| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a classic trope of fantasy storytelling. The mighty and valiant heroes, after many trials and tribulations, find themselves fighting the royal forces of the evil emperor. As they battle their way up the steps to the throne-room, and kick down the door, they are met with two faces, both of whom they loathe. The loyal general and personal champion to the evil emperor, who has hounded the heroes steps multiple times, and the face of the evil emperor himself, self-confidently looking down on them from his throne, safely behind his champion and his mightiest guards.
The heroes spring into action and a great battle ensues. After both blood and effort have been spent, there is not only the evil emperor. Not trying to hide his anger, he rises from his throne. With his right hand, he draws the black blade Qyxorn, the blade that slew the old mentor of the heroes, and in his left hand black spellfire flickers and twists into life.
“I guess the old sayings are true, after all” The emperor speaks, his eyes narrowing and lips curling back into a snarl. “If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself!”
+++++
I am personally a great fan of the classics. I can appreciate a classic adventure setup, I enjoy myself when my enemy gives a cheesy monologue, I like it if it turns out that my companions and I turn out to be the prophesized ones, and us fighting the evil overlord, turns out to be the will of the gods. I do not object to cheesiness or stereotypes. Despite knowing that it is not considered politically correct by many, I do not mind, in fact I sometimes appreciate it, if my GM has a loin-cloth-clad Conan-clone pop up every now and again, just as I appreciate buxom ladies in revealing outfits or, dare I say it, the dreaded chainmail bikini. I know it’s all very silly, and I can understand people’s reservations about these tropes, but my point is not that I want these to be prevalent, I just don’t object to them.
But that only counts, as long as it is not overused. I am of the conviction that the classics are classics, and usually well-loved, for a reason. But I do not appreciate certain tropes if overused.
Today’s topic is just such a trope. The trope outlined in the top segment, in fact. The Authority Equals Asskicking trope. For those of you who do not want to read it, or just don’t trust the link I posted, said trope is basically the idea that the higher you are in your respective hierarchy, the more of a badass you are. This is especially true in regards to your fighting prowess, ESPECIALLY if your hierarchy is that of an evil organization.
I love this trope sometimes, I really do. One of the things I loved most about Lord of the Rings, from the first time I read the story and to this day, is the fact that nobody is actually, genuinely contemplating fighting Sauron himself. The whole plot and the fate of everyone hinges on NOT letting that happen. Sauron MUST NOT return. If he did, there is not a soul alive who could stand up to him, and he’d be able to enslave middle-earth, not because of the ring-McGuffin, but because said McGuffin would be able to let Sauron take physical form. To once again fully release his powers on the realms. I loved that setup, and still love it to this day. But it gets overused.
It is, by far, in our hobby, the most overused trope I can possibly think of. Because we consider it a cornerstone of the way the game is ‘supposed’ to work. The enemies get harder! The encounters must get more challenging in order to present any real danger to our heroes. So the game is in a constant state of arbitrary escalation, because if it is not, then it is not fun. I can certainly understand that, but I don’t think it is always true. I agree that as the heroes get closer to the heart of the evil empire, as they rise in levels and the stakes get higher, the encounters and challenges should reflect that, providing a great story-arc and accentuating the plot, making the entire campaign memorable. But I don’t agree that ‘more challenging’ means ‘enemies must be higher level’. In fact, if it is overused(and it is, it really, really is) then the idea of arbitrarily higher levels can hurt the campaign, because it becomes recognizable as an arbitrary tool, meant to ‘increase the challenge’, not to improve the story, and that breaks my immersion, or at the very least annoys me.
In order to learn if this trope really was as prevalent as I believed it was, I took to the Pathfinder Wiki, to learn as much as I could about the setting. And while I found a few reasons to smile, the mindnumbing prevalence of this annoying trope made me sad. Very sad.
Absalom: Lord Gyr of House Gixx – Primarch +++++ level 13 rogue
Andoran: Codwyn I of Augustana – Supreme Elect +++++ level x paladin
Brevoy: Noleski Surtova – King Regent +++++ level 5 aristo/ warrior 3
Cheliax: Abrogail Thrune II – Infernal Majestrix +++++ level 2 aristo/ sorcerer 16
Druma: Kelldor – High Prophet +++++ level 15 Oracle
FKM: Borogrim the Hale – High King +++++ level 8 fighter/ aristo 5
Galt: Korran Goss – Citizen +++++ level x unknown
Hermea: Mengkare – Shepherd of Light +++++ Ancient Gold Dragon
Hold of Belkzen: Grask Uldeth – Chieftan +++++ level 17 barbarian
Irrisen: Elvanna – Queen +++++ level 10 wich/ winter witch 10
Isger: Hedvend VI – Steward +++++ level 4 aristo / rogue 5
Kyonin: Telandia Edasseril – Everqueen +++++ level 15 wizard
Lastwall: Ulthun II – Watcher Lord +++++ level 6 paladin
LOTLK:
--Sveinn Blood-Eagle +++++ level 18 barbarian
--White Estrid +++++ level 15 barbarian
--Ingimundr the Unruly +++++ level 15 barbarian
--Opir Eightfingers +++++ level 13 barbarian
Mendev: Galfrey – Crusader Queen +++++ level 15 paladin
Molthune: Markwin Teldas – Imperial Governor +++++ level 4 aristo/ cavalier 11
Nidal:
--Eloiander of Ridwan – Cabal leader +++++ level 15 druid
--Kholas – Ambassador +++++ level 14 sorcerer
Nirmathas: Weslen Gavirk – Forest Marshal +++++ level 11 ranger
Numeria: Kevoth-Kul – The Black Sovereign +++++ level 15 barbarian
Qadira: Xerbystes II – Satrap +++++ level x unknown
Razmiran: Razmir – Living Deity +++++ level 19 wizard
ROTML: Mighty Kuldor – Headsman +++++ level 14 barbarian
The River Kingdoms: Alot of unstatted people
Taldor: Stavian III – Grand Prince +++++ level 8 aristo/ wizard 4
Ustalav: Aduard Ordranti III – Prince +++++ level 3 aristo/ fighter 8
Varisia: City-state leaders of varying, unlisted level
Worldwound: Khorramzadeh – Storm King +++++ Balor
Alkenstar: Trietta Ricia – Grand Duchess +++++ level 14 aristo
Chauxen: could not find
Dehrukani: could not find
Droon: could not find
Geb: Geb – Dictator +++++ level 20+ Necromancer
Holomog: could not find
Jalmerey: Kharswan – Thakur +++++ level 14 monk
Katapesh:
--Angruul – Pactmaster +++++ level x unknown
--Jinvar – Pactmaster +++++ level x unknown
--Krimiltuk – Pactmaster +++++ level x unknown
--Morvithis – Pactmaster +++++ level x unknown
--Tzandarkon – Pactmaster +++++ level x unknown
Mediogalti Island: Jakalyn – Blood Mistress +++++ level 9 cleric/ red mantis assassin 10+
Mwangi Expanse: many tribal chiefs
Nex:
--Agrellus Kisk – council-member level x unknown
--Iranez – council-member level x witch
--Oblosk – council-member level x unknown
Nurvatchta: could not find
Orision: Khemet III – Ruby Prince +++++ level 15 cleric
Rahadoum: Malduoni – Keeper of the First Law +++++ level x unknown
Sargava: Utilinus – Baron +++++ level 10 cleric
The Shackles: Kerdak Bonefist – The Hurricane King +++++ level 8 fighter/ inner sea pirate 10
Sodden Lands: tribal leaders
Tirakawhan: could not find
Amanandar: Audrya Vannisar – General +++++ level 12 fighter
Bachuan: Pei – Grandmother +++++ level 13 monk
Chu Ye: Tsuneri – Shogun +++++ Void Yai Voidlord
Dtang Ma: Khemkhaeng +++++ level x unknown
Goka: Nai Yan Fei – Lady +++++ level x unknown
Hongal: Kiriltai Khan +++++ level x unknown
Hwanggot: Hyun Eun-suk – Queen +++++ level x unknown
Jinin: Jininsiel Ryuikiatsu – Shogun +++++ level x unknown
Kaoling: Tsung-cha Kavangaki – Warlord +++++ level x unknown
Kwanlai: Sutarai-Gongen – Lady +++++ level 14 cleric
Lingshen: Huang – King +++++ level x unknown
Minata: many local warlords
Minkai: Jade Regent +++++ level x unknown
Nagajor: Vassath Shethagri – First Mother +++++ level x unknown
Po Li: The Oracular Council
Quain: Wen – King +++++ level x unknown
Shaguang: could not find
Shenmen: Lang Loi – Lady +++++ level x unknown
Shokuro: Toriaka – Shokuro +++++ level x unknown
Tianjing: Onishi Kazujun +++++ level x unknown
Wanshou: Zhanagorr +++++ Elder Kraken
Xa Hoi: Pham Duc Quan – Dragon King +++++ Sovereign Dragon
Xidao: Urakadussi – High Matriarch +++++ level x unknown
Zi Ha: Gyaltho Tulku +++++ level x unknown
I realize that this is not my world, nor should it conform to my idea of a fantasy world. At my own table, I can make of it what I will, but the published setting must be such a way that it is usable and enjoyable to players, while providing a template for devs to work on.
But I look at this list of leaders and something just doesn’t click for me. I don’t know if some of you share the feeling I’m talking about. Looking at the leaders with levels, who have their level an class listed(That would be a total of 34 leaders), there are 0 Bards, 8 Aristocrats(most of them dual-classed), 2 rogues and a whopping total of 1 Cavalier. Meanwhile there are 7 Barbarians and 3 Paladins. Now don’t get me wrong, I know that a character can be what you make of it. A barbarian can put ranks into knowledge(Arcana) if that is the way said barbarian wants to go, and I am not trying to make a statement that Barbarians and Paladins are not allowed to rule. I simply find it odd that there are so few classes, represented as leaders, that have mechanics that ties into ruling.
I mean, let’s be honest here, can you imagine a class less suited to ruling than Paladin? If you can, you’re probably about to write Commoner or Barbarian. Paladins can be great leaders, great commanders, great lords. But I’ll admit that I cannot imagine them as anything but disastrously bad rulers. With the possible exception being rulers of a shiny kingdom of perpetual goodness, where nothing and nobody is attempting to incite unrest or cause instability. But that is just my opinion and you are by no means forced to share it.
