GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Put forth most recently in GT: Nobles and, come to think of it, MGT: Spinward Marches.
Imperial Noble Distribution
- Thread starter Bloo
- Start date
- Status
Put forth most recently in GT: Nobles and, come to think of it, MGT: Spinward Marches.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Probably world dependent. His position is intended to be the most accessible to the general populace.
On those 200 person backwaters with an E port, he might be the whole "police" force or the whole port: Portmaster, Chief Mechanic, Traffic Control ("Park it over there. The cows will move on their own."), and Customs Inspector. On slightly more developed worlds he'll be the first stop when looking for Imperial input or assistance, and may be the only such stop available without travelling to your local County Seat (though the Count probably has a office locally). On worlds with more than one Title, he's the most likely to show up at parties where an invitation to the nobility has been made. He might officiate at weddings.
Ask the man on the street who he thinks of first as representing his view of the Imperium and he will usually think of the local Knight Tenant (unless the Marquis has been in the news a lot). Ask the Emperor or the Sector Duke who he thinks of when World X is mentioned and *he* will think of the Marquis of X.
More apt to say the interface between the two maybe, able to call upon Imperium assets.
I look at the Imperial nobility as an evolution of a Dux Bellorum system of the Rule of Man, and not of european nobility. Megacorporate or others might buy titles such as how the Rothchilds became barons.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Able to request Imperial assets, perhaps, but Knights are usually pretty self-contained. On some backwater worlds, the "Imperial Assets" may be whatever he has in his garage and gun safe at the moment.
If we assume that multiple titles are spread across multiple holders, he'll have a working relationship with the local Baron, Marquis, or Count. Hopefully the relationship is a good one, but it might not be. Nobles are obliged to work for the good of the Imperium, but that doesn't mean they all like each other.
Buying a Title is one thing. Buying a fief is another entirely. All of the material that states who can actually grant a Title is now in question, so I'm not going to say that buying a County is impossible, but if that involves handing the Emperor a bank draft the Imperium is going to be a sad, sorry place.
I prefer to think that CGen models those who travel, not the total 3I population - noting that Soc 1 should occur in the imperial population, but generally doesn't occur in CGen.
Thus, of those encountered in space travel, about approximately 1/36 are nobles, 2/36 are knights.... but leaving the number of high nobles in the 1:1E9 range implied elsewhere in canon. (which also implies that 1:3E7 ever get off world.
Thus, of those encountered in space travel, about approximately 1/36 are nobles, 2/36 are knights.... but leaving the number of high nobles in the 1:1E9 range implied elsewhere in canon. (which also implies that 1:3E7 ever get off world.
Thanks for pointing out p. 428, Gypsy Comet. I wrote the below before seeing that.
One noble per world seems very low to me (thogh whether it's low or not depends on what you expect nobles in YTU to be doing). My opinion (some of which is just bubbling up to top of mind now).
When you're a system that accepts membership into the Imperium, you accept some things. At a minimum:
- you grant some amount of territory to the Imperial Star Port Administration and this land is extraterritorial (Imperial territory).
- you will be represented in the Imperial Moot by a ranking noble designated by the Imperium.
- that ranking noble (and other possible nobles or bureaucrats appointed under them) are your contacts with the Imperium: you have an Imperial/space between the stars issue? You take it to the Imperial nobles.
- you accept the presence and operation of Imperial Navy and Scout vessels.
- you give up any right to interstellar warfare with other worlds, Imperial members or otherwise (though Anti-Piracy operations can still be done in coordination with the Imperial Navy).
- you accept the right of navigation of Imperial-flagged vessels within your system and to the Imperial starport.
- you retain System Defense authority.
Everything else is up for negotiation (you give more, you get more):
- Imperial noble land grants,
- Integrations of upper echelon Planetary Nobles into Imperial nobility,
- Navy and Scout bases using local employment,
- Imperial subsidies for local starport expansion/improvement,
- right of exploitation of system resources beyond the main world,
- and so on.
