What is T5's take on commoners and kings?

[rancke]

I note with mild[*] consternation that Soc 10 is now Imperial gentlemen.

[*] Mild because I've reached the point where I don't give much of a damn any more.​

That reminded me of two problems with Traveller social status that I've been struggling with for ages: What does each social level correspond to and where does planetary nobility and royalty fit in?

What is the difference between Soc 1 and Soc 2, between Soc 2 and Soc 3, and so on and so forth? Take, for example, an Imperial world that looks very much like contemporary Earth. What social level is an unskilled laborer, a skilled manual laborer, a typist, a shoe salesman, a secretary, a shopkeeper, a teacher, a doctor, a professor, a country squire, a noble, a king?

If I made a table that started like this:

Soc 0 Chattel slave (forbidden in the Imperium)
Soc 1 Social outcast, tramp
Soc 2
Soc 3
Soc 4
Soc 5
Soc 6
Soc 7
Soc 8
Soc 9

How would T5 fill out that table?


Hans

 

[robject]

I've never been comfortable filling out THAT table. I'm much happier using SOC with a skill roll.

As for planetary nobility/royalty, I suppose they can fit in anywhere on the spectrum. At that point we're talking about planetary government versus Imperial government, right? The charismatic dictator of Arglebargle-IX may be a king on his planet, but he's just another Eneri once he leaves the system. A rich Eneri, perhaps, but not necessarily an Imperial noble.

Makes for a nice tension, that. And I suspect every situation is different, between the Imperium and system or planetary government.

Consider that a planetary king might get an Imperial patent due to his world's initial cooperation with the Imperium, or due to his own personal cooperation with the Imperium. So maybe planetary nobility have more opportunity for elevation than the typical Imperial citizen, but if they're at odds with the Imperium, they may find their world saddled with some Imperial yes-man to represent their interests to the Moot.

And then there's the case of the Imperium needing to find places to stick useless Barons where they will do the least harm.

And THEN you get the "fish stinks from the head" syndrome. A corrupt, thieving, careless Count will appoint corrupt, thieving, careless Marquises under him, who will employ corrupt, thieving, careless Barons to help out. And so on. Woe betide the worlds under a bad Count.

 

[Murdoc]

That's how I take it, that local nobility/social systems are simply a separate scale from Imp. Soc. There may be a relationship, but it is relatively unique to that world.

As for the differences between the lower (non-noble) Soc values, I'd just use it as a general guideline for their income bracket, based largely on the tables in the Costs rules. So to answer the question "What is the difference between Soc 2 and Soc 3?" I'd answer "About Cr100 per month." How that changes people's view of you largely depends on the type of society they grew up in, and their own income bracket. One may view low Soc people as unfortunate, worthless, parasites, or equals. Similar but opposite for high Soc people.

 

[rancke]

I've never been comfortable filling out THAT table. I'm much happier using SOC with a skill roll.

I don't blame you. I've been unable to come up with enough distinctions to fill it out. But that doesn't alter the fact that if I tell one of my players that his parents were social level 4, I'd really, really like to be able to explain to him just what that means. And I feel that the rules are letting me down by not giving me the information I need.

As for planetary nobility/royalty, I suppose they can fit in anywhere on the spectrum. At that point we're talking about planetary government versus Imperial government, right? The charismatic dictator of Arglebargle-IX may be a king on his planet, but he's just another Eneri once he leaves the system. A rich Eneri, perhaps, but not necessarily an Imperial noble.

I guess that's why the British upper class treated impoverished expatriate Russian nobles like penniless lower class scum after the Russian Revolution.

Oh, wait...

Planetary rulers are going to treat other planetary rulers the way they expect to be treated when they visit other planets. Planetary nobles are going to treat nobles from other planets the same way they expect to be treated when they visit other planets. Being rich is going to assure a certain level of respect just from that alone. And if the Imperial nobility don't treat planetary leaders any different than planetary dog catchers, diplomatic relations are going to be awfully strained.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

I am somewhat reluctant to wade into this particular issue (mostly because I rarely gave SOC or Nobility much of a thought while playing), but ...

... isn't there some sort of implied (if not stated) relationship between Nobility, the MOOT and control of the Imperial Megacorporations? I seem to recall some text talking about the first Emperor inventing the small Fusion Power plants and using his economic clout to gain political control and all of the movers and shakers in Imperial Government own a piece of multiple Megacorporations creating a web of interdependence that supports the Imperium.

