Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4796885" data-attributes="member: 30001">Ruler is not the same as an administrator or minister.&nbsp; I see them more as figureheads.&nbsp; An adventurer/hero is more likely to be ruler than some sort of minister with the appropriate technical skills to decide what the crop rotation or tax policy should be.&nbsp; He can be responsible for high level things like deciding which tithes to pass out to which gods.&nbsp; He can show up to the overlord's castle (assuming he isn't one himself) and show off his martial skills.&nbsp; &nbsp;A nobleman's job is primarily combat (in the heroic period of my preference at least - a time period consistant with many of the other features of DnD), and a powerful reputation can be a deterrent and the bulk of his &quot;responsibility&quot;.&nbsp; It's not like he even has to park himself in his lands most of the time (see below), just make people believe he'll be back and kick some butt if there are problems.&nbsp;Here's an appropriate quote from the wiki entry for Richard Lionheart:&quot;While he spoke very little English and spent very little time in his kingdom, preferring to use it as a source of revenue to support his armies, he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects.&quot;&nbsp;Replace &quot;support his armies&quot; with &quot;buy magic items&quot; and this sounds like a PC to me (why would he spend skill points to learn a friggin language!?&nbsp; If King Richard knew English I'm sure he would have used the term &quot;sub-optimal build&quot; while berating his knights.)&nbsp; Warfare and such atrocities had to substitute for the things adventurers do to get experience and gold because historical figures didn't have the benefit of unambiguously evil foes like orcs and dragons who sit on piles of loot.&nbsp; In fact, IMO they told each other stories about knights slaying dragons and getting loot because that's what they *wish* they were doing with their time, and wouldn't have let some pencil pusher try to guilt them into doing otherwise.&nbsp;One of the funniest things I read pertaining this subject was a book (called &quot;the Courtier&quot; I think written in 16 c. Italy.&nbsp; At one point the author is ridiculing a knight for being a boor who wears his armor to parties and only talks about fighting.&nbsp; What this illustrates to my imagination is that many knights of even this rather late period acted just like PCs.&nbsp; Such an outlook IMO would have been much more common in an earlier time.&nbsp; To paraphrase a book on 1000 AD:&nbsp; &quot;the nobleman of the time fought, and fought often&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp;DMs who want to reign in the jerky behavior of their PCs by making them responsible for things IMO have to contend with the fact that real life rulers were often bigger jerks than the PCs.&nbsp; And actual legends depict rulers with fewer administrative responsibilities than even that.&nbsp;And as far as the kingdom collapsing because of their lack of fiscal savvy - don't forget that it's in a whole host of people's interests that the kingdom not fail.&nbsp; Skilled ministers, clerics, greater nobles, etc. all are at the top of the pecking order when they are in favor of the king.&nbsp; A calamity that brings chaos is in no one's interest.&nbsp; Of course there is the chance of infighting among subordinates, but IMO there's just as good of a chance that these things will shake out into a natural pecking order, reinforced by the king on those rare occasions when he does return home to spend some of his loot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4796885, member: 30001"] Ruler is not the same as an administrator or minister. I see them more as figureheads. An adventurer/hero is more likely to be ruler than some sort of minister with the appropriate technical skills to decide what the crop rotation or tax policy should be. He can be responsible for high level things like deciding which tithes to pass out to which gods. He can show up to the overlord's castle (assuming he isn't one himself) and show off his martial skills. A nobleman's job is primarily combat (in the heroic period of my preference at least - a time period consistant with many of the other features of DnD), and a powerful reputation can be a deterrent and the bulk of his "responsibility". It's not like he even has to park himself in his lands most of the time (see below), just make people believe he'll be back and kick some butt if there are problems. Here's an appropriate quote from the wiki entry for Richard Lionheart: "While he spoke very little English and spent very little time in his kingdom, preferring to use it as a source of revenue to support his armies, he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects." Replace "support his armies" with "buy magic items" and this sounds like a PC to me (why would he spend skill points to learn a friggin language!? If King Richard knew English I'm sure he would have used the term "sub-optimal build" while berating his knights.) Warfare and such atrocities had to substitute for the things adventurers do to get experience and gold because historical figures didn't have the benefit of unambiguously evil foes like orcs and dragons who sit on piles of loot. In fact, IMO they told each other stories about knights slaying dragons and getting loot because that's what they *wish* they were doing with their time, and wouldn't have let some pencil pusher try to guilt them into doing otherwise. One of the funniest things I read pertaining this subject was a book (called "the Courtier" I think written in 16 c. Italy. At one point the author is ridiculing a knight for being a boor who wears his armor to parties and only talks about fighting. What this illustrates to my imagination is that many knights of even this rather late period acted just like PCs. Such an outlook IMO would have been much more common in an earlier time. To paraphrase a book on 1000 AD: "the nobleman of the time fought, and fought often". DMs who want to reign in the jerky behavior of their PCs by making them responsible for things IMO have to contend with the fact that real life rulers were often bigger jerks than the PCs. And actual legends depict rulers with fewer administrative responsibilities than even that. And as far as the kingdom collapsing because of their lack of fiscal savvy - don't forget that it's in a whole host of people's interests that the kingdom not fail. Skilled ministers, clerics, greater nobles, etc. all are at the top of the pecking order when they are in favor of the king. A calamity that brings chaos is in no one's interest. Of course there is the chance of infighting among subordinates, but IMO there's just as good of a chance that these things will shake out into a natural pecking order, reinforced by the king on those rare occasions when he does return home to spend some of his loot. [/QUOTE]

Verification