Treating it like this might help explain why some systems have crappy starports when they is a lot of incentive to have top notch ones (and several of them), disparate tech levels, radical differences in personal freedoms in systems, etc. A system could go with the minimum, have only the minimum contact with Imperial nobility denying them persona land grants.
As far as planetary nobility, local nobility of a system integrated into the government, is that not only related to system Government types? Seems to me only F (Totalitarian Oligarchy, C (Charismatic Oligarchy), 6 (Captive/Colony - in some cases), and 3 (Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy) can have such a nobility.
I think that works fine with Hans' example above
Mora integrated its upper echelon nobility into the Imperial noble system and receives some advantages as a result (Subsector capital, etc.), where Regina has decided not to because it would be incompatible with their system of governance, but it has done other things to have a good relationship with the Imperium.
Back to the number of nobles: one Imperial noble per system seems too low to me for systems with higher populations. Greater population means, at least generally, more interaction between the system and the Imperium, and thus more work for the Imperial nobles. So I'm fine with Regina having a ranking Imperial noble of Marquis (Norris), and then a few Barons, more Baronets and a bunch of Knights handling the Imperium's business with regard to Regina system (alongside imperial bureaucracy). A Baron from Regina wouldn't be on quite the same level as a Baron who is the ranking Imperial noble of a different system, but technically the same rank.
(Side Note: And I think maybe a Regina Baron shouldn't have a vote or proxy in the Moot as they serve under the Marquis, who is the Regina's representative to the Moot - however, I could just as easily see the Marquis of Regina sending one of his Barons with his proxy to be his agent at Capital).
I'm beginning to think that a better way to handle this whole thing is to ignore the Social Status of characters who did not enter the Noble career, (or did not receive the Barony benefit of Rogues, which I assume is an oversight (it being undeniable that there are oversights in the current release).
If a player wants Noble influence, power and rewards, enter the career. Otherwise, you're an honor noble. Related to that, for non-Nobles, why not expand the ranks of Knighthood:
B Knight Companion/Knight Bachelor
C Knight/Knight Officer
D Knight Commander
E Knight Grand Commander/Knight Grand Cordon/Knight Grand Collar
F Grand Master (though this one is probably a full-time job)
For Soc tasks, they would still use the appropriate Soc value, but when dealing with Imperial nobility, they are treated as grades of B Knight (except maybe for an order's Grand Master).
Since actual Imperial Nobles are likely also to be members of Knightly orders, treat their ranks equivalent to Soc most of the time.
F Duke, Grand Master (though only one Grand Master per Order)
E Count, Knight Grand Commander
D Marquis, Knight Commander
C Baron, Knight
B Knight, Knight Companion
Furthermore, while I'm on a roll, why not dis-connect Soc B = Knighthood except for two instances:
- roll Knighthood as a benefit, or
- a roll of 11+ on the chargen roll (treating these Knights as a more elite order).
Otherwise, you're just a high Social Status individual.
If rolled, treat it as hereditary from a higher-Soc imperial noble family member. If the character enters a non-Noble career and receives Knighthood benefit or Soc increases, treat them as Knighthood rank increases. In this way, say a 77777C character enters the Navy and gets Soc+2 while in that career, you would have a Soc E Baron, Knight Grand Commander, Soc E for task resolution, non-ranking Baron (Soc C) for Imperial nobility matters.
I'm half-tempted to treat Social Status as Charisma unless the player chooses for it to be Imperial Social Status and wants to mess with nobility stuff.
One noble per world seems very low to me (thogh whether it's low or not depends on what you expect nobles in YTU to be doing). My opinion (some of which is just bubbling up to top of mind now).
When you're a system that accepts membership into the Imperium, you accept some things. At a minimum:
- you grant some amount of territory to the Imperial Star Port Administration and this land is extraterritorial (Imperial territory).
- you will be represented in the Imperial Moot by a ranking noble designated by the Imperium.
- that ranking noble (and other possible nobles or bureaucrats appointed under them) are your contacts with the Imperium: you have an Imperial/space between the stars issue? You take it to the Imperial nobles.
