This is my first time being a DM and with my first campaign being on Friday I can only hope that I'll be ready enough. I don't want royalty in the area my players will start in because I have already shown some of them a map and don't want to be like oh well suddenly there is a castle here. Is there any powerful figures that aren't royalty I could put into a dnd campaign that may have the same effect?
Anyone with a modicum of authority. A magistrate. Wardens of the wilds. Land owners. Crooked buisnessman. Crime bosses...the list can go on.
Not all royals live in castles. Nobility of any type can live anywhere. Their social standing would be denoted by a level of opulence. A fleet of horse and carriages. Maids and butlers, slaves even. In a region where one room shacks are the norm they have a multi story mansion.
Check out James Haeck's very good article just last week about Worldbuilding with Legendary Monsters. Keep in mind not all legendary monsters need to be evil. You could have a powerful mage in a tower who was good, evil, or complex.
There are lots of possible authority structures that have nothing to do with royalty. You could have a Theocracy (run by religious authorities). Or a Mage-ocracy (government by powerful mage(s)). Kleptocracy (government by the Thieves' guild, perhaps). And so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A noble and a royal are not the same thing. Royal means in the line of succession King, Queen, their children and grandchildren, etc.
Noble means you have a title which may or may not be hereditary. Typically they are granted by the crown in exchange for some kind of service, or can be literally purchased. (I’m American and did not realize the distinction until an English friend explained it to me)
And just because you have a title doesn’t mean you live in a castle. Castles are expensive to build and difficult to maintain. Only people who had a holding on a strategic location, or one that was often contested, or had lots of money and wanted to show off would typically build one.
Put all that together and there are plenty of people like a baron, count, earl, duke, marquis who are nobility but not royalty. They have a degree of authority in their land, but won’t ever be king short of a revolution, and don’t own a castle. Their level of wealth can be very dependent on how well they manage their household and their lands. You could easily have the earl who is in charge of the area live in a modest house in town. Maybe he was from a wealthy family but invested poorly, or blew all the money on drink. Or is newly created and hasn’t yet had time to build a fortune.
Queen of the Forest - Wood elf royalty build no castles, but their communities are integrated into the very forests themselves. Treetop dwellings and intricately woven towns in the canopy that are cleverly disguised to camouflage with the trees.
Robin Hood - A deposed Duke or Count has taken his men at arms and now rules a portion of the backwoods, running a guerrilla campaign against his usurper until he regains his seat.
The King of the Jungle - There is a section of jungle that the locals never venture into and where all the animals seem to gaze at humanoids with an eerie intelligence. This region is ruled by a powerful Beast Lord and all the animals swear fealty to him. Most humanoids are chased off or eaten, but druids and ranger who know how to approach the animal courts can perhaps win amnesty.
The Sage of the Three Rivers - When your players first enter the region that is framed by three rivers they are greeted by friendly locals who offer them gracious hospitality, as long as they are willing to sit and listen to the wisdom of their local wise one. The community seems peaceful, but the unarmed disciples show surprisingly fierce martial skill when rebuffing the attacks of local goblins. They politely, but firmly, request that the party divest themselves of their weapons while within the community.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Oh boy. You have come to the right place. As stated above, Royalty and nobility are not the same thing but it goes much deeper than that. I am sure I don't have the hierarchy exact, but it goes something like this:
King (Queen, Prince, Princess) are the top dogs. The Prince is usually made a duke upon reaching the age of majority or a predetermined age like 25 or 30. The Heir Apparent is the first in line of succession.
Dukes (Duchess, children) are the next level down, and might be on the level of a governor. It often happens that the first born son (child maybe in D&D) become a lesser titled noble until his father's death, when he ascends to become Duke.
Count / Viscount are below Dukes. Their oldest son could ascend to become the Count.
Grand Marquis / Marquis are the next level down. The oldest son could ascend to become the Marquis.
Earls are next down the ladder. The oldest son could ascend to become Earl.
Barons (Baroness) are the lowest level of titled nobility I know of. The oldest son could become the Baron.
