Things to consider when building backgrounds.

So since I like my authenticity, and others may not have quite so extensively researched all the minutiae of the setting as I have (I'm a bit extreme in that regard to be perfectly honest), I thought I might slap together a little guide that I believe some would find useful:

Lords:

Technically, in order to be a lord, you must have the right to pit and gallows in your domain granted by the king. This is the only real difference between lord and landed knight, there are examples of the latter type that are considerably more powerful and influential than quite a few lords. And lords should always be addressed as lord when spoken to. However, any noble can be addressed as lord as an honorific, and smallfolk will typically do that. Non-lord members of the small council typically will be given this honorific, as would heirs to lords and sons too young yet to be knighted. Though it is probably more common to use the ser prefix for sons of lords that qualify for it.

Of special note is how you use the prefix. "
Lord Bartheld"
is reserved for Brom alone, because that denotes the lord of house bartheld. While his grandson (who is effectively the acting lord) would be addressed as "
Lord Davain"
, at least by those wanting to be respectful (or give that impression), not giving that honorific would be a sign of ill-will, but not quite an insult, not addressing Brom as lord would definitely be an insult. Note that "
Lord Brom"
is equally accepted as form of address as "
Lord Bartheld"
, the latter is a bit more stiff and formal.

A lord can typically be recognized by wearing a signet ring, and often the sigil of his house visible.

Knights

All it takes to be a knight is to be knighted, and any knight can make a knight. The form of address is always Ser <
first name>
or Ser <
full name>
, Ser Corbin is usually how you address the man, while Ser Corbin Celtigar would be what you'd say to others to let them know that he's a celtigar. You would never use Ser Celtigar. It is also an insult not to address a knight as ser (unless you address him as lord instead).

The importance of knighthood is that you enter the noble class, maybe on the very low end, and hedge knights tends to not be included even so. It gives you the right to present your case and call witnesses in front of the lord that sits in judgement if you are accused of wrongdoing, as well as the right to trial by combat. Further, your trueborn children will also have that right, just like other nobles, however, it is not always easy to get that right recognized. Additionally, it is expected that the one arranging the knighting supplies warhorse, arms and armor, and a position in his household (so one would not knight someone one wouldn't want to "
pay"
with equipment, food and lodging, this part is less relevant for nobles squiring for other lords, then returning to his own lands.)

Of additional note is that Westeros is a class-based society. If a man is not knighted, then the rest of the knightly class will look down upon him (and almost all nobles are knighted), something is obviously wrong if no knight can vouch for his martial prowess and courtly manners. Being anointed with the seven oils and dubbed on the shoulder seven times with the sword is the coming-of-age rite for highborn boys. In some tourneys (especially in the Reach), any non-knight can forget about being allowed to take part (the joust in particular).

Knights usually wear the arms of their house to show that they are knights (house by birth, so Ser Rowan Clay would bear the arms of House Clay, or if he's the founder by being knighted, then he chooses his personal arms that then becomes those of his sons etc..he would not use Bartheld's arms, but he might decide to play on the Bartheld theme as a show of loyalty).

Ladies

Any woman, maid (or even girl) being the daughter or wife of a noble ought to be addressed as lady. There isn't much differentiating them from each other, or even non-nobles (apart from clothing and such). Now, it could be that "
Lady Bartheld"
specifically denotes the lady of the house, it makes sense to me, but I cannot say how much support there is for that in the setting material, and it may well be that there are contradictions in the books. Could be that it's simply a honorific sometimes used without any universally accepted norm.

Bastards

A bastard is someone born out of wedlock. If both parents are smallfolk, nobody gives a shit. If the father is noble and the mother isn't, then he may decide to acknowledge the child, which grants the bastard surname and the rights afforded to nobility (trial and such), and it is expected that the father provides for the child (knighthood for boys, decent marriage for girls). If the mother is a noble then the child automatically gain the bastard surename and the rights afforded a noble. It is, however, the father's duty to provide for the child, and it is considered extremely rude for a nobleman not to acknowledge the child and take responsibility for it.

But there's of course the stigma. Bastards are born out of lust, and yadda yadda yadda. It is considered an insult to his wife for a nobleman to raise a bastard within his own household, read more on the wiki. Bastards are not truly members of the house of their parents, they may still inherit if there are no other trueborn claimant, but inheritance in westeros is often more about who has the power to ascend to lordship than who has the right of it (most times, the designated heir are both those things). Bastard knights may not use their father's sigil, though they often invert the colors.

Further, bastards are usually not given any prefix when addressed, with the exception of knights (because knights are made, not born).

