Non OTU: Social Standing and Noble Titles

[Quint]

So, as I return to an actual set of Traveller rules, I running into one of those problems that I haven't had to deal with for awhile - mapping Social Standing and Noble Titles together (plus Party Standing, Charisma, Caste, etc etc etc)

Has anyone "detached" Noble titles from Social Standing - and if so how have they done it?

The idea occurs to me because then SS can be used simply as a marker of general economic health - and it can be come a much more fluid statistic if desired. It would also allow basically poor (low SS) but ennobled characters. This isn't to say that the titles would map, generally, to SS - e.g. if you are SS11 and have title you are most likely to be a Knight, but it also lets me as the Ref mix things up if I like.

My first thought is to replace some of the social standing bonuses in mustering out for "Title" or even "Title: SPECIFIC RANK". In a Mongoose Traveller game some of those life events could be title grants rather than promotions or +X Soc.

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[aramis]

I have, in the past, used Charisma for social interactions, and SS as the general esteem of the nobility for the individual. Worked ok.

 

[Vladika]

So, as I return to an actual set of Traveller rules, I running into one of those problems that I haven't had to deal with for awhile - mapping Social Standing and Noble Titles together (plus Party Standing, Charisma, Caste, etc etc etc)

Has anyone "detached" Noble titles from Social Standing - and if so how have they done it?

The idea occurs to me because then SS can be used simply as a marker of general economic health - and it can be come a much more fluid statistic if desired. It would also allow basically poor (low SS) but ennobled characters. This isn't to say that the titles would map, generally, to SS - e.g. if you are SS11 and have title you are most likely to be a Knight, but it also lets me as the Ref mix things up if I like.

My first thought is to replace some of the social standing bonuses in mustering out for "Title" or even "Title: SPECIFIC RANK". In a Mongoose Traveller game some of those life events could be title grants rather than promotions or +X Soc.

Thoughts? Comments?

I doubt you couldn't have stepped into more doggie doo doo with that question if you walked through a puppy mill kennel!

Seriously, there are a few vested interests here on CotI and I suspect you'll be hearing from them any time.:CoW:

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

T5 to the rescue!

While I have kept Social Standing and Noble Rank as two different things ever since CT: Supp4, T5 has made it official (see page 67 of the T5 Core Rules). No Noble Career and Soc D just means Extraordinary status, you are wealthy and connected but not a Marquis of the Imperial Noblity.

 

[atpollard]

I like having them linked.
The title and power/wealth go hand in hand.
The modern view of a poor 'nobleman' or a wealthy 'commoner' doesn't exist IMTU. Just as the medieval titles went hand in hand with political/military power, the far future titles go hand in hand with economic/political power.

That said, you can do whatever you want in your universe.
So, sure, decouple titles and wealth if you want.

 

[rancke]

While I have kept Social Standing and Noble Rank as two different things ever since CT: Supp4, T5 has made it official (see page 67 of the T5 Core Rules). No Noble Career and Soc D just means Extraordinary status, you are wealthy and connected but not a Marquis of the Imperial Noblity.

Yeah, because if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that in a society run by an aristocracy, money is ever bit as important as ancestors.

Oh, wait...


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I can hear the sarcasm, but...

Yeah, because if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that in a society run by an aristocracy, money is ever bit as important as ancestors.

Oh, wait...


Hans

I am pretty sure I am missing your point. I think perhaps that my take is unrealistic or some such?

 

[rancke]

I am pretty sure I am missing your point. I think perhaps that my take is unrealistic or some such?

That depends. Do you see the 3rd Imperium as being run by an aristorcracy? If you do, then, yes, it's unrealistic to think that mere wealth is enough to make you the social equal of an Imperial noble. If, contrariwise, you see social standing to be a matter of wealth and connections, then it is unrealisitic to think that an Imperial title alone makes you the social equal of the movers and shakers.


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

And there is the problem...

That depends. Do you see the 3rd Imperium as being run by an aristorcracy? If you do, then, yes, it's unrealistic to think that mere wealth is enough to make you the social equal of an Imperial noble. If, contrariwise, you see social standing to be a matter of wealth and connections, then it is unrealisitic to think that an Imperial title alone makes you the social equal of the movers and shakers.


Hans

Well, Hans, to be frank I never bothered to think about it. I just picked up the books and ran. Now when I ran the OTU I do figure that on a straight power level the Imperial Noble is going to win wether they have less, equal, or better wealth, Citizen Gates can't get the Imperial Navy to blockade the local Starport, the Imperial Maquis can (or at least till they get spanked).

