T5's take on Imperial Nobles

[DonM]

Noble	Soc	Where?	Preferred World
Gentleman	A	any	any
Knight	B	homeworld	any
Baronet	c	one system	Pre-Ag or Pre-Ri
Baron	C	one system	Ag or Ri
Marquis	D	one subsector	Pre-Ind
Viscount	e	one subsector	Pre-Hi
Count	E	one sector	Hi or In
Duke	f	one sector	Importance 4+
Duke	F	one sector	sub/sector capitals
Archduke	G	one domain	domain capitals

That's the relevant table... And this matches the Nobility column in the attached spreadsheet of Imperial worlds in the Marches.

If this looks a bit different than some T5 tables, it incorporates a touch of errata... :rofl:
This affects p. 52, p. 93, p. 96, and p. 436.
And because it's been mentioned a few times, there's this table (p. 67), for more information on social classes in T5.

Soc	Equivalent
0	Social Outcaste
1	Social Misfit
2	Dregs of Society
3	Lower Low Class
4	Middle Low Class
5	Upper Low Class
6	Low Middle Class
7	Middle Class
8	Upper Middle
9	Low Upper Class
A	Middle Upper
B	Upper Upper
C	Remarkable
D	Extraordinary
E	Extreme
F	Supreme

 

[aramis]

Now, can someone tell me how to crop the space in this post?

No returns between table lines. Sorry, there's nothing I can do to eliminate that issue without serious hazard-to-the-board-level hacking.

 

[DonM]

No returns between table lines. Sorry, there's nothing I can do to eliminate that issue without serious hazard-to-the-board-level hacking.

Fixed. Annoying, but if I know about it, I can work around it. Now the serious discussions can begin...

 

[rancke]

So what does that mean for the Imperial nobility in terms of number and responsibilities?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

Just a comment here: Gentlemen, AFAIK, is usually used to refer non-noble high class.

Whouldn't be Soc A more equivalent to the Spanish Hidalgos od the British Squires, that were something like half-nobles (they had some noble rights, as the hidalgos' right to bear arms, but were not full nobles)?

 

[rancke]

Just a comment here: Gentlemen, AFAIK, is usually used to refer non-noble high class.

Whouldn't be Soc A more equivalent to the Spanish Hidalgos od the British Squires, that were something like half-nobles (they had some noble rights, as the hidalgos' right to bear arms, but were not full nobles)?

Traveller social levels were always extremely self-contradictory (or at least highly confused), with 1 in 36 characters getting Soc B from the start and Navy officers having a decent chance of winding up with a ducal title on the one hand and the logical ramifications of having 15 trillion Imperial citizens on the other. T5 seems to have increased the discrepancy rather than solved it.


Hans

(So much for my two day old resolve not to plunge back into that morass again. Ah, well, we only have the fun we make ourselves.)

 

[curmudgeon]

I have always been part of the group that says that a Marquis should have precedence over a Count. Traditionally, a Marquis has his territory, or Mark, on the frontier of a nation, while a Count has his territory, or County, in the interior. This means that the Marquis has the added responsibility of constantly defending the country and thus had more status in society.

That being said, I have no problem with every planet having at least one Baronet, possibly two or three. More than one would allow for political intrigue as they try and topple the higher ranking Baronet and take control of the planet's resources.

 

[robject]

That being said, I have no problem with every planet having at least one Baronet, possibly two or three. More than one would allow for political intrigue as they try and topple the higher ranking Baronet and take control of the planet's resources.

This is one of the things going on in my current Traveller campaign.

 

[fridge]

Noble	Soc	Where?	Preferred World
Gentleman	A	any	any
Knight	B	homeworld	any
Baronet	c	one system	Pre-Ag or Pre-Ri
Baron	C	one system	Ag or Ri
Marquis	D	one subsector	Pre-Ind
Viscount	e	one subsector	Pre-Hi
Count	E	one sector	Hi or In
Duke	f	one sector	Importance 4+
Duke	F	one sector	sub/sector capitals
Archduke	G	one domain	domain capitals

That's the relevant table... And this matches the Nobility column in the attached spreadsheet of Imperial worlds in the Marches.

