Idea, We'll settle this war with a duel!

[Prometheus]

So we all know that in our modern world and most of our historical world it was considered the worst kind of warfare to assassinate someone's leader and there never had been a smaller war used as a substitute match for a larger war. Oddly enough, the only civilized kind of warfare is the movement of armies to cause mass casualties of both sides and at least historically, many of those casualties ended up being civilians as well. What if the "civilized" thing was to assassinate targets and leave the people out of it?

Lets combine this concept with the general observation about D&D mechanics that it is easier for a single talented (high-leveled) combatant (any class) to defeat an army nine times out of ten. Usually the only thing stopping this from occurring more regularly is intercession by an opposed talented combatant, the ethics of slaughtering an entire army, or the composition of the army out of fewer much more powerful troops.

So what this is leading to is a world of nations who not have their military victories dependent on appealing to powerful heroes but also their very sovereignty dependent on these strong combatants. It is very much like the world of any major superhero comicbook, except that Superman not only looks after Metropolis but intervenes against injustice in the entire world and declares himself President. Much also like the classical pantheons of gods, the lives of unrelated mortals are strongly influenced by the fights, loves, jealousy, grudges, and other interactions between "the gods".

Clearly, there would be some of them stronger than others, and there would be some that would try to test these individuals or try to ascend to the same level. Much like rising military powers in the real world, half the time these rising heroes are embraced and protected by a stronger power and other times they are destroyed before they become a threat. The common people generally accept the dominance of these heroes, less they be subsequently crushed. Keep in mind that these heroes don't have to be limited to NPCs (and on day PCs), but also intelligent monsters such as dragons and sphinx.

What do you guys think?

[streakster]

If this was widespread, a group fighting en masse against a high-powered foe could be seen as new and shocking.

I can see a bunch of rebels with no hero using Tucker's Tactics to down a hero, and shocked nations trying to figure out what just happened...

[Nerd-o-rama]

Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense, and have been toying with the idea for a sci-fi setting. In particular, an old civilization with a long tradition of nationalism but few remaining resources with which to wage a full-scale war might go about things this way. I think, moreso than having leaders fight each other directly, each nation will probably have a champion of sorts that is hired to represent them in these conflicts. It's better for everyone all around.

Of course, the whole point of a war is to cost the enemy more than what they want to sacrifice for their goal, whether the goal is sovereignty, domination, resources, what have you. With these champions, every nation has a resource that can decimate the enemy, but they agree to battle individually and not carry the war forward into attacking the other nation's territory directly. They can, but all agree not to do so, as long as losers agree to acquiesce.

It only lasts as long as tradition does, really, because once someone takes a gamble on going back to old all-out warfare, or refuses to accede to a victor's demands, it'll take more than one person to stop them.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Supposedly, the celts and vikings often had a "heroes' challenge" at the start of battle. Thanes, nobles, renowned warriors and leaders would call each other out and duel as their troops looked on, often to exact vengeance for some feud or grudge. The battle would still take place, naturally, although the outcomes might greatly affect morale.

In RuneQuest's/HeroQuest's Glorantha, this idea is carried on similarly to what you propose. Because individual heroes can be powerful enough to defeat armies, the Heortlings (a celtic-viking-gothic people) often have a battle of champions when warbands meet (warbands usually being no larger than a few hundred members). If one side's best warrior is too overwhelmingly powerful, the other side may just quit the field rather than risk slaughter.

It's a very appropriate idea for a fantasy setting. Why bring a thousand men out to be killed by the elite cadre of the opposing side? (Really, the percentage of deaths in casualties would be ridiculous when the battlefield is full of fireballs and power attacking high-level characters.) Just have your elites duke it out.

See the duel at the start of Troy, too.

Including monsters puts me in mind of the Numidium in the Elder Scrolls series - a giant golem, essentially, used by the Emperor to conquer much of Tamriel. Imagine a king with an iron golem - how will any army or any fortress stop his attack?

[Vortling]

Believe it or not this was actually done in myth if not in history (David and Goliath anyone?). Armies would sometimes face of and instead of engaging each other in massive bloody struggle they would each send out their champion to fight in one on one combat. The victor's army would then usually chase the loser's army out of their territory. All in all it costs an army much less if they lose or win. It's a bit of a time and cost saver.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Including monsters puts me in mind of the Numidium in the Elder Scrolls series - a giant golem, essentially, used by the Emperor to conquer much of Tamriel. Imagine a king with an iron golem - how will any army or any fortress stop his attack?