... Thoughts on Power in the Far Future (in general):
The fixation on nobility and land seems odd to me. In an agrarian economy like Medieval Europe, control of land equates to control of economic resources which support military might (horses and swords and armor require food and resources tied directly to control of the land).
It seems unlikely that this would be the case for an Interstellar Empire ... land and raw resources are virtually limitless. Far Future Power rests in control of people ... especially High Tech people ... and the industrial and economic resources to convert raw land and resources into useful products and services and information.

The Governments and Nobility of Traveller struck me as more Warren Buffet than Queen of England/King of Norway. So what differentiates an Imperial Noble from a wealthy commoner? Broad power to affect Interstellar commerce (and through it, the wealth of worlds). A Hollywood actress or supermodel might amass significant personal wealth, but an important financier might influence debt restructuring for a struggling national government (planetary in Traveller) or broker a EEU or NAFTA trade zone. Local Imperial Nobility strike me as not unlike a Corporate Ambassador or Trade Tzar balancing Imperial, Regional and Local priorities.

YMMV, but that is my 2 cents to contribute.

 

[robject]

I guess that's why the British upper class treated impoverished expatriate Russian nobles like penniless lower class scum after the Russian Revolution.

Oh, wait... [i.e. no, they didn't]

Planetary rulers/nobles are going to treat other planetary rulers/nobles the way they expect to be treated when they visit other planets. [...] And if the Imperial nobility don't treat planetary leaders any different than planetary dog catchers, diplomatic relations are going to be awfully strained.

As your example implies, that depends entirely on the relationships between the entities in question.

 

[Supplement Four]

I look at the SOC standing as relative other Citizens of the Empire, not as a specific standing on a specific world.

I look at it akin to the way I look at Charisma in my Conan RPG campaign. If a Cimmerian Barbarian has CHA 8, that's relative to other humans in the entire world. His CHA among his own people will be much higher, but when he encounters Hyborians (the civilized people south of his native Cimmeria), his CHA is an 8. They look at him as an uncouth Barbarian, where as other Cimmerians will take him as a noble and honerable warrior.

In Traveller, a SOC B could mean a Knight on some Imperial worlds, but it may mean a high-powered businessman on a world that does not use a Feudal government.

So, assigning lables to each SOC number is really meaningless. It's a relaive guage.

Take real life. Does the President of the United States hold the same social ranking among the world's populace as, say, the King of some small, backward, third-world country? Probably not. Their SOC scores would be different in this game. But, if you compared the social standing of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with that of the President of the United States, you'd arrive at the same SOC.

Therefore, SOC is relative to the enviornment and culture.

 

[rancke]

As your example implies, that depends entirely on the relationships between the entities in question.

What depends entirely on the relationships between what entities?


Hans

 

[Bloo]

Therefore, SOC is relative to the enviornment and culture.

I agree. For example, what is the Soc of a Mafia Don?
Say a Mafia Don was Charisma C because of it's a small hierarchy group, that would translate into Soc 6, per page 63, which sounds pretty fair (especially if you loosen up the definition of Charisma there, which is fairly narrow): normal society looks down on him, but within his group, he is influential.

I think it is helpful to see how Social Status is actually used in game tasks. In the examples we have from the Section, which is not exhaustive of course, there is not much:

Bureaucrat: to get a permit.
Diplomat: to negotiate a preliminary understanding (but not a Win-lose or win-win agreement).
It does not appear to be used in the Personals systems (Carouse, Query, Persuade, Command).

 

[DangerousThing]

How would T5 fill out that table?

This is one of the things that has never made sense to me. I don't think that Soc should have ever been a primary characteristic. Rather, it should have been a secondary characteristic that was calculated during Chargen and the character's current reputation.

In the real world, social status isn't random, it's a combination of many things, including perceived income, education, history, and job. A doctor almost always has a higher soc than a garbage man.

I know that Traveller has a lot of history with a rolled up Soc, but I think it's finally time to let go.

 

[rancke]

I look at the SOC standing as relative [to] other Citizens of the Empire, not as a specific standing on a specific world.

I don't see why that would prevent those citizens from assigning a specific standing to someone with a specific standing on a specific world. "He's an unskilled manual laborer on Regina. That makes him SOC 3 according to the standard Imperial SOC scale. Just as unskilled manual laborers on any other world." "The dukes of Argel-bargel have landholds that give them an average yearly income of CrImp10,000. That makes them solidly middle class and there's no reason to invite Duke Ambrogio to your party." "The squires of Glub-Gryf have landholds incomes averaging CrImp4.3 billion. You should definitely invite Squire Skumpelskud for tea one day.".

