High Level Characters, Psychology and their impact on Society

[Ferrix]

I didn't fully realize it until after all of Barsooms posts, but the campaign world that two friends and I are building is exactly along this idea.

The world is a ravaged place mostly, the three most powerful characters/heroes of the world are far from being "good" in any classical sense.

The first Khor is a warrior/king who rules through subtlety, a deal with a not so nice goddess (i.e. divine might not right), coercion, and propoganda to the general masses. (Align: N(L)/E)

The next, Hesseroph, is a rogue/manipulator type who runs the guilds, markets all through the background. He is in a sense a manipulator to the extreme, but he is vastly capable of doing it in his own right to dominate over those who controls. He runs the thieve's guilds and the law enforcement against each other. (Align: N/E)

The last, Kahn, is a traveling naturalistic "monk", he's basically a traveling force of nature. His efforts in the world are less political and often very direct but in a sense could be considered one of the most paranoid (i played Kahn originally as a character and I didn't realize this till now) cause he was an anarchistic boy to the core and didn't rely on others. Think Taoism with a burst of natural savagery. (Align: C/N)

The antagonists of the world are basically roaming fallen divine heroes who do their best to do the will of their fallen gods will, which they think is the holiest, and in a sense, when in the presence of the only temple which resides to the god they are literally good while once they step outside the corruption warps their ideals.

This is a really good analysis of social power relations in D&D. Definately gonna copy/paste this to an offline file for my own further use.

 

[PeterMikelsons]

I guess I can see how stable nations might deal with high level folks. I'm just not clear on how those nations form in the first place.

The leader is not the one training every day in the art of swordplay, the leader is the one saying, "You, go train those men in swordplay. You, go collect my taxes and make sure they're all there. You, go spy on these rabble-rousers for me. You, go do research into this subject and come back to me with a report and advice on it," and so on.

So, in the beginning when the leader doesn't have any followers at all, why don't the trainer, spy, or researcher say "Why should I?" What's to stop the tax-collector from saying "Why don't I just keep the taxes? You keep on giving me good ideas on how to get money and I will let you live."

Very few leaders are particularly dangerous in and of themselves, and there's any number of dangerous people out there who can kill you 200 different ways, knows how to set up a bomb and by-pass security measures, and more besides, who don't rule.

Sure, in the real world, but the potential difference in personal power between individuals in D&D is much, much greater. Seems like that would change things.

In fact, they probably take their orders from someone they could kill with relative ease if they wanted to. Perhaps they would - but then, what about those other 11 guys who are more or less as equally trained to kill who work for the authority figure? Perhaps they're not particularly loyal, either, but who says they'd be loyal to the assassin? Chances are, they'd use the rulers murder as a justifiable excuse to kill the murderer and take the place the assassin wanted in the first place.

Et voila, the nation is led by the bodyguard, a high-level trained killer, instead of the Expert/Aristocrat

 

[Trickstergod]

Sauron's a good example, because he could never have been defeated had not the Istari been sent to fight him -- and had not "grace" intervened in order to destroy the Ring just at his moment of triumph.

If your campaign doesn't allow for divine intervention, Sauron wins easily. Sauron is a great paranoiac.

I mentioned Sauron as a bad example; his power, in part, is not an earned thing. He was puissant to begin with, nearly god-like the, if I have it right, lieutenant of a god-like entity or some such, yes? One way or another, Sauron seems to have his might due to divine intervention in one form or another.

But, no matter.

You mentioned I misunderstanding you; I'd been thinking it was you doing as such with I. So it would seem we're at an impass. My points have essentially been made, and about now, it seems circles is all we have left.

I will say this, though: One of the greatest factors in a society continuing on as it has from one generation to the next is inertia. People generally do not like change. It's disruptive to their lives. It brings about death. So the moment the leaders stop becoming personally powerful is the moment things...stay the same.

 

[Nifft]

IMC, stable societies formed around long-lived power sources are the rule, not the exception. So, there are islands ruled by Dragons, Necromancers (probably Undead ones at the core), etc. -- but the Gods do take a hand in things when they can, and there is one nation ruled by a family of [Good] Half-Celestials.

