Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If the crime committed is also considered one in Imperium law, you still get tried, but under Imperium jurisdiction.
Nobles in My Traveller Universe
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
But only on Imperial bases, Imperial territory. You have to make it to sanctuary.
Yup, they can and do. The Imperium does not impose any moral code on a member world that I can find.
You mean like the sex slave in the Traveller Adventure that wants out - is she being raped? The Imperium is doing nothing about that world's culture.
How about worlds with an extreme version of a duelling code where you can be challenged to lethal combat for any imagined sleight?
The best you would get is an amber or red travel zone.
What you wouldn't get is the local duke sending in IN forces to enforce regime change for the betterment of the worlds population.
GURPS Ground Forces is just plain wrong, there are several canon mentions of a standing Imperial Army.
Service grants citizenship.
Maybe as you say each member world is required to provide so many able bodies for Imperial service, or perhaps the Imperial recruiting officer comes calling with his/her free pens and forty shillings...
Once you are off planet and Travelling - either in an Imperial service career or as a civilian merchant - you are more able to have your rights as an Imperial citizen recognised.
Note that in no early Traveller adventure can players solve problems by just running to the nearest Imperial establishment and demanding their rights as Imperial citizens be respected.
I suppose it boils down to the Imperium will recognise your Imperial citizenship within its areas of direct rule, but once on a world and subject to local laws you are on your own. You wanted to be a Traveller, right?
Drafting is conscription...
I'm not convinced the Imperium enforces even that.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
This could easily slip into real world politics so I will have to be careful.
If the locals have economic clout - rich/industrial world, high population - and pay a lot into Imperial coffers then the noble hands the man back. Lots of hand waving about due legal process and respecting a world's right to self government and Imperial non-intervention etc.
In some cases the noble may execute the offender himself as a show of support to the local government.
If the locals are relatively low tech, have little economic clout, then the noble could refuse and smuggle the idiot off world.
My understanding of the "Imperial Army" in GT:Ground Forces is that each member world (of sufficient population) maintains its own Planetary Army, but that it raises one or more Regiments for training and service with the Imperial Forces on a regular basis, so that the standing Imperial Army is a conglomeration of the various world regiments raised and trained to Imperial standards with Imperial equipment. But these regiments which form the standing Imperial Army are still distinct from the standing armies of the Planetary Defense Forces.
The question that needs to be answered first is, what protection?
The Imperium does not guarantee any rights or freedoms, except for its ban on chattel slavery, which I suggest is motivate by economic considerations rather than any notion of rights. It is implied (from numerous references) that the Imperium also bans discrimination against any sophont species.
Specifically, the Imperium offers no guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, or freedom of religion. The governments of worlds can be as repressive as they want. Imperial law overrides local law but the existence of repressive dictatorships, including religious dictatorships, indicates that Imperial law has little or nothing to say about human rights. And as I've pointed out before, the Imperium tacitly authorizes the organized murder of its people, so that players can have Book 4 and Striker.
Well, they can, but let's remember (a) how few rights are actually recognized by the Imperium, (b) that political participation above the local level is restricted to a hereditary nobility, and (c) that political participation at the local level is not guaranteed. This is not a progressive, activist, rights-oriented polity, and we can hardly expect its nobles to be enlightened proponents of human rights. To twist the idiom, they are unlikely to get below their raising.
Is the Imperium a noble empire, or an evil empire? Neither, I suggest. It's simply indifferent.
The Warrant of Restoration holds that Imperial law is supreme, and worlds may not make laws that override it. But the existence of all those repressive world governments suggests Imperial law is minimal -- that Imperial law is essentially indifferent to the rights of the person and offences against the person. I suggest Imperial law is primarily concerned with matters that affect commerce.
Murder is a problem (as is assault in various forms). To have a stable environment for commerce, you have to make it illegal to kill people, but the Imperium tacitly permits murdering business rivals via tradewar. So I suggest Imperial law has complex doctrines defining what is and is not murder. I have some loose idea IMTU that murder is only murder if the victim is seen to be under Imperial protection, and this protection can be lost in various ways. (Justification; Excuse; Consent; Due Authority....)
Incidentally, keeping on our Nobles topic, murdering a noble isn't murder; it's treason, because the act is seen to be against the Emperor himself. So there is never an escape clause for murdering a noble whose SOC outranks your own. (I borrow this idea from medieval common law, which held that for a wife to murder her husband was treason, and was to be punished more severely than plain old murder.)
This comes down to the second question: how do you trust it? What we really ask here is, "What is the nature of the social contract?" This returns me to my notion of consensus worlds: these are the worlds that buy into the social contract.
