He / She Who Would Be King!?!


Advice


Ok, this is NOT about the Kingmaker AP. So please don’t move it there.

Friend and I were talking about a character that is planning to eventually be in charge of “something.” Either he thinks he is destined to rule, believes he is a long lost royal scion, plans to take over a country or mercantile empire, intends to head out into the wild lands and carve out a new nation, or something like that. Building up the good, well run, successful, freedom loving society. All good, we had lots of characters like that clear back in the pink box days.

But a build for it kinda got us hung up.
* Wizard/Alchemist/Arcanist/Witch – obviously intelligent, mighty, and power hungry easily imaginable. But that seems to be obsessed with arcane power pouring over old tomes and forgotten lore. Doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to want to be constantly pulled away from his books to be buried in the day-to-day running of a kingdom.
* Cleric/Paladin – ok wise and theocracies are a historical fact. But they are also historically poorly run/managed and quickly devolve into ‘office politics’ disguised as religion. In-game, clerics have few ranks to learn the skills needed to do a good job running things. Though the emphasis on wisdom and charisma could help with some of the social skill aspects even if they don’t have many ranks. They also have many useful spells when skills and abilities are not enough.
* Fighter/Barbarian/Cavalier – well yes, they have the power to take over. Plenty of historical examples of strongmen forging a dictatorship. But again historically poorly run and usually soon falling apart. In-game and out-game, they don’t have anything at all to help them rule except being hard to kill. At least the clerics and wizards have spells to help when their skills are not enough.
* Rogue – with a concentration on the social skills and manipulating others actually seems like a decent fit. Unless you re-fluff it, you may have difficulty getting many to want to follow you. And like every other role for them, rogues don’t have all that much except the skill points going for them.
* Bard – seems like it would have the skills and abilities (with spell backup) to do the job. But what comes to mind with ‘bard’ again doesn’t seem like the type of personality that wants to be tied down for the rest of his life buried in the day-to-day running of a kingdom. Diplomat, PR Secretary, or Diplomat yes. Ruler in his own right, I’m not so sure.
* Ranger/Druid – yeah, I could see these setting up the small ‘commune in harmony with nature’ type of village as an example to others of what can be done. Or possibly an evil druid using the power of nature to take over. But in that case, it gets back to the strong man dictatorships and theocracies above.
* Hybrid classes seem to be already set in their niche that has nothing to do with ruling.
* Sorcerer – surprisingly (to me at least) this one seemed to fit the job pretty well. Full arcane caster with a huge spell list. Very powerful while trying to startup or take over. Charisma to spike those social skills. Spells when that doesn’t work. His power doesn’t come from spending his time pouring over books. It is literally a function of his bloodline (isn’t that how royalty is supposed to work). It is just a part of who and what he is. Ruling won’t be pulling him away from his love of studying books.

I think if I were make a character whose intention was to eventually rule something, I’d certainly be leaning toward sorcerer.

As I said at the start, this is not for the Kingmaker AP. It really just the motivation for a character in a more standard type of campaign that doesn’t necessarily have anything central to do with creating a nation. This is what the character eventually wants to do kind of thing. So while that campaign goes along he will try to make contacts. Forge relationships with nobles. Build up a reliable reputation. Etc… Fighting off the invading mummy army, recovering the thingamabob, and foiling the vile plans of Dr Madman; is just what he has to do for now to get to that point where he can start a nation or whatever.

So what do you think? What would you build with the intention of becoming a benevolent successful ruler?


Why not a Paladin? Blessed by a (the) god(s). Self-Righteous enough to believe that everyone would be better off if he was in charge.


Destined or even better Imperious Bloodlines seem to fit from a fluff perspective.


Jodokai wrote:
Why not a Paladin? Blessed by a (the) god(s). Self-Righteous enough to believe that everyone would be better off if he was in charge.

As I said above, I can see them wanting to rule (or at least thinking their god wants them to do so) but I can't see them doing a good job of it. Few skill ranks. The spells they have don't really help much. None of their class abilities seem geared to help.

Yeah self righteous enough and powerful enough to take over. But then, they're gonna flub it.

If I were planning a character to do a good job of running a place, paladin would not be my choice.

Shadow Lodge

It sounds like you're getting a little tied up with what a class is "supposed" to be.

