Imperiallines #7
- Thread starter jcrocker
- Start date
I got the layout draft; yes, it does. But it also changes a bunch of 3rd party development (GURPS and Mongoose)...
Yes, it clarifies many things. The T5 Nobles System has differences relative to prior canon, but they and the system are not significantly different from the pre-T5 system. The primary difference is in the fief/world-assignments (i.e. "Sees") of particular Landed (="High") Nobles based on Trade Codes (which we already know about from the T5 Core Rules and the Noble Extensions detailed on TravellerMap). The reasons for this are detailed per Noble Title in the document.
Knighthoods are granted within Orders (which have internal rank-levels), usually as Honor and in some cases Ceremonial Titles (see below), but are distinct from the Landed Knights who represent the Imperium to individual worlds (which is the Knight designated in the UWP Nobles Extension for a world). Knighthoods may be granted by the Emperor (Imperial Orders), the Archdukes (Domain Orders), or by Dukes (as local non-Imperial Knights-Retainer within their respective Subsector/Sector only). Archdukes may also appoint Ceremonial or Honor Baronets and Barons, both of which are of junior precedence to their Imperially-appointed counterparts.
Nobility is still divided into 3 groups, each of which may scale the full range of Noble Titles:
Honor Nobles: [Formerly also called Honor Nobles, but now also including what were formerly called Rank/Local Nobles * ] - Granted for Achievement or otherwise for people the Emperor (or Archduke in some cases) wishes to honor. It also includes Nobles who have inherited a title whose family no longer has a governmental function or noble see, but who still have the titles and whatever properties and assets are owned by the family. Honor Nobles do not have proxy-votes or seats & voting rights in the Moot, nor do they normally have Terrain-Hex land-grants (but may certainly own much land or property on their own).
* - Not to be confused with Planetary Nobles
Ceremonial Nobles: [Formerly called Rank/Administrator Nobles] - Ceremonial Nobles include people ennobled (or further ennobled) in order to grant them the right to hold certain specific Imperial Government Offices at various levels within a Sector. Ceremonial Nobles normally do not have proxy-votes or seats & voting rights in the Moot, nor are they normally granted Terrain-Hex Land-Grants (but may certainly own much land or property on their own). The extent of a Ceremonial Noble's official authority is normally comparable to the extent of a Landed Noble's Fief allotments: i.e. Ceremonial Dukes & Counts oversee Imperial-government organizations at the Sector-Level, Ceremonial Viscounts & Marquises oversee Imperial-government organizations at the Subsector-Level, and Ceremonial Barons, Baronets, and Knights oversee Imperial-government organizations at the System-Level.
Landed Nobles: [Formerly called High Nobles] - These are the Nobles that go through the Nobles Career in CharGen, who are granted Terrain-Hex Land-Grants as part of their Fiefs, and Seats (and Voting Rights & Proxy Votes) in the Moot. They are the political Nobles who directly oversee Imperial Territories and Worlds and represent them to the Emperor, and are the Nobles noted in the Noble Extensions for a world in its UWP (i.e. there could be any number of Ceremonial or Honor Nobles residing on a given world, of any and all different ranks, but the Noble Extension of the UWP explicitly lists the Landed (=High) Nobles for the world).
EDIT: The document also includes two full examples of Noble Character Generation using the T5 CharGen rules for the Nobles career. Note also that the Imperiallines #7 Article is entitled "Nobility in the Third Imperium (Part I)". So I am assuming that more information is forthcoming in at least one more future article.
Last edited:
Caveat: So far I've only read the two articles in the preview (I've decided to get a friend to buy a copy of #7 for me, but I haven't done anything about it yet).
I feel the lack of certain (IMO) important bits of information, especially in connection with the relationship between the Imperium and the member worlds.
1) Do Imperial landholds have extrality? This can be of major importance to a group of PCs fleeing planetary LEOs.
Personally, I'd prefer the last option, allowing referees and (especially
) writers to customize their Third Imperium settings.
2) How does a planetary government interact with "its" noble? A high noble used to be the Imperium's representative to "his" world, but now he apparently serves as the world's representative to the Imperium. How can that work in practice? I guess it's fine as long as the noble is also the planetary ruler, but what if he isn't? What happens if the government wants one thing and the noble wants another? Does the government send a representative to court to lobby for its own ideas in despite of the noble? What if there's a revolution -- a quick, bloodless coup that deposes the ruler/noble and replaces him with a democracy? Does the Imperium send in the troops to restore the noble as the ruler? Does it allow the new government to continue but keep the noble as the world's representative? Just how full is the autonomy of member worlds?
3) What is the relationship between Imperial nobles on the same member world? Are the various landholds independent of each other or are the lesser landholders subject to the ranking noble? This is particularily interesting if the landholds have extrality.
