geeman wrote
Everyone got full RP from controlling province population levels. However,
there was no noble character class in 2e, and the lack of one in BR in a
D20 update would be kind of weird. Maybe it would help to illustrate the
issue by thinking of the noble character class in 2e terms. If it had
existed in 2e would it have been a sub-class of fighter or might it have
been its own character class? If they had had such a character class in
the original 2e rules how might they have assigned RP collection?
heheh, trying to make the noble class into a 2e class, well its got the BAB of a fighter so prob same THAC0 as fighter, however, its got a rather large skill set and much more skill points than the fighter. Also unlike the fighter, the noble has a low Fort save and a high Will save. Really, nobles are a class designed for domain level of play, while fighters are really geared toward the adventure level of play.

So after considering the few similarities with fighters, I'd say that nobles would be their own class. And if they were in 2e they would definately be designed to be the landed regents. Now, would nobles also have been good Law regents? well looking at their class skills, yes they would have been good Law regents. In fact, they would even be better than fighters as they get Administrate as a class skill, so they would have han easier time at creating/contesting/ruling Law holdings.

If the noble class was in 2e, would fighters have been the dominate province/law regent? No, because nobles are definately better province rulers and Law regents! Considering that there was no multiclassing, would a ruler want to be good at ruling his province and his law holdings or only good at ruling his law holdings? No need to think about that one, nobles would definately dominate as landed regents and thus as nearly all landed regents have Law holdings they would also be the default for the good Law regent.