I did mention that there are things on this list that made me happy, so let’s not forget those. There are 2 entries, of the 34 I’m discussing, that make me happy. One is Ulthun II – Watcher Lord of Lastwall, and yes I know he is one of the Paladins on our list. I like 2 things about Ulthun II, the first things being the fact that it is the lowest level character on the list. A level 6 character is a low-to-around-mid level character when we consider the spectrum from 1 to 20, but in terms of in-world strength, a level 6 character is pretty darn mighty, able to cleave through many foes with barely a scratch. Still, Ulthun is the lowest level entry on the list and for that I give a thumbs up. Second is the fact that Ulthun was chosen to lead, not because of his right to rule, nor because he was especially fit to do it, but because he was the embodiment of the crusader-virtues that Lastwall values. That makes sense to me. You’re chosen because, to the locals, you’re the closest thing to a living incarnation of everything they consider right in the world. Our other contestant today is Lord Gyr of house Gixx – Patriarch of Absalom, the greatest city in Avistan, if not Golarion. First off, he is lower (if not low) level than most entries on the list, and secondly he is a rogue, which is not only awesome, it is also quite fitting(Ask the part of my mind that connects vague strands of sense, if you want to know why).
I’ll just say it plainly, the fact that a lot of these rulers are absurdly high-level does not sit well with me, at all, and I will be changing that in my home-games, should it ever become relevant to a campaign, methinks. I just don't understand why so many of the rulers must be this crazy high-level. In fact I think it hurts the campaign-world in some cases. The Hurricane King Kerdak Bonefist was presented as level 10 in the Faction Guide, and Blood Mistress Jakalyn was presented as level 12. I don't understand why they must suddenly be buffed through the roof. It's not a good change IMO, it's bad. Think of Blood Mistress Jakalyn for a moment. She's level 19... 19, she's absolutely a force to be reckoned with, and as the leader of the Red Mantis Assassins, and arguably one of the most dangerous people in the world, perhaps she should be? I argue that no, she should not. I foun Blood Mistress Jakalyn to be WAAAY scarier as a level 12 character, than I do now, as a level 19 character. Because you were reading through the entries and you stopped at the Red Mantis, and you said to yourself: "Wow..... oh wow, what is this? This girl is one of the most dangerous people in the world? But she's only level 12... sure level 12 is high, but there are people out there who are level 20. Why is she so dangerous? She must really have a head for this assassination thing. I'm not sure I want to think about what is going on in this womans head". She seemed much more threatening, because you realized she could not be expected to overpower anything and anyone at level 12, yet it was assumed that she could put anyone in the grave, should the Red Mantis be called upon to do it. I started thinking of her like I thought of the villain from Law Abiding Citizen, if that makes sense? She was powerful, but she could not kill you in 1001 ways, with only her thumb. What she was able to do, was ensure your death. It didn't matter that she could not drive home the knife herself, you'd still be dead. That was much more powerful to me, than a level 19 character, that I can imagine defeating her challenges by luck of the dice alone.
It is not that I don’t see the point of high-level in certain cases. As I said, I don’t dislike the trope, I dislike its overuse. So I don't mind that the Everqueen is a mighty spellcaster, nor do I mind that Razmir is level 19 and pretends to be a god. But I question the necessity for fx Abrogail to be a level 16 sorceress. She already has HELL(cannot put enough exclamation marks behind the word, so I won't try) backing her up. You could make her a level 2 aristocrat and she'd still be plenty scary, and believable as the villanous leader of Cheliax. There are different ways to present dangerous and challenging, than a number behind a class.
There is no reason for the general to be higher level than his elite-guards. In fact, instead of the mighty generals, known throughout the lands as “The Three Kings” being level 10 fighters (to present a challenge), they should probably be warrior 3/expert 3/aristocrat 1 (or a bard, to inspire excellence in his men), or something similar, and instead of being under the notion that each such person absolutely MUST be the living child, of an unholy union between Death and a lawnmower, perhaps it is up to us, the GMs to put together a different sort of challenge, where the difficulty is not sawing off all the hit points, but something that maintains the challenge while adding coherency between narrative and game. Something helping the story along, and helping the players have fun, so that WHEN we use higher levels to provide a challenge, it not only feels difficult, it feels like it makes sense.
Anyway, this has been a rather long, likely not particularly coherent rant about my personal view on the prevalence of the Authority Equals Asskicking trope. I don’t know what I want to accomplish with this rant. If I want to inspire thought, or if I simply want someone to tell… something. Anyway feel free to drop a response whether you agree or not.
Have a nice day.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sorry there is a thing in your games you do not like
it is not in my games
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness, several of the Barbarians you have issues with there being too many of are from a land where the sole requirement for being the head of state is to defeat a dragon of CR 14 or higher in single combat. Belkzen and the Realms of the Mammoth Lords are likewise largely barbarian cultures that prize strength above much else, and have plenty of strong things to fight. Numeria also basically fits that description for the "normal" population; the Technic League probably has a lot of powerful people who exert a lot of political power, but in more behind-the-scenes ways.
Also, Bonefist at least was probably buffed when they decided to use him as the final boss of an adventure path.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm all for more Bards and Cavaliers running things...but barbaric cultures have a long real world history of being ruled by the greatest warriors, and that's actually the official policy of the Land of the Linnorm Kings, which is four of your seven Barbarians.
As for them being high level...that's really just an acknowledgement of the reality of Pathfinder, which is that high level characters aren't that rare (see my population demographics thread) and the fact that, if you're 15th level or higher and you want a country...there's very little lower level people can do to stop you. Which will tend to put higher level people in power more commonly.
Also, there's actually an almost complete list of Tian Xia rulers (well, for countries that have one), which you don't seem to have access to. Helps your issues somewhat on the Classes, I think, but not so much on the levels:
Bachuan - Grandmother Pei (LE old female Tian-Shu monk 13)
Chu Ye - Shogun Tsuneni (LE male voidlord void yai)
Dtang Ma - Kamraten Khemkhaeng, Wise Tiger Lord of Ramparassad (N male Tian-Dtang sorcerer 11)
Goka - Lady Nai Yan Fei (LN female Tian-Shu rogue 20)
Hongal - Kiriltai Khan (LN male Tian-La cavalier 15)
Hwanggot - Her Most Transcendent Royal Majesty, Queen Hyun Eun-suk (NG female Tian-Hwan bard 15)
Jinin - Shogun Jininsiel Ryuikiatsu of the Bamboo Court of Silver Leaves (LG male elf samurai 15)
Kaoling - Warlord Tsung-cha Kavangaki (LE male hobgoblin fighter 4/samurai 12)
Kwanlai - Lady Sutarai-Gongen (CG female half-celestial tengu cleric 14 of Hei Feng)
Lingshen - King Huang (LN male Tian-Shu fighter 20)
Nagajor - First Mother Vassath Shethagri (LN female royal naga sorcerer 9)
Po Li - The Oracular Council (numerous high-level oracles)
Quain - King Wen (LN male Tian-Shu fighter 6/monk 9)
Shenmen - Lady Lang Loi (NE female jorogumo witch 14)
Shokuro - Shokuro Toriaka, the Sun Shogun (LN male Tian-Min samurai 14)
Tianjing - Onishi Kazujun, First Speaker for the Council (NG male aasimar cleric of Shelyn 15)
Wanshou - Zhanagorr (CE male elder kraken)
Xa Hoi - His Supreme Draconic Majesty, Dragon King Pham Duc Quan (N great wyrm sovereign dragon)
Xidao - High Matriarch Urakadussi (N female locathah oracle 14)
Zi Ha - Gyaltho Tulku (LG male samsaran cleric of Tsukiyo 20)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Gorbacz: Thanks! I only just arrived some 15 years ago, so it's nice for someone to finally welcome me :D
Also, speak for yourself, if I build a nation in a game campaign setting, I want the nation's leader to be whatever I want her to be. Above all, I want the nation as a whole to fit into the setting as a whole, unless it is my express purpose to make the nation stand out as something different. ;)
@Lamontius: I thank you for your sympathy. I've only rarely experienced the subject as an issue, but other than that, I cannot explain my position as anything but an annoyance at the prevalence of aforementioned trope.
@The Golux: I don't mind the barbarians being there, I am just perplexed that they are there, yet there are classes with pseudo-leadership qualities tied into their mechanics, that are either underrepresented or completely missing from the list.
Also, even with the requirement to defeat a monster of X CR, as is the case for White Estrid for example, I still question the decision to pump the levels to such height. So she's supposed to have defeated a Linnorm? does that mean she could not be a level 9 Barbarian? If she was, I'd bet the stories of how she defeated the Linnorm would be more interesting. If you want a person to seem exceptional, slapping levels onto them seems like the lazy way to go.
Your example with Kerdak Bonefist makes my point exactly. He was probably buffed because of an Adventure Path. Why? Could he not have fit the bill in said path -without- being buffed? Was he suddenly less of a leader? Was the pirates of the shackles LESS loyal to their Hurricane King, now that he suddenly wasn't eight levels higher than he was initially published? I question the decision to tie 'challenge' into 'how many numbers can I stack on top of each-other'.
If paizo were to release an AP, where the story leads up to defeating Abrogail Thrune II, does that campaign HAVE to end with the heroes squaring off against the Infernal Majestrix herself? Is it mandatory that you must defeat the 'boss' before you've won? If so, must the 'boss' be challenging? Could you, in this hypothetical adventure path, where we will now imagine that Abrogail Thrune is a level 5 aristocrat(instead of a level 16 sorceress), not have the high-level adversaries be some diabolists who are loyal to her? Could some high CR enemies not be devils? Traps? Devils with traps? Could it not be challenging to talk your way into the dread castle, or to complete a certain skill challenge against the clock? Could you not write the AP in such a way, that once the PCs kick in the door to the Throne-room, they've won? Must the teenager on the throne then stand up and fight the heroes personally, or some form of universal law is broken?
I do not dislike the trope, I dislike its overuse. By all means have some powerful leaders, but let the majority be leaders that make sense, even in the insanity of a fantasy setting. If we cannot have a person lead by virtue of being a good leader, rather than high level, and justify them having enough power (direct or indirect) to not get sniped my a mid-level anarchist, then that speaks badly for our collective creativity.
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those Social Rolls required to properly keep your country in its place in the pecking order, and keep your vassals in line, can require a lot of levels.
Indeed. A master negotiator would likely not only have both Persuasive and Skill Focus (Diplomacy)... they'd also have the ranks to back it up, since a raw charisma score can only do so much.
As far as some of these nations go... let's take a look.
Mendev: You're sitting right on the edge of the border to the demon-held lands. You need someone in the ruler's chair who's good against things like that, otherwise you've got a ruler who defers to their top general so much that the general may as well be the ruler.
Numeria: This, LotLK, Belkzen, etc. are all might-based meritocracies. The strongest have proven, in their eyes, the right to rule, so the strongest get to rule. And yes, "meritocracy" is probably the wrong word, but there is no such thing as a "barbarianocracy", so since rulership is based on their measure of merit, I'm using meritocracy.
