xigbar
Explorer
I didn't misread (I think) I just tried to address as many comments as I could.
Regal (Royalty base class concept.)
- Thread starter xigbar
- Start date
I didn't misread (I think) I just tried to address as many comments as I could.
Patryn... this is going to be difficult to explain, but I'll try.
Take a good hard look at the aristocrat "Class". It's a collection of life experiences. It's a reflection of the better education, the refined training and all the rest that comes from living among the aristocracy.
It's like taking a level in College Student.
Royalty is something different altogether. I could concievably see it being a prestige class, maybe... but even then... You can be born royalty. You can have a 3 month old royal.
Hence, it's more something "in the blood" than an actual class.
A three month old baby isn't a Level 1 Royal. That doesn't pass the smell test.
You're better off making it a subrace of whatever race you're playing.
Take a good hard look at the aristocrat "Class". It's a collection of life experiences. It's a reflection of the better education, the refined training and all the rest that comes from living among the aristocracy.
It's like taking a level in College Student.
Royalty is something different altogether. I could concievably see it being a prestige class, maybe... but even then... You can be born royalty. You can have a 3 month old royal.
Hence, it's more something "in the blood" than an actual class.
A three month old baby isn't a Level 1 Royal. That doesn't pass the smell test.
You're better off making it a subrace of whatever race you're playing.
xigbar
Explorer
There's a reason they have a starting age section in the PHB.
Personally, I've never had a high opinion of how D&D handles royalty.
To me, having some kind of Social Status attribute- possibly with perks & drawbacks linked to your PC's class(es)- would work better than an actual Aristocrat/Noble class.
To me, having some kind of Social Status attribute- possibly with perks & drawbacks linked to your PC's class(es)- would work better than an actual Aristocrat/Noble class.
rgard
Adventurer
Hi Xigbar,
There are some aristocrat/noble classes here on EnWorld:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/86539-links-classes-races-forum.html
Just some food for thought.
One thing that always bothered me about the different published versions (WotC and OGL versions) was why the aristocrat always ended up with a medium bab. Makes more sense to me that the folks who had the cash to hire the best tutors would get the best training.
Thanks,
Rich
There are some aristocrat/noble classes here on EnWorld:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/86539-links-classes-races-forum.html
Just some food for thought.
One thing that always bothered me about the different published versions (WotC and OGL versions) was why the aristocrat always ended up with a medium bab. Makes more sense to me that the folks who had the cash to hire the best tutors would get the best training.
Thanks,
Rich
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
The thing with the BAB can likely be explained as they were trained with the expectation that they'd never actually fight in deadly combat. It's a side interest and is less of a priority than being trained in typical social aspects of nobility such as diplomacy and so forth.
Or to put it differently- what is more important to most aristocrats & nobles: being able to fight as well as the men & women you hire to fight & die for you, or to be able to conduct affairs of state in such a way that you and your forces might need not fight...because you've convinced other rulers that fighting against you is less preferrable than an alliance with you? Hell, hey probably spend more time learning the Art of War from the command level- dealing with thousands of men- than learning the nuances of personal combat.
So yeah, they know how to fight better than most of the population. But on average, they're not going to spend as much time learning to fight in melee as someone whose job it is to fight or die.
So yeah, they know how to fight better than most of the population. But on average, they're not going to spend as much time learning to fight in melee as someone whose job it is to fight or die.
Last edited:
rgard
Adventurer
SHARK
First Post
Greetings!
Well, honestly, I can understand the strong temptation to create a *class* to simulate a royal character--after all, the game rules enshrine and encourage classes for nearly every professional, vocational and character concept.
However, a royal character to my mind really defies such a generic class. I think applying a *Royal* Template would be more appropriate. That is what I have for my World of Thandor. Such a template can be applied to any particular character, regardless of class--and at different time frames; for example, a character born into royalty gains the Royalty Template upon character creation--or alternatively, the character gains the Royalty Template at some other time in their adult life, when the needs of the campaign and story demand such. What are the strengths of such an approach?
Well, a Royalty Template applied to characters of whatever class more accurately simulates the personality and professional capabilities and talents of the individual character. Royal characters throughout our own real-world history amply demonstrate a enormous range in capabilities and inclinations that a standardized *class* seems more to cookie-cutter the simulation rather than serving as a more accurate reflection of such diverse characters.
