The title pretty much sums it up. Why shouldn't all PF gov't be ruled by the highest levels around? By the very nature of the world and the even the gamesystem supports that all governing bodies would be run much better by higher level characters.
For example, higher level characters have better stats and higher skill ranks. Their wisdom and sense motive checks would be higher. Profession (Nobel) would be higher, along with a smattering of other useful skills. In addition they would be able to defend their position of power against assassins and the like via higher saves, magical wealth and connections they have made through adventures. They also would have more XP, which directly translates into LIFE EXPERIENCE. Not to mention being able to quash the paltry threats of most goblinoids and orcs more or less single-handedly.
So, what are the points for and against this point of view? I'm quite interested in what the community has to say! I submit this for discussion.
(editing storm of messing up with the UI, ha!)
|
I guess this depends on your assumptions about the population of your Fantasy world.
Here are the assumptions for Golarion
"Nonetheless, there exist guidelines for how powerful most rulers and heroes and city guards are in the Inner Sea region. The vast majority of humanity are “standard,” ranging in level from 1st to 5th—most with NPC classes like commoner, expert, or warrior (it’s uncommon for a character with only NPC class levels to be above 5th level). A significant number of a nation’s movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are “exceptional,” ranging in level from 6th to 10th. “Powerful” characters, ranging in level from 11th to 15th, are quite rare—typically only a handful of such powerful characters should exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in an adventure. Finally, “legendary” characters of 16th or higher level should be exceptionally rare, and when they appear should only do so as part of a specific campaign—all legendary characters should be supported with significant histories and flavor."
If i remember Eberon was a "non epic " world, and the PCs the adventurers were the truly exceptional people.
The Forgotten Realms (Pre 4.0 D&D) if i remember had quite allot of published epic level characters, ie the chosen of Mystra, the Seven sisters, Drizzit others) and also there were quite a few 20 level characters scattered here and there.
I would hazzard a guess, the nobility (be it landed Baronage, Trade "barons, etc) would probably only be maybe 3% of the population. I would hazard a guess the "Adventureres" would probably only be 1% or 2%. The majority of people are simple farmers merchants and craftsmen.
So i think that 99% of the world gets along fine without monsterous interference....but occasionally when evil rears its ugly head be it Kobolds, zombies, trolls,vampires, giants, dragons, ancient Rune Lords, or Nacient Demon lords, the "heroes" the adventurers, the PCs are there to handle the problem.
there simply are not enough "leveled" people to fill all the governmental jobs. Perhaps that is a long answer to your question. I hope it helps.
Ah, that does make some sense. It really does boil down to the campaign world. I still believe the governing members however would be the 5th level characters. out of all the "standard" people. And a few would be the "God-Kings" of 10th level or so. Its not so much an argument that "All kings should be level 20" more saying that "All kings would be the upper tiers of the 'level' caps." Which I'm having difficulty putting to words at the moment. I guess it really boils down to that even though the Bestiaries are an encyclopedic collection of the denizens of monsters, in fact it seems most worlds assume they are rather rare and have a very limited population.
Also, the only campaign setting I've ever owned was Forgotten Realms, and I guess the high leveled nature of the world has skewed my perception somewhat.
I'm still pretty sure that even low-leveled, or high level characters being quite rare is still going to produce high level chars as leaders, even if "high level" for the campaign world capps about level 8, with some exception. However, some truths have definitely been brought to light! (looking at you Lincoln Hills) Both comments are appreciated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, when has any government ever been in the hands of those best-suited to rule? It would make the entire game world unbelievable. ;)
So, so true!
It's been a truism throughout history that those best suited to lead are those least motivated to do so, and those most enthusiastic to lead, that are the last people that should be trusted with the job.
|
|
Didn't Plato say "power is safest in the hands of those who don't want it?"
At least for Golarion the guide line is:
"A significant number of a nation’s movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are “exceptional,” ranging in level from 6th to 10th". P245 Inner Sea campaign guide.
I would guess the NPCs would have well levels in "NPC" classes. ie a lord would have levels in "aristocrat" and a merchant might have levels in "expert" classes.
Anyways these things are guidelines. The Dev.s at Paizo may want to give you a frame to work with but they want you to fill in the inside of the frame. But at the end of the day, you can set things up as you like to in terms of what makes sense for you.
Also if you look in the Settlement statistics that are published in Paizo products you will find one very interesting statistic. Under the market section you will notice "Spell casting". THis indicates the highest spell level available in that town city extc.
Take Karlsgaard in the Night of Frozen Shadows. It says that the highest level of spell available is 6th level.
Perhaps that will help too.
The title pretty much sums it up. Why shouldn't all PF gov't be ruled by the highest levels around?
High level characters are personally powerful. This does not translate to leading nations or kingdoms, however. This requires more than power and wealth, but rather a specific skill-set - and often, ruthlessness.
