Hi people!
I've been trying to craft some NPC for a campaign and I would gladly appreciate opinions from you on how to acting out a person from nobility?
Different opinions such as:
Insights : Psychology? Ideals? Values?Flaws?Insecurity?
Or more theatrically, how do they would dress, act, eat....
Really ANYTHING that crosses your mind when you think about old nobility descendant for example or maybe in more moderns settings, simply "upper-class" people (which can be totally different from an "noble being" ideal)/ I'll maybe open a differe t post for this one.
Please, feel free to leave a comment below and catch up to me!
I've been trying to craft some NPC for a campaign and I would gladly appreciate opinions from you on how to acting out a person from nobility?
Different opinions such as:
Insights : Psychology? Ideals? Values?Flaws?Insecurity?
Or more theatrically, how do they would dress, act, eat....
Really ANYTHING that crosses your mind when you think about old nobility descendant for example or maybe in more moderns settings, simply "upper-class" people (which can be totally different from an "noble being" ideal)/ I'll maybe open a differe t post for this one.
Please, feel free to leave a comment below and catch up to me!
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
If I may, I think the terms of setting nobility often hold center within a clear definition of stationary classes. That is, those whose lot in life is not of noble means, which is often determined by a variety of social and economic factors that govern how one eats, sleeps, and raises their young. Universal standards that can exist within almost any given narrative might help establish these more mundane classes for further use and inspection, and from that, setting a bar with which to aim higher or lower.
The middle class more or less holds the basis of reference for those above or below it, and so I often start from what I consider a basic modicum of civil liberties that are then either circumvented for prosperity or stripped away and thus allude to a lower quality of life. I then work around the effects of such standards:
A mediocre to average family is supported by what means, to what ends, for how long? What is the highest point one can reach before it becomes impossible to support such a family and also achieve happiness in stability, living too high above their income or breach some venue of etiquette; are they spending so much on their lawn furniture to impress the neighbors that they can't afford to eat regularly? Is it more important to impress one's peers than it is to eat? Is that what defines "success" in said world scope? If not, then what does, and by what quantity and value does one need to achieve these successes in order to be seen as upper class?
Then, I ask myself if the case of higher class equals nobility. That is to say, are facets such as grace, honor, and bloodline factors in what is consider noble? Are one's actions capable of granting one favor equal to something like, say, knighthood? How much does profit weigh in when compared to longevity? Is it a matter of what one wears - or can afford to wear? Consider if two people of equal birth, rearing, finance, and so forth were to encounter one another in public, about to enter the same building: Who goes first? Does one step aside, or is it more fitting to simply barge past? Could such a simple matter cause grave incident? Could it lead to bloodshed? Death? How important is one's class and/or nobility, in the eyes of both public law and personal achievement?
Nobility is not always about being noble. There are times when cutting corners and cheating get one all of the above and thensome. By what, then, is the limit? Is it common place to take such steps towards one's betterment? Are these steps something your common farmer or factory work could take into account for their benefit? How drastic are the consequences? What is the price of nobility, if it can be achieved with the loss of one's moral compass? What is the frequency one must pay, and what might happen if they no longer can afford it...?
Lastly, I sometimes take a moment to evaluate the need of aristocratic proprieties. Once I've established what basics I think define the rich, powerful, and/or noble, I ask myself if the story can function without them. More to the point, if the world design is steady without them. If so much of my plot or scope depends on a particular class, archetype, or goal, then the removal of this becomes the culprit behind many inconsistent views I may likely be struggling with up until that point. Not always, but it does often seem the case. The creation and removal of any large social dynamic should create a variety of promising tales and prospects - and should cause little in the way of deconstructing the entirety of the plot as a whole. If this happens, regardless of my desires, I have to consider the manner all characters - NPCs or otherwise - live their lives, and to what end.
While they don't always know their purpose or opportunities, having clearly defined measurements by which to place their personalities helps keep in alignment their emotions with the world as it affects them, and more importantly, the whys and hows of these moldings of persona. Their behaviors and code of dress are dependent on internal influences governed by known opportunities, their willingness to set about tasks that will take advantage of these opportunities (with or without knowledge of the stakes and consequences), and their responses to any setbacks that have occurred or may take place in the future. What they eat and what they drive are bound by the time with which to indulge in such acts of their own accord, as a businessman may not have the time or even the training to drive himself, and the meals they eat may be set in place merely by what their personal chef and/or nutritionist dictates.
I suppose, at the root of it, the government of one's ideals and core values, clumped together as a social construct of formalities and moralities, weighed against the class with which normality can be presented most often without the need to iterate further each time it is displayed, is what sets the tone of nobility as I utilize it. In some instances, it is the abnormal and strange alone that warrants the upper echelons of one's creations; at other times, it is a stringent focus on conservative principles, adhering to the old ways and appearing to possess great wisdom from this; at other intervals, it may be that a large wallet and a fancy automobile is enough to turn heads; there are instances where, in a world of frugality and prudishness, a person of frivolously lewd behavior might be a person of substantial power and influence, simply because they have found an efficient way to mask such activities; a religious zealot might hold all the cards in their favor by way of subjugating knowledge, and whoever possess the best method of doing so is considered the most noble.
Allowing the reader to observe the deviations and culminations of multiple classes in any one particular setting, living and breathing around one another, to show the behaviors and responses from the general populace, is often where I perform my final test run. I write some short excerpt of this scenario, and see how it tastes as I read it aloud. If it clicks, it clicks. If not, well... Then it doesn't. I could say to use your best judgement, based on the time period and so forth, but honestly, I'd like to think it best to explore options based on the characters and their lifestyles sought towards a natural flow that can be related to no matter the preference of the reader or the genre at hand.
These are just opinions. Take them all with a grain of salt.
The middle class more or less holds the basis of reference for those above or below it, and so I often start from what I consider a basic modicum of civil liberties that are then either circumvented for prosperity or stripped away and thus allude to a lower quality of life. I then work around the effects of such standards:
A mediocre to average family is supported by what means, to what ends, for how long? What is the highest point one can reach before it becomes impossible to support such a family and also achieve happiness in stability, living too high above their income or breach some venue of etiquette; are they spending so much on their lawn furniture to impress the neighbors that they can't afford to eat regularly? Is it more important to impress one's peers than it is to eat? Is that what defines "success" in said world scope? If not, then what does, and by what quantity and value does one need to achieve these successes in order to be seen as upper class?
Then, I ask myself if the case of higher class equals nobility. That is to say, are facets such as grace, honor, and bloodline factors in what is consider noble? Are one's actions capable of granting one favor equal to something like, say, knighthood? How much does profit weigh in when compared to longevity? Is it a matter of what one wears - or can afford to wear? Consider if two people of equal birth, rearing, finance, and so forth were to encounter one another in public, about to enter the same building: Who goes first? Does one step aside, or is it more fitting to simply barge past? Could such a simple matter cause grave incident? Could it lead to bloodshed? Death? How important is one's class and/or nobility, in the eyes of both public law and personal achievement?
Nobility is not always about being noble. There are times when cutting corners and cheating get one all of the above and thensome. By what, then, is the limit? Is it common place to take such steps towards one's betterment? Are these steps something your common farmer or factory work could take into account for their benefit? How drastic are the consequences? What is the price of nobility, if it can be achieved with the loss of one's moral compass? What is the frequency one must pay, and what might happen if they no longer can afford it...?
Lastly, I sometimes take a moment to evaluate the need of aristocratic proprieties. Once I've established what basics I think define the rich, powerful, and/or noble, I ask myself if the story can function without them. More to the point, if the world design is steady without them. If so much of my plot or scope depends on a particular class, archetype, or goal, then the removal of this becomes the culprit behind many inconsistent views I may likely be struggling with up until that point. Not always, but it does often seem the case. The creation and removal of any large social dynamic should create a variety of promising tales and prospects - and should cause little in the way of deconstructing the entirety of the plot as a whole. If this happens, regardless of my desires, I have to consider the manner all characters - NPCs or otherwise - live their lives, and to what end.
