At 01:06 PM 6/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Exactly. Character level gets kind of pushed aside in the BR rules. Oh, it
>still effects things like realm spells, but it doesn’t have much to do with
>actually ruling one’s realm. This contradicts the “old” way of doing things in
>AD&D in which characters had to reach their “name” level before being able to
>rule a realm, collect taxes, etc.
>
>I always thought that method was a bit overdone. That is, it required
rulers to
>have gone through some sort of adventuring process, which didn’t really make
>much sense. How could you have an inherited crown if rulership was based upon
>character level? Rulers would be required to send their kids off for years of
>adventuring in order to raise them up to a level that they would be
legitimately
>able to claim the throne.
I have always built into the cultures of my settings several assumptions
based on the premise that governments not lead by individuals with
respectable saving throws and chances to resist charms and assassinations
would not survive.
Nobles have lots of children. All are trained in character classes deemed
socially acceptable for their gender (although nobility do not put a high
place on becoming clerics, as clerics put god before family and with nobles
family comes first).
A noble family may consist of two or three brothers and sisters in the
primary generation, a couple of cousins, and all their children. All of
adult age are classed.
Succession is not to the first born or eldest, it is to the most able. This
means the highest level. Nobles go adventuring, often on family business
(enriching the family, dealing with brigands, exploring new territories etc.
etc.) both to serve the family and advance their chance at succession.
Nobles must adventure to earn the right to rule, they just focus on
different sorts of adventures.
Generations of this, the fact nobles are given good education and nutrition
(building healthy minds and bodies) mean that nobles have built up a good
genetic pool and between nature/nurture often have ‘adventurer’ statistics.
Even if they don’t, few are so feeble they can’t train at something.
In a world with heroic types, and where such behaviour has possible, I have
simply assumed that any other way of doing things would not succede over
this way of doing things. Families that went with primogeniture didn’t
stand up to those that went with the above system.
This fits quite well with the “family is all”, “we’re naturally better than
the peasants”, “only we really count anyway” mentality of feudal nobility.
I have not taken the further, although I think justified, step of having
nobles forbid peasants from training in character classes other than
clerical (and by nature as rogues). I say justified because there are many
historical justifications based on limited rights to move or own weapons,
and in a world with wizardry that could well be extended to wizardry.
I think it would be quite justifiable to have a setting in which all nobles
are classed, and non-nobles are classed only if they enter a priesthood or
become soldiers/mercenaries or rogues.
| |
| We ask ourselves if there is a God, how can this happen? |
| Better to ask, if there is a God, must it be sane? |
| |
| Lucien LaCroix |
|___________________________________________________________________|