Powerful people vs high-level characters

[ForceUser]

Nice to see so many that don't bother too much about the NPC stats or levels. I still notice some mental images that a king with low levels must be a "bad" king,
king-wise

Your attitude strikes me as elitest, which is strange, because we're all huge geeks in the first place.

I stat the NPCs that the PCs might come into contact with. It's as simple as that. I see the level system as a tool to help flesh out characters, and by default, low-level characters suck compared to high-level ones; thus, it's entirely reasonable for a designer to take a position that a low-level aristocrat might be a bad or inexperienced king when he's trying to rule a region full of higher-level aristocrats who'd just as soon slice his throat as bend the knee. In such a case, the role of the NPC informs the mechanics of the game, not vice versa (in other words, if you have to stat a weak king, make him low level with a 10 Charisma).

 

[barsoomcore]

I still notice some mental images that a king with low levels must be a "bad" king, king-wise.

Well, he must be a worse king than a king who's higher in level, all other things being equal. He will lose at Bluff/Sense Motive oppositions, he won't be as good at Diplomacy and he has a lower Will save. Oh and he's probably dumber, or at least lower in Knowledge skills. Ergo, people don't trust him as much, he's a poorer judge of character, less loved, easier to sway against his own interests and has to rely more on what other people tell him.

So yes, a king of low levels IS a "bad" king, relative to kings of higher levels. This is fact.

When you're playing D&D, you're accepting that 20th-level fighters exist. 20th-level wizards. 20th-level clerics. There are certain corollaries to this acceptance, one of which the rulers of this world will be high level individuals.

If YOU were a 20th-level wizard, and some 2nd-level king tried to enforce his will upon you, how well do you think that would work? I mean, you don't have to punch him in the nose, you can just leave. And EVERYONE knows that. They know that their king can't control you. King loses authority. Loses respect. Loses power. People start thinking, "What if that wizard hadn't been so nice? What if he'd been a bad guy? How's our king going to protect us from someone like that? Maybe we ought to find somebody who CAN..."

Now, you're probably a nice guy and all, which is great, but what about those not-so-nice guys? They don't need to be cackling necromancers of EVIL, just folks less willing to get pushed around. They're just going to take over, of course. It happens with astonishing regularity in OUR history, and we don't HAVE 20th-level fighters in this world.

Eventually, all the 2nd-level kings are going to get replaced by tough guys. This is the nature of the world.

In D&D-land, all the rulers will be high level.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If YOU were a 20th-level wizard, and some 2nd-level king tried to enforce his will upon you, how well do you think that would work? I mean, you don't have to punch him in the nose, you can just leave. And EVERYONE knows that. They know that their king can't control you. King loses authority. Loses respect. Loses power. People start thinking, "What if that wizard hadn't been so nice? What if he'd been a bad guy? How's our king going to protect us from someone like that? Maybe we ought to find somebody who CAN..."

Eventually, all the 2nd-level kings are going to get replaced by tough guys. This is the nature of the world.

In D&D-land, all the rulers will be high level.

This is the point I keep trying to make. It's D&D. It has no bearing on history. It has no bearing in reality. It has nothing to do with anything outside of itself.

It's D&D.

Can you do other things with it? Sure. Eberron is a good example, but it's still a young setting and we haven't seen what's going to happen. Look at the Forgotten Realms. While many powerful characters were built into it initially, there have just been more and more and more.

Exalted has a great quote about this type of thing in their book Salt and Blood. It talks about how the nobles job is to rule and that's the way it is and always has been. But those damn foreigners don't respect that so that's why the nobles have to have a lot of bodyguards. Exalted gets it.

 

[Starglim]

Leaders of a setting don't need game stats, as a general rule, as much as they need pedigree and history. If one of them was to appear in an adventure, I'd consider that in a genuinely feudal society, leaders would have some real combat ability (either BAB +6 or caster level 6 and up, for mature well-established rulers) but as a rule, fill out their levels with Aristocrat. This is only a base assumption, as nobles should vary widely both in personal prowess and leadership abilities.