While they don't always know their purpose or opportunities, having clearly defined measurements by which to place their personalities helps keep in alignment their emotions with the world as it affects them, and more importantly, the whys and hows of these moldings of persona. Their behaviors and code of dress are dependent on internal influences governed by known opportunities, their willingness to set about tasks that will take advantage of these opportunities (with or without knowledge of the stakes and consequences), and their responses to any setbacks that have occurred or may take place in the future. What they eat and what they drive are bound by the time with which to indulge in such acts of their own accord, as a businessman may not have the time or even the training to drive himself, and the meals they eat may be set in place merely by what their personal chef and/or nutritionist dictates.
I suppose, at the root of it, the government of one's ideals and core values, clumped together as a social construct of formalities and moralities, weighed against the class with which normality can be presented most often without the need to iterate further each time it is displayed, is what sets the tone of nobility as I utilize it. In some instances, it is the abnormal and strange alone that warrants the upper echelons of one's creations; at other times, it is a stringent focus on conservative principles, adhering to the old ways and appearing to possess great wisdom from this; at other intervals, it may be that a large wallet and a fancy automobile is enough to turn heads; there are instances where, in a world of frugality and prudishness, a person of frivolously lewd behavior might be a person of substantial power and influence, simply because they have found an efficient way to mask such activities; a religious zealot might hold all the cards in their favor by way of subjugating knowledge, and whoever possess the best method of doing so is considered the most noble.
Allowing the reader to observe the deviations and culminations of multiple classes in any one particular setting, living and breathing around one another, to show the behaviors and responses from the general populace, is often where I perform my final test run. I write some short excerpt of this scenario, and see how it tastes as I read it aloud. If it clicks, it clicks. If not, well... Then it doesn't. I could say to use your best judgement, based on the time period and so forth, but honestly, I'd like to think it best to explore options based on the characters and their lifestyles sought towards a natural flow that can be related to no matter the preference of the reader or the genre at hand.
These are just opinions. Take them all with a grain of salt.
Raven14 wrote:
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
Please, why would they be?
Thanks for intervening though
Atrayus Solvange wrote:
If I may, I think the terms of setting nobility often hold center within a clear definition of stationary classes. That is, those whose lot in life is not of noble means, which is often determined by a variety of social and economic factors that govern how one eats, sleeps, and raises their young. Universal standards that can exist within almost any given narrative might help establish these more mundane classes for further use and inspection, and from that, setting a bar with which to aim higher or lower.
The middle class more or less holds the basis of reference for those above or below it, and so I often start from what I consider a basic modicum of civil liberties that are then either circumvented for prosperity or stripped away and thus allude to a lower quality of life. I then work around the effects of such standards:
A mediocre to average family is supported by what means, to what ends, for how long? What is the highest point one can reach before it becomes impossible to support such a family and also achieve happiness in stability, living too high above their income or breach some venue of etiquette; are they spending so much on their lawn furniture to impress the neighbors that they can't afford to eat regularly? Is it more important to impress one's peers than it is to eat? Is that what defines "success" in said world scope? If not, then what does, and by what quantity and value does one need to achieve these successes in order to be seen as upper class?
Then, I ask myself if the case of higher class equals nobility. That is to say, are facets such as grace, honor, and bloodline factors in what is consider noble? Are one's actions capable of granting one favor equal to something like, say, knighthood? How much does profit weigh in when compared to longevity? Is it a matter of what one wears - or can afford to wear? Consider if two people of equal birth, rearing, finance, and so forth were to encounter one another in public, about to enter the same building: Who goes first? Does one step aside, or is it more fitting to simply barge past? Could such a simple matter cause grave incident? Could it lead to bloodshed? Death? How important is one's class and/or nobility, in the eyes of both public law and personal achievement?
Nobility is not always about being noble. There are times when cutting corners and cheating get one all of the above and thensome. By what, then, is the limit? Is it common place to take such steps towards one's betterment? Are these steps something your common farmer or factory work could take into account for their benefit? How drastic are the consequences? What is the price of nobility, if it can be achieved with the loss of one's moral compass? What is the frequency one must pay, and what might happen if they no longer can afford it...?
Lastly, I sometimes take a moment to evaluate the need of aristocratic proprieties. Once I've established what basics I think define the rich, powerful, and/or noble, I ask myself if the story can function without them. More to the point, if the world design is steady without them. If so much of my plot or scope depends on a particular class, archetype, or goal, then the removal of this becomes the culprit behind many inconsistent views I may likely be struggling with up until that point. Not always, but it does often seem the case. The creation and removal of any large social dynamic should create a variety of promising tales and prospects - and should cause little in the way of deconstructing the entirety of the plot as a whole. If this happens, regardless of my desires, I have to consider the manner all characters - NPCs or otherwise - live their lives, and to what end.
While they don't always know their purpose or opportunities, having clearly defined measurements by which to place their personalities helps keep in alignment their emotions with the world as it affects them, and more importantly, the whys and hows of these moldings of persona. Their behaviors and code of dress are dependent on internal influences governed by known opportunities, their willingness to set about tasks that will take advantage of these opportunities (with or without knowledge of the stakes and consequences), and their responses to any setbacks that have occurred or may take place in the future. What they eat and what they drive are bound by the time with which to indulge in such acts of their own accord, as a businessman may not have the time or even the training to drive himself, and the meals they eat may be set in place merely by what their personal chef and/or nutritionist dictates.
I suppose, at the root of it, the government of one's ideals and core values, clumped together as a social construct of formalities and moralities, weighed against the class with which normality can be presented most often without the need to iterate further each time it is displayed, is what sets the tone of nobility as I utilize it. In some instances, it is the abnormal and strange alone that warrants the upper echelons of one's creations; at other times, it is a stringent focus on conservative principles, adhering to the old ways and appearing to possess great wisdom from this; at other intervals, it may be that a large wallet and a fancy automobile is enough to turn heads; there are instances where, in a world of frugality and prudishness, a person of frivolously lewd behavior might be a person of substantial power and influence, simply because they have found an efficient way to mask such activities; a religious zealot might hold all the cards in their favor by way of subjugating knowledge, and whoever possess the best method of doing so is considered the most noble.
Allowing the reader to observe the deviations and culminations of multiple classes in any one particular setting, living and breathing around one another, to show the behaviors and responses from the general populace, is often where I perform my final test run. I write some short excerpt of this scenario, and see how it tastes as I read it aloud. If it clicks, it clicks. If not, well... Then it doesn't. I could say to use your best judgement, based on the time period and so forth, but honestly, I'd like to think it best to explore options based on the characters and their lifestyles sought towards a natural flow that can be related to no matter the preference of the reader or the genre at hand.
These are just opinions. Take them all with a grain of salt.
The middle class more or less holds the basis of reference for those above or below it, and so I often start from what I consider a basic modicum of civil liberties that are then either circumvented for prosperity or stripped away and thus allude to a lower quality of life. I then work around the effects of such standards:
A mediocre to average family is supported by what means, to what ends, for how long? What is the highest point one can reach before it becomes impossible to support such a family and also achieve happiness in stability, living too high above their income or breach some venue of etiquette; are they spending so much on their lawn furniture to impress the neighbors that they can't afford to eat regularly? Is it more important to impress one's peers than it is to eat? Is that what defines "success" in said world scope? If not, then what does, and by what quantity and value does one need to achieve these successes in order to be seen as upper class?
