Quote from: RPGPundit;626406As usual around these parts, when no other specification has been made, assume we're talking Western European Fantasy.

That still leaves a lot of room to maneuver. The only common thing is that they are people who have been shackled with being aristocrats. This can range from being inundated from birth with the knowledge that the person will be a leader who has definite responsibilities and duties to being told from birth that because they are special that they can engage in any kind of amoral or unethical behavior they like.

As far as role-playing, it depends on what kind of personality I need to be present in the NPC for the adventure being played. Even Shakespeare showed a wide range in his noble characters from MacBeth to Henry V.

Of course there are just as many ranges of personality in the aristocracy as in any other group; so this isn't about personalities, but about "programming".

And when I was talking before about "what you're expected to do", I wasn't suggesting that the aristocracy will always behave in that way; obviously that's not true.
What I'm suggesting is that this is a central theme for them as a social class, and the issue of living up to those duties or not is something of monumental importance for them (whether they're the ones living up to things, or failing to, or refusing to).

RPGPundit

It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.

If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.

So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.

Quote from: Haffrung;627443It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.

If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.

So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.

Though you should note that they were far far less likely to actually be educated than the medieval "middle" class.  Merchants and artisans needed to work with numbers. Clerics and doctors learned how to read and write.  Nobles in the middle ages usually had little reason to do either. This didn't really change until the renaissance, though of course throughout the middle ages there were important exceptions, but that's what they were, exceptions: nobles who just happened to be educated by some kind of quirk or through whatever reason (most often chance: sons initially intended for the priesthood that instead ended up inheriting the title due to the untimely death of older siblings).

You're right about the rest, though. They were bred and trained to kick ass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Haffrung;627443It's funny how American anti-elitism colours the perception of aristocrats.

If we're talking about feudal lords of the middle ages, they were not by and large effete, simpering dandies. Rather, they were super-jocks dedicated body and soul to warfare, hunting, and competition. They were not only richer than the peasants, but their diet and lifestyle left them taller, healthier, stronger, and smarter. Physically and in battle they were as dominant as NFL linebackers would be against recreational flag-football players.

So I play them like Khan and his followers from the original Star Trek episode; mentally and physically superior, and well aware of their superiority.

Huh.  In my experience, most Americans (or at least the ones I know) don't HAVE a preconception of an aristocrat (we just don't have aristocrats*, period), so most of my (and my players') ideas of an aristocrat is formed by...  the BBC.

Python, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, etc.  Which universally paint a pretty... garish picture of the Upper Class Twit.




* The closest we have to an aristocracy is the TMZ set - your Hiltons, your Kardashians, etc.  Which would not lead one to a favorable impression, either.  Not to mention the political dynasties, Kennedies, Bushes, and such - which are, if anything, worse.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;627677Huh.  In my experience, most Americans (or at least the ones I know) don't HAVE a preconception of an aristocrat (we just don't have aristocrats*, period), so most of my (and my players') ideas of an aristocrat is formed by...  the BBC.

Python, Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, etc.  Which universally paint a pretty... garish picture of the Upper Class Twit.




* The closest we have to an aristocracy is the TMZ set - your Hiltons, your Kardashians, etc.  Which would not lead one to a favorable impression, either.  Not to mention the political dynasties, Kennedies, Bushes, and such - which are, if anything, worse.

I'm thinking of the pop culture portrayals of aristocrats in everything from The Princess Bride to Braveheart.

Starting in the 60s, British pop culture poked fun at aristocrats, as part of the revolt against traditional social heirarchies. But before that, aristocrats were typically the protagonists of British movies and books - the capable and honourable heroes taking the well-meaning but bumbling peasants in hand.

Quote from: Haffrung;627688Starting in the 60s, British pop culture poked fun at aristocrats, as part of the revolt against traditional social heirarchies. But before that, aristocrats were typically the protagonists of British movies and books - the capable and honourable heroes taking the well-meaning but bumbling peasants in hand.

I agree that there has been the shift you describe, but it seems to me that it was a long and continuous shift rather than something starting in the 1960s.  In particular, I think of Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster stories as the classic poking fun at the aristocracy - written starting in the 1920s.  

For me, the big hurdle of playing pseudo-historical aristocracy is that it is difficult to play the outright class-consciousness in a way that modern-day players accept (similar to issues with racism and sexism).  Other players just have a hard time accepting casual discrimination like "Well, he'll never amount to anything because he is a peasant."

Quote from: jhkim;627712I agree that there has been the shift you describe, but it seems to me that it was a long and continuous shift rather than something starting in the 1960s.  In particular, I think of Wodehouse's Jeeves and Wooster stories as the classic poking fun at the aristocracy - written starting in the 1920s.  

For me, the big hurdle of playing pseudo-historical aristocracy is that it is difficult to play the outright class-consciousness in a way that modern-day players accept (similar to issues with racism and sexism).  Other players just have a hard time accepting casual discrimination like "Well, he'll never amount to anything because he is a peasant."

I definitely notice a tendency in WFRP material for nobles always to have large and visible bodyguards when they're twitting it up.  Sounds like their players had a hard time with it, too.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;627415Of course there are just as many ranges of personality in the aristocracy as in any other group; so this isn't about personalities, but about "programming".

And when I was talking before about "what you're expected to do", I wasn't suggesting that the aristocracy will always behave in that way; obviously that's not true.
What I'm suggesting is that this is a central theme for them as a social class, and the issue of living up to those duties or not is something of monumental importance for them (whether they're the ones living up to things, or failing to, or refusing to).

RPGPundit

If your campaign features a mindset among NPCs that really is deep-rooted (like Noblesse oblige in this case), then there's no real need to dwell on it -it's just...                

...there.

The only part of it that I would bother with as a DM is what exactly is expected of nobles to remain in good standing? Is it merely coughing up money or men for their superiors when called upon? Does it include chivalry, generosity (not just help for the downtrodden but generous hospitality for visiting nobles, clergy etc) as well as heroism in the face of danger?

If you're looking for a game mechanic, I'd suggest something simple like a Nobility Score* that can go up or down based on how the noble meets, exceeds, fails to live up to or even outright betrays his or her duties.

* level + rank + charisma bonus/penalty

I wasn't really thinking of a mechanic.. its something closer to alignment than anything else, really.

RPGPundit