Kings and Queens: The Politics of Power

[SirNibbles]

In a pack of wolves, the strongest among them emerges as the leader. The same is true for many animals, and humans also look to the strongest to lead them.

Following this logic, the aristocracy must be among the strongest of their race. There are a few kinds of power they can have:

Economic- They have money, which gives them some amount of power. Allows them to buy people and items to keep themselves safe and in power.
Individual- This is the someone's ability to fight (or do other things) on their own in order to survive. It can be skill with spells or swords, or perhaps shrewd negotiating skills, or the ability to provide valuable services.
Political- Power can also be gained by being able to influence the laws of society to benefit the ruling class. This both keeps possible enemies weaker and keeps the ruler stronger.
Organisational- Organisational power is power through a group. It's easy to take down a single leader, but it's hard to get rid of an entire group, whether it's an order of mages or a religious sect.

That being said, individual power is probably the most important. Without individual power, a ruler is very open to being betrayed. After all, when they're gone, their economic and political power go to whomever takes over the throne.

Thus, kings and other rulers must have some degree of individual power- enough to require a decent number of enemies to result in their downfall. Since most monarchies are family-based, it is necessary to not only secure current power but future power as well. This means training sons and daughters to have high individual power, in order to be able to cultivate the three other types.

So, how does this translate to classes and levels in 3.5?

It depends on the power level of the game world. If most peasants are level 1-3 commoners, a level 5 Fighter or could easily rule over them, especially with some lower levels at his disposal as guards. But what happens when the world has Wizards and Rogues, and Dungeons, and even some Dragons? Suddenly it seems like that ruler would have trouble with average encounters.

A duke should be able to single-handedly take care of the goblins raiding one of the villages under his rule. The reason he doesn't is because he has other stuff to do with his time, so he outsources that to his soldiers or adventurers. A king should be able to personally go and defeat the sea monster sinking his merchant vessels. Again, he's got to worry about managing a lot of stuff, so he sends adventurers. But that doesn't mean that the group of adventurers he sent is somehow better than him. They're just useful at the time.

Extrapolating this, here's what I think a society would look like in an E6 game. (Unfortunately, by default, 3.5's power balance at high levels makes it hard to have any sort of structure).

Kings/Queens/Leaders (Level 4-6); above average stats, high economic and political wealth.
Princes/Princesses (Level 1-4); moderate power, high power
Advisors/Personal Guard (Level 4-6); above average stats, possibly high organisational power. Wizards be found here.
Dukes/Duchesses (Level 3-5); moderate power all-around.
High Class Soldiers (Level 3-4); usually only have individual power, similar in strength to Dukes and Duchesses but lack their resources.
Foot Soldiers (Level 1-3); disposable, but effective in numbers and against commoners
Experts (Level 2-4); not necessarily the Expert class, these are craftsmen, merchants, administrators, chefs, and anyone else who can provide vital services. Courtesans would probably fit in here too.
Common Plebs (Level 1-3); pretty much no power, even in numbers

Other organisations, such as Mage's Guilds or Churches may have their own structure, but the components would pretty much fit in to one of the above categories. In races other than humans, the same basic ideas apply. Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings; all their societies would have some kind of power structure like this.

So, what's the point?

1. Stop being rude to royals. The only reason they don't kill you is because they need you to go do a job that they don't have the time to do. And DMs, stop making them low level.
2. The Aristocrat class is pointless. Any Aristocrat would be teaching their kids stuff to gain individual power, and doing the same for themselves. The Aristocrat class represents what an Aristocrat is like if they don't ever get any training in not sucking.
3. Kids should have 1 RHD that is replaced when they gain their first class level, whatever it may be. Or have Commoner be replaceable as you age.
4. Like I said earlier, all of this breaks down at a power level when the king can make infinite clones of himself in a demi-plane he created and then go back in time to kill the Lich before he was born, all while juggling flaming cathedrals.

[Berenger]

I think you have the right idea, but you take it too far.

Authority figures need to be respected to be safe in their position of power. In order to be respected, they need to meet certain criteria. These criteria change with:

a) The society (a president of a modern democracy doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).
b) The person in power (a medieval baroness doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).
c) The type of power (a medieval bishop doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).

Now, personal martial prowess might be one of these personal qualities that a leader needs to fulfill, depending on culture. If I'm a viking warrior and Ragnar is my Jarl, Ragnar should better be able to have a fighting chance in a duel against his rival Jarl Egil, otherwise his reputation would suffer. Jarl Ragnar would have to somehow make up for this weakness. On the other hand, Angela Merkels reputation won't suffer from being unable to best Vladimir Putin in close-quarters combat because that isn't an applicable criterion for her type of authority.

Historically, an awful lot of leaders started to lead or kept on leading when they were well beyond prime fighting age.

[SirNibbles]

I think you have the right idea, but you take it too far.