Then, I ask myself if the case of higher class equals nobility. That is to say, are facets such as grace, honor, and bloodline factors in what is consider noble? Are one's actions capable of granting one favor equal to something like, say, knighthood? How much does profit weigh in when compared to longevity? Is it a matter of what one wears - or can afford to wear? Consider if two people of equal birth, rearing, finance, and so forth were to encounter one another in public, about to enter the same building: Who goes first? Does one step aside, or is it more fitting to simply barge past? Could such a simple matter cause grave incident? Could it lead to bloodshed? Death? How important is one's class and/or nobility, in the eyes of both public law and personal achievement?
Nobility is not always about being noble. There are times when cutting corners and cheating get one all of the above and thensome. By what, then, is the limit? Is it common place to take such steps towards one's betterment? Are these steps something your common farmer or factory work could take into account for their benefit? How drastic are the consequences? What is the price of nobility, if it can be achieved with the loss of one's moral compass? What is the frequency one must pay, and what might happen if they no longer can afford it...?
Lastly, I sometimes take a moment to evaluate the need of aristocratic proprieties. Once I've established what basics I think define the rich, powerful, and/or noble, I ask myself if the story can function without them. More to the point, if the world design is steady without them. If so much of my plot or scope depends on a particular class, archetype, or goal, then the removal of this becomes the culprit behind many inconsistent views I may likely be struggling with up until that point. Not always, but it does often seem the case. The creation and removal of any large social dynamic should create a variety of promising tales and prospects - and should cause little in the way of deconstructing the entirety of the plot as a whole. If this happens, regardless of my desires, I have to consider the manner all characters - NPCs or otherwise - live their lives, and to what end.
While they don't always know their purpose or opportunities, having clearly defined measurements by which to place their personalities helps keep in alignment their emotions with the world as it affects them, and more importantly, the whys and hows of these moldings of persona. Their behaviors and code of dress are dependent on internal influences governed by known opportunities, their willingness to set about tasks that will take advantage of these opportunities (with or without knowledge of the stakes and consequences), and their responses to any setbacks that have occurred or may take place in the future. What they eat and what they drive are bound by the time with which to indulge in such acts of their own accord, as a businessman may not have the time or even the training to drive himself, and the meals they eat may be set in place merely by what their personal chef and/or nutritionist dictates.
I suppose, at the root of it, the government of one's ideals and core values, clumped together as a social construct of formalities and moralities, weighed against the class with which normality can be presented most often without the need to iterate further each time it is displayed, is what sets the tone of nobility as I utilize it. In some instances, it is the abnormal and strange alone that warrants the upper echelons of one's creations; at other times, it is a stringent focus on conservative principles, adhering to the old ways and appearing to possess great wisdom from this; at other intervals, it may be that a large wallet and a fancy automobile is enough to turn heads; there are instances where, in a world of frugality and prudishness, a person of frivolously lewd behavior might be a person of substantial power and influence, simply because they have found an efficient way to mask such activities; a religious zealot might hold all the cards in their favor by way of subjugating knowledge, and whoever possess the best method of doing so is considered the most noble.
Allowing the reader to observe the deviations and culminations of multiple classes in any one particular setting, living and breathing around one another, to show the behaviors and responses from the general populace, is often where I perform my final test run. I write some short excerpt of this scenario, and see how it tastes as I read it aloud. If it clicks, it clicks. If not, well... Then it doesn't. I could say to use your best judgement, based on the time period and so forth, but honestly, I'd like to think it best to explore options based on the characters and their lifestyles sought towards a natural flow that can be related to no matter the preference of the reader or the genre at hand.
These are just opinions. Take them all with a grain of salt.
Hi!
Thank you for this post, I have to tell honestly that english ISN'T my first langage and I'll need to re-read it to understand all the in's and out's of it. (And it's currently litteraly almost 3 a.m in the morbing where I live), so I'm not that brain-fresh.
Thank you for participating!
Take your time and get your rest. I'm happy to help, if I can, when I can.
An interesting dynamic to explore with aristocratic characters (especially younger ones) is the dichotomy between selfishness and utter entitlement. For example, a child from a wealthy family is probably used to getting what they want; depending how isolated they are from the rest of society they might not understand why others can't also just have what they want (the whole "let them eat cake" scenario). They could be portrayed as snobby and naive, but generous in their own way. In contrast, a character who is entitled might not only want nice things, but also seek to prevent others from having nice things or take these things away from them. It's a more cunning and unconscionable take on the character.
edit; if you have any particular questions about royalty in ancient China or medieval Europe, I might be able to help out. I've studied them quite a bit as part of my degree.
edit; if you have any particular questions about royalty in ancient China or medieval Europe, I might be able to help out. I've studied them quite a bit as part of my degree.
Yersinia wrote:
An interesting dynamic to explore with aristocratic characters (especially younger ones) is the dichotomy between selfishness and utter entitlement. For example, a child from a wealthy family is probably used to getting what they want; depending how isolated they are from the rest of society they might not understand why others can't also just have what they want (the whole "let them eat cake" scenario). They could be portrayed as snobby and naive, but generous in their own way. In contrast, a character who is entitled might not only want nice things, but also seek to prevent others from having nice things or take these things away from them. It's a more cunning and unconscionable take on the character.
edit; if you have any particular questions about royalty in ancient China or medieval Europe, I might be able to help out. I've studied them quite a bit as part of my degree.
edit; if you have any particular questions about royalty in ancient China or medieval Europe, I might be able to help out. I've studied them quite a bit as part of my degree.
Well, why not, but with all this topic, I was thinking a bit more of that kind of "things to know" for example : In england, when you get into some boarding schools, some people ask you from where your last school is, and most of the times, they expect tohave heard about it, but you answer them a school they don't know because you were into a public (England paid) school and not a private (paid by funs) school.
I'm looking for more of those "littles things" that help flesh out characters acting!
How about throwing in what you might know about "those little things" you know from european medieval settings?
Have a nice day!
R-
RedLantern wrote:
How about throwing in what you might know about "those little things" you know from european medieval settings?
Medieval history
Peasants & Feudalism
- the High Middle Ages (approx. 1000 - 1350) saw a huge population boom, infrastructure and trade development, crop surplus, an increase in literacy/schooling, and an overall more stable government. This is roundabouts when universities were invented and when castle and cathedral construction was at its peak (tldr: the High Middle Ages is a pretty cool time for aristocratic characters)
- although there were also the Crusades. so.
- rural communities in northern Europe were feudal, meaning that the peasants and their fields were presided over by a manor who protected them (in theory) from marauders during wartime (it was often wartime). Historians generally agree that there were three types of peasants: "free" peasants (paid rent for their land), serfs (paid rent and were legally tied to the manor), and cotters (free and comparably richer peasants who lived in cottages with small gardens and only did wage work).
- peasants actually had a lot more independence than most people would assume. They had manorial courts where they could settle disputes and also a fair amount of bargaining power: manorial lords wanted income. They would incentivize peasants to come work their fields by offering them lower rents, lower taxes, and other perks, like time off to celebrate Christian festivals. Their power dynamic was up-and-down until around the 12th century when urban charters were introduced. After this point, merchant oligarchies tended to take over. The rise of guilds allowed the merchant class to participate in local government, control the conditions and prices of goods in their town, keep out competing merchants, and provide social support for one another. Apprentices would start training young and had to pay their master for lodgings and lessons.
- a little bit about living on a manor: not everyone was a farmer. Wealthier peasants served as reeves, haylords, bailiffs, etc. Poorer families were smaller. People didn't tend to get married until their late teens/early twenties. Nobody except the upper class cared about chastity. Sons inherited the land. Peasant homes were made of thatch, reeds, timber, and mud, and could be constructed in one day, so nobody in a rural setting was typically homeless. Animals lived inside to produce heat. People mostly ate ale, meat, and bread. Ale/beer was brewed by women. A whole village would share a stone oven.
Knights
- during times of peace the knights got bored, so feudal lords held fighting tournaments.