The services are divided into an officer class and an enlisted class. I suggest your officer class is recruited from consensus worlds. Social advancement is a motivator for naval officers. Service in the armed services may be a prerequisite to many civil service jobs, which because of their association with the nobility, offer advancement to the social climber. Middle management posts in megacorporations may be more accessible to young officers with a couple of terms of leadership experience.
People might have many reasons to join the enlisted ranks. Given the number of Imperial denizens who live on boring worlds with relatively low populations and nothing much to do, or on worlds with hostile environments, and the cost of passage off said worlds, "I want to get off this lousy rock" is surely a powerful motive. And there is the opportunity to learn skills that can be carried into civilian jobs in places where the atmosphere doesn't weasel its way into your vacc suit and kill you in 1D6 hours.
My idea of Imperial privilege is that the noble's immunity is limited in practice: if Sir Bob offends local laws, local officials will meet with him and say, "Sir Bob, it is deeply offensive to the religious beliefs of our people that the deity should see your bald spot. We beseech you to wear a hat." Sir Bob may or may not don a hat. Should he not, the world may send an emissary to the Marquis, to whom Sir Bob is beholden, to press their complaint. The Imperial nobility wants to promote the schoolbook propaganda view of the Imperium; this is essential to maintaining the social contract (and keeping their officer class staffed). So they do not wish to rub minor injustices in the faces of their member worlds. Sir Bob is well aware, then, that the Marquis may remove him, so he is likely to don a hat and to apologize for the offence. If not, just as diplomats may be expelled in our world, Sir Bob may find himself sent elsewhere by order of the Marquis.
The nobility may have all kinds of privileges but they also act in a spirit of noblesse oblige. If going hatless is deeply offensive to the locals, Sir Bob and his retinue will wear hats in public. They are only likely to override local laws where some important principle is at stake -- something that undermines their authority or matters to the Imperium.
So, most likely, that guy gets handed back to the local authorities and gets executed. The matter is beneath Sir Bob's notice. Our man is better off seeking sanctuary in the embassy of some other, more enlightened world, so that the matter becomes a spat between worlds.
Now the reason for asking those kinds of questions isn't to say "this is how the Imperium MUST be, but to point out the ramifications of any decision you (or the writers of the canon made) has on the overall picture/scheme of things.
If the Imperium offers nothing I the way of protections and rights, then it also offers no reason to be loyal to it as a State. Trying to conscript military forces in any way, is going to be a worse case scenario of trying to get your own men to face death for a state the people may or may not respect. Even Nobility would be better off to interface with the world's government and go loyal that way, seek to overthrow the Imperial government because in reality, it isn't a STATE in the true sense of the word. It has no rights it enforces against NON-state members. It has no code of law that it enforces on behalf of its citizens, and it has no legal grounds for extracting taxes from its subjects save that of the Conqueror. People under a conqueror's heel tend to rebel when the situation is ideal.
For me, in my traveller Universe, the Imperial Nobles are exempt from local laws as long as they stay within the boundaries of their fiefs, held to be Imperial land much as an Embassy is. This gives the Noble his "perk" where he's protected by Non-Imperial laws or non-Imperial subject governments, while still requiring the Noble to observe ALL of the local laws while on local territory itself. He can't for instance, insult the prophet's image without suffering from some consequences. Likewise, if he invests in the local economy, and the local government nationalizes the investment, he's out of luck, because it is the right of that nation to do what it will (there will be fallout from nationalization, but you get the drift). The noble can for example, import high technology for his own fief's region, and handle his own infrastructure needs without needing to worry about the world government itself.
What would prove to be "interesting" is when some local crosses the extrality line, demanding sanctuary or asylum. The Imperial noble is obligated to honor the treaty made by the world upon joining the Moot, and the laws of the Imperial World itself. If the Imperial law mandates that asylum can not be offered except under specific circumstances, then the noble must OBEY those laws first over that of the world his fief is on.
But it also brings up the sovereign issue of the status of those born on the Fief. What are they? Natives of the world they were born upon? If the conclave (Fief) is Imperial lands, they are citizens of the Captital world in theory. In practice, they are deemed to be Imperial CITIZENS to differentiate them from Imperial subjects who are citizens of another government. Unless Dual citizenry is practiced in the Third Imperium, citizens are immune to the blatant abuses that other governments can inflict on the poor schmuck who was born on a fief.
