I can see that you aren't an American.
The low class, rich entertainers you see are NOT considered high class. They are simply considered easy to part from their money by those above the middle classes...
Social Climbing
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
I can see that you aren't an American.
The low class, rich entertainers you see are NOT considered high class. They are simply considered easy to part from their money by those above the middle classes...The rules don't say much of anything on the subject. "Social Standing notes the social class and level of society from which the character (and his or her family) comes." Then some pluses and sometimes minuses as your career progresses - a benefit of mustering out, or a benefit of rank (navy captains, etc.) or personal development, or a penalty if you're in the catch-all "other" career, a few more spots in the books and supplements with more detailed career paths. We don't know if those represent things you learn or things that boost your reputation - no specifics, probably a mix of both given the way the tables are set up. Basic books thereafter say basically nothing about it - not involved in skills, no bonuses or penalties except one point where you get a bonus for being a noble. Basic CT rules don't even do that bit about having to pay for your social status - that's a GURPS thing, if I recall, though worth porting over in my opinion.
Traveller Adventure has a bit where an attempt to blackmail officials is rolled off their social level; presumably someone of higher status is more concerned about his reputation. Bribery cost is also based on social; presumably they think a higher status person would expect more or be offended by a lesser bribe. Entertainment costs are likewise Soc dependent. Sets a value to specific social levels and implies a big difference between the 2 and the 6, but of course that's an artificial mechanic for ease of play so difficult to draw firm conclusions from.
By and large, how we handle Soc in the game depends on how we view it, and there's little guidance one way or the other. Perfectly appropriate to view it as I described, and just as appropriate to see it as you describe.
The serious weakness I see - and you point out - is that there's no provision for improving characteristics except for education. It's presumed that whatever characteristics the player achieved through birth and career are fixed at the highest point the character can achieve - whether he's a 22 year old who mustered out early or an old fogey making aging rolls. Might be true of intelligence, but certainly a person can make a concerted effort to improve his strength (and might be credited with such an effort if your adventure throws him in a situation where he's using his strength a lot for a long period).
I wouldn't propose you can make yourself a knight by studying under Professor Higgins, but if we view your social standing as something people can perceive in your behavior and bearing, then certainly there should be some opportunity for one to learn not to cuss or spit in public. However, that would be an IMTU innovation; the game is sorely lacking in that one unless the GM adds something in to fix the problem.
Maybe we should do as the Vargr and measure only charisma; there's no equivalent in the game, and it's a useful trait. Maybe we should treat the noble titles the same way we treat career ranks, as a distinction earned and possibly entitling one to certain bennies within certain circles, rather than as a personal trait. Maybe we should replace what we're using as Soc with a "Social" skill that represents acquiring etiquette and social graces; the person born with title would automatically receive a certain level of the skill, and we could come up with rules as to whether or not a starting character emerged from his childhood with any skill in that area.
Actually, I think I like that.
Traveller is a set of tropes embodied in the setting and expressed in the assorted sets of Traveller rules. If I run a game featuring those tropes then I'm running Traveller, no matter what rules I use. If I'm using GT rules then I'm not using CT character attributes, but I'm still playing Traveller. If I'm using T20 rules or TNE rules, the attributes are the same as in CT, but the values are different. It's still Traveller as long as the tropes involved are Traveller.
And if a rule doesn't express those tropes properly or, even worse, contradict them, then it's a flawed rule.
If a rule needs a referee to backstop it then, it's not working as written. How easy or how hard it is for a referee to fix it by houseruling doesn't affect the fact that it doesn't work as written.
Has that happened to you lately?
That's exactly what I meant.
Right there in the bit you quoted:
"If he is free to change his character's social standing to something he is able to work with and he wants to play a Soc 2 retired Imperial Navy captain, then it's his problem to make it work. If you insist that he run with whatever character the character generation system sticks him with, then it's your responsibility to provide him with a background story that works for him."
I'm sorry, I don't know how to express myself any clearer. My concept of a rule that works is a rule that works as written. If you have to houserule it to make it work then it is not a rule that works. If you have a concept of 'working rule' that is different and if you're unable to adjust to my definition, provide a different term and I'll endavor to use that.
I may have been tripped up by a subtlety of the English language that eludes me. I did not think that 'works perfectly well' meant that the rule was literally perfect. I thought it meant that the rule worked pretty well for most purposes.
Hans
I've been misremembering the old definition. I thought that Social Standing denoted the social class and level of society that the character occupied currently. I do note, in exculpation, that the changes to Soc that can occur during character generation does not fit with the definition you quote. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that the two bits of canon directly contradict each other.
As an aside, the MgT definition is "A character's place in society." [MgT:Core, p. 5].
It's an MT thing.
