Gaining a noble title

[jpariury]

Just wondering, where in all this is the room for the shady bastard noble, the one who bought his title with coin or took it at the end of a sword, and uses his wealth and power for his own machiavellian schemes? He may not be the shining knight to whom so many aspire, but such characters have been integral to many a good story, both fantastical and historical.

Right here:

Even the guy who plays an evil, backstabby jerk, if he's dropping OOG to make sure people are having fun, or metagaming in a way that encourages participation (i.e. - passes on mods or rewards in favor of letting newer people go after them), he's contributing out-of-game by keeping the larger picture of what makes a good game for others. Whether or not your nobles are good guys, they should exist to improve the game experience

There are people that like to play backstabby people, and that's cool. Some of those people could even aspire to and achieve noble rank through all manner of shady dealings, and I'm all good with that. However, I tend to find that many of those players end up falling into a number of pittraps along the way:

1. They view themselves as playing against plot and the other players. - In my mind, there is no room for that in the Alliance game, which is, by its nature, a game of social interactive storytelling. It's one thing to view your character as trying to overcome the lich king or even take his place, it's another to view yourself as trying to outthink the plot team itself, or out maneuver your other players.
2. They tend to focus on their own story, and only their own story - again, the game is, at its root, social interactive storytelling. While it might make complete and total sense to try and perm out everyone that crosses you, it doesn't make for an enjoyable game, so as the player of an evil bastard, it behooves you to try and be evil and bastardly in a way that is interesting to the other players.
3. Despite statements of "it's just a game" and "it's nothing personal", players of evil bastards tend to take things as a personal affront when things don't go their way.

In my mind, because an evil character is necessarily antagonistic to the playerbase as a group, they need a very strict mental discipline of treating themselves a bit more like a recurring NPC. In general, they shouldn't be using their noble title to make the game worse for the other players, even if it makes sense, simply because it makes the game less enjoyable in a very visceral way. For instance, punishing some goody-two-shoes by having him sweep the bathroom and mop the floor isn't particularly fun because it doesn't give them a chance to participate in the game much. Sending him off on a quest you think he has no hope of winning is.

There's also the problem of having a plot team who knows what to do with you. I had a character who was pretty cut-throat. He'd kill his own mother for the right price. I found that players tended to try and use him to do things to other players that they did not want to do themselves, for fear of the social OOG stigma of having done it. That didn't interest me, but I'd written him into a corner, and so I shelved him. Plot didn't really do anything with the character because A - it wasn't really the kind of character they wanted to write for, and B - they didn't really know what to do with him. One chapter actually had some neat ideas (like hiring him to kill off one of the key NPC nobles), but plans fall through, so there you have it.

There's room for it, but it takes even more effort, because you still want the player to represent the best of your playership, even if the character is scum of the earth.

 

[Toddo]

Just wondering, where in all this is the room for the shady bastard noble, the one who bought his title with coin or took it at the end of a sword, and uses his wealth and power for his own machiavellian schemes? He may not be the shining knight to whom so many aspire, but such characters have been integral to many a good story, both fantastical and historical.

Is this perhaps the most ironic post that has ever happened?

Y'know, I was trying not to name names or pigeonhole biata nobles as a whole, but yeah, all biata nobles are evil.

 

[Deadlands of Old]

JP, for utterly evil pcs I suppose what you're saying makes sense. I just don't know any of those guys.

My idea of a successful bad guy pc noble is the guy most people like, so much so that it makes it difficult for some, and easy for others, to look the other way when he doesn't lift a finger when someone less popular is going to get jumped by other pcs, even when he knows full well it's going down.

Or it could be means-to-an-end guy, who truly has good intentions, and wants to stop primordial, malevolent forces from devouring the land, or a specific race, or all forms of poultry, but is willing to work with murderous fanatics and necromancers to do it.

It could also be someone who just really hates one pc group, and will stop at nothing to see them hung for a decade's worth of sin, but is otherwise a pretty valiant dude.

Oh wait, that's all the pc nobles I know... :thumbsup:

 

[jpariury]

I'd agree. I'd say a significant majority of the characters out there are played with the idea that they're good guys, but not necessarily nice guys. Again, be not-nice all you want, but when plot puts you in place as a noble, that means they're also granting you access to tools other players do not have access to - the right to call on NPCs to back your play, authority over other characters, etc. Because plot is (ideally) working with you in this way, I think a little give is required, that you work with them to make the game more enjoyable, even if you're playing not-nice.

 

[Vryan]

Oh wait, that's all the pc nobles I know... :thumbsup:

But!

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Oh wait, that's all the pc nobles I know... :thumbsup:

But!

Fine. "Naive and ineffective" is also a category.

 

[RiddickDale]

Guys,

Lets quit with those posts k? They are inappropriate (even in the jest I know they are).

Stephen
National PR

 

[tolgar undershaft]

If I am not mistaken we also getting a bit off topic. I think the main point of this thread in the first place was to discuss amongst all of us what should be used as a general rule of thumb for granting people a noble title. If a plot team makes up a general rule for granting one person a noble title should they also therefore grant others that have obtained and done jsut as much or more then another. What gives plot a reason to push for one person.