Also, my NPC Classes are modified a bit... Aristocrat gives all good saves (since they focus on staying alive) along with good skills and Leadership bonuses. The only other NPC Class IMC is the Expert, who gets some kind of skill-related bonus at every level.

-- N

 

[barsoomcore]

I didn't realise I was misunderstanding you. What was the nature of that misunderstanding?

I dislike giving up on debates and would welcome further clarification from you as to how I'm missing your points. I'm greatly enjoying this discussion, so I certainly don't feel we're circling.

As far as social inertia goes -- that's exactly a symptom of social power. Social power selects for stability, inertia and tradition. Which is why I'm proposing that D&D power would create a society vastly different from our own -- because it does NOT select for these things.

It seems like you're taking the qualities that CONTRIBUTE to a society's longevity and taking them as EVIDENCE that societies always behave this way. Whereas the fact is that societies may or may not be long-lived, depending on to what degree they possess those qualities. So while, yes, a society formed of people who dislike change will itself typically resist change, a society formed of people who love change will not. The point being that a society that does not possess the qualities you speak of will not last very long -- but it is just as likely as any other society to get formed in the first place.

And it is precisely the nature of D&D power that it renders those "stabilizing" qualities less important, and thus inhibits the creation of stable societies. This is the very crux of my argument. D&D power changes the rules by which societies are maintained, because it is a different sort of power than the social power we're familiar with.

Again, if I'm misunderstanding something you're trying to say, I'd appreciate a second effort from you to explain it to me. I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the string, but if you use small words (pictures help, too) I can usually muddle through.

 

[Enkhidu]

Also, my NPC Classes are modified a bit... Aristocrat gives all good saves (since they focus on staying alive) along with good skills and Leadership bonuses. The only other NPC Class IMC is the Expert, who gets some kind of skill-related bonus at every level.

-- N

[Hijack]
Say, you wouldn't mind posting those modded classes would you?
[/Hijack]

 

[Norfleet]

Alternatively, you can accept that this sort of thing actually does happen, with some level of frequency. MOST of the time, the world operates in the expected manner, with aristocrats and experts as the leaders, because that's what they're specialized to do. However, every so often, some whacko manages to seize power and take over the world. Not being a terribly great leader, he inevitably runs it into the ground, triggers some sort of horrific cataclysm, or is toppled from power by a coalition of others. The ensuing mess invariably plunges the world into the Dark Ages again, the people involved eventually die, disappear, or fade away, and the whole mess starts up all over again. What's left are relics of these ages past, which are dug up by adventurers, or some whacko, to start all over again. Thus, the world never advances too far, and remains mired in an a relatively primitive state, without the fiat of "technology doesn't work", and the more things change, the more they remain the same: Advancement creates enough instability that some whacko will take advantage of, and the mess that ensues plunges the world back into the stone age.

 

[Nifft]

[Hijack]
Say, you wouldn't mind posting those modded classes would you?
[/Hijack]

They're on my web site (follow the WWW link under this very post ), on the New Classes page.

-- N

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Actually, I think your analysis is missing some of the subtleties of the Lord of the Rings. Sauron could have been (and was) defeated without the Istari.

In the second age, Ar Phazon of Numenor landed with his ships and Sauron, knowing that he could not prevail, surrendered to him. In your terms, he was defeated by another paranoid freak. In a D&D world, he's unlikely to fall for Sauron's "for immortality, invade Numenor" trick too so the end of that story would be different. Now, Ar Phazon might have attempted to become a lich or vampire, given his desire for immortality, but it's not certain that he would have, and, even had he done so, he would still be unlikely to have oppressed Middle Earth as consistently or as successfully as Sauron. So, just because one of the freaks beats replaces another freak wouldn't mean that things wouldn't change.

The other problem with your analysis is that Sauron's triumph was not assured without the interference of the Valar by sending the Istari. Had Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Glorfindel, Denethor, Faramir, or possibly even Boromir taken the ring, Sauron could have been defeated handily. The problem was that such a victory would have been no better than defeat for the people of Middle Earth--and, accepting the moral view of the books, would also have been worse than defeat for the victor as well.

