Noble Lands

[Original_Carl]

No, I mean what makes you Social 15 if you're not noble? When my player asks me what makes his character Soc 15 without being a noble, what do I tell him? Hans

Tell him he is a member of the Nobility and has a seat in the Moot. Give him his proxies according to his Soc (I could find nothing stating that a person of high Soc should not get appropriate proxies, or that they were limited to persons who had served in the Noble career).

If he wants a Land Grant, he should do a term in the Noble career.

 

[HG_B]

Is that what the book says? I don't want to start a debate on the subject (here). I was asking if the T5 rulebook provided any information.


Hans

I couldn't find it. I think it is something for errata.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Did you actually look at the pages?

No, I mean what makes you Social 15 if you're not noble? When my player asks me what makes his character Soc 15 without being a noble, what do I tell him?


Hans

What does page 52 say? Let's look...they have to spend around Cr 1500 per month to maintain their life style.

Also, there is the above things I mentioned, like Titles, Duties and so on.

I mean how can you tell HRH Prince Charles from Bill Gates or some other Soc F person?

Are you being obtuse for a reason? I mean it seems damn simple to me, what's the difference in real life, the use those as a base. Or just use the charts on the pages I cited.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Soc c v. Soc C.

All I see are 2 charts saying the same thing differently. I'm still not sold, I don't see social standing having (C) as different from C as different from c, I think Nobility is in fact the "upper upper" class or better.

I'll buy it being honorary meaning no proxy etc but if their Soc status is recognized as c on the TAS form then they are a Baronet, not a Baron or "Remarkable Citizen" I see nothing that tells me how I should state social standing as anything other than what is listed for the steps in nobility. At this point I'm not arguing honorary or land or power. /shrug

Well, yes, if their Soc is indeed Soc c, they are a Baronet since they obliviously in the Noble Career. Because the only way you can get fractional Soc (Soc c, e and f) if you go through the Noble Career otherwise they only get standard whole Soc (Soc 1-F).

I don't get what about two pages that clearly make a distinction between having a high Soc versus having a Noble Soc is such a problem to understand. I mean the only thing that I see is edition blindness, "But all the previous editions did it different!", yet I too started with the LLBs and I get it. So, really, what is the stumbling block here folks? What is it you need to show you for you to get it?

Do you really need an official errata entry for this? Is it really that confusing or is it the fear of the new and of change?

 

[HG_B]

I mean the only thing that I see is edition blindness, ... Is it really that confusing or is it the fear of the new and of change?

Hmm, for some reason I don't see you saying this to one of us face to face.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

*laughs*

Hmm, for some reason I don't see you saying this to one of us face to face.

That would be another CrImp in my pocket then! You don't know me very well, but yes, I would say this exact thing to your face. If you ever get to Milwaukee and want to discuss this in person I will bring my book and we'll get into it.

This by the way is me being politic and quiet, in RL my friends and I call each other bad names and use foul language on some seriously heated topics. But then we are friends and there is a lot history and love there.

But rest assured, that unlike some folks, if I type it or speak it, I bloody well back it. For good or ill.

 

[HG_B]

You don't know me very well, but yes, I would say this exact thing to your face.

Only once.

 

[Murdoc]

I've been following this, and I can't figure out which way it is supposed to go from what you guys are saying. So I looked in the book, the section on Characteristics, as well as did a search for every instance of the words "noble" and "nobility". These are the most relevant parts I could find:

Nobility is the expected noble rank held by an individual based on Social Standing.

This implies to me that if you have the Soc, you have the title and are a noble.

Nobility is the expected (not necessarily actual) noble rank held by an individual based on Social Standing.

This implies that perhaps they are not linked ("not necessarily actual").

And that's about it. Neither quote makes the situation clear. The tables on page 67 do not make it clear either, either as a long-time player of Traveller, or when I try to think like someone who has never played it before. So yes, I do think that it needs to be explained better somewhere, and until it is, IMTU those with Soc B+ will in fact be nobles. Why? Am I afraid of "change"? No, but there has to be a weight to canon, otherwise this isn't really Traveller we're playing, is it? I'm sorry Magnus, I don't mean to add to your frustration, but often there are times when something that is clear to someone is not to others. Whether it needs to be changed or not depends on how many there are that don't, and how much they are valued.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Implying what?

Only once.