Hitler, stated out for Pathfinder could be a bard. There is no reason a witch patron couldn't set a goal for its disciple to gain temporal power. Paladin, I think would end in Ed Stark territory but it doesn't mean it might not be fun. Odin is a good example of a Rogue/Oracle w chaotic alignment who is also a ruler, ignoring the whole god thing.

Basically, you need to broaden your views of what each class could be instead of letting your stereotypes tell you what it is. You might possibly have to do this for your players as well.

Hope that's helpful.


Kerney wrote:

It sounds like you're getting a little tied up with what a class is "supposed" to be.

Hitler, stated out for Pathfinder could be a bard. There is no reason a witch patron couldn't set a goal for its disciple to gain temporal power. Paladin, I think would end in Ed Stark territory but it doesn't mean it might not be fun. Odin is a good example of a Rogue/Oracle w chaotic alignment who is also a ruler, ignoring the whole god thing.

Basically, you need to broaden your views of what each class could be instead of letting your stereotypes tell you what it is. You might possibly have to do this for your players as well.

Hope that's helpful.

Odin is a good example even considering he is a god. For he is a ruler of other gods.


Concerning Bards:

They are NOT restricted to non-lawful alignments as per 3.5. A Lawful Good bard could, in fact, be a great fit. "Knowledge belongs to all free men" mentality slapped together with a suave tongue, magical capabilities, oratory finesse, probably decent swordsmanship as is typical of fantasy rulers... Yeah, a Lawful Good Bard king would be great, IMO, even moreso because they are a great Jack-of-all-trades class in Pathfinder. Everyone else can be specialized while you play the fifth man that's in charge of the kingdom.

Concerning Fighters:

Yeah, as Kerney said, you're sticking too much to the traditional look at these classes. A lot of solid kingdoms WERE, in fact, founded or conquered on the basis of military might. Genghis Khan might not have ruled forever, but he left a long-lasting legacy in more ways than one. Japan was pretty much a feudal dictatorship throughout its medieval history. The Black Prince of Normandy forcibly took control of England and subjugated its people - and was pretty successful. And then there's Julius Caesar, a man who I think could best be described as a Fighter in D&D terms; while he wasn't Rome's GREATEST leader, he definitely is highly influential in Rome's history.

Don't think the base fighter works for you still? Alright. Why not look at the Tactician archetype? It's one of my favorites, personally, getting 4 skill points a level and suggesting a build focused around a high intelligence (Aid Another tactics). For a stronger Fighter archetype that's better at this whole "combat" thing, why not play a 14 intelligence Lore Warden?

Assuming a Human Lore Warden or Tactician putting his favored class bonus into skill points, you could have: Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility), Intimidate, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Perception, Bluff, and one more skill. You can dump CHA a little if you need to thanks to this trait. Dip one level into another class to pick up those talking skills as class skills if you feel you must. I hear Clerics with the right domain are great one level dips for just about anyone - or perhaps an Inquisitor. It's not really necessary, though.

Concerning Theocracies:

Keep this in mind: you're not playing a game based on Earth. You're playing a game based on a fantasy setting where the gods are directly involved with the affairs of mortals, where they can send messages that say "No stop it no stop," where... well, with the right magical item created, the theocracy's ruler could appeal to their god to know who the next ruler should be. Etc.

You're constraining yourself to real-world logic when the rules of fantasy settings are different because the gods and such can manifest themselves in real, tangible ways. Keep that in mind when talking about paladin, cleric, and druid rulers.

Concerning Everyone:

It doesn't matter so much whether a class will be the MOST SUCCESSFUL at ruling a kingdom. What matters is whether it'll be FUN to play that class on its journey to rule.

EDIT: As an aside, if your opinion on paladins is "they can't be trusted to be in charge of anything," you've only played with bad paladins.


Here's the thing. In terms of Pathfinder classes, there aren't a whole lot of options other than Fighter for real life leaders. I mean, let's face it, George Washington was no Wizard.

If I were you, I'd run Sorc just for the charisma. But it's not a huge deal.


To a certain extant I agree with you. I do tend to get tied up in what a class is "supposed" to be. But then again, most people do. That's why we name things and why names have so much power.

On the other hand looking at what actually is in the class can tend to support that. A wizard gets all his powers from studying books, a fighter from strength at arms, a cleric from communion with his deity.
None of those are the skills involved in running a huge organization or empire. The miniutia of running something would only detract from where their power lies. It doesn't seem to fit.

