Book 1 (1st Ed.) nobles

[DaveShayne]

It says so somewhere in Library Data. I think it's in the general overview of the Imperium.[/QB]

Where abouts? The closest reference to world rulership I'm finding is Supplement 8 page 7 bottom paragraph, "Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire. provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium." Nothing is said about Imperial nobles ruling worlds.

Anyway Hans, I'm not sure I even know what your point is now but since it certainly isn't the point that you started with which is what I oblected too and since I don't particularly wish to keep arguing with your moving target assertions I will leave you to your bizarre notions regarding nobles.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

Maybe Hans is extrapolating from the following:

Snippage from Imperial Government:
The Imperial bureacracy lies under the nobility in terms of official power. It is made up of a number of "ministries". Each ministry has offices in each subsector of the Imperium. This lessens the likelihood of sector-wide power bases forming, and provides more opportunities for patronage.

Snippage from Subector:
In most cases, the subsector is used as a governmental unit within the Imperium.

I know Hans has done a lot of thinking about this topic, and much of his thoughts about the "missing" mid-level of nobility has merit. After all, the Imperium post-dates the original CT rules about nobility (i.e. gaining noble status during chargen), thus most of the follow-on consequences were probably unintended.

However, my opinion is that the wording of the rest of the Imperial Nobility and Imperial Government library entries grant a wide interpretation of how everything works, allowing individual refs to set the scene in whatever way they want to.

For example, IMTU, Count Leto is a "rank" noble who is also a "high" noble, although he only has Tavonni as his fief. OTOH, "Baroness" Heidi is using a Sword World title, not an Imperial one!

For my money (unless you are a budding Trav author who really has to worry about canon), these sorts of q's all get back to this point: what sort of a game you want to play? Do you want a PC noble to be one of the "movers and shakers" of the sector (which they should be, if they are "High Nobility"), or just minor players who may have a slightly better chance to gain an audience and thus the help/patronage of the "real" nobility?

Going to an alternate frame of reference: Honor Harrington is obviously a "rank" noble, but one who gains real power within the Manticoran government and the ear of the Queen. Is that the sort of game you are after? Maybe, maybe not. YMMV.

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

Maybe Hans is extrapolating from the following:

Snippage from Imperial Government:
The Imperial bureacracy lies under the nobility in terms of official power. It is made up of a number of "ministries". Each ministry has offices in each subsector of the Imperium. This lessens the likelihood of sector-wide power bases forming, and provides more opportunities for patronage.

Snippage from Subector:
In most cases, the subsector is used as a governmental unit within the Imperium.

I know Hans has done a lot of thinking about this topic, and much of his thoughts about the "missing" mid-level of nobility has merit. After all, the Imperium post-dates the original CT rules about nobility (i.e. gaining noble status during chargen), thus most of the follow-on consequences were probably unintended.

However, my opinion is that the wording of the rest of the Imperial Nobility and Imperial Government library entries grant a wide interpretation of how everything works, allowing individual refs to set the scene in whatever way they want to.

For example, IMTU, Count Leto is a "rank" noble who is also a "high" noble, although he only has Tavonni as his fief. OTOH, "Baroness" Heidi is using a Sword World title, not an Imperial one!

For my money (unless you are a budding Trav author who really has to worry about canon), these sorts of q's all get back to this point: what sort of a game you want to play? Do you want a PC noble to be one of the "movers and shakers" of the sector (which they should be, if they are "High Nobility"), or just minor players who may have a slightly better chance to gain an audience and thus the help/patronage of the "real" nobility?

Going to an alternate frame of reference: Honor Harrington is obviously a "rank" noble, but one who gains real power within the Manticoran government and the ear of the Queen. Is that the sort of game you are after? Maybe, maybe not. YMMV.

 

[mike wightman]

Library Data A-M, page 7:

Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level - on one world designated the subsector capital.

 

[mike wightman]

Library Data A-M, page 7:

Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level - on one world designated the subsector capital.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Library Data A-M, page 7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level - on one world designated the subsector capital.

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll see your Library Data A-M, and raise you Library Data N-Z, pp. 34-37, which describes fiefs, marquessates ("associated with a single world"), counties ("associated with two or three worlds"), and of course the dukes and their subsectors and sectors.

If the Imperium "stops" at the level of the subsector and the 100d limit, where do these fiefs come from and what does "associated with" mean in this context? I have an IMTU answer, but I'm curious about how others address this.

(And since this is the CT board, may I suggest leaving GT Nobles out of the dicussion?)

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Library Data A-M, page 7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level - on one world designated the subsector capital.

