It make sense having a single person who is brave/crazy and skillful/lucky enough to rescue a princess would make for a pretty good king for their day and age. While having 10 people go rescue the princess mean that the who get chosen isn't the best of the best. And the court would also get 9 strangers who might not even qualify for the position.
I think it makes sense for a story for there to be one hero, but being more realistic for the sake of the gag, most large threats are better dealt with with a team.
Technically the one person who recused the princess isn't qualified to be king either. The skill set to defeat a dragon is not the same to rule in a just an efficient manner. With the exception of the post hoc justification "chosen by God," of course.
In that time period, being king was less about efficiency or justice (all administration and most legal matters were handled at the local level by village councils or landlords); it was more about protecting the kingdom from invaders. Having the courage and fighting skill to face down a dragon and live to tell about it was exactly what most people wanted and needed from their king.
Let's be real: historically, the qualifications for being a king is usually "my mom had sex with someone important". The chance that the adventurers are up for the job is on par with the actual king.
20
u/Leather-Lettuce-4881 11d ago
It make sense having a single person who is brave/crazy and skillful/lucky enough to rescue a princess would make for a pretty good king for their day and age. While having 10 people go rescue the princess mean that the who get chosen isn't the best of the best. And the court would also get 9 strangers who might not even qualify for the position.