 

[drothgery]

In D&D-land, all the rulers will be high level.

I'd say it's more accurate that few will be low level, and very, very few will stay low-level for long. Being a successful ruler is going to be a difficult challenge for a low-level character (even with loyal high-level advisors), so you're not going to be low-level for long in the job.

It's probably also worth noting here that we're talking about the actual ruler, who may not be the titular head of state (either because there's a power behind the throne, or because the head of state has little political power). If the titular head of state isn't actually ruling, then they can be low level for a long time.

 

[Trickstergod]

In D&D-land, all the rulers will be high level.

Not quite; in D&D-land, all the rulers will have exceedingly high Diplomacy modifiers. And if all you focus on are things like that, you don't even have to be in the double digits, level-wise, to be spectacular at it.

The person who has the most powerful allies will rule. Any high-level wizard who relies on bullying people around with his might won't have many powerful allies; it's almost guaranteed they'll all be lower level.

The person who can do it with social grace and finesse, however, has no such limitations. The guy who can convince others to the rightness of his cause, the strength of his character, and his ability to lead effectively (which only relies on personal physical might only in the most primitive of societies, usually) will be the one who winds up ruling. If you have a high-level cleric, wizard and fighter (or whatever), all of whom want to rule and all of whom focus on their ability to kill, then one mid-level aristocrat who wants to rule, and has focused on just that, then it will be the aristocrat who ends up ruling, as he'll be the most capable of making an ally of two of the three high-level characters or simply turning them on one another.

Sure, he might not be able to get anything past the wizard, who can just read his thoughts, but the wizard won't have the ability to convince the other two as to what the aristocrat's up to as the aristocrat will.

Yeah, the cleric might be able to tell that the aristocrat is lying about something, but the aristocrat will also have the best ability at saying one thing while meaning another that still comes out as an essentially honest statement.

As for the fighter, well, he has nothing. He can just kill the aristocrat, but then, level isn't readily decipherable anyway, so the aristocrat can likely make himself seem more of a threat than any of the others.

And when it comes to the high-level characters that don't want to lead? Again, the mid-level, socially focused aristocrat wins out again.

Of course, the level 20 aristocrat focused fulling on leading will be better at all of this than the level 10 one, but in general, I think anyone who takes up a position of leadership won't exactly be all that high level, anyway. There's less a need to be and fewer circumstances where major improvement would come about. High level characters should be rare, anyway.

And, again, if any two classes really throw a chink into all of this, it's the Bard and the Rogue. But even then, they're unlikely to be built as a PC would be.

So, to reiterate:

The person who rules isn't the one who's most personally powerful, but the one who can make the most powerful allies. There's a minor level requirement on this, but it's usually not going to be higher than 6 or so.

 

[Orcus]

There are many more controls on actions other than mano-a-mano battles. Maybe the Wiz12 doesnt kill the Ari2 king (or even disrespect him) for all sorts of reason: custom, tradition, social standing, the fact the wiz might take out the king but the king's army wont be too happy about it.

The main problem is that most people dont know what another person's "level" is, even in a fantasy setting.

Look at regular life. You see low level people in power all the time. I venture to guess at your work place there are managers who are "lower level" than many of the people they work for.

Plus, dont forget that just because someone is higher level they wont necessarily take someone else's higher position if that person is lower level. Adventurers are used to using force and violence to achieve objectives. But non-adventurers arent. Sure, the 12th level priest may be able to (in game terms) easily take out the 4th level priest who runs the temple. But is he willing to risk it. Does he really know the priest is only 4th level. Maybe he is playing like he is weak to tempt his rivals to attack him and thus kill them. Or maybe the higher level priest knows he can take the guy out but also knows there is a chance he himself could be grievously injured in some way. Maybe it just flat out isnt worth the risk. You cant just say "oh yeah he could take him out so the higher level guy should always be the leader." That just isnt real life.