Now, why this approach? The citizens of the Imperium ARE protected against the other worlds. They have a reason to be loyal to the Capital World - the Iridium Throne as it were. So do the Nobles, who have more rights than do the commoners. Being able to attain those rights is an incentive for the non-citizens to gain those rights, again, a motivator to be loyal to the central authority that is the Throne. Last but not least - the threat of retribution against any who violate the rights of the citizens may usher in reprisals of some sort. Keeping a noble on the surface of a world without his consent might constitute treason, and make for an interstellar incident at the very least. Killing one is definitely going to result in an investigation. Having a noble disappear is going to trigger an investigation. Having a Noble create an interstellar incident is going to trigger an investigation and if the noble is found to be in the wrong, will be dealt with harshly.
Case in point? In my current on hiatus campaign, we had two characters generate children who were, at age 18, nobles. One was a Baron, the other, a Knight. As children, their status would have been less than that of their parents, so I had one be the daughter of a Baron, the other be the son of a Count. Two of the characters gained the Starburst of Extreme heroism as naval officers who were part of the fighter forces of the Imperium.
One player attempts to smuggle a daughter of an industrialist across the Extrality line (Adibicci for those who wonder), and was not only caught at it, but opened fire at the guards. When he made it to the Imperial side of the extrality line, the guards turned him over immediately to the guards of Adibicci's side of the line. He was NOT a noble. Flip side? The one character's brother (who now is the reigning Baron of Lunion), was selling technology upgrades for the world. It permitted an older unit to accept new chips in an older motherboard mount, thereby upgrading the technology for a modest sum. Problem was? These devices were anti-snooping devices used to counter the security systems of the government. While the upgrade modifications were not illegal as yet, the devices were only being sold to non-governmental operators. In short, while not actively breaking the laws, he was breaking the spirit of the laws of Adibicci. So, they (some higher up officials) paid to have him assassinated by what amounted to a 13mm high velocity round fired from a rifle. Apparently, the noble had come into possession of information, that if handed into the wrong hands, could seriously harm the government officials. So, they tried to destroy the ship the baron's son was on before it could lift from the surface and reach safety. This they used a simulated terrorist attack on the ship while it was docked in its bay. Deniable if caught, but if successful, worth the risk kind of thing.
Net result from THAT incident was the port being declared a Red zone by the Port Authority Director, and a request for help by the naval forces to enforce a non-lift order to keep all traffic penned in (for their safety of course!). Then came the last straw. It was discovered that members of A.S.P. (Adibicci Secret Police) attempted to use a subtle poison to assassinate the Baron of Lunion (his wounded son had married the commoner wife/nurse from Adibicci that he was in love with - without his father's approval I might add!). They (ASP) hoped to achieve something that they should never have tried to achieve.
ONI's black ops department was tasked with delivering a warning to the individuals who were behind the assassination attempts - by having Imperial Marines infiltrate governmental official homes (only the selected few who were suspected to be guilty) - leave evidence that they could have KILLED the officials in their sleep, and slip out undetected. This they achieved, and returned back to the naval base in Lunion. For a time however, the Starport of Adibicci was in lockdown (6 months) as a red zone, and that was hampering the profits of many connected people on Adibicci (amongst others offworld of course) and in conjunction with the raids, the Adibicci officials turned back from futher attempts of assassination.
None of this in the way of scenarios would have been possible had I followed the quasi-hinted at rules for nobility that had been detailed in various products from CT on up through GURPS NOBLES and even T4 (now THAT would be a fun campaign, using T4 rules for pocket empires for nobility in modern Traveller's universe!).
It wasn't until T5 spelled out what is involved with fiefs in general, and the final presumption that fiefs were separate from World governmental laws. Had the fiefs been subjected to Local laws, the nobles would have been under the control of the local governments, restrained by the local governments, and ultimately no difference would exist between lands owned by the noble and noble lands owned by the Imperium.
If the Imperium offers nothing I the way of protections and rights, then it also offers no reason to be loyal to it as a State. Trying to conscript military forces in any way, is going to be a worse case scenario of trying to get your own men to face death for a state the people may or may not respect. Even Nobility would be better off to interface with the world's government and go loyal that way, seek to overthrow the Imperial government because in reality, it isn't a STATE in the true sense of the word. It has no rights it enforces against NON-state members. It has no code of law that it enforces on behalf of its citizens, and it has no legal grounds for extracting taxes from its subjects save that of the Conqueror. People under a conqueror's heel tend to rebel when the situation is ideal.
