Book 1 (1st Ed.) nobles

[rancke]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
No what you claimed to have was proof that nobles in CT chargen were planetary nobles. What you in fact had was a suposition based on your impression of relative power. That's not proof.

I've been trying three times to write a courteous reply to this, but every time I find myself moving into personal attack territory, and I don't like to go there.

In most of the discussions I engage in, I can see the merit of my opponents' views. For instance, I can see Aramis' argument that discrepancies in material from different Traveller incarnations indicates that they describe different universes. I don't agree with him, but I can see his point of view.

In this case I can't see it. In my opinion, anyone who can read the quoted text and claim that the dukes it talks about could possibly be meant to be the kind of dukes the Imperium has[*] is being unreasonable. That is, anyone who claims that after taking time to think it over carefully is.

[*] Not, mind you, that it isn't possible to have special situations where high-ranking nobles have lesser titles that puts them over another noble in some situations and below him in others, but that this particular text is talking about anything like that. The empire it talks about consists of 'several' worlds, for the luffa Mike! "More than two but less than many". Not 10,000. Not even the 70 worlds of the proto-Imperium. Just 'several'!

You might as well tell me that I haven't proven that 1+1 is 2, Dave. And I'm just as much at a loss for further arguments as if you had told me that 1 wasn't necessarily less than 2. If you can't see it, I can't think of anything else that could possibly change your mind.

So I guess the best thing to do is to agree to disagree. You say I haven't proven my claim. I say I have. further debate would seem to be futile.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
If I remember correctly, our first look at Imperial nobility used the same codes as rancke's presumed planetary nobility - an Imperial duke and a "planetary" duke were each Soc F. Unless I missed something, CT never bothered to make a distinction, perhaps because the original rules were setting-neutral as presented.

What you've missed is the same thing that the author of the essay about Imperial nobility in Library Data missed, namely that by turning SL 12+ into Imperial nobles, the planetary nobles were bereft of a place of their own on the rank ladder, or rather, they were squeezed into a single level or two. SL 10 is gentry. Non-nobles. SL 13 are Imperial marquesses, the social equals of planetary rulers. That means that everything from the English baronet to the King of a country fits into SL 11 and 12.

Try a thought experiment. Take a world that is a carbon copy of Earth today, except that it is an Imperial world. Same population, same tech level, same sort of countries with the same sort of rulers. Assume that the Emperor has seen fit to grace some of the most important rulers of Pseudo-earth with Imperial titles. Who among the cognates of our illustrious world leaders has an Imperial title and what is it? And what is the rank of the Imperial noble that is associated with Pseudo-earth itself? Now tell me the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London.

In any case, who cares?

Duh! Obviously the people who argue about it care.

This whole topic seems like a solution in search of a problem. A referee can use the same Soc to represent planetary or Imperial ranks of nobility and make the distinction in the character background, or use Soc A to represent planetary nobility (without respect to specific rank) and Soc B or better to represent Imperial nobles, or something else - it's the referee's call.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that in any system where the lower and middle classes cover ten social levels, there is room for about a dozen levels of rank between country squire and planetary leader and that to squeeze those 12 levels into one or two is unreasonable and constitutes a problem that could do with a solution -- at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.


Hans

 

[rancke]

I'm running out of time and I'm off on holiday next week. I'll be back the monday after the next.


Cheers,
Hans

 

[Border Reiver]

The whole argument seems moot in my opinion (no pun intended). Anything written in the 1st edition that differs from the later editions (2nd ed.;Starter;TTB) ought to be regarded obsolete.

Soc is an indication of the social class and level of the character and that of his family in the society they originate, not an indication of power or area governed. Quite frankly IYTU and you can interpret the rules anyway you like.

There are semi-canonical references to Kings & Queens in the OTU as planetary rulers but still subservient to subsector authority.

 

[Border Reiver]

The whole argument seems moot in my opinion (no pun intended). Anything written in the 1st edition that differs from the later editions (2nd ed.;Starter;TTB) ought to be regarded obsolete.

Soc is an indication of the social class and level of the character and that of his family in the society they originate, not an indication of power or area governed. Quite frankly IYTU and you can interpret the rules anyway you like.

There are semi-canonical references to Kings & Queens in the OTU as planetary rulers but still subservient to subsector authority.

 

[Border Reiver]

at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.

in Traveller?
with j-drive?
grav plates?
the ancients?

 

[Border Reiver]

at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.

in Traveller?
with j-drive?
grav plates?
the ancients?

 

[jawillroy]

Well, Reiver (sic), I'll grant you the J drive and the grav plates.

