as to why it might be different.

Trickstergod: Why would the immortal ruler be the exception? Again, it's the smart play. I mean, after having gone to all that trouble to acquire this power, this safety, you're just going to die of old age? Not me, pal.

And as for rulers not bothering to acquire real power -- well, they'll just get annihilated the first time somebody who went another route and DID acquire some power comes along. Sons of rulers having cushy lives just isn't going to fly -- if I know I only gained my power through my personal hard work and dangerous effort then I know perfectly well that my son or daughter is going to need the same power level as I have in order to manage things, or else they'll fall prey to the first assassin beholder that comes in through the window.

I think it's interesting to imagine a world where politicking doesn't do you any good, because the sorcerer ruler of the neighboring kingdom is scrying on you, knows all your plans and in fact had you killed last week by a shape-changing demon. A ruler doesn't need to KNOW stuff, they need to be able to survive stuff.

I mean, come on, the notion that Richard vs Saladin proves that high-level characters balance each other is just silly. At best, it proves that common folk suffer whatever fate the powerful decide to visit upon them. And that's in OUR world.

 

[barsoomcore]

In D&D, your sorcerous power is based on your Charisma. Paranoid, socially-backward people tend to have low Charismas.

Sorry, using the term sorcerer to mean "guy who does magic stuff" -- which is what it means on Barsoom. The principle isn't about one class in particular but the very nature of magic power.

Oh, and not necessarily using "paranoid" in any particularly rigourous way -- just to mean "person who thinks everyone is out to get them".

 

[Victim]

I actually addressed the immortal ruler in my first post. That's the exception, not the rule. For the most part, it's a simple matter of training and convenience. Most ruler types will be studying things that help them rule a kingdom, or will be politicking, or will be doing any number of other things that preclude them from learning spells, receiving an attack bonus equal to their level, rolling with a blow via better hitpoints, or honing their reflexes to dodge fire and ice. The environment itself inspires Aristocrats and Experts to crop up amongst the rulers. They train other people to chop up their enemies. Which is how they deal with most threats. By having other people take care of the problem. Very few leaders are the most personally powerful; they tend to be the most charismatic. Even in a D&D setting, this is going to hold true. For every power-mad sorcerer with a fireball, there's going to be a loyal elite guard with multiple attacks.

The question why someone would have an NPC class is almost entirely a metagamed question, not the sort most characters or individuals realize within the game. They don't have charts and tables laid out before them to choose from. Instead, NPC's should level up in what's appropriate to their position, upbringing, and what just makes sense. I would question just how any nation could reasonably continue existing when those who rule lack any ranks in skills such as Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) and Sense Motive. If they're ruling a nation, those are the sorts of skills they're training, that they're making use of. If they're being raised to a place of power, that's also what they're being trained in or experiencing. Even if it's side by side with specializing in a weapon.

So, in other words, Rogues and Bards take over from Aristocrats and Experts. And adventuring types are gong to progress much faster due to the risks they take. So the young fighter or paladin might be able to match wits with most Aristocrats since the PC hero types are higher level, or use magic to augment skills.

Even if there's an equally powerful hero for every villain (or some equivalent set up), you still won't end up with a stable society. Events will be very dynamic and dependent upon powerful individuals. If the church's paladins and the Royal wizards catch the mad sorcerer, it will be after he does something. And what if he wins - then the guy is even more powerful. You might end up with parity or balance, but I don't think you'll find much stability outside of repressive governments - magic would be a nice tool for big brother.

 

[A'koss]

Some interesting perspectives.

Originally posted by barsoomcore:
The thing that makes it so hard is that D&D power acquisition is fundamentally different from real-world power acquisition.

Very good point. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you on a number of points on this issue. Personally, I think that if comes down to power vs strict qualifications - it's the powerful who are going to be dictating policy in the end. In a D&D-style setting you really need power to hold power.

I also believe that most people are at least somewhat self-serving and that those who do rise in power are more likely to use it to futher their own ends than to use it in a moral and responsible fashion. Especially when you consider that they gained that power over the dismembered corpses of hundreds, if not thousands, of their enemies. But as far as running a fun game, my humanity will be a little better natured.

One other thing to consider is this... how does a wizard with a 30 intelligence or a cleric with a 30 wisdom view and interact with the general populace? They are so far above the general masses I wonder if that fact alone might create a kind of rift or disassociation between them. Do they look at people like children? Simpletons? Pets? Vermin? The slippery slope to tyranny can begin with a simple, "I know better than you."

I do agree that the gods can create whatever playing field they want, no question. The gods of my campaign test, advise, occasionally aid, but never judge or blatantly interfere with humanity. If you choose to be a power-mad dictator, so be it. It is a mortal's decision in a mortal's world the end. That is also why there are no true clerics in our world, they don't want supplicants, they want those with enough brass to become their equals.

Originally posted by trickstergod:
Keep in mind that outside of those initial conquering heroes or villains or whatever, that the model of the wisest, most charismatic, most intelligent of rulers begins to break down. Outside of immortal rulers, eventually those individuals of might are going to die, and depending on just what sort of government's been set up, the next batch will by no means necessarily have all the virtues that the nations founders had.