- knights started their training young, often living in the household of a wealthier noble family; though only the wealthy could undertake knighthood in the first place, as it was expensive. By the 13th century they were a definite mark of aristocracy. They had chivalrous mock-battles where they would hold each other for ransom. Fighting prowess was seen as a mark of valor.
Kings & Nobility
- kings typically derived their power from "the great chain of being", a belief that they were divinely chosen by god to rule on earth on his behalf. No surprise, they frequently got into it with popes, who thought the same thing of themselves. The king had to curry favour with the Papacy by building churches, because if the pope refused to coronate a king then technically he wasn't the king (which led to ridiculous scenarios like when King Henry IV was excommunicated and dethroned, refused to accept it, begged for forgiveness, was excommunicated again, fled to Italy, elected a "rival pope" and declared himself king, waged war, summoned the Normans to protect him and then watched helplessly as they ran amok and ransacked Italy so badly that he was exiled for a third time).
- kings are often depicted as the central authority, but they spent much of the Middle Ages limited by the contesting powers of wealthy nobles, wealthy merchants and traders, wealthy vassals, and of course, the Church. Other times they would ruthlessly consolidate their rule. Chaotic stuff.
- marriage among nobles was a business deal. More territory = more wealth and prestige.
- at one point, wealthy widows actually owned 10% of the land in Europe. In times of siege (and in the absence of their husbands) they were also allowed to assume control of the manors they lived in and conduct battle.
Culture
- Medieval Europe, especially in the 12th century/Renaissance Eras, was quite culturally and ethnically diverse. Jewish and Arabic scholars spearheaded science, math, astrology, and architecture. Salerno, Italy, was the cradle of medical advancement. Ancient Greek and Roman texts were revived. That's not to say their relations were always harmonious (see: the Crusades, the heretic hunts, the pogroms), but there was a great deal of intellectual exchange happening between civilizations.
- cities experienced worse poverty and overall living conditions than rural communities due to overcrowding. However, it wasn't necessarily the cesspool it's often depicted as. There were street cleaners and laws that forced people like butchers to work on the outskirts of town. They valued both clean water and hygiene. Regardless, there were multiple plagues and famines.
- depending on what time period you're writing in, churches and castles might have round-arched, shadowy, stable Romanesque architecture or ribbed, high-peaked Gothic architecture with massive stained glass windows. Cathedrals were often the center of a community; their bells signaled the hours of the day, and they served as a gathering places for festivals, feasts, and pilgrims.
- alternative lifestyles: join a holy order. The Templars defended pilgrim roads, the Carthusians lived isolated in the wilderness, the Dominicans believed in education and produced some of the greatest philosophers of the era, the Beguines were independent women communities who wandered cities curing the sick, the Albigensians rejected all physical things and hoped for the cessation of human reproduction (they actually preferred same-sex unions to heterosexual ones because no offspring was produced). However, most of these groups were eventually persecuted by the Church as heretical.
- on the topic of sexuality in the Middle Ages, "sodomy" wasn't really persecuted until the 12th century. By 1300 it was considered a capital offense. Female homosexuality, however, was not seen as a concern or even a possibility, because sex was understood to be a strictly male act. Your medieval lesbian characters could probably fly under the radar. I remember having to read court records from a case of a crossdressing male prostitute who had two different names for his male and female personas; his male patrons claimed to have not known he was a man because he dressed like a woman. Really neat stuff. Also, medieval folks had birth control (herbal methods of aborting a fetus). It was frowned upon, but.
University & Education
- in Italy, by the 14th century about 40% of the population was literate, with the rest of Europe not far behind. Books were very expensive because each copy had to be hand-written, and for a long time they were only available in Latin.
- the best way to learn about university life back then is to read death records, lmao. The students were young (upwards of fifteen) and lived away from their parents, so they were prone to criminal acts and wanton stupidity. They shared rented accommodations. Students also wrote songs about love, parties, and being broke. Not much has changed.
- masters (professors) rented out classrooms, so the location was always changing. University was only for boys with means. The seven liberal arts they were permitted to study were geometry, astronomy, and math (trivium), and music, grammar, rhetoric, and logic/dialectic (quadrivium). You could obtain a higher degree in theology, medicine, or law. Universities were often the economic backbone of a city, but many merchants hated them beyond that, because their clerical and guild status shielded them from civil law. They were a tightly-knit community that would revolt if they felt like their students were being picked on and move somewhere else, ergo destroying the local economy. So merchants put up with them.
Peasants & Feudalism
- the High Middle Ages (approx. 1000 - 1350) saw a huge population boom, infrastructure and trade development, crop surplus, an increase in literacy/schooling, and an overall more stable government. This is roundabouts when universities were invented and when castle and cathedral construction was at its peak (tldr: the High Middle Ages is a pretty cool time for aristocratic characters)
- although there were also the Crusades. so.
- rural communities in northern Europe were feudal, meaning that the peasants and their fields were presided over by a manor who protected them (in theory) from marauders during wartime (it was often wartime). Historians generally agree that there were three types of peasants: "free" peasants (paid rent for their land), serfs (paid rent and were legally tied to the manor), and cotters (free and comparably richer peasants who lived in cottages with small gardens and only did wage work).
- peasants actually had a lot more independence than most people would assume. They had manorial courts where they could settle disputes and also a fair amount of bargaining power: manorial lords wanted income. They would incentivize peasants to come work their fields by offering them lower rents, lower taxes, and other perks, like time off to celebrate Christian festivals. Their power dynamic was up-and-down until around the 12th century when urban charters were introduced. After this point, merchant oligarchies tended to take over. The rise of guilds allowed the merchant class to participate in local government, control the conditions and prices of goods in their town, keep out competing merchants, and provide social support for one another. Apprentices would start training young and had to pay their master for lodgings and lessons.
- a little bit about living on a manor: not everyone was a farmer. Wealthier peasants served as reeves, haylords, bailiffs, etc. Poorer families were smaller. People didn't tend to get married until their late teens/early twenties. Nobody except the upper class cared about chastity. Sons inherited the land. Peasant homes were made of thatch, reeds, timber, and mud, and could be constructed in one day, so nobody in a rural setting was typically homeless. Animals lived inside to produce heat. People mostly ate ale, meat, and bread. Ale/beer was brewed by women. A whole village would share a stone oven.
Knights
- during times of peace the knights got bored, so feudal lords held fighting tournaments.
- knights started their training young, often living in the household of a wealthier noble family; though only the wealthy could undertake knighthood in the first place, as it was expensive. By the 13th century they were a definite mark of aristocracy. They had chivalrous mock-battles where they would hold each other for ransom. Fighting prowess was seen as a mark of valor.
Kings & Nobility
- kings typically derived their power from "the great chain of being", a belief that they were divinely chosen by god to rule on earth on his behalf. No surprise, they frequently got into it with popes, who thought the same thing of themselves. The king had to curry favour with the Papacy by building churches, because if the pope refused to coronate a king then technically he wasn't the king (which led to ridiculous scenarios like when King Henry IV was excommunicated and dethroned, refused to accept it, begged for forgiveness, was excommunicated again, fled to Italy, elected a "rival pope" and declared himself king, waged war, summoned the Normans to protect him and then watched helplessly as they ran amok and ransacked Italy so badly that he was exiled for a third time).
- kings are often depicted as the central authority, but they spent much of the Middle Ages limited by the contesting powers of wealthy nobles, wealthy merchants and traders, wealthy vassals, and of course, the Church. Other times they would ruthlessly consolidate their rule. Chaotic stuff.
- marriage among nobles was a business deal. More territory = more wealth and prestige.
- at one point, wealthy widows actually owned 10% of the land in Europe. In times of siege (and in the absence of their husbands) they were also allowed to assume control of the manors they lived in and conduct battle.
