I'm going to express what might be taken by some as an unpopular opinion that I have mostly been keeping to myself. I think it will give some perspective:
I think the PC Nobility should have significantly more power than it does right now.
I think many of the problems the PC Nobles have as a "class" flow from this lack of power and assumption of responsibility. Let me give 4 examples.
1. Warchief: Way back in October of 413 Squire Frank (then just Frank) wanted to be the Warchief. Baroness Elavir, wanting to encourage him and allow him to play the game in a way that was fun for him tried to make that happen. In fact, the way it was told to me was that Frank was doing such a good job that all of the Barons in the game (Tiatar, Rivervale, Warchester, Bayenna) all agreed that Frank would make a great Warchief and all supported him. When the Duchess found out a commoner was "giving orders" to a member of the nobility we were told that this was unacceptable and that only Nobles could be Warchief. This put Elavir, Darius, and to a lesser extend Egil in a position they didn't want to be in (leading the town battles). Elavir and Darius weren't battlefield commanders and didn't see themselves that way. While I believe all of our war leaders have done a great job, this was them being forced to take a position they didn't want and created the squads system. It was pointed out that nobility in the Player's Guide and Rulebook DELEGATE authority all the time. The position of Sheriff, Magistrate, and Seneschal all give part of the nobility's power to one not a noble. We were told "this is different" because the warchief "commands" nobles which was unacceptable. Thus the nobility was unable to exercise their power in the way they wanted, at the expense of a commoner.
2. Loot Split: After the Barons were forced to become Warchief (we were told unequivocally that we needed one, letting everyone do their own thing was "not an option") many citizens in the town starting complaining about loot. The problem? Some citizens were running around looting things they hadn't killed while others were busy defending the town from being destroyed. Some citizens were unwilling to stop and loot their kills because it was "unimportant compared to saving the town". This led to bodies dissipating and others claiming that the loot was "going to waste." To complicate matters further back-line fighters such as healers and others NEVER were receiving anything despite often using the most resources from potions to save the dying to celestial casters literally burning through a pile of scrolls. The Barons were accused of "hording all the loot" while the commoners "got nothing". Many battles my PC would give everything I found to the new players that were assigned to my squad just to make sure that everyone got something. The biggest problem was that there wasn't enough treasure for everyone in the town. The problem was that no one cared about the facts of what dropped and only wanted to blame others.
Banks and Wolsey were asked to work on a way of dividing the loot that would be fair for the town. We suggested that everyone turn everything in to a centralized pot and then the loot be divided proportionally by the number of people that participated in the battle. This way healers would get a share, those that were worried about looting could do so without incident, and those that didn't want to be bothered could just keep fighting. Additionally, it would make sure that things were fair and there was no perception that the Barons were "hording" treasure. The problem with this system was what to do with large items (formal scrolls, magic items, large suits of armor etc). We consulted several people, some wanted them to be "given out randomly" some wanted them to "go to the person or group that needed them the most" and a slightly majority wanted them to be bid on and the money turned into the pot and distributed among the groups. Giving the item to the "most worthy" would only exacerbate the perception of the Nobility hording things (even if more items were given to commoners than not) because people are more likely to remember when they don't receive something than when they do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/y...e-than-positive-ones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 To me randomly seemed like the worst solution because a scholar could end up with a Indestructible Sword or someone totally uninterested and incapable of casting a formal scroll could end up with it. It made more sense to give the items to the individuals or groups that needed them. To me bidding made the most sense because it increased the treasure split everyone in the town received and allowed people to win things they really wanted by bidding more on them. Giving out items randomly also increased the chances that the loudest and pushiest would get the item from the person that didn't want it. Finally, "randomly" was suggested to not be random. Groups with 3-4 people in them would have the same chance as "all the commoners" or much larger groups of 12-13 people according to the suggest (and how it was executed in the future).
Banks and Wolsey drafted a proposal and sent it off to our Barons to get approval from the other Baronies and to be made to look nice. Without getting into specifics, a political mistake was made during the publication process and certain groups refused to respond/could not respond yet their heraldry was affixed to the "decree". Ultimately, rather than work through political channels and have the "House and Senate reconcile opposing bills" as would have been an option to empower the players. Instead her Grace told the Barons that they were wrong for attempting to control a loot split of any kind and they had no authority to do so. When asked if they could step back from being warleader, they were told that they would be shirking their responsibility to do so and that they still had to lead and run the battlefield giving orders and controlling things but they didn't get to mandate any sort of looting situation. Thus creating a situation where they received all of the blame but didn't have the power to change it. To this day it still tickles me that some members of the town were so opposed to the loot system being done that way but every single multi-team module I see people go on uses the same one. "The powers that be" told the town that they could do whatever "optional" system they want, but there is nothing to prevent morally grey characters from "sitting out" of the loot split when they find a magic item and opting in whenever they find something they believe to be less than the share they'd get from the town. Thus I still hear comments and aspersions cast against Nobility PCs for being "greedy" and "unfair" about loot splitting even though they have no authority to change or do anything about it. It makes me sad, especially because most of the members of the nobility give almost all of their loot away to try to help others.
