How many of you use titles for noblity in your campaign?

[The Archivist]

How many of you use the proper forms of address for the different social classes (Titles for nobility) in your campaign?

Proper forms of Address are an important part of my campaigns. I use all manners of titles for nobility, religion, and caste systems...

Nobles, squires, and all commoners, must all times heed and be mindful of the proper and acceptable forms of address for their superiors.

King/Queen-Your Majesty or Your Royal Majesty

Crown Prince/Princess- Your Royal Highness

Prince/Princess- Your Highness

Duke/Duchess- Your Grace or My Liege

Count/Countess- Your Excellency or My Lord/Lady Count(ess) or My Liege

Baron/Baroness- My Lord/Lady Baron(ess) or My Liege

Viscount/Viscountess- Your Excellency or My Lord/Lady Viscount(ess) or My Liege

Lord/Lady- Your Lordship/Ladyship

Lord Seneschal- My Lord/Lady Seneschal

Magistrate- My Lord/Lady Magistrate

Bannerette- Good Sir/Dame Knight

Knight- Sir/Dame_______

Squires- are commoners and should be addressed as Squire_____

Merchants - M’Lord/M’Lady

Other commoners- Goodman/Goodwife as well as Goodfather, Goodmother, Goodson...etc

These are a few of the ones that I use.

[Admin Pete]

I voted the third option, although I use titles that would be only if you were dealing with the nobles or royals but don't carry it down to everyday usage.

[hedgehobbit]

I use titles but since my game is set in ancient times they aren't the normal medieval ones.

[Admin Pete]

Mar 12, 2015 14:00:26 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

I use titles but since my game is set in ancient times they aren't the normal medieval ones.

What titles do you use?

[tetramorph]

The title are "built in" in my house rules for Dun Kells:

"knights" (my FM):

1. Veteran
2. Warrior
3. Swordsman
4. Hero
5. Cavalier
6. Errant, Knight
7. Baron
8. Count / Earl
9. Duke / Margrave
10. King / Prince / Grand Duke

"clerics":

1. Acolyte
2. Sub-deacon
3. Deacon
4. Curate (priest)
5. Vicar (priest)
6. Canon / Dean / Monsignor (priest)
7. Bishop
8. Archbishop
9. Metropolitan (archbishop)
10. Patriarch

So the "titles" really start from about lvl 7+

[Robert the Black]

I never have, I don't really use nobility IMC, it is much more apocalyptic than that. They are in a time when kingdoms have fallen and there are not real nobles or kings about, at least not in the human lands and when did humans ever recognize the titles of anyone else.

[The Red Baron]

Mar 12, 2015 15:12:13 GMT -5 tetramorph said:

The title are "built in" in my house rules for Dun Kells:

"knights" (my FM):

1. Veteran
2. Warrior
3. Swordsman
4. Hero
5. Cavalier
6. Errant, Knight
7. Baron
8. Count / Earl
9. Duke / Margrave
10. King / Prince / Grand Duke

IMO titles should not be tied to level advancement. Titles represent land-ownership.

Baron, Count, Duke, and King are hereditary titles.

Knight, Baron, Count, and Duke can all be bestowed upon one by a higher title, assuming the requisite land and power are available to grant.

You can also name yourself any title you choose, but you won't be acknowledged as such unless you have acquired enough land and power to back it up.

Definition of Each Title

Knight: Owns their own land. You also need to be knighted by a Baron, Count, Duke, King, or Patriarch (8th level cleric) to become a knight.
Baron: Owns a castle. In D&D, any fighting-men who clear out an area of wilderness and construct a castle can become barons.

Edit: I was wrong about titles higher than baron - see later post for corrections

[The Red Baron]

But to answer the pol question, I do use titles, because people in power generally like to flatter themselves with titles. (Or else they do it out of pragmatism, because people are a lot more likely to fear and respect when you go by "invincible overlord" rather than "Jim".)

[Admin Pete]

Mar 15, 2015 20:40:36 GMT -5 The Red Baron said:

But to answer the pol question, I do use titles, because people in power generally like to flatter themselves with titles. (Or else they do it out of pragmatism, because people are a lot more likely to fear and respect when you go by "invincible overlord" rather than "Jim".)

[Necromancer]

Mar 15, 2015 20:40:36 GMT -5 The Red Baron said:

But to answer the pol question, I do use titles, because people in power generally like to flatter themselves with titles. (Or else they do it out of pragmatism, because people are a lot more likely to fear and respect when you go by "invincible overlord" rather than "Jim".)

What about "Your Jimness" then...?

Actually, I haven't given it much thought before, but I've rarely used titles in play. But I don't mind it, since I think it can be used to add some flavour and realism in dialogues between PC's and NPC's.

[Deleted]

I chose option 3 because, while I use titles regularly, they are almost always the level names of each class—in both my OD&D and AD&D campaigns, I play up the literal reality of character classes and their names. One's level and title is given by the laws that even the gods themselves follow, so that calling a Myrmidon a Swordsman would be just bad tact.

I use the more traditional landed titles, as well, such as knight, baron, count, viscount, king, etc., but they are strictly for temporal rulers, and it would be equally bad tact for someone to pretend at a different title.

The only level names I've house-ruled are for the Cleric, since I wanted to tie both the level title and temporal title into a single thing; after all, gaining Clerical levels and going up the ranks of your religion's rulership are basically the same thing. As such, I've kept the medievalesque Roman terminology of religious offices, but made them more linear:

• Curate
  
• Deacon
• Vicar (it is at this level that the character may perform all sacraments)
• Priest
• Dean
• Archpriest
• Archdeacon
• Bishop

[/ol][/ul]

[tetramorph]

The Red Baron, I agree completely that the titles refer to land entitlement.