But these days, the OTU is more a sideline as I build my first ATU a d for that I keep to pretty much the same meme. You can be rich as get out, but you can't order around Imperial assets without some sort of of Imperial Title first (even if you did violate a Red Zone to get it :devil.

Oh, and I have looked at the functioning of the Permatic (or Seventh) Imperium of The Mankinds and I am pretty sure it is a Constitutional Monarchy. But then it is still in process thus subject to change, but for now I am running with that. Still haven't decided if the Sovereign can get away with playing autocrat and dissolving the Senate and Moot or not. Still, now that you do bring the issue up, I think I might have to put a bit more thought it to it.

 

[rancke]

But these days, the OTU is more a sideline as I build my first ATU a d for that I keep to pretty much the same meme. You can be rich as get out, but you can't order around Imperial assets without some sort of of Imperial Title first (even if you did violate a Red Zone to get it :devil.

I see the OTU as something much more important, namely the frame of reference I share with many other Traveller fans. I just don't have the time to engage myself in everybody else's TUs. There just isn't enough hours in the day to do that. So when I see a post on these forums (exept the IMTU forum, of course), I consider the OTU to be the default assumption.

Sure, if someone has a problem with his own TU and gives enough information in his post to tell me what the salient differences are, I don't mind trying to help him out. But as a basis for a general discussion, the OTU is it for me. (Or if you guys want to help me with my own personal TU that would be wonderful, but I don't really expect you to be any more able to spare the effort to learn about MTU than I can spare the effort to learn about yours.)

Oh, and I have looked at the functioning of the Permatic (or Seventh) Imperium of The Mankinds and I am pretty sure it is a Constitutional Monarchy.

So was 18th Century Britain. A society run by its aristocrats even if it was a Constitutional Monarchy.

I didn't mention the Imperial ruling family ("royalty") by as much as a single word. I said 'aristocracy'. The people whose children go to the same schools and marry each other. The people that mere money won't get you an invitation to mingle with. The upper class as opposed to the middle class, no matter how rich.

The people who get appointed to the high administrative positions.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I'll note that I've never run the OTU as the non-career-nobles being Imperial Nobles; I've always run them as "Court Nobles" - honor nobles and reward nobles, often non-hereditary titles.

I've never actually associated Soc with Wealth - tho' I'll admit the MT rules explicitly do. There's an old British aphorism about breeding showing through. It's possible to learn to function at a different social level, but it takes time.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

The Imperial Government.

Actually, Hans, I do try and pay attention to YTU, because you do try and stick to the Canon OTU. I like to keep my hand in, but frankly it is much bigger and deeper than I can deal with. However, I prefer my ATU because it allows me to do things that my still beloved OTU does not.

As to how my ATU works and specifically the Imperial Government I have a few posts on my blog, I can shoot you the links if you'd like. Basically the answer of who gets the high administrative positions is dependent on which office it is. The Imperium has split the offices among the Senate (Commons) and the Moot (Lords) so as to keep the power from concentrating. Does that help, or shall I drill down some more?

And technically while not a Noble, a Senator does still have some pull and do rate ranking on the Noble scale and not the social scale due to their office.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'm not sure what version of Traveller and then within it which supplements you might use so I can't provide more specific comment but for any philosophy regarding SOC, OTU or otherwise, one should keep in mind how it can be generated during chargen and it's implications to any such philosophy.

For example:

If it is a wealth thing, why does a successful high rank merchant not get SOC boosts while they are handed out to Navy characters?

If high SOC equates to wealth, why doesn't SOC provide some DM to a cash muster roll?

 

[Amber Chancer]

But it's not a wealth thing, is it?

If Vicki Pollard won the Euromillions rollover draw, she would not suddenly become more socially acceptable; and I still would not expect to see her put up for membership of the Athenaeum.

Sure, she'd acquire a load of sycophantic hangers-on; and she'd be able to buy her way into all the vulgar things which are just about money, not style, sophistication or class.

But that's the whole point ... there's a difference between wealth and SOC.


As for the question o ftitles not being used, I've known a number of borderline nobles ... and you'd be surprised how many of them suppress their titles.

One was a very successful barrister, and is now a High Court judge. But hardly anybody knows about his title, because he didn't want anyone to think or suggest that maybe his success was down to his title rather than his talent.

 

[rancke]

As for the question o ftitles not being used, I've known a number of borderline nobles ... and you'd be surprised how many of them suppress their titles.

One was a very successful barrister, and is now a High Court judge. But hardly anybody knows about his title, because he didn't want anyone to think or suggest that maybe his success was down to his title rather than his talent.