So grace was not necessary for the defeat of Sauron. It was necessary for the victory of good. There's a big difference between those two contentions.

Sauron's a good example, because he could never have been defeated had not the Istari been sent to fight him -- and had not "grace" intervened in order to destroy the Ring just at his moment of triumph.

If your campaign doesn't allow for divine intervention, Sauron wins easily. Sauron is a great paranoiac.

This is exactly what happened regularly in the real ancient world. Tax collectors were often hated for exactly this reason--they collected as much as they could and gave what their masters demanded unless they thought they could get away with keeping it.

The history of Israel, Assyria, Syria, Babylon, Egypt, etc are full of events like "King X was defeated by the Israelites and upon his return home, he was killed by his sons while making offerings to his god and Y became king and ruled in his place for one year."

Some individuals like King David and Solomon (according to the biblical narratives), Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, and others, were good enough judges of character and personally powerful enough to inspire loyalty in most of their servants. They died of old age and left more or less stable kingdoms to their children.

Also some individuals were personally powerful in their own right--although not as powerful as some of their servants. According to the biblical record, King Saul, his son Jonathan, and King David were such kings (although his "mighty men" were reported to accomplish greater exploits than he did). Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted were also examples of such personally powerful rulers. (Solomon (unless you take into account Islamic stories that have him binding Djinni, etc which would make him personally rather powerful), Xerxes, and many others were not noted for personal power).

Among those who were not personally powerful, their ability to inspire loyalty, to rule wisely, and to judge character, determined the length and success of their reign. Solomon was reportedly able to hold Israel together and to be a very successful ruler. On the other hand, his son, Rehaboam, was not a wise ruler and lost most of his kingdom to Jereboam (one of those personally powerful men who was once a servant of Solomon).

I don't see that D&D magic would change the situation too much. Personally powerful leaders who are good judges of character and inspire loyalty would create nations. Personally weak leaders who were good judges of character and loyalty could maintain and prosper nations. Personally weak leaders who were not good judges of character and didn't inspire loyalty would lose their nations to personally powerful people.

A society that fostered loyalty to institutions would also be more likely to remain stable despite personally weak rulers. If the court wizard is loyal to the crown despite the person who wears it, the kingdom is likely to last longer despite personally weak rulers.

So, in the beginning when the leader doesn't have any followers at all, why don't the trainer, spy, or researcher say "Why should I?" What's to stop the tax-collector from saying "Why don't I just keep the taxes? You keep on giving me good ideas on how to get money and I will let you live."

The other thing that has not been discussed is the possibility that personal power could coincide with royal bloodlines without specific divine intervention. The rulers of the six kingdoms in Robin Hobb's Assassin series, for instance, were the only members of that society to have the gift for a particular kind of magic. It was never clear whether they initially came to be kings because of that particular power but its persistence in the royal line certainly helped them to preserve their power.

 

[Ackem]

Aside from the intervention of the gods, it seems to me that the D&D assumptions lead to Mageocratic Fuedal States. The Wizards, Sorcerors, Clerics, and Druids of D&D are not only the strongest classes but also control the means of production of the tools of warfare and are the best at projecting power. Divinations, Summon/Ally Spells, Charm/Domination Spells,Teleport, mass AOE spells, the control over the "technology" of the world (magic items), and usually really damn high mental stats, make it hard to imagine that casters wouldn't rise to the top of their world. The slow pace of state affairs and non-mage assisted travel means the Spells/Day limitations don't really apply, even without breaking out the charged items that any self-respecting Wizard has for emergencies.

Something I think that people are missing when considering the effect of high-level characters, is that you cannot be protected in the D&D world like you can be in the real world. A high-level Wizard CAN reach you no matter what and you better be capable of defending yourself when one does. No matter how wise he is or how many high-level characters the king has working for him, his 6th level Noble/Expert self is a dead man when the wannabe tyrant 12th level Wizard teleports into his bedroom. So, contrary to the real world or common sense, it always does matter how good a fighter the king is because it's laughably easy for any number of creatures/classes to bypass any obstacle or protection he throws up and go directly after him.