Hans
I feel the lack of certain (IMO) important bits of information, especially in connection with the relationship between the Imperium and the member worlds.
1) Do Imperial landholds have extrality? This can be of major importance to a group of PCs fleeing planetary LEOs.
a) Perhaps this is a sine qua non to the Imperium when negotiating membership treaties and all Imperial landholds are independent of the planetary government in all ways. If so, I think a remark about this, with the comment that this is ignored for purposes of denoting planetary governments, same as starports and embassies (without that, all Imperial member worlds would be balkanized (except the ones that had captive governments appointed by the Imperium)).
b) Or perhaps Vland and the original Sylean Federation worlds firmly established the principle that Imperial landholds (but not starports and embassies) were subject to planetary law, so firmly that no subsequent emperor has ever dreamt of trying to change that.
c) Or perhaps it depends on the negotiating strength of a prospective member world at the time it joined. Regina might, for instance, have agreed to sell or give a landhold to the Marquis-of-Regina-to-be but insisted that he would be treated as any other landowner, subject to planetary law and taxes. At the same time Menorb, under pressure from Vargr corsairs and eager for Imperial protection, might have agreed to full tax exemption for Imperial landholds but still subject to planetary law for an enumerated list of crimes, and anarchic Efate1 may have had Imperial membership thrust upon it willy-nilly, with the Imperium negotiating the membership charter with itself and gaining full extrality for rather large chunks of real estate.
b) Or perhaps Vland and the original Sylean Federation worlds firmly established the principle that Imperial landholds (but not starports and embassies) were subject to planetary law, so firmly that no subsequent emperor has ever dreamt of trying to change that.
c) Or perhaps it depends on the negotiating strength of a prospective member world at the time it joined. Regina might, for instance, have agreed to sell or give a landhold to the Marquis-of-Regina-to-be but insisted that he would be treated as any other landowner, subject to planetary law and taxes. At the same time Menorb, under pressure from Vargr corsairs and eager for Imperial protection, might have agreed to full tax exemption for Imperial landholds but still subject to planetary law for an enumerated list of crimes, and anarchic Efate1 may have had Imperial membership thrust upon it willy-nilly, with the Imperium negotiating the membership charter with itself and gaining full extrality for rather large chunks of real estate.
1 OK, I know that things change over time and Efate quite possibly wasn't anarchic in 250, but let's assume it was for the sake of this argument.
Personally, I'd prefer the last option, allowing referees and (especially
) writers to customize their Third Imperium settings.2) How does a planetary government interact with "its" noble? A high noble used to be the Imperium's representative to "his" world, but now he apparently serves as the world's representative to the Imperium. How can that work in practice? I guess it's fine as long as the noble is also the planetary ruler, but what if he isn't? What happens if the government wants one thing and the noble wants another? Does the government send a representative to court to lobby for its own ideas in despite of the noble? What if there's a revolution -- a quick, bloodless coup that deposes the ruler/noble and replaces him with a democracy? Does the Imperium send in the troops to restore the noble as the ruler? Does it allow the new government to continue but keep the noble as the world's representative? Just how full is the autonomy of member worlds?
3) What is the relationship between Imperial nobles on the same member world? Are the various landholds independent of each other or are the lesser landholders subject to the ranking noble? This is particularily interesting if the landholds have extrality.
Hans
1) Do Imperial landholds have extrality? This can be of major importance to a group of PCs fleeing planetary LEOs.a) Perhaps this is a sine qua non to the Imperium when negotiating membership treaties and all Imperial landholds are independent of the planetary government in all ways. If so, I think a remark about this, with the comment that this is ignored for purposes of denoting planetary governments, same as starports and embassies (without that, all Imperial member worlds would be balkanized (except the ones that had captive governments appointed by the Imperium)).Personally, I'd prefer the last option, allowing referees and (especially
b) Or perhaps Vland and the original Sylean Federation worlds firmly established the principle that Imperial landholds (but not starports and embassies) were subject to planetary law, so firmly that no subsequent emperor has ever dreamt of trying to change that.
c) Or perhaps it depends on the negotiating strength of a prospective member world at the time it joined. Regina might, for instance, have agreed to sell or give a landhold to the Marquis-of-Regina-to-be but insisted that he would be treated as any other landowner, subject to planetary law and taxes. At the same time Menorb, under pressure from Vargr corsairs and eager for Imperial protection, might have agreed to full tax exemption for Imperial landholds but still subject to planetary law for an enumerated list of crimes, and anarchic Efate1 may have had Imperial membership thrust upon it willy-nilly, with the Imperium negotiating the membership charter with itself and gaining full extrality for rather large chunks of real estate.1 OK, I know that things change over time and Efate quite possibly wasn't anarchic in 250, but let's assume it was for the sake of this argument.
