Nobility

[GypsyComet]

Never played T5 so I can't comment on that.

T5 sets out the zones of direct control a High/Landed Noble has on one or more worlds. The article in Imperiallines 7 contains a bit more explanatory text on what the table in the T5 rules actually means *for the Third Imperium*.

Aside from stepping the noble present in every Imperial system down from a Baron to a Knight and setting hard criteria for which High/Landed Nobles a system gets, there is far less difference from GT's exhausting book to the brief T5 article than Hans seems to think. I chalk it up to the demonstrable fact that we are all playing different games that happen to be called Traveller. They differ not only by chosen edition, but also by our cultural assumptions and the exposure to SF (Traveller relevant or not) each of us has. The creaky veterans who grew up on Heinlein and Asimov not only play a different Traveller, they see the rules and setting through a very different filter than the younger crowd who's prime SF references are ST:TNG, Babylon 5, and Firefly. Military veterans also tend to see and play a different game than non-Veterans, and there are other personal touchstones that apply as well.

 

[rancke]

Aside from stepping the noble present in every Imperial system down from a Baron to a Knight and setting hard criteria for which High/Landed Nobles a system gets, there is far less difference from GT's exhausting book to the brief T5 article than Hans seems to think.

Which is to say, apart from the big differences the differences are small.

I chalk it up to the demonstrable fact that we are all playing different games that happen to be called Traveller.

I don't see what that has to do with the backwards compatibility of an official setting or the desirability of self-consistency in published material..


Hans

 

[GypsyComet]

I don't see what that has to do with the backwards compatibility of an official setting or the desirability of self-consistency in published material..

You see huge problems where others simply do not care because it does not come up in their games. I'm not playing the game you are, and do not have the genealogies of every Baron behind the Claw defined back to the Long Night. You aren't playing the game I am, and so don't care about the mixture of uplifted simians or the possible migration history of the Ursa.

Marc's thinking on the matter of nobility in Canon has obviously evolved, while your mountain of head canon refuses to. You keep insisting that we all play *your* Traveller, and that has, from the moment of publication in 1977, never been possible.

 

[rancke]

You see huge problems where others simply do not care because it does not come up in their games.

You don't see any problem becaue it just happens not to interest you. That's fine, no reason why it should interest you. But please have the courtesy to alow those of us who do feel an interest to have our discussions in peace. And if you do elect to shove a "who cares?" comment into such a discussion, expect to get an "I care" response. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be discussing it, duh.

I'm not playing the game you are...

I'm not asking you to.

...and do not have the genealogies of every Baron behind the Claw defined back to the Long Night.

Neither have I. But if some piece of canon material did provide the genealogy of a baron back to the Long Night, I would feel entitled to expect that subsequent official material conformed to that.

You aren't playing the game I am, and so don't care about the mixture of uplifted simians or the possible migration history of the Ursa.

But I don't make "who cares" comments about the history of the Ursas. (The misture of uplifted simians I must own up to having posted about, though it was not "who cares" comments).

If I happened to stumble across a post about the Ursa, I might feel like posting a "that makes no sense" comment if I felt that it made no sense or a "that's not canon" comment if I believed it contradicted canon. But never a "who cares" comment.

Marc's thinking on the matter of nobility in Canon has obviously evolved, while your mountain of head canon refuses to.

I'm sorry, what?!?

You keep insisting that we all play *your* Traveller, and that has, from the moment of publication in 1977, never been possible.

This still as untrue as it always has been. All I insist on is to be allowed to try to make sense of contradictory canon statements. If you don't care about the consistency of official publications, please have the courtesy to alow those of us who do care to have our discussions in peace.


Hans

 

[GypsyComet]

All I insist on is to be allowed to try to make sense of contradictory canon statements. If you don't care about the consistency of official publications, please have the courtesy to alow those of us who do care to have our discussions in peace.

So the setting isn't allowed to evolve on your watch? That is what you are saying, and what so many of your posts, in this topic and others, reinforce.

I find the GURPS Traveller line (and the GURPS community in general) overly completist, and I know from various sources that the GT books were frequently written in a big fat hurry. That is not a good combination, and i discount GURPS Traveller before other sources for that reason, though I don't ignore it completely. You obviously have a different opinion and place, in this discussion, GT Nobles as the prime and definitive source.