Culture
- Medieval Europe, especially in the 12th century/Renaissance Eras, was quite culturally and ethnically diverse. Jewish and Arabic scholars spearheaded science, math, astrology, and architecture. Salerno, Italy, was the cradle of medical advancement. Ancient Greek and Roman texts were revived. That's not to say their relations were always harmonious (see: the Crusades, the heretic hunts, the pogroms), but there was a great deal of intellectual exchange happening between civilizations.
- cities experienced worse poverty and overall living conditions than rural communities due to overcrowding. However, it wasn't necessarily the cesspool it's often depicted as. There were street cleaners and laws that forced people like butchers to work on the outskirts of town. They valued both clean water and hygiene. Regardless, there were multiple plagues and famines.
- depending on what time period you're writing in, churches and castles might have round-arched, shadowy, stable Romanesque architecture or ribbed, high-peaked Gothic architecture with massive stained glass windows. Cathedrals were often the center of a community; their bells signaled the hours of the day, and they served as a gathering places for festivals, feasts, and pilgrims.
- alternative lifestyles: join a holy order. The Templars defended pilgrim roads, the Carthusians lived isolated in the wilderness, the Dominicans believed in education and produced some of the greatest philosophers of the era, the Beguines were independent women communities who wandered cities curing the sick, the Albigensians rejected all physical things and hoped for the cessation of human reproduction (they actually preferred same-sex unions to heterosexual ones because no offspring was produced). However, most of these groups were eventually persecuted by the Church as heretical.
- on the topic of sexuality in the Middle Ages, "sodomy" wasn't really persecuted until the 12th century. By 1300 it was considered a capital offense. Female homosexuality, however, was not seen as a concern or even a possibility, because sex was understood to be a strictly male act. Your medieval lesbian characters could probably fly under the radar. I remember having to read court records from a case of a crossdressing male prostitute who had two different names for his male and female personas; his male patrons claimed to have not known he was a man because he dressed like a woman. Really neat stuff. Also, medieval folks had birth control (herbal methods of aborting a fetus). It was frowned upon, but.
University & Education
- in Italy, by the 14th century about 40% of the population was literate, with the rest of Europe not far behind. Books were very expensive because each copy had to be hand-written, and for a long time they were only available in Latin.
- the best way to learn about university life back then is to read death records, lmao. The students were young (upwards of fifteen) and lived away from their parents, so they were prone to criminal acts and wanton stupidity. They shared rented accommodations. Students also wrote songs about love, parties, and being broke. Not much has changed.
- masters (professors) rented out classrooms, so the location was always changing. University was only for boys with means. The seven liberal arts they were permitted to study were geometry, astronomy, and math (trivium), and music, grammar, rhetoric, and logic/dialectic (quadrivium). You could obtain a higher degree in theology, medicine, or law. Universities were often the economic backbone of a city, but many merchants hated them beyond that, because their clerical and guild status shielded them from civil law. They were a tightly-knit community that would revolt if they felt like their students were being picked on and move somewhere else, ergo destroying the local economy. So merchants put up with them.
I can elaborate on any of the points if you want me to. Have a nice day as well!
Yersinia wrote:
RedLantern wrote:
How about throwing in what you might know about "those little things" you know from european medieval settings?
Medieval history
Peasants & Feudalism
- the High Middle Ages (approx. 1000 - 1350) saw a huge population boom, infrastructure and trade development, crop surplus, an increase in literacy/schooling, and an overall more stable government. This is roundabouts when universities were invented and when castle and cathedral construction was at its peak (tldr: the High Middle Ages is a pretty cool time for aristocratic characters)
- although there were also the Crusades. so.
- rural communities in northern Europe were feudal, meaning that the peasants and their fields were presided over by a manor who protected them (in theory) from marauders during wartime (it was often wartime). Historians generally agree that there were three types of peasants: "free" peasants (paid rent for their land), serfs (paid rent and were legally tied to the manor), and cotters (free and comparably richer peasants who lived in cottages with small gardens and only did wage work).
- peasants actually had a lot more independence than most people would assume. They had manorial courts where they could settle disputes and also a fair amount of bargaining power: manorial lords wanted income. They would incentivize peasants to come work their fields by offering them lower rents, lower taxes, and other perks, like time off to celebrate Christian festivals. Their power dynamic was up-and-down until around the 12th century when urban charters were introduced. After this point, merchant oligarchies tended to take over. The rise of guilds allowed the merchant class to participate in local government, control the conditions and prices of goods in their town, keep out competing merchants, and provide social support for one another. Apprentices would start training young and had to pay their master for lodgings and lessons.
- a little bit about living on a manor: not everyone was a farmer. Wealthier peasants served as reeves, haylords, bailiffs, etc. Poorer families were smaller. People didn't tend to get married until their late teens/early twenties. Nobody except the upper class cared about chastity. Sons inherited the land. Peasant homes were made of thatch, reeds, timber, and mud, and could be constructed in one day, so nobody in a rural setting was typically homeless. Animals lived inside to produce heat. People mostly ate ale, meat, and bread. Ale/beer was brewed by women.
Knights
- during times of peace the knights got bored, so feudal lords held fighting tournaments.
- knights started their training young, often living in the household of a wealthier noble family; though only the wealthy could undertake knighthood in the first place, as it was expensive. By the 13th century they were a definite mark of aristocracy. They had chivalrous mock-battles where they would hold each other for ransom. Fighting prowess was seen as a mark of valor.
Kings & Nobility
- kings typically derived their power from "the great chain of being", a belief that they were divinely chosen by god to rule on earth on his behalf. No surprise, they frequently got into it with popes, who thought the same thing of themselves. The king had to curry favour with the Papacy by building churches, because if the pope refused to coronate a king then technically he wasn't the king (which led to ridiculous scenarios like when King Henry IV was excommunicated and dethroned, refused to accept it, begged for forgiveness, was excommunicated again, fled to Italy, elected a "rival pope" and declared himself king, waged war, summoned the Normans to protect him and then watched helplessly as they ran amok and ransacked Italy so badly that he was exiled for a third time).
- kings are often depicted as the central authority, but they spent much of the Middle Ages limited by the contesting powers of wealthy nobles, wealthy merchants and traders, wealthy vassals, and of course, the Church.
- marriage among nobles was a business deal. More territory = more wealth and prestige.
- at one point, wealthy widows actually owned 10% of the land in Europe. In times of siege (and in the absence of their husbands) they were also allowed to assume control of the manors they lived in and conduct battle.
Culture
- Medieval Europe, especially in the 12th century/Renaissance Eras, was quite culturally and ethnically diverse. Jewish and Arabic scholars spearheaded science, math, and architecture. Salerno, Italy, was the cradle of medical advancement. Ancient Greek and Roman texts were revived. That's not to say their relations were always harmonious (see: the Crusades, the heretic hunts, the pogroms), but there was a great deal of intellectual exchange happening between civilizations.
- cities experienced worse poverty and overall living conditions than rural communities due to overcrowding. However, it wasn't necessarily the cesspool it's often depicted as. There were street cleaners and laws that forced people like butchers to work on the outskirts of town. They valued both clean water and hygiene. Regardless, there were multiple plagues and famines.
- depending on what time period you're writing in, churches and castles might have round-arched, shadowy, stable Romanesque architecture or vaulted, high-peaked Gothic architecture with massive stained glass windows. Cathedrals were often the center of a community; their bells signaled the hours of the day, and they served as a gathering places for festivals, feasts, and pilgrims.
- alternative lifestyles: join a holy order. The Templars defended pilgrim roads, the Carthusians lived isolated in the wilderness, the Dominicans believed in education and produced some of the greatest philosophers of the era, the Beguines were independent women communities who wandered cities curing the sick, the Albigensians rejected all physical things and hoped for the cessation of human reproduction (they actually preferred same-sex unions to heterosexual ones because no offspring was produced). However, most of these groups were eventually persecuted by the Church as heretical.
