RPGnet Columns
10-17-2001, 07:20 AM
Post originally by me at 2001-10-17 06:20:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
Context (i.e., campaign background) and charisma make the difference, so that pretty much any class can lead.
Look at the campaign world. If members of a certain class are likely to rule nations, then they will likely gravitate to authority positions within a party.
In a feudal system (european or Japanese), it was the noble warrior who led. They had the monopoly on weapons, so they got to rule. There's no shortage of real-world and fantasy leaders to choose from, whether it's Henry V or Aragorn. All fighter-types.
In a world where education was limited, the educated had considerable influence. Consider the influence of the Catholic Church. In a fantasy world, magic knowledge might determine leadership. The old Glantri gazetteer had a nation ruled by wizards (and vampires, and werewolves and liches and dragons...)
Related to the above, a world with lost technology might concentrate power in the hands of the remaining technoologists. ("Gnomish Technosavants of Lebowitz unite!").
In a religious world, church leaders control theocracies. Clerics lead.
In a world of shadowy intrigue and city politics, the back-stabbers, whisperers and poisoners control the scene, albeit perhaps from the shadows.
So depending on the campaign, most classes have a good shot at ruling. The two exceptions, I think, would be the monk and the druid. Neither class seems social enough to produce natural leaders, though exceptions could always occur.
Game mechanics
--------------
A leader needs a good combination of charmisma, intellgience and wisdom. Clerics, paladins, wizards, bards and sorcerers are likely to spend points on these things. Good social skils are also a plus. It helpds to have diplomacy and sense motive as class skills. From a skill's perspective, clerics, paladins and bards seem best suited. (Although the rogue class gets so many skill points, it's also a strong choice).
Bards and paladins both get "leader" type abilities, to protect the group against fear, or inspire competence. From a role-playing perspective, these would both help, although some parties might object to the paladin's strict code, and lots of parties simply find bards annoying.
Converted from Phorums BB System
Context (i.e., campaign background) and charisma make the difference, so that pretty much any class can lead.
Look at the campaign world. If members of a certain class are likely to rule nations, then they will likely gravitate to authority positions within a party.
In a feudal system (european or Japanese), it was the noble warrior who led. They had the monopoly on weapons, so they got to rule. There's no shortage of real-world and fantasy leaders to choose from, whether it's Henry V or Aragorn. All fighter-types.
In a world where education was limited, the educated had considerable influence. Consider the influence of the Catholic Church. In a fantasy world, magic knowledge might determine leadership. The old Glantri gazetteer had a nation ruled by wizards (and vampires, and werewolves and liches and dragons...)
Related to the above, a world with lost technology might concentrate power in the hands of the remaining technoologists. ("Gnomish Technosavants of Lebowitz unite!").
In a religious world, church leaders control theocracies. Clerics lead.
In a world of shadowy intrigue and city politics, the back-stabbers, whisperers and poisoners control the scene, albeit perhaps from the shadows.
So depending on the campaign, most classes have a good shot at ruling. The two exceptions, I think, would be the monk and the druid. Neither class seems social enough to produce natural leaders, though exceptions could always occur.
Game mechanics
--------------
A leader needs a good combination of charmisma, intellgience and wisdom. Clerics, paladins, wizards, bards and sorcerers are likely to spend points on these things. Good social skils are also a plus. It helpds to have diplomacy and sense motive as class skills. From a skill's perspective, clerics, paladins and bards seem best suited. (Although the rogue class gets so many skill points, it's also a strong choice).
Bards and paladins both get "leader" type abilities, to protect the group against fear, or inspire competence. From a role-playing perspective, these would both help, although some parties might object to the paladin's strict code, and lots of parties simply find bards annoying.