Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Akisa 01-20-08, 05:08 PM	Here a character concept I would like to play (no campaign yet) as a bard. Any critiques could be useful... Loran was the sole heiress to the throne and every day of her life was structured to groom her for the throne. Loran was trained in the art of diplomacy and the art of deception along with magical training. Although Loran had little aptitude in the arcane arts and showed very little improvement throughout her years despite her constant forced training and above average intelligence. Loran slowly learned by focusing through her ocarina she could cast spells although not as strong as wizards who studied as much as her. Loran hated her life being so restrictive and did not look forward to ruling the throne, until she finally managed to escape the eyes of her body guards and the palace itself after learning her farther arranged her to marry for political reasons. In the outside world she experienced culture shock, and saw how the common folk lived. Loran quickly adopted the name of Liku and disguised herself as one of the common folks before quickly leaving town. Although she was still in hiding and discarded her royal clothing Liku kept her ocarina not as item for her to cast spells but as a memento to her past. I’m going to use Melodic Casting (Although I don’t have the book in front of me so I don’t know the requirements), and I’m not sure on my second feat. As for skills I’m thinking Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Perform, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Tumble and UMD.
Lichtouch 01-20-08, 06:06 PM	What's most important is whether or not your DM accepts this. My own input, however, is that the runaway princess concept is old and tired - but if done well, it can be brilliant. What exactly was the reason behind her running away? Was she selfish and didn't want the responsibility? Did she not want to lead such a corrupt system? Does she want to fight such corruption personally? If I were you, I would have her as a selfish character who is obviously rather spoiled - but slowly and surely adapts and accepts responsiblity. To represent such a rebellious and selfish character, try out either true neutral or chaotic neutral. A good or a lawful character would probably just accept the responsibility and try to be as fair a leader as possible. Don't allow her to start out as a saint who treats everyone fairly and enjoys the simpler life amongst peasants. Such is the path to a Mary Sue. The path that you should avoid.
I_roll_ones 01-20-08, 06:18 PM	Agreed with Lichtouch. Expand, and avoid the saint. Not only should you think of why she ran off, but what sort of nobility she is. How much richer are the nobles then the peasants? In many feudal systems, child mortality and starvation was pretty frequent among the lower classes, while the higher ones lazed around. Where is she on the ladder, and what responsibilities(if any) do the nobility have to the peasants? What keeps them in power? Bloodlines alone, or priests, or ability to lead? Secondly, how does magic play in with the social class? Is it considered a valuable skill for nobles? Or are the common classes banned from learning it? Or was she low on the totem pole, and had to learn a trade(in this case, magic) to help support her family, or to have them advance in the ranks? Third, have you considered the Beguiler class from PHBII? Emphasis on skills and domination/mind-effecting magic. Slightly different favor, so I would also think about how perform(This is a bard, right?) affects her. Is it a low and base activity? Do only commoners dance for the entertainment of the nobles? Or would it be something she has learned to please her husband(to be?) And remember...She's profiting off of a system that says that the lower classes have to pay the nobles for the privilege of ruling over them, or that the lower classes have no rights. The saint noble doesn't work with feudal systems often.
Akisa 01-20-08, 06:48 PM	Well first I have to know which campaign I'm going to join before I could work on the finner details for social grace. But now I'm thinking of having run away from dicatorship and/or prehaps an area where the queen was just figurehead and doesn't want her rest of her life decided for her. But then how do I describe how she learn magic? As for how does magic play into social class? well that depends on the campaign as there is no way I could answer that. For Beguiler no thanks I'm going to focus on support, as for Knight or Marshal they don't look attractive for me.
