Machiavelli as a D&D 5e character

[Blas_de_Lezo]

If you were to play with Machiavelli as a D&D 5e PC, how would you him? (character stats, class, background)

EDIT: Ok, after reading your suggestions, here's the build. I'm still open to changes.

Maki Ávelus

1st level Human (variant) Wizard

Hit Points 6 (1d6)
Speed 30 ft.
Alignment: LN

Ability Scores
Standard Point Buy (27 points) (Human varian +1 Int/+1 Wis)

Str 10(+0) Dex 10 (+0) Con 10 (+0)
Int 16(+3) Wis 15 (+2) Cha 13 (+1)


Background - Sage
Feature: Researcher

Saving Throws: Wisdom, Intelligence

FEATS
Skilled

SKILLS
Arcana, Deception, History, Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, Religion.
Tools: Playing Cards (Machiavelli loved to play cards as a mundane distraction)


ACTIONS
Melee Attacks— None

EQUIPMENT
Black and red vestment, scholar's pack.

SPELLBOOK:
Cantrips: Friends, Message, Shocking Grasp.
1st level spells: Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Illusory Script, Mage Armor, Burning Hands, Expeditious Retreat.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Traits: I have the cunning of a fox and the strenght of a lion.
Ideals: (Republic) I must defeat the enemies of my Republic and build a prosper and organized country.
Bond: (Leader) It's my duty to advice a leader to be cautious, resolute and astute.
Flaw: Most people only see the apparent and obvious. Although I don't like it, I have taken advantage of people's naïvety to achieve my goal. It's a necesseary mean and someone has to do it.

Appearence (left side):

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/075/0/a/machiavelli_and_la_volpe_by_dk_ren-d3brnqa.png

[Dienekes]

Vaguely important question. You going for Machiavelli the fictional tyrant, or Machiavelli the Republican bureaucrat obsessed with military reforms and political realism?

Either way, Bard if you're willing to give him magic with very high Charisma and Intelligence, if not then I guess Rogue since he wasn't a warrior. The guy wrote several plays, and was a fairly successful diplomat. As well as being an accomplished historian and philosopher.

For the bureaucrat: Noble background
For the tyrant: Noble or Charlatan

You'll want Persuade and Sense Motive no matter what. Probably if you can swing it Gather Rumors, Knowledge (Warfare), Knowledge (History), Bluff, and Intimidate.

[FadeAssassin]

You'll want Persuade and Sense Motive no matter what. Probably if you can swing it Gather Rumors, Knowledge (Warfare), Knowledge (History), Bluff, and Intimidate.


Uh... Gather Rumors,and the Knowledge checks aren't in the game (sort of, there is History, Arcana, Nature, and Religion) Everything else is good though.

[Dienekes]

Uh... Gather Rumors,and the Knowledge checks aren't in the game (sort of, there is History, Arcana, Nature, and Religion) Everything else is good though.

Bahh, that's what I get for looking at an old wiki for my information.

If that's true, then just History. That should cut down the needed skills a bit.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Vaguely important question. You going for Machiavelli the fictional tyrant, or Machiavelli the Republican bureaucrat obsessed with military reforms and political realism?

Either way, Bard if you're willing to give him magic with very high Charisma and Intelligence, if not then I guess Rogue since he wasn't a warrior. The guy wrote several plays, and was a fairly successful diplomat. As well as being an accomplished historian and philosopher.

For the bureaucrat: Noble background
For the tyrant: Noble or Charlatan

You'll want Persuade and Sense Motive no matter what. Probably if you can swing it Gather Rumors, Knowledge (Warfare), Knowledge (History), Bluff, and Intimidate.

The 16th century political scientist that put so much importance on cunning governments. I was thinking in non combat rogue

[Human Paragon 3]

The 16th century political scientist that put so much importance on cunning governments. I was thinking in non combat rogue

He would be an NPC.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

He would be an NPC.

Well but my question is if he was a PC... ;)

[Dienekes]

The 16th century political scientist that put so much importance on cunning governments. I was thinking in non combat rogue

Here, as I see it, is the problem. Machiavelli was very much a general, leader, writer, politician, and non-combatant. Which generally make people think because he isn't a warrior he'd be a rogue. However, to actually be useful at Machiavelli style things: getting the army more effective, manipulating your enemies, and everything. Magic is the way to go. The Rogue wastes a bit of abilities on sneak attack, some movement capabilities that aren't really Machiavelli-like at all.

