Rules Only: Generic or Official Traveller Universe

[rancke]

Well, first off the Marquis Malory is Craig A. Glesner, not Magnus von Thornwood.

Apologies for my mistake.

(Also 'von' is part of the family name, and preceded any Imperial title.)

So back when he was just a baron (if he ever was just a baron), his name would have been hault von Thornwood?

In addition my readings of the OTU materials 'von, hault-, and the other I am forgetting' are first used by Baron, but I don't recall them being limited to Barons only. Pretty sure once you get to add a Surname Prefix you get to keep it even if you are elevated to a higher title.

The text says that barons are referred to in several different styles, among them the use of prefixes such as von, haut, and hault. I've always interpreted that to mean that such refix is a sign of baronhood. I don't recall any canonical character with a prefix that wasn't a baron and only a baron, nor any characters with a higher title that used a prefix; not even if he was also a baron (e.g. Duke Norris Aledon who is also Baron of Yori, Marquis Leonard Bolden-Tukera of Aramis who is also Baron of Lewis). But I could have missed some, and I acknowledge that even if I haven't, it's only negative evidence.

I thought (the character, not the Mod) Aramis had a 'hault' before his family name and was like a Duke.

Leonard of Aramis is a marquis and a baron and does not use a baronial prefix.

EDIT: And going by reported responses by Marc, I suspect they are not OTU per sé, but meta-game fun as you hope.

That's good to hear. I'm all in favor of meta-game fun.

Second by your comments earlier, I thought any world with an Imperial Noble who ruled part of the world would have to be balkenized, so seems to work under your comments.

And last under current canon I only get a bunch of Terrain hexes which belong to HIM/The Imperium (excepting my Local hexes), so honestly I don't think it means I get to rule the world of Malory, just some territory on Malory.

Oh, sure, it works for "Now go rule your part of your world", but it doesn't work for "Now go rule your world".

It even makes sense that an Imperial noble with a fief on a balkanized world would rule it independently of the world government since there isn't any world government. Well, there wouldn't be a world government unless there was some sort of world confederation (individual nations are sovereign but have surrendered certain functions to a government of some sort).

EDIT: I meant to say that such a noble could, conceivably, rule his fief. There's also the possibility that the fief is located in one of the world's individual nations and under the rule of that nation's government.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

Hey folks,

As a fellow Traveller noted earlier I am getting in this a smidge late, but I do have a bit to say regarding Nobles and their Fiefs.

1) The obnoxious first. I can't speak for the other new Nobles, but when I was created 1st Marquis Malory the inscription does say "...Rule your new world well! Strephon, Emperor" so either I just got handed a planet of my very own (in which case I can as the sole owner do what I please if it doesn't break Imperial Law) or His Imperial Majesty expects me to have some sort of hand in how the world is run. :devil:

2) The serious second. I have approached the issue of Imp Nobs and Fiefs as the Imperial Noble owns outright (T5 RAW) the Local Hex(es) (10 Km) as Private Property, it requires legal action to remove those from the individual. The Terrain Hex(es) (100 Km) that are awarded are Imperial Property and maybe stripped by the Senate, Moot or of course HIM for all sorts of reasons that may not also bring a case, or you know just because the Sovreign being the Font of All Honors decided to give it to some else (you evil or worse incompent boob). The Terrain Hexes are covered under the Imperial extraterritorial lands that Member Worlds are required to cede to the Imperium when they are granted Membership. It goes with the Starport and generally covered under the same Imperial Laws as the Starport is, or as the Noble has decided. Scout Discovery Grants also fall into this category, property and legal wise.

And since the tablet is acting hinky, I will close with those two CrImps.

3) ATU third. And because I have yet to meet a set of rules I didn't think needed a smidge of tweaking (Hunter Planet, whose combat rule I use in meatspace games and Paranoia, because seriously that game is just insane as is thus awesome, being the exceptions), I have added Landless Grants which are paired with Imperial Office like say Warden of Starport.

