Note: This thread is inspired by the ongoing Chamberlain thread.

To me the NPC levels assigned in the various BR products seemed haphazard at best. When looking at all the BR products that were made, it seems to me that there were very little thought given to what were reasonable character levels.

Well, with 3E this bothered me even more than it did in 2E. 3E is more internally consistent than the previous edition, so the great variety in levels really started to bother me. I wanted some consistence for NPCs' personal power and the arrival of 3E was a perfect opportunity to do something about it.

So, for my RoE PBeM campaign (using 3E) i started assigning levels anew...the rule of thumb was that no regent be under 6th level unless there was a really good reason (youth, incompetence, whatever). At the same time there would be no regents over 10th level...unless there was a really good reason. And no "normal" mortal NPC would be allowed a level over 15th (I think Aeric Boeruine was allowed to be a 15th lvl Fighter, but that was the highest).

I really didn't look too closely on the level assigned to various BR products, nor what classes they had. I looked more at their descriptions and how they fit into the campaign. I also wanted there to be a certain link between personal power and domain power...but not absolute, if the situation warranted it there were weak characters with strong domains and vice versa.

Aeric is mentioned above. A powerful fighter with a powerful realms. Avan was also pretty simple. He turned out a 12th level noble. Others needed more though. Siele Ghoried (a female IMC) was also made a Noble/Rogue 4/3 to reflect that IMC she was the rightful heir to Ghoried province and had a fair bit of diplomatic skill and a nice upbringing. Aelies got to be 20th level...but I nerferd his spellcasting a bit by giving 4 druid levels Jaison Raenech were to have a special place in the campaign, so he got a serious boost to Bbn 1/Fighter 13 (to allow him to fly into mindless rages). And so on.

It should be noted that I also gave thought to the lower levels AND the VERY high levels. I decided that 2nd level was the average for a trained adult, working up to about 5th level for skilled (and often older) professionals - for example a skilled soldier in a standing army would be a Warrior 2, a trained and bloodied knight a Fighter 4, the old Gamekeeper an Expert 5, etc. Some exceptions here too - the master smith of Baruk-Azhik might be an Expert 12 for example.

I had some very high lvl NPC too. Aelies was mentioned above. The Chamberlain was one such too (but he wasn't really that much of a combatant despite a very high level). And then there were Epic character...Rhuobhe (25th) and the Gorgon (30th level) are obvious examples. The Emerald Queen also got to be a (low) Epic level character.

Now, I'm not saying this is the RIGHT way to assign NPC levels, I'm just arguing that even the Wiki NPCs should be subject to some regimen aimed at providing internal consistency. It seems less useful to the average player to have access to NPC descriptions that are "all over the place" with regards to design philosophy. I just looked at the Gorgon and found him having 46 character level + various blood and other abilities, I'm sure his CR is over 50

Actually, with the benefit of hindsight, I probably would have toned ALL levels down a bit. But 3E was new at the time and I wanted to get a spread of levels. And it was internally consistent and that was a major boon to me....and I think the Wiki could benefit too.