Authority figures need to be respected to be safe in their position of power. In order to be respected, they need to meet certain criteria. These criteria change with:

a) The society (a president of a modern democracy doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).
b) The person in power (a medieval baroness doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).
c) The type of power (a medieval bishop doesn't need to display the same qualities as a medieval baron).

Now, personal martial prowess might be one of these personal qualities that a leader needs to fulfill, depending on culture. If I'm a viking warrior and Ragnar is my Jarl, Ragnar should better be able to have a fighting chance in a duel against his rival Jarl Egil, otherwise his reputation would suffer. Jarl Ragnar would have to somehow make up for this weakness. On the other hand, Angela Merkels reputation won't suffer from being unable to best Vladimir Putin in close-quarters combat because that isn't an applicable criterion for her type of authority.

Historically, an awful lot of leaders started to lead or kept on leading when they were well beyond prime fighting age.

I agree completely with your points, especially about how society affects how you need to project power and what kind of power you need to be in a certain role, but I'm speaking about a D&D (medieval-ish) setting, especially when things like magic and class abilities are involved. It's hard to respect a leader if you're able to kill them and their guards without much effort. Even Bear Rider Putin would have trouble in a 6v1 vs some German bodyguards armed with Glocks. On the other hand, if it's Druid 6 Putin against six Warrior 2 Bodyguards with swords, it's going to be very different. My main point is how different it would be from real life because of the high possible differences in individual power that D&D allows for.

[Saintheart]

The surest way to generate respect as a leader in a medieval world, where things are primarily results-oriented, is to demonstrate to those following you that you have your skin in the game.

It's less that you can smash the snot out of anything that comes at you on a battlefield, and much more about the fact you are present on that battlefield. It's about showing your people that, whether you are a good ruler or bad, you take risks that imperil you personally, just as most ordinary mortals outside bureaucracies do. Even Richard III, forever defamed by Shakespeare, still cuts something of a worthy frame by reason of the fact he was willing to ride into battle and fight alongside his supporters.

[BlackOnyx]

Extrapolating this, here's what I think a society would look like in an E6 game. (Unfortunately, by default, 3.5's power balance at high levels makes it hard to have any sort of structure).

Kings/Queens/Leaders (Level 4-6); above average stats, high economic and political wealth.
Princes/Princesses (Level 1-4); moderate power, high power
Advisors/Personal Guard (Level 4-6); above average stats, possibly high organisational power. Wizards be found here.
Dukes/Duchesses (Level 3-5); moderate power all-around.
High Class Soldiers (Level 3-4); usually only have individual power, similar in strength to Dukes and Duchesses but lack their resources.
Foot Soldiers (Level 1-3); disposable, but effective in numbers and against commoners
Experts (Level 2-4); not necessarily the Expert class, these are craftsmen, merchants, administrators, chefs, and anyone else who can provide vital services. Courtesans would probably fit in here too.
Common Plebs (Level 1-3); pretty much no power, even in numbers

Having DM'ed an e6 campaign since late last year, I've actually been confronted with this same issue myself. What I've found to work for me is regarding each class level as another level of "mastery" over an npc's specific job/position. That is, something to the tune of:

Level 1 = "novice"
Level 2 = "trained"
Level 3 = "competent"
Level 4 = "expert"
Level 5 = "leader in field"
Level 6 = "legend"

In this scenario, the vast majority of npcs will fall somewhere in the Level 2/Level 3 range. A Level 4 warrior would constitute something like the grizzled veteran captain of a city guard and a Level 5 warrior one of the elite fighters in a kingdom's army.

Under this setup, typically any npc (or PC) over 3rd level can be regarded as a "stand-out"; that is, possessing great "individual power" based on their experience/skill.


My main point is how different it would be from real life because of the high possible differences in individual power that D&D allows for.

This said, I don't think level & "individual power" necessarily equates to position. There are many situations in real world history where individuals of great talent/potential/individual power have worked under (or been exiled by) less competent leaders based off of factors like lineage, social norms, and economic status.

In regards to throwing d&d into the mix, the big question is how prevalent characters of 4th level (or higher) are in the context of society. If 99%+ of the population never surpasses 3rd level, sheer numbers will eventually win out against just about any 4th or 5th level npc that tries to upset the existing balance by sheer force of will.

In effect, 3rd level kings can still exist so long as they have a retinue of 100 3rd level warriors and adepts to combat any potential 4th or 5th level usurpers. Or perhaps their *own* 4th or 5th level protector who wishes to avoid persecution themselves. (For example, a 4th level bard with Song of the Heart backed by a contingent of 3rd level warriors in masterwork armor.)

It's when you reach 6th level+ (especially if you include e6 feat progression) that "individual power" starts to have the potential to overwhelm the sheer numbers game that holds together existing society.

And this (I think) is how it should be; anyone achieving 6th level is essentially a legend in e6--a figure whose sheer presence/ability is enough to shape kingdoms and industry for centuries to come.

***

This said, as I'm discovering with my own group, a party of optimized 4th level PCs with complementary powers can quickly become a force to be reckoned with if they play intelligently. (This said, being PCs, their situation is more of an anomaly than a rule.)