I look at it akin to the way I look at Charisma in my Conan RPG campaign. If a Cimmerian Barbarian has CHA 8, that's relative to other humans in the entire world. His CHA among his own people will be much higher, but when he encounters Hyborians (the civilized people south of his native Cimmeria), his CHA is an 8. They look at him as an uncouth Barbarian, where as other Cimmerians will take him as a noble and honerable warrior.

So if you ask a Hyborian what Charisma Conan has, there is an answer. Just as there is an answer if I ask an Imperial citizen what social class a street sweeper in Atora has.

In Traveller, a SOC B could mean a Knight on some Imperial worlds, but it may mean a high-powered businessman on a world that does not use a Feudal government.

Could SOC B mean a street sweeper in Atora?

Is this high-powered businessman someone an Imperial knight would consider an equal or near-equal?

So, assigning lables to each SOC number is really meaningless. It's a relative gauge.

Yes, and by and large the realtionship is transitive. An Imperial citizen will think that a planetary king is of higher social prominence than his nobles and that the nobles will be of higher social prominence than the local gentry and that the local gentry is of higher social prominence than the doctors and lawyers and that the doctors and lawyers, and so on down to the social outcasts who will be deemed of less social prominence than street sweepers.

Note: Human beings are complex and interpersonal relationships are messy. I'm quite sure that it is possible to come up with exceptions where the broad general statement I just made does not apply. But they would be just that: exeptions.

Take real life. Does the President of the United States hold the same social ranking among the world's populace as, say, the King of some small, backward, third-world country? Probably not.

Most certainly not. So they shouldn't be in the same social class[*]. However, anyone that the king of the third world country outranks will likewise be outranked by the President. Transitivity.

[*] Unless the categories were so broad that both fit into the same category. Which really shouldn't be the case in any system that slices the lower and middle classes up into nine categories. In any case, even if they were in the same social rank, the president would still have higher precedence than the small country leader.​

Their SOC scores would be different in this game. But, if you compared the social standing of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with that of the President of the United States, you'd arrive at the same SOC.

Depends on the granularity of the system. But I don't see what putting the American President and the British Prime Minister in the same SOC proves any more than putting a British baron and a British duke in the same SOC would prove that the one does not rank lower than the other in the British peerage.

Therefore, SOC is relative to the environment and culture.

And the relevant culture is the Imperial one. If the elected leader of a country with 300 million Tech 7 people and the equivalent of an English a country squire arrive at the court of the subsector duke, the Chamberlain will give the leader precedence over the squire. And that apply to any leader of 300 million tech 7 people on any member world and any equivalent of an English country squire on any member world. It is therefore quite possible to state that leaders of countries with 300 million people have a higher social rank than the equivalents of country squires.


Hans

 

[rancke]

I agree. For example, what is the Soc of a Mafia Don?

Depends. Middle class unless he's in jail, in which case he has the SOC of a convicted criminal.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Here's a suggestion for a social ladder that I worked out for GT. The granularity is different than the granularity of Traveller's social ladder, but the principle is the same.

Option 3 (For GT): Use the social level table below instead of the one in
_*GURPS Traveller*_ for members of the Imperial interstellar culture and
citizens of high-tech worlds. Adjust down for citizens of low- and mid-tech
worlds. Adjust down for lower world populations, e.g. the ruler of a world
with pop 7-8 would be level 7, not 8.

Level   Description

 12     The Emperor
 11     Imperial archduke, Imperial prince
 10     Imperial duke
  9     Imperial count, Imperial minister
  8     Imperial marquis, Grand Ambassador, Megacorporate head, world ruler
  7     Imperial baron, Grand Admiral, High Ambassador, Megacorporate
        regional manager, Special (justice) Investigator, continental ruler
  6     Imperial banneret, Sector Admiral, Ambassador, Scout Director,
        Head of large interstellar corporation, country ruler
  5     Imperial knight, Fleet Admiral, Army Marshal, Minister (diplomat),
        Special (justice) Agent, Scout Branch Director, Head of small
        interstellar corporation, great noble
  4     Diplomatic envoy, general officer, Justice Director, Scout sector
        commander, noble
  3     Starport manager, Diplomatic consul, large-city mayor, minor noble, etc.
  2     Gentry (Upper management, senior academic, ship captain, field grade
        officer, Diplomatic attaché, Justice agent, mayor, etc.)
  1     Upper middle class (Lawyer, ship officer, middle management, younger
        academic, junior grade officer, Free Trader owner, Diplomatic
        secretary, Deputy Justice agent, doctor, councilman, etc.)
  0     Middle class (Technician, ship crew, freetrader officer, med tech,
        law enforcer, starport clerk, journalist, scout, soldier, skilled
        laborer, etc.)
 -1     Lower class (free trader crew, bounty hunter
 -2     Social outcast (refugee, space bum, beggar, outlaw)