Now, it'd be great if they actually made a Noble or Politician class that worked without magic. But they don't really have it. There's just the Bard.

[Mikeavelli]

Machiavelli could be of any class, and any race, because his machinations don't depend on any amount of personal combat ability. What he understands is the minds of the masses, and methods for controlling the different mobs of society. He understands that the common people don't care who is in charge, so long as there's food in their bellies and no great crisis in the streets. He understands that the nobility will endure any humiliation, any damage, so long as their property is not seized unjustly. He understands that if you are going to strike at one of your enemies, you must do so with overwhelming force, and you must destroy them so utterly that no-one remains who would be willing to avenge their defeat.

He considers gaining power through military heroics, political trickery, and birthright all equally valid. It's not what your skills are, it's how you use those skills that defines Machiavellian thinking. Machiavelli isn't a class, he's a methodology.

That said, just be a bard. The only reason he didn't use magic historically is because it doesn't exist in the real world.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't think he'd be a PC. He didn't trust mercenaries (mainly because of their characteristic PC-like behavior and unreliability) and urged his clients not to use them, didn't seem to fight or practice skills which would be useful to murderhobos, and was more of a political operative than an adventuring hero.


I could see him having the following skills, particularly as an NPC:
History
Religion
Political Science (new skill which he invented?)
Insight
Persuasion

[Human Paragon 3]

Why not use a Wizard, then? They have the best range of spells, the best reason to have high int, and a fine selection of skills thanks to backgrounds. Be a half elf or take the skilled feat to make sure you have whatever skills you need, then go into divination.

Wizard advisors are pretty common in fantasy world, and Machiavelli was an advisor and political philosopher, not a leader himself.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Machiavelli could be of any class, and any race, because his machinations don't depend on any amount of personal combat ability. What he understands is the minds of the masses, and methods for controlling the different mobs of society. He understands that the common people don't care who is in charge, so long as there's food in their bellies and no great crisis in the streets. He understands that the nobility will endure any humiliation, any damage, so long as their property is not seized unjustly. He understands that if you are going to strike at one of your enemies, you must do so with overwhelming force, and you must destroy them so utterly that no-one remains who would be willing to avenge their defeat.

He considers gaining power through military heroics, political trickery, and birthright all equally valid. It's not what your skills are, it's how you use those skills that defines Machiavellian thinking. Machiavelli isn't a class, he's a methodology.

That said, just be a bard. The only reason he didn't use magic historically is because it doesn't exist in the real world.

You seem versated in Machiavelli, Mr. Mikeavelli ;)


Now comes the tough question. Alignment? :D


I don't think he'd be a PC. He didn't trust mercenaries (mainly because of their characteristic PC-like behavior and unreliability) and urged his clients not to use them, didn't seem to fight or practice skills which would be useful to murderhobos, and was more of a political operative than an adventuring hero.


I could see him having the following skills, particularly as an NPC:
History
Religion
Political Science (new skill which he invented?)
Insight
Persuasion

Nice, I would remove Political Sciencie onlye because it doesn't exit and add Arcana (because it's a useful knowledge) and Deception.


Why not use a Wizard, then? They have the best range of spells, the best reason to have high int, and a fine selection of skills thanks to backgrounds. Be a half elf or take the skilled feat to make sure you have whatever skills you need, then go into divination.

Wizard advisors are pretty common in fantasy world, and Machiavelli was an advisor and political philosopher, not a leader himself.

I conccur, but maybe wizard fits better than bard, only because of the worm book he was, and because it's the most power-related class.

[Slipperychicken]

Nice, I would remove Political Sciencie onlye because it doesn't exit and add Arcana (because it's a useful knowledge) and Deception.

Well, he is considered the father of modern political science. Also, aside from History, there isn't anything in D&D 5e to cover his line of work.

Also, I'm concerned with how to represent his skill at running a militia. It's hard to believe that would just be straight Int checks.

[Human Paragon 3]

Well, he is considered the father of modern political science. Also, aside from History, there isn't anything in D&D 5e to cover his line of work.

Also, I'm concerned with how to represent his skill at running a militia. It's hard to believe that would just be straight Int checks.

How about a home-brewed Political Scientist feat:

You gain a +1 to Int or Wis
You can add double your proficiency bonus to any int or wis check pertaining to politics, nations states, or leadership
You have advantage on ability checks made to determine the motives of others.

[mabriss lethe]

I honestly think the best way to represent him would be to take the Noble background (entourage variant) Machiavelli isn't one of the pc's He's a member of your PC's entourage. You're the client. He's the advisor.