For me, in my traveller Universe, the Imperial Nobles are exempt from local laws as long as they stay within the boundaries of their fiefs, held to be Imperial land much as an Embassy is. This gives the Noble his "perk" where he's protected by Non-Imperial laws or non-Imperial subject governments, while still requiring the Noble to observe ALL of the local laws while on local territory itself. He can't for instance, insult the prophet's image without suffering from some consequences. Likewise, if he invests in the local economy, and the local government nationalizes the investment, he's out of luck, because it is the right of that nation to do what it will (there will be fallout from nationalization, but you get the drift). The noble can for example, import high technology for his own fief's region, and handle his own infrastructure needs without needing to worry about the world government itself.
What would prove to be "interesting" is when some local crosses the extrality line, demanding sanctuary or asylum. The Imperial noble is obligated to honor the treaty made by the world upon joining the Moot, and the laws of the Imperial World itself. If the Imperial law mandates that asylum can not be offered except under specific circumstances, then the noble must OBEY those laws first over that of the world his fief is on.
But it also brings up the sovereign issue of the status of those born on the Fief. What are they? Natives of the world they were born upon? If the conclave (Fief) is Imperial lands, they are citizens of the Captital world in theory. In practice, they are deemed to be Imperial CITIZENS to differentiate them from Imperial subjects who are citizens of another government. Unless Dual citizenry is practiced in the Third Imperium, citizens are immune to the blatant abuses that other governments can inflict on the poor schmuck who was born on a fief.
Now, why this approach? The citizens of the Imperium ARE protected against the other worlds. They have a reason to be loyal to the Capital World - the Iridium Throne as it were. So do the Nobles, who have more rights than do the commoners. Being able to attain those rights is an incentive for the non-citizens to gain those rights, again, a motivator to be loyal to the central authority that is the Throne. Last but not least - the threat of retribution against any who violate the rights of the citizens may usher in reprisals of some sort. Keeping a noble on the surface of a world without his consent might constitute treason, and make for an interstellar incident at the very least. Killing one is definitely going to result in an investigation. Having a noble disappear is going to trigger an investigation. Having a Noble create an interstellar incident is going to trigger an investigation and if the noble is found to be in the wrong, will be dealt with harshly.
Case in point? In my current on hiatus campaign, we had two characters generate children who were, at age 18, nobles. One was a Baron, the other, a Knight. As children, their status would have been less than that of their parents, so I had one be the daughter of a Baron, the other be the son of a Count. Two of the characters gained the Starburst of Extreme heroism as naval officers who were part of the fighter forces of the Imperium.
One player attempts to smuggle a daughter of an industrialist across the Extrality line (Adibicci for those who wonder), and was not only caught at it, but opened fire at the guards. When he made it to the Imperial side of the extrality line, the guards turned him over immediately to the guards of Adibicci's side of the line. He was NOT a noble. Flip side? The one character's brother (who now is the reigning Baron of Lunion), was selling technology upgrades for the world. It permitted an older unit to accept new chips in an older motherboard mount, thereby upgrading the technology for a modest sum. Problem was? These devices were anti-snooping devices used to counter the security systems of the government. While the upgrade modifications were not illegal as yet, the devices were only being sold to non-governmental operators. In short, while not actively breaking the laws, he was breaking the spirit of the laws of Adibicci. So, they (some higher up officials) paid to have him assassinated by what amounted to a 13mm high velocity round fired from a rifle. Apparently, the noble had come into possession of information, that if handed into the wrong hands, could seriously harm the government officials. So, they tried to destroy the ship the baron's son was on before it could lift from the surface and reach safety. This they used a simulated terrorist attack on the ship while it was docked in its bay. Deniable if caught, but if successful, worth the risk kind of thing.
Net result from THAT incident was the port being declared a Red zone by the Port Authority Director, and a request for help by the naval forces to enforce a non-lift order to keep all traffic penned in (for their safety of course!). Then came the last straw. It was discovered that members of A.S.P. (Adibicci Secret Police) attempted to use a subtle poison to assassinate the Baron of Lunion (his wounded son had married the commoner wife/nurse from Adibicci that he was in love with - without his father's approval I might add!). They (ASP) hoped to achieve something that they should never have tried to achieve.
ONI's black ops department was tasked with delivering a warning to the individuals who were behind the assassination attempts - by having Imperial Marines infiltrate governmental official homes (only the selected few who were suspected to be guilty) - leave evidence that they could have KILLED the officials in their sleep, and slip out undetected. This they achieved, and returned back to the naval base in Lunion. For a time however, the Starport of Adibicci was in lockdown (6 months) as a red zone, and that was hampering the profits of many connected people on Adibicci (amongst others offworld of course) and in conjunction with the raids, the Adibicci officials turned back from futher attempts of assassination.