God dammit, I tried my hardest not to say this in my first post, but now you've tempted me far too far.

Spoiler

Show

Gundam Fight! Ready...GO!

[AKA_Bait]

Basically, this is the Socialomicon in other words.

[Belteshazzar]

It doesn't work like that see and here is why. I may be a common man, but when Captain Thunder and his crew come in and start wrecking up my country's hero's with their laser eye-beams, or magitech, or Gundams or other fancy elitist bull**** I am not simply going to stand by, even kobalds when played right will gank a 10th level party, if simply through attrition.

I take a few garden tools gather up some friends and start chucking brick and molotovs at his ass till he goes away. Maybe make a cheap rocket launcher and use the old Russian standby of "sure our armor is crap and it takes ten shots to kill you but it costs 500,000 to build one tank and 150 to arm and point the one sucker with rpg in your direction."

There are simply too many people willing to die if it means to snub the enemy. Especially an enemy pretentious enough to send out a few guys. Look at the ire the U.S. gets when we try just that. This world is just begging for the crossbow or pistol equivalent to get invented because, as I once heard "God made some men stronger or more skilled than others, Samuel Colt them equal."

However, Exalted does sound similar to this premise, from what I can gather normal folk are little more than the scenery or goods to be fought over in Creation.

[Prometheus]

I think the main idea is that this is a reality of how the world works, and the rules of war follow accordingly. Certainly, there are people who don't play by the rules and there are consequences. People learn.

Another point I wanted to make was that it makes for forces in the world the players will always be checked by. Rather than beating epic monsters to accomplish your goal, you have to enlist them or do it behind their back. It has the feel of many Greek myths.

Example superheroes of the world:
The Challenger (Lawful Good): Probably a warrior or knight type, the challenger is the ultimate champion of the "duel instead of war" philosophy. Seeking to fight evil wherever it exists, The Challenger is the source of many a "war" because the conditions are acceptable (i.e. a personal risk for the sake of justice) but will never tolerate a "war" in the way we know it today.
The Diety (Neutral Good): A cleric who lives to serve the commonfolk. He/she takes prayer requests, and does his/her best to serve them. Like a shepard, however, the quickest way to get on his/her bad side is to harm civilians. The Deity plays be the rules because there is seldom any warfare except in defense.
The Traveling Miracle (Chaotic Good): Much more powerful than her attention span, the this hero crosses the world with a big heart. Whenever there is something wrong, she fixes it, but she does have a little trouble seeing the big picture and doesn't seem to realize that she should be more involved in a much more complex system of heroes and villains.

Example super-villains of the world:
The Tyrant (Lawful Evil): A ruler with an iron fist-dissidents will be punished. While the Tyrant willingly slaughters his own people for the sake of law and order, he will obey the rules when it comes to war. He will knows that the duel is his forte (knight) and has had a number of successes in the past with the matter. Known for his immortality (maybe undead, maybe simply a resurrection-spell-frequent-flyer), it's not like he won't come back for more should he lose.
The Harvester (Neutral Evil) A necromancer with a legion of undead. They, of course, decay, are destroyed by nature, and destroyed in combat, so he periodically refreshes his stock from the world. Heroes tend to despise him for this, but he generally gets to live autonomously be telling his minions what to do.
The Excluder (Chaotic Evil): A monster with a god-complex. To this paladin of slaughter, nothing is worse than "mortals" not respecting the power of the God. The Excluder will even go out of his way to fight alongside enemies to put down those who would rise up against the powers that be (which means slaughter in mass quantities). Whenever there is someone who is rising in power to the point where they enter the hero-calculations, the Excluder seeks them out with a death-sentence. When confronted by another hero, he typically clears out unless he is sure he can win.

Example super-vanillas of the world:
The NGO (Lawful Neutral): A bureaucrat stuck in a competent person's body. Whatever class he or she is, his or her allegiance always falls to satisfy the status quo and prevent war. Sometimes this means appeasing a bully, but usually it means enforcing a balance of power.
The Mercenary (True Neutral): A standard blade for hire, a blade that is worth quite a lot. Whoever the highest bidder is can consider the Mercenary as their general. Usually paying a little more can ensure the he doesn't immediately switch sides when someone makes a better offer. Usually. Bonus points if this character is a dragon that just hoards the wealth in a stockpile somewhere.
The Ziggaraut (Chaotic Neutral): Not technically a hero, but probably the only other independent entity. The Ziggaraut is a massive archaic city that has no end to human lives and adopts policies that reflect this truth of supply and demand. When bullied by a hero, the Ziggaraut's one rule is not to comply. Therefore, the Ziggaraut has become a no fly zone but at great cost to it's populace.