In real history, you have royal characters, say Queen Elizabeth of England. Clearly, she was a beautiful, intelligent, and politically shrewd woman. She was also an outstanding leader, organizer, and visionary with great charisma and sense of judgment. However, she was not a warrior in any meaningful sense--but she was arguably the greatest queen and monarch that ever ruled Britannia. Another medieval example--King Richard the Lionheart, the king of England from an earlier era. He was by all accounts both by his countrymen and by his opponents--a fierce, bold warrior with few equals. He was known to have personally killed many men in battle with his favourite battle axe. Likewise, he was a brilliant tactical commander who among few Christian leaders of the era could defeat the Muslim prince and general Saladin, even while being outnumbered no less. Clearly, King Richard the Lionheart was one of the age's greatest warriors, in every measurement and standard. However, as a political leader, and someone who manages a kingdom, a whole realm of people and guides and oversees their entire wellbeing, politically, militarily, economically, and socially, King Richard the Lionheart was on balance rather mediocre. He bankrupted the kingdom, spent profligately, and essentially couldn't financially manage a fruit stand, let alone a kingdom. Politically as well, aside from battlefield politics, his greater diplomatic performance was modest at best. Nonetheless, King Richard the Lionheart is an entirely different kind of royal character compared to Queen Elizabeth I of England.
On another scale, look at the Empress Theodora of the Byzantine Empire, circa 480 AD-560 AD, as I recall. She was born a impoverished girl who danced with bears on the stage for the common mob, and by the age of 14 she had become a skilled dancer and prostitute. She was certainly beautiful, intelligent, sensual, and powerfully erotic, as well as ambitious. She proceeded to create such a ferocious sensual rputation that before she was 21 she was the mistress and sexual playmate of numerous wealthy merchants, military officers, and nobles. Such was her reputation that she gained the attention of no less than the young Justininian, the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. Justininian met her, and courted her. He gained her affections and attention exclusively, and married her, and made her the Empress of the Byzantine Empire--in spite of the social stigma and disapproval of many nobles, their women, and the religious leadership in the Orthodox Church.
Empress Theodora--a common prostitute--and a lascivious, passionate one at that--she established a legacy of being greatly beloved by the common people, ultimately she gained the respect, admiration, and loyalty of most of the nobility, as well as the military, professional guilds and prominent citizens, and even the Orthodox Church. She saved the Byzantine Empire singlehandedly when the Greens and Blues--radical urban factions--broke into rebellion in the Hippodrome, and proceeded to slaughter thousands of people, including defeating thousands of royal troops in savage street battles. In the ensuing chaos, panic and defeat, Emperor Justininian was with her and his household guard gathered on the secret docks of the city, prepared to board a ship and flee the city, and thus abdicate leadership and his throne to the vast mobs of the city. Empress Theodora cooly stated that the "Royal Purple would make a fine burial shroud"--she was adorned with the traditional royal purple robes that denoted royalty--and she told her husband that he could flee, if he desired--but that as for her, she would remain here, and fight to the last breath. So shamed and inspired in a moment of cowardice and indecision, Justininian drew his sword, and rallied his troops under her guidance, and they proceeded to launch a counter-attack that crushed the rebels and saved the empire.
However, while Justininian was a good warrior, a skilled administrator, as well as a good leader, his real strengths lay in philosophy, writing, and intellectuallism. The Code of Justininian was a collection and update of all Roman law, and served as the entire legal foundation for much of Europe for the next thousand years, as well as preserving a huge amount of Roman culture, philosophy, and ideas for all of history. The Code of Justininian was later influential and blended with English Common Law, among others as a source of legal However, as great as Justininian was--his wife, Theodora, who he loved dearly and was married to and ruled the empire for some 40 years together until her passing of old age--she was certainly his equal. She was no warrior, though. She did jealously protect Justininian from assassins and rebellious nobles by creating a secret intelligence service, answerable only to her. She had secret dungeons and torture chambers installed beneath her part of the royal palace--and guess where you ended up if you were discovered plotting against the emperor, or herself? She filled her intelligence and spy network with noble women and common women alike--many of whom were prostitutes--that she elevated, and had married to some prominent nobleman. Theodora knew everything, and kept her husband safe. Theodora also personally funded brothels throughout the city and the empire, and established healthcare for all the common people. She also provided funds for young pregnant women, and orphaned children. She built temples, orphanages, soup kitchens, medical clinics, as well as theaters, hospitals and schools--that were also opened to women, and provided funds as well. Theodora worked on the economy, organizing the nations economy to provide Justininian with the vast gold and silver reserves he needed to rebuild the Byzantine military. Oh, yeah--Justininian went on to reconquer most of the Western Roman Empire that had been lost to the barbarians. For a brief time, during his lifetime, the Roman Empire was almost reestablished by Justininian, his general Belisarius, and his loyal armies. However, the power behind this development has much to owe to the political security provided by one woman--as well as the vast economic prowess--also orchestrated and coordinated by one woman--the Empress Theodora. As a comparison, Theodora and Justininian were also very different people--but they were truly in love with each other, and committed to each other and to the empire. Multitudes of people were fanatically loyal to Justininian and to Theodora, at least in part due to their leadership as a team, and their genuine devotion to the Byzantine people and empire as a whole.