If this looks a bit different than some T5 tables, it incorporates a touch of errata... :rofl:

Note that the table Don has quoted is from page 93/96 and the Where column refers to where the Noble's land grants are located.

A similar but different (Counts/Dukes have different Preferred World/TC entries) table exists on page 436 to describe/determine the Ranking Noble (which I am not even going to try to copy out of the PDF and reformat into a table while on an ipad) which is based on Trade Classifications. Don, any errata you have applied to p93/96 probably needs to be applied to p436 as well.

I think p436 is more important to this discussion...it sets whatever noble(s) exist for each world, p93/96 sets where nobles have assets. The higher nobles are likely to have assets (Fiefs) spread around and p93/96 reflects that.

Ranking Noble to me implies the one at the top. This is supported by the supporting text on page 428 (my bolding, which emphasizes the singular nature of the text).

Nobility. The Imperium assigns a representative to each mainworld; this imperial Noble interacts with the local government and population, serves as an ambassador, and promotes trade and commerce. This noble may be a local appointed by the Emperor, or may be an offworlder assigned to the post. When a world has a significant non-human population, the Noble often has a local counterpart who deals with non-human locals.

but not the Regina example on page 430.

Page 431 adds confusion.

N Nobility. Within the Imperium, the noble rank of the individual assigned by the Empire as representative to the MainWorld. More than one is possible

but the standard format on the top of p431 then allows only 1 digit.

This issue was raised in earlier drafts and i think the wording on page 428 has changed over the drafts (can not check, they are on my PC 10000 miles away) but the example and p431 never kept up resulting in continuing confusion - is there only one Ranking Noble or many? Also raised with Don as part of the UWP clean-up, which I have been heavily involved in, but never resolved - Don's sector spreadsheets determine many, mine determine the highest one, both of ours based on the table on page 436. I recall making the suggestion that whether the Ranking Noble is supported by Subordinate Nobles should be left out of World Generation and up to the GM. This would allow PC Nobles to not be as tied to a world, or to represent the Ranking Noble off world. Maybe at the higher levels a subordinate Noble attends the Moot on Capital, possibly on rotation.

The table on page 436 also has both Duke f and F for In worlds and no ready way to split them. Don's applied errata to p93/96 seems to fix this if also applied to p436.

Fridge

 

[fridge]

It could also be seen that important worlds get at least a Baron assigned, middling worlds have a Baronet assigned, unimportant world probably have a Knight around who can represent the Imperium at a pinch, even if not formally filling the role of the world's assigned noble...eg to remind the locals of a pop 50 rockball world of the consequences of their decision to not use the Imperial Calendar on their E class star port beacon. That knight may not even live locally but be passing through and while there IS the Ranking Noble.

Fridge

 

[Bloo]

The spreadsheet above gives the following breakdown for Imperial systems in the Spinward Marches:

249 B Knights (131 of which are the highest noble for the system, i.e., "Ranking" I think).
33 c Baronets
52 C Barons
19 D Marquises
24 e Viscounts
27 E Counts
8 f Dukes
9 F Dukes (all are Subsector or Sector capitals)
23 systems with None.

 

[Bloo]

Now that I've had more opportunity, I think Fridge's analysis is dead on.

Looking at the Regina example and page 428, I infer that the Nobility listed in the columns are the Imperium's representatives to the relevant system: in my mind, in their careers and not adventuring but for the occasional vacation.

For the Regina subsector, the spreadsheet above gives the following:
1 F Duke
1 f Duke
5 E Count
5 e Viscount
2 D Marquis
8 C Baron
3 c Baronet
28 B Knights
53 total

For a subsector population between 16.6 and 166 billion, that's 1 in 313 million to 1 in 31 billion (in the mid-range, it would be 1 in 1.4 billion).

The Red Zoned systems have nothing in the Nobility column, but they would have the following:
Algine: BcE
Shinothy: BD
Pscias: BC

 

[Mgellis]

Some thoughts and questions...

I've written a number of articles for JTAS and the realization that a planetary noble might be a knight was a bit of a shock at first, but then I realized it only changed a couple of things, most of them actually good for gamers, although possibly bad for the knight.