Irrisen: Baba Yaga personally puts one of her kids on the throne there every hundred years. You think she's going to pick a kid who's weak (read: low-level)? Of course not, she's going to find some 20th-level kid, or grab one out of stasis somewhere in her Hut, and plop them down on the throne. A weak kid would get trampled by the outside. Baba Yaga wants to have her kids able to fight for themselves and hold their own. Otherwise, what's the damn point?
Razmiran: A wizard who wants to be worshipped as a god needs to really have his crap together. He can't just be some fifth-level schmuck walking around claiming he passed the Starstone Test. He needs to have wondrous arcane power so that he can convince people that he actually is a god and that he did in fact pass a test he never passed. Now true, his main targets are rubes, and it'd be easy to convince them he's a god by just spouting some nonsensical gibberish. But some of the people who oppose him are going to be experts and/or really on the ball, so he'd better have enough power to back up his assertions when they come calling, or else he's in a whole heap of trouble.
Geb: He founded the country he named after himself. He fought Nex for longer than most humans live. Neither of them is by any stretch of the imagination supposed to be a "normal" person. Heck, Geb is the only ruler on this list who's outright mythic. At least, unless you were to add the Whispering Tyrant, but I'm not sure he's technically a ruler.
EDIT: Also, the Black Sovereign isn't the final boss of Iron Gods. The final boss of Iron Gods is an Iron God. Not sure how much more I should spoil, given that this isn't the Iron Gods forum, but Kevoth-Kul is not the end boss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you played Kingmaker before? Well, a ton of XP gets thrown at the leaders of countries for being leaders, so that's one possible aspect. Plus, as others have said, it's pretty much a requirement when you have medium level pc's who want to off the leader of a particular nation, making them powerful helps.
Generally speaking, my assumption is that hereditary rulers are probably going to be mid-level at most, usually NPC classes, and people who got their position by being good at what they do are probably going to be 10th level or so max, and probably PC classes. I don't really like there being a lot of people above 10th level wandering around, generally, but I prefer a less superhero-y setting than Golarion is by default.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world of superhumans, I fail to see any way that a leader can get to the point where he controls a nation and not be quite high in level. Most attempts to explain lower-level rulers are ones that are arbitrarily enforcing real-world expectations on a world where all the rules are completely different, rather than attempting to extrapolate how a fantasy world would look using the fantasy rules.
Now, in most cases, I can totally see how most of them should NOT be 20th level. In some cases, I can see it being a legitimate exception. Elvanna of Irrisen is a great example. Baba Yaga didn't place her in that position at 20th though, but she does want her daughters who rule to reach that level. Razmir? Yep, that makes sense too, dude needs to hurry up and hit 20 and acquire Immortality before he croaks and has a VERY frustrating one-on-one with Pharasma.
However, I'm not too concerned about Golarion, since I don't play there. I'm more concerned about my own world. The thread Deadmanwalking linked is similar to what I've come up with in my own campaign (that one is in way more detail though). Some things, like no fully-grown Humanoid being a mere 1st level anything, is supported by this approach.
Still, you have to think about it in context. Higher level adventurers are wearing a bigger economy than that of most cities. Advancing and maintaining a Kingdom gives you XP and requires high skill checks. And at that point, you've accomplished so much you might as WELL just run your own place. Most of your prior friends are long since gone, you've got wealth enough to swim through the coinage, and your other choices amount to risking your life on some far-away plane or attempting ascension to godhood--both of which lack a high success rate.
Even going back to the original trope and the example stories, most involve some Big Bad Evil Guy who decapitated and dismembered his way to power, something he couldn't do if he wasn't a butt-kicker. Kind of self-fulfilling, really. Especially in a world of high fantasy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my great grief, I have never played Kingmaker. I want to, but nobody in my circle is willing to run it. But if I understand correctly, Kingmaker is about adventurers becoming rulers, yes? In that case, them being mid-to-high level would make sense right? Because they're adventurers... players characters.... the conquering heroes?
Are all rulers adventurers? Are all rulers master negotiators? Do they have to be? Isn't there such a thing as ambassadors and diplomats? Do all kings address their public directly from the heart, drawing in their people with their monumental social skills? Can they not get someone to write them a speech?
If we take the superhero analogy for a moment, how many world-leaders are supers in DC or Marvel? Super-man is not president of the United States, he fights to defend them. Doctor Doom is a world-leader with great powers and weak neighbors, yet he has not conquered them. Not because the leaders of the opposing nation meets him on the field of battle and turn out to be president-badass, but because there are other people there to stop him.
Why must the leader himself be a challenge? Why does he have to be immune to scry and fry? If someone is sufficiently powerful, why should they not just be able to port in and devastate a ruler?
"But what if my players decide to just teleport into Korvosa's castle(or whereever) and instantly kill the king?! If I was to do as you suggested, then they'd have killed the king instantly..."
So what? The king is dead. Long live the king. So what? The above example assumes, of course, that the king does not have any strong guards, or a competent caster working for him that could protect him. It also assumes that he has not spent any of his probably vast wealth, to aquire any kind of protection for himself. But sure, for the sake of the example the king is now dead. Now what? It's not like your players have just fast-tracked their way to royalty. More likely the entire castle-guard is gonna come crashing down on them, their names will be known across the realm in a matter of weeks. Every adventurer, cut-throat, bounty-hunter and sellsword from Korvosa to Osirion will be out to claim the heads of the Kingslayers. They'll be the eternal enemies of those who loved the former king, and if he was a just and right ruler, they'll probably have every local paladin-order stalking them.
The idea that the stability of a country should somehow hinge on the ruler being hyper-competent at some pivotal function to the country is a falacy in my opinion. The only thing a person would need to rule a country is competent help. And that is exactly the point I was making in the opening post. There is no reason for the climactic final battle to be against the evil emperor, when it should in fact be against the evil emperors bodyguard, or the magical beast that was conjured to protect him. Sometimes it makes sense. Plenty of examples have been made of the high levels making sense, but why does it feel mandatory?
This trope is EVERYWHERE in our hobby, and I don't believe it belongs. I find myself stopping and wondering what would happen if it was as prevalent in all other stories.
Joffrey Baratheon would be a better duelist than Barristan Selmy.
King Louis would be a better swordsman than D'Artagnan
Miko Miyazaki would be leader of Azure City.
Super-Man would be president of the United-States.
Gandalf would be king of Gondor.
Cohen the barbarian would be Patrician of Ankh-Morpok.
Shepherd would be leader of the Citadel Council.
Long Feng(Or Earth King Kuei) would be exceptional fighters or powerful benders.
I don't see the reason, I don't appreciate the prevalence and I don't agree with the argument that if leaders were not level 10+ then it would somehow 'not make sense'. I respect the opinions that I see, that this is the case, but I don't agree.
This is what I believe should be the case 9/10 times when adventurers attack the 'people in power'. (oots spoilers)
So you used your wealth to get good armor, hirelings and some decent poison? Good for you, that was a good investment. A shame your fortitude save was not high enough to deal with the adventuring wizard, but hey, that's just the way of it.
The only thing you need to rule is the support of the majority of the people or the strength to force your rule upon the public. The only thing you need to rule well is competent help and decent decision-making. Kerdak Bonefist could still be the Hurricane King even if he was level 10. If he was supposed to be an encounter in some path or another, he could still be a challenge if someone had bothered designing the story around his level 10 self providing a challenge. I make the claim that having the 'bosses' be high-level is either adherence to some percieved law of the hobby, that I do not agree with, a concious design-decision made because the author feels it must be so, or plain laziness.
Let me reiterate, I love the trope, but I'm annoyed at its overuse.
Surely if you wanted to, you would be able to populate Avistan with level 8(or lower) rulers, and still have the world make sense? As is, I just find the high levels of all these people boring.
Oh hi White Estrid, I heard you had to defeat a Linnorm to get to rule. How did you do that? Oh you're level 15? Sorry, for I moment I thought you'd be interesting.
Hi there Grask Uldeth, I've come to understand that you've given the semblance of shape to a large group of marauding orcs and rule a dwarven sky citadel. How did that come to pass? Oh you're just really really strong? Riveting.
Greeting Mr Kelldor. Is it true that you are the head of what is basically Scientology in Golarion? That your nation's absurd wealth gives you the resources to maintain this ridiculous cult, in the face of your damning hilarity? Oh you ALSO happen to be a level 15 Oracle. Really?! You're level 15?! Okay I guess........
I just don't see the need.
-Nearyn
To my great grief, I have never played Kingmaker. I want to, but nobody in my circle is willing to run it. But if I understand correctly, Kingmaker is about adventurers becoming rulers, yes? In that case, them being mid-to-high level would make sense right? Because they're adventurers... players characters.... the conquering heroes?
Are all rulers adventurers? Are all rulers master negotiators? Do they have to be? Isn't there such a thing as ambassadors and diplomats? Do all kings address their public directly from the heart, drawing in their people with their monumental social skills? Can they not get someone to write them a speech?
If we take the superhero analogy for a moment, how many world-leaders are supers in DC or Marvel? Super-man is not president of the United States, he fights to defend them. Doctor Doom is a world-leader with great powers and weak neighbors, yet he has not conquered them. Not because the leaders of the opposing nation meets him on the field of battle and turn out to be president-badass, but because there are other people there to stop him.
Why must the leader himself be a challenge? Why does he have to be immune to scry and fry? If someone is sufficiently powerful, why should they not just be able to port in and devastate a ruler?
"But what if my players decide to just teleport into Korvosa's castle(or whereever) and instantly kill the king?! If I was to do as you suggested, then they'd have killed the king instantly..."
So what? The king is dead. Long live the king. So what? The above example assumes, of course, that the king does not have any strong guards, or a competent caster working for him that could protect him. It also assumes that he has not spent any of his probably vast wealth, to aquire any kind of protection for himself. But sure, for the sake of the example the king is now dead. Now what? It's not like your players have just fast-tracked their way to royalty. More likely the entire castle-guard is gonna come crashing down on them, their names will...
He needs to be a challenge to make things interesting, he needs to be immune to scry and fry to make things a challenge. It's a game setting, it's built with that in mind.
It's very common in the hobby because, frankly, it makes a more engaging story. Just look at some of the threads on this very board with people passionately arguing that the rulers of most of the countries are too weak.
As for Kingmaker, the players get quite a bit of XP just for the duties of ruling the nation, so a ruler would likely get to the mid-levels just from that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, i want to congratulate you for this great text, it was enjoyable to read.
Secondly, i agree that many of the leaders didnt need to be above lv10, that assumes those people are ex-adventurers or have been in many wars, which isnt the case for a bunch of them if you do check their background.
Also, too many fighters, that makes us believe that fighters are the most common of classes in golarion (which may or may not be true), even though many fighters would prefer to battle than solve politics puzzles.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my great grief, I have never played Kingmaker. I want to, but nobody in my circle is willing to run it. But if I understand correctly, Kingmaker is about adventurers becoming rulers, yes? In that case, them being mid-to-high level would make sense right? Because they're adventurers... players characters.... the conquering heroes?