I did say bard seems closer than many of the choices. But if I think about what a bard does, has, and knows - A personality that pursues that does not seem like the type to be good at running things. But I agree not necessarily horrible.

Then Hitler would actually be an example of why bard doesn't work. The man was an idiot. Even had he won (which wasn't possible) - the economy was in a downward spiral by his design, people only feared him an explosion was unavoidable, citizens fled in droves, it would not have been a place many wanted to live. Not a success by most definitions.

Odin was in charge only by might. It is pretty easy to make the argument that he would not be considered a successful ruler. He was constantly making stupid nearsighted or self pleasing decisions. His subjects were constantly conspiring against him and/or breaking his laws. Etc... Not a success by most definitions.

Same with Ghengis Khan. He is almost perfect support for that being a poor choice. Yes, he conquered almost the entire world that he knew existed. But there was essentially no society other than conquering more lands. As soon as they were stopped, their society immediately began falling apart. With his death it crumbled fast. Yes, there were a lot of lasting effects of what the mongols did. But I wouldn't call it a successful nation.

Yes, as I said, the spells of clerics give them some significant possibilities. But by most builds, they have the least skill points of anything except maybe fighters. And actually a lot of fighters put more into intelligence than clerics. Again, successfully running things doesn't really seem in their wheel house (at least to me).
As far as the god actually making the decisions for you; I guess it is possible, but I haven't seen anyone playing with game with the gods taking that direct of role.

Remember as most people say, the normal rulers and high level people in the world are in the range of level 6-8. So what you would be planning on for running your kingdom and what the guy following you will have is the powers of a level 6-8 whatever. Does a few 3rd or 4th level spells really make up for the fact that you don't have any skills or abilities related to running things?

Sure, I know my PC is going to be nearly as powerful as the gods by the time the campaign is complete. But my level 1 PC doesn't know that. Even if he is megalomaniac enough to assume that he will, why would he think his successor will also be nearly a god.

I have not closely studied Japanese history. But from what I remember the actual rulers would be closer to aristocrat than fighter. Most of those at the very top learned just enough to qualify being known as a samurai. They were not actually accomplished warriors themselves. They employed lots of them however.

What I have read of Julius Caesar sounds more like a combination of aristocrat and expert rather than fighter.

I haven't read about the Black Prince. Yes, he took control. How long did his empire last? What was the society like? Were people glad they lived there? Was he constantly putting down revolts? Were the people prosperous?

I think the tactician is still more general-ish than ruler-ish. Generals usually make pretty poor rulers.

Lore warden has some possibilities. I didn't think about that one. It at least has more skill ranks and makes all those class skills. That would definitely be helpful. I'll think more on that one.

I am not saying a paladin can't be trusted with anything. (Although yes, I've seen them played that way too often.) But nothing the class gives him other than a decent charisma helps with running things and the code will definitely get in the way of running things.

Again, Not saying the other classes couldn't be built to be an effective ruler. But the indications from the fluff, mechanics, and the mental constructs they evoke when you think about them don't seem to lead me to think of them as a successful ruler.

I can see some of the bard builds doing it, but the personality doesn't seem right.
Lore warden has definite possibilities. Both for taking power and running things.
I still think a lot of sorcerer seems like a good fit.

I will probably try building an intended future ruler with each of those 3 as the base.


ElterAgo wrote:
None of those are the skills involved in running a huge organization or empire. The miniutia of running something would only detract from where their power lies. It doesn't seem to fit.

Um...so what?

A leader of a kingdom or nation doesn't actually handle the "minutia" as you put it. They delegate. There are several, or dozens, or thousands of other people beneath them in the hierarchy who are responsible for the "minutia."

Historically speaking, the characteristic that great leaders needed more than anything was strength of personality. They needed to get people to follow them. They didn't need to know how to plan city development; they had engineers for that. They didn't need to understand the will of God; they had pet priests for that. They didn't need to understand advanced science or mathematics; they merely need to attract people who did understand that.

Conversely, if a would-be ruler didn't have that strength of personality, he/she often ended up merely being a footnote in history (being overthrown by revolution or having lead a failed attempt to control a nation).

