• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Ageing by Tech Level

The problem still remains, as my last example showed. There is one Baron in your home system. Quixotically, there is only one Knight in your home system. If there is a Baron, there is no Knight, and vice versa. It isn't like historical situations where there are dozens or hundreds of Barons in a country, and thousands of Knights. It would be like rolling up a DnD character and having a 2.78% chance that the character be the King of the local country.

Actually, you did not read my post upthread carefully. The quote above is NOT correct. There may be any number of Knights, Barons, (or even higher) in any given system. It is that there is only one Landed Knight, and one Landed Baron in the particular case you described above (who each have an assigned Imperial administrative function). There may potentially be an unspecified number of Ceremonial (Administrative) Nobles of any rank, and a likewise unspecified number of Honor Nobles of any rank. Only the Imperially-appointed Landed Nobility for a given world are specified in the Noble Extension in T5 (and on Traveller Map).

You are making the error that Nobility = World Ruler (and/or other government official). This was my point: Nobility is a Social Class distinction with privileges (nothing more). A Noble need not have any official function. Nobility of the appropriate rank does, however, qualify you told hold certain posts (but does not guarantee or specify any - such an appointment is the pleasure of the Emperor).

Therefore, when the CharGen system is used to generate a PC or NPC and a Noble-SOC is generated, there is no specification whatsoever that that character is THE Landed Noble of the homeworld (unless the referee chooses to specify them as such). But that would severely limit the kind of campaign that the character could participate in, as such a Noble would have official responsibilities.


Now to be fair of course, this is the IMTU forum, so if you want it to work differently for your campaign, go for it. But the thread is about Ageing by TL, and Spinward Flow raised the issue of Imperial Nobility in the Third Imperium in that context.
 
Sounds like a mess.

Superficially, if as a representative of the Emperor/Imperium, a noble would be expected to be at his post at least three quarters of the year, so not a lot of Travelling.

Subsector dukes would be more likely encountered moving around their demesne, and Sector Dukes sector wide, if not an excursion once in their reign to the Capitol.

Titles by courtesy and function confuses this, especially from a Medieval viewpoint.

From Pre Revolutionary France, where children could have more sophisticated courtesy titles than the more simplified form it took in England, that really could make it even more confusing.

Awarding conquering military heroes with titles, which seems encouraged by the navy life path.
 
Possibly early Twentieth Century, as well.

Bureaucrats and the nouveau riche, one for loyalty and performance, the other with campaign contributions or other forms of compensations, could get titles.
 
Every time I look at the thread I keep thinking of this, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Daly is said to have yelled "Come on, you sons of b------, do you want to live forever?" to the men in his company before they charged the Germans during the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War I.
Dan Dailey was one of two Marines who won two Medals of Honor for separate and distinct action.
 
I don’t buy the sedentary noble model.

This is a trade empire and there would be face to faces, development, negotiations/disputes to resolve, planets and subsectors would be looking to send ‘their man’ along to settle matters.
 
I don’t buy the sedentary noble model.
Depends on Location, Location, Location ... and also on the personalities (and skills) of the individuals involved.

Some nobles no doubt ARE what amounts to homebodies ... when they aren't being interstellar embarrassments.
Some nobles are going to be "well traveled" (and have Travellers' memberships) doing lots of interstellar diplomacy and trade missions.

Point being, you're going to have a spectrum, from those who never leave their homeworld/fiefdom to those who are "jump-setter" types who are rarely at their own home system. It's going to vary pretty widely ... so you really need to know Who's Who in order to know What's What with the nobles who are In Post (as opposed to the retired or otherwise "honorary" nobles).
 
Depends on Location, Location, Location ... and also on the personalities (and skills) of the individuals involved.

Some nobles no doubt ARE what amounts to homebodies ... when they aren't being interstellar embarrassments.
Some nobles are going to be "well traveled" (and have Travellers' memberships) doing lots of interstellar diplomacy and trade missions.

Point being, you're going to have a spectrum, from those who never leave their homeworld/fiefdom to those who are "jump-setter" types who are rarely at their own home system. It's going to vary pretty widely ... so you really need to know Who's Who in order to know What's What with the nobles who are In Post (as opposed to the retired or otherwise "honorary" nobles).
And the size of the noble contingent. A Knight on a low-pop world will likely be deeply involved in running things. A Knight on a high-pop world is going to be a step or two down from the top of the totem pole, and thus be out-and-about running diplomatic errands.
 
