Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OhGreatOne99 04-23-07, 10:27 PM	Ive run into some problems while detailing my countries. How powerful should leaders of your average country be. Like character level wise and such, most of them should have practically limitless resources of course.
Return of the Flumph 04-23-07, 11:10 PM	Depends on the culture. In a large, beaurocratic empire, not very high level. In a warlike city state, VERY high level.
OhGreatOne99 04-24-07, 12:03 AM	something that is the economic and political equivalent of a superpower today then, especially one that has a very strong military and population to control and use.
JulesCARV 04-24-07, 12:26 AM	How is leadership decided? Is it a hereditary monarchy? An electoral republic? A military dictatorship? Is it stable? Prone to coups and civil wars like the Roman Empire?
Return of the Flumph 04-24-07, 01:27 AM	something that is the economic and political equivalent of a superpower today then, especially one that has a very strong military and population to control and use. Probably a mid level aristocrat or expert, unless they have a warrior or magical tradition that the king is expected to uphold.
PoorHobo 04-24-07, 01:39 AM	I could see a case made for every PC class mid to high level to be a leader of a country. Also low level aristocrats and PC classes for hereditary nations, though such a nation isn't going to last long wiht a weak ruler. IMO People that become leaders by themselves usually have that special "something" that differentiates between having PC levels and NPC levels. While NPC levels might be involved in statting them out they would not be a majority of the class levels.
Singer_of_the_Song 04-24-07, 01:45 AM	If it's of any interest, don't forget that in the Middle Ages kings literally led their forces onto the battlefield. Several English kings died on the field: Harold, Richard I, Richard III. Henry V was famous for his actions at Agincourt. Jean Froissart's Chronicles lists, after every battle, the prominent leaders of England and France that were killed: you have dukes, earls, barons, falling under the sword. These people were extremely important to the government, and they were in the thick of the fighting, slaughtering and being cut down just like anyone else (or, in D&D terms, gaining XP). Many traditional, feudal kingdoms will have high level, martial characters for leaders. Furthermore, even in a hereditary setting, if a king wasn't competent, he was generally killed/overthrown/relegated to insignificance. Hereditary rulership provides legitimacy, but it's not untouchable. But if you want to re-create a government that is more modern, or consists of large beaurocracy, leaders will probably have high mental ability scores but not so much levels.
daggeroflath 04-24-07, 02:50 AM	Usually the leaders in my world are quite powerful (I mean, it makes sense when you think about it). Commonly the royal family will be a sorcery-blooded family with the new king decided by primoarcanagenesis, the first born child with magical powers takes the throne. At the very least a ruler will have levels in a PC class, or some very loyal people with them who have a PC class. Nothing else makes sense in D&D.
FeceMan 04-24-07, 01:41 PM	This will not end well.
krichaiushii 04-24-07, 10:34 PM	Conversely, there is a valid argument in limiting the levels of your NPCs (to include country leader) to mid levels; not only does this make the PCs truly legendary when they hit high levels, it reinforces the paucity of powerful magic items floating around - a game atmosphere that many enjoy. As long as you are consistent; all leaders PC classes between 12-18 or NPC levels between 5-8, there should be no problem. In my case, I prefer to limit the power of most NPCs (friendly or otherwise); my thinking is that most people - even the super martial leader types that others have referenced - are going to start earning minimal or no XP for most of their encounters; they are fighting other mortal armies, not seeking out ancient dragons or cadaverous liches because these encounters are of an appropriate level. Not only are my PCs forced to work for the magic items they want (either through manufacture them themselves or seeking out someone powerful enough to make them), they start to shine and become the "go-to" people when rampaging dragons and liches appear.
Araes 04-24-07, 11:07 PM	In general, if people of high levels of any class aren't extremely rare, then I agree with both of the cloaked posters' opinions (Singer and dagger). NPCs should be relatively high level, so that they have access to the skills to perform their jobs better than those around them. Naturally, this might not always be the case, and you could have some incompetent, low-level fools holding power (I mean, just look at Bush, he's like a what? 4th level aristocrat?). However, in general I would say that social darwinism should increase the chances that the capable are going to hold office. Particularly in worlds where magic is active and powerful. As a note, the DMG generally seems to support this idea, as towns are commonly controlled by the highest level NPC of the appropriate class, and each subfunction of the town falls to the appropriate people. As such, it seems reasonable that the higher order structure of the kingdom would behave "somewhat" similarly with the notable exceptions.
