Both examples may work, as may the Spanish Empire in the XVI century. Its sembalnce to the Roman Empire was debaded in this thread.
"Unskilled laborer joins the nobility!"
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
Both examples may work, as may the Spanish Empire in the XVI century. Its sembalnce to the Roman Empire was debaded in this thread.
And the answer I took away from that discussion was "Very little".
Hans
True, but others disagreed with you, and they also had a point on their reasonings...
There was a minister of the Spanish Republic who ended his days working as a cleaner in a hotel in Venezuela after Franco won. (Sorry, I'm away from home right now so I can't trace the reference from the fat hardback about the Spanish Civil War that I'm currently reading...)
So, your SOC-2 "nobleman" might have been a worker who rose to become a senior official of a revolutionary state, but then fled into impecunious exile when the reactionaries came back into power.
All of this is an example of why I prefer rationalising throws for myself (as in Classic) rather than relying on prepackaged "events tables" a la Mongoose. But that's another point.
More broadly, the main thing, as ever when these sorts of things get aired, is to regard the rules as a facilitator of the imagination and of SF adventure gaming, rather than as a reality simulator. The chargen rules are meant to generate the unusual people who travel, not to generate a statistical sample of the population of the Imperium or of Charted Space.
So, your SOC-2 "nobleman" might have been a worker who rose to become a senior official of a revolutionary state, but then fled into impecunious exile when the reactionaries came back into power.
All of this is an example of why I prefer rationalising throws for myself (as in Classic) rather than relying on prepackaged "events tables" a la Mongoose. But that's another point.
More broadly, the main thing, as ever when these sorts of things get aired, is to regard the rules as a facilitator of the imagination and of SF adventure gaming, rather than as a reality simulator. The chargen rules are meant to generate the unusual people who travel, not to generate a statistical sample of the population of the Imperium or of Charted Space.
HOUSE-RULE SUGGESTION.
According to the Nobility CharGen in MgT Core Rules p.26:
Unlike previous editions of Traveller, Nobles has career paths within it that in previous editions were separate CharGen careers (Administrator [= CT Bureaucrat], Diplomat, and Dilettante [=(?) CT Nobles]).
The Nobles Career in MgT seems to be expanding the career paths to include the "support & administrative staff" of the Nobility proper, as well as including the various career options that "working nobles" would likely pursue.
SUGGESTED FIX:
1) Require the individual pursuing the Nobles Career to qualify for "Commission" thru a qualification roll (like Army/Navy/Marines) where the person cannot advance beyond Rank 0 until they achieve said commission roll (with commission dependent upon Soc as a modifier, and automatic for those with Soc10+).
2) Require each rank-level to have a minimum Soc in order to qualify (perhaps Rank >= Soc minus 6). Otherwise, the character has reached a promotion "cap" until their Soc increases.
EDIT: atpollard's comment below would work as a solution as well: Give Rank5 the auto-benefit of Soc=10 or +1 Soc (if Soc=10 already), and Rank6 the auto-benefit of Soc=12 (or +1 Soc if Soc=12 already), just like in the Navy Career.
Last edited:
I think that this is the heart of what really bothers you about the rules as written. The noblemen (by career) head of state still has a Soc 2 at the end of his career.
For what it is worth, I completely agree. Many people come from humble beginnings and go on to excel at something.
A classic example from American History is Abraham Lincoln who was born in a log cabin with a dirt floor, self-educated, taught himself law, and eventually became President of the United States. I suspect nobody who ever met President Lincoln ever thought (Soc 2: "Get a job, you bum.")
In the Traveller Navy (at least CT, I assume MgT kept the possibility), a middle class character can become an officer and earn social promotion to eventually finish his career at Soc 10+. That sort of makes sense.
A nobleman with a Soc 2 at the end of their career does not.
Perhaps there should be a mínimum SS for the specialty of diletante.
And the SS at the end of the career may well be quite low, depending on how does he finish the career (excuse me for not giving you examples, but no politics rules must be enforced
).
And the SS at the end of the career may well be quite low, depending on how does he finish the career (excuse me for not giving you examples, but no politics rules must be enforced
).
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
So where would The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill KG OM CH TD DL FRS RA fit into this at different points in his career?
Apparently conceived before wedlock to a mother who was less than virtuous:
So if you are nobility you don't have to act like it, and if you aren't, it doesn't matter how you act, nobly or basely, you'll never be "accepted".
