Rules Only: Generic or Official Traveller Universe

[aramis]

If T5 is the final vision for how the OTU works then it has introduced yet more changes to the setting, both from a political viewpoint (changing the way nobility works) and technology changes.

Which is fine except you still have MgT producing OTU third Imperium setting material that doesn't use T5isms.

It also has introduced some novelties of its own...

In CT, there are references to non world-nobles - both honor titles (which include spouses and possibly political leadership of member worlds), and reward titles (akin to UK knighthoods). In CT, there's little evidence of actual fiefs for anyone but worlds' associated nobles and Archdukes.

MT fleshes this out only a hair more.

TNE wipes the slate - no information of use, especially since the rules are for a post-imperial setting.

T4 is dawn of the Imperium - it has a few minor differences from CT in the nobles area.

GT adds an intermediate rank that had no canonical status prior - Viscount.
It also adds a lot of details. I've not read it in detail, but remember it making the system have too many ranks to be comfortable.

T5 adopts all the GT ranks, and forces them into the Soc 11-16 range...
But it also lacks strong evidence for Nobles who don't have fiefs... and puts the number of world associated nobles at about 10x the rates in CT because of the fief system.

 

[whulorigan]

Prior to GT the available evidence about Imperial nobles was very scanty, allowing for a wide variety of interpretations. GT just nailed that vagueness down a lot (which is, after all, what a detailed setting writeup is supposed to do). But the old pre-GT canon about the Imperial nobility does make some details clear. Such as the fact that Imperial nobles don't rule "their" worlds; they're associated with a world, not given it in fief (for one thing, most Imperial worlds isn't the emperor's to give away).

I am not so sure that we can say at this point just how different Nobles are in T5 as compared to prior versions. I think the T5 version is 'scanty' in a way similar to Nobles prior to GT:Nobles. Certainly the world-assignments of what would earlier be called High Nobles are slightly different in terms of what noble is assigned to what type of world, but other than hat, I still think the changes could be anywhere on the scale from minor to major.

We just don't know whether or not the division of High/Rank/Honour Nobles still exists, and how they would look relative to the T5 Nobles rules. And to be honest, I don't see anywhere that states in T5 that Nobles rule "their" worlds (correct me if anyone has a clear reference). All of the UWP government codes are still intact.

What is spelled out are the on-world fiefs/land grants and their annual income that a given level of Noble receives, and that territory does not cover the world, but only a part of it. To me, it simply seems that the land grants are making explicit the perks and benefits (and income) a Noble receives as a consequence of his position.

In MT (for example) a High Count would have received 2-3 worlds and a "fief" of up to 10000km² - but what does that give me in practical terms? Land/estate is nice, but what is my income (there is no mention of a stipend or salary or rents of any sort). How does said noble maintain his status without "taking a second job", unless he is already independently wealthy prior? And if so, how is this detailed?

In T5, that same (High) Count would be associated with a single world with 'Hi' or 'In' trade code, and a fief/grant spelled out in terms of terrain hexes - 32 in this case - which grant income per hex (and outright ownership of 1 local hex per terrain hex).


Frankly I think T5 is awaiting a writeup on Nobles analogous to the one in CT:LDNZ or MT:Imperial Encyclopedia. Until such a write-up is done, I don't think we can be too overly specific about Nobles, just as we couldn't in CT when it was first published.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, the Imperium is a "feudal" system, after a fashion, and therefore a noble would actually rule his fief. That's kind of what a fief is for; you are the head of that province, your peasants work the land, pay rent (tithes or taxes) to you, and you provide protection and administer affairs.

It could be that there is a democratic government on that world, in which case legislation is carried out independent of your say, as well as enforcement, but otherwise you can probably alter the tax rate, increase or decrease armed forces, and other major details not subject to to a referendum.

But the more direct question is what percentage of players use the OTU with the ambiguities of nobility and powers thereof, and how many define or tweak what a noble is and can and cannot do?

I'm curious, because they may actually have a loose influence on the powers that be who are revamping T5 for publication and consumption

 

[rancke]

It mentions a world granted as a preserve to archdukes, and mentions enfeeofment, but also clearly states that it provides social station for political leadership. But it doesn't mention anything about the political status of Fiefs, other than the noble is given the title over the parcel allowed to him. My guess is that if it is a fief, then it's his or her's to rule. That's always been the way me and my groups have looked at it.

