Noble Guild

[Twilight]

Was reading along in the thread about City Elves and the ranger guild.  Reading a response to my comment about nobles, I thought...why not a noble guild?

Starting skills:

Contact
Barrier
Duel Wield
Two Handed
Shield Use
Flee
Listen
Watch

Branched Skills
Scan
parry
peek
poison?
value

This would be the base guild.  In addition, there would be two overlays.  The first would be the normal subguilds.  The second would be a list of House specific skills.  So, for example, unless you were Lyksae or Tor, you might only get one or two weapon skills depending on your House, while the combat oriented Houses got a potentially expanded list to choose from.   So, a Tor might get:

Ride
Weapon skills
rescue
guard
Choose three of: skin, bandage, kick, bash, disarm, archery, throw

A Fale, on the other hand, might get pilot, instrument making, slieght of hand, hide...skills the House might teach as part of the noble's background.

Not that I expect it to get implemented, just a randomish idea.

[mansa]

I thought there was a noble guild?

[HammerofJericho]

It's a neat idea, but I feel it would require a bit more work than wanted on the staff side.

[jstorrie]

It seems like it would not really be a ton of work to designate a few new skill sets. I don't think they should be nearly as stacked as what you're suggesting, though, Twilight. Nobles should basically just start as merchants without crafting skills, and only have higher caps on whichever skills their House has educated them in. Beyond that, subguild takes care of everything. Noble houses often have different sorts of 'jobs' their nobles do, but I've never got the impression that nobles within the same house got specialized 'education paths' or anything. So you have a barebones, stripped-down base guild, a number of scripts which add a few skills and boost a few caps depending on House, and they get a subguild.

As it stands nobles have weird skillsets which often seem to encourage weird play. You have abilities that don't make a lot of sense given your upbringing, and because some of those branch into neat things you also have some impetus to go out and do them repeatedly. It should in my opinion be a lot harder to be the 'tomboy noble' who goes out and gets his hands dirty; why would a Tor be good at crafting furniture, or a Uaptal carpentry, or a Kassigarh stealth? A noble class subtly encourages play which is more consistent with the docs, and also removes some of the frustration of being saddled with a skill set you can't properly advance or utilize.

[Cutthroat]

I thought there was a noble guild?

No, although staff might restrict certain noble Houses to certain guilds.

As for the proposed idea, I don't think it's necessary. Staff already ask noble players to pick certain guilds that will make sense for their upbringing. If I recall correctly, the most recent Tor call specifically asked for warriors, rangers, or maybe assassins. The staff could decide if the chosen subguild is appropriate. I also think that for every House, there is at least one mundane guild that makes sense for a noble to be, but sometimes it is two, three or more, and several subguilds make sense too. If no guild fits your noble PC quite right, you could try to special-app a custom skillset.

Lastly, at least when it comes to Tuluki nobles, and this bit of the Northern Nobility documentation:

Further, many nobles hold to the self-reliance that they were forced to develop to survive. Some maintain strength at arms, others pursue crafts with their own hands, while yet others hunt or even garden themselves. The Noble Caste is not above such activities since they are what kept them alive post-Cataclysm (sometimes referred to as the Scattering) and during the Occupation.

It can be argued that just about any mundane skill-set is possible for a Tuluki noble.

[Nyr]

I thought there was a noble guild?

Actually, yes, but it is incomplete; there are also a series of noble subguilds that did manage to work their way in-game a couple of times before whomever assigned them realized these were meant to be paired with the incomplete noble guild.

[brytta.leofa]

I'd give Allanaki nobles the defensive city-sneak skills, but not the offensive ones:
   sneak, hide, listen, watch, search, peek, palm, slip, but not
   scan, hunt, pick, plant, poison, sap, backstab

Southern nobles should get no combat skills unless they're in House Tor.  Nor should they get any wilderness skills.  We might wish it were otherwise, but they simply do not Get Messy like that.