And to the extent you want versimilitude in your setting, it doesnt make sense that all rulers are high level. Now, many of course will be. That just makes sense. Particuarly in a fantasy setting when a high level wizard has access to magic and summoned creatures and things like that, not to mention powerful magic items. But often people who are Charismatic, Diplomatic, rich, influential, powerful, connected, have a family heritage or pedigree, are Intelligent, well equiped, or loaded with retainers or loyal followers will wind up being the leaders.

Look, for example, at real life gangs. The head gangster is not always the guy who is the highest "level" from a pure level and skill standpoint. But he has the loyalty of many people. That makes him powerful. Being in law enforcement I can tell you it is often personal charisma, bravado and daring. Usually the leader has some guys who are just cold killers. Any of those guys could take out the leader in a second. But they dont. Because he has convinced them that it is better for them to work for him. That takes brains and common sense and street smarts. Sure, some rule by sheer force. But often it is other intagible things that make for a good leader.

I am strongly in support of the design concept that all leaders do not have to be high level and in fact that many (maybe even most) are not high level.

Clark

 

[S'mon]

If YOU were a 20th-level wizard, and some 2nd-level king tried to enforce his will upon you, how well do you think that would work? I mean, you don't have to punch him in the nose, you can just leave. And EVERYONE knows that. They know that their king can't control you. King loses authority. Loses respect. Loses power. People start thinking, "What if that wizard hadn't been so nice? What if he'd been a bad guy? How's our king going to protect us from someone like that? Maybe we ought to find somebody who CAN..."

Now, you're probably a nice guy and all, which is great, but what about those not-so-nice guys? They don't need to be cackling necromancers of EVIL, just folks less willing to get pushed around. They're just going to take over, of course. It happens with astonishing regularity in OUR history, and we don't HAVE 20th-level fighters in this world.

Eventually, all the 2nd-level kings are going to get replaced by tough guys. This is the nature of the world.

In D&D-land, all the rulers will be high level.

Hm - IMC no one tries to boss around 20th level Wizards - such people usually exist well outside of normal society. The exception would be if that Wiz was a Baron or other liegeman of the king, in that case the king would expect him to perform his feudal obligations - and of course the baron receives the king's support in return, even Wiz-20 barons may benefit from an army of 50,000 backing them up in border disputes with the local barbarian horde. Low-level non-spellcaster rulers IMC frequently wear rings of personal anti-magic BTW, a very obvious protection that's of no use to PC types (negates all items & magic powers) but prevents easy magical assassination.

 

[S'mon]

This is the point I keep trying to make. It's D&D. It has no bearing on history. It has no bearing in reality. It has nothing to do with anything outside of itself.

It's D&D.

It sounds like you must play a very sterile game.

 

[hong]

And to the extent you want versimilitude in your setting, it doesnt make sense that all rulers are high level.

Well, that obviously depends on exactly what you mean by verims verrsim vesirimi believability. I can think of at least two scenarios where it most certainly makes sense that all rulers should be high level.

- If your reference point is the internal world of D&D where there are people running around with teleport, raise dead, meteor swarm, planar ally et al, not to mention possible skill bonuses that can work on godlings, then it's entirely reasonable that the people in positions of power would be those who have demonstrated their ability to handle such threats.

- If your reference point is the world of fantasy fiction, mythology, and legend, then rulers are powerful because they represent either 1) the greatest challenges that the heroes must overcome; or 2) the greatest powers that are allied with the heroes. Cf Palpatine, the King of Qin, Arthur, et al.

Only if your reference point is the real world might you want to say that rulers should not always be high level. Mind you, I see no reason why, in a game where there are people running around with teleport et al, and questing to slay dragons and demons, the real world should be such a relevant point of reference in the first place.