None of this in the way of scenarios would have been possible had I followed the quasi-hinted at rules for nobility that had been detailed in various products from CT on up through GURPS NOBLES and even T4 (now THAT would be a fun campaign, using T4 rules for pocket empires for nobility in modern Traveller's universe!).
It wasn't until T5 spelled out what is involved with fiefs in general, and the final presumption that fiefs were separate from World governmental laws. Had the fiefs been subjected to Local laws, the nobles would have been under the control of the local governments, restrained by the local governments, and ultimately no difference would exist between lands owned by the noble and noble lands owned by the Imperium.
Here, I will quibble.
History abounds in examples of states that inspired loyalty without offering protections or rights. They have succeeded by offering advantages to classes of people and thereby gaining consensus. "I have it pretty good as things stand, and I don't want to lose what I have" turns out to be a powerful motivator. Revolutions are not born among the middle class.
What legitimizes states is not rights, but the consensus to be governed.
The basis of my idea of Imperial privilege (or immunity) is that a noble's person is extraterritorial. He enjoys immunity from local law just as a diplomat does. His investments in the local economy are not protected, any more than a foreign ambassador's are. Whether his estates are extraterritorial, well, they might be formally extraterritorial, or they might simply be treated as extraterritorial because of his immunity. I suggest that even if he is in a hotel room, the hotel room would be treated as extraterritorial by local police, as a matter of custom.
This does not imply that he can spit on the prophet's image with impunity. As I suggested above, to flout local laws creates political friction between the world's government (and probably its people) and the Imperium, which the Emperor does not desire. Do this kind of thing continually and for trivial reasons, and you will be sent to act as an ambassador to some minor group of Vargr; if you become enough of an irritant, you may be stripped of your title by the Emperor. You are no more able to flout local laws, in practice, than any diplomat is. We return to the question of honour as the driving principle of conduct.
There is a difference between what a noble may do at law, and what he may do by custom. Note that the Queen of England enjoys the same right at law to veto legislation as does the President of the United States. She never exercises that right, by custom, and for her to do so would provoke a crisis of legimitacy. The custom has evolved over time. I suggest that when it comes to questions like, "can a noble flout local laws at will," we have to consider that custom restrains what nobles can do ... but also that those customs may be discarded if the principles at stake are seen to be of special importance. In the Imperium, such customs have not yet evolved to the point at which nobles are purely figureheads. The Imperium remains a society not of laws but of men.
This seems to be the difference in our TUs. You seem to view the Imperium as a society of laws, in which immunity is essentially a matter of jurisdiction, and loyalty to the state is inspired by the universal protection of its laws. I view it as a society of men, in which nobles themselves are above planetary laws by virtue of their rank, and in which loyalty to the state derives from privilege.
Here I quibble again: worlds do not join the moot and have no status at the Imperial court. Nobles do. This is why nobles matter, and why their relationship to worlds is governed by a sense of noblesse oblige. If Sir Bob offends the world or worlds he administers, and they grow restive, and the Duke is compelled to go and stomp on them, Sir Bob will be sent into the Vargr hinterlands on a matter of state, there to languish forever. His career will be ruined and his noble house besmirched. So he is obliged to serve the interests of those worlds to maintain the consensus that legitimizes Imperial rule.
Unless you are a noble, the question of whose law applies to you depends entirely on where you are at the time -- just as it does on Earth today. That much is canonical. The Imperium is required, at law, to extradite people to worlds where they are wanted for crimes; it does not always do so, by custom. This is also canonical (The Traveller Adventure). You are of course free to discard these ideas, but these are my starting points.
I suggest the Imperium is broadly disinterested in the idea of citizenship. Only worlds care where you were born.
Now, your ideas of Imperial citizenship and rights granted by the Imperium as a matter of law do legitimize the Imperium without requiring nobles to govern themselves according to codes of honour and noblesse oblige. But on the other hand, I think you develop a new problem: you have delegitimized world governments to the extent that we have to wonder why the Imperium does not step in and depose them where they conflict with the rights of its citizens.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I see the attraction of implementing a Warhammerish Imperial Guard regimental system, based on the planetary population, supported by resource extraction based on the GDP.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Hmmm, a couple of other things come to mind with Welsh's model-
1) People will fight and claw their way in to be able to have their children fief-born and thus COTI. This means the fiefholder can likely pick the cream of the crop on planet re: talent and ability, and has an automatic motivation for the fief dwellers to do their utmost.
2) Upon signing up for membership in the Imperium, the first set of nobles would be picked from the local power structure, to give them legitimacy and feelgood and representation and education in how the Imperium works politically. That can change by Emperor's choice, but initially I would think that's a must.