I believe we covered a lot so far such as giving pc a noble title should also benifit the progression of the story they are telling. But is that alone a good enough reason to make someone a noble? Shouldn't their actions in game also be a HUGE factor. IMO I believe yes. Actions done in game and during downtime should be a big part of your charcters progression towards a title. Not everyone will get a title because they saved the viliagers again and again true. but actions should be looked at first before the thought of i think this char will progress the plot i want done.

Also should look at what the npc's view on the person you want to make a noble is as well. Often PC's spread rumors or talk trash amongst eachother sometimes in fun sometimes not about another player. Are the stories true or not? You have to look at what all the person has done for the town the people other nobles or people of weatlh and power. Sometimes I think plot forgets that there are more then jsut 50 pc's and 30 npc's running around in a weekend. There is a whole world out there and your interactions within and behind the sceen should play a part in how your charcter progresses.

 

[markusdark]

I understand that we should be rallying against people being knighted because they bought the Owner a laptop. But, rallying against someone who helped support the game as a member of their operations staff (CS/logistics/publicity) or who actively helped make the game better is just... odd to me.

Stephen

What I am saying is that just because someone does these tasks, they do not automatically fit into what Mike V quoted from the rulebook:

"Being a noble has little to do with your fighting or spellcasting skills and everything to do with your role-playing skills. Stay in character, wear a great costume, and most importantly, act like a noble. Earning your knighthood is a reward. It’s a quest. It’s not a right. Take it seriously. All players should respect you for all the hard work you did to achieve knighthood even if their character doesn’t respect your character."

It is quite possible to have a player who is a member of the operational staff but they or their character does not conform or fit within the description of nobility. In addition, the operational staff is already being rewarded with Goblin Points for their work (at least that's what I am led to believe). IMO that is the reward. Doesn't matter how good or bad of an RPer you are, you get your gobbies for helping out the game. Players are suppose to respect the hard work you did to achieve the title and I'm not sure how many of them would respect it if the 'hard work' was creating 5,000 spell packets (or other goblin stamp work).

I'm not against staff gaining a noble title - I just feel that they should have to go through the same requirements as everyone else. Not everyone can be on staff and to use that position to help garner a major advantage IG, IMO, is unfair. "Run CS for a year, get a circlet!"

 

[RiddickDale]

But, no one is saying anything different.

I'd like to call the question here.

No one will really ever know the reasons for a person being knighted except for the person themselves and the plot staff of said chapter. If someone has been knighted in a given chapter and you have a problem with that person's knighthood I would recommend that you bring it up directly with that chapter staff.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that staff should automatically be given knighthood without any consideration. That's absurd.

I know that Mike, Gary, Scott, JP AND I have all repeated several times over that we look at BOTH IG AND OOG qualifications. They need to be good PLAYERS. A lot of good players end up holding staff positions in one way or another. A lot of good players donate a lot to chapters. So it stands to reason that a lot of good players that are on staff AND donate AND happen to play knightly archetype characters end up being knights.

Stephen

Stephen

 

[markusdark]

I know that Mike, Gary, Scott, JP AND I have all repeated several times over that we look at BOTH IG AND OOG qualifications.

Then my humble suggestion is to change the wording about what it takes to become a noble in the rulebook as there is no mention of requiring OOG qualifications.

 

[dreadpiratebill]

I know that Mike, Gary, Scott, JP AND I have all repeated several times over that we look at BOTH IG AND OOG qualifications.

Then my humble suggestion is to change the wording about what it takes to become a noble in the rulebook as there is no mention of requiring OOG qualifications.

OR we can simply beunderstanding that with the added power and athority Noble Titles come with IG that it requires a certain caliber of player. Not everything has to be spelled out in the rules word for word. Its a basic common sence spirt of the game here. Its really not that hard.

--bill

 

[Jim]

I know that Mike, Gary, Scott, JP AND I have all repeated several times over that we look at BOTH IG AND OOG qualifications.

Then my humble suggestion is to change the wording about what it takes to become a noble in the rulebook as there is no mention of requiring OOG qualifications.

OR we can simply beunderstanding that with the added power and athority Noble Titles come with IG that it requires a certain caliber of player. Not everything has to be spelled out in the rules word for word. Its a basic common sence spirt of the game here. Its really not that hard.

--bill

This. +1.

 

[phedre]

Becoming a Noble
Becoming a noble is a goal for many players. Nobility offers many benefits, not the least of which is being in the midst of a number of interesting plots. Nobility also provides in-game power and, in some games, an automatic income. Because this position provides such benefits, it is not easy to obtain. To become a knight, you will have to prove your worth through a series of tests and challenges. Being a noble has little to do with your fighting or spellcasting skills and everything to do with your role-playing skills. Stay in character, wear a great costume, and most importantly, act like a noble. Earning your knighthood is a reward. It’s a quest. It’s not a right. Take it seriously. All
players should respect you for all the hard work you did to achieve knighthood even if their character doesn’t respect your character.