- you accept the presence and operation of Imperial Navy and Scout vessels.
- you give up any right to interstellar warfare with other worlds, Imperial members or otherwise (though Anti-Piracy operations can still be done in coordination with the Imperial Navy).
- you accept the right of navigation of Imperial-flagged vessels within your system and to the Imperial starport.
- you retain System Defense authority.
Everything else is up for negotiation (you give more, you get more):
- Imperial noble land grants,
- Integrations of upper echelon Planetary Nobles into Imperial nobility,
- Navy and Scout bases using local employment,
- Imperial subsidies for local starport expansion/improvement,
- right of exploitation of system resources beyond the main world,
- and so on.
Treating it like this might help explain why some systems have crappy starports when they is a lot of incentive to have top notch ones (and several of them), disparate tech levels, radical differences in personal freedoms in systems, etc. A system could go with the minimum, have only the minimum contact with Imperial nobility denying them persona land grants.
As far as planetary nobility, local nobility of a system integrated into the government, is that not only related to system Government types? Seems to me only F (Totalitarian Oligarchy, C (Charismatic Oligarchy), 6 (Captive/Colony - in some cases), and 3 (Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy) can have such a nobility.
I think that works fine with Hans' example above
Mora integrated its upper echelon nobility into the Imperial noble system and receives some advantages as a result (Subsector capital, etc.), where Regina has decided not to because it would be incompatible with their system of governance, but it has done other things to have a good relationship with the Imperium.
Back to the number of nobles: one Imperial noble per system seems too low to me for systems with higher populations. Greater population means, at least generally, more interaction between the system and the Imperium, and thus more work for the Imperial nobles. So I'm fine with Regina having a ranking Imperial noble of Marquis (Norris), and then a few Barons, more Baronets and a bunch of Knights handling the Imperium's business with regard to Regina system (alongside imperial bureaucracy). A Baron from Regina wouldn't be on quite the same level as a Baron who is the ranking Imperial noble of a different system, but technically the same rank.
(Side Note: And I think maybe a Regina Baron shouldn't have a vote or proxy in the Moot as they serve under the Marquis, who is the Regina's representative to the Moot - however, I could just as easily see the Marquis of Regina sending one of his Barons with his proxy to be his agent at Capital).
I'm beginning to think that a better way to handle this whole thing is to ignore the Social Status of characters who did not enter the Noble career, (or did not receive the Barony benefit of Rogues, which I assume is an oversight (it being undeniable that there are oversights in the current release).
If a player wants Noble influence, power and rewards, enter the career. Otherwise, you're an honor noble. Related to that, for non-Nobles, why not expand the ranks of Knighthood:
B Knight Companion/Knight Bachelor
C Knight/Knight Officer
D Knight Commander
E Knight Grand Commander/Knight Grand Cordon/Knight Grand Collar
F Grand Master (though this one is probably a full-time job)
For Soc tasks, they would still use the appropriate Soc value, but when dealing with Imperial nobility, they are treated as grades of B Knight (except maybe for an order's Grand Master).
Since actual Imperial Nobles are likely also to be members of Knightly orders, treat their ranks equivalent to Soc most of the time.
F Duke, Grand Master (though only one Grand Master per Order)
E Count, Knight Grand Commander
D Marquis, Knight Commander
C Baron, Knight
B Knight, Knight Companion
Furthermore, while I'm on a roll, why not dis-connect Soc B = Knighthood except for two instances:
- roll Knighthood as a benefit, or
- a roll of 11+ on the chargen roll (treating these Knights as a more elite order).
Otherwise, you're just a high Social Status individual.
If rolled, treat it as hereditary from a higher-Soc imperial noble family member. If the character enters a non-Noble career and receives Knighthood benefit or Soc increases, treat them as Knighthood rank increases. In this way, say a 77777C character enters the Navy and gets Soc+2 while in that career, you would have a Soc E Baron, Knight Grand Commander, Soc E for task resolution, non-ranking Baron (Soc C) for Imperial nobility matters.