[Thunkkin]

I'd give Allanaki nobles the defensive city-sneak skills, but not the offensive ones:
   sneak, hide, listen, watch, search, peek, palm, slip, but not
   scan, hunt, pick, plant, poison, sap, backstab

I dunno.  Do nobles have bad eye-sight?  Are they incapable of learning about poisons - even though they're literate and might have more resources to learn than the average commoner?  Why not steal?  Can they not surreptitiously grab something off the ground as they pretend to buckle their silk sandal?  Just because you're rich doesn't mean that you didn't grow up a selfish little thief around the estate who enjoys taking things just for the perverse thrill of taking things.  Is a noble brat who enjoys stealing things from the servants, just to persecute them, so unimaginable?

Making nobles into one class is far too limiting, in my opinion.  Nyr's post, however, is very intriguing.  A basic noble skillset with noble-only subguilds that can reflect different life experiences / proclivities sounds just fine and dandy.  Though frankly, I don't see the big problem with nobles having the normal mundane guilds.  I've had plenty of non-noble characters that didn't use every skill on their list.  I've had non-noble characters who had to occasionally do some odd things because a skill that they branched was very relevant to the character concept but the skill that started the branch was not.  I don't see how any of these things are exclusive to nobles.  I suppose I'm a proponent of MORE options rather than fewer.

[Twilight]

I guess my take was that all nobles should have (beyond those few skills every single character gets) political skills.  In my basic guild, this would be watch and listen.  I admit parry was a bad idea for a branched skill.  I view peek as a political skill though, and to a lesser extent scan and value (note how all political skills are there to provide this noble information).  As a deep tier skill, I see poison since...poison is a time honored way for the upper classes to get rid of opponents in the fantasy genre (and the RL genre, in multiple cultures) and thus could be considered political in nature as well.

Everything beyond that would be subclass/House dependent.

[FantasyWriter]

Noble guild = App a guild_merchant that doesn't craft.  You get everything you need.

[hyzhenhok]

Southern nobles should get no combat skills unless they're in House Tor.  Nor should they get any wilderness skills.  We might wish it were otherwise, but they simply do not Get Messy like that.

I'm pretty sure the last Tor noble call asked for either guild_warrior or guild_ranger. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that nobles universally would be this way or that way in terms of what skills they have.

[Thunkkin]

Southern nobles should get no combat skills unless they're in House Tor.  Nor should they get any wilderness skills.  We might wish it were otherwise, but they simply do not Get Messy like that.

I'm pretty sure the last Tor noble call asked for either guild_warrior or guild_ranger. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that nobles universally would be this way or that way in terms of what skills they have.

Have you read Bridge of Birds?  I would play that mud.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yeah, and city elf rangers.

[brytta.leofa]

Southern nobles should get no combat skills unless they're in House Tor.  Nor should they get any wilderness skills.  We might wish it were otherwise, but they simply do not Get Messy like that.

I'm pretty sure the last Tor noble call asked for either guild_warrior or guild_ranger. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that nobles universally would be this way or that way in terms of what skills they have.

("Southern nobles...unless they're in House Tor.") 

I think it's an accurate description of Allanaki nobility to say that, except for that special case (and for templar candidates, who are a whole different issue), there is nothing in the lifestyle that would explain even the starting abilities of a warrior or ranger.  A young Borsail or Valika or Fale does not go outside the city.  He doesn't play with weapons.  He probably doesn't ride.  A young noble who can do what a 0-day warrior can do is a genetic freak...in a segment of the PC population that mostly can't accommodate freakishness; there aren't enough of them and it sticks out.

I'm not criticizin' people for choosing whatever guild with their nobles, just saying that some of them make a very imperfect match for someone who's lived a life of indolence.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Regarding that last post:

For an Oash, actually, I see ranger as a perfectly reasonable starting guild. If for no other reason than 'practical knowledge' of how their vineyards work and the amount of observational skills a ranger has, I could see as a possibility for any person who it was the persona of to be so observant, but especially for a noble, when nobles are known for their scheming and etc.

