• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Multiple Nobles on a world

I don't know how Ix is calculated.

The Importance Extension {Ix} of a world is defined on p.435 of the T5 Core Rules:
_______________________________
Ix IMPORTANCE EXTENSION

The Importance Extension (Ix) ranks worlds within a region. It governs the locations of capitals and trade routes.

IMPORTANCE EXTENSION =
Characteristic {Value}

Starport Type A or B {+1}
Starport D or worse. {-1}
TL A or more {+1}
TL 8 or less {-1}
Per Ag, Hi, In, Ri, {+1}
If Pop 6 or less {-1}
If Naval AND Scout Base {+1}
If Way Station {+1}

Important= +4.
Unimportant= 0 or less.

Trade Routes. Important Worlds are linked by established Trade Routes of J-4 or less.

Capitals Cp Cs Cx
. Important worlds are more likely to be Capitals of subsectors and sectors.

EXPECTED SHIP TRAFFIC
Importance determines the expected interstellar ship traffic for a starport.

S= 10{Ix} / H

S= Total Ships Per Week.
Ix= Importance.
H= Average Cargo Hold Capacity.
= 100 for most worlds
= 1000 on Trade Routes

For a Busy Empire, use I=I+1
For a Rural Empire, use I= I-1.
_______________________________
 
In more general terms, if you have two worlds that both rate a subsector duke in the same subsector, one of them won't have a subsector duke. If you don't have any worlds in a subsector that rate a subsector duke, one of them will have a subsector duke anyway.

Hans

I believe with the two levels of Duke, this does not happen. C6/Soc=F (Subsector Duke) is assigned EXPLICITLY to worlds that are Subsector capitals.

C6/Soc=f ("Lesser" Duke) is assigned EXPLICITLY to worlds that are IMPORTANT, but NOT subsector capitals.

Also, on one of these threads someone (DonM I believe) posted a link to the Excel Spreadsheet containing Mark Miller's extended UWPs for all of the IMPERIAL worlds of the Spinward Marches Sector. It includes a column with both {Ix} and the Nobles assigned to the world. It so happens that every Subsector Capital in the Spinward Marches does happen to be an {Ix=4} world, with the sole exception of Lanth, which is {Ix=2}. But Lanth is still listed as having a C6/Soc=F Subsector Duke. I don't (personally) think it should be that way; the Subsector capital should have a {Ix=4} to merit a Duke in my opinion. If it doesn't it should be administered by a lesser Noble or from elsewhere until such time as it merits the {Ix=4} designation. (But that's my opinion).
 
Last edited:
I think it should be based on history and politics. Jewell, for instance, has sufficient income to be a duchy (albeit a pretty minor one), but I explain its status as a county under the Duke of Regina as a result of the Aledons having been strong supporters of the Alkhalikois and the various emperors chosing not to separate out Jewell as a duchy of its own. I have the interdicted Grant being a thriving world with a marquis until an artificial disease got loose during the 4FW; the marquis is still alive and still Marquis of Grant; his son will inherit the title. Heya is a vicountcy, so its high noble is strictly speaking a viscount; however, one of his ancestors got an honor countship, so he's often (erroneously) referred to as the Count of Heya. There used to be a duke of Vilis subsector called the Duke of Arden. When the peace settlement after the 3FW gutted the duchy, the Duke was invited to move to Capital and was provided with a decent personal fief to support him. His descendant is still Duke of Arden, but now an honor duke involved with the government on Capital and no longer a high duke in the Spinward Marches.

Hans

BTW, your non-canonical Noble history of the Spinward Marches is nicely developed.
 
. . .
Also, on one of these threads someone (DonM I believe) posted a link to the Excel Spreadsheet containing Mark Miller's extended UWPs for all of the IMPERIAL worlds of the Spinward Marches Sector. It includes a column with both {Ix} and the Nobles assigned to the world. . .
If someone could post a link to that it would be fantastic.
 
Also, on one of these threads someone (DonM I believe) posted a link to the Excel Spreadsheet containing Mark Miller's extended UWPs for all of the IMPERIAL worlds of the Spinward Marches Sector. It includes a column with both {Ix} and the Nobles assigned to the world. It so happens that every Subsector Capital in the Spinward Marches does happen to be an {Ix=4} world, with the sole exception of Lanth, which is {Ix=2}.
And Frenzie (subsector capital of Vilis) and Aramis (subsector capital of Aramis).