I_roll_ones 01-20-08, 07:51 PM	Beguilers can be support. Oh look. All of the enemies are blinded...Hum de hum, fighter go take care of those. Or, I'll dominate one to make it so we have less to fight! If you do go the wanting to be free to make her own decisions...I'd make her very selfish. She's in a position of comfort and power above most others, and yet she wants MORE. She's not starving, she's not desperate, and if a tradtional queen in the Europeon sense, she's surrounded by wealth and luxury. And if you don't want your heir to be charmed, teach them magic to recongize the signs and to be wary of it and to recongize it. If magic means status, then the princess would have the best tutors the queen can possibly get. Got less scruples? Then charm others into making alliances and deals with the kingdom to your benefit. Dominate peasants to see if any uprisings exist, and smoosh the rebels!
Akisa 01-20-08, 08:09 PM	Anyway not to have her selfish?
I_roll_ones 01-20-08, 08:25 PM	I would say to have a non-self oriented reason to leave, taking in account her lot in life. Maybe her kingdom got smooshed, or it wasn't voluntary to leave her lifestyle. Maybe assassins came after her, and she's now in hiding. Maybe an enemy kingdom attacked. Maybe she seeks to do some good with a quest, and for some reason, only she can go. However, this would be hard, as you need some reason why she couldn't get some minion to do it instead.
Akisa 01-20-08, 08:47 PM	How about this... She was a princess of an evil kingdom that oppresses people and often sneaked out the palace to aid the people. When she learned that she would be arranged to marry who follows her father's philosophy for political reasons and her father starts to crack down on her saying it's better to be feared then love, so she decides to leave. As for magical training she could of study on her own without someone to guide her and picked up music as hobby.
I_roll_ones 01-20-08, 09:07 PM	And no one noticed that she had a spellbook? Many wizards have detect magic, and any evil overlord will have that going in his castle. Secondly, she's not alone enough to pratice. Daddy might have allowed her to do it, so that once she took over(Unless Daddy is a sexist pig) she would have a form of power, and encouraged her to learn spells. Dancing might be a sort of a hobby, and perhaps Daddy figured that he would both have her be able to entice a hubby(dancing) and have power of her own. Maybe he wanted her to dispose of the hubby, or figured that a strong woman would have strong kids. As for the idea...Remember that a goody goody two shoes with no flaws isn't much of a character. I would define her sense of morality a bit more, (Alignment? Goals? Acceptable practices?) and what event lead her to not be as evil as Daddy. Maybe even have her start off as neutral, and have to get used to the idea of good and selfishness, or be questioning what she believes in, and then slowly turn to good. And what made her less evil, despite her upbringing? Where is her mother? What happened to her? Did she have any friends?
The_Shaman 01-21-08, 05:02 AM	Here a character concept I would like to play (no campaign yet) as a bard. Any critiques could be useful... Loran was the sole heiress to the throne and every day of her life was structured to groom her for the throne. Loran was trained in the art of diplomacy and the art of deception along with magical training. Although Loran had little aptitude in the arcane arts and showed very little improvement throughout her years despite her constant forced training and above average intelligence. Loran slowly learned by focusing through her ocarina she could cast spells although not as strong as wizards who studied as much as her. Loran hated her life being so restrictive and did not look forward to ruling the throne, until she finally managed to escape the eyes of her body guards and the palace itself after learning her farther arranged her to marry for political reasons. In the outside world she experienced culture shock, and saw how the common folk lived. Loran quickly adopted the name of Liku and disguised herself as one of the common folks before quickly leaving town. Although she was still in hiding and discarded her royal clothing Liku kept her ocarina not as item for her to cast spells but as a memento to her past. I’m going to use Melodic Casting (Although I don’t have the book in front of me so I don’t know the requirements), and I’m not sure on my second feat. As for skills I’m thinking Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Perform, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Tumble and UMD. Kinda bland, as it is. Unlike the others, I'd say it's not a big problem if she is really good, but even then she should have a distinct personality. Make sure she has things she likes and dislikes, some failings (she is human, after all) and further describe what has happened to her. For example, just what was involved in that culture shock when she exited high society? She probably has a single moment that shook her the most. Did she see violence? Poverty and famine? A particularly ugly side of squalor? This event, alone and as a symbol of what she was going through, has impacted her personality a lot. How did she react to it? Was there a lot of soul-searching? Immediate response? Withdrawal and denial, from which someone - or something - broke her away from? At some point, as others have said, she needed to pass from a fairly haughty (she was a princess, after all) self-absorbed girl to a responsilble and caring young woman. This could have happened before the story started, or afterwards, but no one is born exalted. Well, except celestials, maybe. Anyway, what alignment is the character going to be?