[Rebel7284]

First of all, the alpha male model of wolf hierarchy has been debunked. https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629

Second of all, while in D&D society, it's certainly possible to maintain political power through personal power due to how levels scale, in real life this was very rarely the case. Sure the aristocracy has money to give their kids some fencing lessons, but financial power and connections was nearly always more important.

[awa]

in e6 i dont think this is as big an issue because the difference between elite soldiers and high level characters is fairly small.

Now in regular d&d i think it is a much more dramatic problem an elite level 5 knight is simply no match for a level 10+ caster. By level 20 almost no number of regular guys are relevant.

That said i tend to assume in my games that noble bloodlines often have a little something extra, as power might not be a requirement for authority but it certainly helps and that gets passed down.

[Mars Ultor]

People in leadership positions likely have levels in Aristocrat and/or Expert, not necessarily in Fighter or other PC classes. Napoleon was a lowly artillery officer when he himself fought personally, he wasn't a high-level or even medium-level Fighter. Although Julius Caesar engaged in combat and was sometimes personally involved in battles, his physical ability had nothing to do with his military and political success. Augustus Caesar led armies, but had bouts of physical illness, it's unlikely he ever engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

Richard the Lionheart was known for his personal valor and ability, while his brother, John Lackland, led armies, it's unlikely he himself ever fought.

Washington started as a junior officer and engaged in fighting, both as a leader and combatant on many occasions. Robert E. Lee was a military engineer and had minimal personal experience in combat, he was a staff officer behind the lines most of his career.

It's mentioned that Charlemagne had his sons instructed in weapons as this was considered a part of being a noble, and it's probable he received similar training, but Charlemagne didn't often lead his army, let alone engage in swordplay.


Historically, leadership, military or otherwise, is based mental ability, personal charisma, and heredity. It wasn't necessary to have had personal experience in combat to become a king. A noble in D&D might have a level or two in Warrior or even Fighter, but it's not necessary for them to have achieved high level or even any distinction in combat. Initially a kingdom might have been conquered by a medium or high-level Fighter, but that doesn't mean his son or grandson has any real experience or any character levels.

A more likely situation is that lesser nobles are granted property and authority by the king in return for their military participation on his behalf. An 8th-level Fighter who fought a manticore, is granted a charter to establish a stronghold and rule (and defend) the border by a 5th-level Aristocrat who was known as a pretty good fencer when he was young. Warlords are former adventurers, their leadership extends the length of their sword, dukes and earls lead through other means and employ adventurers. Charles the Simple (with only Aristocrat levels) was the king of West Francia, he wasn't a Fighter, but Rollo, formerly known as the Norseman, Hrolf Ganger (Rolf the Walker, who was too tall or fat for a horse), was a viking warlord (with Fighter levels) who was given Normandy by Charles and became his vassal.


My personal contention is that D&D characters themselves are almost all the children of minor nobility. When you look at the wealth necessary for Starting Gold, it's clear that only the rich could equip their children to be adventurers. What sometimes happened historically is that the oldest son was the heir, he was trained, but kept safe, the second son was sometimes enrolled in the clergy. The Church had political influence and it was thought helpful that a brother in the priesthood could support his brother in the nobility, but he wasn't a direct threat to contend for the throne. The daughters were all married off to cement alliances or improve the family's wealth or standing. It was the younger sons who were sent off to become squires. Instead of staying around the castle fooling around with the maids, they were sent off to a successful Fighter. This actual Fighter would have taken on the lesser sons of lesser nobles and taught them actual combat. Plus, have you seen the tuition for Wizard's College? Those kids go through frogs left and right, and they don't come cheap.

[awa]

Maybe in the real world but in the real world almost no warrior could reliably beat 5 guys who suddenly jumped him, but a high level d&d character could do so effortlessly.

What I am getting at is in the real world the difference between some guy and the best in the world is so small that numbers decide who the winner is. With high-level characters, you can reach a point where the king might be able to exterminate any entire army single handedly. While it’s true that the low level king might be able to manage just by having loyal minions, it’s got a much larger power imbalance then exists in the real world. I would expect kingdoms with expert or Aristocrat kings to be fairly unstable and vulnerable to coups.

Note like I mentioned earlier these problems are greatly reduced in an e6 setting.

[Mars Ultor]

What I am getting at is in the real world the difference between some guy and the best in the world is so small that numbers decide who the winner is. With high-level characters, you can reach a point where the king might be able to exterminate any entire army single handedly. While it’s true that the low level king might be able to manage just by having loyal minions, it’s got a much larger power imbalance then exists in the real world. I would expect kingdoms with expert or Aristocrat kings to be fairly unstable and vulnerable to coups.


I actually think that a society where the Aristocrats and Experts run things is more stable long term. Adventurers are unpredictable and can have short life spans. What happens when Ted Broadsword, 8th-level Fighter, kills King Aristo, takes over the kingdom, and then decides he's going to take on the giant who's harassing the villagers? Ted could end up dead, and then what happens?