As for Winston; a drunk, politically up and down, including exile , tertiary syphilis etc.
FYI: I happen to admire Winston Churchill, particularly his stance at the Yalta conference.
BTW, per aramis' rule of "nothing after WW2" this should be allowed in the "not political" realm.
Apparently conceived before wedlock to a mother who was less than virtuous:
So if you are nobility you don't have to act like it, and if you aren't, it doesn't matter how you act, nobly or basely, you'll never be "accepted".
As for Winston; a drunk, politically up and down, including exile , tertiary syphilis etc.
FYI: I happen to admire Winston Churchill, particularly his stance at the Yalta conference.
BTW, per aramis' rule of "nothing after WW2" this should be allowed in the "not political" realm.
Last edited:
I would have to wonder whether, even at his lowest point, Mr. Churchill was ever generally regarded as the social equal of a panhandler or day laborer?
I suspect not.
If anything, this supports the argument that even a controversial career nobleman should start out as the child of a nobleman (soc 10+).
See that The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill was born into an aristocratic family, so, IMHO, it does not represent what is questioned here (a low SS commoner raising into the government and yet keeping the low status), as he already began with high Standing.
You're mixing up scandal and social standing (Not that there appear to have been any scandal). Sir Winston belonged to the aristocracy from birth and remained so for all his life. He certainly wasn't ostracized; he met his future wife at a ball held by an earl and on another occasion at a dinner given by a baroness. He proposed to her during a house party at Blenheim Palace.
His political career certainly wasn't hurt by his father's social standing and his mother's money, but Britain being a democracy, his social standing wasn't as important as it would have been in previous generations.
Hans
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Unfortunately if something is unlikely but still possible it is represented in game mechanics with 2d6 odds which for the most implausible is still a 1 in 36 chance.
oh?
I knew there was more to it than just a question as to if you were interpreting the rules right.
This is definitely a valid point. attpollard puts it well
It's something I've noticed and mentioned in the past and here in this thread
The military careers having SOC improvements as Personal Development, rank benefits and so on.
I've always had issue with what the SOC stat really represented. so I never suggested a possible house rule for changing things. My thoughts were that nobles could automatically get in to these careers. Similar to how certain criteria (purposely staying away from the issues) give groups of people a better chance of getting government jobs today. The careers themselves didn't represent nobility and SOC fully. I thought a Director or Minister need not be a Baron or Duke or whatever and could be a non noble in a respected job.
(game mechanics) A Nobel price winner can be a SOC 2 so could the captain of a large merchant ship. A famous performer or artist or the most senior news correspondent could be SOC 3. and so on
but something along these lines seams a good suggestion
for specific ranks in specific specialties. If anything, the low life dilettante maintaining a SOC 10+ seams odd and some negative SOC tweak might be considered.
This works perfectly well in the Outer Veil setting (where this could happen with the Elite career), but looks a bit out of place in the OTU. After all, OV Elites are politicians, executives and celebrities, and particularly the celebrities can come from low SOC and stay considered "trash" by the high society, especially if they joined the career due to a reality show.
But in the OTU, I'd simply say that you have to be SOC 10+ to enter that career; no roll allowed for lower SOC.
But in the OTU, I'd simply say that you have to be SOC 10+ to enter that career; no roll allowed for lower SOC.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I'd like to reiterate:
I very much admire Winston Churchill.
My point here wasn't to put him forth as an example either supporting or refuting the OP's premiss.
I had hoped it would simply add a different slant on whether the initial question much matters, and to whom (Not CotI members but the contemporaries of the person, PC or NPC involved.)
History is replete with examples of Nobles done away with by other Nobles, or the unwashed rabble, for abominable behaviors. Were they SOC 10+? And does "elevating" someone to the Nobility make them "socially acceptable"? Again, plenty of historic examples out there. (See the reasons for the abdication of Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. (Particularly his wife, Duchess of Windsor, without the style "Her Royal Highness". She was instead styled as "Her Grace".)
The "Nobility", as with "Commoners", is about as full of hypocrisy as is humanly possible. I would expect no less in the 3I.
The question in my mind is what exactly does the social stat really mean? Born with a silver spoon in your mouth and commit any depravity? Born "wrong" and make good, but...
I knew there was a reason I liked the Feudal Technocracy.
As an aside, where does "Sir Mick" fit?
I very much admire Winston Churchill.
My point here wasn't to put him forth as an example either supporting or refuting the OP's premiss.
