By definition, a true noble is any person of high rank, requisite fame and superior moral worth. Within our world, the title seems to have lost some meaning from this last part, which happens to be the strongest defining characteristic of such a title. In essence, a noble is just a variation of a knight. As a knight's actions and character serve as a shining example to his or her companions, so should a noble's. The difference between the two mainly identified in service, a knight is bound by word and honour to serve his Lord while a noble is bound by blood and duty to serve all the citizens of the land.

   To give an example, with or without a noble title, I enjoy walking from the peaceful island of Skara Brae to the beautiful town of Vesper via the Yew cross-roads route. Although only too happy to render assistance to any who ask or appear to need it, I usually keep to myself and allow my fellow citizens to quietly continue whatever it is that they are doing. The difference is as a non-noble, I have absolutely no qualms about harvesting the lands of the reagents scattered about. As a noble however, the thought of such actions is simply repellent and below the my stature. This can only be explained as a moral choice, and as a noble I recognize my duty to leave the reagents about for another who may need them.

   Next, I wish to discuss the relationship between nobility and leadership. Although nobility does not, and should not, directly bestow leadership upon an individual, it is commonly assumed that a noble within a group is the leader. The argument I mean to explore is, although the noble has the moral responsibility to protect the group as well as possible, he or she may not be the best choice for a leader in every scenario. The individual best suited to the task, whether it be from experience or sound decision-making, is usually the better choice to lead. Of course, I do not mean to say that nobles should not do their utmost to provide sound judgement, nor do I say that a noble should not be a leader. It is the noble's responsibility to the group, however, to recognize and accept when a better leader is present and to defer authority accordingly.

   Finally, my thoughts turn to generosity as a trait among nobles. I know the characteristic varies widely, and it is mostly up to the ideals of the individual. My Lord Lothar the Patron Saint, as an example, follows the strict code of the paladin as his guideline, automatically tithing 10% from any quest or adventure to the charity of healers while refusing to withhold more than one-hundred thousand gold, and these are just two of the many restrictions he voluntarily lives his life by. I cannot count the number of times I have given all the gold I was carrying to somebody that recently perished or merely asked for some gold. Nor can I recall how often a complete stranger would find himself in possession of a new magical weapon or piece of armour, a runebook or complete spellbook, or various other items I had access to simply because I felt they needed it more than I did or they asked for a little help. Lately, I have chosen to leave various items laying about near banks or cross-roads as simple gifts, not caring if the person picking up these items deserves it or will simply sell it to another, the act of charity from my point of view having been completed. Charity by request and charity for its own sake are two different ideals and the true noble will regularly fulfill both. This is our duty and our noble right, and I fear that as a whole we have been somewhat negligent in function.