I'm half-tempted to treat Social Status as Charisma unless the player chooses for it to be Imperial Social Status and wants to mess with nobility stuff.
Sadder than using european history with such dukes (il duce) as Mussolini? Probably not; at least for a student of history. The purchase of titles is actually quite amenable, and in some ways meritocratic over the old order of divine right, absolutism and collusion with fascism.
If the titles are technical, and often as in reality, people hold multiple titles; then being a knight of a world might not be a permanent office, even if one keeps the title. So if a knight is much like a sheriff, but in such a way as "Knight Protector", in as much as the way a sheriff uses resources as from state and federal levels of law enforcement. The knight becomes a tripwire defense of the Imperium, both pro and con; as well as being some very nice fodder for the "sheriff on the frontier" type adventures.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
The tables in T5 are showing the puzzle from two sides. The chargen process and tables give us a potentially large number of Titled characters who continue the Traveller tradition of being from or of no fixed place, while the world gen process tells us that worlds have direct Noble representation in proportion to their success. Applied to the Imperium as a whole, that pins down the number of landed noble Titles to a fairly specific range. Everyone else is going to be an Honor (the artists, writers, and scientists) or Ceremonial Noble (the Exchequer of Deneb is a Count because he's the Exchequer, but his only "land" is the Mint building) instead of one of the Territorial Nobles.
Some or all of the Knights Tenant (some of whom might use the term "Protector" or similar, depending on world and need) may also be Ceremonial Nobles of higher rank, which gives them more pull with the Sector Duke, but their only Territorial Title will be Knight. Usually. This is the Imperium, where absolute statements about most anything are going to be wrong.
I agree, I have always viewed it as a patchwork quilt and not a whole cloth of uniformity. I think there is room for multiple dukes even, such as one losing the office of a planetary duke, but keeping the demesne as an entailment, because the new planetary duke wants to build a new one nearer to a new economic/political center; the old duke remains a duke of the planet, but not the duke of the planet.
Soc A in T5 also adds that there are aspiring nobles, so that it seems there is some sort of social mobility even within the nobility.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
I am reminded of the city of Lankhmar. There are two groups of gods present on Temple Street. Most of the street is lined with the temples of the Gods In Lankhmar. At the end of the street is a single temple to the Gods OF Lankhmar.
With no further evidence to the contrary, I think the idea that a Noble can lose the fief far more easily than he can lose the Title retains merit. In most cases you'll find that loss of the fief will also lead to loss of the individual land holdings that are a defined part of the fief. If the Marquis of Crumpholtz is entitled by Patent and Grant of Fief to direct control over a large industrial park near the Port that also includes his offices, and has also acquired through the use of his income other lands on Crumpholtz (or other worlds) he could do very well for himself. If his heir then manages to annoy the Sector Duke, who passes word to the Emperor's Office of Naughty Nobles, he could lose the planetary fief and the industrial park, but still have his father's other acquisitions, and still be a Marquis. The other local nobility will know he is in disfavor, if only because someone else was appointed to the Marquisate of Crumpholtz, but his Title remains.
The Lankhmar example is very good. 
Fief might be too vague of a term, as it can mean rents and duties as well, and not include entailed lands, but as much as it still all remains real property of the Emperor. The idea of lands is interesting in that in the Imperium, in some places land is near worthless and in others, invaluable; where a knight could rule an entire world and a duke just having and estate, rents and duties to uphold on an old settled planet. Also a way for the Imperium to develop worlds in sending out a person raised a rank, say soc A to soc B, thus keeping loyalties to the Imperium, especially if colonists might be transportees from a hi-pop world.
Fief might be too vague of a term, as it can mean rents and duties as well, and not include entailed lands, but as much as it still all remains real property of the Emperor. The idea of lands is interesting in that in the Imperium, in some places land is near worthless and in others, invaluable; where a knight could rule an entire world and a duke just having and estate, rents and duties to uphold on an old settled planet. Also a way for the Imperium to develop worlds in sending out a person raised a rank, say soc A to soc B, thus keeping loyalties to the Imperium, especially if colonists might be transportees from a hi-pop world.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
As a term that helps differentiate Title from Responsibility, its vague nature is useful. Also, the T5 book uses it.