That's why I said "in a society run by an aristocracy". The qualifier is important. In the 21st Century Western world there are plenty of nobles who don't use their titles and princes and princesses who work for a living. And if your successful barrister and High Court judge get invited to a party, it's because of the social prominence of their jobs, not because of their titles.

Now look at 18th Century Britain. You had a house of commons and the people with the necessary property qualifications elected commoner MPs. But you also had a House of Lords with real powers, and the prime minister was almost always someone with a title or a close relative of one. In a very real sense 18th Century Britain was run by an aristocracy despite the House of Commons.

I'm not saying that you can't have a society where the nobility has been stripped of its powers. It would be silly to claim that when I'm living in one. But the 3rd Imperium as it has been portrayed is very far from being a society with a depowered nobility. For all the similarities I see between the Imperial nobility and 18th Century Britain, I'd say that the Imperial nobility is even less depowered than that of 18th Century Britain, never mind 21st Century Britain.

And the whole thing cuts both ways. If the nobility has been depowered then you don't get a social standing of 13 just for being a marquis; you get it for being appointed, say, a sector-level official.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

But it's not a wealth thing, is it?

If Vicki Pollard won the Euromillions rollover draw, she would not suddenly become more socially acceptable; and I still would not expect to see her put up for membership of the Athenaeum.

Sure, she'd acquire a load of sycophantic hangers-on; and she'd be able to buy her way into all the vulgar things which are just about money, not style, sophistication or class.

But that's the whole point ... there's a difference between wealth and SOC.


As for the question o ftitles not being used, I've known a number of borderline nobles ... and you'd be surprised how many of them suppress their titles.

One was a very successful barrister, and is now a High Court judge. But hardly anybody knows about his title, because he didn't want anyone to think or suggest that maybe his success was down to his title rather than his talent.

Two words: Sir Mick

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Perhaps it is not run by an aristocrats...

That's why I said "in a society run by an aristocracy". The qualifier is important. In the 21st Century Western world there are plenty of nobles who don't use their titles and princes and princesses who work for a living. And if your successful barrister and High Court judge get invited to a party, it's because of the social prominence of their jobs, not because of their titles.

Now look at 18th Century Britain. You had a house of commons and the people with the necessary property qualifications elected commoner MPs. But you also had a House of Lords with real powers, and the prime minister was almost always someone with a title or a close relative of one. In a very real sense 18th Century Britain was run by an aristocracy despite the House of Commons.

I'm not saying that you can't have a society where the nobility has been stripped of its powers. It would be silly to claim that when I'm living in one. But the 3rd Imperium as it has been portrayed is very far from being a society with a depowered nobility. For all the similarities I see between the Imperial nobility and 18th Century Britain, I'd say that the Imperial nobility is even less depowered than that of 18th Century Britain, never mind 21st Century Britain.

And the whole thing cuts both ways. If the nobility has been depowered then you don't get a social standing of 13 just for being a marquis; you get it for being appointed, say, a sector-level official.


Hans

Well, since the header of this thread specifies Non-OTU it is entirely possible that the society is not run by aristocrats. It wasn't mentioned if I am remembering correctly.

As to your last statement about Soc D must be a position if the Noblity are depowered, not sure I see how that follows. Care to explain why? Especially since again the OTU is not in question here? Do you feel this must hold true in non-OTUs or are you just sticking with the OTU because it is in your comfort zone and expertise?

 

[rancke]

Well, since the header of this thread specifies Non-OTU it is entirely possible that the society is not run by aristocrats. It wasn't mentioned if I am remembering correctly.

In which case paragraph 2 applies. That is to say, if society is not run by aristocrats, a noble title doesn't automatically affect your social standing.

As to your last statement about Soc D must be a position if the Noblity are depowered, not sure I see how that follows. Care to explain why?

I already explained that. If you have no money and a middle class job, a title doesn't put you on the A-list in a modern Western society. My father played bridge with a Danish count who was a colleague of his. It was a long time before I found out that he was a noble.

Especially since again the OTU is not in question here? Do you feel this must hold true in non-OTUs or are you just sticking with the OTU because it is in your comfort zone and expertise?

I could have sworn that I checked the forum the OP was posted in and that it was the Lone Star. But evidently I was mistaken, for which I apologize. You're quite right about the OTU being in my comfort zone, but it's more than that, as I mentioned in an earlier post. As I said, I consider the OTU to be the common frame of reference for discussions.

Except in the IMTU forum .


Hans

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I are is confused.