Okay, now done. Plus long day and I am tired.

One of the passages in the Imperial Noble essay states that one upper rank directly rules his/her territory, and by deduction that would mean lesser ranks rule the worlds associated with them. Which means that no matter what kind of government exists a world, the population or many countries are still beholden to the noble in charge. That's pretty interesting.

 

[rancke]

One of the passages in the Imperial Noble essay states that one upper rank directly rules his/her territory, and by deduction that would mean lesser ranks rule the worlds associated with them.

This is wrong on two counts. Firstly, the essay doesn't even say that the noble rules his fief, although if one argues that the list of things it does say a noble can do with his fief is incomplete, one could say that it doesn't rule it out.

"However, the fief conveys the right to use the land, to rent or lease it out and collect income for it." [LDNZ:36]​

This is a description of the rights of a landlord, not a ruler. The reasonable interpretation is that the Emperor conveys his rights as the owner of the fief to the noble. It could, as I said, be argued that it also conveys the right to rule the fief, and it might even be reasonable to do so if not for the other parts of canon that makes such an interpretation impossible (except on balkanized worlds).

Secondly, the essay makes it quite clear that the fief a noble receives and the world he is associated with is two different things. Only archdukes receives an entire world in fief. It follows logically that lesser nobles do not receive entire worlds in fief and thus can't have the worlds they are associated with as fiefs.

MT expands on that by listing the sizes of the fiefs received by marquesses, counts, and dukes. In all cases it is less than an entire world.

Which means that no matter what kind of government exists a world, the population or many countries are still beholden to the noble in charge. That's pretty interesting.

It's also completely wrong. A world ruled by a noble as a fief received from the emperor would either have a type 6 or a type A or B government, depending on whether the noble in question is considered an offworlder or a local citizen. All the other governments implies the existence of a person or persons with the authority to overrule any such noble, which wouldn't be possible or even conceivable with a European-style fief.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

I did not say fief. I meant worlds "associated" with the noble.

The essay actually states the noble rules associated territory.

 

[rancke]

I did not say fief. I meant worlds "associated" with the noble.

The essay actually states the noble rules associated territory.

Quote, please. After our recent debate it really shouldn't be necessary to ask you to back up your assertations.

Meanwhile, I'll make my other point once more: It doesn't say so anywhere that I can find, but if it did, it would still be in conflict with other bits of canon. For example: As Wil pointed out in one post, there's a statement to the effect that the duchy (subsector) is the lowest level of interstellar government. This means that a count can not rule his associated territory since that would be a level of interstellar government (namely more than one world).


Hans

 

[Vargas]

I did not say fief. I meant worlds "associated" with the noble.

The essay actually states the noble rules associated territory.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but nowhere in the essay does it say that. I don't believe being "associated" with a fief is the same as ruling it, especially given the statement Hans quoted upthread.

 

[Blue Ghost]

No, by implication it states that dukes rule subsectors, and lower ranks do likewise with worlds "associated" with them. It's pretty clear what it means.

Fief, however, seems to be an estate parceled out for use by the emperor to be used as the noble sees fit.

 

[aramis]

No, by implication it states that dukes rule subsectors, and lower ranks do likewise with worlds "associated" with them. It's pretty clear what it means.

Fief, however, seems to be an estate parceled out for use by the emperor to be used as the noble sees fit.

If some lower grade also ruled, I'd agree with you. But it doesn't. two data points at one extreme (of a set of 7) looks more like an exception.

We see Soc A,B,c,C,D,E,F,G covered in that article. Only F & G are rulers. Other CT sources are explicit that the Imperium has no government role below the subsector.

Now, if Soc C and G were said to be rulers, then you'd have a valid argument for D E F also ruling.

 

[Blue Ghost]

If that's the case, then the rules could be in conflict with one another, because the essay, more through implication and deduction, uses the word "associated", and applies the definition as "ruling" in the essay.