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll see your Library Data A-M, and raise you Library Data N-Z, pp. 34-37, which describes fiefs, marquessates ("associated with a single world"), counties ("associated with two or three worlds"), and of course the dukes and their subsectors and sectors.

If the Imperium "stops" at the level of the subsector and the 100d limit, where do these fiefs come from and what does "associated with" mean in this context? I have an IMTU answer, but I'm curious about how others address this.

(And since this is the CT board, may I suggest leaving GT Nobles out of the dicussion?)

 

[mike wightman]

"associated" could mean ambassador rather than governor/ruler.

 

[mike wightman]

"associated" could mean ambassador rather than governor/ruler.

 

[aramis]

Or the fief is part of the price of being a member world.

Or, it's like the old UK House of Lords... The "assigned" Noble is the default courtier representing the interests of the world.

Or, it could be (as I use) the local noble is in charge of the Starport.

Or some combination of the above, or even something else entirely.

David: The Imperium predates CT, at least in part... The Imperium Board Game predates CT, and is the turning point between the 1st and second Imperium. The 3I as we know it, well, perhaps not, but the Traveller universe predates the CT OTU.

 

[aramis]

Or the fief is part of the price of being a member world.

Or, it's like the old UK House of Lords... The "assigned" Noble is the default courtier representing the interests of the world.

Or, it could be (as I use) the local noble is in charge of the Starport.

Or some combination of the above, or even something else entirely.

David: The Imperium predates CT, at least in part... The Imperium Board Game predates CT, and is the turning point between the 1st and second Imperium. The 3I as we know it, well, perhaps not, but the Traveller universe predates the CT OTU.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
"associated" could mean ambassador rather than governor/ruler.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Or the fief is part of the price of being a member world.

Or, it's like the old UK House of Lords... The "assigned" Noble is the default courtier representing the interests of the world.

Or, it could be (as I use) the local noble is in charge of the Starport.

Or some combination of the above, or even something else entirely.

Okay, good, I'm not the only one who finds that vague!

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that lands or busniess concessions are one of the conditions for Imperial membership. I've taken the approach that when a planet is chartered, it provides the the Emperor with land or concessions to dispose of as fiefs, and in turn the Emperor elevates a number of members of the existing planetary elite to the peerage by making their existing holdings an Imperial fief - for example, if you were the owner of the largest widget factory on Grabenhorst, you might become Baron Widget as part of the membership charter, while agreeing to allow the Emperor the right to dispose of the presently uninhabited southern continent and its mineral rights as fiefs at a later time.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
"associated" could mean ambassador rather than governor/ruler.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Or the fief is part of the price of being a member world.

Or, it's like the old UK House of Lords... The "assigned" Noble is the default courtier representing the interests of the world.

Or, it could be (as I use) the local noble is in charge of the Starport.

Or some combination of the above, or even something else entirely.

Okay, good, I'm not the only one who finds that vague!

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that lands or busniess concessions are one of the conditions for Imperial membership. I've taken the approach that when a planet is chartered, it provides the the Emperor with land or concessions to dispose of as fiefs, and in turn the Emperor elevates a number of members of the existing planetary elite to the peerage by making their existing holdings an Imperial fief - for example, if you were the owner of the largest widget factory on Grabenhorst, you might become Baron Widget as part of the membership charter, while agreeing to allow the Emperor the right to dispose of the presently uninhabited southern continent and its mineral rights as fiefs at a later time.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Library Data A-M, page 7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that ultimate power is always accorded the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level - on one world designated the subsector capital.

</font>[/QUOTE]That's the one.

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I'll see your Library Data A-M, and raise you Library Data N-Z, pp. 34-37, which describes fiefs, marquessates ("associated with a single world"), counties ("associated with two or three worlds"), and of course the dukes and their subsectors and sectors.

If the Imperium "stops" at the level of the subsector and the 100d limit, where do these fiefs come from and what does "associated with" mean in this context?

First off, the Imperium only stops at the 100 diameter limit in some cases.

Secondly, being associated with a world and having that world as a fief are not necessarily the same thing. Since in most cases the Emperor doesn't own the world in question, they can't be the same thing. Just as we see in England, where, long after the whole concept of fiefs had been superseded, someone could get a title that was associated with a manor he already owned. That didn't make it his fief, any more than Lord St. Vincent got Cape St. Vincent for a fief when he got his title. His title sure was associated with Cape St. Vincent, though.