Nothing in that explicitly states that all of the "earning" has to be in-game. Each chapter is allowed to have requirements that don't have to be spelled out in the rulebook. If your character wants to know what it takes to be a noble, FOIG. Or ask your owner/staff, if you need supplemental information.

 

[jpariury]

Then my humble suggestion is to change the wording about what it takes to become a noble in the rulebook as there is no mention of requiring OOG qualifications.

Our ways of doing things may not be everyone's way of doing things, and the specific things we look at may (and probably do) differ.

That said, I don't think it would be terrible to say that each chapter may have its own rules and conditions for achieving and maintaining a noble title, and that there may be additional out-of-game considerations when deciding on noble titles.

 

[Toddo]

Scott previously spelled out what HQ expects of it's nobles on an OOG level so I won't belabor that point. What I'm getting from certain posters on this thread is that there is a perception that getting to be buddy-buddy (or fleshsquishy) with the owners or plot team will get your PC a noble title. I can tell you this is not the case in HQ or any of the other chapters I know of (which admittedly is pretty much just the ones in the northeast). EVERY PC noble that I know personally got to that point via their RP skills and putting in years of effort IG to attain that title and I know for a fact (partly from being one of the people who determines if a person is ready at HQ and partly from conversations with the other plot teams in the area) that it is NEVER made an easy thing to attain. Heck, if you're my friend and you're squiring at my chapter it will probably be a lot harder for you to earn your title because I know your character's weaknesses and will build squire tests to exploit them. Becoming a noble should be the ultimate "Be all you CAN'T be" experience, something that challenges your character and hopefully, if we're doing our job, you yourself and forces you to grow beyond what you thought was possible for yourself.

But enough of my idealism.

If anyone thinks that noble titles are being granted willy-nilly I encourage you to open a dialogue with your CS rep and owner, most likely they will be able to tell you what they look for in a noble PC if you are looking to go that route. If there are any teams that are actually DOING this, not that I really believe there are, well then I throw the cowpats of shame in your direction.

 

[obcidian_bandit]

Most of the nobility on the level of Knight, Baron, or higher have been pretty well supported by IG actions as well as OOG actions. I think that that is generally what is ideal, you want your nobles to be good players; people that you know will contribute to the game in their roles as nobles. Where I see a lot of fuzziness is in the 'lower' nobility than that. Lords/Ladies/Bandoleers/Chieftains/Ambassadors/etc are titles that I've seen passed out more haphazardly. I've seen them passed out as treasure on modules, I've heard people (plural) talk about winning their titles in card games, I've seen them handed out for things that occurred exclusively in Downtimes (BGAs on the EC), and I know of a few that were just purchased outright with Gobbies. Those are the types of nobility that I have an issue with, and that I think 'water down' what the other nobility have done and what the sense that players should get from the 'actual' nobility in the game.

 

[Dreamingfurther]

Barring further specifics I would agree all those 'watered down' versions of nobility and the ways that you just mentioned them being 'acquired' sound quite fishy and in somewhat poor taste.

I have simply never witnessed such a handling of noble titles, and I would take it up with the local staff/plot team of a chapter you saw that in. In my experience I really don't think this is a national problem.

But I think we agree in principle as to the spirit of what nobility 'ought' to be.

 

[Jevedor]

Most of the nobility on the level of Knight, Baron, or higher have been pretty well supported by IG actions as well as OOG actions. I think that that is generally what is ideal, you want your nobles to be good players; people that you know will contribute to the game in their roles as nobles. Where I see a lot of fuzziness is in the 'lower' nobility than that. Lords/Ladies/Bandoleers/Chieftains/Ambassadors/etc are titles that I've seen passed out more haphazardly. I've seen them passed out as treasure on modules, I've heard people (plural) talk about winning their titles in card games, I've seen them handed out for things that occurred exclusively in Downtimes (BGAs on the EC), and I know of a few that were just purchased outright with Gobbies. Those are the types of nobility that I have an issue with, and that I think 'water down' what the other nobility have done and what the sense that players should get from the 'actual' nobility in the game.

I find my self doubting that you have seen that. That sounds awful exaggerated.

 

[Lurin]

Most of the nobility on the level of Knight, Baron, or higher have been pretty well supported by IG actions as well as OOG actions. I think that that is generally what is ideal, you want your nobles to be good players; people that you know will contribute to the game in their roles as nobles. Where I see a lot of fuzziness is in the 'lower' nobility than that. Lords/Ladies/Bandoleers/Chieftains/Ambassadors/etc are titles that I've seen passed out more haphazardly. I've seen them passed out as treasure on modules, I've heard people (plural) talk about winning their titles in card games, I've seen them handed out for things that occurred exclusively in Downtimes (BGAs on the EC), and I know of a few that were just purchased outright with Gobbies. Those are the types of nobility that I have an issue with, and that I think 'water down' what the other nobility have done and what the sense that players should get from the 'actual' nobility in the game.

I find my self doubting that you have seen that. That sounds awful exaggerated.

I've seen it, not as exaggerated as you might thing ^.^