The point he's making is that, like killing monsters, the very act of ruling a kingdom gets you XP. So...even if they become a ruler at 1st level, they'll gain levels rapidly from the very act of ruling. Now, given that NPCs do not use the PC XP rules generally speaking that argument has some problems, but it's the one being made.
Are all rulers adventurers? Are all rulers master negotiators? Do they have to be? Isn't there such a thing as ambassadors and diplomats? Do all kings address their public directly from the heart, drawing in their people with their monumental social skills? Can they not get someone to write them a speech?
They most certainly can, and some do. But Pathfinder has this little problem where skill at everything is linked directly to level. So...any character is always necessarily as high level as the skill set they are best at. So, any ruler who is a skilled orator or politician is of necessity gonna also be of a high level. It's a world where the greatest orator on Earth, being a level 20 Bard, is necessarily also a master combatant.
Pathfinder also has this issue where doing awesome stuff necessarily and inevitably results in an eventual rise in level. So...someone who's done awesome stuff being low level...doesn't really make a lot of sense in-world.
If we take the superhero analogy for a moment, how many world-leaders are supers in DC or Marvel? Super-man is not president of the United States, he fights to defend them. Doctor Doom is a world-leader with great powers and weak neighbors, yet he has not conquered them. Not because the leaders of the opposing nation meets him on the field of battle and turn out to be president-badass, but because there are other people there to stop him.
What makes you assume such people are the most powerful in their area? They don't seem to be if you look at things. Yeah, the Ruby Prince is 15th level, but he's in no way the highest level guy in Osirion, just a pretty high level one. Why high level at all? Because, as mentioned above, any competent ruler basically needs to be.
Why must the leader himself be a challenge? Why does he have to be immune to scry and fry? If someone is sufficiently powerful, why should they not just be able to port in and devastate a ruler?
That's really not why rulers are high level.
"But what if my players decide to just teleport into Korvosa's castle(or whereever) and instantly kill the king?! If I was to do as you suggested, then they'd have killed the king instantly..."
This is a hilarious example because the King of Korvosa is actually a 6th level Aristocrat and you could do exactly that, if you liked.
So what? The king is dead. Long live the king. So what? The above example assumes, of course, that the king does not have any strong guards, or a competent caster working for him that could protect him. It also assumes that he has not spent any of his probably vast wealth, to aquire any kind of protection for himself. But sure, for the sake of the example the king is now dead. Now what? It's not like your players have just fast-tracked their way to royalty. More likely the entire castle-guard is gonna come crashing down on them, their names will be known across the realm in a matter of weeks. Every adventurer, cut-throat, bounty-hunter and sellsword from Korvosa to Osirion will be out to claim the heads of the Kingslayers. They'll be the eternal enemies of those who loved the former king, and if he was a just and right ruler, they'll probably have every local paladin-order stalking them.
Indeed, and all of that is a perfectly reasonable set of consequences to those acts.
The idea that the stability of a country should somehow hinge on the ruler being hyper-competent at some pivotal function to the country is a falacy in my opinion. The only thing a person would need to rule a country is competent help. And that is exactly the point I was making in the opening post. There is no reason for the climactic final battle to be against the evil emperor, when it should in fact be against the evil emperors bodyguard, or the magical beast that was conjured to protect him. Sometimes it makes sense. Plenty of examples have been made of the high levels making sense, but why does it feel mandatory?
Here's the thing, though. Because of the aforementioned 'level determines everything' issue...if they aren't high level, they are not only worse in a fight but in pretty much every conceivable way. And thus basically just not that competent.
Having incompetent or weak rulers is a definite trope in it's own right...but it tends to be the exception to the rule in the kind of heroic fantasy Pathfinder draws on. Sure, Denethor was weak...but he was getting old, and Theoden plus the rulers of just about every other people in Middle Earth were exceedingly personally impressive.
This trope is EVERYWHERE in our hobby, and I don't believe it belongs. I find myself stopping and wondering what would happen if it was as prevalent in all other stories.
Competent leaders are, in fact, just about this common in whole genres. The issue here is that competence and combat prowess are intrinsically linked in Pathfinder in a manner they are not in most other places. De-coupling the two is much more realistic and the way it works in most RPGs to boot...but not in Pathfinder.
Joffrey Baratheon would be a better duelist than Barristan Selmy.
Actually...Robert Barratheon actually was pretty much the baddest man in the kingdom. And other leaders in the series are similarly capable for the most part. Joffrey's an exception to the rule in that series every bit as much as a low level ruler is in Golarion.
King Louis would be a better swordsman than D'Artagnan
Miko Miyazaki would be leader of Azure City.
Super-Man would be president of the United-States.
Gandalf would be king of Gondor.
Cohen the barbarian would be Patrician of Ankh-Morpok.
Shepherd would be leader of the Citadel Council.
Long Feng(Or Earth King Kuei) would be exceptional fighters or powerful benders.
All this assumes the ruler must be the most badass thing in their kingdom. Pathfinder does not assume this at all. Indeed, averaging 15th level, going by my population demographics (which match up pretty well with existing cities and towns presented) they're almost universally not. They're impressive, but not the baddest people in their kingdoms, just one of the more impressive ones. Really, only the 20th level ones are bar-none the baddest guy in their area...and those are exceedingly rare.
I don't see the reason, I don't appreciate the prevalence and I don't agree with the argument that if leaders were not level 10+ then it would somehow 'not make sense'. I respect the opinions that I see, that this is the case, but I don't agree.
The issue is that almost literally any 15th level character is indisputably better on every conceivable level than a 5th level one. To the point where, if there are 15th level leaders, a 5th level one is actively incompetent by comparison.
This is what I believe should be the case 9/10 times when adventurers attack the 'people in power'. (oots spoilers)
So you used your wealth to get good armor, hirelings and some decent poison? Good for you, that was a good investment. A shame your fortitude save was not high enough to deal with the adventuring wizard, but hey, that's just the way of it.
That's a fun event precisely because it's anticlimactic. Anticlimax is fun in fiction, but often a lot less so in an RPG. And...frankly, the genre where that's the norm isn't the genre Pathfinder is trying to be or emulate.
The only thing you need to rule is the support of the majority of the people or the strength to force your rule upon the public. The only thing you need to rule well is competent help and decent decision-making. Kerdak Bonefist could still be the Hurricane King even if he was level 10. If he was supposed to be an encounter in some path or another, he could still be a challenge if someone had bothered designing the story around his level 10 self providing a challenge. I make the claim that having the 'bosses' be high-level is either adherence to some percieved law of the hobby, that I do not agree with, a concious design-decision made because the author feels it must be so, or plain laziness.
It's none of the above. It's an inherent constraint of the system. An AP is pretty much unavoidably gonna end within a certain level range...and enemies have to be within the CR range for that level range or the system kinda falls apart.
He could be the Hurricane King at 10th level (theoretically, anyway)...but he couldn't be the boss of an AP.
Let me reiterate, I love the trope, but I'm annoyed at its overuse.
It's an unavoidable part of Pathfinder's nature as a level based game where combat prowess inherently rises as level does. I'm afraid you'll need to get used to it.
Surely if you wanted to, you would be able to populate Avistan with level 8(or lower) rulers, and still have the world make sense? As is, I just find the high levels of all these people boring.
You could...if the whole world was lower level. As things stand...level 15 isn't that uncommon, it's just not that reasonable for those who want to, say, rule a kingdom to not have a pretty good chance to do so.
Oh hi White Estrid, I heard you had to defeat a Linnorm to get to rule. How did you do that? Oh you're level 15? Sorry, for I moment I thought you'd be interesting.
Uh...being high level doesn't make a character less interesting. They don't just magically appear at that level, they had a long and exciting career to get to that point. The Saga of White Estrid's rise to greatness isn't magically more awesome because she did a lot less cool stuff before the thing with the Linnorm.
Hi there Grask Uldeth, I've come to understand that you've given the semblance of shape to a large group of marauding orcs and rule a dwarven sky citadel. How did that come to pass? Oh you're just really really strong? Riveting.
Okay, you're thinking about this the wrong way and getting the order of the events wrong. You don't become level 15 suddenly for no reason and then unite the Orc hordes...uniting the Orc hordes is the kind of task that simply and inevitably results in a lower level character rising to 15th level or so over the course of a few years (as you perform a number of impressive acts ofn your way to unification).
The high level isn't the reason they could do awesome stuff, it's an almost inevitable result of them having done awesome stuff.
Greeting Mr Kelldor. Is it true that you are the head of what is basically Scientology in Golarion? That your nation's absurd wealth gives you the resources to maintain this ridiculous cult, in the face of your damning hilarity? Oh you ALSO happen to be a level 15 Oracle. Really?! You're level 15?! Okay I guess........
And again, important and impressive people aren't level 15 because they're of high rank, they've risen to high rank because of the amount of cool stuff they've done (the amount necessary to achieve that level).
I just don't see the need.
Thematically? There isn't one. But mechanically and maintain verisimilitude with the world as presented...yes, it needs to be pretty common.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr - this isn't a novel or a story. This is a game. It needs to take into the account game mechanics into world building and story telling. A murder mystery set in the medieval times where the victim is stabbed in his/her chest and dies looking into the eyes of the murderer is a fascinating story, but in the D&D environment it falls flat because a simple spell allows you to ask the dead body the question 'who killed you?' and render the whole mystery moot.
tl;dr - this isn't a novel or a story. This is a game. It needs to take into the account game mechanics into world building and story telling. A murder mystery set in the medieval times where the victim is stabbed in his/her chest and dies looking into the eyes of the murderer is a fascinating story, but in the D&D environment it falls flat because a simple spell allows you to ask the dead body the question 'who killed you?' and render the whole mystery moot.
This, pretty much. The assumptions listed above about literary figures assume that the game is intended to emulate those sorts of stories and those sorts of story outcomes.
yeah I agree with the last two points. DnD/Pathfinder, are as a rule not terribly great at simulating worlds characteristic of most fantasy stories. A novelist has complete control of plot and characters. A DM doesn't or shouldn't. And the majority of the games mechanics really focus on combat and dungeon-delving. It's not really a good system for intrigue or political games, at least without a lot of PC cooperation and use of subsystems.
I see multiple points being made. Rulers are high level to provide a challenge. Rulers are high level because they simply have to be, in order to muster the skill checks they would need to make to rule. Rulers are high levels because their ascension to power would have leveled them to said level.
Yet I maintain, and I see that I am not alone in thinking so, that many rulers don’t need to be above level 10. I’d personally go as far as to say a ruler could be as low level as the design team wanted, and that links well into my own speculation on why rulers are high level. I believe they’re high level because the design team said so; because, simply put, there is no other reason for them to be. I am not saying that the points that have been made about why rulers are high level -are- wrong, I am saying that I –believe- they are.