But not all of us oldschoolers hold with this newfangled "Ancients" muck. I mean, that didn't surface for at least a year after first edition.

 

[jawillroy]

Well, Reiver (sic), I'll grant you the J drive and the grav plates.

But not all of us oldschoolers hold with this newfangled "Ancients" muck. I mean, that didn't surface for at least a year after first edition.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by rancke:
Try a thought experiment. Take a world that is a carbon copy of Earth today, except that it is an Imperial world. Same population, same tech level, same sort of countries with the same sort of rulers. Assume that the Emperor has seen fit to grace some of the most important rulers of Pseudo-earth with Imperial titles. Who among the cognates of our illustrious world leaders has an Imperial title and what is it? And what is the rank of the Imperial noble that is associated with Pseudo-earth itself? Now tell me the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London.

Love thought experiments

The way I understand The Imperium the Emperor wouldn't grant world leaders titles. It's not his/her place nor mandate.

The Emperor in granting titles to citizens is rewarding/acknowledging service to The Imperium not to a world that is a part of it. This is most easily achieved in The Services (primarily the Interstellar Navy, all that "rules the space between worlds" stuff).

A world such as Earth, under Imperial rule, is free to practice any government it choses as long as it doesn't interfere with Imperial concerns.

So the rank of any Imperial Noble appointed to govern the Emperor's concerns on Earth would in effect outrank any world leader on some matters, even if said Noble were simply a Baron. On other matters the Baron wouldn't have any right or power to say, even over the mayor of some small rural town.

So the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London would be the same as any other citizen of the Imperium who hasn't been elevated to The Nobility, between 2 and 10 depending on their perceived value of service to The Imperium. And you only get that (in MTU at least) through Imperial Service. If you don't serve the Imperium, even if your homeworld is an Imperial world, you don't even have Soc 2, you aren't even a Citizen. You are simply a subject with Soc 1 and very limited rights to interstellar travel. Even if you are the King of England or President of the U.S.A.

Now said world (Earth in this case) may grant said Imperial Baron some local title as well, say Earl of Starport, but that title wouldn't hold any power beyond Earth, and would be treated as quite quaint in the Imperial Court.

But that may be just my interpretation of the whole mess.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by rancke:
Try a thought experiment. Take a world that is a carbon copy of Earth today, except that it is an Imperial world. Same population, same tech level, same sort of countries with the same sort of rulers. Assume that the Emperor has seen fit to grace some of the most important rulers of Pseudo-earth with Imperial titles. Who among the cognates of our illustrious world leaders has an Imperial title and what is it? And what is the rank of the Imperial noble that is associated with Pseudo-earth itself? Now tell me the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London.

Love thought experiments

The way I understand The Imperium the Emperor wouldn't grant world leaders titles. It's not his/her place nor mandate.

The Emperor in granting titles to citizens is rewarding/acknowledging service to The Imperium not to a world that is a part of it. This is most easily achieved in The Services (primarily the Interstellar Navy, all that "rules the space between worlds" stuff).

A world such as Earth, under Imperial rule, is free to practice any government it choses as long as it doesn't interfere with Imperial concerns.

So the rank of any Imperial Noble appointed to govern the Emperor's concerns on Earth would in effect outrank any world leader on some matters, even if said Noble were simply a Baron. On other matters the Baron wouldn't have any right or power to say, even over the mayor of some small rural town.

So the social level of the Squire of Smallbridge and the Mayor of London would be the same as any other citizen of the Imperium who hasn't been elevated to The Nobility, between 2 and 10 depending on their perceived value of service to The Imperium. And you only get that (in MTU at least) through Imperial Service. If you don't serve the Imperium, even if your homeworld is an Imperial world, you don't even have Soc 2, you aren't even a Citizen. You are simply a subject with Soc 1 and very limited rights to interstellar travel. Even if you are the King of England or President of the U.S.A.

Now said world (Earth in this case) may grant said Imperial Baron some local title as well, say Earl of Starport, but that title wouldn't hold any power beyond Earth, and would be treated as quite quaint in the Imperial Court.

But that may be just my interpretation of the whole mess.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by rancke:
My opinion is that in any system where the lower and middle classes cover ten social levels, there is room for about a dozen levels of rank between country squire and planetary leader and that to squeeze those 12 levels into one or two is unreasonable and constitutes a problem that could do with a solution -- at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.