Archdukes are the only ones who get an entire world for a personal fief. The rest may (or may not) get lesser plots of land. But there's no mention of any right to rule these fiefs independently of world governments. That would be interference with the internal affairs of member worlds with a vengeance.


Hans

 

[rancke]

GT adds an intermediate rank that had no canonical status prior - Viscount.

Curiously, according to Jon or Loren (I forget who), that was added at the express instruction of Marc Miller. Given that, I've always wondered why MM didn't make Mongoose add them too.

It also adds a lot of details. I've not read it in detail, but remember it making the system have too many ranks to be comfortable.

I thought it made the number just right. Minor member worlds got barons for their high nobles, major member worlds got marquesses, clusters with no significant worlds got viscounts, clusters with one or more major worlds got counts. I think that worked out just fine.


Hans

 

[rancke]

In MT (for example) a High Count would have received 2-3 worlds and a "fief" of up to 10000km² - but what does that give me in practical terms? Land/estate is nice, but what is my income (there is no mention of a stipend or salary or rents of any sort). How does said noble maintain his status without "taking a second job", unless he is already independently wealthy prior? And if so, how is this detailed?

The way I see it, the personal fief IS the salary. If the income for the fief is inadequate, for whatever reason, there's nothing preventing the Emperor from adding a stock portfolio to supplement it, but usually I'd expect the fief to generate a useful income.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Well, the Imperium is a "feudal" system, after a fashion, and therefore a noble would actually rule his fief. That's kind of what a fief is for; you are the head of that province, your peasants work the land, pay rent (tithes or taxes) to you, and you provide protection and administer affairs.

The Imperium is said to be a feudal structure, but the way it is described as functioning, it is actually an autocracy with pseudo-feudal trimmings.

It could be that there is a democratic government on that world, in which case legislation is carried out independent of your say, as well as enforcement, but otherwise you can probably alter the tax rate, increase or decrease armed forces, and other major details not subject to to a referendum.

Any world where the Imperial noble ruled his fief independently of the world government would be a balkanized world. That's what I meant when I referenced the world generation system; it just don't generate (very many) worlds that could have an Imperial noble ruling a fief.

Note that this does not prevent a noble (or his representative) from running his fief and garner an income from it.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Archdukes are the only ones who get an entire world for a personal fief. The rest may (or may not) get lesser plots of land. But there's no mention of any right to rule these fiefs independently of world governments. That would be interference with the internal affairs of member worlds with a vengeance.


Hans

That's not exactly what it says. It states that Archdukes are automatically granted a world as a personal preserve, but it doesn't stipulate what political role other nobles have on other worlds. The essay states that a noble is granted a fief, which is a parcel of land to rule. That's what a fief is in feudal system is.

Admittedly it doesn't say how the noble administers the land, but it's his.

I wonder how other players play their games with nobles.

 

[whulorigan]

The way I see it, the personal fief IS the salary. If the income for the fief is inadequate, for whatever reason, there's nothing preventing the Emperor from adding a stock portfolio to supplement it, but usually I'd expect the fief to generate a useful income.

Agreed. But my point is that in earlier versions of Traveller, the income is not specified or detailed in any way. And that would be one of the most significant details for PC Nobles. The T5 system specifies the income without the need to resort to GM fiat and/or House Rules.

 

[rancke]

That's not exactly what it says. It states that Archdukes are automatically granted a world as a personal preserve, but it doesn't stipulate what political role other nobles have on other worlds.

No, that's one of the ambiguities. However, one role they can't have is that of a ruler independent of the world government. (For convenience I'm going to ignore the balkanized member worlds henceforth rather than insert a caveat about them every time). There are times where the government type is ambiguous but there is no room for ambiguity here. If a world isn't balkanized, it has a world government. If the world government doesn't rule its noble's fief, the world is balkanized and it's not a world government.

The essay states that a noble is granted a fief, which is a parcel of land to rule. That's what a fief is in feudal system is.

And since they don't get to rule their fiefs, it's not really a feudal system no matter what it's called; it's an autocracy with pseudo-feudal trappings.

Admittedly it doesn't say how the noble administers the land, but it's his.

Well, it's his in the same way that a parsonage and the parish tithes is the parson's.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Agreed. But my point is that in earlier versions of Traveller, the income is not specified or detailed in any way. And that would be one of the most significant details for PC Nobles. The T5 system specifies the income without the need to resort to GM fiat and/or House Rules.