In which case paragraph 2 applies. That is to say, if society is not run by aristocrats, a noble title doesn't automatically affect your social standing.

I don't know they might still be a subculture that keeps the old bloodlines, traditions and culture alive. As well, I think it might in a society that has nobles that work in the government along with folks who don't have titles, basically a shared power structure.

Although as I stated earlier Soc C does not equal Nob C. They are two different Characteristic 6s, not the same C6, you have one or the other but not both. Also, I do see Soc as a measure of wealth to some extent power or influence, though in some societies that may not be true. For instance in a Religious Dicatorship Soc may indicate standing with the official clergy and the religion stresses the poverty of the holy, well then Soc C might mean a decent say in the government, but practically no personal wealth.

I already explained that. If you have no money and a middle class job, a title doesn't put you on the A-list in a modern Western society. My father played bridge with a Danish count who was a colleague of his. It was a long time before I found out that he was a noble.

I am showing my inherent republicanism and am missing some thing very core about nobility because I do not get what the deal here is.

I think it something about not being popular and a celebrity since you make reference to the A-list. Frankly, I am not sure why the A-list matters, they aren't nobles so they really don't function in the same realms. I don't for the most see my nobles a celebrities, they are working people. If they are not getting things done either personally or through a competent staff they run the danger of losing their title(s) and Imperial Grants (though generally they are still allowed to keep the Personal Hex Grant(s)). That might be the difference, I don't see my nobles as popularity hounds trying to compete with the merely wealthy. (Or again, I am just really missing some vital detail.)

In fact going by T5 standard most nobles are in fact pretty broke. It isn't till you hit Marquis or Count that the money can (but that depends on TCs) start to amount to a MegaCredit here and there, but even then it seems to end up under MCr 10 (and more likely MCr 5) which is hardly the amount of cash and goodies that a Soc D or E Corporate Officer will probably pulling in a year.

Also, the Imperiums (1st-3rd OTU, YTU, my Permatic Imperium, other Imperial based TUs) are probably not Western Society. Now I am going out on a limb there, but I can state for certain that my ATU is not Western Society. This being said, my TU and other peoples' might actually treat their Noblity and Socially elevated as two different classes of people.

I could have sworn that I checked the forum the OP was posted in and that it was the Lone Star. But evidently I was mistaken, for which I apologize. You're quite right about the OTU being in my comfort zone, but it's more than that, as I mentioned in an earlier post. As I said, I consider the OTU to be the common frame of reference for discussions.

Except in the IMTU forum .


Hans

Happens to the best of us. And thank you again for making me really think about the structure of my setting. It will keep me from having to defend it when it hits print.

 

[Quint]

I listed this as Non-OTU because I know that the proposal is a pretty significant departure from canon OTU (at least in every reading I have of any Traveller shy of T5 - and I'm still not exactly sure how those rules actually correlate to the OTU as opposed to being the scattered pieces of a generic rules engine).

Personally as much as I appreciated the DGP and later MT explanations of Imperial Nobility there is a part of me that thinks it confused things more than they explained them. Similarly, I've picked up MgT's LBB Dilettante and it essentially advocates the idea of detaching noble title from Soc, but the methodology seems to be a bit ornate and somewhat slightly arcane.

(As an aside, I love the book for the various ideas, but I'm somewhat iffy on the mechanics of all of the different career paths)

I personally always saw the Imperium as being ruled by aristocracy, where while you didn't need a title to be rich or have power, in order to have political power you needed a title (save for a somewhat ill-defined, in various incarnations, "Imperial Senators" who could be commoners). This is far more the 18th Century British model rather the 21st Century British model.

I actually wish I knew more about the governmental structures and the relationship of nobility to bureaucracy in things like Imperial Russia, or Imperial China, or the Ottoman Empire... It would be nice to get out of the Eurocentric thinking that often seems to plague discussions of "how the Third Imperium works" - I expect there is some great stuff to be mined there.

The idea that it's more than just money, that it is also something to do with "breeding" is something that I like as well - there is a line from one of the Inspector Lynley mysteries about the accent of the main character that "whispered 8th Earl of Ashteron" to all who listened when he made the choice *not* to dial it down. The accent coming from a combination of education and upbringing.

Given the use of statistic modifiers in MgT (or T5) or even just the simple CT model, I don't see there being much trouble in allowing either a "double stacked" modifier (Soc mod + Title mod) or just a check against one or both effective stats when called for. I will admit that I am one of those GM's who has never been bother by high power characters when I've made the choice to allow them but that is not to everyone's taste.

D.