It might be a point for T5 to clarify.

I guess this is a point that I've always been confused by. Because the traditional view that I've held meshes with your post. That is nobles were an honorific class, and unless you were very high up, your rank didn't mean a whole lot. If you were a knight, then that didn't obligate you to carry a weapon and come at the beck and call of the local forces when needed, and to bring additional forces as per medieval times. It just meant people called you sir, and you got the key to the noble wash room, instead of using the group lavoraty assigned to the rabble.

Part of the obligation of being a knight or minor noble in pre-17th century was to bring forces and/money for mercenaries and/or command forces of your lord during a time of war. After the 17th century that kind of thinking seems to have eroded. I can't think of any country, except maybe Saudi Arabia, that still places nobility or royalty into its ranks with the intent of commanding based on social rank alone.

Just me.

Nap time.

 

[rancke]

No, by implication it states that dukes rule subsectors, and lower ranks do likewise with worlds "associated" with them. It's pretty clear what it means.

Ah, I see your line of reasoning now, but saying that the essay states it as a fact is a big overstatement. Even saying that it implies it is putting it too strongly. "It's one possible interpretation" is just about right, I think. Dukes rule the territories they're associated with; is it not possible that lesser nobles likewise rule the territories they are associated with?

And then we turn to other parts of canon and find that, no, it's not possible.

"Individual worlds, and even entire systems, are free to govern themselves as they desire, provided that the ultimate power is always accorded to the Imperium. Interstellar government begins at the subsector level -- on one world designated the subsector capital." [LDAM:7]​

This shows that counts do not rule the clusters of worlds that they are associated with, since that would constitute a level of interstellar government lower than that of the duchy, and it shows that marquesses do not rule the worlds they are associated with since that would not allow those worlds a free hand in government.

(Also, there's the world government argument that I've presented several times already).

So we must conclude that the term 'associated with' is used in the essay to denote an association ("a connection or relationship between things or people") between the noble and 'his' world.

Fief, however, seems to be an estate parceled out for use by the emperor to be used as the noble sees fit.

So not a medieval-style fief.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

It's not an overstatement. My guess is that the essay was either written before "The Traveller Adventure" where Norris's "rule" and role in the Imperium was defined, or that additional material regarding nobles was just forgotten when newer material was made available.

I don't think it excludes the possibility of a medieval fief per se, but the suggestion is that it's meant as an economic holding. Having said that, political governance of a fief is not explicitly addressed by the essay. It the kind of loophole a lawyer would have fun with, but I'm not trying to be a lawyer to much as hash out what people use in their sessions, therefore I can get a better idea of what to write.

So far, all my adventures are sans-nobles, or rather are not noble-focused, nor noble oriented.

I'm just a former player now aspiring author who has no credibility with his opinions whatsoever, but it strikes me that the ambiguities left in the background were left there either as intentional gray areas for referees to develop for their own gaming sessions, or were merely aspects to be later developed by GDW at a later time.

As a former referee I actually used to tell my players during char-gen sessions that nobility didn't mean anything unless you were very high up, as per the allusions in the basic books. But again trying to discover why the gray areas were left there, and how they may be used is a good point to discuss.

 

[rancke]

I have no objections to your guesses, thinkings, and opinions as long as they are clearly understood to be such. My objection is solely to you stating them as facts. They're not. They're conjectures.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

The essay clearly states that Dukes rise from subector to rule a sector based on circumstances. The paragraph doesn't say what those circumstances are, but if you follow that line of logic, then Marquis rule a number of worlds in a subsector, and so forth, right on down the line to knight.

What is conjectural is what one does with a fief and rank that is not addressed in the rules.

 

[rancke]

The essay clearly states that Dukes rise from subector to rule a sector based on circumstances. The paragraph doesn't say what those circumstances are, but if you follow that line of logic, then Marquis rule a number of worlds in a subsector, and so forth, right on down the line to knight.