I believe the decision to make the leaders high level is arbitrary, heck my belief that there is no reason nor requirement for a leader to be high level, is even backed up by the presence of Ulthun II of Lastwall, and according to Deadmanwalking, the king of Korvosa as well. And that is just another reason for me not to like it. Not only does the trope prevail, it apparently prevails for no properly explained reason. I see the point being made by Shadowkire that these are tumultuous times for Golarion, and that those in power deserve to be said level, because they arose to the throne through adversity. Well, for one, there is no guarantee that even the rulers who are most likely to have fought their way to the throne, saw much real fighting themselves. Their level could certainly be an indication of such, but with the most represented level of the 34 aforementioned rulers being level 15 (with 9 representatives), you just have to ask yourself what exactly they could have done to warrant this. My Rise of the Runelords players are level 14, not to mention that they are player characters, meant for greatness beyond the scope of mere NPCs. And for anyone who knows what RotR contains, you also understand how many trials and tribulations they’ve gone through, when I mention that they’re at the start of book 6, yet they're "only" level 14. For those of you who do not know the content of said adventure path, let us just say that it’s a whole fuppin’ lot. Even those who came to power through conquest, I don’t see as likely to have dealt with even half the level of horrendous challenge, especially considering they probably had lieutenants, armies and people who believed in them, working towards putting them on the throne.
I find myself in complete disagreement with the point that a ruler should present a challenge in a combat-encounter. In fact, I find myself in disagreement with the point, that a ruler must present a challenge in any kind of encounter, really. Surely they could, and some probably should, but I do not believe it should be mandatory, since you’d not really have to excel at anything to be named ruler, we can look to hereditary monarchy for proof of that. Certainly some kingdoms like the Linnorm Kingdoms have a way to justify their rulers being combat-monsters, but most kingdoms don’t. They just are, and ‘they just are’ is not really that good of an explanation, nor does it do the trend any favors. I repeat – arbitrary decision are all well and good, but when they become recognizable as arbitrary and you realize that a ruler does not NEED to be high level to rule, they also become completely pointless, and instead wind up hurting the setting.
It’s not like you have to stretch your imagination, to imagine how a low-level ruler could outdo a high-level ruler, in the game system. It’s pretty darn easy, just as it is pretty easy to design a setup wherein said low-level ruler does not get offed by the first mid-level anarchist with a scroll of teleportation. And sure, if a low-level ruler has many competent people helping him, one of them could most assuredly think that he’d be more suited to rule. Then you, as the GM, have to decide: Well, why is this competent person serving his low level king in the first place? Probably because the person thinks the king has a right to rule, or perhaps it’s just for the power and prestige. Is this character, who now thinks he could rule better than the king, a loyal servant? If he is, then this is not really an issue, but if he is not, I should probably treat him as if he was a person, and decide what he’d do about it. Coups happen… as does loyal governance, and it’s on us, the GMs, to decide what happens in our worlds once the starting whistle is blown.
Also, for the gents who make the point the game is not a novel or story, nor great at simulating fantasy stories, I find myself coughing “bovine fecal-matter”. All with a sporting smile, of course, we’re just having a friendly discussion after all :). I not only think that the DnD, as well as the Pathfinder system, provide the basis for marrying story and game nicely, but I firmly disagree with the idea that you cannot tell classic stories, or run a perfectly good investigation/intrigue/whatever game with it. If you want such stories to make sense in the world, you have to make certain changes, but it’s not like the presence of speak with dead obviates any murder mystery. All the murderer has to do is remove or irreparably damage the jaw, thus preventing the corpse from being able to share its secrets. And since restore corpse only regrows flesh, it’s suddenly not that easy to just pull answers from the void. Yes in a fantasy setting where we’re given tons of fun options to work with, the classic stories need some tweaks if you want them to not be easily dealt with, but that’s not hard, nor does it prevent the use of said stories.
All of this brings me back to my original point, that is, that there does not seem to be a point to all of this. There is no point in every sodding ruler being an absurd powerhouse, because we can easily point to certain places in the setting to show how it could not be the case, and still work just fine. By the same token high-level rulers can help tell an interesting story, the story of a country and a leader’s ascension to power, but ultimately the same story could(not necessarily should) be told with a lower level character in 9 out 10 cases, and all we’d have to do is, dare I say it, get creative… I know, it frightens me too :P
I can respect the decisions of the design-team, and I don’t believe every high-level ruler is hurting the setting, I just think it gets a bit samey, takes some of the fun out of the idea (as I find is the case with the buff to Blood Mistress Jakalyn), and finally I fear that it enforces the tired and, to be frank, complete fuppin’ untrue idea that HD/Level must = Challenge, because it doesn’t.
Just my thoughts :)
-Nearyn
Edit: Thanks for the compliment shadowkras ^_^
It's not a sentiment I entirely disagree with. I'll often take leaders of places that don't run on Asskicking Equals Authority(the sister trope of Authority Equals Asskicking, where they're not badass because they're leaders, they're leaders because they're badass), give them five levels of an appropriate PC class, which still puts them ahead of the curve, and then give them five or more levels of aristocrat so they'll be competitive with the skill checks a leader needs to be competitive at.
If you're really jonsing for a setting that defies this trope, though, I'd recommend Eberron.
I ran Jade Regent and the following happened at the end:
** spoiler omitted **
That's why the rulers are tough.
I have not played the path, nor have I read it, so pardon me while I paint a picture of a path that I have no knowledge of. But if the path was to end in a climactic final encounter, could it not as well have ended with some kind of monolithic mountain-kami or something, fighting the heroes for its Jade Regent? And once it crumbled to dust, the players would then confront the Jade-regent, who could be a level 5 aristocrat for all it mattered in the end, and he'll then surrender to the players, take his own life (Minkai -is- supposed to be Japan, right? O.o ) or perhaps he makes a short speech about how he recognizes that he does not stand a chance, but he will not have it said that he died without fighting. Then he speaks a short haiku about the leaves falling, or something, and then charges the players and dies, fighting despite him having no chance.
Again, complete speculation, but if the path had been written around the idea that this guy was lowish level, surely it could have been told in such a way, that still made the ending feel satisfying, without requiring the heroes to duke it out with the ruler of Minkai. :)
-Nearyn
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it helps to think that only adventurers level up by adventuring; it's their personality type.
(Some psychologist divide people up into 'Auditory Learners', who can learn from listening to lectures, 'Visual Learners', who can learn by watching or reading, and 'Kinesthetic Learners' who can only really learn by doing.)
So the heir to the throne would level up just by having tutors intensively train him. Someone who's been trained by the best swordsmen in the kingdom for fifteen years ought to be better at fighting than a level 1 barbarian.
If you want to have a Lex Luthor genius who is dangerous, but not through his own personal power, the nearest you can come in the Pathfinder rules is probably a high level aristocrat/expert. A low level character is always going to be weak willed and incompetent compared to a high level character.
The only ruler you could really represent as a low level character is a fairly feeble one - either a fool who received his position through inheritance and is unlikely to last long, or a figurehead with a high level guy behind him who is the real ruler.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the gents who make the point the game is not a novel or story, nor great at simulating fantasy stories, I find myself coughing “bovine fecal-matter”.
If you're coughing up feces, you should go see your doctor. If you're coughing up feces which isn't yours, you should likely see your sex therapist while at it.
Or was that a metaphor? They always fly over my head.
Ahem! While I am personally the kind of a person most verbose, let it not fool you into thinking that I am not unable of producing purple prose, and in good time I shall also rhyme. This conversation, beholden to people of our station, should be verily not reduced to mere pranks, so allow me to elaborate my remarks.
In all your long arguments and explanations, you haven't insofar faced the principal point, which is: "what the hell is preventing a party of mid-level PCs from scrying'n'frying an Artistocrat 5?".
Nothing. Except of GM fiats, and we all know how players love those.
Now, you could argue that said Aristocrat 5 has a Mighty Wizard Friend around to keep wards and guards up. Well, problem is, bad people - and BBEGs are usually very bad people - seldom have friends. So that Mighty Wizard must be there because of something.
Money? Please, people with class levels in double digits sleep on money. Mighty Wizard Friend doesn't need no money, he can just teleport and kill some dragons if he needs some.
Plot device? Oh great, you've just dodged the "BBEG must have high level" trope and you fell into "reluctant genie compelled to fulfil evil wishes" or "evil mage forced into servitude by ancient curse" or "super powerful sidekick waits for the boss to turn his back around so he can take over" tropes. Hint: they're all far more cringeworthy and overused.
Power? Yeeeah we're on to something! Mighty Wizard Friend might be there because his Big Boss is actually powerful and intimidating. Aristocrat 5. Powerful and intimidating. Wait, something's wrong here.
See, people in a high-powered fantasy setting sit on thrones and rule nations for reasons. One reasons is that they, complete with their retinue and magic trinkets, are capable of resisting a simple mid-level assassination by a bunch of teleporting murderhobos. Sure, the actual leader might be low level if he or she has really big guns close to the throne, but then the question arises - how did those big guns accept that job? Good and Neutral realms have it a bit easier because stuff like friendship, loyalty, duty and compassion play in, but evil nations that are supposed to be foil to the PCs? There, only power counts. And in magic-rich supernatural environment, power is measured by levels.
Any straight up group fight against one BBEG is going to be a curb stomp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part most of the high level bad guys kind of make sense. I will say, I think Razmiran would be far more interesting if he was a level 10 wizard (or higher level bard). It would just make his con all the more impressive.
Good Stuff
Had to favorite it, simply for the enjoyment value :)
I do believe that your points have relevance to the How and Why of our discusssion, and certainly that we need nations with powerful leaders here and there. In an adventuring setting, there should be lots of possibility for adventure, high and low alike.
I will say, however, that I completely disagree with your statement that bad people seldom have friends. There is really nothing to do about that disagreement though, as we're free to view the setting as we want to, but I, at least, believe that evildoers form stronger relationships and ties to their friends than most others.