[MaxWilson]

Now comes the tough question. Alignment? :D

Ehm. He was a man of somewhat weak and decadent character IIRC--loved his children, a good dad, but dreamed of being wealthy and important more than of changing the world for the better per se. So on the good/evil axis I'm going to say Neutral. Law vs. Chaos, I'd say that since his whole life's work was oriented around a belief in science and looking for organized patterns in human activity, he was likely Lawful in his personal life as well. Ergo, Machiavelli: Lawful Neutral human.

[Dienekes]

Ehm. He was a man of somewhat weak and decadent character IIRC--loved his children, a good dad, but dreamed of being wealthy and important more than of changing the world for the better per se. So on the good/evil axis I'm going to say Neutral. Law vs. Chaos, I'd say that since his whole life's work was oriented around a belief in science and looking for organized patterns in human activity, he was likely Lawful in his personal life as well. Ergo, Machiavelli: Lawful Neutral human.

I'm not sure I agree. He withstood being tortured, by accounts fairly well. Though he definitely had a weakness for the ladies.

I also got the feeling from his letters that wealth wasn't really of any concern to him and he just loved being involved in politics. It was his life, he rose to prominence quickly and when he was cast out he wrote repeatedly in attempts to get back involved in any way he could.

As to his alignment. This bit is tricky. Assuming The Prince was not satirical, he does recommend some acts that rank evil. Actually, even his Discourses of Livy recommend fairly unsavory acts. But they're never for the point of being evil, just a realists view on how to make a successful monarchy or republic, respectively.

He also advocates breaking ones own laws if beneficial. Just not to do it for no reason.

You could make a good case for putting him anywhere from LN to NE really.

[Mikeavelli]

I'm not sure I agree. He withstood being tortured, by accounts fairly well. Though he definitely had a weakness for the ladies.

I also got the feeling from his letters that wealth wasn't really of any concern to him and he just loved being involved in politics. It was his life, he rose to prominence quickly and when he was cast out he wrote repeatedly in attempts to get back involved in any way he could.

As to his alignment. This bit is tricky. Assuming The Prince was not satirical, he does recommend some acts that rank evil. Actually, even his Discourses of Livy recommend fairly unsavory acts. But they're never for the point of being evil, just a realists view on how to make a successful monarchy or republic, respectively.

He also advocates breaking ones own laws if beneficial. Just not to do it for no reason.

You could make a good case for putting him anywhere from LN to NE really.

Machiavelli recommends necessary evils, the sort of things that common men find distasteful, but must do because failing to do so results in worse outcomes.

A very good example of this is the scapegoat. If you have a holding that is filled with corruption and thuggery, send a terrible, brutish man to go govern the holding in a terrible, brutish way. Have him clean up all of the horrid elements with the efficiency that only a brute can manage.

When he has succeeded at this, but the populace is on the verge of rebelling against his brutishness, come for a personal visit. Feign ignorance of his misdeeds, and lay all the blame for them at his feet. Hold a swift, public execution holding him accountable for every evil that has gone on in that holding for the past few months, and replace him with a moderate, reasonable governor.

In this way; the city is clean, corruption has been rooted out, the common working people are free to go about their lives, and you have rid yourself of a potential troublemaker in your own power circle. Is this an evil thing to do? Yes. Was it necessary to do this in order to create a better outcome? Also yes.

Most Lawful evil men will delude themselves that they are doing evil for the sake of good - but I would argue Machivelli's methods will have you doing evil for the sake of good, and still work out to neutral because it worked. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheExtremistWasRight?from=Main.AndItWorked)

[Dienekes]

Machiavelli recommends necessary evils, the sort of things that common men find distasteful, but must do because failing to do so results in worse outcomes.

A very good example of this is the scapegoat. If you have a holding that is filled with corruption and thuggery, send a terrible, brutish man to go govern the holding in a terrible, brutish way. Have him clean up all of the horrid elements with the efficiency that only a brute can manage.

When he has succeeded at this, but the populace is on the verge of rebelling against his brutishness, come for a personal visit. Feign ignorance of his misdeeds, and lay all the blame for them at his feet. Hold a swift, public execution holding him accountable for every evil that has gone on in that holding for the past few months, and replace him with a moderate, reasonable governor.

In this way; the city is clean, corruption has been rooted out, the common working people are free to go about their lives, and you have rid yourself of a potential troublemaker in your own power circle. Is this an evil thing to do? Yes. Was it necessary to do this in order to create a better outcome? Also yes.