* A knight's mandate operates like that of any other noble but that means he might end up "outranking" other knights at times. For example, if the starport director is a knight and a crisis breaks out, the knight who is the planetary noble can give the starport director legally binding orders. But the starport director might resent this because the noble is "just another knight." This perhaps could result in friction at some later time.

* A knight only holds his fief for life (or until he resigns or is "fired" for some reason). This means he might be the target of ambitious honor nobles who seek to become a planetary noble because it's probably a lot easier to get a knight removed from a non-hereditary post than to get a baron or count removed from a hereditary fief. In fact, some of these honor nobles might be sponsored by other, higher-ranking nobles trying to build a power bloc by removing the knights friendly to other nobles in the sector or subsector.

One issue for me is how many other nobles are likely to be in a solar system at any particular time. This is probably one of those things that will remain undefined. I like the system proposed by (I think) Bloo, but I would probably streamline it a bit and just say "for every planetary noble, there are roughly five honor nobles of lesser rank and/or knights." That keeps things pretty open-ended, but also guarantees a supply of nobles who aren't planetary nobles but who might have some value to the campaign. Any thoughts on this "five for one" guesstimate/rule?

Mark

 

[Mgellis]

Another question...if there are multiple nobles listed for a system, does that mean they each have a fief? Do the lesser nobles work for the senior noble or are they all independent of each other, in charge of different worlds, etc. (but required, like all planetary nobles, to take orders, if necessary, from the subsector duke)?

 

[rancke]

One issue for me is how many other nobles are likely to be in a solar system at any particular time. This is probably one of those things that will remain undefined. I like the system proposed by (I think) Bloo, but I would probably streamline it a bit and just say "for every planetary noble, there are roughly five honor nobles of lesser rank and/or knights." That keeps things pretty open-ended, but also guarantees a supply of nobles who aren't planetary nobles but who might have some value to the campaign. Any thoughts on this "five for one" guesstimate/rule?

I assume that by 'planetary noble' you mean 'Imperial noble associated with a world'. I usually use that term to denote people would are members of the planet's local nobility. What do you do with all the other planetary nobles? What would you say was the percentage of a planetary population that belongs to the upper class? One percent? One tenth of one percent? That would give a world with 10 billion people 10 million members of the upper class. Say that nine out of ten are close relatives of nobles and gentry rather than holders of titles and honors themselves. That would give you one million planetary nobles. Different assumptions might give you different numbers, but not enough smaller to help. You might be able to squeeze 125 planetary nobles into the "five for one" guesstimate, but I think that's about the upper limit. An Imperial member world that resembled Earth today would have more heads of state than that. In fact, the pseudo-British peerage alone would have more peers than that.


Hans

 

[Bloo]

Dom, missing from that spreadsheet:
1809, RUIE, D776977-5

 

[rancke]

Dom, missing from that spreadsheet:
1809, RUIE, D776977-5

Ruie is a non-aligned world and the UPP is C776977-7.

Previously published information mentions that some of the individual nations are Imperial clients, but I'm not quite sure that this is canon rather than fanon. I think it's mentioned in an adventure in a Mongoose book.

Hans

 

[Bloo]

Ruie is a non-aligned world and the UPP is C776977-7.

Doh. You're right about non-aligned. But the T5 1065 sheet on the Spinward marches spreadsheet that comes with the disc has it as starport C, TL 5.

 

[rancke]

Doh. You're right about non-aligned. But the T5 1065 sheet on the Spinward marches spreadsheet that comes with the disc has it as starport C, TL 5.

Really? For 1065 it should be Starport X, TL5, Red Zone[*]. I was thinking about 1105.

[*] And strictly speaking it should be law ?, since on balkanized worlds the law level is, IIRC, the one that applies closest to the Imperial starport, and there is no Imperial starport, but that sort of details have always been ignored. In my own TU I go further: interdicted worlds have social stats ???-? because the Scouts don't publish that sort of details for interdicted worlds.​

Hans

 

[DonM]

I really need to catch up with this thread, but T5 changes what a starport X code means, which is why the 1065 starport is NOT X in T5.

I'll try and catch up after work.