Any character, regardless of class, with a high Charisma with maxed Diplomacy and/or Intimidation would make a good leader of a nation, so long as they had sufficient Intelligence and Wisdom to attract trustworthy, reliable, and knowledgeable people to whom that leader can delegate tasks.


how about becomeing a paladin but do to money(greed), power, and fame he falls and becomes a Anti-paladin


Saldiven wrote:
ElterAgo wrote:
None of those are the skills involved in running a huge organization or empire. The miniutia of running something would only detract from where their power lies. It doesn't seem to fit.

Um...so what?

A leader of a kingdom or nation doesn't actually handle the "minutia" as you put it. They delegate. There are several, or dozens, or thousands of other people beneath them in the hierarchy who are responsible for the "minutia." ... They didn't need to know how to plan city development; they had engineers for that. They didn't need to understand the will of God; they had pet priests for that. They didn't need to understand advanced science or mathematics; they merely need to attract people who did understand that. ...

Ok, good point. I suppose I misspoke when I said minutia. Yes they have people for a lot of it. But they are still going to have to read/hear constant reports, summaries, potential plans, etc... and decide which way to go. My bosses, bosses, boss doesn't actually deal with little things like a press breakdown. But he is still at work more hours than me. Most of that in meetings listening to people say what they did, what someone else should have done, or what they think needs to be done. No he is not an expert at all those things, but he hopefully is smart/educated enough to do a decent job of understanding and deciding based upon those reports.

Saldiven wrote:

... Historically speaking, the characteristic that great leaders needed more than anything was strength of personality. They needed to get people to follow them.

Conversely, if a would-be ruler didn't have that strength of personality, he/she often ended up merely being a footnote in history (being overthrown by revolution or having lead a failed attempt to control a nation).

Any character, regardless of class, with a high Charisma with maxed Diplomacy and/or Intimidation would make a good leader of a nation, ...

That is another plus for bard and sorc and a minus for most of the others. (I might quibble about intimidation though.)

Saldiven wrote:
... so long as they had sufficient Intelligence and Wisdom to attract trustworthy, reliable, and knowledgeable people to whom that leader can delegate tasks.

That is a key. Many of those strong personalities were incapable of choosing well the people to whom they delegated important tasks. And were also incapable of differentiating between BS and good advice.


Concerning the Aristocrat you keep bringing up:

It's a simple d8 HP class with medium BAB and 4 skill points per level. If a character like that can run a nation effectively (and they do in Pathfinder), so can a:

Tactician (high BAB, 4 skill points per level, lots of leadership abilities)
Lore Warden (you already said why)
Cleric (more than able to make up for the low skill points, yes, even at level 6-8)
Bard (MUCH better than an aristocrat) (And no, a bard's personality is not set and defined and automatically bad for ruling a kingdom, ESPECIALLY a Lawful bard)
Inquisitor (lots of skill points, divine spells, really good class in general - would be a perfect ruler for a theocracy)

And basically everything else that's a Player Character class.

Quote:
A leader of a kingdom or nation doesn't actually handle the "minutia" as you put it. They delegate. There are several, or dozens, or thousands of other people beneath them in the hierarchy who are responsible for the "minutia."

Quoted for truth.

Quote:
Any character, regardless of class, with a high Charisma with maxed Diplomacy and/or Intimidation would make a good leader of a nation, so long as they had sufficient Intelligence and Wisdom to attract trustworthy, reliable, and knowledgeable people to whom that leader can delegate tasks.

Also quoted for truth.

Your PC won't be alone in this I assume. You'll either have Leadership for a cohort to make up for your weaknesses or you'll have a party of fellow adventurers that probably wouldn't mind having high ranking jobs in this kingdom of yours. Those characters will be key in assisting you in running your kingdom.

You'll want good social skills and preferably a good charisma, though you can probably get away with Student of Philosophy and bump Intelligence up instead. You're going to want a high-ish intelligence for obvious reasons.

Quote:
What I have read of Julius Caesar sounds more like a combination of aristocrat and expert rather than fighter.

Also a general. Read: Tactician or Cavalier.

My personal favorite choices:

Cavalier, Tactician, Lore Warden, Inquisitor, Rogue, Bard and Ranger all are at the top of my list. Each has medium to high BAB, so they're competent fighters (save for the Rogue) if caught on their own; each has a lot of skill points.