Marc apparently does not agree with you, or T5's nobles would not have been written the way they were.

You don't see any problem becaue it just happens not to interest you.

Incorrect. I don't see a problem with the change because the change makes sense to me.

A population of 11,000 High/Landed Barons devalues the title and position to a ridiculous degree, and leaves the Knights without a big part of *their* historical job description. There are quite a few worlds where the Baronial household would be the entire population, making the title a joke on a world that makes no money, draws few or no visitors, and essentially has no future. Hell of a posting for a "High" Noble.

T5 leaves that post to a Knight and places the Barons on worlds with some potential.

 

[rancke]

So the setting isn't allowed to evolve on your watch? That is what you are saying, and what so many of your posts, in this topic and others, reinforce.

That's completely false. However, this particular discussion that you apparently joined without bothering to trace it back to its beginning, started with Talos talking about what he thought GT: Nobles said about the Imperial nobility. Not what Marc Miller has recently changed it to.

I find the GURPS Traveller line (and the GURPS community in general) overly completist, and I know from various sources that the GT books were frequently written in a big fat hurry.

I don't know what those sources are, but I can inform you that they are wrong about most of the books in the line. There were some problems with a few of the early ones, but mostly they were carefully researched and thoroughly playtested. As co-author of one book and playtester of a lot more, I can say that with complete confidence.

That is not a good combination, and i discount GURPS Traveller before other sources for that reason, though I don't ignore it completely.

Not really a good basis for entering a discussion that deals primarily with GT: Nobles.

You obviously have a different opinion and place, in this discussion, GT Nobles as the prime and definitive source.

I certainly know that it's a well-researched and comprehensive treatment on the subject of the Imperial nobility prior to T5. It is, of course, an even better source of information about what it itself says. :smirk

But I also draw of previously published material and take the view that if there's a way to reconcile apparent discrepancies, that's the way to interpret what GT: nobles has to say.

Marc apparently does not agree with you, or T5's nobles would not have been written the way they were.

Obviously not. That doesn't change anything about what previously published material says. Marc has the authority to retcon anything he wants, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, but he can't actually change what the previous material said.

A population of 11,000 High/Landed Barons devalues the title and position to a ridiculous degree, and leaves the Knights without a big part of *their* historical job description.

That's your opinion. I don't agree that a title that makes you the highest-ranking person in 1.36 billions is devalued. Andf if you have a historical job description for Imperial knights I'd very much like to know what it says. Reference, please.

There are quite a few worlds where the Baronial household would be the entire population, making the title a joke on a world that makes no money, draws few or no visitors, and essentially has no future. Hell of a posting for a "High" Noble.

It would be a joke with an Imperial high knight too. If you have a hundred Imperial knights for every baron, we're still talking one knight per 14 million people. Assigning one to any low-population world would likewise be ridiculous. But there are at least two ways to avoid that without retconning the old system. Don't appoint separate Imperial nobles to such worlds (as Leonard of Aramis and Baron of Lewis is a canonical example of) and don't appoint any high nobles at all to non-member worlds.

Incidentally, we've a canonical example of a high baron title to a world with 70 million inhabitants being a secondary title (Norris is Baron of Yori). It's quite likely that many hundreds, possibly a couple of thousands, of those high noble titles are doubled up.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Worlds that the Imperium doesn't own and therefore has no right granting holdings.

The noble paradigm of CT was revised/evolved during the days of CT, GT Nobles is one of the best books they ever made and was based on CT canon.

T5 rules retcon the OTU and yet has yet to publish one setting book showing how the T5 OTU runs.

I will stick to the Imperium starting at the subsector level and like much of T5 ignore anything that adds yet more contradiction to an already massively contradictory setting.

When the MgT guide to the 3I book is published we may well see yet another interpretation of how the nobility of the 3I functions (this is conjecture) so we will have
proto OTU noble paradigm
evolved CT LD noble paradigm
GT noble paradigm
T5 noble paradigm
possible a MgT noble paradigm.

The way the Imperial government and its nobility functions is almost as contradictory as the ship building paradigm changes across the editions.

