Tests for good rulers

[Ikaros82]

Hello everybody! This is my first post here.
I'm a DM and I'm currently looking forward tests used to prove if the members of the party could be good rulers (Forgotten Realms setting).
The background is a lot more complex (if anyone wants, I could explain more), but, to make it short, the party goes through a serie trial to reach a goal.
The party is not totally aware of being tested and why.

Each test should have a clear passed / not passed outcome. And I need dozens of them.

So far, I basically used these kind of trials:
- encounters (to measure strenght, tactics and combat skills): the party has to defeat a monster. The test is passed if the monster dies, it's not passed if all the members of the party die.
- logic puzzles (to measure planning and intellingence)
- riddles (to measure another kind of thinking)
- knowledge questions (to measure knoledge)
- timed traps rooms (to measure thinking under pressure and agility)

They had a single test, where they met a wounded woman and had to gift her a precious healing potions, to prove their altruism.

This was great fun for a while but now I fear is becoming a bit boring. So I'd like to find new kinds of trials,
to measure (for example) economy management, charisma, ability to speech, wisdom, and so on.
I can bring on set NPC, equipments, almost anything you could think of.
My essential need is that each test must have a clear impartial outcome (passed / not passed) and not too much time to be executed.

Thank you very much.

[barakaka]

Two sets of resetting summoning traps on either side of a vast room. This test will simulate their abilities to command troops.

This is a weird one. You could have a test that measures how quickly they learn/gain experience. Mechanically, you give them equal amounts of experience in some Hyperbolic Time Chamber (http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperbolic_Time_Chamber) until one levels up. The first to level up passes the test.

Keep in mind, that to spice things up, you need something to go wrong during these tests. Someone needs to attack the party during a test. Maybe it's a betrayal, or maybe it's their sworn anemone(sensible chuckles anyone?).

Tests are the perfect thing to make an attack during. Everyone is focused on one thing, letting you put a whole bunch of evil pieces together so the heroes can't possibly stop you! Ahahahaha!

[elonin]

It really depends on who the test makers are looking for and their resources. From the Never ending story there is the oracle that measured the persons confidence of themselves. and tat reminds me of the idea of Maat from Egyptian (weigh the quality of your heart against a feather). Another type of test could involve settling a dispute between 2 groups of people. I've seen LARP games that tested how you treat innocent/weak people who needed help, such as a test of mercy or generosity.

[Zanos]

I think an important question is whether or not you're testing for capability, morality, or both? A test designed in setting by a Good character is probably going to look very different.

[GilesTheCleric]

In this kind of situation I would be careful to make sure that you're primarily testing the characters, not the players. Riddles and all can be great fun, but the players' responses to those might not always reflect what their characters would do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What kind of principality will the winner be ruling? Different types of political landscape require different skills to rule effectively.

Ultimately, the two most imortant skills for statecraft in general are resource management and diplomacy; not the mechanical skill that merely represents persuasive speech but knowing who you need to talk to and what you need to convince them to do for your before you ever meet. Naturally, these can be broken down into their different spheres (military, economic, social, etc) but you gotta know what you've got, what you need, and how to bridge the gap between the two while dealing with other people.

[Deophaun]

Not mine, forgot where it's from.

There are three crowns, each identical in appearance and to any form of divination. When any person puts one on of their own free will, two will utterly destroy the wearer (adjust depending on how available resurrection magic is), while the third will not. Anyone who touches one of the crowns knows this. To prove that you are a king, which crown may be worn safely?

Solution is not to show how brave you are by donning the crown yourself; this test has weeded out 2/3rds of all pretenders to the throne in this way. If you are a king, surely you command enough loyalty to order your men to try them for you, and they will willfully obey.

[DeadMech]

Short on time so i can't get into everything yet. But...

I'd kobayashi maru them at least once. Star Trek thing. Present them with an unwinnable situation or at least a situation where they stand to lose just as much as they gain regardless of the decision they make. What you are testing is not the decision but rather if they are willing to make one and how they react when it goes badly. The specific fail condition is they can't make a choice or they abandon their goal to attain rulership after.