As far as Nobles are concerned I don't think anyone has looked at the Noble carrier in T5.1, or the rules for fiefs and where they are located.
Book 1 Character gen page 85, Land Grants P40 & 41, and the chart on p44, and again on p88. All of this implies something different than what some are assuming.

Note; I don't think that the types of Nobles generated by T5.1 and Mgt1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
 
As far as Nobles are concerned I don't think anyone has looked at the Noble carrier in T5.1, or the rules for fiefs and where they are located.
Book 1 Character gen page 85, Land Grants P40 & 41, and the chart on p44, and again on p88. All of this implies something different than what some are assuming.

Note; I don't think that the types of Nobles generated by T5.1 and Mgt1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.
Good point.
 
It's hard to represent, or administer on behalf of, the Imperium, if you're off gallivanting.

The reason for a fiefdom is that it's indirect income, instead of collecting a paycheck direct from the Emperor, and having it run by a seneschal is acceptable, in the sense that you might be a noble on naval duty, or not, as this might be the most efficient way to milk it. You're not representing your fiefdom, it's a milkcow.
 
And the size of the noble contingent. A Knight on a low-pop world will likely be deeply involved in running things. A Knight on a high-pop world is going to be a step or two down from the top of the totem pole, and thus be out-and-about running diplomatic errands.

The implication of T5.1 (and Imperiallines Issue #7) is that the "Landed Knight" assigned to each world is effectively an "Imperial Ambassador" to the world on behalf of the Imperium who advises and represents the Imperium to the world government and population. The Landed Knight is typically expected to spend most of his time "on world" in this capacity, and be available to the population.

The higher level "Landed Nobles" on a given world (which not all worlds have) represent the interests of the world to the Imperium before the Imperial Moot and/or other worlds in the subsector government. He/She is the "Imperial politician" on behalf of the world, so to speak. Note that this implies that only worlds which the Imperium considers economically or politically significant in some way have representation before the Moot (since while all worlds have a Landed Knight, not all qualify for higher Landed Nobles).


As far as Nobles are concerned I don't think anyone has looked at the Noble carrier in T5.1, or the rules for fiefs and where they are located.
Book 1 Character gen page 85, Land Grants P40 & 41, and the chart on p44, and again on p88. All of this implies something different than what some are assuming.

I have commented specifically from that standpoint. A noble title is usually assigned specifically to a (single) world that has particular trade or political characteristics. Along with the title goes a land-grant that not only serves as the means of income for the noble's personal maintenance (based on rents and revenues arising from the grant), but also gives economic oversight on those lands that are part of the grant (meaning that the noble has personal motivation to develop them and make them economically profitable).

The land grants of Knights thru Barons are all local and located on the world with which the noble title is associated. The grants of higher nobles include some territory on other worlds within a subsector (in the case of the Marquis and Viscount), and in the cases of Counts and Dukes also include some territory on worlds across the rest of the sector. What this means is that the higher level titles have economic control of some lands and industries that are off-world from the primary world of his title, and means that he has authority to establish trade and resource supply lines for his economic interests between the lands in his off-world land-grant territories and his primary world. Thus a Marquis or Viscount has some economic reach across his subsector, and a Count or Duke has economic influence within the larger sector in which his title-world is located.

Note also that most nobles also have lesser subsidiary noble titles independent of their highest main title, and each of those lesser titles (also each independently associated with a single world) have their own independent land-grants and associated economic control.

Note; I don't think that the types of Nobles generated by T5.1 and Mgt1 & 2 are mutually exclusive.

I would agree; I think the CT/MT/MgT model and the T5 model can be reconciled & harmonized.

Based on the T5 Land Grant charts you mentioned above, the T5 ruleset says that the first Terrian Hex ("THex") in a noble land-grant is on the noble's homeworld, and the rest are randomly determined. But what does that mean? There is no formula or guideline as to how to randomly determine the hexes of a grant (other than the general guideline in the table as to where the hexes are generally assigned) - so I interpret this to mean it is by referee fiat.