The Cavalier and Tactician are good at leading armies - a thing that lots of medieval lords did. Just look at princes and kings throughout history. Give them Profession: Soldier to consolidate that and you're golden in that department.

Rogues and Bards are great skill monkeys. Bards have a great array of spells available to them and are not necessarily just wanderlust-driven lute pluckers. Heck, look at the Demagogue archetype. It's tailor made for what you want, fluff-wise and otherwise. Righteous Cause. It's a later level ability, but it's great for this. And Rogues... Well, you'll probably be controlling a strong spy network as a rogue that can keep people in check. Go TN, LN, LE or NE for awesome dictatorship fluff.

The Lore Warden just has a lot of skills available and is pretty strong. 'Nough said.

Inquisitor has high skill points, divine spellcasting, is great at intimidation and sense motive, and tacking on the Heretic archetype just further enhances your ability to be a skill monkey since you'll have a high wisdom anyway.

Ranger is a 6 skill point class that works well for ruling over a frontier kingdom. And, c'mon: Aragorn is a king. You want to be Aragorn, right? Right? ...In all seriousness, take the right traits and you'll have bonuses and/or class skills for Diplomacy and Sense Motive and such. You've got a bit of magic and you can have a powerful animal companion as a constant bodyguard. And if you decide you don't want a wilderness frontier kingdom, just be an Urban Ranger.


It looks like the OP wants a "smart" leader. Someone who could start and run a utopian kingdom.

Consider an Investigator. All the Rogue skills with none of the baggage, Int as a key stat for the class and decent combat prowess in a neat package. With the Student of Philosophy trait you use Int instead of Cha for the persuasion part of diplomacy. This guy could be Plato's Philosopher King or Machiavelli's Prince depending on how he was played. Add in the Empiricist archetype for additional brainyness, or an Inspired Blade Swashbuckler dip for panache (both fluff & crunch sense).

There's also the Battle Herald prestige class - a Cavalier/Bard crossover. This character can both lead from the front and make inspiring speeches, but may lack the longer term planning & IQ that ElterAgo is after.

Dark Archive

If I remember correctly, the few sourcebooks I have seen from AD&D and D&D actually had King Arthur as a Paladin. I felt it was a good fit given what I have learned from Arthurian legends. Honestlky if I were to play a character who would become king I would want a Paladin and/or Bard as that leader, the Paladin in particular as they would not fall into the trap many kings do of corruption, selfishness, and greed.

I will voice the concern I also believe you are being too limiting with the classes, looking at them too much from a mechanical standpoint then from a roleplaying viewpoint. Be a bit more creative with how to use the different classes as leaders and don't add real world bias against most of them.

Looking at the classes and deciding that only the Sorcerer would do well as a king seems far to arbitrary and silly in how it is limited.
-----------------------------------------

From the Forgotten Realms wiki on Paladins here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin)
"Perhaps the best known paladin of Toril was Gareth Dragonsbane, who later went on to become the king of Damara, as well as the renowned Piergeiron Paladinson, an Open Lord of Waterdeep."
More on these individuals can be found here:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gareth_Dragonsbane
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Piergeiron_Paladinson


I think ANY build, even a low-Cha build, would make for an interesting ruler in terms of the game AND in terms of story possibilities ... and each kind of character has both strengths and weaknesses in terms of what they bring to the table as a noble.

I ALSO think that it's important to remember that any ruler, even in the neo-feudal societies that Pathfinder and other d20 games assume, is going to have helpers to cover his weaknesses. Those helpers may include his vassals, his ministers, his household staff, or some combination of the above.


Real world examples of great leaders are not hindered by a point buy system. Usually but not always, very successful leaders had been very charismatic, strong, and intelligent. RPG's do not effectively reflect that.


JonathonWilder wrote:

...

I will voice the concern I also believe you are being too limiting with the classes, looking at them too much from a mechanical standpoint then from a roleplaying viewpoint. Be a bit more creative with how to use the different classes as leaders and don't add real world bias against most of them.
...

Again. I agree I probably am being much too limited by what I think of an X as being like. But that is part of my point. When you think of what a Barbarian is like, none of the things that come to mind says successful ruler.

Yes, I am being influence by the name itself. Most people are. That is a large part of what I'm talking about. When you think of the various classes many of them just don't seem like they could do a good job.