It's much better for everyone if King Aristo just has his daughter marry the Barbarian PC so their children can be the rulers in the future. Otherwise their dad is just killing King Aristo and then sitting in the throne room asking Crom to send him an undead army to fight. That's not a great place to live.

Look at the Greek Myths, a lot of the kings are demigods or heroes and they're all jerks. They're suspicious of everyone else, they sabotage other heroes, they go to war over petty things, and they challenge everyone to personal combat. While in theory personal combat sounds like a good idea, less people die, in practice no kingdom is going to want to pin all their hopes on how well their retired king fights.

The same way most societies have a negative view of cannibalism, D&D societies stress that adventurers must submit to royal control. The whole world falls apart if the party just marches into a kingdom, murders the royal family and then leaves, or worse, stays. A better way to operate is to encourage adventurers to marry into royal families and become national heroes with no responsibilities. This also explains why only low-level character are murder-hobos. King Aristo isn't going to hesitate to ask his son-in-law, Duke Ted Broadsword to go take care of a half-dozen bozos who are murdering guards and starting tavern brawls.

Another problem is that it's likely that adventurers have tons of illegitimate children, some with succubus. That's a big problem when it's time to anoint the next king and twenty guys with good strength scores are claiming it's their birthright.

Finally, think about a world where Wizards can actually walk around freely. Realistically magic should be outlawed or strictly controlled. Those guys are walking atom bombs who never got the girl, you can't let them decide to seize power. Wizard colleges are places to brainwash Wizards into become future teachers, they're taught that's the only possible outcome if they survive adventuring. You can live a lonely, isolated life in a tower where you're a murder victim waiting to happen, or you become a respected professor who can flirt with witchcraft students. Under no circumstances are you allowed to become involved in politics.


E6 fixes a lot of problems in general, not just the problem of political inheritance. Even there though, I suspect that a system where adventurers are incorporated into the ruling family without actually giving them absolute power works better for everyone in the long run.

[awa]

Finally, think about a world where Wizards can actually walk around freely. Realistically magic should be outlawed or strictly controlled. Those guys are walking atom bombs who never got the girl, you can't let them decide to seize power. Wizard colleges are places to brainwash Wizards into become future teachers, they're taught that's the only possible outcome if they survive adventuring. You can live a lonely, isolated life in a tower where you're a murder victim waiting to happen, or you become a respected professor who can flirt with witchcraft students. Under no circumstances are you allowed to become involved in politics.




dont have the time right now for most of this
but oppressing wizards/casters is wildly impractical once they get past level 8 or so. They are simply to powerful and to vital. Martial simply cant compete with martial +casters even at the low end of optimization. Caster might be able to get by without fighters but the reverse simply isn't true.

But heres the thing npcs can get levels without being adventurers that's an important thing. king wizard is probably not an adventurer picking fights in dirty dungeons but he can defend himself when assassins teleport into his bedroom.

[Recherché]

dont have the time right now for most of this
but oppressing wizards/casters is wildly impractical once they get past level 8 or so. They are simply to powerful and to vital. Martial simply cant compete with martial +casters even at the low end of optimization. Caster might be able to get by without fighters but the reverse simply isn't true.


I think the best option here is setting up a society where wizards and other high level folks get all the money, fame and attractive partners they want as long as they go along with the status quo but they do not get any political power just by being high level and they have a responsibility to help out in times of need. Your average high level PC might be able to kill the king but does he have any knowledge of how to rule the country or any desire to be stuck raising taxes to build bridges? I think not in most cases. So let the wizard or adventurer have the goodies as long as they're willing to help defend the kingdom when someone else attacks but shield them from having to deal with the day to day business of ruling.

[Segev]

Real-world political power structures exist in a sort of balancing act. A reverse catch-22. They have power because people are willing to acknowledge that they have authority, and people acknowledge they have authority because they have the power to enforce it on individuals. The leaders have power because those under their leadership know that they have the authority and the power to reward obedience, and to punish disobedience.

Individual guards working for a tyrannical baron all fear his wrath, not because they couldn't take him in a fight, but because they couldn't take the other guards working for him in a fight, and he could order those other guards to throw them in jail. He rewards obedience and service that pleases him with riches and privileges, so turning the whole of the guard against him is quite the task. Especially since, if he hears about it, he'll arrest the would-be traitors and have them tortured and possibly - if they're lucky - executed. The other guards may or may not be willing participants, but they'll obey so it isn't them.

The peasants under the evil baron are afraid of the baron's forces, and therefore the baron's ire (since said ire would direct those forces against them). And yet, they also fear running away, not only because the baron might send people to get them, but because the wilderness is inhospitable and filled with goblins and orcs that the baron keeps at bay (possibly legitimately, because they're just hostile, and possibly in a Dragonheart gambit where the orcs are in his employ and are really extra enforcers).