- on the topic of sexuality in the Middle Ages, "sodomy" wasn't really persecuted until the 12th century. By 1300 it was considered a capital offense. Female homosexuality, however, was not seen as a concern or even a possibility, because sex was understood to be a strictly male act. Your medieval lesbian characters could probably fly under the radar. I remember having to read court records from a case of a crossdressing male prostitute who had two different names for his male and female personas; his male patrons claimed to have not known he was a man because he dressed like a woman. Really neat stuff. Also, medieval folks had birth control (herbal methods of aborting a fetus). It was frowned upon, but.
University & Education
- in Italy, by the 14th century about 40% of the population was literate, with the rest of Europe not far behind. Books were very expensive because each copy had to be hand-written.
- the best way to learn about university life back then is to read death records, lmao. The students were young (upwards of fifteen) and lived away from their parents, so they were prone to criminal acts and wanton stupidity. They shared rented accommodations. Students also wrote songs about love, parties, and being broke. Not much has changed.
- masters (professors) rented out classrooms, so the location was always changing. University was only for boys with means. The seven liberal arts they were permitted to study were geometry, astronomy, and math (trivium), and music, grammar, rhetoric, and logic/dialectic (quadrivium). You could obtain a higher degree in theology, medicine, or law. Universities were often the economic backbone of a city, but many merchants hated them beyond that, because their clerical and guild status shielded them from civil law. They were a tightly-knit community that would revolt if they felt like their students were being picked on and move somewhere else, ergo destroying the local economy. So merchants put up with them.
Peasants & Feudalism
- the High Middle Ages (approx. 1000 - 1350) saw a huge population boom, infrastructure and trade development, crop surplus, an increase in literacy/schooling, and an overall more stable government. This is roundabouts when universities were invented and when castle and cathedral construction was at its peak (tldr: the High Middle Ages is a pretty cool time for aristocratic characters)
- although there were also the Crusades. so.
- rural communities in northern Europe were feudal, meaning that the peasants and their fields were presided over by a manor who protected them (in theory) from marauders during wartime (it was often wartime). Historians generally agree that there were three types of peasants: "free" peasants (paid rent for their land), serfs (paid rent and were legally tied to the manor), and cotters (free and comparably richer peasants who lived in cottages with small gardens and only did wage work).
- peasants actually had a lot more independence than most people would assume. They had manorial courts where they could settle disputes and also a fair amount of bargaining power: manorial lords wanted income. They would incentivize peasants to come work their fields by offering them lower rents, lower taxes, and other perks, like time off to celebrate Christian festivals. Their power dynamic was up-and-down until around the 12th century when urban charters were introduced. After this point, merchant oligarchies tended to take over. The rise of guilds allowed the merchant class to participate in local government, control the conditions and prices of goods in their town, keep out competing merchants, and provide social support for one another. Apprentices would start training young and had to pay their master for lodgings and lessons.
- a little bit about living on a manor: not everyone was a farmer. Wealthier peasants served as reeves, haylords, bailiffs, etc. Poorer families were smaller. People didn't tend to get married until their late teens/early twenties. Nobody except the upper class cared about chastity. Sons inherited the land. Peasant homes were made of thatch, reeds, timber, and mud, and could be constructed in one day, so nobody in a rural setting was typically homeless. Animals lived inside to produce heat. People mostly ate ale, meat, and bread. Ale/beer was brewed by women.
Knights
- during times of peace the knights got bored, so feudal lords held fighting tournaments.
- knights started their training young, often living in the household of a wealthier noble family; though only the wealthy could undertake knighthood in the first place, as it was expensive. By the 13th century they were a definite mark of aristocracy. They had chivalrous mock-battles where they would hold each other for ransom. Fighting prowess was seen as a mark of valor.
Kings & Nobility
- kings typically derived their power from "the great chain of being", a belief that they were divinely chosen by god to rule on earth on his behalf. No surprise, they frequently got into it with popes, who thought the same thing of themselves. The king had to curry favour with the Papacy by building churches, because if the pope refused to coronate a king then technically he wasn't the king (which led to ridiculous scenarios like when King Henry IV was excommunicated and dethroned, refused to accept it, begged for forgiveness, was excommunicated again, fled to Italy, elected a "rival pope" and declared himself king, waged war, summoned the Normans to protect him and then watched helplessly as they ran amok and ransacked Italy so badly that he was exiled for a third time).
- kings are often depicted as the central authority, but they spent much of the Middle Ages limited by the contesting powers of wealthy nobles, wealthy merchants and traders, wealthy vassals, and of course, the Church.
- marriage among nobles was a business deal. More territory = more wealth and prestige.
- at one point, wealthy widows actually owned 10% of the land in Europe. In times of siege (and in the absence of their husbands) they were also allowed to assume control of the manors they lived in and conduct battle.
Culture
- Medieval Europe, especially in the 12th century/Renaissance Eras, was quite culturally and ethnically diverse. Jewish and Arabic scholars spearheaded science, math, and architecture. Salerno, Italy, was the cradle of medical advancement. Ancient Greek and Roman texts were revived. That's not to say their relations were always harmonious (see: the Crusades, the heretic hunts, the pogroms), but there was a great deal of intellectual exchange happening between civilizations.
- cities experienced worse poverty and overall living conditions than rural communities due to overcrowding. However, it wasn't necessarily the cesspool it's often depicted as. There were street cleaners and laws that forced people like butchers to work on the outskirts of town. They valued both clean water and hygiene. Regardless, there were multiple plagues and famines.
- depending on what time period you're writing in, churches and castles might have round-arched, shadowy, stable Romanesque architecture or vaulted, high-peaked Gothic architecture with massive stained glass windows. Cathedrals were often the center of a community; their bells signaled the hours of the day, and they served as a gathering places for festivals, feasts, and pilgrims.
- alternative lifestyles: join a holy order. The Templars defended pilgrim roads, the Carthusians lived isolated in the wilderness, the Dominicans believed in education and produced some of the greatest philosophers of the era, the Beguines were independent women communities who wandered cities curing the sick, the Albigensians rejected all physical things and hoped for the cessation of human reproduction (they actually preferred same-sex unions to heterosexual ones because no offspring was produced). However, most of these groups were eventually persecuted by the Church as heretical.
- on the topic of sexuality in the Middle Ages, "sodomy" wasn't really persecuted until the 12th century. By 1300 it was considered a capital offense. Female homosexuality, however, was not seen as a concern or even a possibility, because sex was understood to be a strictly male act. Your medieval lesbian characters could probably fly under the radar. I remember having to read court records from a case of a crossdressing male prostitute who had two different names for his male and female personas; his male patrons claimed to have not known he was a man because he dressed like a woman. Really neat stuff. Also, medieval folks had birth control (herbal methods of aborting a fetus). It was frowned upon, but.
University & Education
- in Italy, by the 14th century about 40% of the population was literate, with the rest of Europe not far behind. Books were very expensive because each copy had to be hand-written.
- the best way to learn about university life back then is to read death records, lmao. The students were young (upwards of fifteen) and lived away from their parents, so they were prone to criminal acts and wanton stupidity. They shared rented accommodations. Students also wrote songs about love, parties, and being broke. Not much has changed.
- masters (professors) rented out classrooms, so the location was always changing. University was only for boys with means. The seven liberal arts they were permitted to study were geometry, astronomy, and math (trivium), and music, grammar, rhetoric, and logic/dialectic (quadrivium). You could obtain a higher degree in theology, medicine, or law. Universities were often the economic backbone of a city, but many merchants hated them beyond that, because their clerical and guild status shielded them from civil law. They were a tightly-knit community that would revolt if they felt like their students were being picked on and move somewhere else, ergo destroying the local economy. So merchants put up with them.
I can elaborate on any of the points if you want me to. Have a nice day as well!
Well, I'll be sure to get a look! Thank you very much!