Or perhaps the rest of us don't expect the UPP to provide anything more than a relative description of the character's social status, as opposed to a discrete position in the peerage, because we recognize that the planetary monarch His Grace the Grand Duke of Nozashgand is also the Imperial Baron of Yexich, and therefore the Soc digit of the UPP is an incomplete tool no matter how many ranks are available.

I use the UPP as the crudest form of shorthand, nothing more, because no matter what the number or how many ranks are available to define it, it will never tell us much about the character in isolation. A Soc 4 gangster with five levels in Streetwise and three in Leader could be a crime lord with more power and influence than a dissolute Soc 12 Imperial Baron who's family fortune was squandered on bad investments and worse vices.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by rancke:
My opinion is that in any system where the lower and middle classes cover ten social levels, there is room for about a dozen levels of rank between country squire and planetary leader and that to squeeze those 12 levels into one or two is unreasonable and constitutes a problem that could do with a solution -- at least to those of us who likes our Traveller universes to have a modicum of verisimilitude.

Or perhaps the rest of us don't expect the UPP to provide anything more than a relative description of the character's social status, as opposed to a discrete position in the peerage, because we recognize that the planetary monarch His Grace the Grand Duke of Nozashgand is also the Imperial Baron of Yexich, and therefore the Soc digit of the UPP is an incomplete tool no matter how many ranks are available.

I use the UPP as the crudest form of shorthand, nothing more, because no matter what the number or how many ranks are available to define it, it will never tell us much about the character in isolation. A Soc 4 gangster with five levels in Streetwise and three in Leader could be a crime lord with more power and influence than a dissolute Soc 12 Imperial Baron who's family fortune was squandered on bad investments and worse vices.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by rancke:
I've been trying three times to write a courteous reply to this, but every time I find myself moving into personal attack territory, and I don't like to go there.

I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to put you in that position. My argument is merely that the statement you offer as proving your point relies on external assumptions that aren't imediately obviously true.

The first assumption being that a person of higher rank must wield greater power. Others have already shown many historical situations in which this is not the case.

The second assumption is that a subsector duke wields more power than a planetary monarch. This is also not necesarily true as the duke's power is over a limited portion of governance, is not necesarily absolute, and is derived not inherent while the king's power can be absolute over his demesne, covers a broader mandate, and is inherent to his position. When you add in the realities of Imperial funding (30% to the empire, 70% stays home) and the overwhelming power of hi-pop worlds the balance of power shifts even more toward the monarch.

Do you see now how a planetary monarch could reasonably be seen to have a greater rank than a subsector noble? If not then truly we do need to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by rancke:
I've been trying three times to write a courteous reply to this, but every time I find myself moving into personal attack territory, and I don't like to go there.

I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to put you in that position. My argument is merely that the statement you offer as proving your point relies on external assumptions that aren't imediately obviously true.

The first assumption being that a person of higher rank must wield greater power. Others have already shown many historical situations in which this is not the case.

The second assumption is that a subsector duke wields more power than a planetary monarch. This is also not necesarily true as the duke's power is over a limited portion of governance, is not necesarily absolute, and is derived not inherent while the king's power can be absolute over his demesne, covers a broader mandate, and is inherent to his position. When you add in the realities of Imperial funding (30% to the empire, 70% stays home) and the overwhelming power of hi-pop worlds the balance of power shifts even more toward the monarch.

Do you see now how a planetary monarch could reasonably be seen to have a greater rank than a subsector noble? If not then truly we do need to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[BillDowns]

Just to throw out a couple of points:

LBB 1-3, 1st Ed. do not mention the Imperium at all.

LBB1, pg 2 The Campaign: ...snip... The referee should generate the basic facts of his universe before play begins.

On Social Standing,

LBB1, pg 4 Social Standing denotes the social class and level of society from which the character (and his family) come.

LBB1, pg 4 Titles: ...snip... The full range of titles is given in Book 3.

LBB3, pg 22 NOBILITY ...snip... Ranking above duke/duchess are two levels not reflected in social standing: prince/princess or king/queen are titles used by actual rulers of worlds. The title emperor/empress is used by the ruler of an empire of several worlds.

And finally,

Capt Jack Sparrow: The Code is more guidelines than rules, anyway.

Use whatever makes sense in your Traveller Universe.

All of which is why, to me, Classic Traveller is LBB1-3, 1st ed. All others are Classic OTU - not the same thing.

 

[BillDowns]

Just to throw out a couple of points:

LBB 1-3, 1st Ed. do not mention the Imperium at all.

LBB1, pg 2 The Campaign: ...snip... The referee should generate the basic facts of his universe before play begins.

On Social Standing,

LBB1, pg 4 Social Standing denotes the social class and level of society from which the character (and his family) come.