[Quertus]

I'm currently looking forward tests used to prove if the members of the party could be good rulers

They had a single test, where they met a wounded woman and had to gift her a precious healing potions, to prove their altruism.


I think an important question is whether or not you're testing for capability, morality, or both? A test designed in setting by a Good character is probably going to look very different.

A leader needs to be able to allocate resources, and make tough decisions.

They have obviously already failed the test.

A good ruler wouldn't waste precious resources on the weak. They would distribute the empire's resources in a much more efficient manner. Bonus points if they eliminate the weak link to prevent it from consuming unnecessary resources in the future. More bonus points if they reforge the weak link into a stronger link in the chain (either by teaching / improving the person, or by replacing them with a doppelganger).

[Eldariel]

There's an important point partially touched upon by Zanos and Kelb: the values and principles of the creator of the crown determine, what kinds of abilities the test seeks in rulers. Is the emperor to have anything in excess, or a good mixture of desirable traits? Should the emperor value the empire above oneself, or should he be aware of his own indispensability? Should the emperor prefer the good of the empire over the good of his people? Should the emperor lead as a ever-distant shining example perfection unreachable for mortals but as a symbol for everyone to strive towards, or the greatest man of the kingdom commanding loyalty through presence and power, carrying the combined dreams of his people? Should the emperor subject himself to his own laws?

Just a few off the top of my head: All of those are the sorts of things that are rather easy to design tests for but that requires that the desired answers be known. There are certainly many kinds of worthy rulers, those ruling by presence, those ruling by ability, those ruling by example. Certainly, the wills and the desires of the grand architect of this system would then be reflected.

[Deophaun]

A leader needs to be able to allocate resources, and make tough decisions.

They have obviously already failed the test.
This, basically. If I had a good way to test whether they'd give up the town's seed corn to a group of starving beggars, I'd throw that at them as well. (Hint: They fail if they do)

There's a reason The Prince is about teaching the good how to not be good.

[Bohandas]

In addition to the practical tests it would make sense for there to be an examination by divinatory specialists using Detect Evil, Detect Good, Detect Thoughts, etc

[Echch]

There will probably be some morality tests too, given that no one wants an evil ruler (despite Hextorites pretty obviously knowing what they are doing and a chaotic rulers likely incompetence) over a chaotic ruler.

[Eldariel]

There will probably be some morality tests too, given that no one wants an evil ruler (despite Hextorites pretty obviously knowing what they are doing and a chaotic rulers likely incompetence) over a chaotic ruler.

I dunno, an evil ruler can have numerous perks. Evil rulers tend towards strong rule, able to produce stability and peace in a community. They also have the widest array of tools for dealing with possible threats, exerting power upon neighbours and other matters that can be advantageous to the empire. Most importantly, they're unfettered by morality. There are certainly different kinds of evil but certain types can make for excellent leaders. And a variety of evils can make for splendid rulers able to do what needs to be done as long their power is challenged and they are thus tempered by other beings of less liberal moral stance. Sun Tzu makes a reasonable assessment where competence is the most important criterion for a leader. Improving a person's competence externally is very difficult while their negative traits are quite possible to reign in with a shadow government, advisors or by force if need be. Sometimes you need to sacrifice 1000 to save 1000000 and such necessary evil comes much more naturally to an evil leader than a neutral, let alone a good one.

There's nothing inherently wrong with chaotic leaders either. Chaotic leaders might not abide by the rules and are more likely to play behind the scenes but that can be advantageous for the empire as a whole if the leader is working with its best interest in mind. Chaotic leaders are much harder to control and predict, and their influence is less likely to be noticed and felt directly. This means they're more likely able to influence the surrounding world beyond the borders of the empire in a way favourable to the empire. Chaos means freedom from the shackles of laws and customs, the ability to just call the damned legal system corrupt and cast it away as is convenient. Certainly, a chaotic leader is capable of untold horrors but a chaotic leader with the good of the empire at heart can solve problems nobody else can.


Indeed, I could imagine the right kind of a chaotic evil character being a superb ruler in your average world. As long as the world is not good, life of a good leader is certainly much harder than anything else. Neutral leaders are certainly stable and reliable, but far as greater good goes, it's hard to beat evil leaders. Many individuals suffer but the empire with its rapidly developing economy, magic and technology has the potential to downright flourish.