A meritocracy means power held by those best fit to rule - merit. Now how you define "best fit" in a D&D world... it would again probably come down to whomever had the savvy/power to hold the position.

I agree that heriditary rulership doesn't appear to be a very viable choice in such a world. An oligarchy or some kind ruling council of powerful individuals would probably be the most effective so long as everyone played ball. When one member retires, you vote on who to replace him with. That way you'd have the rule of the nation divided up amongst those best suited to a particular task. Cleric - nation's spiritual leader. Wizard - oversees and cooridinates experts in a wide variety of tasks - city services, defenses, intelligence gathering, etc. Rogue - street level knowledge, intelligence gathering, assassinations. Fighter/Paladin - inspire the commoners, oversee the elite combat squads. Bard - diplomat.

A'koss.

 

[Endur]

I think the rulers would be the most powerful people in the population.

Now, whether that means the rulers are high level sorcerors, swordmasters, dragons, titans, the Gods, the God's personal servant, or the people with the most ranks in diplomacy and sense motive, I'm not sure.

But I do think the rulers will be high level.

 

[Speaker]

I think that what some of the people here are describing could easily turn out to be the typical dungeon dwelving campaign.

Yes, you have the paranoid freaks who are amassing power, attempting to win the world by force and raw power and rule for all eternity.

As mentioned before - doesn't this sound familiar? We all know what happens next. The local mayor/king/wizard finds out about this and hires a band of adventurers to infiltrate baddies lair, kill his army, and stop him in his tracks. It's the staple adventure. Then you have the campaigns where this failed - worlds which (broadly speaking) resemble Midnight - evil has won and good must fight back.

So I would say that one way of looking at things, the way that most of us grew up looking at fantasy worlds filled with powerful beings and powerful heros united against those who challange society.

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[barsoomcore]

You know, I was thinking about this issue on my way home from work today, and I thought that as DMs, our homebrews probably say a fair amount about our worldviews. What we think of people.

You might think that I have a bleak view of humanity -- that I think everyone's a paranoid freak. But I don't.

I just think, "What would a world be like where paranoid freaks could really go to town?" Or, to address Speaker's point, "What would a world be like where the paranoid freaks aren't actually the bad guys? What if the paranoid freaks are RIGHT?"

All of the bad guys in Barsoom honestly and truly believe they're out saving the world. And they're willing to pay whatever price it takes, including stomping half the world into rubble, if it will destroy the bad guys. The bad guys, of course, being the OTHER bad guys. Not them. They're the GOOD GUYS.

It puts the party into all sorts of horrible quandaries. "Well, if we destroy the Demon Goddess, who's going to kill the Spider Sorcerer? After we've put down the Slave Queen, how do we stop Bloodlord Dark from taking over the world?"

Heh.

I think the answer is that however you want to run your campaign you can come up with a pretty plausible justification for it. It's good to put your head up every now and then and hear about what other people are doing, but there is no right answer to this debate.

Just more or less interesting options.

 

[Ogre Mage]

High level characters

1. How do you think the common people feel about high level characters in general?

2. How would society adapt with the presence of people with such power? Though this question could easily apply to living on a world with numerous other intelligent and powerful races.

3. Then, what about the character himself?

1. I think this would vary widely by class. An 18th level paladin is probably famous throughout the land and loved by commoners everywhere. A 18th level recluse wizard who secrets herself in her tower would probably arouse a lot of suspicion among the common folk. In general, I think the common people would be fearful and suspicious of high level characters UNLESS the individual is well-known to be a "champion of the people." Then you would probably get the whole rock-star mentality that Piratecat talked about.

2. Fighters and paladins would be the most likely to establish kindgoms and/or become generals. Barbarians would be more likely to go off and do their own thing, in pursuit of bigger and bigger challenges. Clerics could settle down and oversee the churches of major cities or become rulers themselves. They would be in high demand for their curative magics and hugely respected as prime servants of the gods. Rangers could fill any number of roles and can't be defined easily. Rogues I think are likely to remain largely unknown as at high levels their skills at subterfuge and stealth are legendary. In the underworld, though, high level rogues are obviously respected -- and highly feared and hated by some. High level druids and sorcerers are the two classes mostly likely to isolate themselves from the masses. They would probably be the subject of a lot of fantastic rumors by the common people so long as they remain reclusive. A wizard might also follow the isolationist route, but he might also head a wizard school, become the king's court wizard or some other activity which keeps him in close contact with society. This type of wizard would attract a lot of attention from wannabe wizards.

3. This varies so much from individual to individual it's hard to say. Some would indulge in reckless displays of power, addicted to their own might. Other would be highly cautious in the use of their abilities, knowning their actions could have earth-shaking consequences. Some might become arrogant, viewing common people as ants. Because power came to the individual over time rather than all at once, I think most would be able to maintain a reasonably level-head. Certainly high level characters would be confident in their own abilities -- they've been battle-tested hundreds of times. But the possibilites are endless.