[Swordguy]

As a note, this wasn't done historically for two major reasons:

1) Rulers=divine mandate. It sets a bad example if a noble who's claiming the protection of the divine dies. This is less of an issue in D&D than it was in history. However...

2) ...the term "Do unto others before they do unto you" still applies in D&D. It's a gentleman's agreement - you don't assassinate our leaders, and we won't assassinate yours. As long as states have armies/flunkies/etc to do the dirty work, it's always preferable to have them fight rather than open yourself up to assassination attempts by trying to assassinate the other guy. Mutually Assured Destruction, as it were.

The first one may not impact D&D too much, but the second one should absolutely apply, even for Evil leaders - assassinating one enemy isn't worth the risk of a bunch of heroes doing the same thing to you as long as you have an army to use.

[memnarch]

You know, this strongly reminds me of the Bant from Magic the Gathering.

[Dervag]

It doesn't work like that see and here is why. I may be a common man, but when Captain Thunder and his crew come in and start wrecking up my country's hero's with their laser eye-beams, or magitech, or Gundams or other fancy elitist bull**** I am not simply going to stand by, even kobalds when played right will gank a 10th level party, if simply through attrition.

I take a few garden tools gather up some friends and start chucking brick and molotovs at his ass till he goes away. Maybe make a cheap rocket launcher and use the old Russian standby of "sure our armor is crap and it takes ten shots to kill you but it costs 500,000 to build one tank and 150 to arm and point the one sucker with rpg in your direction."

There are simply too many people willing to die if it means to snub the enemy. Especially an enemy pretentious enough to send out a few guys. Look at the ire the U.S. gets when we try just that. This world is just begging for the crossbow or pistol equivalent to get invented because, as I once heard "God made some men stronger or more skilled than others, Samuel Colt them equal."

However, Exalted does sound similar to this premise, from what I can gather normal folk are little more than the scenery or goods to be fought over in Creation.

In D&D, it could take dozens or hundreds of dead commoners to kill an enemy champion, and even then it only works if the champion is unescorted and doesn't retreat. If the enemy champion has his own army, approximately like yours, then your strategy doesn't work at all- his army keeps yours busy while his champion kills a dozen or so of your troops every minute. That's a recipe for a lost battle.

Moreover, the strategy of mass resistance against the champion doesn't work well against D&D spellcasters. At medium levels, they really can destroy entire armies or villages in such a way as to make it impossible for the population to fight back effectively.

Put simply, Samuel Colt does not make men equal in a world where a .45 Peacemaker does 2d6 damage and the typical high level character has 50 or more hit points.

1) Rulers=divine mandate. It sets a bad example if a noble who's claiming the protection of the divine dies. This is less of an issue in D&D than it was in history. However...

2) ...the term "Do unto others before they do unto you" still applies in D&D. It's a gentleman's agreement - you don't assassinate our leaders, and we won't assassinate yours. As long as states have armies/flunkies/etc to do the dirty work, it's always preferable to have them fight rather than open yourself up to assassination attempts by trying to assassinate the other guy. Mutually Assured Destruction, as it were.

The first one may not impact D&D too much, but the second one should absolutely apply, even for Evil leaders - assassinating one enemy isn't worth the risk of a bunch of heroes doing the same thing to you as long as you have an army to use.

The champions aren't necessarily the rulers, you know.

As the Socialnomicon points out, there could be a good reason Aristocrat-classed NPCs rule so much of the world even though they're surrounded by PC-classed individuals who could kill an elephant with a teaspoon or smash the laws of nature into unrecognizable fragments. The reason is that Aristocrats have good charisma, which allows them to get on the good side of some of the guys who can do those things.

The typical war involves both sides checking to find out how many high-level badasses they have on their speed dial, calling up their respective hero populations, and sending them off to do battle. Whichever side has its heroes killed or run off loses, because unless it has the other side totally outnumbered in 'conventional' military terms, the champions have too much of an edge.

If a champion wants to take over the kingdom, he probably can. If the knight-errant can slay dragons and the king's army can't, then the knight-errant might very well be able to stomp the army into the ground and install himself in the royal palace by force. This, incidentally, is one of the reasons the knight-errant gets to marry the beautiful princess in the traditional fairy tale; the king is trying to get on his good side.