In a good society, there's a bit less fear and more trust that the leaders have everyone's best interests at heart and are competent in their jobs, but there's still acknowledgement of the authority of the leaders to command the force of the group against malefactors, and that holds the less-good in the kingdom in line out of that same fear of retribution.

So what's most important for a leader isn't personal power, but personal ability to project legitimacy. The notion that a plurality of force-wielding individuals will do his bidding, which magnifies into a majority of force-wielding individuals also doing his bidding out of fear of that plurality should any attempt to act alone in defiance. Or (again) shared belief in the leadership as the right people for the job, and the purpose of the group. In an established monarchy, for example, the young prince or princess who is set to inherit the throne will have authority because people trust that this is the rightful heir, and thus they have the authority to order things they'll order, and thus disobedience is punished and obedience will be rewarded. Even if the little princeling is a 1st level Aristocrat and the person taking orders is a 7th level sorcerer, the presence of 2nd through 8th level guards in the prince's employ means that attacking and usurping the prince will likely not end well for the sorcerer, and that the prince does have the wealth and authority to give the sorcerer things he wants if the sorcerer pleases him.

Because of this, the prince now also can count a 7th level sorcerer as one of those resources he can draw upon to enforce his will upon his principality.

[SirNibbles]

I actually think that a society where the Aristocrats and Experts run things is more stable long term. Adventurers are unpredictable and can have short life spans. What happens when Ted Broadsword, 8th-level Fighter, kills King Aristo, takes over the kingdom, and then decides he's going to take on the giant who's harassing the villagers? Ted could end up dead, and then what happens?

It's much better for everyone if King Aristo just has his daughter marry the Barbarian PC so their children can be the rulers in the future. Otherwise their dad is just killing King Aristo and then sitting in the throne room asking Crom to send him an undead army to fight. That's not a great place to live.

Look at the Greek Myths, a lot of the kings are demigods or heroes and they're all jerks. They're suspicious of everyone else, they sabotage other heroes, they go to war over petty things, and they challenge everyone to personal combat. While in theory personal combat sounds like a good idea, less people die, in practice no kingdom is going to want to pin all their hopes on how well their retired king fights.

The same way most societies have a negative view of cannibalism, D&D societies stress that adventurers must submit to royal control. The whole world falls apart if the party just marches into a kingdom, murders the royal family and then leaves, or worse, stays. A better way to operate is to encourage adventurers to marry into royal families and become national heroes with no responsibilities. This also explains why only low-level character are murder-hobos. King Aristo isn't going to hesitate to ask his son-in-law, Duke Ted Broadsword to go take care of a half-dozen bozos who are murdering guards and starting tavern brawls.

Another problem is that it's likely that adventurers have tons of illegitimate children, some with succubus. That's a big problem when it's time to anoint the next king and twenty guys with good strength scores are claiming it's their birthright.

Finally, think about a world where Wizards can actually walk around freely. Realistically magic should be outlawed or strictly controlled. Those guys are walking atom bombs who never got the girl, you can't let them decide to seize power. Wizard colleges are places to brainwash Wizards into become future teachers, they're taught that's the only possible outcome if they survive adventuring. You can live a lonely, isolated life in a tower where you're a murder victim waiting to happen, or you become a respected professor who can flirt with witchcraft students. Under no circumstances are you allowed to become involved in politics.

E6 fixes a lot of problems in general, not just the problem of political inheritance. Even there though, I suspect that a system where adventurers are incorporated into the ruling family without actually giving them absolute power works better for everyone in the long run.

I'm not saying Adventurers should be in charge. I'm saying people of high status should be increasing their individual power (gaining class levels) in order to protect themselves, and that nobles should generally be superior to other people when it comes to skill with swords and spells.

Also, the leaders shouldn't be the ones fighting, but I'm saying they should be able to should the need arise.

Why would adventurers submit to royal control? At high enough levels (20+) they hold the fate of the universe in their hands. Why should they listen to a royal unless that royal has similar power? This is why I say it falls apart once you get to higher levels (4th level spells are enough to really make things wonky).

Nobody's going to be trying to claim the throne when the king has more political, economic, organisational, and individual power than them. Having good stats doesn't even begin to compete with that.

Magic should be outlawed? Congrats, you just turned the Mage's Guild that supports your armies and improves daily life for your citizens into outlaws. I'm sure that will work well, especially if they're stronger than you. They won't just get pissed off and replace you with no effort whatsoever. They could probably even do it without anyone realising you've been replaced.

I disagree with you on just about every point you made. In a world where class levels are the difference between plebs and gods, I think the gods would be the ones in charge.

[awa]

Real-world political power structures exist in a sort of balancing act. A reverse catch-22. They have power because people are willing to acknowledge that they have authority, and people acknowledge they have authority because they have the power to enforce it on individuals. The leaders have power because those under their leadership know that they have the authority and the power to reward obedience, and to punish disobedience.