But Lanth is still listed as having a C6/Soc=F Subsector Duke. I don't (personally) think it should be that way; the Subsector capital should have a {Ix=4} to merit a Duke in my opinion. If it doesn't it should be administered by a lesser Noble or from elsewhere until such time as it merits the {Ix=4} designation. (But that's my opinion).

I agree. Here politics would (IMO) interfere again. I've always assumed that Lanth is split between the duchies of Regina, Rhylanor and Lunion, although I've never settled the borders precisely in my mind. Just as Aramis has been explained by being split between Regina, Rhylanor, and Pretoria. And Vilis is not the subsector capital of the County of Vilis because it's full of Sword Worlders ;). (I imagine an earlier time when Vilis was a reluctant, sullen, and rebellious member of the Imperium).


Hans
 
And Frenzie (subsector capital of Vilis) and Aramis (subsector capital of Aramis).

Hans


Actually, if you look at the Remarks Column, Frenzie is no longer listed as the capital of Vilis Subsector as it used to be, but Vilis is. (The code for Subsector Capital is "Cp"). I do not know if this is an intentional change, or an oversight. But Vilis does warrant a Duke. And as you mentioned above, it would entail a change in the history of the world of Vilis and the region (Garda-Vilis/Tanoose, et al).

And Aramis Subsector apparently does not have a subsector capital (no worlds in the Subsector have the Cp designation).
 
Actually, if you look at the Remarks Column, Frenzie is no longer listed as the capital of Vilis Subsector as it used to be, but Vilis is. (The code for Subsector Capital is "Cp"). I do not know if this is an intentional change, or an oversight. But Vilis does warrant a Duke.

And Aramis Subsector apparently does not have a subsector capital (no worlds in the Subsector have the Cp designation).

Vilis does not have a Cp designation in my copy of the file. And Vilis would perhaps warrant a duke if it wasn't a county under the Duke of Regina. ;)

(Incidentally, I'm pleased to see that MM isn't going to ignore previously published material completely and Make Efate the subsector capital of Regina. ;))



Hans
 
Vilis does not have a Cp designation in my copy of the file. And Vilis would perhaps warrant a duke if it wasn't a county under the Duke of Regina. ;)

Hans


I stand corrected. No worlds in Vilis Subsector have the Cp designation. So there is no Subsector Duke for Vilis. But Vilis does warrant the "Lesser" Duke designation (C6/Soc=f) on the spreadsheet. (Local Regina politics notwithstanding :)). But such a duke would be junior in precedence to a Subsector Duke (C6/Soc=F) such as Duke Norris. So the Duke of Vilis might still be a vassal of Regina.
 
I stand corrected. No worlds in Vilis Subsector have the Cp designation. So there is no Subsector Duke for Vilis. But Vilis does warrant the "Lesser" Duke designation (C6/Soc=f) on the spreadsheet. (Local Regina politics notwithstanding :)). But such a duke would be junior in precedence to a Subsector Duke (C6/Soc=F) such as Duke Norris. So the Duke of Vilis might still be a vassal of Regina.

I find it difficult to internalize all the implications of the new rules, especially if they seem counterintuitive to me (I do try, mind you). But in view of the statement that there is no explicit ("no external or stated") difference between f dukes and F dukes, I'm profoundly unhappy with the notion of dukes that are vassals of other dukes. YMMV, but IMTU Vilis is going to stay a county and f dukes do not exist.

Hmmm... I might be able to work with a noble who is a high count of an Imperial county and has an honor dukedom on top of that, but I'm definitely not going to use that dodge for every f duke in the file. IMTU honor dukes are going to stay very rare.


Hans
 
I find it difficult to internalize all the implications of the new rules, especially if they seem counter-intuitive to me (I do try, mind you). But in view of the statement that there is no explicit ("no external or stated") difference between f dukes and F dukes, I'm profoundly unhappy with the notion of dukes that are vassals of other dukes. YMMV, but IMTU Vilis is going to stay a county and f dukes do not exist.

Hans

What you could do (non-canonically for your campaign) is introduce a new title between Count and Duke to serve as C6/Soc=f, perhaps Count Palatine (still called a Count, but with an official distinction in precedence reflecting expanded authority or responsibility). Or perhaps Earl or Margrave.