The meaning of all this?

I'm a puritan when it comes to playing in the setting, at least as far as the things that requires no big change in playstyle, such as form of address, I've seen at least one example here of people that probably did not know. Also, I should like that everyone adds a little line in their signature denoting one's title. Maesters, septons and septas are obviously addressed as such. A knight, lord or lady will likely dress such that others recognize them as such so that social blunders may be avoided. A non-knighted nobleman might be addressed as "
master"
for example, should one wish to be polite.

And everyone should pick on the bastards :p

Zorbeltuss wrote:And everyone should pick on the bastards :p

fendrin wrote:Of course, your character may, for personal reasons, deviate from these beliefs. If so, have a reason. Jamie and Cersei, by culture, should have been as anti-incest as Ned Stark, but clearly that wasn't the case. Specific trumps general - but have a reason.

Zorbeltuss wrote:Such things could also be revealed through play. Internal thoughts helps exposition.

rax wrote:

fendrin wrote:Of course, your character may, for personal reasons, deviate from these beliefs. If so, have a reason. Jamie and Cersei, by culture, should have been as anti-incest as Ned Stark, but clearly that wasn't the case. Specific trumps general - but have a reason.

A fair enough point, to which I'd like to add a caveat of my own. If you've come up with a really cool reason why your character deviates from expected social norms, then please don't make it a secret reason no one can ever know about. Or even worse - a reason no one would really care enough to find out about.

If it's not a game-breaking secret, then write it up in your public character bio so that the rest of us can be aware of the reasons for your character's odd behavior. Otherwise the reason may as well never have existed. If it is a secret, but not one you expect others to spend their time finding out about, I would still put it in the public bio, but also note that "
this is not public knowledge"
, or something similar. At least that way, we have OOC knowledge about what's going on with your character, and can judge your IC actions appropriately.

Why am I saying this? Because I've played with far too many players where everything about their character was deliberately mysterious, and attempts to find out more about them were constantly rebuffed. The net result was that everyone else quickly stopped caring and wrote the character off as an annoying git.

rax wrote:And just to be clear - I am talking about the reasons for odd behavior here, not secrets as such. The Jaime/Cersei relationship is actually a good illustration of my point. Their relationship is naturally something that one would keep secret in the game as well. Their reasons for indulging in such a relationship are comparatively uninteresting however, and seem mostly to amount to "
because we could and we think we're special"
. The result? No one cares why they're having an affair - the crime of engaging in the relationship is so huge that it completely overshadows any possible explanation.

Zorbeltuss wrote:Such things could also be revealed through play. Internal thoughts helps exposition.

rax wrote:And just to be clear - I am talking about the reasons for odd behavior here, not secrets as such. The Jaime/Cersei relationship is actually a good illustration of my point. Their relationship is naturally something that one would keep secret in the game as well. Their reasons for indulging in such a relationship are comparatively uninteresting however, and seem mostly to amount to "
because we could and we think we're special"
. The result? No one cares why they're having an affair - the crime of engaging in the relationship is so huge that it completely overshadows any possible explanation.

Well, I think it says a lot about their personalities, and it says a lot about the Lannister family: Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion all act as if the rules of society do not apply to them. They all break societal norms and think they can get away with it. They do so in secret ways and they do in open ways.

The motivation for a secret should be grounded in personality traits, and those personality traits should be evident in other ways as well. That way even if the secrets don't come to light for a while, they aren't just words on a character sheet.

rax wrote:

rax wrote:And just to be clear - I am talking about the reasons for odd behavior here, not secrets as such. The Jaime/Cersei relationship is actually a good illustration of my point. Their relationship is naturally something that one would keep secret in the game as well. Their reasons for indulging in such a relationship are comparatively uninteresting however, and seem mostly to amount to "
because we could and we think we're special"
. The result? No one cares why they're having an affair - the crime of engaging in the relationship is so huge that it completely overshadows any possible explanation.

Well, I think it says a lot about their personalities, and it says a lot about the Lannister family: Tywin, Jaime, Cersei, and Tyrion all act as if the rules of society do not apply to them. They all break societal norms and think they can get away with it. They do so in secret ways and they do in open ways.

The motivation for a secret should be grounded in personality traits, and those personality traits should be evident in other ways as well. That way even if the secrets don't come to light for a while, they aren't just words on a character sheet.

Agreed on the motivation for a secret part. As for the Lannisters, that is an apt description of why they act like they do, but it says little about where they got the idea that they're above society's rules in the first place. As such, they always struck me as a fairly shallow bunch.