So the Baron of Feri is associated with Feri, but he doesn't rule Feri. The Marquis of Aramis rules Aramis, not because all marquesses rules the worlds they are associated with, but because the constitution of Aramis makes the Marquis of Aramis Aramis' executive. (BTW, there's a canonical example of an Imperial noble who rules two worlds (Aramis and Lewis), yet isn't called an emperor). So some barons are associated with worlds but don't rule them. Marquesses are associated with worlds but most of them don't rule them. Counts are associated with clusters but few, if any, rule their clusters. Dukes are associated with subsectors and do rule them. And one duke in each sector "rises to power and comes to be the sector duke, the ruler of that sector"[LDNZ:36]. So even if I were to back down on the 300 ruling dukes (which I won't), there are still 20 to 28 sector dukes who expressely are said to rule 'several' worlds, yet are not called emperors.

(And since this is the CT board, may I suggest leaving GT Nobles out of the dicussion?)

Certainly you may suggest it, and I'll try to do so. Do consider, however, that GT:Nobles is an extrapolation of CT information that has been approved by Loren Wiseman and Marc Miller, so while it may not be as good evidence as CT material, it still has some capacity to illuminate the subject.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Anyway Hans, I'm not sure I even know what your point is now but since it certainly isn't the point that you started with which is what I objected too and since I don't particularly wish to keep arguing with your moving target assertions I will leave you to your bizarre notions regarding nobles.

The point I started with was that in 1st edition Traveller, the noble ranks you got in character generation were planetary level nobles, not interstellar level nobles. That was incorrect in one respect, as I've acknowledged elsewhere. The point I have now is that in the original version (i.e. First Printing) of Traveller, the noble ranks you got in character generation were planetary level nobles, not interstellar level nobles.

In both cases I was and is perfectly willing to state that things changed in subsequent versions (Which IMO was a mistake, but that's not germane to this particular thread).

Oh, and calling my notions about nobles wrong would have been perfectly acceptable, but calling them bizarre calls for either an explanation or an apology. What's bizarre about them?


Hans

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Hyphen:
However, my opinion is that the wording of the rest of the Imperial Nobility and Imperial Government library entries grant a wide interpretation of how everything works, allowing individual refs to set the scene in whatever way they want to.

This is a digression, but an interesting one.

I agree with you about this, but I consider that a bug rather than a feature. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that individual refs can set the scene in whatever way they want. But the description of the OTU doesn't have to be so vague and nondescript to let them do that, and leaving the description so vague has some rather detrimental effects.

For example, IMTU, Count Leto is a "rank" noble who is also a "high" noble, although he only has Tavonni as his fief. OTOH, "Baroness" Heidi is using a Sword World title, not an Imperial one!

Not a good example, since I don't think there's any canonical statement that precludes this from being true in the OTU (Though I could be wrong). My point is, even if there was, say, a canonical list of Imperial nobles that told you the there was a Baroness Cassandra of Tavonni, there would be nothing to prevent you from having a Count Leto of Tavonni in your TU. However, lacking a canonical statement about the noble of Tavonni, you'll make him a count named Leto, I'll make her a baroness named Fiona, someone else will make Tavonni a secondary fief of the Count of Vilis, and if, some day, Marc Miller publishes a system writeup of Tavonni, we'll all of us be wrong.

For my money (unless you are a budding Trav author who really has to worry about canon),

Of someone whose hobby is working out the background in as much detail as he can .

... these sorts of q's all get back to this point: what sort of a game you want to play? Do you want a PC noble to be one of the "movers and shakers" of the sector (which they should be, if they are "High Nobility"), or just minor players who may have a slightly better chance to gain an audience and thus the help/patronage of the "real" nobility?

If you do want them to be movers and shakers, you get precious little support from the canonical material. If you roll up NPCs using the character generation system (which Traveller authors unfortunately have done all along), you get two nobles in each averaged sized school class (two knights and a baron for ever 36 NPCs). The Baron of Feri runs a merchant company (A decently sized one, sure, but unless he has other assets, there must be scores of commoner billionaires in the Duchy of Regina that are much richer than him). The Marquis of Aramis rules a world with a whopping 50,000 inhabitants -- the Prince of Monaco would feel quite at home in his company.

Try looking at this:

"The Queen of England invites you to come over for tea. She has a little problem that she wants you to handle for her".

Doesn't sound right, does it? Now, "the Baron of Cobham invites you over for tea. He has a little problem that he wants you to handle for him". That sounds better, right? That's because we associate barons and counts and dukes with the nobles of The Three Musketeers and other historical novels, not with people whose life touches those of billions of people.

I'm not saying that OTU nobles aren't interstellar nobles. But I am saying that in most cases they don't act like it. And that's because there isn't a set of petty nobles to perform the role of patron to adventurers while the Imperial nobles get on with running the Imperium.


Hans