But there are many ways to go about the alignment conundrum which is again why it's so darn important to know who designed the system and what their criteria were; my ideal leader would be pretty far from someone like Alustriel of Silverymoon, but I could certainly see a system that would rank her as the top candidate.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This, basically. If I had a good way to test whether they'd give up the town's seed corn to a group of starving beggars, I'd throw that at them as well. (Hint: They fail if they do)

There's a reason The Prince is about teaching the good how to not be good.

I don't know about that. It strikes me as amoral pragmatism for the most part. In which case, it's not so much teaching them how to not be good but rather teaching them what's -necessary- to ensure a strong rule, regardless of morality. There are warnings about indulging in excesses (generally regarded as a hallmark of evil, IRL) as well, after all.

[Deophaun]

I don't know about that. It strikes me as amoral pragmatism for the most part. In which case, it's not so much teaching them how to not be good but rather teaching them what's -necessary- to ensure a strong rule, regardless of morality.
No, Machiavelli says exactly that:

Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, Machiavelli says exactly that:

Note "all the time." He's not saying don't be good, he's saying don't let being good get in the way. Amoral pragmatism.

[Deophaun]

Note "all the time." He's not saying don't be good, he's saying don't let being good get in the way. Amoral pragmatism.
Which has what to do with anything that I stated?

There's a reason The Prince is about teaching the good how to not be good.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Which has what to do with anything that I stated?

"Don't let being good get in the way," is not the same as "Don't be good." If Machiavelli was teaching his peers to not be good, he was just as much teaching them to not be bastards either. It's a matter of amoral vs immoral. (Not that I imagine the church was thrilled either way. :smalltongue:)

[Nifft]

Hello everybody! This is my first post here.
I'm a DM and I'm currently looking forward tests used to prove if the members of the party could be good rulers (Forgotten Realms setting).

Test 1: "Are you the highest level NPC in the region?"

Test 2: "Were you personally Chosen by a major god?"

Test 3: "How many novels do you appear in?"

[Deophaun]

"Don't let being good get in the way," is not the same as "Don't be good."
OK. I will ask the question again, because apparently you missed it: what does that have to do with anything I said? I used the exact (though translated) phrase of "how not to be good"... ok "how to not be good," same thing. How does Machiavelli saying "learn how not to be good" mean that he was not teaching people "how not to be good?" Because right now, it looks like you have just fabricated something out of whole cloth for you to disagree with. Apparently, just for the sake of argument. So, here's your argument:

Quote me where I said "don't be good" or you are wrong.

If Machiavelli was teaching his peers to not be good, he was just as much teaching them to not be bastards either.
No, he wasn't. The Prince starts with the assumption that the ruler is already a good man. What need is there to teach a good man to not be a bastard? None.

It was a job application. You do not start out your interview by telling your hopeful employer to not be such a d***.

[Kelb_Panthera]

OK. I will ask the question again, because apparently you missed it: what does that have to do with anything I said? I used the exact (though translated) phrase of "how not to be good"... ok "how to not be good," same thing. How does Machiavelli saying "learn how not to be good" mean that he was not teaching people "how not to be good?"

Here's the quote again:


Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.

Let's break it down:

"Any man... is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good" That doesn't sound much like he thinks most princes are good.

"A prince... must learn [the knowledge of] how to not be good and use... or refrain from using [the knowledge of how to not be good] as necessity requires." The intent here is very clear. The idea machiavelli was trying to convey was that it is important to know how to refrain from acting solely on morals when pragmatism better serves one's interests.

At the same time, the document has several examples and suggests refraining from unnecessary cruelty and severity in dealing with newly acquired principalities lest a prince turn the people/dukes against him and lose control of that principality; in lay terms, don't be a bastard if you want to keep your new turf.

All of the advise in the essay is utterly pragmatic in nature with precious little mention of vice or virtue except to caution the prince from exercising either in excess to the detriment of pragmatic concerns.