For example, a scholarly Wizard at 20th level could be utterly incapable of the diplomacy necessary to run a nation. He never took ranks in Diplomacy or Sense Motive or Knowledge: Nobility. A 4th level Rogue could talk circles around him. He doesn't know how to lead troops or draft laws. He doesn't inspire loyalty.
Furthermore, he has no ambition to do so. He can make tons of money using his magic (selling spells, making magic items), live in his own palace with the wealth he's made and even kings hesitate to mess with him (he's a powerful wizard, after all). Why does he need to rule a kingdom?
Rulers will generally be capable NPCs, of course, because the position is demanding. Just because they don't go around slaying monsters doesn't mean they don't face challenges and earn XP. But most of their abilities will focus on the kinds of challenges they face (diplomacy, law, warfare) rather than the average adventure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Serving the king is a great ambition when you're level 1.
Becoming the king is a decent ambition when you're level 5.
By the time you're level 10, the king is an obstacle that stands between you and more important things, wasting your time and resources with his petty demands.
When you're 20th level, the king is the gatekeeper that stands between you and less important things, taking care of all of the petty details so that you're free to pursue your own agenda.
Opportunity.
In a typical medieval society, about 90% of the population was occupied by farming. All of these people would be commoners (the Commoner NPC class) and would never have training available for any other occupation/class. Were training even available, these people couldn't afford to buy paper & ink, or a sword, or any of the other tools needed by PC classes. On top of all that, it's likely illegal for serfs to pursue other occupations, and there's no such thing as a public school.
Among the remaining 10%, most would be lower class laborers or craftsmen of some kind, and probably only have training available in the job they apprenticed in. Again, the Commoner NPC class, or possibly Expert the the individual is a scribe, jeweler, or some more specialized and wealthy profession. Because specialized knowledge in a field is highly prized, it's kept secret by those who have it, so it's unlikely that anyone in one profession would ever learn a second, let alone study the soldier's art in addition.
In 14th century England, there were approximately 1,000 Knights in a population of 2,000,000. (That's 0.05%, or one person in 2,000.) There were certainly more men at arms than that, but guards, soldiers, and the like would be best described by the Warrior NPC class. If we expand "knights" in a fantasy world to include magic users, and add in the clergy (some of whom might be divine casters) we're still looking at less than 1% of the population.
If you're born to parents who are noble (or who are Wizards, etc.) you have the opportunity to learn a PC class, but still might not, or may not have the ability or inclination.
It's very likely that the highest level characters ARE in charge, not because everyone started out with a level playing field and those with the most merit rose to the top, but because only those at the top of the resources to gain levels in PC classes. Since these people are in charge already (because rule is hereditary) why would they want to change the system?
Sure, you might have a young lord who is a level 3 Aristocrat, but if his best knight (a level 10 Fighter) were to try to take over, the rest of the nobility would kill him for usurping the lord's rightful position.
Feudal society works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why doesn't Bill Gates become President of the United States?
Because it would be a demotion.
This.
So very this.
It is commonly thought among most people in most FRPG settings that the King's bloodline is sacred, and that their rulership is ordained by the gods. The fact that the king might be a derpy-derp is secondary. This is why kings like Henry VIII were willing to annoy the church and the rest of Europe to produce an heir when his first wife Catherine wasn't able.
That said, potential kings and queens are raised from birth to rule. It is the focus of their entire education. Unfortunately, the thought that Royal blood is sacred is what led them to breed back and forth across a limited gene pool, leading to inbred, mentally deficient rulers.
Even someone who doesn't believe all this needs to be aware that most everyone else does before he tries usurping the throne. Realistically, those close to the ruler can tell when he or she isn't capable. It such cases, the ruler is pacified however is appropriate and the most capable of the pool of nobles and ministers rise to the top, stomping the others back down if necessary, and effectively rules "by the grace of the Monarch".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me adjust the question in your title a bit:
Why shouldn't all forms of government be a meritocracy in the real world?
Just about every answer to that question will apply to any game world in Pathfinder.
Just because you came to power through merit doesn't mean that you believe that is the best form of government. As soon as a level 20 wizard passes control to their 1 HD kid, a monarchy is formed. He'll probably set things up to "ensure" this passing on for perpetuity, but it's not guaranteed.
You might be interested in a book, Day of Empire by Amy Chua, it's about how meritocracies influence hyperpowers in the real world and how they rise and fall.
|
So, everyone is measured and put as high as possible before becoming incompetent...
Huh. That sure sounds a lot like "Everyone rises to their level of Incompetence", or basically normal business structure where people move up through the areas they excel in until they get to a point where they cannot achieve well enough to advance further.
but made me question what a meritocracy really is?
As a form of government it can't actually exist, IMO, it's too vague and isn't an actual system. It's better used as a descriptor for organizations (including governments) that do well to find and place talented people.
Because Chuck Norris would be Supreme Ruler of the Universe?Let me adjust the question in your title a bit:
Why shouldn't all forms of government be a meritocracy in the real world?
You pretend he isn't?