Individual guards working for a tyrannical baron all fear his wrath, not because they couldn't take him in a fight, but because they couldn't take the other guards working for him in a fight, and he could order those other guards to throw them in jail. He rewards obedience and service that pleases him with riches and privileges, so turning the whole of the guard against him is quite the task. Especially since, if he hears about it, he'll arrest the would-be traitors and have them tortured and possibly - if they're lucky - executed. The other guards may or may not be willing participants, but they'll obey so it isn't them.

The peasants under the evil baron are afraid of the baron's forces, and therefore the baron's ire (since said ire would direct those forces against them). And yet, they also fear running away, not only because the baron might send people to get them, but because the wilderness is inhospitable and filled with goblins and orcs that the baron keeps at bay (possibly legitimately, because they're just hostile, and possibly in a Dragonheart gambit where the orcs are in his employ and are really extra enforcers).

In a good society, there's a bit less fear and more trust that the leaders have everyone's best interests at heart and are competent in their jobs, but there's still acknowledgement of the authority of the leaders to command the force of the group against malefactors, and that holds the less-good in the kingdom in line out of that same fear of retribution.

So what's most important for a leader isn't personal power, but personal ability to project legitimacy. The notion that a plurality of force-wielding individuals will do his bidding, which magnifies into a majority of force-wielding individuals also doing his bidding out of fear of that plurality should any attempt to act alone in defiance. Or (again) shared belief in the leadership as the right people for the job, and the purpose of the group. In an established monarchy, for example, the young prince or princess who is set to inherit the throne will have authority because people trust that this is the rightful heir, and thus they have the authority to order things they'll order, and thus disobedience is punished and obedience will be rewarded. Even if the little princeling is a 1st level Aristocrat and the person taking orders is a 7th level sorcerer, the presence of 2nd through 8th level guards in the prince's employ means that attacking and usurping the prince will likely not end well for the sorcerer, and that the prince does have the wealth and authority to give the sorcerer things he wants if the sorcerer pleases him.

Because of this, the prince now also can count a 7th level sorcerer as one of those resources he can draw upon to enforce his will upon his principality.

that's true to an extent but the problem is how much easier a coup is. In the real world you need to get a significant number of people on your side to make it happen but in d&d land only a very small number of people matter and if they are taking orders from some one who is quantifiable their inferior by a ludicrous margin the odds of them attempting to replace or de-power is going to be far greater.

Not to mention classes like bard are going to be so persuasive that they can basically take power the moment they decide to do so.

Level also affect skills, now a high level expert or aristocrat might still manage here but if hes more than a few levels lower than his highest level minions that's going to be a hard hit to their loyalty.

The difference between the best and the average is much greater in d&d land than the real world and that makes problems of authority so much worse.

edit

I think the best option here is setting up a society where wizards and other high level folks get all the money, fame and attractive partners they want as long as they go along with the status quo but they do not get any political power just by being high level and they have a responsibility to help out in times of need. Your average high level PC might be able to kill the king but does he have any knowledge of how to rule the country or any desire to be stuck raising taxes to build bridges? I think not in most cases. So let the wizard or adventurer have the goodies as long as they're willing to help defend the kingdom when someone else attacks but shield them from having to deal with the day to day business of ruling.


see that works until they start getting ambitious, its hard to buy a level 20 caster they already have huge amounts of resources. Besides most kings arnt great at running things by themselves either that one delegating is for and that assumes their competent and even care about running their kingdom well.


When i think about this i often recall those fairytales were the reward for killing a dragon is the princesses hand and half the kingdom. To me that makes a lot of sense if your army cant stop the dragon it probably cant stop the dragon slayer either best give him what he wants before he considers taking it. So by that logic i picture a feudal system with the strongest person on the top with lower level subordinates. The king is there if you need a dragon slain but his dukes can handle the giants, and the dukes knights take on the orcs. running out of time so lets leave it at that it

[Segev]

When i think about this i often recall those fairytales were the reward for killing a dragon is the princesses hand and half the kingdom. To me that makes a lot of sense if your army cant stop the dragon it probably cant stop the dragon slayer either best give him what he wants before he considers taking it. So by that logic i picture a feudal system with the strongest person on the top with lower level subordinates. The king is there if you need a dragon slain but his dukes can handle the giants, and the dukes knights take on the orcs. running out of time so lets leave it at that it

This, largely. If you consider how 1e ran, the whole concept was that your adventurers would eventually found keeps, baronies, their own thieves' guilds, retire to be the lord of monks, or the high druid.

You're right, awa, too, that high-level characters can strip the weakling of his power if they choose to enact a coup. But viziers could overthrow child-kings, as could councils, and while that did happen, it didn't always. It comes down to what they want. The court wizard may be able to take the whole of the court and the king's armies, but if the court wizard doesn't want to rule, why bother? Keep the king happy and the king will keep him happy, funding and financing the wizard's personal work.

That royal child that's unable to hold the throne without the support of the three high-level people who surround him also is the god-child of one of them, the nephew of another, and a useful figurehead for the third. The weakling ruler may or may not be a figurehead for the "real" powers, and, if not, may command only because the real power-holders prefer to let the hard decisions be made by the lower-level Aristocrat.