BTW, I'm not super familiar with the events surrounding the document, so I'm not sure where you get that bit about it being a job applicaton. I understand it was written in a series of correspondance letters, initially, but whomever he had been writing must've already had some inclination to listen to what he had to say. There's certainly none of the flattery one would expect of a document meant to ingratiate oneself to a specific target audience. If there was any presumption that the reader was good, as far as I can tell, then it lies in the presumption that men are naturally good and the vagaries of life corrupt.

[Zanos]

Note "all the time." He's not saying don't be good, he's saying don't let being good get in the way. Amoral pragmatism.
For the record, what the real world might call "Amoral Pragmatism", D&D morality almost definitely calls Evil.

[Deophaun]

"Any man... is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good" That doesn't sound much like he thinks most princes are good.
Who said most princes are good?

Stop. Just stop. You're making up your own opposing argument, and I can tell from your other statements you haven't actually read The Prince:


Niccolo Machiavelli to the Magnificent Lorenzo de' Medici:

It is customary most of the time for those who desire to acquire favor with a Prince to come to meet him with things that they care most for among their own or with things that they see please him most. Thus, one sees them many times being presented with horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones and similar ornaments worth of their greatness. Thus, since I desire to offer myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my homage to you, I have found nothing in my belongings that I care so much for and esteem so greatly as the knowledge of the actions of great men, learned by me from the long experience with modern things and a continuous reading of ancient ones. Having thought out and examined these things with great diligence for a long time, and now reducded them to one small volume, I sent it to your Magnificence.
Perhaps you just missed that. It's fairly easy to skip over, being that it's the first paragraph of the first page.

You don't know what's in the book.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Who said most princes are good?

Stop. Just stop. You're making up your own opposing argument, and I can tell from your other statements you haven't actually read The Prince:

I haven't read it recently but I have little doubt of my recollections of the nature of what was said.



Perhaps you just missed that. It's fairly easy to skip over, being that it's the first paragraph of the first page.

You don't know what's in the book.

Without google or looking at your own copy, what's the first paragraph of The Hobbit? How about the Art of War? Book of Five Rings? I don't have the whole thing committed to memory, verbatim. I have little doubt that few of those who read it do. Though upon checking, it seems my copy omitted the introduction and just jumps straight into chapter 1. Can't very well remember something I never read.

We've derailed this far enough and we clearly got very different takes on this particular piece. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

[Deophaun]

I haven't read it recently but I have little doubt of my recollections of the nature of what was said.
You grouped the elite with the masses. I have plenty of doubt about your recollections of what was said.

Without google or looking at your own copy, what's the first paragraph of The Hobbit? How about the Art of War? Book of Five Rings? I don't have the whole thing committed to memory, verbatim.
This isn't a matter of knowing the words verbatim: you had zero idea why the book was even written. That's embarrassing.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
See, that's the thing: you haven't actually stated what we disagree on. You just said I was wrong, then made a bunch of assertions that had f@#$ all to do with anything I said.

[Ikaros82]

Thanks.


Two sets of resetting summoning traps on either side of a vast room. This test will simulate their abilities to command troops.

Could be a nice idea, but very time consuming I think. Moreover, the party members are all from the same side, I'd have to move one of the armies. And they have to pass these tests more than one time. So could become boring to run a long test like this more than once.



This is a weird one. You could have a test that measures how quickly they learn/gain experience. Mechanically, you give them equal amounts of experience in some Hyperbolic Time Chamber until one levels up. The first to level up passes the test.

We do not use experience or points to level up. And I sense a "level" is a meta-game concept.



Keep in mind, that to spice things up, you need something to go wrong during these tests. Someone needs to attack the party during a test. Maybe it's a betrayal, or maybe it's their sworn anemone(sensible chuckles anyone?).

Tests are the perfect thing to make an attack during. Everyone is focused on one thing, letting you put a whole bunch of evil pieces together so the heroes can't possibly stop you! Ahahahaha!

Lol, I already thought of something like this, thanks :)

[Ikaros82]

In this kind of situation I would be careful to make sure that you're primarily testing the characters, not the players. Riddles and all can be great fun, but the players' responses to those might not always reflect what their characters would do.

We already went over this. And we decided to use characters characteristics (i.e. intelligence, charisma) when we have to apply mathematical rules (i.e. the strenght of a spell or convincing a NPC to do something), but they're free to use the players characteristic in other situations (i.e. resolve a riddle or convince another member of the party to do something). This way is a lot more interesting. Otherwise, you should resolve many situations with a dice roll.