3) Extending the idea of the local boy done Imperial good, how about a planetary Moot that nominates replacements for fiefs that have gone open for whatever reason?
Election, king decrees, trial by faith, games, tractor pulls, whatever- the planet decides by way of whatever method the recognized government uses to nominate the person to be given the fief/office.
Emperor still decides, and it can likely be nixed by a single 'black ball' of the Marquis, Dukes and Archdukes in the loop (subtly delegitimizing a troublesome power group), but if this is a 'government of men', then the local man would likely pull the most loyalty (or at least be seen as working towards local interests).
1) People will fight and claw their way in to be able to have their children fief-born and thus COTI. This means the fiefholder can likely pick the cream of the crop on planet re: talent and ability, and has an automatic motivation for the fief dwellers to do their utmost.
2) Upon signing up for membership in the Imperium, the first set of nobles would be picked from the local power structure, to give them legitimacy and feelgood and representation and education in how the Imperium works politically. That can change by Emperor's choice, but initially I would think that's a must.
3) Extending the idea of the local boy done Imperial good, how about a planetary Moot that nominates replacements for fiefs that have gone open for whatever reason?
Election, king decrees, trial by faith, games, tractor pulls, whatever- the planet decides by way of whatever method the recognized government uses to nominate the person to be given the fief/office.
Emperor still decides, and it can likely be nixed by a single 'black ball' of the Marquis, Dukes and Archdukes in the loop (subtly delegitimizing a troublesome power group), but if this is a 'government of men', then the local man would likely pull the most loyalty (or at least be seen as working towards local interests).
Usually, the offering of "rights" is accorded to "citizens". The right to vote, the duty to volunteer time as a defender (soldier) of the state, etc - can be powerful means for saying "This we grant to citizens, and this is not permitted to you as subjects". The Romans perfected that in a big way.
What legitimizes a state is the monopoly held by those who would do violence to those who can not defend themselves. The power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to dispense "benefits" through largess is also a way to accrue power over the masses who do not have it.
<snipped stuff that I either agree with or have no issue with despite not entirely agreeing - history will show both sides of the argument with equal ease>
Last edited by a moderator:
In all of this, people have forgotten some of the lessons of history. When one group ends up in rulership over another - whether by custom, conquest, or what have you - the overlords either have a binding culture of their own, or they slowly fall prey to the culture they are lords of, but because they are too few in numbers, are assimilated into by simple time. China is a perfect example of this. So too have various cultures in France gained the upper hand, only to be assimilated into the conquered and gone "native" as it were.
What is culture precisely? What are morays? What are Taboos? Sociology defines to some extent, that Culture is a means by which a group of people pass on survival traits to the next generation. Right/wrong is established and a system of "honor" or right behavior is also established as are things that are dishonorable or wrong behavior that no one who wishes to be respected will ever engage upon. There is no IMPERIAL culture as such, because each world has its own culture its own government etc. Imperial Culture can only exist where it is PRACTICED. Honor to the Throne, fealty to the Throne. Whether you're a freeman who serves as a an Imperial Citizen at a fief, or someone who lives at a starport within the extrality line of the starport, or someone who lives on the capital world - you have to have some sort of culture to engage upon and practice, or you go native. When a culture changes or shifts from the old ways, corruption for example, will change what is or is not acceptable behavior. Having a mass of people who engage in the same cultural practices reinforce what is right/acceptable and discourage what is wrong unacceptable. In the 1950's and 1960's (the era in which I grew up) - the number of pregnant teenaged girls was VERY small and could be counted on less than one hand. The number of children born out of wedlock in our neighborhoods was REALLY small relative to the entire group. Then a cultural shift occurred after the introduction of Birth control and abortion. Then the introduction of no-fault divorce sent statistics up higher than they had ever been. Those are cultural mores (morals or values) that have shifted within a generation. Rightly or wrongly, these changes have contributed to a new basis in our "culture" where an unmarried woman with a child was not ostracized (treated as an outsider to be shamed) but accepted without a second thought in today's society.
Likewise, with Imperial Society, you have to have a binding element - it doesn't work as "And so this institution known as the Third Imperial Nobiity - kept the shining ideals pure and the Imperium lasted 1100 years and is still going strong!" Sure, any author can write that, but absent such "glue" as I mentioned above, those Nobles will go native REAL quick.
Which brings me back to the issue of the Nobility representing a world in the Moot. No where does it specify that each world itself is represented in the Moot and has the ear of the Emperor of the Iridium Throne. So, how does the Imperial body of deliberation function to keep the entire empire functioning without it falling apart or flying apart as the flywheel throws everything outwardly in chaos?