[Mars Ultor]

I'm not saying Adventurers should be in charge. I'm saying people of high status should be increasing their individual power (gaining class levels) in order to protect themselves, and that nobles should generally be superior to other people when it comes to skill with swords and spells.

Also, the leaders shouldn't be the ones fighting, but I'm saying they should be able to should the need arise.


Fine, now your 5th-level Aristocrat is also a 5th-level Ranger, he can take on the 10th-level Fighter? 15th-level Bard turned King Aristo I has to send his latest heir, Prince Aristo VI, out as an adventurer to make sure when he's king a high-level adventurer can't come along and kill him? "Son, the kingdom will be yours one day, go fight some goblins and don't come home till you can kill a dragon. Your older brothers were weak and that's why they're dead, but I have confidence in you."



Why would adventurers submit to royal control? At high enough levels (20+) they hold the fate of the universe in their hands. Why should they listen to a royal unless that royal has similar power? This is why I say it falls apart once you get to higher levels (4th level spells are enough to really make things wonky).

Nobody's going to be trying to claim the throne when the king has more political, economic, organisational, and individual power than them. Having good stats doesn't even begin to compete with that.

The same reason it hasn't happened historically. Most people are satisfied with a certain level of power, the don't want the responsibility of leadership. Even in a dictatorship you need the support of others in society to stay in power. You think nobody in North Korea can take on Kim Jung-Un in a fight? Why doesn't Mike Tyson just go there and declare himself king? The fact that you can one-shot 97% of the kingdom doesn't mean you get to be king, nobody is willing to support that system and if you try to enforce that system, there's a rebellion. If you need to pickup your magic axe and start killing your subjects, you've already lost and it's just a matter of time before no one respects your authority.

There's a string of Roman emperors who are killed one after another, it's called the "Year of the Five Emperors." The Praetorian Guard realized that physically they could kill any emperor and decided to seize power by picking their own emperor. That led to emperors with little popular support being killed by people with slightly more popular support until finally one guy declared himself emperor, won a civil war, and stabilized society. It's difficult to be in charge when enough people don't want you to be in charge regardless of your level.



Magic should be outlawed? Congrats, you just turned the Mage's Guild that supports your armies and improves daily life for your citizens into outlaws. I'm sure that will work well, especially if they're stronger than you. They won't just get pissed off and replace you with no effort whatsoever. They could probably even do it without anyone realising you've been replaced.


I wrote, "realistically." In a world where magic exists every king is Herod sending out his troops to kill babies. You can't stop a high-level Wizard, so you kill anyone before they become a high-level Wizard. Since D&D has magic, there must be some reason that every kingdom isn't ruled by a high-level Wizard. My argument is that there's a social compact which says that Wizards have limited involvement in politics. There's also MAD, mutually assured destruction, the moment a Wizard starts destroying armies so he can seize power or help someone else, everyone is hiring Wizards and soon everyone is dead. The reason powerful leaders avoid blowing up other countries' leaders is that they know it's eventually going to come back to hurt them. Once that first Wizard Fireballs the king, every other king--and Wizard--is a target and society falls apart.



I disagree with you on just about every point you made. In a world where class levels are the difference between plebs and gods, I think the gods would be the ones in charge.

There's always a younger, faster gunslinger coming along who knows the best way to get a reputation is to take you out. Either all the younger, faster adventurers are overthrowing the older adventurer-kings, the older adventurer-kings start murdering all the younger ones before they're trouble, or most of the time the system works to keep society from being in a constant state of war, assassination, and governmental instability by separating political power from other power.

[Recherché]

I wrote, "realistically." In a world where magic exists every king is Herod sending out his troops to kill babies. You can't stop a high-level Wizard, so you kill anyone before they become a high-level Wizard. Since D&D has magic, there must be some reason that every kingdom isn't ruled by a high-level Wizard. My argument is that there's a social compact which says that Wizards have limited involvement in politics. There's also MAD, mutually assured destruction, the moment a Wizard starts destroying armies so he can seize power or help someone else, everyone is hiring Wizards and soon everyone is dead. The reason powerful leaders avoid blowing up other countries' leaders is that they know it's eventually going to come back to hurt them. Once that first Wizard Fireballs the king, every other king--and Wizard--is a target and society falls apart.

Hmmm if we assume 3.5 and not PF where sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free, could materials be used as part of how the aristocrats control magic? A lot of components are rare and/or difficult to harvest. If your unlicensed mages are spending all their time scrounging for spell components then they'll be crippled compared to the licensed mages that get a lifetime supply of spell components. It'd be a difficult system to set up, but reasonably stable once you have things in place.

[SirNibbles]

There's always a younger, faster gunslinger coming along who knows the best way to get a reputation is to take you out. Either all the younger, faster adventurers are overthrowing the older adventurer-kings, the older adventurer-kings start murdering all the younger ones before they're trouble, or most of the time the system works to keep society from being in a constant state of war, assassination, and governmental instability by separating political power from other power.