Even if other things about it don't fit, I do think that there are logical reasons why ranger could fit, at least with an Oash noble, or, up north, a Dasari noble (knowledge of the herbs and plants allegedly used to make cosmetics and etc).

[jhunter]

A noble guild that -most- nobles would use is a great idea. Some specific noble subguilds would be very cool also. Perhaps make one main noble guild, then a subguild for each playable noble house.

[TheSandman]

I don't understand why it's a big issue what guild a noble has. As far as southern nobles go, it seems to me that this is a role that uses an incredibly small amount of need, if any, for coded skills. Just because forage rat is on the list doesn't mean you have to use it.

On the flip side, it is likely that nobles will have some interests/hobbies to pursue. Some may be coded skills (swordsmanship, basketweaving, brewing, and so on) while others might be noncoded (philosophy, collecting whatever types of items, engineering) and so on. In the world of Zalanthas, a noble would have a lot of free time and probably will pick up a hobby.

Let people play what they want, as long as it stays within the guidelines of the documents and makes sense. Should Lord Jal be trying to spar with every private of his personal guard? Probably not. Could he study with his pal Lady Tor? Sure.

It's not what skill a noble has that matters, it's how they're using it, why they're using it, and what the situation is. I think a Sath with an obsession on the herbal applications of xyz plant would be perfectly fine experimenting behind closed doors with distilling it into a poison and coating a knife with it to test on a slave so that they could observe the effects. That same Sath suddenly standing up in the middle of Trader's and poisoning a knife, or offering to go about poisoning people's knives, would be something that's out of place and should be looked at with scrutiny.

Basically: context is the most important part.

[Ourla]

A noble guild that -most- nobles would use is a great idea. Some specific noble subguilds would be very cool also. Perhaps make one main noble guild, then a subguild for each playable noble house.

As it stands nobles have weird skillsets which often seem to encourage weird play. You have abilities that don't make a lot of sense given your upbringing, and because some of those branch into neat things you also have some impetus to go out and do them repeatedly. A noble class subtly encourages play which is more consistent with the docs, and also removes some of the frustration of being saddled with a skill set you can't properly advance or utilize.

I agree with the above posts.  This is one of the more intruiging concepts I've seen on the boards lately.

[jstorrie]

Even if other things about it don't fit, I do think that there are logical reasons why ranger could fit, at least with an Oash noble, or, up north, a Dasari noble (knowledge of the herbs and plants allegedly used to make cosmetics and etc).

I thoroughly disagree on both counts. Ranger comes with way, way more toys than just the plant-picking/poultice-making sort of stuff. Why would those nobles have combat skills, or guarding skills, or stealthiness or wilderness quit? That's not even getting into the many ranger skills not mentioned in the helpfile.

What'd be more appropriate is some kind of herbalist subguild with brew, bandagemaking, floristry and a forage boost.

[hyzhenhok]

Southern nobles should get no combat skills unless they're in House Tor.  Nor should they get any wilderness skills.  We might wish it were otherwise, but they simply do not Get Messy like that.

I'm pretty sure the last Tor noble call asked for either guild_warrior or guild_ranger. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that nobles universally would be this way or that way in terms of what skills they have.

("Southern nobles...unless they're in House Tor.")  

I think it's an accurate description of Allanaki nobility to say that, except for that special case (and for templar candidates, who are a whole different issue), there is nothing in the lifestyle that would explain even the starting abilities of a warrior or ranger.  A young Borsail or Valika or Fale does not go outside the city.  He doesn't play with weapons.  He probably doesn't ride.  A young noble who can do what a 0-day warrior can do is a genetic freak...in a segment of the PC population that mostly can't accommodate freakishness; there aren't enough of them and it sticks out.