All Imperial Land Grants have two components:
a) The Terrain Hex(es) of the grant itself (~ 100km2 each), over which the Noble has economic control;
b) An associated Local Hex (~ 10km2) for each terrain hex, which is owned outright by the Noble as personal property.
The answer in relation to your above question may be different for each of those territories. b) An associated Local Hex (~ 10km2) for each terrain hex, which is owned outright by the Noble as personal property.
Regarding option #3 above, perhaps there is a small set of rights & privileges that are non-negotiable, that the Imperium insists upon for all of its Nobles on member worlds as part of the conditions for membership in the Imperial system. Beyond that, there may be a larger set of traditional or customary benefits that are negotiable to a degree, and finally perhaps some things which are entirely dependent upon the "negotiating strength" of the world at the time of its initial membership, as you put it, which would be unique to each world. (But those are just my thoughts on it, of course).
Though it doesn't fully answer your question, keep in mind that the article specifically says that the assigned Landed Knight of a world specifically is the Noble entrusted with representing the Imperium to the World, its government, and/or population, and the higher-precedence Nobles generally oversee the World's interests and advocate for it at the Imperial/Interstellar/Moot Level.
I've bought both and enjoyed them. I loved the walk-through examples of character creation that linked to the Sophont creation in Issue #6. There were no surprises in the walk-throughs but it put flesh on the bones, so to speak. I feel the T5 universe is coming to life - and how it's distinct yet continuous with previous editions of the game.
All the more reason to include a mention of this in the essay.
Certainly a possibility. Which is why a list would be nice.
And my ideas are just mine, of course. Which is why it would be nice to know which conditions, if any, the Imperium insist on, which are usually included (not having them requires an explanation), and which are more or less optional.
Does the knight replace the Imperial Legate (Imperial envoy to a world) or does he backstop him, the way the high noble used to backstop the Imperial bureaucrats?
And I'm afraid it doesn't answer it at all. I get that the nobles are now supposed to represent "their" worlds and look out for their interests. But how does that work out in practice? I would have thought that if the noble is honest, the situation would be intolerably patronizing to the member worlds and if he was weak, lazy, or dishonest, it would be a breeding ground for corruption and conflict.
Hans
Last edited:
Thank you for your encouragement, Jonathan.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Legate would be one of those positions that the Landed Knight might hold on smaller worlds that would be vested in a different person (possibly also a Knight, just not *the* Knight) as the world and its attached Imperial apparatus grew.
The article is titled: "Nobility in the Third Imperium (Part I)" (emphasis mine). So I am presuming that there is more to come in a future article. Maybe those questions will be answered in Part II (especially since some of the contributors are probably reading this thread).
I think I would echo GypsyComet in that the Landed Knight for a world probably is the Imperial Legate (he certainly seems to be described in similar terms, at any rate).rancke said:
I was re-reading sections relative to your question, and I did come across the following (emphasis mine):
I bought a copy, and I'm going to enjoy reading the Nobles article.
I have to admit, perhaps my favourite image this issue is the picture of the Patent of Nobility card - there's a reflection of the hand that took the picture.
Did Marc take that photo? Does this mean that we can now duplicate the Fingerprints of the Emperor?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611
I have to admit, perhaps my favourite image this issue is the picture of the Patent of Nobility card - there's a reflection of the hand that took the picture.
Did Marc take that photo? Does this mean that we can now duplicate the Fingerprints of the Emperor?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30623611
I've read through it. Back in MegaTraveller, my understanding was that most worlds had a Baron. Now it seems if the 'world noble' is a Baron, that means that it's not that important a world. Fair enough.
The Landed Knights seem to be the next big change, effectively adding a layer to administration of the Imperium.
I'm really hoping that Part 2 [or 3?] of the article demonstrates how this improves the Imperium.
I also wonder how many nobles try to make a run for the border when they get audited - the bit on page 7 about how
"Audits are
rarely public; any negative results are often cloaked in
euphemism or misdirection. Such nobles die in traffic
accidents or misadventures, or decide to retire to their
estate to be with family"
probably gives the surviving nobles plenty of examples of what not to do!
The Landed Knights seem to be the next big change, effectively adding a layer to administration of the Imperium.
I'm really hoping that Part 2 [or 3?] of the article demonstrates how this improves the Imperium.
I also wonder how many nobles try to make a run for the border when they get audited - the bit on page 7 about how
"Audits are
rarely public; any negative results are often cloaked in
euphemism or misdirection. Such nobles die in traffic
accidents or misadventures, or decide to retire to their
estate to be with family"
probably gives the surviving nobles plenty of examples of what not to do!
A notable change that it does make:
When every world had at least a Baron under the old Noble system, it meant that every world had a representative who had a vote (or proxy vote) in the Moot.
Under the new system, the only Noble guaranteed for an Imperial World is a minimum of a Landed a Knight (who do not get Moot-votes). This means that a world has to be "important enough" in order to have a Noble who has a voice in the Moot (meriting at least an Imperial Landed Baronet).
Last edited:
That would be nice.
Hence a change from civil servant to feudal underling. Yes, that seems very likely.
Hans
Yes, but IIRC the description of what authority a noble has over his holdings limits it (to economic control?). Just what the limits are is unclear (again IIRC), but that the are limits seems clear enough. That would not be the case if the landhold had extrality, would it? Or are those limits imposed by his feudal overlord?
Hans
A Landed Knightis as the imperial representative to the world
a problem with canon
(general ref, T5 master text p 49-50, 93, 96)
Specific ref, quote P 96
The first hex in any grant is on the Noble’s homeworld.
All subsequent hexes are randomly allocated. For each hex
on a mainworld, a noble is also allowed one hex on a nonmainworld
in the same system.
furter indications (ref table on the same page) the size of the land grant is 1 hex and is on the homeworld
Therefore, a Landed Kight either does not have a grant on the world he represent the Imperium to or he could represent only his homeworld?
Alternate explanation?
Beside that, I enyoyed the article, not much details on the Noble's power, but on the upside, does not contradict the Canon (that I see). Sorting Honor, Ceremonial and Landed nobility is quite usefull .
By the way on extratoritoriality, specific quote p.49
A Land Grant differs from ordinary ownership of land;
it confers specific rights and privileges on its holder. These
rights include:
Economic Control over one Terrain Hex (6,500 square
km) on a world and an associated income based on taxes
and production. Economic Control is similar to governmental
control: the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral
expectations; (emphasis mine) the ability to control who can occupy the
land (and pay rent or taxes).
Outright Ownership of one Local Hex (approximately
65 square km= 6500 hectares= 16,000 acres).
That imho is part of the minimum exacted by the TI on member worlds (re: the post by whulorigan), with the "within reason" caveat being the creative preserve of the ref, justified if needed as the negociated part of the terms of adhesions and possibly different on every planet.
have fun
Selandia
a problem with canon
(general ref, T5 master text p 49-50, 93, 96)
Specific ref, quote P 96
The first hex in any grant is on the Noble’s homeworld.
All subsequent hexes are randomly allocated. For each hex
on a mainworld, a noble is also allowed one hex on a nonmainworld
in the same system.
furter indications (ref table on the same page) the size of the land grant is 1 hex and is on the homeworld
Therefore, a Landed Kight either does not have a grant on the world he represent the Imperium to or he could represent only his homeworld?
Alternate explanation?
Beside that, I enyoyed the article, not much details on the Noble's power, but on the upside, does not contradict the Canon (that I see). Sorting Honor, Ceremonial and Landed nobility is quite usefull .
By the way on extratoritoriality, specific quote p.49
A Land Grant differs from ordinary ownership of land;
it confers specific rights and privileges on its holder. These
rights include:
Economic Control over one Terrain Hex (6,500 square
km) on a world and an associated income based on taxes
and production. Economic Control is similar to governmental
control: the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral
expectations; (emphasis mine) the ability to control who can occupy the
land (and pay rent or taxes).
Outright Ownership of one Local Hex (approximately
65 square km= 6500 hectares= 16,000 acres).
That imho is part of the minimum exacted by the TI on member worlds (re: the post by whulorigan), with the "within reason" caveat being the creative preserve of the ref, justified if needed as the negociated part of the terms of adhesions and possibly different on every planet.
have fun
Selandia
Not really. Under the old system a high noble was (one of) the Imperium's representative(s) to his world, not the world's representative to the Imperium. Member worlds would presumably send representatives (whatever they were called) to the local duke's capital. The more powerful member worlds would also send representatives to the sector capital and to Capital, but most of the lobbying action would be with the subsector duke.
(And being actually appointed by the world's government these representatives might actually represent the government.)
Has the role of the Moot changed too? Otherwise it would make very little difference to a member world if it had a a noble in the Moot or not.
Hans
Thank you for the quote.
I have some trouble with the description of Economic Control:
If it IS governmental control, why not call it that? It implies some sort of difference.
If it is similar to governmental control is it then different in some way? What way?
"the ability (within reason) to create law and behavioral expectations; the ability to control who can occupy the land (and pay rent or taxes)."
The ability to create law sounds like governmental authority. The rest seems just like ordinary ownership. And big landowners do have the ability to make regulations and enforce behavior. They just don't call it laws. Perhaps the definition is talking about bylaws?
Hans
Selandia said:
From Imperiallines #7, p.5 (emphasis mine):