The 'personality' you think of for a wizard just doesn't mesh with that. Is that the only personality possible for a wizard? No of course not. I never said it was.

But if you say to someone that plays PF, "Think of a powerful wizard PC you've seen/played." yes, everyone's mental image will be a bit different. But in some ways, they are also likely to have some commonalities. Almost never will it be something that would lend itself to doing a good job of ruling a nation.

JonathonWilder wrote:

... Looking at the classes and deciding that only the Sorcerer would do well as a king seems far to arbitrary and silly in how it is limited.

...

I pretty clearly and repeatedly did not say that.

I agree that is perfectly possible to build and roleplay a fighter/cleric/rogue and especially bard that has the capabilities needed.

What I said was that when you look at the basic mechanics of what a class gives you as well as the fluff usually associated with it, most of them don't seem like they would have the inclination or skills necessary to start/rule a long term successful nation.

So all else being equal. If I was making a character to be a long term successful ruler, it seems like I would be leaning toward sorcerer, bard, or lorewarden. Specifically because of the abilities they have and the mental image those classes tend to conjure in my mind.

JonathonWilder wrote:

If I remember correctly, the few sourcebooks I have seen from AD&D and D&D actually had King Arthur as a Paladin. I felt it was a good fit given what I have learned from Arthurian legends. Honestlky if I were to play a character who would become king I would want a Paladin and/or Bard as that leader, the Paladin in particular as they would not fall into the trap many kings do of corruption, selfishness, and greed.

...
From the Forgotten Realms wiki on Paladins here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Paladin)
"Perhaps the best known paladin of Toril was Gareth Dragonsbane, who later went on to become the king of Damara, as well as the renowned Piergeiron Paladinson, an Open Lord of Waterdeep."
More on these individuals can be found here:
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Gareth_Dragonsbane
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Piergeiron_Paladinson

I'm still not sure I agree on that. I have a hard time reconciling in my mind a lot of what a ruler has to do with the paladin's code. I haven't followed your links yet, I will try to get time to check them this evening.

Not sure I would agree that Arthur is a paladin. He seems more like a cavalier to me. I'm not even entirely sure if you could call Arthur all that successful since things seem to really fall apart toward the end of his rule and after. (Depending upon which set of stories you read anyway.)
.
.
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Real world examples of great leaders are not hindered by a point buy system. Usually but not always, very successful leaders had been very charismatic, strong, and intelligent. RPG's do not effectively reflect that.

That is another good point that I didn't consider. The success ruler could easily be that statistical anomaly 1 in 1,000,000 person with a bunch of really high stats.


It all depends on what you want the character to be and how restrictive your imagination wants to make the character.

I have a friend who views barbarians as roid machines, who are illiterate, and smash things. I view them as people who have channeled their inner rage to accomplish incredible feats. I thoroughly enjoyed playing one that quoted Sung Tzu's Art of War, and exerts out of my philosophy books. Could he have been a successful King? Sure why not.

While some are easier to fill the role, I think all classes can fit, and if its not a smooth fit, it makes the role playing even more enjoyable.

In my opinion, only thing that is a must to be decent king is an Intelligence and Charisma over 7. :)


Rogar Stonebow wrote:

"That is another good point that I didn't consider. The success ruler could easily be that statistical anomaly 1 in 1,000,000 person with a bunch of really high stats"

Yup, look at Alexander the Great, for example. If we are to believe 2000 year old histories, he was charismatic enough to lead his army on a 10 year campaign where only force of his personality prevented mutiny. He was considered a very accomplished individual warrior, so must have had good physical stats (from a game perspective). He was incredibly successful as a military leader, both tactically and strategically, as well as having been educated by Aristotle in his teen years, so his Int/Wis had to have been pretty good, too.


Hey, you sure you didn't mean to post this in the KM AP subforum? Flagged this.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Hey, you sure you didn't mean to post this in the KM AP subforum? Flagged this.

They see you trollin'...


Oh, and before anybody mentions Will saves—a king can hire people (like old partymembers) to shield his mind. He can also afford to buy things that shield his mind. So that's not a huge factor, even for a fighter.

I'm just saying this because I remember a "fighters can't be interesting villains" thread that started as a matter of flavor but quickly got derailed when the rules crowd got ahold of it. Let's just not. This is an interesting thread and not the place to take our endless balance debates.