JulesCARV 04-25-07, 02:00 AM	That depends. Are level 4 people incompetent in your world? In most games, level 1 people for a majority, so a person can be fairly competent while still being level one (especially if he has good wisdom, intelligence, well-chosen feats, etc). On the other hand, you might have a game world where level 1 commoners are actually a minority of unusually incompetent people, and most people are level 3 experts or thereabouts.
Westbound 04-25-07, 03:46 AM	First of all, let's think a little bit outside the box. If you're talking about a monarch, you're talking about a person who fate has literally handed the keys of power to, and technically this person could be anyone. What I mean is that there are stereotypes that people tend to fall into when describing kings and queens, and they tend to forget that they can be as ordinary people as you or I. Instead, what you should do is just ask a question for a particular nation: What if the king was but a boy? What if this nation elected their leaders? What if there was no king because the previous king was assassinated without an heir? What if there was only a queen and she wasn't married yet? And when you ask these questions, determine what kind of background this person has. Why did this person become ruler? Is this person even qualified to be a ruler? Does he even like being ruler? Does he want to be a ruler? If not, what would he rather do? Also, if not, how does this affect his rulership? That last question should shake your box a little. I am reminded of Tsar Nicolas II of Russia. This was a man who did not want to be Tsar, but it was his birthright. This man would rather study architecture and be with his wife and family than rule Russia. Because of his lack of ambition in this regard, he did not truly rule Russia when she needed leadership the most, and in the wake of a defeat in WWI, the Tsar faced a terrible uprising that cost him the lives of not only him and his family (and the entire Romanov Dynasty to boot) but the lives of millions who suffered under Communist rule. Research Roman Emperors. They're pretty interesting - the sorts of personalities among that august group of people run the gamut from certifiably insane (Caligula) to austere philosopher (Marcus Aurelius). I'm trying to point out that most people just aren't really cut out to be rulers, and most people that became rulers really had no business being there in the first place. There are really few great rulers, a few more good rulers, and mostly mediocre rulers trying to maintain the status quo, and awful rulers who nearly brought their nations to utter ruin through neglect or incompetance.
molten_dragon 04-25-07, 08:41 AM	This is an interesting question, and one that I recently went through in designing my campaign world. I think it really depends on what type of government exists in the country. For example, in my world, there are 7 large countries, each with its own form of government and leader. They are as follows. An inherited monarchy with a feudal system (led by a mid-high level aristocrat) A dictatorship (led by a high level blackguard) An monarch elected by a group of noble families (led by a mid level aristocrat) A theocracy (led by a high level cleric) A revolutionary government in a country with numerous civil wars and rebellions (led by a mid to high level fighter) A republic (a group of of several leaders, of many classes) A magocracy (A high level sorcerer)
Araes 04-25-07, 10:58 PM	What if the king was but a boy? What if this nation elected their leaders? What if there was no king because the previous king was assassinated without an heir? What if there was only a queen and she wasn't married yet? My reasonings in these cases would go something like this: The boy king - he will not be the true power of the throne, and although he rules it in name, unless he is particularly skilled, the actual power of government will instead flow through some other, much more qualified person. Or he will be disposed which was also quite common. In general elections- I would say that politicians generally have to be relatively high level to compete with their adversaries on an even footing. Now, in our current political system, I would say that funding can make up some of that difference, as you are instead supported by the high level people around you. Again, this then becomes something of a power behind the throne question. Assassination or no heir to the throne - I would say that in the ensuing power struggle, the strongest of the contenders (highest level, strongest power base) would prevail. Generally to have a good power base, I would reaosn that they had to have the skills to accumulate it in the first place. Queen who isn't married - this totally depends on the succession rights for your kingdom, so its kind of a non-issue. If the queen ruled the land, then there's a good chance that she has either had an interest in running the kingdom from the start, and has accumulated the skills to get to that point, or she has been disinterested and she might fall into the scenario of being controlled by another. Such as a skillful suitor with high Cha, bluff, perform, diplomacy... Anyhow, this is why I argue mid-high level for the rulers of countries. Even if they don't start with the experience, I would wager that the act of running a nation (if they are actively involved in doing so) is a significant fountain of XP. Using my obviously joking example from before, look at Bush, he has become a much visibly better politician in the years in office. I however admit the possibility for the Tsar case mentioned above, where a disinterested ruler abandons his task and no one steps in. However, note that he was disposed due to his lack of skill. These things tend to be self correcting.