There are also Lords which might be administrators of smaller areas with the lowest level of noble a Lord of the Manor, which is the local ruler over a substantial number of farms, probably smaller than a typical county. A Manor Lord would live in the manor, which is just a fine house. His subjects would live in villages or farm houses.
It was significant for a village to seek to become a town, which required recognition from the higher authorities. Once a settlement became a town, they obtained some local authority to settle matters locally without appealing to the lord. However, Lords often retained the right to overturn rulings.
Other figures of authority include the Sheriff, Magistrates, Knights (who are usually the untitled Lords), Chamberlains, Marshall (a military authority), Admirals, Generals (and other officers), mayors, reeves (kinda like the mayor of a village), Regent, and members of the clergy including Arch Bishops, Bishops, Abbots and Rectors. Lower clergy including vicars and monks usually have little to no authority.
Any titled office would require the titled individual to send to the next higher level a number of men for service in the army and an amount of gold, animals, farmed produce, finished goods as a regular tithe for holding the office. Failure to send in the tithe would result in the loss of the title, or at least a reduction. They are also required to raise the money to pay ransom for titled individuals captured on the battlefield. The expression goes, "If you take the king's money, you pay the king's ransom."
It is true that some members of the nobility obtained their titles by purchasing them. However, it is more likely that they got the title by standing next to the king when he won an important battle. Selling titles was a way of raising money in time of war, especially when the rulers were caught unaware. These were the most likely titles not to be granted heredity.
Although not part of your question, there are also differences among the "subjects." Not all subjects were slaves or serfs. There were freemen, villains and other distinguishing grades among the subjects.
@MusicScout: In reality a lot of the those titles were a lot less rigid than the nice system you placed them in and varied a lot between time periods and countries. For instance Earl was in some parts almost equal to king (Scotland and Scandinavia). The "nice" hierarchy is something we put down over history. And baronett and simply sir is below baron, but they are not landed nobility.
And to OP: Sheriffs, marshalls, mayors etc can also be figures of authority :-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ludo ergo sum!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is my first time being a DM and with my first campaign being on Friday I can only hope that I'll be ready enough. I don't want royalty in the area my players will start in because I have already shown some of them a map and don't want to be like oh well suddenly there is a castle here. Is there any powerful figures that aren't royalty I could put into a dnd campaign that may have the same effect?
Anyone with a modicum of authority. A magistrate. Wardens of the wilds. Land owners. Crooked buisnessman. Crime bosses...the list can go on.
Not all royals live in castles. Nobility of any type can live anywhere. Their social standing would be denoted by a level of opulence. A fleet of horse and carriages. Maids and butlers, slaves even. In a region where one room shacks are the norm they have a multi story mansion.
Check out James Haeck's very good article just last week about Worldbuilding with Legendary Monsters. Keep in mind not all legendary monsters need to be evil. You could have a powerful mage in a tower who was good, evil, or complex.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There are lots of possible authority structures that have nothing to do with royalty. You could have a Theocracy (run by religious authorities). Or a Mage-ocracy (government by powerful mage(s)). Kleptocracy (government by the Thieves' guild, perhaps). And so on.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A noble and a royal are not the same thing.
Royal means in the line of succession King, Queen, their children and grandchildren, etc.
Noble means you have a title which may or may not be hereditary. Typically they are granted by the crown in exchange for some kind of service, or can be literally purchased. (I’m American and did not realize the distinction until an English friend explained it to me)
And just because you have a title doesn’t mean you live in a castle. Castles are expensive to build and difficult to maintain. Only people who had a holding on a strategic location, or one that was often contested, or had lots of money and wanted to show off would typically build one.
Put all that together and there are plenty of people like a baron, count, earl, duke, marquis who are nobility but not royalty. They have a degree of authority in their land, but won’t ever be king short of a revolution, and don’t own a castle. Their level of wealth can be very dependent on how well they manage their household and their lands. You could easily have the earl who is in charge of the area live in a modest house in town. Maybe he was from a wealthy family but invested poorly, or blew all the money on drink. Or is newly created and hasn’t yet had time to build a fortune.