And that is exactly what I assume in my campaign. I want HX crawls and clearing by about lvl 4 or 5 and by lvl 7 "knights" are either landed or they do not get these titles.

What I left out is that if they choose not to go the route of domain management then they are called "Paladins" and then, I guess "Paladin lvl 2, 3, 4, etc." as they lvl up. I would only allow the landed titles for PCs that are landed.

The point is, that is what I assume and emphasize in my campaign. We are heading to domain management, intrigue and warfare: that is the goal of my style of 0e campaigning.

I understand that knights did not traditionally have land, but served the landed as their key guardians.

I understand that a baron would have a manor house in civilized lands, a stronghold in cleared wilderness.

From there I, in the main, agree with you. Technically, however, there is not much between a baron (with his manor) and the sovereign (with his sovereignty) than a count (with his county). A count who is on a border is a margrave over a "march." A count who has been granted a special honorific is a "duke" over a "duchy." This may then become hereditary later in the campaign. That said, for my campaign, I would count dukes and margraves as holding authority over several counties.

Princes, Grand Dukes and Kings are all sovereigns, just with different titles. They preside over Princedoms (or Principalities), Grand Duchies, and Kingdoms, respectively.

It seems difficult to me to build an appropriate analogy to modern America because we are so far from the manorial system and from a nested, analogical-hierarchical approach to human organization.

Thanks for drawing all that out of me! It allowed me to clarify my approach.

[The Red Baron]

You may know more about this than I.

I have a passing understanding of nobility, but the US constitution forbids titles of nobility, so I don't have much first hand experience.

I've seen a few royal palaces in Europe (mostly german ones), including the current royal palace in norway.

[tetramorph]

The Red Baron, I too haven't seen much first hand, of course.

Here is a site that I like which sums up a lot of this for me:

www.friesian.com/rank.htm

It does both military and feudal ranks.

I don't agree with everything he describes, of course. And he himself admits that he has to blaze over centuries of differences. But, hey, for our purposes, abstraction is fine, right?

[The Red Baron]

That's a great resource, and helped clear up some of misconceptions. Thanks!

---

A Prince is any independent sovereign. Generally Kingdoms are large, and principalities are small (possibly city-states): Thus all kings are princes, but not all princes rule a kingdom. A Grand duke is a misnomer, and should be called a prince.

A Duke rules a county. He has some autonomy and possibly has vassal counts but still owes fealty to a prince.

A Marquis rules a county at the edge of a realm, called a march. Marquis are directly answerable to their prince, not a duke, and thus have greater prestige than a count, but at the price of ruling an uncivilized and dangerous land. Margraves have more autonomy to deal with threats to the realm as they see fit.

A Count (Earl in England) rules a county, and is answerable to a prince or more often a duke.

A Baron owns a castle within a county.

[hedgehobbit]

Mar 12, 2015 14:51:38 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

What titles do you use?

My gameworld is roman-styled so I use titles like tribunes, praefectus, praetor, patrician, as well as Dux and Jarl for barbarians. Although the actual game is set in the frontier borderlands so titles like centurian, milites, and thane are more highly respected.

The ancient worlds seem more democratic where titles are mostly earned rather than being hereditary. So it fits closer to what we have here in the US. You also had things like adoption which could give a low born character an instant nobility. This, along with the concept of patronage, means there's more options for social advancement through politics in addition to those gained through conquest.

[merctime]

Yep, I use 'em.

Mine come from the ready ref sheets. I also use the social class mechanic from said resource as a standard addition to my home game, and love it.

Also, @starbeard , your clerical level titles are outstanding!

[merctime]

Mar 15, 2015 21:10:30 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

Mar 15, 2015 20:40:36 GMT -5 The Red Baron said:

But to answer the pol question, I do use titles, because people in power generally like to flatter themselves with titles. (Or else they do it out of pragmatism, because people are a lot more likely to fear and respect when you go by "invincible overlord" rather than "Jim".)

xD

[Vile Traveller]

I do but they vary wildly - many make up their own titles.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2015 16:03:45 GMT -5 merctime said:

Yep, I use 'em.

Mine come from the ready ref sheets. I also use the social class mechanic from said resource as a standard addition to my home game, and love it.

Also, @starbeard , your clerical level titles are outstanding!

I often use the RRS social classes as well, it really adds a lot. Since adopting the trial and punishment table I've also had one character sentenced to hard labour for 90 days and another executed, the second for a crime that was actually performed by another PC!

And thanks for the kudos on the clerical titles! I'm actually in the process of revising them with the immeasurable help of tetramorph over at Knights & Knaves Alehouse (posts here). Tetramorph's got another list there, with early medieval titles, that's also really cool.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

They exist in my games but I rarely got to that level of detail in our actual campaigns. I hope to change that in my upcoming campaigns.

[True Black Raven]

I use titles on the rare occasions that they are germane.

[Yaleric]

I use titles now and then, the PCs are rarely around the nobility.

[Warrior Twin One]

Don't use them.

[Warrior Twin Two]

Aug 21, 2018 0:26:21 GMT -5 Warrior Twin One said:

Don't use them.

QFT

[Q. F o s t e r]

I use some of them, never used close to all of them.

[clooney]

Rarely

[Snuffy Smith]

I use titles when they come up.

[Ibizan Zamway]

nada

[nobody]

Rarely