What does that mean, sir? Are you threatening me with a violent response due to my not even vulgar question of edition blindness? How about proving me wrong and explaining then why you refuse to the evidence as presented in the T5 Core Rule book which clearly makes a distinction between having a high Soc versus having a Noble title and Land Grants?

Seems a bit overkill, but then I suppose the DA will take note of that too.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

This I can handle.

I've been following this, and I can't figure out which way it is supposed to go from what you guys are saying. So I looked in the book, the section on Characteristics, as well as did a search for every instance of the words "noble" and "nobility". These are the most relevant parts I could find:


This implies to me that if you have the Soc, you have the title and are a noble.


This implies that perhaps they are not linked ("not necessarily actual").

And that's about it. Neither quote makes the situation clear. The tables on page 67 do not make it clear either, either as a long-time player of Traveller, or when I try to think like someone who has never played it before. So yes, I do think that it needs to be explained better somewhere, and until it is, IMTU those with Soc B+ will in fact be nobles. Why? Am I afraid of "change"? No, but there has to be a weight to canon, otherwise this isn't really Traveller we're playing, is it? I'm sorry Magnus, I don't mean to add to your frustration, but often there are times when something that is clear to someone is not to others. Whether it needs to be changed or not depends on how many there are that don't, and how much they are valued.

Okay, then. Then why is there a separate Noble career, but if not to make the distinction between those differences as stated on page 52 and 67. I mean that is where I got my Patents, right there in Noble Career on page 93, so to me that just enhances me case that there is Soc for Citizens and Soc for Nobs like myself.

Also, my player in meatspace which included complete Traveller noobs to a couple of players who had done CT/MT mix and some of the heretical GT which I had run and they all got it right off, so again I am just amazed that other folks don't see it.

And yeah, this must be an an errata issue since I am terrible at getting the meme to properly stick. :devil:

One last thing, I need to deal with meatspace bill paying needs so, I am going to quit the field for a bit, but fear not I shall return to partake in this discussion. May not like physical contests, but I love these mental ones.

 

[Murdoc]

Okay, then. Then why is there a separate Noble career, but if not to make the distinction between those differences as stated on page 52 and 67. I mean that is where I got my Patents, right there in Noble Career on page 93, so to me that just enhances me case that there is Soc for Citizens and Soc for Nobs like myself.

For the same reason there has always been a separate career, for those nobles that participate in government. Those that don't, simply have the title, and lands, heck, maybe even a proxy vote, and enjoy being wealthy. Perhaps they are off adventuring, or does a person lose their title once they stop the career? Saying that you have to be in that career in order to have the title kind of goes against things all the way back to CT, when there was no separate noble career, but PCs could still get the rank. And yes, I'm willing to accept that perhaps things have been changed for T5 since many things have (for better or worse), but if so, I don't think it has been made clear. It really wouldn't take more than a sentence or two from Marc to clear up the whole thing, one way or the other.

Also, my player in meatspace which included complete Traveller noobs to a couple of players who had done CT/MT mix and some of the heretical GT which I had run and they all got it right off, so again I am just amazed that other folks don't see it.

That's fine, and I can see where you are coming from on that given that 100% of the people you are playing with 'get it' the same way you do. But, you have to admit it is a rather small sample size, statistically speaking, and could very well be not representative of the greater Traveller playing population. So yes, I can certainly see why you think this way, and feel supported in that view, that's fine. But for those (at least some) of us out here, it doesn't help support the actual case.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Edit for content and showing time.

For the same reason there has always been a separate career, for those nobles that participate in government. Those that don't, simply have the title, and lands, heck, maybe even a proxy vote, and enjoy being wealthy. Perhaps they are off adventuring, or does a person lose their title once they stop the career? Saying that you have to be in that career in order to have the title kind of goes against things all the way back to CT, when there was no separate noble career, but PCs could still get the rank. And yes, I'm willing to accept that perhaps things have been changed for T5 since many things have (for better or worse), but if so, I don't think it has been made clear. It really wouldn't take more than a sentence or two from Marc to clear up the whole thing, one way or the other.


That's fine, and I can see where you are coming from on that given that 100% of the people you are playing with 'get it' the same way you do. But, you have to admit it is a rather small sample size, statistically speaking, and could very well be not representative of the greater Traveller playing population. So yes, I can certainly see why you think this way, and feel supported in that view, that's fine. But for those (at least some) of us out here, it doesn't help support the actual case.

In brief order.

Yes, if you quit being a Noble then yes, you give up the Titles and goodies, it is called abdication.