What part of "you have to weigh one piece of canon against all the other pieces of canon" is so hard to grasp? Unless it's the fact that the other pieces of canon utterly demolish your deductions? You can't follow that line of reasoning without running afoul of other parts of canon.

Incidentally, you seem to misunderstand my recent responses to your most recent posts. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I gave that up a while ago. I'm just making sure no innocent newcomers see your unfounded statements being left unrefuted and erroneously gain the belief that you are right.


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

I already answered that.

*EDIT*
There's nothing unfounded. I was hoping to explore unaddressed areas in setting. I'm hoping newcomers will see that in the spirit it was intended, and then read your counters and tone for what they are.

Time and again I have referred back to that little item of rules, and you seem intent on disproving something that isn't without even considering how I came to my proposals. It was only after a suggested rest of several days byh Aramis that you were able to calm down and read my explanation which, for whatever reason, didn't register before.

PART of the reason I started this thread was to explore alternatives, which is WHY I put those thoughts down in the first place. I'm not sure why this didn't come across, but I trust it has now.

 

[Blue Ghost]

All right, I went over the entire sub-thread on nobles, and see where one line of logic crossed another.

I've got other important stuff to do, but I'm going to outline the points of disagreement later on.

I also went through T5 and can't find hide nor hair of any reference to Nobles other than char-gen. Any page numbers would be welcome.

 

[whulorigan]

T5 Nobles References

I also went through T5 and can't find hide nor hair of any reference to Nobles other than char-gen. Any page numbers would be welcome.

There is not a whole lot of information on Nobles in T5. Keep in mind that there are some conceptual changes concerning Nobles in T5 as compared to earlier versions.
The relevant page numbers in the T5 BBB that I am aware of are:

Page #	Topic Reference	Notes
p.49-50	Land Grant Speculation
p.63	C6 Social Standing (& Nobility Subheading)	(& see Errata Document)
p.67	C6 Social Standing & C6 Nobility Tables
p.93	11 Noble Career	(& see Errata Document)
p.96	Noble Lands	(& see Errata Document)
p.428	(& see Errata Document)
p.436	F WorldGen NABZ NIL, Nobility Table	(& see Errata Document)

[TD]F NABZ NIL Table[/TD]

 

[Ulsyus]

All right, I went over the entire sub-thread on nobles, and see where one line of logic crossed another.

I've got other important stuff to do, but I'm going to outline the points of disagreement later on.

I also went through T5 and can't find hide nor hair of any reference to Nobles other than char-gen. Any page numbers would be welcome.

You won't find a lot on nobles or the function of nobility in 3I in the BBB because that's not where you'll primarily get setting information for T5.

You have to take some of the info about nobility with a grain of salt, as the numbers won't stack up if you take a black-&-white perspective of them. For example, the two ranks it's possible to roll in CharGen are Knight and Baron. The % chance for either is 6 & 3 respectively. This couldn't be reflective of 3I society, otherwise things just wouldn't add up. I in every 30 or so people a Baron responsible for a world or continent with a small economy? Possibly not!

BUT that could be the breakdown among those rare and unusual individuals called PCs.

If you don't like the idea of the nobility, either don't use them or scale them back in YTU. If the concept rankles your political pancreas, avoid it. But remember that they are part of the OTU and can't be blithely ignored if writing anything set in the 3I.

 

[rancke]

BUT that could be the breakdown among those rare and unusual individuals called PCs.

"PCs are special" is not an unreasonable concept, but to make it work you need a different way to assign SL to NPCs than to throw dice for them. Say a long list of occupations with the usual corresponding SL.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

"PCs are special" is not an unreasonable concept, but to make it work you need a different way to assign SL to NPCs than to throw dice for them. Say a long list of occupations with the usual corresponding SL.

Perhaps as a House Rule (or a suggested addition/clarification entry in the T5 errata document) would be to have C6/Soc for NPCs rolled on 3D6-6 (with a result less than 2 "bumped-up" to 2).