Quote from: RPGPundit;902929Anyways, when I have a player that has this attitude of "I'm going to speak my mind to the Duke" or whatever (or for that matter, open your fucking mouth unbidden at all, if you're any rank below Knight), I try to take a gentle path first, because I realize that the player is probably spoiled by having played Forgotten Realms campaigns where that sort of thing is totally normal and expected, maybe even rewarded.  But in a setting like Albion, you just can't do that! Thing is, his character, being from that world, would KNOW you just can't do that, so I usually try to deal with this by reminding the player of what his character would know.

It's a struggle.  One of my players has gone zero to hero with a vengeance; from common roots running the family inn, she's now one of the world's most powerful wizards, a princess, and governor of the elven empire's capital city.

And she has such a hard time wrapping her head around the social conventions of the business.  You just don't go toodling over to your favorite seamstress, on foot; you send for said seamstress, and if you must travel to her shop, you do it in your official carriage, along with a minimum of an aide and an honor guard.  You just don't go toodling over to the High King's tower to go over something that just occurred to you (even if you are technically cousins), you send a runner over asking for an audience.  Dropping in on a foreign monarch isn't done same-day; your embassy speaks to their governmental apparat and sets it up.  Etc.

Quote from: Ravenswing;902959if you must travel to her shop, you do it in your official carriage, along with a minimum of an aide and an honor guard.

This is worth noting, since in many countries, any sort of "pomp and circumstance" has been hugely pared down, to the point that outside of specific sorts of occasions, such as parades, it's considered at best gauche. I recall one occasion when my character, a Zenith Caste Exalted, was returning to her city and chose to enter riding on her glowing white horse with shining golden mane and tail, with armour and shield, sword and bow, all spun of glowing golden Essence, with her Lunar husband in his spirit shape of a huge northern cat and their friend in the shape of a hawk. That was it. Not even a bannerman. My character was then lectured about the dangers hubris and self-righteousness.

Quote from: RPGPundit;901181He was also kind of an idiot.


Look, I think that the central thing that people misunderstand about aristocracy is that their big deal is "duty". This doesn't mean that there aren't tons of self-serving, arrogant, power-mad, cruel, etc. aristocrats throughout history. But every single aristocrat has it drilled in their head from childhood that they are not just one person, they represent a lineage, often one going back hundreds of years, and that they have a series of duties they owe to that name they carry.  This manifests itself differently with each individual person, but it is a big deal to all but the most utterly despicable variety of aristocrat.

D&D generally does social class horribly.  In Dark Albion, I tried to rectify that, and a properly-run game set in Albion is one where the PC's social class is a stat at least as important, if not much more important, than any of their ability scores, and where it affects everything about the PC's place in the world.  Just about every play-focused section of Dark Albion deals with that in some way.

And as an example of what I was saying above, almost everything significant that happens in the War of the Roses (or to use Albion's term for it, the Rose War) is because of that sense of 'duty'. It's intricately bound to the conflict between Lancaster and York, to the vows taken by Clifford, Percy and Somerset, to the mess Edward of York makes of things when he marries Elizabeth Woodville, and to countless other smaller stories within the bigger picture of the war.

I wholehearted agree with you here.

I will say that D&D does social status poorly because of the way the game works, especially in later editions. Its kind of a post apocalyptic society for one and unlike say medieval  Europe, there really isn't a default social order

 Any person of any birth who adventures into the badlands and survives can come back deadly enough to kill scores of men, powerful spell casters can utterly kill villages at will and with some even death is no barrier. There are magics that take away the  need for food

THis kind of makes D&D very will to power and status basically goes to the most ruthless.

As an aside a normal man at arms with say jack armor (AC7)  and a pole arm and 6 HP is barely a match for a 3rd level wizard (assuming standard HP ratios 12HP)  in one on one combat . If the wizard has any magic, the man at arms and all his buddies are dead.