Page 431 suggests that each trade code or other qualifier on a main world leads to another Noble, so some worlds could have several in residence.
I think a lot of member worlds would choke on that. Imagine what the US would say to having its representative to the UN appointed by the General Secretary. Also, this requires the noble to reside on Capital, yet high nobles seem to be a lot more home than on Capital.
Also, I think most worlds would be much more interested in their relationship with the local duke than with Capital.
A lot of constitutional monarchies would be surprised to learn that.
It's not one noble per system. It's one high noble per system. As mentioned above, GT: Nobles puts the average number of barons at up to one per 250 million inhabitants. Regina would thus have three barons (none of them high barons) and Rethe up to 127 (except that I think a duchy capital would "attract" some of the nobles from the other worlds in the duchy). Rethe's high noble could be a marquis or a count.
The way I see the system working is that Regina has some inhabitants, born and bred on Regina, who have Imperial titles, Efate has some inhabitants, born and bred on Efate, who have Imperial titles, and so on and so forth. These honor nobles constitute a 'labor pool'. At the lower levels of the Imperial Bureaucracy and the Imperial services, commoners are allowed, but the higher ranks require a minimum title. I can't put my hands on my copy of Nobles right now, so this example may be contra-canonical, but let's say that subsector-level offices of Imperial organizations has to be run by Imperial knights at a minimum. So when the Scout Director for the Spinward Marches at Mora has to appoint a new Director for the Regina Subsector, he looks at the possible candidates. If one of them happens to be an Imperial knight (or better), that's the one he'll most likely choose. If there are no suitable candidates with Imperial titles or a commoner who is miles better than any other candidate, or the director has some other reason, he can give the commoner a temporary promotion and ask the Emperor to give that commoner a knighthood, making him a rank noble.
Usually rank nobles are given knighthoods or lifetime peerages, but if for some reason or another they get baronetcies or hereditary peerages, their successors become new honor nobles. Lifetime peerages are almost always baronies or marquisates. Counts and dukes are almost alway hereditary (and consequently issued quite sparingly).
Another source of honor nobles are honors given to people for doing the Imperium a singular service. Admirals who win battles and civilians who contribute significantly in some way can get titles as a reward. Marc hault-Oberlindes received a barony for his contribution to the recovery of trade following the 4th Frontier War, for example.
It's possible that all high nobles take precedence over honor and rank nobles of the same level, but unless that is the case, precedence among nobles of the same rank goes by date of creation.
Barons are peers and peers all have seats in the Moot.
Hans
I can't imagine the US accepting any kind of agreement with a distant hereditary monarchy at all. But I didn't say the noble has to already be in the Imperial (or High) nobility, it can just as easily be the world leader (if there is one).
It doesn't require the noble reside on Capital at all.
Of course, that's where the rubber meets the road.
Which government type would that? 4 Representative Democracy?
Regardless, my point is that local systems with their own nobility systems, as indicated by UWP government type, are uncommon.
I mean "Imperial" in the same way you, and I guess GT:N, means "High", though I was trying to differentiate it from local too. Is it restricted to exactly one high noble per system? If so, then that sounds the same as what T5 calls the "ranking" noble.
I'm with you, that works with what I'm thinking too.
Sure, though an Archduke can do that (up to Baronet).
Which is why, when I searched for an analogy to illustrate my point, I chose the US vis-a-vis the UN instead of the US vis-a-vis a distant hereditary monarchy.
A world leader certainly wouldn't want to be his world's representative to the Imperium. That's what leaders have ambassadors for.
If he want to exercise his vote in the moot and (probably more importantly) lobby the Emperor on behalf of his world, he most certainly do need to reside on Capital. Which is why world leaders would have ambassadors[*] representing them on Capital.