[Piedmon_Sama]

As a note, this wasn't done historically for two major reasons:

1) Rulers=divine mandate. It sets a bad example if a noble who's claiming the protection of the divine dies. This is less of an issue in D&D than it was in history. However...

2) ...the term "Do unto others before they do unto you" still applies in D&D. It's a gentleman's agreement - you don't assassinate our leaders, and we won't assassinate yours. As long as states have armies/flunkies/etc to do the dirty work, it's always preferable to have them fight rather than open yourself up to assassination attempts by trying to assassinate the other guy. Mutually Assured Destruction, as it were.

The first one may not impact D&D too much, but the second one should absolutely apply, even for Evil leaders - assassinating one enemy isn't worth the risk of a bunch of heroes doing the same thing to you as long as you have an army to use.

Although, ironically, every time a small band of heroes breaks into the citadel of the evil warlord/foul necromancer/diabolist who's running the requisite evil kingdom, you can certainly interpret it as an assassination. >>

[Belteshazzar]

In D&D
Put simply, Samuel Colt does not make men equal in a world where a .45 Peacemaker does 2d6 damage and the typical high level character has 50 or more hit points.

See this is why I moved to Gurps. Because when I want an iterate blacksmith to catch the foul sorcerer Evil McMustach off guard with a hammer and pound a tent spike into his frontal cortex he doesn't have to worry about the 50 plus hitpoints the guy gets just for studying musty tomes in a dim room all day, and the missile weapons do respectable damage, and I can sever or cripple limbs if I want to! hmmph!
*wanders away to polish his "there is more than game one system out there" merit badge*

[Tsotha-lanti]

It doesn't work like that see and here is why. I may be a common man, but when Captain Thunder and his crew come in and start wrecking up my country's hero's with their laser eye-beams, or magitech, or Gundams or other fancy elitist bull**** I am not simply going to stand by, even kobalds when played right will gank a 10th level party, if simply through attrition.

This simply isn't true.

An army plain cannot stand up against a 10th-level party. Even with fortifications, they're just sitting there waiting to be fireballed, and then cleaned up by the buffed fighter and the rogue. It's impossible for even hundreds of first-levels to deal any kind of significant damage to remotely clever adventurers.

And if the hero is 15th or, ghu forbid, 20th-level, no armies are going to stand against them. A 20th-level fighter will simply wade through an entire army, and they'll be in a rout faster than they can tell what attacked them.

There are simply too many people willing to die if it means to snub the enemy.

Doesn't work that way. Medieval armies broke and routed long before they were decimated (well, unless you mean literally). Kill twenty men out of a company without taking any injuries, and the rest will run away as fast as they can.

Pistols and crossbows are irrelevant. They still won't hit the guy.

Magic missiles will help a bit, but if batteries of 1st-level sorcerers are a common tactic, so are metamagicked 24-hour shield spells.

If the champion is a level 8+ sorcerer (with, say, a wand of fireball), you can throw literally thousands of troops at him, and it will be useless. (Well, actually, you can't throw the troops at him, because he's got fly and improved invisibility. You need your own spellcaster - a champion - to counter this spellcaster in a spellduel...)

*wanders away to polish his "there is more than game one system out there" merit badge*

That's great, but...

Lets combine this concept with the general observation about D&D mechanics

You'll have to wait a bit longer for that "can read what the thread is about" merit badge, I guess.

[Kurald Galain]

If the champion is a level 8+ sorcerer (with, say, a wand of fireball), you can throw literally thousands of troops at him, and it will be useless. (Well, actually, you can't throw the troops at him, because he's got fly and improved invisibility. You need your own spellcaster - a champion - to counter this spellcaster in a spellduel...)

Quite so. I can think of several examples in D&D'esque fantasy novels where a single wizard is more than up to routing an entire army.

For instance, Pug/Milamber of Krondor fame has done this on numerous occasions, most notably his "THIS ENDS NOW!" speech by the end of the Serpentwar saga. Indeed, it does end.

[Irreverent Fool]

You'll have to wait a bit longer for that "can read what the thread is about" merit badge, I guess.

Ha ha ha!

HA! HA! HA!

Haaaaaa!

Why must someone make some sort of comment about GURPS being better every time we are busy figuring out the logical outcome of a world that is goverened by D&D rules?

I don't have anything to contribute, but this is a fascinating thread. Do continue.