R.L!~
Hi Yersinia! Thank you as well for the main post, could you please, elaborate on the "except the uper class, nobody really cared about chastity" and what does exactly means chastity at this time? (Only no sexual intercourse, or is it more wide?). It would be a very interesting point to begin with!
Hope to hear you from soon as well!
Cheer,
R.L~
Raven14 wrote:
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
I disagree with this, having both known people coming from privileged backgrounds IRL, having grown up in poverty myself, and having a character who is a former noble. Granted, there will be nobility/aristocracy that fit all of those descriptions, but it doesn't apply to all of them.
Moreso, they can be...blind...to the situations and struggles of the lower classes, because they literally do not know any better. They live in a completely different world, especially if they didn't earn their nobility, but were born into it. If they are the benign kind of noble, they might even try to help those with less resources, but sometimes they can adopt a 'hero' complex in which they want recognition for their charity.
Another thing nobles probably don't consider: some of those people will refuse to accept charity, because it's a knock at their pride, independence and self-worth. They didn't earn their fortune, they borrowed it from a noble, and now they owe said noble, and that's just another burden on a life potentially full of debt and general scarcity.
Just my two cents on the subject. Psych food for thought.
IlexysCrowe wrote:
Raven14 wrote:
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
I disagree with this, having both known people coming from privileged backgrounds IRL, having grown up in poverty myself, and having a character who is a former noble. Granted, there will be nobility/aristocracy that fit all of those descriptions, but it doesn't apply to all of them.
Moreso, they can be...blind...to the situations and struggles of the lower classes, because they literally do not know any better. They live in a completely different world, especially if they didn't earn their nobility, but were born into it. If they are the benign kind of noble, they might even try to help those with less resources, but sometimes they can adopt a 'hero' complex in which they want recognition for their charity.
Another thing nobles probably don't consider: some of those people will refuse to accept charity, because it's a knock at their pride, independence and self-worth. They didn't earn their fortune, they borrowed it from a noble, and now they owe said noble, and that's just another burden on a life potentially full of debt and general scarcity.
Just my two cents on the subject. Psych food for thought.
Well! Hello!
Thank you very much, it was pretty interesting!Would you tell more or have concret example for, example, the hero complex?
Thank you very much!
RedLantern wrote:
IlexysCrowe wrote:
Raven14 wrote:
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
I disagree with this, having both known people coming from privileged backgrounds IRL, having grown up in poverty myself, and having a character who is a former noble. Granted, there will be nobility/aristocracy that fit all of those descriptions, but it doesn't apply to all of them.
Moreso, they can be...blind...to the situations and struggles of the lower classes, because they literally do not know any better. They live in a completely different world, especially if they didn't earn their nobility, but were born into it. If they are the benign kind of noble, they might even try to help those with less resources, but sometimes they can adopt a 'hero' complex in which they want recognition for their charity.
Another thing nobles probably don't consider: some of those people will refuse to accept charity, because it's a knock at their pride, independence and self-worth. They didn't earn their fortune, they borrowed it from a noble, and now they owe said noble, and that's just another burden on a life potentially full of debt and general scarcity.
Just my two cents on the subject. Psych food for thought.
Well! Hello!
Thank you very much, it was pretty interesting!Would you tell more or have concret example for, example, the hero complex?
Thank you very much!
Sure thing!
Hero complex usually develops in people who have a degree of power over other people (this doesn't just apply to nobles and higher-class characters, but also characters who are, say...nurses, doctors, police officers, firefighters, etc.), and they crave the glory and recognition they get for 'saving the day'. Sometimes, they even create these desperate situations to ensure that they have a chance to show off their heroism.
For a real-world example: there was an ex-army doctor in the UK (I can't remember his name) with hero complex who would overdose his patients and then raise an alarm to the rest of the E.R. as he 'miraculously' saved the patient from certain death, because he knew exactly what the problem was, when no one else was in on it.
In the case of a noble, or someone very powerful and wealthy, they might tax a neighborhood to death and causes all kinds of poverty and strife. Soon after, said noble will go through this neighborhood, voicing his concern for these people and even giving them a bit of gold to help them get by, stroking his ego with their 'thank yous' and 'you've saved my life', and getting a generally good rep from the people living there. But none of them know that he was the one who put the ordinance through, and he doesn't want them to know...because then he can keep coming back to this neighborhood and playing the hero and stroking his ego and improving his reputation, to the point where they would support him being in charge of things for a number of years!
I hope that makes sense?
IlexysCrowe wrote:
RedLantern wrote:
IlexysCrowe wrote:
Raven14 wrote:
I feel they would be greedy stubborn an or selfish
I disagree with this, having both known people coming from privileged backgrounds IRL, having grown up in poverty myself, and having a character who is a former noble. Granted, there will be nobility/aristocracy that fit all of those descriptions, but it doesn't apply to all of them.
Moreso, they can be...blind...to the situations and struggles of the lower classes, because they literally do not know any better. They live in a completely different world, especially if they didn't earn their nobility, but were born into it. If they are the benign kind of noble, they might even try to help those with less resources, but sometimes they can adopt a 'hero' complex in which they want recognition for their charity.
Another thing nobles probably don't consider: some of those people will refuse to accept charity, because it's a knock at their pride, independence and self-worth. They didn't earn their fortune, they borrowed it from a noble, and now they owe said noble, and that's just another burden on a life potentially full of debt and general scarcity.
Just my two cents on the subject. Psych food for thought.
Well! Hello!
Thank you very much, it was pretty interesting!Would you tell more or have concret example for, example, the hero complex?
Thank you very much!
Sure thing!
Hero complex usually develops in people who have a degree of power over other people (this doesn't just apply to nobles and higher-class characters, but also characters who are, say...nurses, doctors, police officers, firefighters, etc.), and they crave the glory and recognition they get for 'saving the day'. Sometimes, they even create these desperate situations to ensure that they have a chance to show off their heroism.
For a real-world example: there was an ex-army doctor in the UK (I can't remember his name) with hero complex who would overdose his patients and then raise an alarm to the rest of the E.R. as he 'miraculously' saved the patient from certain death, because he knew exactly what the problem was, when no one else was in on it.
In the case of a noble, or someone very powerful and wealthy, they might tax a neighborhood to death and causes all kinds of poverty and strife. Soon after, said noble will go through this neighborhood, voicing his concern for these people and even giving them a bit of gold to help them get by, stroking his ego with their 'thank yous' and 'you've saved my life', and getting a generally good rep from the people living there. But none of them know that he was the one who put the ordinance through, and he doesn't want them to know...because then he can keep coming back to this neighborhood and playing the hero and stroking his ego and improving his reputation, to the point where they would support him being in charge of things for a number of years!
I hope that makes sense?
Yes, it does very make sense! (And it is horrible.) xD Dear Lord.
Well I heard about something like tgat long ago in a fictionnal criminal Tv serie and they had called the "Angel of death" complex or something akin, I do get what you mean.
Well, how about divine beliefs, would you have some ideas on how, for example, someone who hace litteraly everything they would desire, still beliece in some kind of divine mecanism.
They have all their needs fufilled, affective, physical, e.t.c, but somehow how could he still believe in a provider god or exterior source of benefit than the means he can raise to achieve or obtains such goals?
I try to create as much differents possibility as possible (but quite lacking in the ressources departement) and thr idea of how, for example, a young noble would react about a sayibg like "But all things good on earth comes from a God" or anything involving the developpement of such a belief.
Well, I'm getting a bit out of the topic but it will certainly improve some things!
The difficulty is I try to stay as much as possible close to real life, and I don't got any old nobility or royalty to ask about how they might live or feel day to day. :
:Well, all I got is imagination, but it's still really a gold and appreciated ressource to have real-life fact or brewage to full those cases.