Reality is distorting the realism for you. In D&D, younger means lower level which means weaker, plain and simple.

The principles of the real world still apply, but the balance is shifted. Whereas in the real world individual power isn't very important for a leader, that changes when world-changing magical abilities are introduced. Yes, the most powerful people in the world may not want to be administrators, but the administrators need to be (somewhat) powerful people.

This is why I acknowledged that high ranking advisors/guards (top tier adventurers, essentially) would be equal to or greater in power than the king, but still wouldn't be in charge.

__

My example with kings being level 4-6 was for an E6 game, so of course a level 10 is going to be trouble. And you don't need to send people out to do stupid dangerous stuff in order to train/gain exp.

__

In order to have mutually-assured destruction, both sides need to be capable of destroying the other. That's why rulers need power in a world where others have power.

______________

This, largely. If you consider how 1e ran, the whole concept was that your adventurers would eventually found keeps, baronies, their own thieves' guilds, retire to be the lord of monks, or the high druid.

You're right, awa, too, that high-level characters can strip the weakling of his power if they choose to enact a coup. But viziers could overthrow child-kings, as could councils, and while that did happen, it didn't always. It comes down to what they want. The court wizard may be able to take the whole of the court and the king's armies, but if the court wizard doesn't want to rule, why bother? Keep the king happy and the king will keep him happy, funding and financing the wizard's personal work.

That royal child that's unable to hold the throne without the support of the three high-level people who surround him also is the god-child of one of them, the nephew of another, and a useful figurehead for the third. The weakling ruler may or may not be a figurehead for the "real" powers, and, if not, may command only because the real power-holders prefer to let the hard decisions be made by the lower-level Aristocrat.

The ruler being a figurehead for the real powers behind the scenes is perfectly acceptable. In that case, those people behind the scenes would need to have individual power.

[awa]

actually i could see a situation where the king is say a low int low wis sorcerer of tremendous power and the puppet of an expert or experts with high mental stats. Hes the figure head and gets the perks of leadership but they actually do the work of governing. It might not be entirely stable depending on exactly how capricious the king is but i like the idea. Particularly because sorcerers gain their power from their bloodlines i could see magic being seen as a trait of nobility and thus why they dont want to marry commoners. Depending on how insidious the puppet council are they might be effectively breeding their kings through arranged marriages, and throwing the right prostitutes at them. Now i'm picturing a conspiracy of puppet master secretly ruling the region behind their puppet kings who get all the blame for their cruel policies.

Of course this is a tangent the original discussion is for e6 and in e6 the power disparity is small enough that while it would still encourage higher levels for rulers it would be only a slight encouragement particularly depending on the nature of the government system.

[Segev]

The ruler being a figurehead for the real powers behind the scenes is perfectly acceptable. In that case, those people behind the scenes would need to have individual power.

Well, here's where it gets interesting. What if the council of viziers, the people with individual power, are actually good friends with the ruler, whose judgment they all trust and to whom they defer (though they, being high-ranking officials, obviously make a lot of decisions on their own unless told otherwise by their good friend whom they trust to do otherwise)?

Then, he's not a figurehead. Sure, he rules at the pleasure of the individually-powerful people, but he IS the ruler.


Alternatively, let's say there are three "power behind the throne" viziers, and the figurehead king. One is his religious advisor, a retired adventurer who is now, if not the chief priest of his god, then at least is a modern-day Catholic Bishop-equivalent. 15th or so level. Another is his personal bodyguard, a retired ranger who once rescued him as a small boy and has been a loyal Baron-vassal to the throne as his reward ever since; he's actually 17th or so level (still weaker, perhaps, than the cleric, based on tier, but you get the idea). The third is a 5th level wizard. But the 5th level wizard is the twin sister to an equally-high-level sorceress who is a member of an adventuring party that includes several 5-8th level characters.

If there were ever a...disagreement...between the high-level viziers and the wizard, they could easily take her, but she has a party to back her up, and they have the ability to do a lot of damage to the interests of the other two should there be conflict that escalates unfortunately.

Too big a level-range difference? The 15th-level cleric could wipe the floor with an entire 8th adventuring party, no matter how scattered from him they were? Okay, make the adventuring party 10th level.

At some point, numbers win over level, if the numbers are in a close enough range. And while there is a level gap beyond which numbers just fail to ever breach, you can have individually-weaker people use action deficit to kill much higher-level ones.

At which point, whoever is the spokesperson or leader of that group has power equal to or greater than that of the individually-powerful person.

This is the principle behind which a low-level King with mostly non-magical warriors of low to the rare mid-level still is a power with which the high-level characters must contend. It's about who listens to him and why. Yes, high-level characters can thwart, destabilize, and overthrow, but re-establishing order may well be far more effort than they planned for if their goal was to profit from this by exploiting having a kingdom at their disposal.