[Selrahc]

System somewhat like this occured in Aberrant, the White Wolf superhero game. Essentially the existence of army killing beings made war an incredibly chaotic and deadly experience, so wars turned into a proxy conflict between two teams of incredibly deadly superpowered individuals, backed up by the wealth of a nation.

The difference being that the Elites in Aberrant were spoiled pampered psychoes, working for the highest bidder, while your idea of champions is about someone who is exemplary and really believes in the nation.

[InaVegt]

Stuff like this is why I like to combine 3.5 with e6, V/WP, Armour as DR, and 25 point buy.

The heroes still get very powerful, but a few lucky shots WILL take out even the mightiest warrior. And the wizard only has a small amount of spells, it's hard to decimate an army if you only have, say, four fireballs (or equivalent) a day, and no spells of greater power.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The difference being that the Elites in Aberrant were spoiled pampered psychoes, working for the highest bidder, while your idea of champions is about someone who is exemplary and really believes in the nation.

I dunno, that sounds like Achilleus in the Troy film. He was such a... sports star?

[Dervag]

See this is why I moved to Gurps. Because when I want an iterate blacksmith to catch the foul sorcerer Evil McMustach off guard with a hammer and pound a tent spike into his frontal cortex he doesn't have to worry about the 50 plus hitpoints the guy gets just for studying musty tomes in a dim room all day, and the missile weapons do respectable damage, and I can sever or cripple limbs if I want to! hmmph!
*wanders away to polish his "there is more than game one system out there" merit badge*

Oh, I agree, but this is a forum attached to a webcomic based on the oddities of D&D. D&D provides a common frame of reference in the discussion.

Now, in a world where the universe works based on the oddities of the GURPS system, and not the oddities of the D&D system, my earlier argument probably doesn't even apply.

Stuff like this is why I like to combine 3.5 with e6, V/WP, Armour as DR, and 25 point buy.

The heroes still get very powerful, but a few lucky shots WILL take out even the mightiest warrior. And the wizard only has a small amount of spells, it's hard to decimate an army if you only have, say, four fireballs (or equivalent) a day, and no spells of greater power.

If that works for you, fine. But in the default rules, it is definitely the case that medium or high leveled characters are a match for whole platoons, companies, or even armies of soldiers. In a world like that, it really does make sense to have the army-killing badasses duke it out and leave everyone else out of it "to prevent a needless effusion of blood." If the two armies fight each other, given how powerful their champions are, hundreds of people are going to die without having any real effect on the outcome of the battle- fifty guys get blown up by fireballs before they even close to effective crossbow range, and then forty more guys get cut to shreds by the barbarian, and so on.

It's just not worth it.

[AKA_Bait]

Quite so. I can think of several examples in D&D'esque fantasy novels where a single wizard is more than up to routing an entire army.

For instance, Pug/Milamber of Krondor fame has done this on numerous occasions, most notably his "THIS ENDS NOW!" speech by the end of the Serpentwar saga. Indeed, it does end.

The Riftwar stuff is actually a pretty good example of how a D&D setting with a more mideval bent could work. If you think about it, the most badass people really do end up running or essentially running the show, similar to the socialomicon set up. It's even openly discussed in some cases.

Spoiler for those who haven't read Magician and the later books:

Spoiler

Show

Thomas marries the queen in Elvandar.
Jimmy ends up a Duke despite being born to a streetwalker.
Pug essentially founds his own small nation.
And lets not even get into the power the Assembly wields on Kelwan.
Even the established noblity, like Arutha and Black Guy, are depicted as being well above average with a blade.

This actually does bring up a different point though: it matters in the setting just how many powerful people there are in the world. If adventurers are uncommon, but not super rare (i.e. there are a few hundred wizards on the continent instead of there being like 30) then the war by adventurer scenario makes some sense. If not, it's likley that the most powerful character in the kingdom is the king or his old buddy the Archmage. In this case, these folks are incredibly valuable resources andprobably wouldn't be risked in conventional warfare unless the entire kingdom was at stake, possibly not even then. Moreover, even the other side probably wouldn't want to kill them in the event of victory if it can be avoided. They are going to need that guy the next time a dragon decides it's going to go royal treasury raiding.

[Kurald Galain]

The Riftwar stuff is actually a pretty good example of how a D&D setting with a more mideval bent could work.

You are aware, I hope, that at least the first couple Riftwar books were in fact based upon Feist's RPG campaign? I'm unsure whether it's D&D, but they do reference Vancian spells on occasion, and all of it seems pretty class-based.

