D&D General In my DAD Idea was The Baron right in choosing the lowest level candidate because she's a friend and he knows she is honest, trustworthy and loyal?

[haakon1]

Is the commander expected to be some kind of combat monster? If not, loyalty and competence matter far more than level.

Yup. In real life, the commander isn’t likely to be the best shot.

 

[haakon1]

She wasn't made the commander because she's the barons friend, although the other candidates don't know that, she was made the commander because, like I said earlier, The Baron knows she that she is honest, trustworthy, reliable, loyal and dependable but he doesn't know if any of the other 6 candidates are

If the Baron reports only to himself (and doesn’t have to follow civil service or employment laws), sure, why not pick the person he knows?

I also said earlier that resumes can be forged or the person that gave it, or them, could have lied or been blackmailed or been charmed, her being a friend has nothing to do with it, but again the other candidates don't know that

Resume? This doesn’t sound like a default fantasy medieval world. Real world medieval military officers didn’t get their jobs by applying or taking a civil service exam, but by family relations and battle service.

 

[Ancalagon]

The only problem is if the other candidates know that the new commander was promoted because of the nepotism. Some of them may have an angle that leads to sabotage on the new commander or going over his head to get the position.

Baron implies feudalism, which is built on personal relationships between rulers and vassals. Of course the Baron is going to pick someone they are close to!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hiring people you don’t know feels like throwing darts. I’ll almost always value a recommendation from somebody I know and trust over any credential.

 

[GMMichael]

Look at it this way would you rather have a garrison commander someone of fairly high level whose resume says is honest, trustworthy, reliable, loyal and dependable but the resume may be fake or lying or be full of lies or a garrison commander of low level that you know is honest, trustworthy, reliable, loyal and dependable

Did they put their levels on their resumes?

 

[Ancalagon]

Did they put their levels on their resumes?

I was going to applaud your point...

Except that levels can now be detected "in game" because of the battlemaster... @_@

 

[Blue Orange]

20th-CENTURY MERITOCRAT: No, the best person for the job should be picked. Of course, commanders should be chosen on leadership ability, not fighting ability, so if this person was chosen based on that, it's OK, but it doesn't sound like it.

RENAISSANCE PLOTTER: She's loyal to you, that's all that matters. If she's more competent but working against you that's worse than simply being incompetent. Just make sure the people under her respect her, and you. She doesn't have to be loved or anything.

FEUDAL WARLORD: Look, I want someone who has my back in a fight. I know this person, she's loyal, that's it.

BUREAUCRAT OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM: She didn't score well on the exams, eh? Well, this is somewhat irregular, but I could inquire of my superior...

Basically, (a) character level doesn't have to correspond perfectly with rank--that's a convention of video games that have to have a set of enemies with ascending difficulty and (b) in the premodern era, rank depended, as haakon1 and Ancalagon said, on family connections, military service, and personal relationships. You want someone you can trust rather than necessarily the best person for the job--a competent but disloyal underling is more dangerous than an incompetent and disloyal one. After all, the result of playing politics badly in this time period may not merely be job loss or demotion, but death!

The idea of some quantified measure of 'merit' such as a character level is a creation of the modern era's testing regime...which were inspired by the British and ultimately imperial Chinese civil service exams, and assumes a bureaucracy whose survival is more important than any individual. So unless your fantasy world is based on imperial China, your Baron is justified.

 

[Charlaquin]

You keep writing threads asking for people's judgment as to whether characters are right or not. Why? Like, what happens if someone says "no"?

I believe what he’s actually asking is “I had this idea for a story, please discuss it with me.” The particulars of the question aren’t really important.

 

[haakon1]

RENAISSANCE PLOTTER: She's loyal to you, that's all that matters. If she's more competent but working against you that's worse than simply being incompetent. Just make sure the people under her respect her, and you. She doesn't have to be loved or anything.

This is what dictators do too, into the 21st century. It’s part of the reason why the Soviet Union under Stalin lost to tiny Finland - political generals after purges of most of the Czarist-era officer class. I leave more modern examples to the reader.

 

[haakon1]

I believe what he’s actually asking is “I had this idea for a story, please discuss it with me.”

This one is a pretty fun topic, imho.