LBB1, pg 4 Titles: ...snip... The full range of titles is given in Book 3.

LBB3, pg 22 NOBILITY ...snip... Ranking above duke/duchess are two levels not reflected in social standing: prince/princess or king/queen are titles used by actual rulers of worlds. The title emperor/empress is used by the ruler of an empire of several worlds.

And finally,

Capt Jack Sparrow: The Code is more guidelines than rules, anyway.

Use whatever makes sense in your Traveller Universe.

All of which is why, to me, Classic Traveller is LBB1-3, 1st ed. All others are Classic OTU - not the same thing.

 

[aramis]

Consider this Billy:

I've never even seen 1st ed. I cut my teeth on The Traveller Book (I also simultaneously got the 1984-current printing of Deluxe Traveller, but I worked from then and still do TTB.)

For many of us, despite 2-25 years of Traveller play and reffing, Traveller has "always" mentioned the Imperium, if only as a name and concept. It was mentioned specifically in Bks 1-3 and TTB; TTB also has a considerable chunk of additional materials.

Hans: You simple are trying to subsume to elements of Nobility: Title and Office, into a stat that measures only one, Title. Title is what gets you invites, and determines where you sit. Office gets you real power and authority. A planetary King may or may not hold some Office. Sociallly, he's equal to the Imperial Crown Prince, and holds precedence above/before an Archduke. He is NOT however, in an Imperial Office.

What the passage on dukes in TTB implies is that the first imperial Offices are for dukes of subsectors.

The other problem in understanding the situation is that very few modern nobles actually hold offices besides the crowns.

-----=====-----=====-----

As an Ironic aside, until the late 1980's , MTU had Archdukes ruling Sectors, and no domains existed; when someone showed me a domain map, I assumed principalities. I also referred to Subsector Dukes as Grand Dukes for clarity... using:
SS Title
K Emperor
J Prince (Domain)
H Archduke (Sector)
G Grand Duke (SubSector)
F Duke
E Marquis
D Count
C Baron
B Knight

I always assumed imperial titles.

Now, for planetary titles, I assumed that, as a courtesy, the ranks would be respected as one below equivalent for social purposes, but all knights and lesser peers would be permanently granted knighthoods, all the "Barons Greater" (Barons through non-sovereign Archdukes) get imperial Baronial Rank, and Royals (Sovereign Dukes, plus all princes, kings, and emperors) Were Counts Imperial.

 

[aramis]

Consider this Billy:

I've never even seen 1st ed. I cut my teeth on The Traveller Book (I also simultaneously got the 1984-current printing of Deluxe Traveller, but I worked from then and still do TTB.)

For many of us, despite 2-25 years of Traveller play and reffing, Traveller has "always" mentioned the Imperium, if only as a name and concept. It was mentioned specifically in Bks 1-3 and TTB; TTB also has a considerable chunk of additional materials.

Hans: You simple are trying to subsume to elements of Nobility: Title and Office, into a stat that measures only one, Title. Title is what gets you invites, and determines where you sit. Office gets you real power and authority. A planetary King may or may not hold some Office. Sociallly, he's equal to the Imperial Crown Prince, and holds precedence above/before an Archduke. He is NOT however, in an Imperial Office.

What the passage on dukes in TTB implies is that the first imperial Offices are for dukes of subsectors.

The other problem in understanding the situation is that very few modern nobles actually hold offices besides the crowns.

-----=====-----=====-----

As an Ironic aside, until the late 1980's , MTU had Archdukes ruling Sectors, and no domains existed; when someone showed me a domain map, I assumed principalities. I also referred to Subsector Dukes as Grand Dukes for clarity... using:
SS Title
K Emperor
J Prince (Domain)
H Archduke (Sector)
G Grand Duke (SubSector)
F Duke
E Marquis
D Count
C Baron
B Knight

I always assumed imperial titles.

Now, for planetary titles, I assumed that, as a courtesy, the ranks would be respected as one below equivalent for social purposes, but all knights and lesser peers would be permanently granted knighthoods, all the "Barons Greater" (Barons through non-sovereign Archdukes) get imperial Baronial Rank, and Royals (Sovereign Dukes, plus all princes, kings, and emperors) Were Counts Imperial.

 

[Straybow]

Soc is simply who you will or will not associate with, and who will or will not associate with you. At least publicly.

Your peers (uncapitalized) may view you as winsome or loathesome, worthy or worthless; it doesn't matter much. You are peers and have to deal with each other. At least until one of you gets bumped up or down a notch.