The problem is that either way the rules are rife with contradictions. I'd prefer my description to yours, but I wouldn't claim the rules were flawed either way if they didn't contradict themselves.
How you're treated is a function of your perceived social standing which can be different from your actual social standing for a variety of reasons.
Hans
And my guess is that it 3I, being a feudal government, it would be more in the British way than in the US way.
IIRC, in early adventures one of the characters began with Soc 4, but upon being knighted it raides it automatically to B. See that there was no wealth increase, nor even too much fame (as their actions are kept secret to avoid scandal and panic, again IIRC), and yet, in any version where stats modifiers are set, this would be a significant change in any social task, just because he may now be called "Sir", without any other change...
Another example (also given in the other thread I refered to) would be, if we take Traveller to European Middle Ages (as it has been taken to Roman Imperium by Mercator), what soc will a jew banker have, regardless his wealth?
The feudal nature is quite limited, though, so I'd say 19th Century Britain rather than feudal England.
There's a reason why I've mostly restricted my remarks to exclude Imperial nobility. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Imperial nobility IS an important factor in social standing (despite a few oddities), so I'm concentrating on planetary social levels below titled nobility (i.e. up to Soc 10, the untitled aristocracy (a.k.a. gentry).
Or rather, I'm concentrating on Imperial social levels equivalent to planetary social levels up to 10. Starship crewmen rather than sailors, for example. (Would a common starship crewman be the social equal of a common sailor?)
Equivalent to a non-jew commoner with the same wealth, but with a social stigma.
Thing is, that kind of prejudice seems to be missing from Imperial society. It's probably part of an edict. No discrimination based on gender, race, creed, and similar factors. Alternatively such prejudice is alive and well in some forms but character generation pre-selects against characters suffering from anything like that.
Hans
Quite true. Since we're on the subject, I'm curious how much we see Soc being used in our games outside of titles and noble privileges. Does it do much, or are we depending on Carousing and Liaison and similar social skills most of the time?
Again, as has already been alluded to, that question really depends on several factors. If, for the sake of discussion, I define Social Standing as the position one has in society and/or family background (not necessarily wealth), and I restrict the discussion to Soc values less than 10, then to answer your question you need to address not only the question of actual Soc on the character's homeworld and/or by Imperial Standard, but it also becomes necessary to look at a person's perceived Soc by the residents of his current locale.
If you find yourself on a world that is fairly cosmopolitan (and therefore exhibiting culture - or at least cultural exposure - similar to the "Imperial Standard"), then your Soc may fairly well translate to local standards.
If, on the other hand, you find yourself on a world with a very unique local culture (or one that is in an isolated backwater), then your Soc may not mean much at all - your perceived "Soc" by local residents may simply be that of outsider / out-caste / foreigner (and whatever reaction that entails).
A plutocratic society might perceive your Soc to be greater or less depending upon the difference between your expected wealth for a given Soc, vs your perceived wealth.
I believe one of the old Traveller Digest Magazines did a write-up on this (I believe it was in TD#7 or TD#8). They suggested the idea that perceived Soc is actually volatile, depending upon one's distance from home and/or distance from "familiar circles", decreasing as one moves away from said circles. Social Standing should probably be considered as a standard "Imperial Scale" to which local perceived Social Standing is compared, with divergences dependent upon just how different local culture is from Imperial norms.
As a GM, you might rule that interpersonal interactions and reactions based on perceived Soc are a "Roll under perceived Soc" task, with Liaison/Carousing/Streetwise skill as a beneficial modifier.
Certainly not. That is why I believe that the Soc-scale is a measure of the Soc of the standard traveller, not the standard citizen. It is an Imperial Scale, not a local one. A Soc=7 person is probably perceived by locals to be closer to the local "Upper Middle Class" than generic "Middle Class", in terms of the relationship of the Imperial Scale to common local scales. He is "average" on the Imperial Scale, but slightly above average on the local scale. This also addresses the "Social Diamond" phenomenon that is a byproduct of the CharGen rules, as people of Soc=1 thru Soc=5 are far less likely to be encountered as travellers than they are as common local citizens.
Look at the standard salaries of starship crew in most versions of Traveller. They tend to range from Cr2000 - Cr6000 per month, as pure disposable income (remember that on a starship room and board are provided free, which are most people's major expenses in life).
So a crewman earning Cr4000 per month of pure disposable income has an annual salary of Cr 48000/year, after living expenses (effectively).
Last edited:
Had you considered post-unification Germany as a C19 model instead? There's still nobility, and they occupy a lot of important posts, but it's possible for the rest of them to rise too given the importance placed on technical and academic achievement.
But unless they're on a milk run they'd be quite separate from the rest of society in a day-to-day kind of way. The services would be the same: difficult to put down roots and have an established social position when one is posted out to a new location (system? sector?) every couple of years.