This makes for a highly different world than any reality we understand, its more will to power than social order

Most players want some degree of social order and the relative scarcity of high level types tends to support some kind of order but its a good world for upstarts unlike the real world.

Quote from: Whitewings;902961This is worth noting, since in many countries, any sort of "pomp and circumstance" has been hugely pared down, to the point that outside of specific sorts of occasions, such as parades, it's considered at best gauche. I recall one occasion when my character, a Zenith Caste Exalted, was returning to her city and chose to enter riding on her glowing white horse with shining golden mane and tail, with armour and shield, sword and bow, all spun of glowing golden Essence, with her Lunar husband in his spirit shape of a huge northern cat and their friend in the shape of a hawk. That was it. Not even a bannerman. My character was then lectured about the dangers hubris and self-righteousness.

One thing about a lot of that pomp and circumstances, it was in some ways the welfare system of the day.  Inefficiency is baked into medieval and earlier economics since it pays for loyalty.

If you study feudal obligations, you'll see just how reciprocal they often were and that there were written and unwritten rules that almost mandated status  and wealth displays and all sorts of redistribution, payment in beer that kind of thing.

This made you look better among your peers, impressed the rubes and was economically sound, It moved material wealth from one hand to another. Remember too Medieval European  economies were entirely material,   It wasn't a money economy and you were limited in resources and lending money at interest  was often illegal, sometimes considered the work of the  devil and always frowned upon.

The unwillingness to display wealth among European people is fairly recent in any case  , puritanism, the influence of the French revolution, Marxism and the collapse of monarchy played a  factor as well as some things I'm sure I forgot.

How the display of wealth would play out in a fantasy setting though  is heavily dependent on the game system and setting and tastes,

As an example, my own Midrea setting runs to the puritanical because of the extreme  danger all around and the fact people fear attracting attention from robbers, ghosts, demons and monsters hungry for treasure.  The usual display of wealth is being well armed and surrounded by trusted men.  

Really powerful  people  sometimes look gaudy but that isn't a style choice, the artifact weapons left by the culture that created the world of Midrea were medieval tacky

Quote from: RPGPundit;902929Anyways, when I have a player that has this attitude of "I'm going to speak my mind to the Duke" or whatever (or for that matter, open your fucking mouth unbidden at all, if you're any rank below Knight), I try to take a gentle path first, because I realize that the player is probably spoiled by having played Forgotten Realms campaigns where that sort of thing is totally normal and expected, maybe even rewarded.  

Depends on your interpretation of the Realms.  Cormyr, for instance, is a Lawful Good kingdom that emphasizes the Lawful: weapons have to be peace-bonded, adventurers have to be licensed, etc.  Less "fantasy America" and more "fantasy Canada."

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;903116Depends on your interpretation of the Realms.  Cormyr, for instance, is a Lawful Good kingdom that emphasizes the Lawful: weapons have to be peace-bonded, adventurers have to be licensed, etc.  Less "fantasy America" and more "fantasy Canada."

Doesn't invalidate Pundit's point, which has nothing to do with your list.  (Heck, a more "lawful" kingdom would reasonably enshrine social barriers and formal courtesy to a greater degree.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;902931At the same time, you need to give players some leeway, otherwise, they're just back at their soul crushing job, with their idiot boss, and they can't do anything but do what he or she says, if they want to get paid.  Or in the case of an RPG, not get killed and have to roll up a new character.

It's also why I try to avoid politics and noblemen in my games, because of situations like these.

My players understand that in the court in front of the Lord is NOT where you do anything inappropriate. Outside, when the Lord isn't watching, is a totally different thing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;901185Most aristocrats you've never heard of? Benevolent.  The bad guys were remarkable enough that they made waves.

Remember too that most aristocrats in the middle ages had relatively very little liquid assets. Their wealth was all tied up in the land and the people who lived on that land. The less true that became, the less reason aristocrats had for behaving properly or giving a damn about the welfare of the peasantry.