There has been. A separate Noble career since Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium which I suspect my exposure to back in the day (and still own) is the reason I hold to the split Soc. I have always used it since the LLBs. I mean the characteristic is called Social Standing, not Noble Standing, I figured there is a reason. To me CT Sup 4 and the cited T5 pages just reinforce a meme that has infected me long ago.

 

[pendragonman]

Murdoc,

I am going to go to the good old tried and true real world example to try to make it clear.

Suppose you are a multibillionaire socialite. You are also a member of the British Empire. Should be easy, there are a few of those around.

As a multibillionaire socialite, you are most certainly rubbing elbows with Dukes, Counts, etc. You certainly have the statistic that renders your SS in the D-E-F range. In fact your philanthropic efforts or your economic efforts or your political efforts have seen you awarded with a knighthood or two.

At this point, nowhere have I said whether or not said mulitbillionaire is a Duke, or Count, or Marquis. I have said you attend the same functions, know many of the same people (that is what I meant by "rubbing elbows"), maybe even have romantic entanglements with some of the titled folks.

Now, case 1: You are not a actual noble. While you have done service to the crown in some fashion, for your efforts you were knighted. Lets you in to the more exclusive parties and functions, but since your title is not hereditary (in Britain it seems the first hereditary title these days is Baron) you are not truly a noble. If you go into politics the best you can do is House of Commons, no House of Lords for you by heredity (like Moot memberships), the Queen would have to appoint you.

Now. Case 2: You are actually a Duke. This is a hereditary title. This also means that you owe service of some nature to the Crown should the Queen call upon you. The days of Household troop requirements are passed, but they weren't that long ago. In fact, early in WWI nobles still raised regiments at their own expense for the war effort. They certainly are expected to support the war effort with holding bond drives, recruitment drives, and if of age going to war themselves. Leading in combat, and paying a disproportionate cost in blood. Duty to the Crown can be Ambassadorial, or back channel. You owe service and can;t really say no.

Does this mean the mulitbillionaire does not have the same influence as a Duke? I would argue that the multibillionaire has different influence. They are not likely to be connected by some family connection to the Queen, but are also unfettered by the social restrictions of a title. The paparazzi might follow both of you, but you make the business pages more often, the Duke probably makes the social pages more often.

The Duke gets more often asked to donate Hospitals. The multibillionaire asked to open a factory. The Duke visits disaster sites on behalf of the Queen. The multibillionaire is asked to help with reconstruction.

The Duke has to be careful who he supports in politics. The multibillionaire can back who he likes.

Now. A practical example. Would you agree that, despite the recent troubles, Rupert Mudoc is Soc F? Is he a Duke? Does he wield as much power as a Duke? Probably more power I think...

 

[Murdoc]

Yes, if you quit being a Noble then yes, you give up the Titles and goodies, it is called abdication.

So you are saying that PCs, once they muster out of the Noble career, no longer have the Title, land grants, etc.? o:

pendragonman: I understand what Magnus is trying to say (prior to the aforequoted statement that is), how you can have a high Soc and not be a noble. I get how that would work. That is not the issue. I am not saying that it can't or won't work, that it is unrealistic, or that I can't understand it. Nor am I saying that I can't or won't accept that that is the case if it could be proven. What I am saying is that that position is not sufficiently supported in the rules, which make the situation unclear as to which way it goes. I also add that in this case of ambiguity, I side with a different position, one supported by previous versions of the game (that I am familiar with; I never had S4). You and Magnus are of course free to interpret the rules a different way if that is your wish. I was mainly trying to point out to him why there were others that didn't see things the way he does.

 

[pendragonman]

You never had Supplement 4 from CT?

Did you play any version besides CT? The dual position is supported in other versions as well I believe.

My opinion about the Noble career. Just my opinion, so please no one throw the bus at me.

You don't "muster out" of the career. I.E. You end the roll-play portion of the career and enter the role-play portion of the career. Ending the roll-play portion gives you starting stuff from the muster out tables to give you a leg up on the role-play portion.

 

[Murdoc]

You never had Supplement 4 from CT?

Nope. I started out with Starter Traveller. The only other books I had for it (while I still played it anyway) were Supp 12, Book 8, and AMs 3, 5, & 6.

Did you play any version besides CT?

Then I moved on to MT, which I played pretty much exclusively until recently. Although I have bought GT, MgT, and T4, and perused them to varying amounts. I couldn't tell you their take on this issue at all.