A Lawful Evil conquerer may be willing to invade a nation, attacking villages and settlements on his way to the capitol and setting the countryside on fire. When he reaches the capitol, the people on the walls hear his proclamation: "You have my friend imprisoned, and I mean to have him freed. Fail to oblige and I will have the 10.711 of your citizens, that I took prisoner on my way here, painfully tortured and cruficied in view of your city. You have until sundown to agree to my demands, or my men start taking eyeballs"
A group of evildoers who rose to power in a largely good-aligned nation, would have even more reason to form strong ties, because of the whole Contra-Mundum thing. And if a friend of theirs croak, instead giving way to an heir who is leader-material(he makes decisions that improve the country, at least in the eyes of these evildoers) then they may help keep the son on the throne. Loyalty is not a strictly non-evil virtue, after all :)
I'm sure you COULD fiat your way through the question of "how did this low level character become ruler", but you don't really need to, unless you consider story-telling GM fiat. I know I've mentioned him alot, but Ulthun II of Lastwall is a perfect of example of how rulers can be, and should be elected. He's level 6, yet he was chosen because he embodies virtues that the locals place great value in, more than any other person they knew of. If the GM wants Ulthun II to be safe from mid-level assassinations, he'd probably have him protected by people who could foil such an assassination. That does not make it fiat, it is simply the GMs decision that, that is how the nation protects their ruler. And if there really is nothing preventing a party of mid-level PCs from porting in and taking royal heads, then why should it matter if the players do it? It's just another of the many 'unpredicted PC decisions' and now, the players, as well as the country, have to deal with the consequences of the regicide. That too can be a story worth telling.
Power is not measured in levels. Power is measured in results. ;)
-Nearyn
|
|
I see multiple points being made. Rulers are high level to provide a challenge. Rulers are high level because they simply have to be, in order to muster the skill checks they would need to make to rule. Rulers are high levels because their ascension to power would have leveled them to said level.
Yeah, that's a decent rough summary. :)
Yet I maintain, and I see that I am not alone in thinking so, that many rulers don’t need to be above level 10. I’d personally go as far as to say a ruler could be as low level as the design team wanted, and that links well into my own speculation on why rulers are high level. I believe they’re high level because the design team said so; because, simply put, there is no other reason for them to be. I am not saying that the points that have been made about why rulers are high level -are- wrong, I am saying that I –believe- they are.
While I believe they aren't.
I believe the decision to make the leaders high level is arbitrary, heck my belief that there is no reason nor requirement for a leader to be high level, is even backed up by the presence of Ulthun II of Lastwall, and according to Deadmanwalking, the king of Korvosa as well. And that is just another reason for me not to like it. Not only does the trope prevail, it apparently prevails for no properly explained reason. I see the point being made by Shadowkire that these are tumultuous times for Golarion, and that those in power deserve to be said level, because they arose to the throne through adversity. Well, for one, there is no guarantee that even the rulers who are most likely to have fought their way to the throne, saw much real fighting themselves. Their level could certainly be an indication of such, but with the most represented level of the 34 aforementioned rulers being level 15 (with 9 representatives), you just have to ask yourself what exactly they could have done to warrant this. My Rise of the Runelords players are level 14, not to mention that they are player characters, meant for greatness beyond the scope of mere NPCs. And for anyone who knows what RotR contains, you also understand how many trials and tribulations they’ve gone through, when I mention that they’re at the start of book 6, yet they're "only" level 14. For those of you who do not know the content of said adventure path, let us just say that it’s a whole fuppin’ lot. Even those who came to power through conquest, I don’t see as likely to have dealt with even half the level of horrendous challenge, especially considering they probably had lieutenants, armies and people who believed in them, working towards putting them on the throne.
Well, the two from the Land of the Linnorm Kings rulers killed Linnorms, Galfrey has been Queen and battle leader of Mendev practically since the Worldwound opened (with all that implies), Kevoth Kul united some tribes and personally conquered Numeria, and presumably so on and so forth. In very few cases is rule hereditary...and in those where it is, the levels of the rulers drop to 8-12 (possibly excluding Galfrey...and her high level is explained above). So right about what you're talking about.
Ulthun II is a special case, and intentionally 'new and untried', while other rulers of that level are either rulers of a smaller area, not especially competent, or both.
And they don't need to be combat threats...unless you set them up as the main villain of an Adventure Path, in which case they sorta do need to be.
I find myself in complete disagreement with the point that a ruler should present a challenge in a combat-encounter. In fact, I find myself in disagreement with the point, that a ruler must present a challenge in any kind of encounter, really. Surely they could, and some probably should, but I do not believe it should be mandatory, since you’d not really have to excel at anything to be named ruler, we can look to hereditary monarchy for proof of that.
Indeed! Which would be why they're mostly lower level. And often of NPC classes. The point isn't that they must be a combat threat, but that if they weren't decently competent...someone would replace them. Unless the 'official' ruler is a puppet, of course, but that's not the case in any of the nations you speak of.
Certainly some kingdoms like the Linnorm Kingdoms have a way to justify their rulers being combat-monsters, but most kingdoms don’t. They just are, and ‘they just are’ is not really that good of an explanation, nor does it do the trend any favors. I repeat – arbitrary decision are all well and good, but when they become recognizable as arbitrary and you realize that a ruler does not NEED to be high level to rule, they also become completely pointless, and instead wind up hurting the setting.
The thing is, if you're engaged in trade negotiations with, say, a 15th level person...you need to be in vaguely the same league as they are in social skills or they're thoroughly screwed. Now, does that mean they need exactly the same level? No...but it means that an 8th level person isn't just less good in combat than a 15th level one, they're less good at trade negotiations and the actual business of ruling as well.
And any ruler (note that I don't say 'King', it could be a 'power behind the throne' type) that isn't competent at something by the standards of other rulers, is gonna get their country taken away by someone real quick unless they have some sort of institutional authority (as the hereditary monarchs do).
It’s not like you have to stretch your imagination, to imagine how a low-level ruler could outdo a high-level ruler, in the game system. It’s pretty darn easy, just as it is pretty easy to design a setup wherein said low-level ruler does not get offed by the first mid-level anarchist with a scroll of teleportation. And sure, if a low-level ruler has many competent people helping him, one of them could most assuredly think that he’d be more suited to rule. Then you, as the GM, have to decide: Well, why is this competent person serving his low level king in the first place? Probably because the person thinks the king has a right to rule, or perhaps it’s just for the power and prestige. Is this character, who now thinks he could rule better than the king, a loyal servant? If he is, then this is not really an issue, but if he is not, I should probably treat him as if he was a person, and decide what he’d do about it. Coups happen… as does loyal governance, and it’s on us, the GMs, to decide what happens in our worlds once the starting whistle is blown.
Loyalty of the sort you described tends to be either earned (in which case the guy who earned the loyalty of a 15th level person is probably no slouch themselves) or institutional (ala hereditary monarchy). The latter isn't actually that common in Golarion all things considered (it occurs in Ustalav, Mendev, Brevoy, Taldor, Cheliax, Osirion, The Five Kings Mountains, and maybe Qadira). Those rulers are all 8th to 13th level except for Abrogail (who pretty clearly cheated), Galfrey (who, as noted, has a hell of a reason for her level), and the Ruby Prince (who's an exception to the rule, I guess).
Kyonin also has a queen, but it's not clear that the position is hereditary, and the rest don't even have what looks like a hereditary position. And having some sort of hereditary or legacy rulership is the only way that you get rulers who aren't competent (and remember, competence in any field equals level in Pathfinder) but stillhave the ability to secure people's loyalty unless they're someone's pawn or something of the sort.
Also, for the gents who make the point the game is not a novel or story, nor great at simulating fantasy stories, I find myself coughing “bovine fecal-matter”. All with a sporting smile, of course, we’re just having a friendly discussion after all :). I not only think that the DnD, as well as the Pathfinder system, provide the basis for marrying story and game nicely, but I firmly disagree with the idea that you cannot tell classic stories, or run a perfectly good investigation/intrigue/whatever game with it. If you want such stories to make sense in the world, you have to make certain changes, but it’s not like the presence of speak with dead obviates any murder mystery. All the murderer has to do is remove or irreparably damage the jaw, thus preventing the corpse from being able to share its secrets. And since restore corpse only regrows flesh, it’s suddenly not that easy to just pull answers from the void. Yes in a fantasy setting where we’re given tons of fun options to work with, the classic stories need some tweaks if you want them to not be easily dealt with, but that’s not hard, nor does it prevent the use of said stories.
This I actually agree with. You can run most of the same kinds of stories with Pathfinder you find in fiction. There's one exception: Stories that make the protagonists feel frustrated or useless or cheated. Those aren't fun to play, since the players are, in some measure, the protagonists. And having pathetic rulers can very much make players feel cheated.
All of this brings me back to my original point, that is, that there does not seem to be a point to all of this. There is no point in every sodding ruler being an absurd powerhouse, because we can easily point to certain places in the setting to show how it could not be the case, and still work just fine. By the same token high-level rulers can help tell an interesting story, the story of a country and a leader’s ascension to power, but ultimately the same story could(not necessarily should) be told with a lower level character in 9 out 10 cases, and all we’d have to do is, dare I say it, get creative… I know, it frightens me too :P
The thing is, once a level has been established to mean a particular thing trying to change that breaks the verisimilitude of the setting. If a 15th level guy is established as a fairly competent but not exceptional ruler of a large nation, then adding a 10th level one definitionally establishes that he's notably less competent than the 15th level guy, by quite a lot.
Now, if setting up a game world from scratch, yeah you could make the average ruler level lower (though much less and you should probably alter population demographics somewhat), but existing settings need to be consistent, and a consistent bar for 'people badass enough to rise to rule a country on merit' is a solid thing to have.
I can respect the decisions of the design-team, and I don’t believe every high-level ruler is hurting the setting, I just think it gets a bit samey, takes some of the fun out of the idea (as I find is the case with the buff to Blood Mistress Jakalyn), and finally I fear that it enforces the tired and, to be frank, complete fuppin’ untrue idea that HD/Level must = Challenge, because it doesn’t.
Except that it pretty much does. Both in raw power and scope, a 10th level character simply can't do much of anything to a 19th level one other than sic similar people on them. that's just the nature of the game.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player 1: You mean the King is only 5th level? And none of his guards are above 4th level? We could teleport in, heck walk in, and wipe the floor with them?
Player 2: Yep. Any time we wanted.
Player 1: Remind me again, why don't we do that?
Player 2: Because we're The Good Guys. Besides he's a nice guy who gives us free beer.
Player 1: And his daughter is Hot!
Player 2: The whole harem thing has worked out pretty good for us...
Player 1: Wait a second! What about Schmuckface?
Player 2: The lich? What about him? The harem wouldn't like him very much.
Player 1: No, you dummy, why didn't he teleport in and kill everyone? He's only been trying to conquer the Kingdome for 200 years. This mincing around searching for the Crackerjack of Doom seems pretty silly if he could do that. All its done is made us more powerful and in the end a much larger threat to him.
Player 2: <no coherent response available>
|
I think he is saying why not the "boy" style king, Great leader great speaker, that is about it, doesn't fight well, doesn't cast spells, Praises the Most devout LG God. Has a whole team of experts who love him and work for him are all "higher" level and will protect him day and night.
Not level 13 ranger/barb/rogue who has little to no back story has no reason to really be there other than he is a decent level to fight the PCs.