If I read between the lines (and mind you, I am taking a stab in the dark), I think the implication of the New Rules is that there are no Nobles who by virtue of a single noble title oversee multiple worlds. It used to be that only Barons and Marquises oversaw a single world, and viscounts and higher oversaw clusters. But now, nobles all the way thru Duke are primarily representing a single world (i.e. there are no multi-world noble groupings, as interstellar government begins at the subsector level). Even the subsector Duke (F) is representing the Subsector Capital World. He just has the added responsibility of being the Subsector Governor as well. Now of course, the defacto reality is that these higher level nobles will oversee multiple worlds, but it will be by virtue of their lesser titles and their associated fiefs, not by a single title alone.
 
Three things. Firstly, I should correct myself and say that the stat does not necessarily imply any authority over the area. Certainly it is entirely possible that one or more of the nobles shown by the stat have some sort of authority. All I meant is that it isn't an automatic thing.
The more I think about this, I agree it is not an automatic thing. It will boil down to what kind of game you want to play. I think you can justify just about any direction you want to go. If you want to go off free trading, you can leave your imperial responsibilities with your trusted NPC seneschal. if you want to take a more active roll, I think you can work out the rationale behind that as well.
Secondly, even without full authority over the area one or more of the local nobles might have some sort of defacto authority. They are representatives of the Emperor, after all, and what they send back to the Capital can have repercussions. This kind of thing has happened (and almost certainly continues to happen) in the Real World and can lead to interesting intrigues such as a Knight who is an Imperial representative who is able to exert pressure on a Duke who has a local land grant (and who possibly wants the players to do something about it).
That is something I am trying to sort out for myself. Lemish is subsector capital which seems to tell me that there should be at least a duke present. If the two Imperial fleets have nobles in their officer cores, they may have estates on Lemish as well.

Once I figure out who else would be in residence, then I can figure out how the pieces fit together, and who is responsible for what.
Thirdly, there actually nothing that says that the Imperial representative has a land grant on the planet (there's nothing that says they don't, either, but I'm just pointing out that their ownership of land shouldn't be taken as...err...granted). It's entirely possible that the Imperial representative resides at some sort of embassy which is the property of the Emperor (or may even be the property of the local government but which enjoys certain privileges as an embassy).
My understanding is that land grants can be made for the following reasons. 1) As reward for past services to the Empire, 2) As a means of getting a planet developed, 3) As a means of representing the Empire in planetary or system affairs. None of these are mutually exclusive.

In any event, the land grant's basic function is to provide the noble with an income, to keep his family in the lifestyle befitting an Imperial noble. If he does not have the land, how he obtains the equivalent income becomes an issue, (and possibly story idea)
 
. . .In any event, the land grant's basic function is to provide the noble with an income, to keep his family in the lifestyle befitting an Imperial noble. If he does not have the land, how he obtains the equivalent income becomes an issue, (and possibly story idea)
Yes. I was not trying to say that perhaps the noble on the planet didn't have any land grants at all. What I was saying is that perhaps his land grants are somewhere else entirely.

Just as a quick example using the pseudo-real world:

The empire of Ftang extends over much of the known world. The country of Aarl is a part of the Ftang empire. It has only recently become a part of the Empire of Ftang after petitioning the Emperor since the people of Aarl think that as part of the Empire its citizens will benefit immensely from the knowledge and culture of Ftang as well as hoping that it will keep the soldiers of Ftang from burning their cities.

Emperor Wibble thinks that it is important that there be representatives of the Empire in Aarl to remind the people of Aarl of the immense benefits of commerce, mutual defense and non-ignited buildings. He asks one of his nobles, Count Downs to go the Aarl as his Imperial representative. Count Downs is of course the Count of Downs, located in Araq, Viscount of Grind, located in Ahard Plas, and Baron of Rhed, which is located between Araq and Ahard Plas. He holds land grants in all these places as part of his titles and the taxes from these are what he uses to maintain his and his family's lifestyle.

He doesn't, however, own any land in Aarl. When he is in Aarl as the Imperial representative he has no authority of law although as a representative of the Empire and Emperor he does exert a certain amount of influence and some defacto authority. He doesn't even own a house in Aarl and as there is no official embassy of the Empire in Aarl he instead stays with the Duke of Aarl in his castle, who treats Count Downs as an esteemed guest in order to A) try to establish a friendlier relationship with the influential Count, B) save a little money by not having to shell out for a separate building since it has been made clear to him that certain amounts of hospitality are expected (i.e. he's not only got to have Imperial representatives in his Duchy but to remind him of his place he is expected to foot the bill for it) and C) because it lets him keep an eye on the Count just in case other people want to try to convince the Count to send an unfavorable report to the Emperor suggesting that the Duke be replaced.

