If a person is gaining power, those in power would keep a close eye. Staying in power means destroying any threats to your power.
Yeah, that much would be obvious, at least for intelligent tyrannical rulers.
What I'm more wondering is how the groups would interact, and what the consequences of poking that balance in the eye would be. In general, Nobility/Royalty may rule the country and make all the regulations and laws, but merchants and dealers (the "middle" class) kept the city and its population afloat with cash flow, while the lower class bore the brunt of providing services and labor. Rebellions generally don't start spontaneously; they start when the upper class pushes the lower classes too far and demanding too much from them. See the French Revolution, the Russian October Revolution, and of course the American Revolution for some different but similar examples.
Conversely, a good ruler (or at least an intelligent one) will treat their people well enough that they won't bite the hand that feeds, and can push them harder before they'll break because "hey, everything else is fine and dandy! Just that one little problem... but we can live with
that." Humans are amazing creatures that can, with the proper motivation or threat, convince themselves that anything is acceptable. See Nazi Germany and Soviet-era Russia for good (if cliche) examples.
So let's say that you've just entered a major city, which is known for its huge dissonance between the noble classes and the serf classes, and are immediately shaken-down by guards for cash.
You're options are...
Choice 1: Give in & pay the "fee"
If you bribe the guard to go somewhere else, your actions put them in a slightly-better mood; alternatively, you might offer to do some favor(s) for them to get them off your back even more (no, not like
that, gez). In the latter case, you might be able to do as you please, as long as they don't directly catch you in the act - in which case they'll HAVE to rough you up to save face. This also has the passive (and currently unknown) effect of pleasing the nobility, whom watch you from a distance just to see whether or not you might be of further use.
Choice 2: Refuse to pay and start a fight
If you start a fight, however, that gets the attention of the peasants, and possibly some upstart rebellion, and regardless of whether you get away or not you may have the leader of said uprising contacting your character. Conversely, this also puts you in the spotlights for the city's ruler/rulers, as they don't want said uprising to happen, so you become a target.
Choice 3: Refuse to pay, but talk them out of taking drastic measures
You talk your way out of it. While this doesn't make the guards happy, and the peasants aren't riled up, it might get the interest of a nearby merchant, whom might want to hire you to "convince" someone to pay their dues. Regardless of whether they're telling the truth or not, if you complete said job and other jobs, then they lower their prices and/or start bringing out the REAL good stuff for sale.
If you
fail, though, then the game should probably default to the "fight" option, maybe also slightly changing the resulting dialogue (via switches and branches) to reflect that you didn't
want to pick a fight but were forced into one.
I love games that offer more than just the "good-evil" choices, so naturally this kind of idea of having competing virtues appeals to me. Also keep this in mind, however: the nobility honestly
believe they're doing right by raising taxes and imposing laws that might seem silly, controversial, or otherwise pointless in some manner. Only the insane or the inhuman do anything for "evil's sake". This is probably the most easily-missed point that stems from real life; some rulers become deluded and start doing things, but very,
very rarely do they do so simply for the sake of being evil or becoming the bad guy. How everyone
else views their actions makes it seem that way.