I'm not criticizin' people for choosing whatever guild with their nobles, just saying that some of them make a very imperfect match for someone who's lived a life of indolence.

Maybe I'm just a dumb newb who hasn't read the files specifically on playing nobility, but I didn't know that noble children didn't learn how to do anything but read and write. I didn't know nobles were a uniform bunch who had not only no interest, but not even any potential in gaining skills that do not mesh with the silk-wearing, lounge-loving noble archetype.

Guild generally determines your character's potential, not your character's background. Otherwise half of my PCs would have been rejected because they were rangers that were just city dwellers with a dabbling interest in nature, or because they were warriors who were the children of merchants or thieves who decided to pursue the calling of the sword despite no exposure. Frankly, the low starting skills makes it difficult to realistically claim that your character has any experience with the subject matter of their guild.

Sure, it might be frowned upon if a noble has a habit of getting his/her hands dirty, but nobles are people too.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a guild_noble, but I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to try my hand at the nobility if that was my only guild option.

I thoroughly disagree on both counts. Ranger comes with way, way more toys than just the plant-picking/poultice-making sort of stuff. Why would those nobles have combat skills, or guarding skills, or stealthiness or wilderness quit? That's not even getting into the many ranger skills not mentioned in the helpfile.

What'd be more appropriate is some kind of herbalist subguild with brew, bandagemaking, floristry and a forage boost.

The same question can be asked of my rangers who grew up as street urchins or within the relatively protected households of Merchant House employees. Why on earth is staff approving these applications without requiring me to thoroughly justify my guild choice with my character's background?

Because background and guild choice are only remotely related at best.

[jstorrie]

The same question can be asked of my rangers who grew up as street urchins or within the relatively protected households of Merchant House employees. Why on earth is staff approving these applications without requiring me to thoroughly justify my guild choice with my character's background?

Because background and guild choice are only remotely related at best.

Alternatively they are approving those applications because there is no guiding policy in place which directs them to be more picky. While clashing background and guild/subguild choices don't bother me too much on 'normal' PCs, I for one would strongly like to see staff be more strident when it comes to sponsored roles–including noble- and merchant-house PCs.

This isn't to say that your Lord or your Agent must pick only guild_noble or guild_merchant, but if they're starting the game with an unusual skillset which doesn't match the usual upbringing of a Lord or Agent they should have some sort of explanation. Were they assigned command of a unit of House guard? Do they lead a crew of hunters? As I think I mentioned previously, I'm generally okay with occasional 'martial' or 'adventuring' nobles existing, but they should definitely not be the norm in Tuluk and absolutely not the norm in Allanak.

[Qzzrbl]

Nobility in RL history has almost always had a habit of trying to be better at stuff than average commoners.

Knights of Medieval Europe?

Japanese Samurai?

They were nobles.

Just to name a couple.

[jhunter]

That's all well and good. That doesn't mean that there still couldn't be a noble guild for noble pcs to use if they choose.

[brytta.leofa]

Knights of Medieval Europe?
Japanese Samurai?

It's a good point, but Allanak isn't very much like those settings; it's a sorcerously-controlled water empire with a lot of specialization and a lot of slaves.  I'll bet that Quintus Tektolnes' old buddies were^* some scary dudes.  But those days are long gone.

^* Or are.

[Qzzrbl]

Knights of Medieval Europe?
Japanese Samurai?

It's a good point, but Allanak isn't very much like those settings; it's a sorcerously-controlled water empire with a lot of specialization and a lot of slaves.  I'll bet that Quintus Tektolnes' old buddies were^* some scary dudes.  But those days are long gone.

^* Or are.

Even so, it would kinda makes sense for nobles to actually be able to -prove- they're better than your average low-class scum.

Lord Fancypants Borsail? He's got a two-headed mekillot/silt-horror abomination stuffed and mounted in his estate that he killed by himself!*

*Sure-- he used a crew of muls and half-giant slaves to help him out, but nobody needs to know that, yeah?