THAT is what I look at and shake my head at. Psychology is to the person as Sociology is to society. What are the survival traits of culture that is self-reinforcing not only with the nobility itself, but also the subject governments of the Imperium? Why does the Imperium's Office of Naval Intelligence allocate 25% of its personnel to watching for unrest in member worlds (per HIGH GUARD)? Why are worlds allowed or permitted to go to war with each other, but a certain threshold exists where the worlds can't go TOO far or the Imperium steps in? Even the rules of war are not codified to say at what point does the Imperium step in? Traveller rules don't specify - in a coy manner that writers have, leaving it up to the GM to decide in his Traveller Universe what and/or where precisely that line is. At any time, Marc or crew could have published material saying that that line is, but haven't. Also true is the fact that in order to publish a set of codes of law, it would take a fair amount of book space to do a decent job (look at our own law codes!) - something that no GM or writer is going to waste their time on (who wants to play Paychecks and Welfare in their fantasy games, let alone Family Court or Law Court or what have you?)
But even so, the death of information on actual Imperial Culture and such, makes the whole thing in my eyes, a really bad parody of a functioning empire. Answer those questions (for use with canon that is) and I'd be a little less aggravated at the "and thus it is writ, the Empire functions" without there being any real support to that statement.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is where I have to quibble with you. Any organization that wields power at the level of a state, will ALWAYS be interested in who its "citizens" and "subjects" are. The citizens are in effect, the shakers and movers overall, of what the state will do or not do or what have you. The ability to tax a group of people and do it to the exclusion of someone else also taxing your sheep (er, Subjects) is going to cause problems if more than one group can do that. You have to protect your sheep *Cough*.
Therein lies the reason between "Citizen" as a divide, and "Subject" as a divide. What happens to the subjects is none of the Citizens of the Imperium's concern provided they pay their tribute (taxes, bodies, etc) as required. If there are a limited number of citizens who are above to a degree, the laws of the locals, exempt NOT by diplomatic status, but by simple "We are the Imperium, and you may not interfere with our citizens just as we will not interfere with yours" results in the very "goal" that writers of the Official Traveller Universe have been striving for - an Imperium that does NOT intervene in the activities of the subject governments providing they do not violate Imperial Laws (such as trade laws or slavery laws etc). If a Culture permits Murder as part of its heritage, or a government uses terror against its own subjects - the Imperium doesn't CARE. Just "thou shalt not murder an Imperial Citizen or else." What is the or else? An investigation of the Murder by the Imperials themselves, with or without the cooperation of the subject government.
Remember, the ability to wage war against a subject world stems from WHAT authority again? That same authority can also bully its way against a local government without TAKING over that government or usurping that government to install its own desired government. It simply says "We will do as we will, to do what must be done, and then get the hell out of here. We don't want to RUN your pile of dirt, we just demand that YOU run it and pay us tribute etc. without screwing up.
Tribute by the way is another name for "Taxes owed". If owed taxes aren't paid, what happens then? <shrug>
We see things differently I'm sure. My viewpoints are tempered by my education - both formal and informal. Put another way? We are products of our remembered experiences and our views are colored precisely for that reason. This is why, when I listen to a Liberal Democrat (for example), I'm willing to listen to his viewpoints politely and see where it is I can agree, and maybe be persuaded to his point of view if I believe he has a valid point of view. He has to present it to me however, instead of saying "Because someone said so and so is evil, and I believe them, not you!" If I do that man the courtesy of listening to his arguments and then he fails to do the same to me, I shake my head, and write him off as a lost cause. He's not using his mind, his reason, and his education to make his choices, nor is he willing to have an open mind. Likewise, culture may have instilled in me that a Man doesn't sexually molest his children or ANY children, whereas another culture might say that the children are his to do with as he sees fit. Those are cultural differences that no amount of reasoning will ever allow to be bridged by one or the other.
Ultimately? History is a conflict between power groups who are after things that may or may not infringe upon what other power groups have or want. During times of peace, it is because you have one really POWERFUL central group that keeps all the bickering down to a minimum, or you have enough status quo situations where everyone is more or less happy with the slices of pie they have. But sooner or later, someone wants someone else's pie, or someone does something that his culture says is acceptable and goes strongly against someone else's culture. Friction then arises and/or a life and death struggle occurs until the two conflicting cultures either desist from a struggle due to exhaustion, or one side is wiped out. Rome and Carthage would be one such example. Rome and Gaul would be another such example. Rome and England/Germany would be another such example (conflicts between two cultures over power or land/resources etc). China's history with multiple invasions would have more than its share of examples. Palestine and Israel would be yet another example in today's world. Heck, even Somolia would be an example where the lack of a central overriding power group can't create stability in a region just yet, and the fighting continues until some warlord shall arise and establish a central power. None of the surrounding "governments" want the mess that is Somalia - as the land has nothing of value or resources that the surrounding governments desire.