I know System of a down and quite a few other bands have said it before "Why don't you fight your own wars."
You know to many world leaders now a days who fight their own wars? I don't they show up and it is all PR based. Who is to say there aren't leaders like this in Galorian?
Anyway I tend to agree that you don't always have to fight the Leader of a nation, sometimes they are only expert level 2 but they have risen to power by being the Bastard son of such and such and their only living offspring.
We can all do as we wish in our version of our worlds but sometimes the leader does have less skills than and powers than many others, somtimes they make pacts with outsiders and that is their true power.
|
|
Deadmanwalking doesn't mention that the low level king of Korvosa ** spoiler omitted **
Actually...
|
|
Are you saying that if we don't let NPCs have levels it is a vacuum?
Neither the mechanics of the game world nor the story of the game world exist in a vacuum.-Skeld
He means, basically, what Latrecis said above: When you have a kingdom with a 15th level warlord, and a neighboring one with a 5th level king...why in the world is that situation stable?
There are valid explanations, but they sorta need to be made, and can get pretty weird and improbable if you have the situation crop up too many times...so either the 5th level guy needs to be the exception or the 15th level guy does. Both ways work...but they create very different worlds. Golarion is the one where the 5th level guy is the exception.
In short, context matters in terms of levels, and they mean different things in different worlds. You can't, for example, take an urban adventure set in the Forgotten Realms (where 8th level isn't that impressive) and set it in Eberron (where 8th level is very impressive) and expect all the thematic elements and things like what level the city guards are to make sense.
|
|
Are you saying that if we don't let NPCs have levels it is a vacuum?
Neither the mechanics of the game world nor the story of the game world exist in a vacuum.-Skeld
No. Also, what?
What I mean is that neither the game mechanics nor the game world (story) are completely separable from each other when examining the campaign setting. You can have game mechanics with no story and you can have a story with no mechanics, but once you put them together inside a campaign setting, then they are coupled. That means that the stories you create have to be plausible given the game mechanics and game mechanics need to have the flexibility to support the stories you tell.
-Skeld
Are you saying that if we don't let NPCs have levels it is a vacuum?
Neither the mechanics of the game world nor the story of the game world exist in a vacuum.-Skeld
He means, basically, what Latrecis said above: When you have a kingdom with a 15th level warlord, and a neighboring one with a 5th level king...why in the world is that situation stable?
There are valid explanations, but they sorta need to be made, and can get pretty weird and improbable if you have the situation crop up too many times...so either the 5th level guy needs to be the exception or the 15th level guy does. Both ways work...but they create very different worlds. Golarion is the one where the 5th level guy is the exception.
Not.... quite. Although I think Pathfinder is more egregious than many systems in tying ability to rule with combat skills.
One shouldn't need to be a good fighter to be a good king. The last king of England (or the UK) to die in battle was Richard III. I'm not sure if any ruler after Henry Tudor even personally saw combat. Wars between countries are won by economics, not personal heroics (a point made by many of the AP, in fact), so there's no explanation needed for the level discrepancy you describe above.
But if dealing with the ruler is part of a personal heroic adventurer's quest, then the ruler himself typically needs to be personally challenging. There's no reason the Hurricane King needs to be umpteenth level unless the adventure you planned involves a face-off with the Hurricane king at level umpteen.
|
|
Not.... quite. Although I think Pathfinder is more egregious than many systems in tying ability to rule with combat skills.
Oh, agreed. The inherent link between combat prowess and skill in other areas is often highly inconvenient.
One shouldn't need to be a good fighter to be a good king. The last king of England (or the UK) to die in battle was Richard III. I'm not sure if any ruler after Henry Tudor even personally saw combat. Wars between countries are won by economics, not personal heroics (a point made by many of the AP, in fact), so there's no explanation needed for the level discrepancy you describe above.
Right...but skill at economic maneuvering, diplomacy, and logistics are also covered by what level you are. Making high level people vastly better at those things So...generally speaking, level is still the most important thing in determining a ruler's competence and ability to rule well and successfully.
But if dealing with the ruler is part of a personal heroic adventurer's quest, then the ruler himself typically needs to be personally challenging. There's no reason the Hurricane King needs to be umpteenth level unless the adventure you planned involves a face-off with the Hurricane king at level umpteen.
In fairness, the Hurricane King is the first among pirate captains, and secured his position through personal prowess...so a high level actually is somewhat necessary there. Not necessarily as high as he needs to have to be an AP main villain, I'll grant you, but still.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One shouldn't need to be a good fighter to be a good king. The last king of England (or the UK) to die in battle was Richard III. I'm not sure if any ruler after Henry Tudor even personally saw combat. Wars between countries are won by economics, not personal heroics (a point made by many of the AP, in fact), so there's no explanation needed for the level discrepancy you describe above.Right...but skill at economic maneuvering, diplomacy, and logistics are also covered by what level you are. Making high level people vastly better at those things So...generally speaking, level is still the most important thing in determining a ruler's competence and ability to rule well and successfully.
Except that none of economic maneuvering, diplomacy, and logistics are the job of the king. When was the last time you saw Queen Elizabeth driving a truck? (If I remember rightly, it was in 1945, and she was still Princess Lilibet.) Just as Her Majesty has a Minister of Defense, she also has a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Foreign Secretary, and a Transport Secretary -- as well as a whole host of other people, presumably with very high levels in the expert class, to handle everything that the UK needs to have done.
That's actually the point of a monarchy, and has been since before the establishment of the modern nation-state. A monarch provides a figure for authority and continuity of the realm, but does not need to take decisions -- that's what ministers are for. The ministers, in turn, like this idea precisely because it provides what the aristocracy and bureaucrats almost always want most -- stability. The king is dead, long live the next one. It doesn't matter whose head is stamped on the coins as long as the coins themselves continue to circulate; it doesn't matter whose portrait hangs on the customs shed wall as long as trade continues to flow.
The idea of monarch-as-warlord was actually pretty obsolete by the time of the feudal state was established, just as was the idea of noble-as-fighter. The whole point was that the institution would hold together for longer than a single generation. The Duke of Earl didn't have to worry about what happened if he died, because the system itself would preserve his lands, wealth, and title until his infant son was of age. (And, with a few famous exceptions, it did). But the same system also worked to preserve the realm as a whole for an underaged prince like Henry III, Edward VI, or Henry VIII (or for a mad king -- see George III). [All royalty named are of England or the UK.]
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that none of economic maneuvering, diplomacy, and logistics are the job of the king. When was the last time you saw Queen Elizabeth driving a truck? (If I remember rightly, it was in 1945, and she was still Princess Lilibet.) Just as Her Majesty has a Minister of Defense, she also has a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Foreign Secretary, and a Transport Secretary -- as well as a whole host of other people, presumably with very high levels in the expert class, to handle everything that the UK needs to have done.
That's actually the point of a monarchy, and has been since before the establishment of the modern nation-state. A monarch provides a figure for authority and continuity of the realm, but does not need to take decisions -- that's what ministers are for. The ministers, in turn, like this idea precisely because it provides what the aristocracy and bureaucrats almost always want most -- stability. The king is dead, long live the next one. It doesn't matter whose head is stamped on the coins as long as the coins themselves continue to circulate; it doesn't matter whose portrait hangs on the customs shed wall as long as trade continues to flow.
The idea of monarch-as-warlord was actually pretty obsolete by the time of the feudal state was established, just as was the idea of noble-as-fighter. The whole point was that the institution would hold together for longer than a single generation. The Duke of Earl didn't have to worry about what happened if he died, because the system itself would preserve his lands, wealth, and title until his infant son was of age. (And, with a few famous exceptions, it did). But the same system also worked to preserve the realm as a whole for an underaged prince like Henry III, Edward VI, or Henry VIII (or for a mad king -- see George III). [All royalty named are of England or the UK.]
Right...except that (as I noted in detail above) the vast majority of nations on Golarion (or at least in the Inner Sea) are not hereditary monarchies (and none are constitutional monarchies, which differ significantly). At all. And those that are have a significantly lower average level of ruler (with a couple of notable outliers, mostly for pretty good reasons).
So...yeah, any argument based on how feudalism and hereditary monarchy work is really shaky to try to apply to Golarion as a whole.
Good StuffPower is not measured in levels. Power is measured in results. ;)
Results are a lot easier to get when you have levels. It's a lot easier for Ulthun II to hold power at level 6 (which isn't exactly chump-levels) when he's not dealing with a deadly, decadent court in Castle Overwatch. Lastwall is fairly united in that way.
Cheliax on the other hand is a hotbed of intrigue and assassination. Look at the list of Monarchs that have preceded Abrogail II. Many of them have met bloody ends, and while the House of Thrune holds power in Cheliax, we know they've got plenty of rivals. Hell, she probably has rivals within her own family.
Giving her a nice cluster of levels makes her not being a puppet or about-to-be-toppled-by-an-opportunistic-cousin a lot easier to sell to the players.
Giving her a nice cluster of levels makes her not being a puppet or about-to-be-toppled-by-an-opportunistic-cousin a lot easier to sell to the players.
Well that, and there's the fact that her personal entourage probably constitutes a CR 28 encounter.
No, but in fairness, I think your point is valid, it's not that. I simply don't agree with the prevalence of the trope, nor this idea that it is somehow required.
-Nearyn
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving her a nice cluster of levels makes her not being a puppet or about-to-be-toppled-by-an-opportunistic-cousin a lot easier to sell to the players.Well that, and there's the fact that her personal entourage probably constitutes a CR 28 encounter.
No, but in fairness, I think your point is valid, it's not that. I simply don't agree with the prevalence of the trope, nor this idea that it is somehow required.
-Nearyn
Unfortunately, you've brought the trope to the wrong neighborhood. In cinema or literature, the structure you decry is a trope. But those formats are pure narrative forms and the place you're currently visiting is a game that has narrative trappings. Here it is not a trope but rather the fundamental nature of the universe. Every fantasy role-playing game (including the one discussed on these forums) is built on an ever changing ruleset/structure that can be summarized in one word: progression. Example from the system in question: a 1st level wizard cannot cast fireball but a 5th level wizard can. A 5th level wizard cannot cast teleport but a 9th level wizard can. The game itself is fundamentally different for characters that are 1st level vs those that are 9th.
This math in turn makes all the Earth equivalent examples in the thread above entirely irrelevant. On Earth, political power has and remains driven almost entirely by loyalty. If more people think you should be in charge than think you shouldn't, you're in charge. The majority may be in a subset of the population who are rich or weapon holders, etc. and the loyalty may be based on a variety of characteristics like you're from the right family or sponsored by god, etc. You're not King because you're more dangerous than anyone else but because everyone thinks you're supposed to be and even though you're easy to kill, doing so won't make your assassin King unless he has convinced a majority of the right people he should be King based on the same grounds that gave you the title (heredity, divine right, etc.) Here in the real world, survivability is very egalitarian - you might be the greatest navy seal of all time but if I and five of my middle-aged, untrained neighbors decide we're willing to pay any price to take you out, out you go. And that's without reference to the great equalizer - gunpowder. The secret to political power on Earth is to keep people from being willing to pay any price.