JulesCARV 04-25-07, 11:16 PM	I'm not sure if high level is all that necessary for being an effective monarch. A level 1 human aristocrat with 16 int, 15 wis, and 13 cha, with good knowledge (nobility and royalty), (history), (local), and a few ranks in others, good diplomacy, sense motive, bluff, and intimidate, and two feats like negotiator and skill focus (sense motive) could be an effective monarch, while a level 20 human barbarian wilth 7 int, 6 wis, 11 cha, maxed ranks in jump, listen, and intimidate, and feats like power attack, improved sunder, improved bull rush, leap attack, shock trooper, combat brute, improved initiative, and cleave would be a not-so-effective monarch.
Araes 04-26-07, 12:03 AM	True, and I don't dispute the claim that he would be effective. However, what I would argue is that there had to be some form of succession path, which led that 20th level barbarian to the throne. If that succession path is based on some use of that barbarian's skills, then he might be the most viable leader (note, viable not good). If he can defend his position with the skills that he possesses as a barbarian, then I would say he might very well keep it. (IE, a fight the chieftan to the death scenario). However, if he gained it by pure dumb luck (A reward maybe?) then I think the real possibility would exist for a more skilled person to take that position from him using the skills that the position actually depends on to function (diplomacy, bluff, general tact, playing well with others, ect...) Honestly, I would make a perpendicular argument about the types of characters who are generally going to be in charge of particular locations. Generally, it will function like an alpha pack situation, where the person with the best skills in the area that location rewards will be the one in charge (with some noise due to population size). If the system rewards charm and diplomacy, then you'll end up with a lot of rogues, bards, and aristocrats running things. If its a situation where might makes right, then you might have lots of warriors, fighters, and barbarians. If its something where intellect is rewarded, like a mageocracy or research institution, then generally it will be the smartest. Note, that charm is often useful in the second and third scenarios even if you are slightly less than equal in the other requirements.
DragonMagess 03-19-08, 04:09 PM	I'd say about 10th level (the sweet spot in 3.5 being about 5th level) with lots of 3rd and 4th level cohorts. Thats a tough battle but not too tough, especially if your ruler is bureaucratic and only has levels in a class like aristocrat. It also means that as your characters become about 15th lvl and are becoming celebrities but not quite legends yet, rulers will seek them out for help, which suits this level of campaign.
Martel732 03-19-08, 07:28 PM	It all depends on context. The leaders of the nations of the world should vary greatly compared to one another. If the leader was a strong military leader to united large areas of land I would make high level 15-20, probably levels in something like Fighter, Paladin etc... Think Charlemagne or Alexander. This would also apply to someone with many strong rivals (if he was weak they would rule) or foreign foes that he meets in the field (if he was weak he would die in battle). The leader based around one particular group (mages for example) the leader on probably be the strongest amongst them. Also 15-20. From there it decline depending on how dangerous life truly is for the monarch. The average occasional warrior king is probably around 8-12. Split between fighter and aristocrat. A hereditary monarch in a stagnant Empire without many threats is most likely decadent and low level. Maybe level 4 aristocrat. In a republic the executive would most likely be a charismatic Paladin or cleric. He would sway votes with the trifecta of: Strong and offers security with a moral stance, charismatic enough to get votes, support from the religious groups. Also, most likely high level, first for notoriety and has the money for a campaign.