In ancient Roman history, more examples could be cited. Caesar, of course, was a brilliant politician, leader, general, and warrior. Caesar routinely led from the front, and threw himself into the hottest combats. No Roman legionnaire doubted for a second Caesar's ability with a gladius. Tens of thousands of Roman troops were fanatically loyal to Caesar. However, he could be idealistic, and was not especially skilled in managing finances.
Some other Roman emperors and their royal women were poor warriors, or idiots in general, and virtually entirely incompetent. Others, were brilliant philosophers and thinkers. Others, like Emperor Hadrian, were skilled and visionary architects and engineers, as well as being formidable generals. More than a few Roman royal women--who seldom if ever so much as picked up a sword of any kind--were good leaders, administrators, and thinkers, and helped their husbands rule the Roman Empire effectively and with wisdom. Of course, sometimes they poisoned and murdered their husbands as well, or took a secret lover behind their husband's back, and inspired their younger, strong lover to murder their husband, from which their lover would be richly rewarded.
Cerainly, many examples could be detailed, both in Roman and Greek and European history, but also from Eastern and Southern Europe, India, the Middle East, and the Quin Empire. (China). Royal characters come in such a broad and distinctly different forms, that I think a template serves better than a generic class. Hopefully, I have helped.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well, honestly, I can understand the strong temptation to create a *class* to simulate a royal character--after all, the game rules enshrine and encourage classes for nearly every professional, vocational and character concept.
However, a royal character to my mind really defies such a generic class. I think applying a *Royal* Template would be more appropriate. That is what I have for my World of Thandor. Such a template can be applied to any particular character, regardless of class--and at different time frames; for example, a character born into royalty gains the Royalty Template upon character creation--or alternatively, the character gains the Royalty Template at some other time in their adult life, when the needs of the campaign and story demand such. What are the strengths of such an approach?
Well, a Royalty Template applied to characters of whatever class more accurately simulates the personality and professional capabilities and talents of the individual character. Royal characters throughout our own real-world history amply demonstrate a enormous range in capabilities and inclinations that a standardized *class* seems more to cookie-cutter the simulation rather than serving as a more accurate reflection of such diverse characters.
In real history, you have royal characters, say Queen Elizabeth of England. Clearly, she was a beautiful, intelligent, and politically shrewd woman. She was also an outstanding leader, organizer, and visionary with great charisma and sense of judgment. However, she was not a warrior in any meaningful sense--but she was arguably the greatest queen and monarch that ever ruled Britannia. Another medieval example--King Richard the Lionheart, the king of England from an earlier era. He was by all accounts both by his countrymen and by his opponents--a fierce, bold warrior with few equals. He was known to have personally killed many men in battle with his favourite battle axe. Likewise, he was a brilliant tactical commander who among few Christian leaders of the era could defeat the Muslim prince and general Saladin, even while being outnumbered no less. Clearly, King Richard the Lionheart was one of the age's greatest warriors, in every measurement and standard. However, as a political leader, and someone who manages a kingdom, a whole realm of people and guides and oversees their entire wellbeing, politically, militarily, economically, and socially, King Richard the Lionheart was on balance rather mediocre. He bankrupted the kingdom, spent profligately, and essentially couldn't financially manage a fruit stand, let alone a kingdom. Politically as well, aside from battlefield politics, his greater diplomatic performance was modest at best. Nonetheless, King Richard the Lionheart is an entirely different kind of royal character compared to Queen Elizabeth I of England.
On another scale, look at the Empress Theodora of the Byzantine Empire, circa 480 AD-560 AD, as I recall. She was born a impoverished girl who danced with bears on the stage for the common mob, and by the age of 14 she had become a skilled dancer and prostitute. She was certainly beautiful, intelligent, sensual, and powerfully erotic, as well as ambitious. She proceeded to create such a ferocious sensual rputation that before she was 21 she was the mistress and sexual playmate of numerous wealthy merchants, military officers, and nobles. Such was her reputation that she gained the attention of no less than the young Justininian, the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. Justininian met her, and courted her. He gained her affections and attention exclusively, and married her, and made her the Empress of the Byzantine Empire--in spite of the social stigma and disapproval of many nobles, their women, and the religious leadership in the Orthodox Church.