I had hoped it would simply add a different slant on whether the initial question much matters, and to whom (Not CotI members but the contemporaries of the person, PC or NPC involved.)
History is replete with examples of Nobles done away with by other Nobles, or the unwashed rabble, for abominable behaviors. Were they SOC 10+? And does "elevating" someone to the Nobility make them "socially acceptable"? Again, plenty of historic examples out there. (See the reasons for the abdication of Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. (Particularly his wife, Duchess of Windsor, without the style "Her Royal Highness". She was instead styled as "Her Grace".)
The "Nobility", as with "Commoners", is about as full of hypocrisy as is humanly possible. I would expect no less in the 3I.
The question in my mind is what exactly does the social stat really mean? Born with a silver spoon in your mouth and commit any depravity? Born "wrong" and make good, but...
I knew there was a reason I liked the Feudal Technocracy.
As an aside, where does "Sir Mick" fit?
Last edited:
But in MgT (unlike former versions) the Noble career includes such things as boureaucrat and diplomat, and not all of them (mostly boureaucrats) are from noble birth...
As said before, I'd agree with you about dilettantes, but even a low upbringing boureaucrat might rise from the ranks, and yet keep this social stigma (more so in a society where upgringing is seen important for status).
I keep giving the examples of the Claudius freedmen or the Jews in Medieval Europe, as in both cases some rose to very high positions (Pallas, a freedman, was made secretary for the Roman tresaury), and yet do you think noblemen (and even citizens) would treat them as equals?
IMHO that being treated as equals is what high SS means, and there are many cases in history where this has not been in concordance with wealth or power in the government.
Last edited:
That proves nothing, because it doesn't establish that ALL bureaucrats and diplomats are nobles. The Imperial Bureaucracy and the Imperial diplomatic service are two of the most appropriate careers for Imperial nobles1, but there could be non-noble bureaucrats occupying the lower rungs. In CotI Bureaucrat and Diplomat are separate careers (where high social standing gives a boost to advancement).
1 Mind you, I think there's a specialization missing, and that's bureaucrat. (The one called Administrator isn't about serving in the Imperial Bureaucracy, it's about being a ruler of some kind -- planetary government or running a personal estate.)
Hans
The second biggest problem I have with Traveller social standing is that it is used in two different ways that are mixed up with each other most confusingly. As a game artifact, it chiefly reflects social influence with -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 modifiers to skill rolls (i.e. reaction modifiers). As such, it doesn't (ought not to?) map directly to social status (Though a strong correlation is a reasonable assumption). A person could be a billionaire and have a skill modifier of -2 if he had some major odious personal habits or a reputation for mistreating widows and orphans. Someone from the wrong side of the tracks could have a skill modifier of +2 if he had a charming personality and a decent suit of clothes.
But then you have a definition that says that social standing denotes a character's place in society and a partial list that says straight out that social standing 11-15 correspond to Imperial knights, barons, marquesses, counts, and dukes. Which implies that Soc 1-9 corresponds to specific sociographic categories ranging from, say, vagabonds to squires (estate owners). Unfortunately, the MgT writers have not vouchsafed us an actual list, and as a result Soc 1-9 becomes treated as reaction modifiers only while Soc 10-15 becomes a mixture of the two.
(The biggest problem? That a social ladder that divides the lower and middle classes into nine levels and the 'ultra class'1 into six has no levels for the upper class (the planetary elite).)
1 To coin a term for the interstellar elite that an interstellar society would pile on top of the planetary elites.
Hans
I agree. But I think there is room for a certain degree of overlap at the Imperial Knight/Baron(et) level.
Nevertheless, working with the system as presented, I have always considered the Planetary Nobility to overlap with the lower levels of the Imperial Nobility, depending on the actual importance of the world and prestige of the given title relative to the world.
Since Barons & Marquises potentially are associated with a world, I consider a planetary ruler to have a corresponding rank, with "lesser" local/planetary noble titles devolving form that level (usually to a minimum of Soc = 9/10). However, unlike an Imperial title, I consider that Social Standing derived from a local/planetary title to be somewhat "volatile" as they get farther from their sphere of influence astrographically. This is one of the reasons for giving a planetary noble an Imperial title - in order to give the individual standing anywhere in the Imperium.
The planetary elite are, apparently, mostly soc 9 and 10, with a few who are also imperial nobles. There is reference somewhere in a CT product (3rd party maybe) that local world nobles are all also routinely granted imperial knighthoods.
Similar threads