Sadly, the income specification of the T5 system is profoundly flawed.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, it would be interesting to hear what other players thoughts are on the matter. I don't think there's any ambiguity about what a fief is, even in a Traveller sense. It's like a medieval county or estate, but you seem to think otherwise.

However, the thrust of this thread is to discover who and how many people use the official setting and derivations thereof.

 

[whulorigan]

Well, it would be interesting to hear what other players thoughts are on the matter. I don't think there's any ambiguity about what a fief is, even in a Traveller sense. It's like a medieval county or estate, but you seem to think otherwise.

I believe that is the difference in thinking. The Traveller Noble System has historically been more like the 18th-19th Century Nobility System and their personal estates, not the Medieval. Many significant changes (in Britain at least) occurred to Noble's authority over the course of the 16th-17th Century.

 

[Quint]

I believe that is the difference in thinking. The Traveller Noble System has historically been more like the 18th-19th Century Nobility System and their personal estates, not the Medieval. Many significant changes (in Britain at least) occurred to Noble's authority over the course of the 16th-17th Century.

I would tend to agree with this for the OTU. I certainly think there is room for the entire range of "jus primae noctis" and the power of high, middle, and low justice to "rotten boroughs" to "country estate" depending upon the "fief" in question, but in general I think they are simply landowners with some rather serious legal perks.

D.

 

[Blue Ghost]

But I think this too is also a difference in thinking, because the essay states that nobility have a function in government, or rather a political station.

Well, my thinking is this, and you can disagree with me here, but nobles in the Imperium may have the same kind of public profile as nobles in Europe after the Age of Reason, but I think their function, according to the text, and even the example of Duke Norris, has strong elements of a classic medieval function; i.e. where they rule their fiefs as lords, as well as administering other political power in the sector. They do more than just act as public figureheads, and do actual things in the Imperial, sector and subsector governments, and actually rule the estates granted to them; including, but not limited to, collecting taxes, administering (overseeing) civil services, raising forces and the such.

But again, I don't want to get too off topic on my own thread.

 

[Ulsyus]

But I think this too is also a difference in thinking, because the essay states that nobility have a function in government, or rather a political station.

Well, my thinking is this, and you can disagree with me here, but nobles in the Imperium may have the same kind of public profile as nobles in Europe after the Age of Reason, but I think their function, according to the text, and even the example of Duke Norris, has strong elements of a classic medieval function; i.e. where they rule their fiefs as lords, as well as administering other political power in the sector. They do more than just act as public figureheads, and do actual things in the Imperial, sector and subsector governments, and actually rule the estates granted to them; including, but not limited to, collecting taxes, administering (overseeing) civil services, raising forces and the such.

But again, I don't want to get too off topic on my own thread.

Does anyone disagree that it's possible to own property in an area one is responsible for without owning the low? What's wrong with the concept of some nobles having significant quantities of land on some worlds without owning the world?

Has anyone put out there that it's not just land that provides wealth and power? What if on being ennobled, raised or whatever, a portfolio of shares in a number of subsector, sector and megacorps was handed over instead of the title deed to 1000 square km of mountains and forest on a world seven parsecs from where the new Baroness Thingumy has spend her last decade working?

 

[rancke]

I don't think there's any ambiguity about what a fief is, even in a Traveller sense. It's like a medieval county or estate, but you seem to think otherwise.

I don't think there's an ambiguity; I think there's a contradiction if you think fiefs are mediaval style. As I argued above, noble fiefs can't be mediaval style on five out of six Traveller worlds (the non-balkanized ones) and are unlikely to be on some percentage of the balkanized ones.

However, the thrust of this thread is to discover who and how many people use the official setting and derivations thereof.

Bit difficult to do if we don't agree on what the official setting is. Hence the current sub-thread.


Hans

 

[rancke]

But I think this too is also a difference in thinking, because the essay states that nobility have a function in government, or rather a political station.

I don't see the problem. Post-renaissance nobles had political stations too. It just wasn't as feudal rulers.

Well, my thinking is this, and you can disagree with me here, but nobles in the Imperium may have the same kind of public profile as nobles in Europe after the Age of Reason, but I think their function, according to the text, and even the example of Duke Norris, has strong elements of a classic medieval function; i.e. where they rule their fiefs as lords, as well as administering other political power in the sector.

Duke Norris is a good example of a non-feudal lord. He has a rather large fief/estate on Regina (probably he has at least two, one as the Duke of the Duchy of Regina and one as the Marquis of Regina System), but he has no function in Regina's government. Not as Duke of Regina, not as Marquis of Regina.