[*] Possibly called something else.
And 8 and 9 and A and B. Propably 2 and 3 and 5 as well. Hard to tnink of any government form that couldn't have a nobility of some kind. And those that don't (like the US) will have people of equivalent social status unless it is most fanatically egalitarian.
I think you're mistaken there.
The ranking noble is just the noble with the highest rank in a collection of nobles. In any group of nobles there will be one and only one ranking nobles. If you have 17 nobles in a lifeboat, one of them will be the ranking noble. And neither he nor any of the other nobles have to have any connection to the place they happen to be at the moment.
This ranking noble table might be made to fit the previously published material better if it's just a rule of thumb to indicate the likely highest rank of the local inhabitants, although I'd still have issues with the table as is. At the top of the list, I think honor dukes would be extremely rare. Imperial dukes are not analogous to European dukes. They're analogous to royalty. And I just don't see many 'honor kings' in history (A few ex-kings, yes, but that's somewhat different). To me an honor duke sounds almost as unlikely as an honor king (though not quite -- I do think there would be a few of them, but they'd be rare and mostly they'd congregate on Capital).
At the bottom of the list, I don't think the lower-population worlds would have even a resident knight. If we guestimate five times as many nobles of one rank as of the rank above and start with one baron per 250 million, we get one baronet per 50 million and one knight per 10 million, leaving most worlds with population level 6- entirely bereft of Imperial nobles. We might subdivide knights into more layers, like Important Knights, Middling Knights, and Less Important Knights, but assuming we stop well short of the ridiculous, you're not getting many knights living on low-population worlds.
Anyway, I think that the main connection between most resident nobles and the world they reside on is that that's the world they reside on. No more, no less. Oh, they'll own lands (or stock portfolios or some other source of income) on the world, but it would be holdings that they own in their own right and not in fief of the Emperor. Any holdings they have from the Emperor would tend to be stock in interstellar companies.
Hans
There's already proxy system for the Moot. Otherwise, every High Noble in the 3I needs to be no Capital.
We'll have to disagree then.
As I tried to explain above, I believe T5 uses "Ranking" in the table, which is the only place it uses the term, in the same way as you are using "High".
Or, you have a minimum, e.g., 1 knight for 0 to 10 million (as well as a maximum: Duke or Count). Or assign low pop systems to a nearby Count.
And as I tried to explain, this directly contradicts pretty much everything we know about Imperial nobles from previously published material, so either you're wrong or it represents a massive retcon. So I'm suggesting a different interpretation that would obviate the necessity of throwing away 30 year's worth of accumulated development.
By the interpretation I suggest, no one assigns nobles (other than high nobles) to systems. Rather, 1 in 10 million (or 1 in 1 million or 1 in 100,000) are given Imperial titles. Wherever these people live are the places where they live. And very few of them would live on low-population worlds.
Hans
Hans...
While the dust is still settling, I will confirm that Marc does NOT ascribe to much of what is in GT Nobles.
As to Dukes, while there are still Subsector Dukes (F), we also have (f) Dukes on some specific worlds (Importance 4+ worlds which are not subsector or sector capitals).
I'll ask Marc for permission to post the T5 Marches update shortly for everyone to see the 1105 noble structure in the Marches.
While the dust is still settling, I will confirm that Marc does NOT ascribe to much of what is in GT Nobles.
As to Dukes, while there are still Subsector Dukes (F), we also have (f) Dukes on some specific worlds (Importance 4+ worlds which are not subsector or sector capitals).
I'll ask Marc for permission to post the T5 Marches update shortly for everyone to see the 1105 noble structure in the Marches.
I see.
I guess this would be a good time to consider dropping out of Traveller, then. I'm bone tired of seeing egregious self-contradictions going uncorrected and unnecessary revisions messing up already-established setting details for no good reasons.
Right now I think I'll go to bed.
Hans
I can envision a scenario where a current noble goes to the previous one, same as in "No Country for Old Men"; to find information, or maybe advice as to how they did it in the old days.
- Status