However, the Royal Sovereign in the 3I is as powerful as it was during the reign of Henry VIII...
However, the Royal Sovereign in the 3I is as powerful as it was during the reign of Henry VIII...
Tell that to Emperor Styryx.
Yes, the Emperor is powerful, but there are limits. For one thing, he relies on underlings to carry out his wishes and he relies on the support of the Imperial Navy for another. I think the analogy to 19th Century Britain is useful and reasonably sound, but it's not a complete 'cut-and-replace' copy.
Hans
All the same as it was back then. My point stands as being correct for the majority of Emperors. Also, a Duke in the 3I is at LEAST as powerful as during the Tudor period.
It occurs to me that if we accept the CT definition of social standing that Carlo quoted, then the answer to the orighinal question is that there is no way to increase one's initial Soc. One is stuck with one's birth status -- probably some sort of caste system involved.
Yet there is at least one way to beat the system: to get an Imperial title. A knighthood boosts your Soc straight to 11. So there's at least one way to change Soc: legally.
That thought provoked some ideas/musings. What if other status changes were likewise all legal and formal and proper? Several times a year the Office of the Duke in each duchy publishes a list of citizens that have had their social status changed by ducal edict (on the reccomendation of various Imperial officials). Such status changes are the rewards for service above and beyond.
OTOH, people who are convicted of henious crimes have their status reduced by a level. OK, that one requires some change: small crimes don't cost anything, medium crimes cost one level, serious crimes cost a reduction to level 2.
Now if a person's birth status is changed by legal fiction, does it affect the person's family?
What if it's changed downward?
I'm not suggesting that any of this be adopted in the OTU, but I think you could get an interesting ATU out of it.
Hans
Yet there is at least one way to beat the system: to get an Imperial title. A knighthood boosts your Soc straight to 11. So there's at least one way to change Soc: legally.
That thought provoked some ideas/musings. What if other status changes were likewise all legal and formal and proper? Several times a year the Office of the Duke in each duchy publishes a list of citizens that have had their social status changed by ducal edict (on the reccomendation of various Imperial officials). Such status changes are the rewards for service above and beyond.
OTOH, people who are convicted of henious crimes have their status reduced by a level. OK, that one requires some change: small crimes don't cost anything, medium crimes cost one level, serious crimes cost a reduction to level 2.
Now if a person's birth status is changed by legal fiction, does it affect the person's family?
"To Kerala Ingawi. This is to inform you that your son, Palmer Ingawi, has been elevated to social standing 10. You are consequently likewise elevated and is henceforth entitled to style yourself 'His Impsquire'1.
1 A portmanteau of 'Imperial' and 'Esquire'.
What if it's changed downward?
I'm not suggesting that any of this be adopted in the OTU, but I think you could get an interesting ATU out of it.
Hans
Using our existing knowledge of ALL human societies that have passed through the Age of Reason (and thus went beyond the belief in Divine Right to rule), the 3I is impossible to exist in its canonical form. Those same humans would not support such hereditary power structure.
So, scrap the 3I as written.
Last edited:
Except that the Vilani did not pass through the Age of Reason, and maintained a traditional hereditary caste-structure throughout their empire. The culture of the Third Imperium is as much based on the old Vilani Grand Imperium as it is upon Solomani historical traditions.
Nah, I don't think there's any problem with the structure of the Imperium, so I'll keep it.
Feel free to come up with something different, though. I might be able to use it for a parallel dimension adventure.
Hans
No, the Imperial elite has just succeeded in spreading the belief that autocracy is the only way to govern a structure the size of the Imperium. Since "everybody knows" that this is so, most people are OK with a hereditary governing elite. The few people who dispute this truth are regarded as kooks.
(And it's not like the governance of the Imperium has much effect on people's daily lives.)
Hans
You do not need Divine Right to rule. What you need, when you parse things down to their simplest, is guns and ships and maybe economic power, and people willing to use them on your behalf - and more of them than the other guy. Which in turn means the people with the guns and ships and et cetera must believe they have a vested interest in maintaining your rule for you.
Such was the lesson of Cleon I when he founded the 3I. As we look through the history of the emperors, we see one emperor forced to abdicate when he lost the support of the Moot following a failed war that raised questions about his ability to advance their collective interests. We see another emperor assassinated at the behest of the Moot, suggesting his personal guard was either suborned or failed miserably. We see a string of emperors raised up and then brought down by competing military factions, with the Moot left as little more than onlookers and rubber-stamps. We see the most recent and controversial emperor using his control of the military and security forces to suppress the Moot, while regional powers break away and support some more local figure in whom they have greater confidence.
It isn't about Divine Right. I don't know of anyone in the 3I who speaks of a Divine Right. It's about the people with power being willing to follow you so long as it advances their interests to do so, and the other people lacking the power to say different.