Being a dick diminishes the honour of the monarch, and needlessly annoying powerful adventurers seems like a bad idea anyway, so I'd restrict anything as obvious as this to CN, NE and CE monarchs.
Nod. I often see attitudes that NPC's should be dicks to the PC's for no discernable in-character reason, and that therefore that NPC's are there for the PC's to abuse. In other words, everyone should be anti-social to psychopathic.
I don't run my campaign that way at all -- I try to make the NPC's and enemies do what they do based on role-playing -- what are their goals and how best to achieve them.
Of course, the occassional spoiled brat who has no idea of his own best interest can exist, but it shouldn't be every NPC.
I tend to have all the rulers be extremely charming and diplomatic, each presenting a very strong case why they and their realm is good, virtuous and hard-done-by, while their neighbours are cowards, villains etc. They are constantly jockeying for advantage, trying to get other realms and people on-side, and PC adventurers are normally treated as valuable resources to be recruited/exploited. The PCs would have to behave pretty badly to go in the enemy/snub/destroy list rather than the befriend/exploit list.
This makes sense to me as a general attitude.
However, in my campaign most nobles inherited their title, so while they were educated to have that sort of approach, not everyone has the right personality to believe it, or the ability to do it well.
I think most nobles should be like most business executives I've met -- very smart, very focused, very good at delegating and getting to the point, and not without the ability to charm. Most should cultivate followers to do their bidding, and most will be willing to "cut" a person or organization that fails to deliver. Some will be backstabbers, those most are wise enough not to make an obvious habit of it -- they will at least feign loyalty to those above and below. Some will be devoted to the greater good, or to the good of their team or liege, while many will primarily serve themselves. Some will be pure evil, and most will have flaws.
The main difference for nobles versus executives (or politicians, or generals, etc.) is that the nobles didn't earn their roles on merit, in most cases, so the "bar" to get the job isn't there.
FYI, I'm reading George J.R.R. Martin's "Clash of Kings", and the difference in approach to rulership between Tywin Lannister, Tirion, King Joffrey, Renly Baratheon, Stannis Baratheon, Robb, and Daernysis is interesting.
I think the Tywin, Renly, and Robb models would be most common among my nobles. I see Tywin as self-serving striver who uses bloody tactics for his own gain but honors and recognizes those who serve him well even if others might look down on them or dispise them (like The Mountain and Tirion), and pays some attention to following "proper" form. LE in his case, but there could be more N and LN variants.
Renly is more of the charmer and at least pretends to care about his followers and even the little people, and while he's seen as a partier, he's actually quite shrewd and rewards those who serve him well and loyally (like Sir Loras and Brienne) and he prefers to let others have both the danger and the glory. Probably N, but sees the value of presenting a good show of being LG-ish.
Robb is the lead-from-the-front action man leader, a military hero. Clever, and willing to sacrifice his own men if necessary, but also brave and seen to be brave. He also rewards those who serve him even if others look down on them (like the Blackfish, Theon, and Bran). He really could be any alignment. Makes a good leader for the good guys, or an interest villain "fighting nobly for the wrong side".