Empress Theodora--a common prostitute--and a lascivious, passionate one at that--she established a legacy of being greatly beloved by the common people, ultimately she gained the respect, admiration, and loyalty of most of the nobility, as well as the military, professional guilds and prominent citizens, and even the Orthodox Church. She saved the Byzantine Empire singlehandedly when the Greens and Blues--radical urban factions--broke into rebellion in the Hippodrome, and proceeded to slaughter thousands of people, including defeating thousands of royal troops in savage street battles. In the ensuing chaos, panic and defeat, Emperor Justininian was with her and his household guard gathered on the secret docks of the city, prepared to board a ship and flee the city, and thus abdicate leadership and his throne to the vast mobs of the city. Empress Theodora cooly stated that the "Royal Purple would make a fine burial shroud"--she was adorned with the traditional royal purple robes that denoted royalty--and she told her husband that he could flee, if he desired--but that as for her, she would remain here, and fight to the last breath. So shamed and inspired in a moment of cowardice and indecision, Justininian drew his sword, and rallied his troops under her guidance, and they proceeded to launch a counter-attack that crushed the rebels and saved the empire.
However, while Justininian was a good warrior, a skilled administrator, as well as a good leader, his real strengths lay in philosophy, writing, and intellectuallism. The Code of Justininian was a collection and update of all Roman law, and served as the entire legal foundation for much of Europe for the next thousand years, as well as preserving a huge amount of Roman culture, philosophy, and ideas for all of history. The Code of Justininian was later influential and blended with English Common Law, among others as a source of legal However, as great as Justininian was--his wife, Theodora, who he loved dearly and was married to and ruled the empire for some 40 years together until her passing of old age--she was certainly his equal. She was no warrior, though. She did jealously protect Justininian from assassins and rebellious nobles by creating a secret intelligence service, answerable only to her. She had secret dungeons and torture chambers installed beneath her part of the royal palace--and guess where you ended up if you were discovered plotting against the emperor, or herself? She filled her intelligence and spy network with noble women and common women alike--many of whom were prostitutes--that she elevated, and had married to some prominent nobleman. Theodora knew everything, and kept her husband safe. Theodora also personally funded brothels throughout the city and the empire, and established healthcare for all the common people. She also provided funds for young pregnant women, and orphaned children. She built temples, orphanages, soup kitchens, medical clinics, as well as theaters, hospitals and schools--that were also opened to women, and provided funds as well. Theodora worked on the economy, organizing the nations economy to provide Justininian with the vast gold and silver reserves he needed to rebuild the Byzantine military. Oh, yeah--Justininian went on to reconquer most of the Western Roman Empire that had been lost to the barbarians. For a brief time, during his lifetime, the Roman Empire was almost reestablished by Justininian, his general Belisarius, and his loyal armies. However, the power behind this development has much to owe to the political security provided by one woman--as well as the vast economic prowess--also orchestrated and coordinated by one woman--the Empress Theodora. As a comparison, Theodora and Justininian were also very different people--but they were truly in love with each other, and committed to each other and to the empire. Multitudes of people were fanatically loyal to Justininian and to Theodora, at least in part due to their leadership as a team, and their genuine devotion to the Byzantine people and empire as a whole.
In ancient Roman history, more examples could be cited. Caesar, of course, was a brilliant politician, leader, general, and warrior. Caesar routinely led from the front, and threw himself into the hottest combats. No Roman legionnaire doubted for a second Caesar's ability with a gladius. Tens of thousands of Roman troops were fanatically loyal to Caesar. However, he could be idealistic, and was not especially skilled in managing finances.
Some other Roman emperors and their royal women were poor warriors, or idiots in general, and virtually entirely incompetent. Others, were brilliant philosophers and thinkers. Others, like Emperor Hadrian, were skilled and visionary architects and engineers, as well as being formidable generals. More than a few Roman royal women--who seldom if ever so much as picked up a sword of any kind--were good leaders, administrators, and thinkers, and helped their husbands rule the Roman Empire effectively and with wisdom. Of course, sometimes they poisoned and murdered their husbands as well, or took a secret lover behind their husband's back, and inspired their younger, strong lover to murder their husband, from which their lover would be richly rewarded.
Cerainly, many examples could be detailed, both in Roman and Greek and European history, but also from Eastern and Southern Europe, India, the Middle East, and the Quin Empire. (China). Royal characters come in such a broad and distinctly different forms, that I think a template serves better than a generic class. Hopefully, I have helped.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Similar Threads