CrimsonDeath 01-21-08, 01:27 PM	Anyone here ever play Baldur's Gate 2? One of the recruitable NPCs in that game (Nalia?) is a "runaway noble". She ran away because she was being forced into a marriage with a man she not only didn't love, but didn't agree with politically (and since he'd become the new head of her house...) There's also the fact that she enjoyed hanging out with peasants-- "slumming", basically. She wanted to help the peasants when she was around them, but she didn't really have a clear idea how. She also wound up accidentally giving them backhanded compliments. You could try using any or all of these ideas, possibly in conjunction with suggestions made above.
The_Shaman 01-23-08, 08:54 AM	Technically, I don't think she was a runaway unless you did her quest and were not a fighter... When you meet her at the tavern, she was looking for mercenaries to save her castle and lands, after all.
true_shinken 01-24-08, 09:46 PM	Technically, I don't think she was a runaway unless you did her quest and were not a fighter... When you meet her at the tavern, she was looking for mercenaries to save her castle and lands, after all. She used to run away constantly from her castle, that's how she got those (lame) thieving skills.
The_Shaman 01-25-08, 08:07 PM	Yep, but that was just slumming, not being an actual runaway like the character here. YMMV, of course.
JulesCARV 01-26-08, 02:06 AM	Why do children run away from their families? Royal heiresses may have their own reasons most people don't face like forced marriages, but they could face the more common reasons too. Maybe since she was slow at learning magic, her father was emotionally abusive, and denigrated her as a worthless, stupid girl, and said horrible things ("You imbecile! Would that you had caught the Red Blindness and died instead of Rekkerd -- he was a true son who was already beginning to understand wizardry when he died at age six!"). Heck, he might even have been physically abusive, although that's not necessary. It needn't be that she's selfish or irresponsible, nor need she be a saint who forsake royalty out of empathy for the common people. It could be that she just runs away from her family for reasons that any other child might run away from her family, without any special regard for her royal status.
Giradius 01-26-08, 12:31 PM	One possible motivation for running away could be simply...boredom. If she is the daughter of a ruler, then she will be surrounded by servants, sycophants, hangers on, and all other variety of shallow "yes men". Also for her own safety she would be kept either inside the palace away from danger (or too keep her away from any unsuitable experiences or ideas), you would live in a sterile bubble. Imagine the frustration, you are inteligent and creative, and every conversation you have with your maids or ladies in waiting and they always agree with you, hate what you hate, like what you like. The few intelegent and willful people in the palace would probably not have anything to do with you, the court wizard for instance secretly has nothing but contempt for spoilt family who rule purely through accident of birth but is either too well paid or has no choice but to serve, The other nobles would avoid her lest her daddy get suspicious of their intentions and have them executed, her chastity would be protected with gusto so he can marry her off to someone for political reasons. the character concept is a little cliched but I personally love a cliche, wizards should have long white beards and staffs, barbarians should be dumb brutes, and all princesses should run away at least once in their lives :D.