Of course, when I say 'benevolent' I mean by the standards of the time, not by our own 21st century moral compass.

21st century and moral compass are almost contradictory.

Quote from: Matt;90343821st century and moral compass are almost contradictory.

I'm sure there is an old compass in a box in the basement along with grandpa's pocket watch.

Quote from: RPGPundit;903206My players understand that in the court in front of the Lord is NOT where you do anything inappropriate. Outside, when the Lord isn't watching, is a totally different thing.

You mustn't be using the D&D alignment system, or have 0 Chaotic (including Good) in your group, because they would, by definition, chafe having to be polite and/or lie.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903459You mustn't be using the D&D alignment system, or have 0 Chaotic (including Good) in your group, because they would, by definition, chafe having to be polite and/or lie.

One of the many reasons I loathe the alignment system and all its works: the degree to which it provokes the automatic assumption that the entire population (if in different areas) are morons who act in robotic lockstep with Alignment Criteria.

Quote from: Ravenswing;903476One of the many reasons I loathe the alignment system and all its works: the degree to which it provokes the automatic assumption that the entire population (if in different areas) are morons who act in robotic lockstep with Alignment Criteria.

Ignoring the incoming rant, the point was, if you have someone who has a sense of individualism come up against a situation they don't like, the likelihood of them kowtowing to some moron who thinks he's better than you is going to cause a LOT of issues.  Even if the you hold your tongue, they'll know your being insubordinate, simply by your stance and facial expression, and if this particular noble is extra sensitive to that sort non-verbal information, getting tossed out is the least of your problems.

And 'adventuring' types are likely to be seen as provocateurs simple by their nature.  They are not bound by the caste system that everyone else is adhering to.  Most nobility would treat them like bandits, and the peasants would be utterly terrified of them because their lords and masters tell them so.

There has to be a bit of give and take in an RPG, because by sticking to historical accuracy you get some really odd to bad problems, which frankly ends up as unfun for some groups.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903480Ignoring the incoming rant, the point was, if you have someone who has a sense of individualism come up against a situation they don't like, the likelihood of them kowtowing to some moron who thinks he's better than you is going to cause a LOT of issues.

A society with an actual functioning aristocracy presumes a lower degree of individualism in the population. Otherwise, either the aristos lose their heads or lots of individualistic peasants with low self control lose theirs. Europe gave us centuries of the latter followed by a decade or so of Madame Guillotine.

What doesn't allow one to run a culture with an aristocracy in a game are players who don't understand how hierarchy works in the real world right now, can't extrapolate from that one jot as to how aristocracy would likely work in a world with greater degrees of hierarchy and lower degrees of individualism, or are unwilling or unable to play a character who isn't some cardboard representation of certain 21st century American norms.

QuoteEven if the you hold your tongue, they'll know your being insubordinate, simply by your stance and facial expression, and if this particular noble is extra sensitive to that sort non-verbal information, getting tossed out is the least of your problems.

Or we could assume that the PC who grew up in an aristocratic society would actually do a better job of holding their tongue, kowtowing, knuckling under, and hiding his objections than would the average American young adult suddenly presented at the game table with a noble who expects proper respect from his social inferiors.

Some groups find playing a society with an aristocracy fun. Some groups don't. There is no way to make people who hate it, play it.

I remember a group about 15 years ago who took great delight in massacring the weak-kneed aristos who had tried to hire them for some mission - the 4th level PCs took great offence at being offered 100gp for the job, as I recall. I didn't even think the aristocrats were all that obnoxious, but the players were Australian.

I've met a couple of English aristos, landowners whose "job" was managing the family assets. Very down to earth and with good people skills. I'm sure that when they dealt with someone with a class-based chip on the shoulder, the "commoner" would walk away thinking "he's actually a good bloke". Of course you can't necessarily extrapolate that to D&D, but I think that in a time when peasants with pitchforks could be a threat, the nobles would also develop some leadership skills and charisma rather than relying only on rank.