 

[atpollard]

[m;]Rule 1) No personal attacks.

You may attack ideas, subjects, or documentation.

However you will not get personal at all.[/m;]

(just a friendly reminder as the discussion seems to be getting 'spirited')

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Say what?

I dunno. Cause it's Traveller, not Landed Gentry Manager?

Sure it is! It was called Pocket Empires in T4 and I just had a discussion meta-game even with the Count Interhaus about the colors of his Packet Yacht, and this Wednsday I have at least one other player who is shooting for Marquis, money and power, oh and clothes and a blaster. Plus one, maybe two others floating around here on CotI. That gives me about three to four possible Nobles who might very well be up for a more operational Traveller where The Sovereign (the Referee) trusts his or her players with wealth and power and still travel and do stuff.

There can be working, active nobles, it just takes lots of work.

EDIT: [m;]What, AT said.[/m;] I just went back and reviewed the last couple pages and yeah, it was getting a bit heated. That is all. Thank you, Citizens.

 

[talos402000]

Thank you Gypsycomet for explaining T5 to me. T5 sounds like a much different Imperium than the one I'm used to.

Rancke, your still confusing Honor Nobility with Local Nobility. One is a direct reward from the Emperor, and the other one your just born into, a very big difference.

I wish I had time to post more but work is keeping me very busy and on the move.

 

[rancke]

Rancke, your still confusing Honor Nobility with Local Nobility.

No, I'm not. And I've explained why. 'Local nobility' is not one of the three categories that Imperial nobility is divided into. It's divided into high nobility, rank nobility and honor nobility. We have clear definitions of high and rank nobles. Everything else has to be honor nobles. This includes the overlapping category 'local nobles'.

One is a direct reward from the Emperor, and the other one your just born into, a very big difference.

An honor title can be a direct reward from the Emperor or it can be an inherited rank or honor title.

If your interpretation had been correct, the Imperial nobility would have been divided into four categories: high, rank, honor, and local. But it's not, so it can't be.



Hans

 

[talos402000]

On page 13 of GT:Nobles, it specifically says "The heirs of those who earn honor titles enter the local nobility". If you want to reject canon (for Gurps Traveler anyways) for your game that's your business, but that's what is says. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Honor nobility and local nobility are not the same.

 

[rancke]

On page 13 of GT:Nobles, it specifically says "The heirs of those who earn honor titles enter the local nobility". If you want to reject canon (for Gurps Traveler anyways) for your game that's your business, but that's what is says. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Honor nobility and local nobility are not the same.

They are not the same but they do overlap. Your mistake is to interpret the statement as making honor nobles mutually exclusive with local nobles. They're not. Local honor nobles are part of the local nobles. As is, logically, local high nobles and local rank nobles. The statement is merely a bit clumsy, that's all.

And I'm not rejecting GT canon. The statement about the Imperial nobility being divided into three categories is also from GT: Nobles (p. 11, IIRC), so you are the one who is ignoring canon here. I'm just reconciling two different bits of canon. Nothing in GT: Nobles (nor any previously published material) contradicts my interpretation.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

The term "Local Noble" changed meaning somewhat as Traveller evolved. The MegTraveller interpretation is below.

From MT:IE, p.13:

TYPES OF NOBLES
Nobles in the Third Imperium can be divided into three types. honor (achievement), rank (position), and high (service).
.
.
.
Rank Nobles: Patents for rank nobility are given because of a citizen’s position, and all noble classes are eligible for such a patent. Members of the rank nobility belong to one of two subtypes:

Local Nobility. The first sub-type comprises the “local nobility,” who make up the majority of those titled within the Imperium. These nobles serve as Imperial representatives in systems that have a government somehow not conducive to administration by high nobility. These representatives occupy “specific governmental offices” and are equivalent in social Nobles standing to barons and knights. Patents for rank nobles are typically hereditary and remain with families of local leaders from generation to generation. Essentially, the sphere of influence of local rank nobles encompasses one star system. Although such nobles often have little power outside their local sphere of influence, they may be recognized by other local nobles. Note that nobles of this type are members of the peerage, albeit of low precedence.