Alkaru 01-28-08, 06:03 PM	Gah - what's with all the hate for feudalism? These are valid views of how it could be portrayed in a fantasy setting but when you look at the broader picture there are many more options. Nobility and royalty often had to work very hard - leading from the front was demanded in many cultures. In martial cultures for instance it would reasonable to assume that any potential heir had suitable training for battle and leadership. This would also apply to magical battles - competance is demanded as a bare minimum. Nobility in a lot of periods had to be earned with children of existing of nobles getting a easier time quite often - but some families would fight hard against the younger generation getting soft. Wealth - the level of wealth in a society can be quite variable - before refrigeration famines were common for all levels of society. Doesn't matter how much money if you if there is no food to be bought. Given the way magic works in D&D this is unlikely to be quite such a big issue. Rather than boredom I'd say a more likely problem is struggling to live up to expectations. Or maybe fearing for her life she had to run away from enemies - in politics no-one cares about picking on stuff way beneath them in level..... Also alignment issues of her versus her family - she was too nice to like her scheming family - or her family was shocked at her devious plans.
I_roll_ones 01-29-08, 12:41 AM	Well, nobles did often use slave labor. Think those peasants stayed put all on their own? NO! You had to get the knights to rough them up a bit. If a noble chooses to be evil, the peasants have no choice but to follow, or resist, which was HIGHLY dangerous given their poverty. When do peasants have an option to say "No, I don't think I'll follow you, Kingy". And sure, one or two might have been nice. But many have lived in luxury while the children of serfs starved to death and disease was rampant. And what gives nobles the right to such luxury? Oh, boo boo. You work 8 hours a day. The peasants had to work from dawn to dusk quite frequently, and often had to till the lands of their lords in addition, possibly with a tax as well. There is also the fact that in many societies the king could indiscriminately kill lower classes with no trial. Oh look. That peasant has a katana! Kill it! Sure, you COULD have a good feudal system. But going off of history, it's going to be VERY rare. Absolute(Or close) power in a monarch, a heavily regimented class structure, a life of decadence for the upper classes while the lower ones are dirt poor, the inability to leave the system, and little to no legal rights for serfs who are in essence, slaves isn't going to be leading to a happy kingdom with a goodly king. And unless a blight destroys ALL food(If so, then the kingdom isn't awful, just dead), then the king can buy it. He(Or queen) could even pass a law that all food must be given to the palace. Send out the well fed guards, and tada. Trade with outside countries, hunting and some crops will survive. The peasants might have been dependent on wheat, potatoes, or rice, but the nobility typically enjoys a hearty diet with plenty of variety. For the nobility to starve, not only must the main crop be gone, but all fish and game and every other crop, as well as trade with outside sources. And remember the French Revolution? Let them eat cake? Wheat prices were out of reach for the commoners, but the nobles were fine. Also recall that a serf might not have a lot of money, if a barter system is common in rural areas, or if they only grow enough for the lords and to feed themselves. So a noble can eat well when the peasants starve.
JulesCARV 01-29-08, 02:36 AM	Hmm... I'm no fan of feudalism, I_roll_ones, but your description seems to fit more with an Enlightenment-era absolute monarchy like 17-18th century France or Prussia than with old-fashioned medieval feudalism. Monarch with absolute authority? Lazy, decadent nobles? That could all happen in a D&D game, since an absolute monarchy could happen in a D&D game, but it sounds, perhaps, half-feudal.