Another example is Duchess Delphine of Mora who IS the ruler of Mora. But she is that as Matriarch of Mora System, not as Duchess of the Duchy of Mora. Two different hats. And she's a constitutional ruler to boot.

They do more than just act as public figureheads, and do actual things in the Imperial, sector and subsector governments, and actually rule the estates granted to them; including, but not limited to, collecting taxes, administering (overseeing) civil services, raising forces and the such.

It's not a dichotomy. Imperial nobles (the high nobles) can and does have actual functions in Imperial government without ruling their fiefs directly. My take on their functions is that the dukes rule the subsectors and the lesser high nobles function primarily as ombudsmen for their clusters and worlds.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Does anyone disagree that it's possible to own property in an area one is responsible for without owning the low? What's wrong with the concept of some nobles having significant quantities of land on some worlds without owning the world?

Nothing at all wrong with that. The problem is with them being independent of the world government.

Has anyone put out there that it's not just land that provides wealth and power? What if on being ennobled, raised or whatever, a portfolio of shares in a number of subsector, sector and megacorps was handed over instead of the title deed to 1000 square km of mountains and forest on a world seven parsecs from where the new Baroness Thingumy has spend her last decade working?

It would be both. Canon (CT and MT combined) states that Imperial nobles get a fief of a specified size (less than a world for anyone other than an archduke). If the fief is a chunk of settled land, it provide rents. If it's a chunk of wilderness it does not provide income and a stock portfolio to supplemet it would seem appropriate. Unless the new noble is already a quadrillionaire, in which case the chunk of wilderness could be all he got.


Hans

 

[aramis]

That's not exactly what it says. It states that Archdukes are automatically granted a world as a personal preserve, but it doesn't stipulate what political role other nobles have on other worlds. The essay states that a noble is granted a fief, which is a parcel of land to rule. That's what a fief is in feudal system is.

Admittedly it doesn't say how the noble administers the land, but it's his.

I wonder how other players play their games with nobles.

There are pretty strong (50kg wrecking ball to the head kind of strong) hints in CT.

The Library Data A-M article "The Stars" makes it explicit that "Interstellar government begins at the subsector level- on one world designated the subsector capital." It also states a subsector is ruled by a duke. "This duke has a free hand in government, and is subject only to broad guidelines from his superiors. But at the same time, the duke owes fealty to the higher levels of government, ultimately to the Emperor himself.". (S8 p11)

It's also explicit that Nobles are appointed by the Emperor and the Archdukes... Heredity is not a guarantee. Local officials are not high nobles, either - T4 later makes it clear that new member worlds' initial nobles are often, but not always, the initial nobles.

That fiefs aren't an automatic is in S11 p.36. The fief is issued as a separate document, and is implied not to be a whole world (excepting Archdukes).

S11 page 35 makes it clear that most nobles don't get anything but the fancy title. The exceptions are those "associated with" various worlds and clusters. Note that these nobles aren't "goverment" - because government doesn't begin until the Subsector Duke. (per S8, p11)

In TTA, we see powerful nobles who are clearly too busy to be ruling their associated worlds... And lots of indications of surplus nobles who are down on their luck.

JTAS 14 gives us a strong glimpse into other related elements.
The Article High Justice gives us a lot of good info.

• "Mid Justice" is subsector level, and concerned with protecting worlds from exploitation.
• "High Justice" is sector and domain level. It's enforced by the IISS, IN, IM, IA. It's about trade and keeping the imperium whole.
• Subsector Dukes can have their own police and military forces.
• Subsector courts are hard to bribe. Sector and Domain courts are practically impossible to bribe

Further information can be extracted from the various adventures.

It's pretty clear that Barons, Marquis, and Counts are NOT governments unto themselves. They appear from CT and MT sources to be both agents of the subsector duke (by appointment of the Emperor), and a channel for local information and desires to become known to the subsector dukes.

Sup 4 gives us more information as well...
we can infer from the CGen rules that birth alone isn't enough to make one a high noble. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Promotion within the working nobles of the courts is extremely slow -
roughly 1/12 rate for the brightest sixth, and 1/36 rate for the rest... which, ignoring the 1/6 chance of increase in intelligence for each PDT roll, means that only about 1/4 of career nobles ever get promoted...

Actually, it's worse than that... because about 14% don't find a position in years 1-4... and 2% still haven't by year 8... and about 0.3% by year 12...

It's still a surprisingly large number.