Administrators: The second sub-type of rank noble comprises citizens who hold Imperial office. Often, these nobles are administrators of worlds or territories with no formal Imperial representation. Because the title is tied to a position, these patents are not hereditary. Here, a noble’s sphere of influence includes operational territories or influence among others within a specialized field. These patents often include a generous letter of pension to keep the noble comfortable after a career of long and faithful service. Patents for rank nobles are awarded as needed, generally upon assumption of duties. Patents may be revoked or transferred at the conclusion of duties, but use of the noble title is still allowed.

In GURPS Traveller, the definition was modified and expanded somewhat:

CLASSES OF NOBILITY
There are three broad classes of Imperial nobility: high nobility, rank nobility, and honor nobility. There is considerable overlap between these three classes in practice, but there are also fundamental differences between them.
.
.
.
RANK NOBILITY
Rank nobility is intended to maintain or confirm social position within Imperial society. Unlike the high and honor nobles, who are granted titles as a reward for service to the Imperium, rank nobles hold their titles to enable them to serve in a specific position.

A minimum noble rank is required for many senior positions in the Imperial government (see Position and Rank, p. 70). If a commoner or a nobleman who doesn’t already hold sufficient rank is placed in such a position, he is granted a new title of rank so that he can qualify for it.
.
.
.
Rank nobles can hold titles as high as duke, although the vast majority of them are no higher than barons. Indeed, fewer than 20 Imperial offices require more than baronial rank, and all of those offices are located on Capital. It is rare to encounter a rank title of marquis, count or higher, or duke anywhere outside the Core sector. A title of rank is held for life; at the baronial level and above it is usually hereditary.

Local Nobility
Every time someone is promoted to high Imperial office and given a new hereditary title of rank, a new noble family is created. The rank noble’s descendants inherit the title, but in most cases do not hold a similar high office. Over the centuries, such noble titles have proliferated in all parts of the Imperium, creating a population of low-ranking nobles without fiefs or significant government responsibilities. These local nobles actually make up the majority of the Imperial aristocracy. A local noble has no guaranteed role in the Imperial system, although he may take on the job of Imperial Legate for his home world. This is an official title that carries few specific
duties; it designates an official who watches out for Imperial interests on a given world, and sometimes acts as an advocate for that world before the Imperial government. Not every Imperial Legate is a noble, but many of them are. A local noble is automatically eligible for some government positions that require a title. Many local nobles enter Imperial service in their youth so that they can enter high office late in their careers. As a result, most observers of the Imperial aristocracy consider local nobles part of the rank nobility, whether they currently hold high office or not.


HONOR NOBILITY
Honor nobility is granted for business leadership, remarkable achievement in the arts or sciences, or acts of heroism, usually in military service. . . . honor titles higher than marquis are extremely rare. Honor titles are held for life, and are usually hereditary at the baronial level and above. The heirs of those who earn honor titles enter the local nobility (p. 12). . . .

So, based on the GT:Nobles definitions, Local Nobles are a category that draws its membership principally from both the Rank Nobility AND the Honor Nobility, but are generally categorized with the Rank Nobility (although it is a somewhat imprecise and subjective categorization). But the broad division of Noble Types is still three major categories: High, Rank, and Honor.

 

[rancke]

So, based on the GT:Nobles definitions, Local Nobles are a category that draws its membership principally from both the Rank Nobility AND the Honor Nobility, but are generally categorized with the Rank Nobility (although it is a somewhat imprecise and subjective categorization). But the broad division of Noble Types is still three major categories: High, Rank, and Honor.

I will add that the descriptions of local nobility that you quote, especially the MT one, is extraordinarily muddled and obtuse. They are so confusing and mutually contradictory that I think it would be better to ignore them altogether and consider 'local nobles' to mean local nobles.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

They are so confusing and mutually contradictory that I think it would be better to ignore them altogether and consider 'local nobles' to mean local nobles.

By that, do you mean Local Nobles = Planetary/Parochial Nobles? Or do you mean that Local Nobles = the Imperial Courtesy Title traditionally granted to Planetary Nobles to give them standing off-world?

 

[rancke]

By that, do you mean Local Nobles = Planetary/Parochial Nobles? Or do you mean that Local Nobles = the Imperial Courtesy Title traditionally granted to Planetary Nobles to give them standing off-world?