The dual position is supported in other versions as well I believe.

I'm willing to believe that my understanding has been wrong all these years since I probably haven't read those parts of the rules in over a decade. I'll need to find time to look through them again though, unless someone wants to provide some references. If that turns out to be the case, then I'll withdraw my claim that my position is supported by previous editions, but I still don't think that would make the current T5 rules clear enough concerning this.

My opinion about the Noble career. Just my opinion, so please no one throw the bus at me.

Goodness, I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I might. I was just trying to clear up any misunderstandings.

You don't "muster out" of the career. I.E. You end the roll-play portion of the career and enter the role-play portion of the career. Ending the roll-play portion gives you starting stuff from the muster out tables to give you a leg up on the role-play portion.

That I always saw as an unwritten option, in case you wanted to play a game while you were still in the Scout Service, or Army, or whatever, but I never took it as the default. Perfectly valid choice though; how else could you get a Star Trek style game? Or Starship Troopers?

 

[McPerth]

[m;]There are some posts too harsh personally in this thread, Please, keep civil and the thread will be more constructive.[/m;]

 

[McPerth]

First of all, I must tell you I don't own (yet, at least) T5 and I've not read it, so what I'll post is quite generic.

Historically, being a noble is not always tied to having money. In many instances there have been commoners quite richer tan most nobles, but they have been still commoners, without any rights being a noble implied.

Being a noble gave the title holder some privileges, from the right to bear weapons to the right to tax his lands, to vote in the Lords House or to hold some offices that had a title as prerequisite, regardless if you had more money tan you could spend or if you were broken. In many instances, broken nobles married with wealthy commoners to mutual profit (the money or the noble, the title for the commoner), or titles were sold to wealthy people for the Crown to raise money and the wealthy to have the title.

As I understand Traveller (based on earlier versions, as I told above), a commoner that is a billionaire, will still be kept at Soc A (or 9, depeding on the versión), unless he's titled (quite easy for him), as he will not have full noble privileges (whatever they are).

Think on the Jew bankers in Eurepean middle ages. They were even worse than most free gentiles socially, regardless being the main source of hard currency and probably richer tan even most high nobles.

 

[rancke]

Historically, being a noble is not always tied to having money. In many instances there have been commoners quite richer tan most nobles, but they have been still commoners, without any rights being a noble implied.

Being a noble gave the title holder some privileges, from the right to bear weapons to the right to tax his lands, to vote in the Lords House or to hold some offices that had a title as prerequisite, regardless if you had more money tan you could spend or if you were broken. In many instances, broken nobles married with wealthy commoners to mutual profit (the money or the noble, the title for the commoner), or titles were sold to wealthy people for the Crown to raise money and the wealthy to have the title.

The thing is, historically the privileges nobles in one country enjoyed differed in small and sometimes in not-so-small ways from the privileges enjoyed by nobles in another. Nor did they function in quite the same ways. At one time in Denmark, for example, nobles couldn't legally marry commoners. What privileges the nobles of the Old Third Imperium enjoyed and how they related to the commoners were never really addressed in previously published versions until GT:Nobles, although there were scattered clues here and there.

I'm intensely curious as to what changes Marc Miller plans to introduce to the New Third Imperium and how the nobles will interact with commoners now. So I'm asking if the T5 rulebook spells that out. (Not asking you, since you don't have the book),


Hans

 

[Original_Carl]

Okay, then. Then why is there a separate Noble career, but if not to make the distinction between those differences as stated on page 52 and 67. I mean that is where I got my Patents, right there in Noble Career on page 93, so to me that just enhances me case that there is Soc for Citizens and Soc for Nobs like myself.

I think the Noble career exists to create a distinction between people with honorific titles that carry social weight and people who actually run the Imperium.

What's confusing me is why both of them are given a seat in the Moot. At least, according to what's written they would seem to have a seat in the Moot and proxies. Maybe that's by-design. I think it also adds weight to the argument that Noble Land Grants are not inherited. Just look at all the nobles with no land! Where else would they have come from?

What I cannot dispute is that there will be characters with high Soc who are members of the nobility, but are not Nobles. The distinction being that Nobles have land grants and nobles do not.

Maybe the Noble career represents time in the Moot. Intrigues and elevations take place. Political success is rewarded with Land Grants.

You may have the title, but if you want to rule you have spend a term as a Noble.