That is the nature of man and his history. It may be cynical, or it may be incomplete - but it does fit the observed nature of man's history since the beginning of recorded history. There is to my mind, no reason to believe this won't be the case in the future with the Third Imperium.
Well, this is not my model, since I don't think the Imperium recognizes the concept of "citizenship." It is a natural consequence of Hal's, though.
Very likely. The thing is, in signing up for membership, the world is accepting a deal that is actually not very good for most worlds. How does this happen? In the usual way: the people who run things get big, juicy incentives.
And if you want to give incentive to the world as a whole -- rather than to a few select leaders who will take the money and run off to someplace nicer -- then you'll give them their very own nobles.
Yes. This argument is advanced by Charles Tilly in his essay, "War-making and state-making as organized crime": what differentiates a legitimate state from a protection racket is that its monopoly on violence actually functions to reduce violence.
So the question is, has the Imperium legitimized itself as a state by monopolizing violence, and reducing violence thereby?
Let's see: mercenaries. The Imperial rules of war. Tradewar. Nobles carrying sidearms and assassinating Emperors....
I'm gonna answer that one with a big fat "No." The Imperium has a long way to go to legitimize itself as a society of laws. It is a protection racket run by nobles in the interest of profit-taking corporations which themselves are largely responsible for perpetuating the violence (mercenary wars, tradewar) that it ought to be stabilizing.
How has it persisted for a thousand years? Well, first off, if I was to draw my own IMTU timeline, it would only be a couple of hundred years old. The Third Imperium is peculiarly stagnant in both technological and social development. But the best answer is, nobody has the power to challenge it. Or at least, nobody with the power to challenge it is interested in doing so. That's the role of those consensus worlds: to keep the thing together.
Well, this neglects the question of whether nobles possess a culture of their own, which is essential to the topic here. I certainly agree that the Imperium as a whole lacks a culture, but I suggest there is a divide between the culture(s) of the Imperial population as a whole, and the "interstellar culture" of the nobles and the mega-rich -- the very people for whose benefit the Imperium was created. The indifference of this culture to the worlds themselves is the key to its persistence.
Which is essentially the model I am suggesting. The difference of opinion here, as I understand it, boils down to your view that one can be an Imperial citizen by dint of being born in Imperial territory, and my view that this notion of "citizenship" is irrelevant: one is either a noble, with rights and privileges, or one is not. You want to extent Imperial protections to all kinds of "citizens"; I suggest these protections are limited to nobles and to those whose wealth confers quasi-noble status. I do not argue they are exempt by diplomatic status, but that their privilege resembles diplomatic status.
This may be a handy time to recall that your TU cannot be "wrong," and my TU cannot be "wrong." They can only be different. This is not an argument as to who is "right," it is a discussion of ideas and their implications.
Note also in re "protection racket" - those same profit-taking megacorps are, in the OTU, largely, owned by each other and the nobility.
From the standpoint of a multi-world, yes, the 3I has reduced the violence by and to the megacorps; the high Nobles don't really have much worry as the Megacorps want to keep them as owners, since ownership is inherently motivation to protectionism, and the nobles don't want to unease the megacorps on each other, since their investment base is seldom single-corporation.
From the standpoint of a multi-world, yes, the 3I has reduced the violence by and to the megacorps; the high Nobles don't really have much worry as the Megacorps want to keep them as owners, since ownership is inherently motivation to protectionism, and the nobles don't want to unease the megacorps on each other, since their investment base is seldom single-corporation.
That is partly why my Traveller universe gets citizens as non-nobles. A single family doth not a culture make kind of thing. By having enclaves of culture surrounding the nobles, having freedom from planetary governments such that citizens are free to travel - it makes it easier in my mind for the Imperials to avoid going native. In addition, serving in the Imperial military and automatically gaining citizenship that way, grants a person dual citizenship with the original planet of origin. That begs a new question: what is the status of a child born on a limited charter world? Does the home world of its parents determine its status? What of a child born to military personnel on a military base?
While valid points have been raised by the two of you, I submit that what was written by canon writers also implies world governments do their share as well. Question: does not the lack of black war (I think that's what unrestricted warfare in MegaTraveller was called) constitute evidence that the imperial government provide more protection than not?