I trust this demonstrates one way to assign Imperially acknowledged social levels to planetary societies.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Sir Michael Philip "Mick" Jagger holds a Knighthood from the Queen of England.

What is his Soc?

 

[rancke]

Sir Michael Philip "Mick" Jagger holds a Knighthood from the Queen of England.

What is his Soc?

That's easy. Between other knights bachelor with greater seniority and other knights bachelor with lesser seniority. On the GT scale above, it would be SOC 3. On the T5 scale... well, that depends on the answer to my original question, doesn't it?

Now, public figures who don't have knighthoods may be more difficult to pigeonhole. But give me a specific scale and I'll probably be able to manage. In the Great British Class Survey, for example, most of them would belong to the Elite.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Hans, my point was any idiot can be Knighted for anything these days. Doesn't make them useful, important or sociably desirable.

But here one for you...

Who ranks higher on the Soc-O-Meter, the President of Vanuatu or the Queen of Denmark? (Don't get me wrong; I'm going for Her Majesty, Margrethe II.)

Vanuatu and Denmark, as well as Russia, the U.S. of A. and Italy all get one vote in the United Nations. (At the moment Vanuatu doesn't because they are behind on UN dues...) Equally important?

 

[Vladika]

BTW Hans...

You are more important than the Emperor... Citizen: SOC-14

 

[rancke]

Hans, my point was any idiot can be Knighted for anything these days. Doesn't make them useful, important or sociably desirable.

Not quite true. I'm pretty sure I don't have any chance of getting the Queen of England (or the Queen of Denmark, for that matter) to give me a knighthood.

My point is that if Sir Mick Jagger ever meets someone from another world, his knighthood will provide that someone with a very simple way to pigeonhole him. But in any case they would pigeonhole him. If not by a knighthood then by something else. "Media entertainer? Osgood, take that man down to the kitchen and tell Cook to give him a meal."

Who ranks higher on the Soc-O-Meter, the President of Vanuatu or the Queen of Denmark? (Don't get me wrong; I'm going for Her Majesty, Margrethe II.)

Thaty would depend on the scale of your meter. In the Traveller social level scale they'd probably end up in the same level. At a banquet at the court of the subsector duke, I think the Queen of Denmark would almost certainly be accorded the higher precedence. On the suggested GT scale above, they'd both be SOC 6. Unless the Queen of England "pulls" her peers up into SOC 7, which is quite possible. When a rank such as king include members with quite disparate power levels, those of higher level tend to elevate their peers to their own level by insisting on treating them as peers.

Vanuatu and Denmark, as well as Russia, the U.S. of A. and Italy all get one vote in the United Nations. (At the moment Vanuatu doesn't because they are behind on UN dues...) Equally important?

Equally powerful, no. Their heads of state treated with the same respect by each other? I believe so.

Mind you, if I were the Imperial Office of Arms, I would give the Presidents of the US and Russia and the Queen of England a higher knighthood than the President of Italy and the Prime Minister of Denmark.The Queen of Denmark would be a tough call. I could go either way there. In any case I'd give a still lower knighthood to the president of Vanuatua.


Hans

 

[rancke]

BTW Hans...

You are more important than the Emperor... Citizen: SOC-14

Unfortunately, that's on the T20 social scale. IIRC I'd need to reach SOC 16 to get an Imperial knighthood, if the old CotI boards scheme was still in effect, which I'm fairly sure is not the case.

Hey, does that mean that with the new T5 scale CotI SOC 14 corresponds to an Imperial gentleman?!


Hans?

 

[Lore]

"Media entertainer? Osgood, take that man down to the kitchen and tell Cook to give him a meal."

It would seem to me that "Fame" would play a part in the above exchange. One would think the receiving a Knighthood would also add the any "Media entertainers" Fame score. Fame would certainly help to pigeon hole most nobles, perhaps even transcend their SOC score...

"Great Scott! You're Mick Jagger! The Emperor likes to use Sympathy for the Devil as background music at official banquets."