Incidentally Count Downs is not the only Imperial representative in Aarl. He is simply the ranking member. The knights Sir Prize and Sir Render have also been sent as a lesser representatives. While Count Downs deals with the nobles of Aarl on matters concerning commerce, trade, progress, and most importantly how all those will related to the taxes Aarl is expected to pay to the Empire Sir Prize is suppose to conduct a comprehensive review of Aarl's military preparedness so that the Empire won't be forced to sent troops to help defend the borders of Aarl as well as ensuring Aarl will have a supply of troops to send where the Emperor wants them to go.

Sir Render on the other hand appears to have been sent as part of the Imperial delegation because of a rather embarrassing incident in which he advanced his troops in the opposite direction of the enemy 'in the interests of fortifying the Emperor's defenses' in a recent battle. However, as his father is an influential Duke Sir Render's 'tactical mistake made purely out of the immense love he feels for his Emperor' earned him an all expense paid trip to the edges of the Empire where he is expected to take the opportunity to reflect on his actions.

He is of course actually a spy and his purpose is to establish a spy network in Aarl since the Emperor is a big fan of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

So there you have it. Multiple nobles in the land which do not own any land or exert any legal authority there (which is all the 'Noble' column really requires of the nobles it lists). There are other nobles who would not have a place in the 'Noble' box such as the Duke and other various nobles of Aarl. One of the listed nobles does exert some authority even though he doesn't actually have any. A second doesn't really exert any authority at all but is there fulfilling an important role beyond simply glad handing people and a third one appears to be there because he's in sort of a 'time out' (which is something that happened often enough that it allows him to fulfill a different role for the Empire).

This doesn't mean that such nobles would never have land grants or legal authority where they are residing. The Emperor could decide that after the unfortunate and completely accidental death of the Duke of Aarl in which he accidentally tied himself to a chair, fell down two flights of stairs before falling out a window and onto a dagger in the castle moat where he drown that perhaps Count Downs should take over running Aarl (and as he is now responsible for Aarl he also inherits all of the previous Duke's lands).

This is just an example in which we haven't even really come up with anything too contrived (beyond names) where there are multiple noble representatives, none of whom have land or legal authority in the land where they are found.
 
Last edited:
I find it difficult to internalize all the implications of the new rules, especially if they seem counterintuitive to me (I do try, mind you). But in view of the statement that there is no explicit ("no external or stated") difference between f dukes and F dukes, I'm profoundly unhappy with the notion of dukes that are vassals of other dukes. YMMV, but IMTU Vilis is going to stay a county and f dukes do not exist.

I'm not so sure the classic feudal vassal relationships hold as deeply in the Imperium as you assume.
 
I'm not so sure the classic feudal vassal relationships hold as deeply in the Imperium as you assume.

In fact, no dukes (f nor F) have noble vassals in the feudal sense.
Archdukes and the Emperor do.

Having authority over and being the person to whom some noble reports does not make them your vassal.
 
In fact, no dukes (f nor F) have noble vassals in the feudal sense.

Quite true, but the post I was responding to referred to the f duke of Vilis as a vassal of the F duke of Regina.

Also, while a noble system that has nobles of the same rank owing allegiance to each other is no less concievable than militaries where officers of the same rank command each other, I don't care for it.

Archdukes and the Emperor do.
Just because archdukes and the Emperor appoint baronets and knights doesn't mean the relationships are feudal any more than Sir Elton John is a vassal of Elisabeth II.


Hans
 
Quite true, but the post I was responding to referred to the f duke of Vilis as a vassal of the F duke of Regina.

Also, while a noble system that has nobles of the same rank owing allegiance to each other is no less concievable than militaries where officers of the same rank command each other, I don't care for it.


Just because archdukes and the Emperor appoint baronets and knights doesn't mean the relationships are feudal any more than Sir Elton John is a vassal of Elisabeth II.


Hans
If they hold lands by virtue of a fief, in exchange for service, vassal is exactly the correct term for the relationship.
 
If they hold lands by virtue of a fief, in exchange for service, vassal is exactly the correct term for the relationship.
Not necessarily. Plenty of jobs carry with them benefits that are supposed to be used in the performance of that job without vassalage being involved. Rectories attached to livings, for example.

But in any case, if they hold lands by virtue of a fief given as a reward for services rendered or any similar reasons, vassal is no more the correct term for the relationship than someone with a pension is a vassal of the pension-giver. Do the T5 rules specify obligations attached to the fiefs handed out? If they don't, there's no vassalage involved.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Back
Top