However, as to the Assembly being in charge on Kelewan, please note they were completely pwnz0red by a low-level aristocrat. It is also worth noting that many of the characters in the books are Mary Sues, hence their miraculous birth, skills, heritage, and destiny.

Let's bring up some more examples... Jack Vance (yes, that Vance)'s Lyonesse. The world is explicitly not ruled by the handful of extremely powerful mages, but only because the strongest of them, Murgen, has Decreed that they Shall Not Meddle In Politics, and underlines this point by confronting and defeating the few that dare disobey him.

[AKA_Bait]

You are aware, I hope, that at least the first couple Riftwar books were in fact based upon Feist's RPG campaign? I'm unsure whether it's D&D, but they do reference Vancian spells on occasion, and all of it seems pretty class-based.

Huh. No, I was not aware of that. I'm not surprised though.

However, as to the Assembly being in charge on Kelewan, please note they were completely pwnz0red by a low-level aristocrat.

I think it's worth noting though that the Assembly spent most of its time infighting. Great Ones were outside the law for a reason.

It is also worth noting that many of the characters in the books are Mary Sues, hence their miraculous birth, skills, heritage, and destiny.

Honestly, if you think about D&D PC classes and characters in comparison to the rest of the NPCs out in the world, most D&D characters could not unreasonably be described as Mary Sues. Through the lens of a D&D party it doesn't seem that way, but from the perspective of Fred the Turnip Farmer...

Let's bring up some more examples... Jack Vance (yes, that Vance)'s Lyonesse.

Haven't read it. Didn't really like Dying Earth so I haven't read much else by Vance.

[Flickerdart]

I take a few garden tools gather up some friends and start chucking brick and molotovs at his ass till he goes away. Maybe make a cheap rocket launcher and use the old Russian standby of "sure our armor is crap and it takes ten shots to kill you but it costs 500,000 to build one tank and 150 to arm and point the one sucker with rpg in your direction."

Russia didn't use RPGs, but anti-tank rifles. It works even better that way, because one bullet is cheaper than a rocket. It only took a single shot to frag a tank, too, if your aim didn't suck.

Anyways. If there are such mighty heroes, who needs armies? Smart kings would get their best troops to train up to champion strength and have a large, elite cadre of possibly weaker-than-par men. It doesn't matter, because 20 lvl 8-s are still better than one or two 10-s, unless of course it's 20 Fighters against 2 Wizards. But 20 lvl 8 Wizards can take down a lot of things. Then the stupid kings would copy the smart kings, and soon enough armies of champions would duke it out in the same way as mooks did before. Power creep, people.

[AKA_Bait]

Anyways. If there are such mighty heroes, who needs armies? Smart kings would get their best troops to train up to champion strength and have a large, elite cadre of possibly weaker-than-par men. It doesn't matter, because 20 lvl 8-s are still better than one or two 10-s, unless of course it's 20 Fighters against 2 Wizards. But 20 lvl 8 Wizards can take down a lot of things. Then the stupid kings would copy the smart kings, and soon enough armies of champions would duke it out in the same way as mooks did before. Power creep, people.

This becomes a question of limited resources and power balance though. How do you get enough xp for these folks to get to level 8? How much gold can the kingdom invest in their training and equipment? More importantly, how many of these powerful people does the first king want around the rest of the time? If he as 20 level 8 wizards, it only takes a few of them deciding that they deserve a raise to level his castle. It's easier to keep a small number of really powerful people happy and under control than a large number. Foolish kings would probably lose their kingdoms to the very people they trained up, who wouldn't want to repeat their mistakes.

[Flickerdart]

The king himself is a Thrallherd. Problem solved.

[AKA_Bait]

The king himself is a Thrallherd. Problem solved.

All the other kings are too? Otherwise there is no problem of escalation and, frankly, probably going to be a very short war.

[Zocelot]

I can't see battles being fought 1 vs. 1, for the fate of entire kingdoms, but there is no need for thousands of people to die in wars either.

It's reasonable that children with talent would be taken at a young age, and trained to become the best warriors they could be. Kind of like Battle School in Ender's Game/Shadow. Wars would be won when all the heros from the other side were killed. It would also make sense that they resolved conflicts within their respective kingdoms as well.

[Flickerdart]

All the other kings are too? Otherwise there is no problem of escalation and, frankly, probably going to be a very short war.

I think that quite a few would be, after they see how well it works. Thing is, the Good kings wouldn't be screwed...beacuse the Not Stupid heroes wouldn't want to serve under Thrallherds.