But the loyaly mechanism is not all that important on Golarion. Why? Because a 4th level fighter and a 17th level wizard are different orders of being. The 4th level fighter cannot kill the 17th level wizard no matter how much he is willing to sacrifice. Indeed, I'd take the 17th level wizard over 100 4th level fighters. The 17th level wizard and affiliated minions/allies of similar levels (10-15) are virtually immune to anyone that doesn't have commensurate levels and power. Without the opposition of peers, they can take over anything they want to and there isn't much anyone can do to stop them.
You can build a homebrew campaign to suit your perspective on rulers and class levels or modify Golarion to fit but at that point one of two conditions will be true: either the campaign you're running has no connection to the level of the local ruler (and the discussion is therefore moot since the ruler could be 0 or 20th level) or your players are willing to ignore the central implausibility - Why hasn't the BBEG that's powerful enough to threaten us not long ago taken out the rulers of the institution or nation with which he is so obviously an enemy?
Playing the game requires tacit acknowledgement of some meta-gaming conceits and this is one of them. Another example: the Why Is This Our Problem? structure. Why is this ragtag group of 3rd level characters risking their lives to prevent the Cult of the SnozzWanger from unleashing the Carpetbaggers of the Outer Awful when just 10 miles away is the headquarters of the Order of Awesome and dozens of paladins, clerics and wizards who could wipe the floor with the Cult and are highly optimized and motivated to do so? Answer: because it isn't very interesting to role-play sending a message for help.
Why are all the rulers on Golarion high-level characters? Because if they're not, pc's everywhere will be taking them out by the hundreds and complicating campaigns for a similar number of GMs.
GM1: "Yea, my players decided they didn't want to go to the Dungeon of Eternal Misery in their quest for the Headdress of Perpetual Happiness. Instead they went to the palace, took out the royal family and its bodyguards and had the fighter crowned King. He stripped the Temple of Sneezle of their royal charter and taxed them out of existence. Campaign over."
GM2: "That's not in the AP."
GM1: "I know but Jimmy bought the source-book for Dangerland and told everyone the King was only a 5th level Aristocrat and none of his guards were higher the 9th level. The pc's are all 12th level. It... It wasn't pretty."
GM2: "You should have given the King and his crew more levels."
GM1: "Do you know how much work that is? And besides they sprung it on me in game."
GM2: "Paizo sure does crappy world design. Why aren't all rulers high level characters?"
|
|
Every fantasy role-playing game (including the one discussed on these forums) is built on an ever changing ruleset/structure that can be summarized in one word: progression. Example from the system in question: a 1st level wizard cannot cast fireball but a 5th level wizard can. A 5th level wizard cannot cast teleport but a 9th level wizard can. The game itself is fundamentally different for characters that are 1st level vs those that are 9th.
Id like to take a moment and note that this isn't true. I've owned and played and run a host of fantasy RPGs where this isn't the case. Pathfinder just isn't one of them.
I absolutely agree with most of the rest of your post, and even this point as it applies to Pathfinder...but it's not universally true of fantasy RPGs at all.
I think Abrogail II level is justified, since the Thrunes are described as a backstabbing family-clan, where coisens learn to murder each other before the learn to write. Cheliax has seen six Rulers since the Thrunes started to reign, in 70 years. A weaker ruler would be quickly six-feet under.
Bonefist falls in the same categorie as barbarian-rulers. You don´t become hurricane-king, unless your the meanest baddest pirate in all of the high sea. He also held this title for quite some time, which makes him even stronger.
All in all in a level based world, leaders should be on the higher end of the foodchain. In a monarchie a weak ruler will fall victim to intrigues, in a babarian culture he will be immediatly challenged, in a democracy the best suited will be voted for (what also includes past accomplishments, which high-level characters will ultimetly have more.)
You´re awarded XP for solving problems, social intrigueges and doing a good job altogether, not just for killing monsters.
A well formulated, interesting post
I don't believe anyone is arguing that the game does not take on a different look, the higher level you get. This is especially true for casters and character with the funds to aquire, and the skill to use magic devices. I disagree however that I've 'brought it to the wrong neighborhood'. I also disagree that every fantasy role-playing game is built on progression, although I do not argue that, that is the case with Pathfinder.
I hope you'll excuse me for being a bit rude, but I'm gonna say that you are wrong. Plain and simply wrong, when you make the argument that a 4th level fighter cannot kill a 17th level wizard. I find that statement untrue. I realize that you're probably trying to make a point about the vast difference in their potential capacity to rule and enforce their rule, should 2 such characters both vie for the crown, so I'll leave it at that.
I've seen this one point come up at least twice now, that if the ruler was low level, then the BBEG should have just waltzed into the king's keep and killed the royal family ages ago. Well that assumes that your BBEGs motivation is wanting the royal family dead, not ruling the nation. If the BBEG wants to take over the nation of Peacelovia, then killing the king and sitting in his chair is not gonna cut it. That is not how you become king. That is how you lured into waiting for the 50 level 1 warriors to rally under the banner of their commander, and suddenly become a CR 14 Troop-creature, instead of a disorganized group of easily murdered low-levels. If the BBEGs sole motivation IS killing the royal family, then as the person telling the story, it is up to you, the GM, to explain why he has not managed to do so, which, in a world of high-fantasy, practically spewing over with options, should not be all that difficult. Ultimately, if you find that your story somehow hinges on the fact that the ruler in question MUST be high level, then you SHOULD make him high level. If it could benefit the story to have him be high level, then perhaps you should make him high level. If there is no reason, except arbitrary adherence to the fallacy that it could not be otherwise, then it hurts the setting, -because- it becomes recognizable as pointless. At least, that is how I feel.
You claim that if the leaders were not high level, then PCs everywhere would be out for their blood. Well if that's true, I'd argue that PCs everywhere are doing it wrong. In my circulation of RPG-playing friends, the players cooperate with the GM to tell the story. They make small compromises with their characters, or come up with excuses, if it can help the story move along or prevent the game from hurting. We play by a set of gentleman's agreements that we lay down at the start of the campaign, that determines how we deal with story (in case of pre-written material), our party-members (in case it looks like interparty -could- happen)and so on, and so forth.
And should you find yourself in a sandbox game, where such a decision is not actively taking away from the narrative, then what's wrong with you attacking the ruler of the nation? Is that not a worthy story? Perhaps you succeed, perhaps you fail, no matter the outcome, we'll probably tell a story getting there. And as we've established, just because you manage to kill the king, does not suddenly turn the game into a kingdom-building game. Rather, in most cases, it'll probably turn the game into a game of hide and seek: The party vs every scrap of sharp steel in the nation. Of course such a story could be told in many ways, but the point is, it is just as worthy of being told as the story of how the heroes killed the dragon and saved the princess. If the GM prefers that a regicide does not happen in his sandbox campaign, all he has to do is A) make it so said regicide will not be that easy (which does NOT necessitate leveling up the monarch :P ), or B) simply tell his players that it'd be cool if they'd either make their characters have a level of loyalty to the current regime, or be indifferent enough to not take action against the royal family. Bish bash bosh, players have agreed to not give GM a headache, now let's have some fun adventuring :)
Or, to put it differently:
GM1: "Yea, my players decided they didn't want to go to the Dungeon of Eternal Misery in their quest for the Headdress of Perpetual Happiness. Instead they said they wanted to go to the palace, take out the royal family and its bodyguards and have the fighter crowned King. He would then strip the Temple of Sneezle of their royal charter and tax them out of existence."
GM2: "That's not in the AP."
GM1: "I know. That's why I asked them if they could not do that, and instead find a reason to continue with the AP we all agreed to play"
GM2: "Ah, good on you. Everything back on track"
GM1: "Yep, but for a moment it looked scary :D Good thing my players are not total a**holes"
GM2: "Yep"
GM1: "Yep"
GM2: "..."
GM1: "..."
GM2: "So... did you see they finally published stats for King Harlax of Kelquora?"
GM1: "No way! What'd they make him?"
GM2: "If I recall correctly he was a level 15 Sorcerer"
GM1: "Cool, you know that makes alot of sense, considering they'd already established that he fell into the Well of Souls that one time, yet survived."
GM2: "Yeah... I mean, they COULD have made him weaker and it'd still work, I guess, but at least it makes sense"
GM1: "Yep"
GM2: "Yep"
I think Abrogail II level is justified, since the Thrunes are described as a backstabbing family-clan, where coisens learn to murder each other before the learn to write. Cheliax has seen six Rulers since the Thrunes started to reign, in 70 years. A weaker ruler would be quickly six-feet under.
Bonefist falls in the same categorie as barbarian-rulers. You don´t become hurricane-king, unless your the meanest baddest pirate in all of the high sea. He also held this title for quite some time, which makes him even stronger.
All in all in a level based world, leaders should be on the higher end of the foodchain. In a monarchie a weak ruler will fall victim to intrigues, in a babarian culture he will be immediatly challenged, in a democracy the best suited will be voted for (what also includes past accomplishments, which high-level characters will ultimetly have more.)You´re awarded XP for solving problems, social intrigueges and doing a good job altogether, not just for killing monsters.
I don't see the connection between coming from a family of chronic backstabberage, and surging with great arcane power. I simply don't see the connection. Again, I'm not saying that she's poorly written, I can understand perfectly well why they might've chosen to make Abrogail level 18, but when all is said and done, if they wanted to make her dangerous and in control, they could have stopped at "Hell serves Cheliax". Kerdak Bonefist WAS still Hurricane King back when he was level 10, you know. He was still the Pirate Lord of the Shackles, first among Pirate Captains, and whatever the flip he might call himself. Him being 8 levels higher has not changed his position as leader of the Shackles, it has just changed how he fares in solo-combat, which was the only reason he got buffed (it appears, I don't rightly know, but posters above speculated that it had something to do with an AP). And if people were just concerned with having Kerdak Bonefist be a challenging final encounter, they did not need to buff him to level 18. Again, completely pointless. They'd just have to add something more to the fight against him, that'd bump the CR of the encounter, like minions, traps, terrain, a giant enemy crab, anything. Instead they opted for levels, and we all know effective those are in the 'climactic final battle'. Going by the vocal majority on the boards, the answer is 'not at all'.
Finally I'll just add that there are no rules for NPCs earning experience from challenges. I realize what point you're trying to make, but since you grabbed hold of the mechanics of the system to support your argument, I just thought I'd let you know that it's not rules-mechanically sound.
-Nearyn