Neither. I meant... well, I actually meant that the descriptions you quoted didn't really make much sense and should be ignored. Interpreting it to mean Imperial nobles whose homes are local to wherever they operate (be it in an official or a private capacity), which is what I meant to suggest, would be a handwave to explain it away rather than a way to explain it.

Are planetary nobles given Imperial courtesy titles when off-world? Whatever for? Why don't their real titles give them all the standing they need? Don't their own titles place them in a given social level anyway? "The King of Ys? What social level is he?" "According to Debart's he's SOC 12." "Ah, equivalent to an Imperial baron! We must invite him to our next dinner party."



Hans

 

[Garnfellow]

Is the biggest difference between T5 nobility and previous sources the rank of world representative? Previous sources had barons for each world, while T5 ties the rank with the world's importance? (So some worlds just get knights, while others might get counts?)

I've got to say, all of the descriptions of the Imperial nobility have been so muddy I am hard pressed to say what the big differences are.

 

[whulorigan]

Neither. I meant... well, I actually meant that the descriptions you quoted didn't really make much sense and should be ignored. Interpreting it to mean Imperial nobles whose homes are local to wherever they operate (be it in an official or a private capacity), which is what I meant to suggest, would be a handwave to explain it away rather than a way to explain it.

Understood. I think the GT:Nobles definition was worded in such a way in order to be a mechanism to explain the traditional proliferation of Noble PCs and NPCs in the Imperium generated in earlier editions of Traveller (especially those with initial high Soc values). (I.e. Characters with no significant responsibilities - people with a title and ready cash who were relatively free to do as they pleased, as opposed to being tied down with responsibilities).

Are planetary nobles given Imperial courtesy titles when off-world? Whatever for? Why don't their real titles give them all the standing they need? Don't their own titles place them in a given social level anyway?

I do not believe there is anything official in this regard (perhaps some of the DGP/MT material suggested so somewhere - I do not clearly recall). Having a corresponding Imperial courtesy title would certainly help standardize and regularize the precedence of said titles and at the same time generate a sense of being part of something bigger than one's parochial position.

 

[whulorigan]

Is the biggest difference between T5 nobility and previous sources the rank of world representative? Previous sources had barons for each world, while T5 ties the rank with the world's importance? (So some worlds just get knights, while others might get counts?)

I've got to say, all of the descriptions of the Imperial nobility have been so muddy I am hard pressed to say what the big differences are.

The primary differences are in what High Nobles are assigned to what world(s).

In earlier editions, all (most?) worlds had at least a Baron, or a Marquis if important enough. Viscounts/Counts were assigned to world Clusters of 2-3 worlds (typically). Dukes were Subsector Governors exclusively.

Under T5, High Nobles are referred to as "Landed Nobles". All worlds have at least a Landed Knight (not a Baron). Higher level Landed titles are awarded to individual worlds based on trade criteria:

All Worlds = Landed Knight (C6/Soc=B)
Pre-Ag/Pre-Ri World = Landed Baronet (C6/Soc=c)
Ag/Ri World = Landed Baron (C6/Soc=C)
Pre-In World = Landed Marquis (C6/Soc=D)
Pre-Hi World = Landed Viscount (C6/Soc=e)
Hi World -or- In World = Landed Count (C6/Soc=E)
Important (Ix = +4) World = Landed Duke * (C6/Soc=f)
Subsector Capital = Landed Subsector Duke * (C6/Soc=F)

* - Note that there are now two distinct levels of Duke. ​

A world will have ALL of the above Landed Nobles for which it qualifies. Generally Landed Marquises and Landed Viscounts will be involved with subsector-level concerns, whereas Landed Counts and Landed Dukes will be involved with concerns at the Sector-level. (And Subsector Dukes are the assigned Imperial Subsector Governors).

The Nobles Extensions listed on TravellerMap are the Landed (High) Nobles of the world exclusively. Any world may have any number of additional Ceremonial (Rank), or Honor (including Legacy and "Local" Nobles) in residence. The Landed Nobles are the Imperial Nobles of the world. Ceremonial and Honor Nobles are Imperial Nobles resident on the world (but are not the respective Nobles of the world in question).