The way I would assign the land grant hexes in any particular grant for marquis and above would be as follows (as a general guideline - not graven in stone):

Marquis (8 THexes total across subsector)
  • First 4 hexes on Title-world
  • Remaining 4 hexes on other worlds in subsector
Viscount (16 THexes total across subsector)
  • First 8 hexes on Title-world
  • Of remaining 8 hexes:
    • First 4 on one or two other closely associated worlds
    • Remaining 4 hexes on other worlds in subsector
Count (32 THexes total across sector)
  • First 16 hexes on Title-world
  • Of remaining 16 hexes:
    • First 8 on one or two other closely associated worlds
    • Of remaining 8 hexes:
      • First 4 on other worlds in subsector
      • Remaining 4 hexes on other worlds in sector
Duke (64 THexes total across sector)
  • First 32 hexes on Title-world
  • Of remaining 32 hexes:
    • First 16 on a small cluster of other closely associated worlds
    • Of remaining 16 hexes:
      • First 8 on other worlds in local subsector
      • Remaining 8 hexes on other worlds in sector
Subsector (Greater) Duke (128 THexes total across sector)
  • First 64 hexes on Title-world
  • Of remaining 64 hexes:
    • First 32 on a small cluster of other closely associated worlds
    • Of remaining 32 hexes:
      • First 16 on other worlds in local subsector
      • Remaining 16 hexes on other worlds in sector
Archduke (256 THexes total across domain)
  • First 128 hexes on Title-world
  • Of remaining 128 hexes:
    • First 64 on a small cluster of other closely associated worlds
    • Of remaining 64 hexes:
      • First 32 on other worlds in local subsector
      • Of remaining 32 hexes:
        • First 16 hexes on other worlds in local sector
        • Remaining 16 hexes on worlds in other sectors in associated Domain

Using the above:
  1. A Marquis is essentially a "Baron-Plus" (he has the 4-THex Barony grant on his homeworld like a typical Baron, and some off-world influence in his local region - i.e. a Marquis is an "important" Baron.
  2. The association of a Viscount or Count with "2 or 3 worlds" is preserved, while generating a primary region of influence that decreases with distance from the main title-world.
  3. Dukes remain highly invested in their local subsector, while having influence across the rest of the sector.
 
Last edited:
Except that, in the real world, it really wasn't raising due to reducing age effects. The age of death from age-related disfunction has always been in the 70-120 range. It's pandemics and wars that have been reduced in lethality. Many wound that would have been merely cauterized in 1400 would be cleaned in 1850... and tourniquets made huge improvements in battle survival well before surgery was a safe proposition. Further, increases in force multipliers reduced willingness to fight somewhat - fewer wars, the rise of international law, the sheer bloody brutality if the USCW, the Boer War, The Crimean War, and WW I really did a damper on war - but not because of the military being unwilling... the photographers made a big one... when the news prints post battle photos, the horrors of war became more evident.

I mostly disagree with this analysis .

It's true, deaths due to war or epidemic outbreaks have been reduced, and this has increased not only average life span, but also the quality of life (probably represented by the stats) of the elderly.

When Bismark put the retirement age at 65, about 10% of the German population reached it. Now most people can expect to live quite longer, and it's not as much for the lack of wars as it is for the improed life conditions. Antibiotics and vaccines have reduced mortality due to infectious diseases to t he point of now being a rarity (although not unheard about) except for people with previous medical conditions (that would not have survived at those times. At least in the most adva nced societies (that represent the higher TL ones).

Most viri are now controlled by vaccines, an d most bacteriaw by antibiotids, and that ha risen the average life span (and quality) for most people. Sanitary conditions have also improved, helping to control outbreaks. Death by smallpox (now erradicated), measles, chickenpox, pneumony, etc a re now quite rare, and they we re quite common before those medi cal advances, than affect most population (moslty for vacciones, as they lose most their effect if only given to a small and privilegiend part of the po pulation), and disability due to polio is now declining as it is being erradicated too.

This aside, any deaths due to war casualties would be represented by the survival roll in chargen, not by ageing, and the secondary effects of a war (crops and infrastructure disrupting) would mostly deny the effects of high TL, probably even lowering it if too serious (as in MT:HT),

And see that in 3I thi sreductions of wars seems not to be a fact in a ny case...
 
I mostly disagree with this analysis .

It's true, deaths due to war or epidemic outbreaks have been reduced, and this has increased not only average life span, but also the quality of life (probably represented by the stats) of the elderly.

When Bismark put the retirement age at 65, about 10% of the German population reached it. Now most people can expect to live quite longer, and it's not as much for the lack of wars as it is for the improed life conditions. Antibiotics and vaccines have reduced mortality due to infectious diseases to t he point of now being a rarity (although not unheard about) except for people with previous medical conditions (that would not have survived at those times. At least in the most adva nced societies (that represent the higher TL ones).

Most viri are now controlled by vaccines, an d most bacteriaw by antibiotids, and that ha risen the average life span (and quality) for most people. Sanitary conditions have also improved, helping to control outbreaks. Death by smallpox (now erradicated), measles, chickenpox, pneumony, etc a re now quite rare, and they we re quite common before those medi cal advances, than affect most population (moslty for vacciones, as they lose most their effect if only given to a small and privilegiend part of the po pulation), and disability due to polio is now declining as it is being erradicated too.

This aside, any deaths due to war casualties would be represented by the survival roll in chargen, not by ageing, and the secondary effects of a war (crops and infrastructure disrupting) would mostly deny the effects of high TL, probably even lowering it if too serious (as in MT:HT),

And see that in 3I thi sreductions of wars seems not to be a fact in a ny case...
You're conflating non-aging related disease (viruses, bacteria) and aging related (many cancers, heart disease, chronic lung disorders). Now, many of the aging related are in fact a combination of external factors, but with time-cumulative effects over a year or more.
We've reduced the non-aging, relatively short term, lethal diseases. I never claimed otherwise. When you remove viral and bacterial, and voplence, you still run to the median in the mid 70's all the way back to Cæsar's Rome. You still run the same 120 max age, as well.
 
Actually, you did not read my post upthread carefully. The quote above is NOT correct. There may be any number of Knights, Barons, (or even higher) in any given system. It is that there is only one Landed Knight, and one Landed Baron in the particular case you described above (who each have an assigned Imperial administrative function). There may potentially be an unspecified number of Ceremonial (Administrative) Nobles of any rank, and a likewise unspecified number of Honor Nobles of any rank. Only the Imperially-appointed Landed Nobility for a given world are specified in the Noble Extension in T5 (and on Traveller Map).
No, I didn't read your post carefully, nor was I responding to your post specifically.
You are making the error that Nobility = World Ruler (and/or other government official). This was my point: Nobility is a Social Class distinction with privileges (nothing more). A Noble need not have any official function. Nobility of the appropriate rank does, however, qualify you told hold certain posts (but does not guarantee or specify any - such an appointment is the pleasure of the Emperor).
The scale is still way, way off. Orders of magnitude off. Historically, a Baron didn't rule a large area at all. A few thousand acres, enough for a decent sized village. A knight in the post-Hastings arrangement of England would be granted a hide, which was nominally 120 acres (some would be granted multiple hides). For comparison, a peasant farmer would need a lease of about 15 acres to support a family. Knights were subordinate to Barons, a few dozen for weak Barons, hundreds for strong.

A Count rules an area corresponding to a County; a Prince rules a Principality; a (Grand) Duke rules a (Grand) Duchy. A March was a County in a border area that required some semblance of a standing defense force above the usual assortment of Barons and knights. The Duchy or Grand Duchy would be a tiny or small country, respectively. Think Liechtenstein (actually a Barony) or Luxemburg (the world's last remaining sovereign Grand Duchy). Monaco is a Principality, but it is an oddball case (a city-state that once wielded far greater influence than it's current money-laundering function). Technically, Wales is a Principality even though it is a bit larger than most. It had been a Kingdom but was demoted after conquest.

The Kingdoms of France and Spain were the largest polities in Europe for a very long time. They overshadowed everybody else.

Actual rulership of a planet with any decent sized population can't devolve to the rank of Baron. There is simply too much power at stake. The way a feudal system works is to keep the fiefs small and the fiefholders divided by their own interests and loyal to the Crown. Perhaps a minor territorial ruler on a non-unified planet might be considered a Baron, with larger countries' rulers placed higher in the rankings. Most modern Kingdoms would be demoted to Principalities. The biggest territories, like the USA and Chi-Coms, might be considered Duchies.

The model for the Imperium "ruling the space between the stars" is a clever idea, but entirely unworkable. Interstellar trade would be only the tiniest fraction of a world's GDP. If Imperial Nobles could only tax that trade they would be individually wealthy beyond our grasp, but too poor to actually build and maintain defense fleets needed. Even on a unitary world, Knight, Baron, Viscount, Count, and Marquis would all be fractional subordinate landholdings. Only Princes and Dukes would have whole worlds (rather small ones at that).

For a position that rules an entire settled and developed planet, you might have Grand Princes, Grand Dukes. Kings would only be planets or systems that were independent from the interstellar Imperium/Republic/Federation polity. Archprinces and Archdukes would have authority over multiple subordinate Grands, but would not actually hold more than one planet. Unless the Emperor is very weak, perhaps an elected position drawn from a pool of Arches ruling multiple main-pop worlds.

Dune had it kinda correct. Main population worlds were Duchies (Herbert didn't develop a complicated system of Grands and Arches). Harkonnen was an exceptional Barony in terms of power. Dune itself would be considered a Palatinate, owned by the Seat of the Emperor, and managed as the Emperor assigns.
Therefore, when the CharGen system is used to generate a PC or NPC and a Noble-SOC is generated, there is no specification whatsoever that that character is THE Landed Noble of the homeworld (unless the referee chooses to specify them as such). But that would severely limit the kind of campaign that the character could participate in, as such a Noble would have official responsibilities.

Now to be fair of course, this is the IMTU forum, so if you want it to work differently for your campaign, go for it. But the thread is about Ageing by TL, and Spinward Flow raised the issue of Imperial Nobility in the Third Imperium in that context.
Yes, nobility would have casual access to anagathics and such, with title holders probably reigning a couple hundred years. They would marry and have families rather late in that cycle, to avoid having many generations overlapping and vying for the seat. Pity Prince Charles, who shall likely be passed over for William. There are plenty of distopian stories of advancement through assassination when the stakes are so high. "Simply unfair. It's my turn to be King. Mummy must hand over now. We should arrange something..."
 
William the By Blow was a canny by blow.

He understood that power, in the feudal sense measured by land grants, needed to be widely distributed, so that it can't be concentrated through centralization, and thereby threaten the Crown.

Considering travel times in Traveller, may not be quite workable, unless the noble in question is willing to do a circuit.

A subsector duke is likely to have seneschals to look after his fiefdoms, since he's administrating a province as a governor, whereas lesser nobles probably need to take a more hands on approach.

Marcher lords are exceptional, due to their security situation in facing hostiles.
 
The scale is still way, way off. Orders of magnitude off. Historically, a Baron didn't rule a large area at all. A few thousand acres, enough for a decent sized village. A knight in the post-Hastings arrangement of England would be granted a hide, which was nominally 120 acres (some would be granted multiple hides). For comparison, a peasant farmer would need a lease of about 15 acres to support a family. Knights were subordinate to Barons, a few dozen for weak Barons, hundreds for strong.

What does the nature of titles in High/Late Medieval Feudal England have anything to do with the structure of Imperial Nobility in the 57th Century (or any other fictional future nobility system)? In the OTU the English titles are arbitrary approximations of Old Vilani noble titles that were further redefined by the Syleans under Cleon. Would it help if we called the titles, Kiduunuuzi (B), Ishakku(C), Sarriiu(D), Shakkanakhu(E), Saarpuhi(F), Apkhallu Kibrat Arban(G), and Karand/Karun (H/H) in order to avoid confusion?


Yes, nobility would have casual access to anagathics and such, with title holders probably reigning a couple hundred years. They would marry and have families rather late in that cycle, to avoid having many generations overlapping and vying for the seat.

Yes, highly likely. The OTU used the rather forced explanation that Imperial society "frowned' on Nobles who used anagathics (or were considered outright scandalous if they did so). But that seems unrealistic and contrived to simply avoid the specter of the dystopia that would seemingly result.
 
Last edited:
What does the nature of titles in High/Late Medieval Feudal England have anything to do with the structure of Imperial Nobility in the 57th Century?
Precedent.
Parallels.
It's something that's explainable to people who can then better grasp the concept, even if it is an inexact match.
 
Back
Top