3. Secret Meetings: Often the Nobility is given information that we are told is "secret" and "should not get out". In fact, I know of at least 4 different non-noble PCs that have told my PC something "because I can keep a secret and don't blab like some of the Knights and Barons". The problem with this is that you can't have it both ways. You can't request secret meetings from the Nobility and then complain that the Nobility has too many secret meetings. Several NPCs request secrets be kept from the "common" populace. Because the Code of Chivalry prohibits Nobility from lying secret meetings are often appropriate and necessary. It becomes even more rude to tell another PC "I can't talk about that to you" than it is to have a secret meeting about it. To me the biggest solution is to stop being so damn obvious about your secret meetings and stop being so rude about them. I see lots of Nobles stop a conversation they are having and tell people to leave so they can talk about a different topic. There are much more polite and covert ways to do this that don't make other players feel like second class citizens. (I should note that as a Squire I am regularly and routinely told to leave when others are having meetings.) The Code of Chivalry significantly constraints PC behavior, this is yet another way that the setting of the game gives PC Nobles less power than in other systems I have played. The Code also requires Nobility not to turn a blind eye towards shady dealings. Thou Shalt Be Everyone and Always the Champion of the Right and the Good Against Injustice and Evil and Thou Shalt Respect the Weak and Constitute thyself the Defender of Them, both speak to this. Some players of the nobility WANT to give people more space but know that if they do the powers that be will come down on them (hard).
4. Noble Commands: Squires don't have any official power. Any time a Squire asks that you do something you can tell them to go **** themselves. It is neither disrespectful to nobility nor against the law to do so because Squires are not Noble. That is as it should be according to the setting's rules. However recently, I have been told that Knights and Barons are not allowed to give any commands in New Acarthia (where almost all games take place). According to a "legal scholar" (plot not the rulebook or player's guide to be clear) unless the Duchess says the Barons are empowered in a certain area (i.e. warchief, but they can't delegate, do loot splits, or issue commands to individuals that don't want to participate) they cannot give anyone an order ever unless they are from that court. Furthermore, they can't issue judgment over an individual that's the job of the Magistrate, and while they can "make an arrest" really they shouldn't be doing that instead it is the purview of the sheriff. They also can't detain individuals. Furthermore, when some members of the Nobility tried to question and interrogate "monstrous races" that came to New Acarthia a new Ducal Decree appeared that told them they were doing it wrong and if the monster had weapons it had to be put down (originally without interrogation) and that letting it go and taking a kinder gentler approach wasn't an option.
Summery:
The Nobility is very limited in what it is allowed to do regarding a Warchief.
The Nobility is not allowed to require any PC to do anything except in defense of the town or if a PC is seen breaking the law.
PC Barons can't command Ducal or Royal Knights.
The Nobility is honor bound to keep your secrets so if you don't like secret meetings asking the Nobility to keep less secrets for you is a good start.
The Code of Chivalry massively constrains Noble RP as a setting document and requires PC Nobles to take responsibility for things beyond their control.
Almost every decision I have seen a Noble PC make has been countermanded from above.
Additionally, almost every time there is a BGA where players (not just nobles) attempt to do something cool, a huge contingent of NPCs rides in and "saves the day". So even on their own lands agency is taken from the PCs.
---
Ultimately, I want the PC Nobles to be answerable to other PCs. Part of the problem in our game is that there is this massive superstructure of the PC's heads that prevents ANY PC from making meaningful or controversial choices. If the Nobles knew that they actually were empowered to make choices more deals could be cut and more grey could exist in the world. Similarly, if the NPCs weren't a monolithic "us/them" dichotomy of good vs evil things would be more interesting. Epyxia is "bad and evil" and Royal Nobles are "good and right". I have seen several occasions where all the politics of a situation are removed because all 30 something Ducal Knights are always righteous and good. I think it would be much more interesting if there were some evil Ducal Knights that weren't bad guys fighting against all the PCs. I think it would be much more interesting to see some of the shadier PCs empowered by shady knights. It would be even better if some of these shady knights were other PCs. I would love to see Parzival climb the ranks of the nobility and then undermine the vanilla "everyone's a paladin" culture. I wouldn't advise him to do this though because PC Nobility has no power and its pointless to do that. Ultimately, I get the impression that some members of plot don't trust the PCs with real power but they still want a nobility system. Honestly, I'd rather see Nobility done away with than have it impotent, especially given all the angst towards nobility mainly over decisions that they aren't empowered to make.
If the Noble PCs actually have power, then it is their own fault when they make a bad decision. Right now if a Noble PC does something its likely because of a force beyond their own control. Giving the Noble PCs more power allows the game to be about the players and the decisions they make rather than about what plot wants pushed at any particular game. It allows things to be more about what the PCs are doing rather than criticizing OOG about the choice plot made for the game.
---
Clearly, the Nobility have some power. I'd argue that close to 100% of that power is a result of teams. Members of the nobility that are on a large team (Rivervale/Tiatar) dictate the ebb and flow of the game because they are like Varys from Game of Thrones. They sit in the middle of a web and have their "little birds" bring them information from all over the game. This web of influence allows them to put the pieces of the puzzle together faster than solo players or even those on smaller teams. This in turn makes them look like they are being "favored" by plot when really the opposite is true. In turn, those players feel the need to provide for the players on their teams. If your team finds 3 mods and you have 12 players then you have the opportunity to bring 6 non-team players with you and still give everyone on your team a shot of modding. Some groups are better about this than others, but I have often seen people say "oh look they took 4 out of 6 Rivervale people those jerks". Ultimately, Nobility's power in the game comes from being organized, having a team, and making decisions. Anyone can do that and if they want to have a bigger role in the game they should.