Most Lawful evil men will delude themselves that they are doing evil for the sake of good - but I would argue Machivelli's methods will have you doing evil for the sake of good, and still work out to neutral because it worked. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheExtremistWasRight?from=Main.AndItWorked)

Well, that is certainly how Machiavelli would think of himself. Except the It Worked part. Machiavelli himself held power for a very brief period of time, where he was not able to enact the methods he asked for, and once the Medici came to power they pretty much ignored him. Simply put, there was no evidence that he was right in his lifetime for the audience he was speaking to. Though many have since attempted to prove or disprove it.

Certainly people at the time, and people now don't universally agree that his methods would actually create the type of state he wishes.

What Machiavelli's philosophy does do, is set a group of assumptions and fairly rigorously caries through with what those assumptions would mean. There are several assumptions, but I would argue that the most important assumption that Machiavelli makes is the purpose of the government. For Machiavelli, the purpose is to increase the hegemonic power of the central authority, whatever that authority may be, against all potential challengers to that authority even if they are the common citizens of the state being governed. Now I know several people who disagree with this view of what a government's purpose is, or whether actions taken to make this view come to fruition can be considered good at all.

Ultimately, it's a fun political philosophy debate that I do not think this board would really allow. Which is why I simply say there's wiggle room. He can be put on the evil spectrum, he can be put in neutral. Ultimately, that's for the GM to decide.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Machiavelli recommends necessary evils, the sort of things that common men find distasteful, but must do because failing to do so results in worse outcomes.

A very good example of this is the scapegoat. If you have a holding that is filled with corruption and thuggery, send a terrible, brutish man to go govern the holding in a terrible, brutish way. Have him clean up all of the horrid elements with the efficiency that only a brute can manage.

When he has succeeded at this, but the populace is on the verge of rebelling against his brutishness, come for a personal visit. Feign ignorance of his misdeeds, and lay all the blame for them at his feet. Hold a swift, public execution holding him accountable for every evil that has gone on in that holding for the past few months, and replace him with a moderate, reasonable governor.

In this way; the city is clean, corruption has been rooted out, the common working people are free to go about their lives, and you have rid yourself of a potential troublemaker in your own power circle. Is this an evil thing to do? Yes. Was it necessary to do this in order to create a better outcome? Also yes.

Most Lawful evil men will delude themselves that they are doing evil for the sake of good - but I would argue Machivelli's methods will have you doing evil for the sake of good, and still work out to neutral because it worked. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheExtremistWasRight?from=Main.AndItWorked)

This. You understand Machiavelli. I was thinking of LG (a tough LG indeed) or LN, as he uses cunning and deception for the greater good (the stability and prosperity of the Republic and the self-defense against France and Spain's invaders). So taking reprobable actions for a greater good, in 5e is supposed to be LN (as in the Palading of Vengeance oath).

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Finally, after carefully reading your suggestions, this is how Machiavelli could be played as a build in D&D. Still open to debate:

Maki Ávelus

1st level Human (variant) Wizard

Hit Points 6 (1d6)
Speed 30 ft.
Alignment: LN

Ability Scores
Standard Point Buy (27 points) (Human varian +1 Int/+1 Wis)

Str 10(+0) Dex 10 (+0) Con 10 (+0)
Int 16(+3) Wis 15 (+2) Cha 13 (+1)


Background - Sage
Feature: Researcher

Saving Throws: Wisdom, Intelligence

FEATS
Skilled

SKILLS
Arcana, Deception, History, Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, Religion.
Tools: Playing Cards (Machiavelli loved to play cards as a mundane distraction)


ACTIONS
Melee Attacks— None

EQUIPMENT
Black and red vestment, scholar's pack.

SPELLBOOK:
Cantrips: Friends, Message, Shocking Grasp.
1st level spells: Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Illusory Script, Mage Armor, Burning Hands, Expeditious Retreat.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Traits: I have the cunning of a fox and the strenght of a lion.
Ideals: (Republic) I must defeat the enemies of my Republic and build a prosper and organized country.
Bond: (Leader) It's my duty to advice a leader to be cautious, resolute and astute.
Flaw: Most people only see the apparent and obvious. Although I don't like it, I have taken advantage of people's naïvety to achieve my goal. It's a necesseary mean and someone has to do it.

Appearence (left side):

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/075/0/a/machiavelli_and_la_volpe_by_dk_ren-d3brnqa.png