Quote:
Oh, and before anybody mentions Will saves—a king can hire people (like old partymembers) to shield his mind. He can also afford to buy things that shield his mind. So that's not a huge factor, even for a fighter.

Especially once you factor in a KING'S wealth, yeah, protecting yourself becomes negligible.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is what sort of people you're trying to unite under your banner. To look at fantasy settings: wizards rule wizard kingdoms, clerical types rule theocracies and a lot of classes rule your run-of-the-mill kingdoms. None of these is inherently a weak sort of nation; every mode of government has its weaknesses, and nations inevitably will endure some changes.

Also, however strong a nation may be, the next ruler can be weak and thus bring ruin to the nation. Let's look at the real world again. France was a superpower throughout much of medieval history and up into World War I; yet it was ruled by a terrible ruler after the Seven Years War and the American Revolutionary War and also had crippling debt. This and other factors led to the French Revolution, and it was some time before the nation properly stabilized.

Is France a nation that has lasted a long time? Yes. Has it been through a lot of changes throughout history? Oh, yes. Has it survived periods in which it was ruled by a weak ruler? Yes. And has it been ruled by militaristic sorts without the nation falling apart immediately? Also yes.

In a fantasy game, we're looking at character classes that have powers beyond what exists in the real world. High level magic users with 4+ skill points per level will be inherently capable rulers. Classes with 6+ skills per level will also be good rulers. A military ruler with a fair number of skill points (again, like the Lore Warden) and good stats can make up for some diplomatic efficiencies by being strong and training a proper army. (After all, a large and well-trained army tends to dissuade people from wanting to fight you.)

If you're looking for a way to create a perfect utopia through a strong leader, though... It's an unrealistic expectation that humanity has been trying to make a reality since the dawn of nations.


Inlaa wrote:

...

If you're looking for a way to create a perfect utopia through a strong leader, though... It's an unrealistic expectation that humanity has been trying to make a reality since the dawn of nations.

I, as a person, absolutely agree with you. However, I am contemplating making a PC that is absolutely convinced that he can manage it. ;)


make an over convident investigator who is a bit paranoid and you sould put a lot of skill points in knowledges and perception.


I've suddenly got a desire for a goliath druid (the kind that turn into giants) who becomes a linnorum king kind of character.

A real warrior and honor bound kind of thing. Where there is a respect for physical strength and willingness to use that strength to protect the people.


Corvino wrote:

...

Consider an Investigator. All the Rogue skills with none of the baggage, Int as a key stat for the class and decent combat prowess in a neat package. With the Student of Philosophy trait you use Int instead of Cha for the persuasion part of diplomacy. This guy could be Plato's Philosopher King or Machiavelli's Prince depending on how he was played. Add in the Empiricist archetype for additional brainyness, or an Inspired Blade Swashbuckler dip for panache (both fluff & crunch sense).
...

This also seems like it would fit. I can see a semi-bookish investigator deciding he has figured out why other kingdoms are failing their citizens. And that he can do a better job. So he decides to set-up or take over to prove his theories.


Quote:
This also seems like it would fit. I can see a semi-bookish investigator deciding he has figured out why other kingdoms are failing their citizens. And that he can do a better job. So he decides to set-up or take over to prove his theories.

That... actually sounds really fun. Probably a Neutral Good character to top it off? I think that would get you what you want.

Given what you want, the only other class I think comes close (sans a bard who's certain he's read enough stories that he knows the big secret) is a Sensei monk, but they fit the teacher role more than the skillmonkey role.

Investigator probably works best for someone who's certain they can save the world and create a utopia.


Inlaa wrote:


The Black Prince of Normandy forcibly took control of England and subjugated its people - and was pretty successful.

I think you might have inadvertently conflated William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy and conqueror of England in 1066, with Edward the Black Prince, son of Edward III who lived almost three centuries later and famously defeated the French at Crecy and Poitiers.


Dot.


Quote:
I think you might have inadvertently conflated William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy and conqueror of England in 1066, with Edward the Black Prince, son of Edward III who lived almost three centuries later and famously defeated the French at Crecy and Poitiers.

*Checks*

...Yes. Yes, I did.

I'll see myself out.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / He / She Who Would Be King!?! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.