Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CruelSummerLord" data-source="post: 4797041" data-attributes="member: 48692">Regarding adventurers not necessarily being qualified to make administrative and policy decisions, I'd disagree with that notion based on the examples of Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. They lived over three thousand years apart, but they were not only active in directing their armies as generals (and in Alexander's case, he fought right in the middle of battle alongside his soldiers), but also took the lead in actually running their dominions, making political decisions, and other stuff like that.  For an example actually derived from D&D itself, you can look at Bruenor Battlehammer in some of R.A. Salvatore's more recent novels. Bruenor is most happy when he's patrolling the lands around Mithril Hall and fighting in the thick of things alongside his troops, but his bodyguards constantly fret about his safety while the regular affairs of state still need to be looked after. Drizzt eventually suggests to Bruenor that he appoint a steward who can actually stomach the business of making policy decisions, while he continued doing what he was actually good at-namely, taking the lead in protecting the lands around Mithril Hall.  If a PC becomes a baron, count or something similar, he or she can just as easily contribute to the welfare of the people by fighting bandits and monsters, or dealing with any would-be conquerors or villains. In real life, whenever there's a crisis, people often tend to turn to their political leaders for guidance and want to know what they're doing to deal with the situation. Richard I, as previously mentioned, was beloved by his subjects because they saw him as defending their religious interests, even if he did little to actually run the country.  Same thing in a D&D setting-a restless adventurer who's become an aristocrat could probably do more for the welfare of his subjects by sticking to what he's good at, namely dealing with that pack of trolls that's ravaging the farmlands on the eastern border, rather than arguing over tariffs and how much money to devote to the road-repair budget. If he has a capable steward or castellan who can actually handle these things, let them worry about it. Even when they still made many decisions themselves, European kings from the Renaissance onwards were aided by many counsellors and prime ministers-Louis XIV of France actually broke with precedent when he decided to handle a lot of the affairs of state himself, rather than have the cardinals or another appointed prime minister look after it, the way his father had. The king/baron/earl/whatever still has the final say, but choosing the right person for the job is very important.</blockquote>

Verification