|
It is not a Question of IF they need a secondary. But more so IF they are ready to take on all the responsibilities on their own.
Though it can be wise to have a single leader for fast response to certain decions, those decisions may not always be best.
Having two leaders can be nice for redundancies, however in the case that they disagree, or worse, one is inactive for extended period of time... Well you get the idea..
Then theres the composite group, two leaders, and the council. Though this is normally a prefered setup, it has its major draw backs. Namely inactive members of the council or one, or even both of the leaders. With a council, the group can be sufficient enough to managed the normal day to day, however the major issues such as battle plans or even alliances would have to be dealt with by either leader.
As for the normal thought of kingdom leadership, just the King of Queen and their mate in rule, is rather narrow minded but still can work, so long as they have proper management. It worked for CP while Alan and Alisa were around.
The real issue here, is that your kingdom needs to be given its sub leaders, not multiple main leaders. I'm talking about Generals of your various rank divisions (Admiral, Archmage, General, etc...).
** In the Forest kingdom "Aran" is King, and "Tári" is Queen, however we tend to follow the third mentioned.. Draxx and I are not married, in which case Forest more so resembles a dual monarch style, and we are to have a council when we find the appropriate individuals for such.
** Please don't quote my entire message, this just gets redundant when you do such. |
06-09-2007, 04:56 PM
Linear Mode