Giradius 01-29-08, 08:32 AM	I am personally all for pyramid structures and social classes, the idea of an elite ruling doesnt bother me (in fact I would embrace it provided the elite were a worthy group). But the problem of feudalism is that the class structure was based on accident of birth, and this notion was defended for the most part by religion and culture (take Henry VIII and the divine right of kings, as well as the Chinese mandate of heaven, In Britain there is still a monarch and although she weilds no political power she lives in luxury, is fabulously wealthy and has done nothing to earn it other than being born, few people would accept this as fair if you asked someone in the USA or any other republic, yet in britain there are still people who think the monarchy should carry on and keep receiving tax money from the government). The french revolution where impoverished half starved peasants defeated the rich aristocracy who controlled the military and even defeated the might of the catholic church, every revolution like it in history has shown that it is the people who are always in charge, there is no such thing as the oppressed masses, the masses merely allow themselves to be oppressed because propoganda in the form of religious and cultural indoctrination teach them that it is the correct order of things (sayings like "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven" reinforce the notion that poverty leads to virtue and virtue is more rewarding and thus be satisfied with your place). The Idea that a D&D is a politically correct, democratic, equal opportunities world is something i find quite odd, It is based on medieval europe which was anything but fair or democratic, look at the modern western world! more democratic, and PC than the world has ever been before and yet religious/racial tensions still exist, sexism is for the most part a thing of the past but does still happen, all this is happening now in our enlightened modern world, add demihumans to the mix and watch the fireworks, If humans cant get on with other humans of the same nation then what will happen when nonhumans come to live there, someones kid goes missing so the town goes and lynches the first half orc they find, a finely crafted weopon is left at the scene of a murder, they burndown the local dwarves forge because he must have done it, we must remember that during this kind of period the peasantry were landlocked, never travelling more than 10 miles from where they were born and where they will die, they would not be open minded with broad experience of the world, anything strange would be scary and threatening to them, and so I think that Ravenloft with its outsider rating is a good idea for all campaigns. so with that in mind I think that the idea of a spirited and inteligent young noble woman who knows her fate is to be married off to a man 3 times her age, be a target for the rivals assasin, never have a say in what happens in her household other than what kind of tapestrys should be hung in the great hall and live her life as trophy would probably rather take her chances in the real world (be that a good idea or not). (by the way the little rant doesnt make me a communist :D)
I_roll_ones 01-29-08, 01:31 PM	Hmm... I'm no fan of feudalism, I_roll_ones, but your description seems to fit more with an Enlightenment-era absolute monarchy like 17-18th century France or Prussia than with old-fashioned medieval feudalism. Monarch with absolute authority? Lazy, decadent nobles? That could all happen in a D&D game, since an absolute monarchy could happen in a D&D game, but it sounds, perhaps, half-feudal. Serfs were middle ages, actually. Divine Mandate(China) is far earlier. Divine Right of Kings happened in England as early as 1371, but happened MUCH earlier in Rome and other civilizations. "Feudal" can mean many things, but many times feudal kings held all, if not most of the power. The rest was in the nobles, and the peasants had none. (Hence, serfs, or slavery based on birth)
CrimsonDeath 01-29-08, 01:44 PM	Well, nobles did often use slave labor. Think those peasants stayed put all on their own? Pretty much, yeah. I mean, where are they going to go? All they know how to do is farm (or herd sheep, or whatever it is they do for a living). And then there's the fact that their parents lived there, and so did their parents, and theirs, and on and on... So where are they going to go? A neighboring lord's territory, where all the land is already occupied by people just like them?
JulesCARV 01-29-08, 04:16 PM	Serfs were middle ages, actually. Divine Mandate(China) is far earlier. Divine Right of Kings happened in England as early as 1371, but happened MUCH earlier in Rome and other civilizations. "Feudal" can mean many things, but many times feudal kings held all, if not most of the power. The rest was in the nobles, and the peasants had none. (Hence, serfs, or slavery based on birth) It seems to me that if feudalism means anything, it must mean that regional governors don't serve at the pleasure of the central monarchy, but rather have an independent legal right to rule their demesne and command their vassals. (A vassal who rebelled against a feudal king may have been legally wrong, but his vassals were legally right in following him and would have been legally wrong to disobey and side with the king -- their legal obligations were not to the king.) Rome wasn't like that -- at least, not until the Byzantine empire was conquered by crusaders who "feudalized" it, and the Byzantine empire can only loosely be considered "Rome" since it didn't include Rome itself or anything. China wasn't like that -- in times when regional warlords held their lands independently, it was because there was no central authority. When there was a central authority, the governors served at the pleasure of the central monarchy. England? Well, of course, England was never all that feudal, never had a strong central monarchy, and never had its nobility forcibly reigned in by a Richilieu figure. So England seems to be a mediocre example of feudalism and of absolutist enlightened despotism.