A key example in this is a test on knowledge. If the tester asks "who conquered the realm 100 years ago" and they have been told the history of the realm previously by the wise men, what would be more interesting? The players using their own memory or a dice roll to see if the characters remember it?

[Ikaros82]

It really depends on who the test makers are looking for and their resources. From the Never ending story there is the oracle that measured the persons confidence of themselves. and tat reminds me of the idea of Maat from Egyptian (weigh the quality of your heart against a feather). Another type of test could involve settling a dispute between 2 groups of people. I've seen LARP games that tested how you treat innocent/weak people who needed help, such as a test of mercy or generosity.

To make it the simplest possible, the test maker is the God Ubtao (true neutral, labyrinths, balance, planning, protection, ...), to decide if the party members are worth of a powerful artifact, which they should use to protect the earthly realm of the God (Chult). The tests occurs in the plane of the God, in a huge labyrinth representing life, so the God can bring on setting whatever he wants.

[Ikaros82]

What kind of principality will the winner be ruling? Different types of political landscape require different skills to rule effectively.

Ultimately, the two most imortant skills for statecraft in general are resource management and diplomacy; not the mechanical skill that merely represents persuasive speech but knowing who you need to talk to and what you need to convince them to do for your before you ever meet. Naturally, these can be broken down into their different spheres (military, economic, social, etc) but you gotta know what you've got, what you need, and how to bridge the gap between the two while dealing with other people.

As I said to elonin, the test maker is the God Ubtao (true neutral, labyrinths, balance, planning, protection, ...). And you said exactly what I meant. My problem here is to devise "simple" short tests, with a clear right/wrong outcome, to measure the skills you mention: diplomacy, management, and so on.

[Ikaros82]

Not mine, forgot where it's from.

There are three crowns, each identical in appearance and to any form of divination. When any person puts one on of their own free will, two will utterly destroy the wearer (adjust depending on how available resurrection magic is), while the third will not. Anyone who touches one of the crowns knows this. To prove that you are a king, which crown may be worn safely?

Solution is not to show how brave you are by donning the crown yourself; this test has weeded out 2/3rds of all pretenders to the throne in this way. If you are a king, surely you command enough loyalty to order your men to try them for you, and they will willfully obey.

This is nice. Unfortunately, the party members are by their own in another plane of existence :)

[Ikaros82]

A leader needs to be able to allocate resources, and make tough decisions.

They have obviously already failed the test.

A good ruler wouldn't waste precious resources on the weak. They would distribute the empire's resources in a much more efficient manner. Bonus points if they eliminate the weak link to prevent it from consuming unnecessary resources in the future. More bonus points if they reforge the weak link into a stronger link in the chain (either by teaching / improving the person, or by replacing them with a doppelganger).

This is a good point, but I don't think it applies to the test they've been through. Maybe I simplified it to much in the description.

Anyway, to reply to your observation, the key point here is (I think): will be the healed person more useful than a heling potion to my cause? Who said that the wounded person is "weak"? Maybe, he's dying, but he could be the greatest fighter / strategos / mage of the realm and if you save him, he will be of great benefit for you realm.

[Quertus]

This is a good point, but I don't think it applies to the test they've been through. Maybe I simplified it to much in the description.

Anyway, to reply to your observation, the key point here is (I think): will be the healed person more useful than a heling potion to my cause? Who said that the wounded person is "weak"? Maybe, he's dying, but he could be the greatest fighter / strategos / mage of the realm and if you save him, he will be of great benefit for you realm.


They had a single test, where they met a wounded woman and had to gift her a precious healing potions, to prove their altruism.

Altruism seems the opposite of the virtue I was describing, and opposed to your explanation as well. That is, to give the portion with no hope of reward is to exclude the possibility that the recipient is powerful / influential / in some way worth courying favor from.

To demonstrate altruism is to demonstrate a potentially dangerous mismanagement of resources. Depending, of course, on who you ask.

[Bohandas]

Alturism is good, but it needs to be like Vulcan altruism. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"