I gladly thank you again,
R.L~
My two cents:
Royals and nobles, just like any other group, are made up of individuals, and those individuals are typically heavily influenced by their environment and circumstances.
First, choose what time and place most closely matches the setting you want to make your nobles exist in, and research what the actual wealth, rights, responsibilities and social life nobles in that place were like.
You will usually find that some took very seriously the idea of noblesse oblige, others who are deeply religious, others who are capricious and arrogant and cruel, still others who are mediocre lumps that do little of note in any regard. But, you'll also see how their culture influenced them, and what the general common trends were in those instances.
If you want to craft a realistic cast of noble characters, I would say pick an average baseline, and then give them all individual variance from that starting place.
Royals and nobles, just like any other group, are made up of individuals, and those individuals are typically heavily influenced by their environment and circumstances.
First, choose what time and place most closely matches the setting you want to make your nobles exist in, and research what the actual wealth, rights, responsibilities and social life nobles in that place were like.
You will usually find that some took very seriously the idea of noblesse oblige, others who are deeply religious, others who are capricious and arrogant and cruel, still others who are mediocre lumps that do little of note in any regard. But, you'll also see how their culture influenced them, and what the general common trends were in those instances.
If you want to craft a realistic cast of noble characters, I would say pick an average baseline, and then give them all individual variance from that starting place.
RedLantern wrote:
Yes, it does very make sense! (And it is horrible.) xD Dear Lord.
Well I heard about something like tgat long ago in a fictionnal criminal Tv serie and they had called the "Angel of death" complex or something akin, I do get what you mean.
Well, how about divine beliefs, would you have some ideas on how, for example, someone who hace litteraly everything they would desire, still beliece in some kind of divine mecanism.
They have all their needs fufilled, affective, physical, e.t.c, but somehow how could he still believe in a provider god or exterior source of benefit than the means he can raise to achieve or obtains such goals?
I try to create as much differents possibility as possible (but quite lacking in the ressources departement) and thr idea of how, for example, a young noble would react about a sayibg like "But all things good on earth comes from a God" or anything involving the developpement of such a belief.
Well, I'm getting a bit out of the topic but it will certainly improve some things!
The difficulty is I try to stay as much as possible close to real life, and I don't got any old nobility or royalty to ask about how they might live or feel day to day. ::
Well, all I got is imagination, but it's still really a gold and appreciated ressource to have real-life fact or brewage to full those cases.
I gladly thank you again,
R.L~
Well I heard about something like tgat long ago in a fictionnal criminal Tv serie and they had called the "Angel of death" complex or something akin, I do get what you mean.
Well, how about divine beliefs, would you have some ideas on how, for example, someone who hace litteraly everything they would desire, still beliece in some kind of divine mecanism.
They have all their needs fufilled, affective, physical, e.t.c, but somehow how could he still believe in a provider god or exterior source of benefit than the means he can raise to achieve or obtains such goals?
I try to create as much differents possibility as possible (but quite lacking in the ressources departement) and thr idea of how, for example, a young noble would react about a sayibg like "But all things good on earth comes from a God" or anything involving the developpement of such a belief.
Well, I'm getting a bit out of the topic but it will certainly improve some things!
The difficulty is I try to stay as much as possible close to real life, and I don't got any old nobility or royalty to ask about how they might live or feel day to day. :
:Well, all I got is imagination, but it's still really a gold and appreciated ressource to have real-life fact or brewage to full those cases.
I gladly thank you again,
R.L~
Well...I could address this one from a few angles:
1) Provided your nobles are mortal and not deities themselves, they are going to die. Even if your noble character has everything they could possibly want in the world, it'll all be taken away from them when they die. Being religious or believing in a god usually takes the sting of uncertainty out of this, and that's what said noble character gets out of having such beliefs.
2) There can be a psychological/emotional deficit they are trying to fill. If your noble character is in perfect mental health and literally wants for nothing (which is borderline inhuman, if you ask me), then they probably aren't going to care about the divine. Unless they feel that--despite perceiving that they have everything they could possibly have in the world--they are still unhappy...because there is something that they want that they can't get with all the resources in the world, and said divinity fills that void for them.
3) They're lying. I have a couple OCs like this, where they outwardly revere divinity, but behind the scenes, it's just politics and smoke and mirrors while they are going against all the tenants they claim to uphold, because they're powerful, they have everything, and they want everything, even though that's not the 'right' way to be.
EDIT:
4) Additionally, they could just have a personal appreciation of the 'work' said deity has done in the world.
RedLantern wrote:
could you please, elaborate on the "except the uper class, nobody really cared about chastity" and what does exactly means chastity at this time? (Only no sexual intercourse, or is it more wide?). It would be a very interesting point to begin with!
Yersinia wrote:
RedLantern wrote:
could you please, elaborate on the "except the uper class, nobody really cared about chastity" and what does exactly means chastity at this time? (Only no sexual intercourse, or is it more wide?). It would be a very interesting point to begin with!
Welk, was not it as well for mens?
What kind of struggles or problem peasants would have to worry about? What about the upper-class/nobility/royalty?
You're a golden mine! 😆
RedLantern wrote:
Welk, was not it as well for mens?
What kind of struggles or problem peasants would have to worry about? What about the upper-class/nobility/royalty?
You're a golden mine! 😆
What kind of struggles or problem peasants would have to worry about? What about the upper-class/nobility/royalty?
You're a golden mine! 😆
For peasants, war was a constant threat. Marauders would sweep through their villages and disrupt their work by destroying everything. Siege warfare was big at the time, which manors were equipped to deal with. Plagues came and went all through the Middle Ages. There were also a couple of "Mini Ice Ages" where the climate changed so suddenly and drastically that their crops were ruined. It was a hard life.
The upper-class could have, in a sense, more complex problems. Wealthy merchants and traders would compete with one another for dominance. The king's vassals (the landowners/manor lords) could sometimes become too wealthy and have vassals of their own (this was called subinfeudation), which created power imbalances and potentially threatened the king's authority. Landowners also had to worry about appeasing their peasant population; as mercantilism and markets developed, peasants began unifying into a powerful economic force (through guilds and such). If they overtaxed their peasants they would riot and sometimes kill their oppressors.
Glad to hear I can help, lmao.
Yersinia wrote:
RedLantern wrote:
Welk, was not it as well for mens?
What kind of struggles or problem peasants would have to worry about? What about the upper-class/nobility/royalty?
You're a golden mine! 😆
What kind of struggles or problem peasants would have to worry about? What about the upper-class/nobility/royalty?
You're a golden mine! 😆
For peasants, war was a constant threat. Marauders would sweep through their villages and disrupt their work by destroying everything. Siege warfare was big at the time, which manors were equipped to deal with. Plagues came and went all through the Middle Ages. There were also a couple of "Mini Ice Ages" where the climate changed so suddenly and drastically that their crops were ruined. It was a hard life.
The upper-class could have, in a sense, more complex problems. Wealthy merchants and traders would compete with one another for dominance. The king's vassals (the landowners/manor lords) could sometimes become too wealthy and have vassals of their own (this was called subinfeudation), which created power imbalances and potentially threatened the king's authority. Landowners also had to worry about appeasing their peasant population; as mercantilism and markets developed, peasants began unifying into a powerful economic force (through guilds and such). If they overtaxed their peasants they would riot and sometimes kill their oppressors.
Glad to hear I can help, lmao.
Well, it help sketch a lot, and I love historu.
How a peasant would feel? What kind of lives would they lead? Does it happen that sometimes, a wealthy peasant get their sons or daughter to be apprentice of something, be a scholar("study") (not apprenticeship like blacksmith) or knighthood?
Do you have story of peasants lives, differents kind of peasants/peasants sons/daughter, who did something else than being peasant? Well, I'm very glad to talk to you!
You are on: Forums » RP Discussion » How to roleplay royalty or nobility?
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus