Do we really need 11 leadership roles in kingdom building?


Homebrew and House Rules


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been looking at this and there's a huge amount of overlap between the marshal, royal enforcer, warden (marshal handles laws outside the cities, royal enforcer everywhere, warden inside major settlements) and I'm not sure the high priest should actually be on the kings council at all.

I'm just wondering whether we could pare it down to . . .

Ruler (ruler)
Minister of Defense (General)
Minister of Exterior (High diplomat + spymaster)
Minister of Interior (Royal Enforcer + warden + marshal)
Minister of Relgion (High Priest)
Minister of Education/Magic (Magister, not sure which titles more appropriate)
Minister of Finance(Treasurer)

All of these roles act as liasons for their area as well e.g. the minsitor of the interior keeps track of the citizens and what they want, the ministor of the exterior keeps track of what the other nations are thinking.

The thing that concerns me is that these roles seem to be assumed in the balance and eliminating them even if you avoid the penalties will also cost you significant advantages. For example the spymaster adds his dex or int mod to one position and if he's vacant reduces economy and increases unrest. Then I realized most of the penalties for the roles being eliminated are just generic take X to this stat with the exception of the councilor which could perhaps be moved to one of the others e.g. magister or high priest.

So can they be eliminated safely? If not could you maybe have up to 4 advisory councilors say making the Magister the Minister of Magic and having to support them Minister of Eductation, Minister of Public Works, Minister of Commons, Minister of Lords or some such. Which allows you keep the benefits +x to a stat and penalties if minstery position left open penalties accrue but eliminates things like having three peopl with the ear of the Queen one dealing with law enforcement outside the cities, one inside the cities and one everywhere?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As soon as the kingdom has working radios and phones, you can start cutting down on positions. It is difficult to command multiple groups of people without good communications, especially when those people are in widely varied locations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heck, my Kingmaker group has needed more. Every one of those positions has subordinates, cross-communications with other councilors' subordinates, and replacements ready to step in if someone is away for some time (such as KM's third chapter, or my group's Magister making a poorly-thought-out deal with a Fey queen).


You wouldn't really be reducing the positions.

See, what would happen would be that these positions you are trying to consolidate the others into? Well, they can't do all the jobs themselves. Instead the "removed" positions would be subordinates to these positions you have now created.

So you are really just working out a hierarchy here, demoting some positions and creating new positions in order to organize them better and reduce the number of people reporting directly to the king.


Hebitsuikaza wrote:

You wouldn't really be reducing the positions.

See, what would happen would be that these positions you are trying to consolidate the others into? Well, they can't do all the jobs themselves. Instead the "removed" positions would be subordinates to these positions you have now created.

So you are really just working out a hierarchy here, demoting some positions and creating new positions in order to organize them better and reduce the number of people reporting directly to the king.

Exactly I'm not saying a king/queen's court should only have 6 positions I'm saying that ones given here don't really justify being on the top level ear of the ruler. For example lets take the armed forces . . .

General
Overall person in charge of the kingdoms armed forces immediatley below them are four more positions head of the land based forces, sea based forces, air based forces and special forces (adventurer groups).

or below the

Minister of the interior
Each major cities internal law forces would ultimately report to them.

Likewise Councilors I really can't see a "Councilor" who acts as liason to the king from the common folk but I can see a dozen/several dozen councilors each a specialist in their field. However for liason duties that's the job of the various heads of each aspect of the kingdom.

Basically . . .

Ruler
High Council
Specialist advisors/subordinates to high council
etc

so the king relies on the high council to inform him "The pirests are concerned as there is a steady rise of undead sightings." The high priest relies on the various heads of religions to relay information. Each religions head relies on their priests in various towns to relay infomation and so on down the chain to the parish priest in a small village who's flock raise concerns that he feels are important enough to pass onto his superior.

So I'm trying to reduce top level management to just the important elements for a ruler in these times i.e. military, magic, religion, internal laws, external kingdoms and their interests and finance.

If your going more constitutional monarchy there may be a representative for the house of lords/house of commons in the high council but at this stage I can't see it.

Just like most lords of a manor don't consult with the stableboy because if the stable boy has a proble he's meant to go to the stable master who if he can't solve it goes to the head of the household who only then consults the lord if its something he can't solve himself. Sure the lord may eventually hear the dogs are being attacked in the night but he'll hear it from his senschel not the stable boy even if said boy is then called in to explain things in person. Just like a lot of fantasy books have a day/time of day when the regular people can entreat a case directly before the king. If its that important for them to travel him they can request an auidence at those times but there's no one regularly meeting with all of them so far as I know.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Each of the 11 leadership positions are full-time jobs that someone has to occupy to avoid "problems" (aka penalties to kingdom statistics).

The Warden and Marshall might report to the a Royal Enforcer (in his role as Chief Justice), who then reports to the Ruler, so the Ruler might never deal with them directly, but the Royal Enforcer is incapable of doing all three jobs on his own. Likewise, the Spymaster could easily report to the Grand Diplomat, but the Grand Diplomat is too busy to oversee all of the Spymaster's duties in addition to his own.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that all of the roles automatically form the council (quite the opposite, in fact) with direct access to the Ruler: but it does say that without someone filling the roles in question, the kingdom is lacking.


Liam Warner wrote:
I've been looking at this and there's a huge amount of overlap between the marshal, royal enforcer, warden (marshal handles laws outside the cities, royal enforcer everywhere, warden inside major settlements) and I'm not sure the high priest should actually be on the kings council at all.

I think you fail to understand that these are positions that are occupied regardless of the official nature or not of the positions.

You will have a different constabulary handling things outside the cities than in them, regardless of how it is officially set up, because the needs of the two social groups are different.

Myself, I would say that as each "position" takes a week of work every month, there is no reason players could not "double up" and take two weeks a month to effectively run two positions, or even three weeks a month to run three. It cuts down on adventuring time, sure, but lets you keep more personal control. However, it also makes sense that you will employ lieutenants to spread the load. Hence the Lord Chief Justice (Royal Enforcer) can command the Chief Constable (Warden) and Chief of Mounted Police (Marshal) as his lieutenants (NPC positions).

Likewise, if you have people, they will have religion. The religious leaders may not have official sanction, but they have influence and whether they have official positions or not, they WILL have a voice the ruler needs to listen too. The penalty applies when the ruler is not listening...


We need at least 12-13 leadership roles.


Welll... you know... eleven is a VERY low count. It's not just a matter of distributing the work, it's also a way to reward various influential people, get fresh perspectives, keep some people close at hand, and of course distribute the risk somewhat THROUGH overlap. It helps nobody if the minister of the interior is assassinated and nobody can handle a growing uprising. You also want certain roles NOT to be held by the same person, such as the chief justice and the Warden. Oh, and the high priest's role is not necessarily what you'd expect: Making sure the country doesn't have to deal with religious violence, by keeping the various religious groups somewhat content, balancing the interests of conflicting religious leaders before it turns ugly, and performing the various important religious ceremonies relating to the kingdom. A very difficult, thankless job indeed.


Hmmmmmmmmm.


You are running a *country* here. It's a big thing, is a country. Big, complex, messy. Most modest corporations of a over 100 people will have a couple of dozen jobs that Must Be Done or chaos ensues. Yes, people can double up on these, but so can they in PF.

Just be glad that Health and Safety Officer and Head of ISO9000 Audit aren't on the list.


Actually I'm pretty sure each character can only fill one leadership role.


I know a country takes a lot of work to run but my reading of this section seemed to imply that these 11 roles were all at or right next to the top level of leadership and I just feel that doesn't make sense given the overlay between roles. For example yes the methods of country policing may be different then city one but both of them don't need to be able to speak on the countries leadership.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
Actually I'm pretty sure each character can only fill one leadership role.

I'm 100% sure of it.

Leadership Roles wrote:
A character can only fill one leadership role at a time.


Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
Actually I'm pretty sure each character can only fill one leadership role.

Indeed so - I merely suggest a house-rule to allow otherwise if the PC devotes the time to the problem.

Liam Warner wrote:
I know a country takes a lot of work to run but my reading of this section seemed to imply that these 11 roles were all at or right next to the top level of leadership and I just feel that doesn't make sense given the overlay between roles. For example yes the methods of country policing may be different then city one but both of them don't need to be able to speak on the countries leadership.

Whether the roles directly access the ruler or do so through a chain of command makes no functional difference in most cases. For example, both policing groups may report to the Minister of Justice who is the only one to sit on the cabinet, but they still need to be present in the system and their input goes both up and down the chain of command. On occasion the Minister will call them to present findings and make reports to the ruler or the cabinet directly, and their competence effects the confidence their underlings and eventually the city guard and mounted constabulary have in them.

Sovereign Court

I think the number 11 is somewhat arbitrary; when writing KM, the writer could've decided that 10 or 12 would be just as good, by arguing that a particular role isn't all that important compared to the others, or by adding a few more aspects that bear watching closely.

I'm more interested in the reason for the number. My theory is that 11 was deemed high enough that the positions can't be easily filled by PCs alone, so that you actually have to rely on a few key NPCs. This introduces a bit more politicking into a game that is called Kingmaker for a reason.

Also, having a few notable NPCs in the game that are clearly on the PCs (official) side, also easens up plot introduction for the GM. Because he can tell them "your chancellor informs you that...", and then it's not some boss telling the PCs from on high, but their (loyal) aide. It's a stylistic difference that I think matters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm almost certain your reasoning is correct, Ascalaphus. In fact, if you consider a party of 5 adventurers, all of whom take the Leadership feat, they can fill 10 roles with just the PCs and their cohorts. If I had to guess, that's at least part of the reason - to ensure that for most parties, at least one leadership role is filled by an NPC who is entirely under the GM's control.

Having said that, though, the original rules were created by James Jacobs, and from his "Ask Anything" thread, I have the impression that he's more interested in plot-driven adventures than mechanics, so it could just be that he decided that those roles were the ones that really needed to be filled, so those are the roles he put in.


My group also went the full route of creating subordinates to fill in their roles while adventuring. We also re-skinned it as a 'Council of Equals', where the 'King' is more of a Prime Minister, a first among equals, and is the one who breaks ties, allowing a nominal leader while not making any PC more important than any other. It also gives me a block vote to keep the PCs from doing anything particularly outside the laws they set up, though I've never had to do that. Have GM-coltrolled NPCs in a position of power gives you:

1 - Easy way to introduce information or opinions into a PC's discussion w/o GM fiat.
2 - Someone to challenge the PCs socially if they start going a little too far outside the alignment of the kingdom.
3 - A great source of role-playing and side-quests.
4 - Someone to actually run the kingdom when they aren't there.

Sovereign Court

WarColonel wrote:

My group also went the full route of creating subordinates to fill in their roles while adventuring. We also re-skinned it as a 'Council of Equals', where the 'King' is more of a Prime Minister, a first among equals, and is the one who breaks ties, allowing a nominal leader while not making any PC more important than any other. It also gives me a block vote to keep the PCs from doing anything particularly outside the laws they set up, though I've never had to do that. Have GM-coltrolled NPCs in a position of power gives you:

1 - Easy way to introduce information or opinions into a PC's discussion w/o GM fiat.
2 - Someone to challenge the PCs socially if they start going a little too far outside the alignment of the kingdom.
3 - A great source of role-playing and side-quests.
4 - Someone to actually run the kingdom when they aren't there.

I think you've got it exactly.

Interesting. There are lots of styles in kingship, varying from one absolute ruler to figurehead to first among equals. Usually, a king rules because he's got some traditional legitimacy (heritage), but left unspoken is that it only works well as long as the powerful people in the realm aren't too unhappy about it.

In a world like PF, where individuals can be high-level powerhouses, this is probably even more true. A king simply has to CARE about the OPINION of the most powerful priests, wizards, warriors and ninjas in the kingdom, because any one of those can create so much unrest it's not funny anymore.

Doesn't mean the king is powerless, because as long as a majority of the magnates back him, he's still king and can crush rebellions. But he should always be wondering if the majority will still back him.


Interesting reasons there, I think my main problem is that so many of the roles seem to overlap in their duties and I would prefer at the "high council" level they each be distinct.

Have to think some more about this I'm still not happy with all these people (3 police officers, a guy who's only there to liase etc). I suppose I could keep the number and just reskin ones I don't like e.g. marshall, royal enforcer as generic councilors. Same benefits/penalties but it sounds a lot better in my head to have 6 or 7 councilors on the ruling body with their own duties than 1 councilor who liases to the public.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Councilor is arguably the most important role after the Ruler. (Not from a mechanical perspective, but from a kingdom management perspective.)

The Councilor is the one who tells the leaders what the citizens want. And who tells the citizens what the leaders have decided. It's a combination public relations/advisory role. As a rough approximation, it's the role held by the British Prime Minister (assuming that the Queen is the Ruler). Or, if you assume that the PM is the Ruler, it's the Home Secretary. (My knowledge of US politics is severely limited, but a quick search doesn't reveal an equivalent position in the US, which has broken the role up into several Secretarial positions in the cabinet.) The job goes far beyond merely a "liaison" position. The Councilor advises the ruler on home policies, taxation, foreign policy (as it pertains to the perspective of citizens of the kingdom), civil improvement plans, honours, and a whole host of other things. A Ruler without a Councilor has no real way of knowing what his citizens want (and I could see a case for the rulers not knowing the kingdom's level of Unrest if there is no Councilor).

As usual, of course, it's your game, but don't dismiss the necessity of the roles out of hand.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The 11 council roles have been a big boon for me because it allows the GM to give NPCs a voice in how the players manage the kingdom.


This was why I asked it seems I'm going to have to use all 11 even if I don't like them. Thanks for the replies.


NPCs or Cohorts.
I actually think it's vital for the GM to control some of the roles as a way of bringing information and plot threads to the PCs.

Specifically, the Counsellor.


I think these are roles you want to fill and keep close. Having the general or the like too far away from court is a sure way to provoke rebellion.


Cap. Darling wrote:
I think these are roles you want to fill and keep close. Having the general or the like too far away from court is a sure way to provoke rebellion.

Yeah but still 3 police officers? I could see marshal and warden as subordinates to the royal enforcer but of equal rank and influence?


Could someone please give me real-world (ideally U.S. for me) analogues to the positions of General, Marshal, Royal Enforcer, and Warden? I understand that we can shape them how we want, but I'm trying to get the general intention of these Roles.

This is how I understand them:
General: general of army and navy and Air Force, and commander over all other armed forces during wartime
Marshal: over the internal army, like the U.S. National Guard, that supplements local police and can work in tandem with the regular army but is focused on military situations within the nation's borders. In the typical Pathfinder/D&D milieu, they deal with banditry outside of settlements.
Royal Enforcer: a combination of the judicial system and prosecutor, while a political position addressing the public like an Attorney General. Also responsible for (but not heavily involved in) local policing
Warden: chief of police in settlements, combined with the U.S. Secret Service protecting the nation's leaders. Also works with General AND Marahal (a la National Guard) in response to domestic emergencies.


That's probably pretty close right there.

Sovereign Court

Liam Warner wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
I think these are roles you want to fill and keep close. Having the general or the like too far away from court is a sure way to provoke rebellion.
Yeah but still 3 police officers? I could see marshal and warden as subordinates to the royal enforcer but of equal rank and influence?

Well, there's a difference between an army keeping out enemy combatants, and a civil police force keeping order among people who are basically "our guys". These roles are often tasked to different organizations, because they require a different mentality and also different skills.

Police requires fine people skills; knowing when to solve a dispute with mediation, a stern talking to, or arrests. Basically regarding people as being on your side, but aware that some of them might be secretly breaking the law. Ideally, police uses a minimum of violence to maintain order and justice.

Military on the other hand faces much more open enemies, that are often far more violent than the police is trained to handle. Military tends to strike swiftly and as decisively as possible, before the enemy can get its act together. That's a kind of tactics that only makes sense against enemies, not quite against your own population.

In situations where the enemies are part of the population or masquerading as such (rebellion, terrorism), this neat model doesn't work so well, and things become much nastier for everyone.

So, I think a good kingdom would actually have several separate law/peace enforcement services around, and that implies multiple leaders.

---

Also, there's something to be said for not putting all armed forces under one person; that person tends to become more powerful than others are comfortable with. Dividing the armies among a few leaders can be a strategy to avoid military coups.

And maybe there's a lot of PCs that basically fit the "armed forces" role, and it's nice if there's more than one job so they can all have the same rank.


I picture Marshal as like the Texas rangers or the Mounties. They deal with banditry more than regular crime.

The Warden is, as has been said, chief of police and head of the city defense.

So you can think of these two as rural crime and defense, and crime and defense of settlements (urban).

The Enforcer, you should know, was originally called the Royal Assasin. So you can imagine he's not really a police officer at all. He's the guy you call when you want someone...taken care of...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Do we really need 11 leadership roles in kingdom building? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules