Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I would think, unless the definitions changed between 1st and 2nd editions, that the fact that those in the Navy can advance Social Standing in career generation as well as high ranking officers when mustering out that Social Standing seems to be based on an interstellar government. The Navy career is defined (in 2nd edition at least) as "the interstellar space navy". If it were a planetary space navy then I could see arguing that Social Standing was solely a planetary concern.
Good argument, but it assumes that the list of social standing is exhaustive. But we know it isn't, because we know that there are at least two more ranks, prince and king.</font>[/QUOTE]...and Emperor of course for three PC unattainable levels. Not just in character generation but ever. An artificial limit of course and referee fiat could allow exceeding it.
Originally posted by rancke:
SL 15 is merely the most a PC can be raised to during character generation. There could (and IMO should) be ranks above that. As I think I mentioned before, IMTU social ranks goes up to 33 for the Emperor and Imperial peers begin at SL 24. Imperial knighthoods, however, start at SL 11, and when the Imperium makes one of its servants SL 15, it's by giving him a knighthood that makes him the social equal of a planetary duke, not by making him an Imperial duke.
I was trying to simply address the issues for the OTU (or more properly Base TU as defined strictly by LBB1-3) but I do like your take on it, it solves one of my long time headaches. I may have to adopt your idea of Noble Titles as levels of Imperial Knighthood with planetary equivalents as you have done. We had one game with a Soc 15 character and operating under the idea that he was an Impeial Duke created too many issues for the rest of the party. It also always seemed that the rise to power was too closely packed, in your take this is fixed nicely. The Imperial Knighthood/Planetary Title scheme looks good.
Originally posted by rancke:
...I merely think the authors failed to consider the ramifications and that some of those ramifications are problematical to say the least. For instance (and relating to your argument about interstellar vs. space navies), according to HG, people who serve in system defense forces and in subsector navies have exactly the same chanes of receiving increases in their social levels as those who serve in the Imperial Navy. Is that plausible, do you think?)
Agreed, on the problematical ramifications and possibly shortsighted look at it originally.
Bringing HG into the mix really stirs things up though. By that time the OTU was being well set, with it's huge powerful Imperium and I think by then it was decided that Social Standing was Imperial and we were stuck with PCs being able to advance to Imperial Duke. And if we bring HG to the discussion table we have to include Supp 4 with its Noble career as well. Curiously it's harder to advance Socially in the Noble career than the (LBB1) Navy career. The conclusion seems to be that the Imperium respects (and rewards with power) actual "service" more than simple governance, at least some "services" such as LBB1 Navy career officers. Which backs up the idea of "rule of men, not laws" and those men and women are the highest ranking officers of the Imperial Navy. There are many hidden ramifications in this too.
As for the point that in HG the level of the Navy one is enlisted in doesn't change the chance of Social advancement, you're right, and it is odd, implausible and somewhat contradictory. But also note that HG Navy Social advancement is much reduced from LBB1 Navy Social advancement.
I'd not thought about this before but think a fair explanation might be that the Imperial Navy of LBB1 is a step above that (Socially) of the Imperial Navy of HG (which is itself about equal to the Subsector and Local Navies). So four "levels" of Naval forces seem apparent. I'd call them the Grand Imperial Navy (for LBB1), the Loyal Imperial Navy (for HG Imperial Navy), the Provincial Imperial Navies (for HG Subsector Navies), and the Allied Imperial Navies (for HG Planetary Navies). All Navies of Imperial Worlds would seem to me to be Imperial Navies. But I digress
Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I have to agree with DaveShayne too, the way I read the quote from 1st edition doesn't preclude or clearly state that nobles are planetary, nor interstellar, only that certain ranks are one or the other.
You too? Well, if two reasonable men disagree with me, it behooves me to listen. Please explain to me then how an interstellar duke comes to rate below a planetary ruler?
</font>[/QUOTE]To be honest I hadn't considered it. I guess you're meaning Imperial Dukes (Soc 15) vs Planetary Rulers (Soc 16+ such as Princes or Kings). Let me restate I like your idea of how to fix it but without that I'd have to say that I have no problem accepting that an Imperial Duke is lower than a Planetary King, on that planet. In the Emperor's Court the Imperial Duke would be higher than some distant Planetary King, at least in some matters. But both would do well to respect the other more as equals under the Emperor to which both owe ultimate allegiance as subjects.
An Imperial Duke would probably have a local (Planetary) title of Duke as well and be subject to the King of said world in some ways. It would be a very complicated set of rules regarding authority, something Nobility is not only used to working under but actually seems to thrive on.
