I'm going to be playing a prince character pretty soon and i wondered if you guys could give me some advice on playing them? or suggestions on what to do with them?
for starters, I've never played royalty, i have no idea anything else other than i don't want to play a pompous asshole, i don't know where to start
Pic related is my character
>>48039583
>i have no idea anything else other than i don't want to play a pompous asshole
Make him idealistic, royalty also has duties, not only privileges.
>>48039583
Start by knowing as much as you can about the politics of the setting. Talk it out with your GM. Are there any quirks to his setting's royalty or noble houses that you should keep track of?
>>48039583
First off, DON'T play a pompous asshole, it gets old and annoying really fast and is more of a caricature than a real character.
So... start off by getting a motivation down first. Why is nobility adventuring? Was he exiled? Is it tradition that nobles must prove their worth? Does he feel the current rulers are corrupt and need to be stopped?
Once you've got a motivation down, start considering the difficulties that a noble upbringing might bring into play. Don't be a pompous asshole on purpose, but like... finding the concept of peasants starving as something alien or hard to understand because you've been hungry, that's an OK thing to have. It sounds pompous, but it's not intentional, and creates potential for revelations and character growth.
Also, look at Fire Emblem games on how to play nobility without being an asshole about it. Many are nobles, and they're characters driven by honor, a sense of regalty, and the kind of mindset you'd expect from royalty, but they're still the heroes and they're still interesting characters.
>>48039583
Gotta keep in mind that you're a political entity and even if you do something on your own, everything has the potential for political repercussions.
>>48039618
>Also, look at Fire Emblem games on how to play nobility without being an asshole about it. Many are nobles, and they're characters driven by honor, a sense of regalty, and the kind of mindset you'd expect from royalty, but they're still the heroes and they're still interesting characters.
That's actually a pretty good idea. You have variety among the types of Lords, even those who didn't even know they were royalty in the first place (pic related).
>>48039583
You would do well to look over codes of gentlemanly conduct such as that of Knights, military officers, hosts, etc.
One of my favorites are to never display strong emotions. You are a leader, and are above common men. You do not show fear, nor anger because such things are beneath you; if you disapprove then you let your aides know, and they get worried/angry I'm your stead. This doesn't mean that you do shit like not talking to people directly. That's more arrogance than leadership.
Remember, a leader protects his subordinates. Anytime someone approaches you with a serious question you immediately stop, and give them your attention. If someone else tries to discipline your subordinates they are out of line. If someone else tries to order your subordinates then they are out of line. This is because such things undermine your authority. This doesn't mean someone cannot act on your behalf, but instead means that someone such as a different Noble has no business doing so.
>>48039583
You've grown up in an environment where everything you say is carefully scrutinized. People sometimes try to curry your favor by doing you "favors" you dont want and which can get you in trouble. Your life is filled with false friends and you have to be careful about who you befriend and what you say.
So the operative word is caution. Aristocratic aloofness is a stereotype for a reason.
>>48039583
Royalty is a lot like a normal person, only usually they are more fit, more intelligent, more sociable, better at making friends, and have a better ability to lead.
It's literally everything the stereotype isn't. The stereotype was to make lesser people feel better about themselves...
>>48039583
Princes had military education. Clausewitz taught his prince and wrote The Principles of War for him to continue his studies when Clausewitz was sent elsewhere.
Here's a copy of it:
http://www.clausewitz.com/mobile/principlesofwar.htm
Every prince should have some military education and some battle sense.
>>48051226
>>48039583
Princes likely had modern education with a few additions:
horse and personal fighting skills
military education
languages to deal with other countries and their relatives ruling other countries and potential royal brides.
leadership
hunting as a social event and practicing horse and foot combat skills.
quick self bump
>>48039583
One thing to consider is where the character stands (at the time of the game starting, at least) in the line of succession. Is he first to inherit? If so, then he'll have been groomed for the position, which would make his education focus more on the duties of ruling, so law, politics, etc... He will have been kept under careful watch to make sure he stayed a suitable heir, so the amount of social pressure on them would be very high as they grew up.
As you go further down the line of succession, this tapers off. The second and third in line likely have similar educations, but since they're essentially 'spares' they don't have quite as much riding on them, and have relatively more tolerance allowed them in undertaking other pursuits (so long as they aren't publicly embarrassing). Further down than that, and short of a very messy series of deaths/banishments you aren't being expected to actually have a chance at the throne, and the metaphorical freedom that would allow.