Queen of the Forest - Wood elf royalty build no castles, but their communities are integrated into the very forests themselves. Treetop dwellings and intricately woven towns in the canopy that are cleverly disguised to camouflage with the trees.
Robin Hood - A deposed Duke or Count has taken his men at arms and now rules a portion of the backwoods, running a guerrilla campaign against his usurper until he regains his seat.
The King of the Jungle - There is a section of jungle that the locals never venture into and where all the animals seem to gaze at humanoids with an eerie intelligence. This region is ruled by a powerful Beast Lord and all the animals swear fealty to him. Most humanoids are chased off or eaten, but druids and ranger who know how to approach the animal courts can perhaps win amnesty.
The Sage of the Three Rivers - When your players first enter the region that is framed by three rivers they are greeted by friendly locals who offer them gracious hospitality, as long as they are willing to sit and listen to the wisdom of their local wise one. The community seems peaceful, but the unarmed disciples show surprisingly fierce martial skill when rebuffing the attacks of local goblins. They politely, but firmly, request that the party divest themselves of their weapons while within the community.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Oh boy. You have come to the right place. As stated above, Royalty and nobility are not the same thing but it goes much deeper than that. I am sure I don't have the hierarchy exact, but it goes something like this:
King (Queen, Prince, Princess) are the top dogs. The Prince is usually made a duke upon reaching the age of majority or a predetermined age like 25 or 30. The Heir Apparent is the first in line of succession.
Dukes (Duchess, children) are the next level down, and might be on the level of a governor. It often happens that the first born son (child maybe in D&D) become a lesser titled noble until his father's death, when he ascends to become Duke.
Count / Viscount are below Dukes. Their oldest son could ascend to become the Count.
Grand Marquis / Marquis are the next level down. The oldest son could ascend to become the Marquis.
Earls are next down the ladder. The oldest son could ascend to become Earl.
Barons (Baroness) are the lowest level of titled nobility I know of. The oldest son could become the Baron.
There are also Lords which might be administrators of smaller areas with the lowest level of noble a Lord of the Manor, which is the local ruler over a substantial number of farms, probably smaller than a typical county. A Manor Lord would live in the manor, which is just a fine house. His subjects would live in villages or farm houses.
It was significant for a village to seek to become a town, which required recognition from the higher authorities. Once a settlement became a town, they obtained some local authority to settle matters locally without appealing to the lord. However, Lords often retained the right to overturn rulings.
Other figures of authority include the Sheriff, Magistrates, Knights (who are usually the untitled Lords), Chamberlains, Marshall (a military authority), Admirals, Generals (and other officers), mayors, reeves (kinda like the mayor of a village), Regent, and members of the clergy including Arch Bishops, Bishops, Abbots and Rectors. Lower clergy including vicars and monks usually have little to no authority.
Any titled office would require the titled individual to send to the next higher level a number of men for service in the army and an amount of gold, animals, farmed produce, finished goods as a regular tithe for holding the office. Failure to send in the tithe would result in the loss of the title, or at least a reduction. They are also required to raise the money to pay ransom for titled individuals captured on the battlefield. The expression goes, "If you take the king's money, you pay the king's ransom."
It is true that some members of the nobility obtained their titles by purchasing them. However, it is more likely that they got the title by standing next to the king when he won an important battle. Selling titles was a way of raising money in time of war, especially when the rulers were caught unaware. These were the most likely titles not to be granted heredity.
Although not part of your question, there are also differences among the "subjects." Not all subjects were slaves or serfs. There were freemen, villains and other distinguishing grades among the subjects.
Good luck. Have fun.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
@MusicScout: In reality a lot of the those titles were a lot less rigid than the nice system you placed them in and varied a lot between time periods and countries. For instance Earl was in some parts almost equal to king (Scotland and Scandinavia). The "nice" hierarchy is something we put down over history. And baronett and simply sir is below baron, but they are not landed nobility.
And to OP: Sheriffs, marshalls, mayors etc can also be figures of authority :-)
Ludo ergo sum!