Is SOC per society?

[Tom Kalbfus]

Thrawn rose to his position of power because of his merit, not because of who his parents were! Having a High SOC score is based on who your parents were, not how smart you are.

I'll give you an example of two Georges, George Washington and King George the Third, one led his troops into battle, the other sat on his throne from across the Atlantic. Now would you say that King George the Third, if we were to do a Traveller character of him, would have a higher SOC score than George Washington? What good did King George's high SOC score ever do him, it didn't win his war with the American colonists now did it!

George Washington came from gentry through his families purchase of land and forming relationships with the elites in the colonies, he didn't come from the commoners.

This also highlights what Soc is measuring, as even if you have high Soc it doesn't mean you are a noble.

The vast majority of the Soc ladder are those in service to the Nobility and the Emperor, through social climbing / raw talent / or by other means they have collected support from the nobility in order to climb the social standings.

As to King George, his Soc got him on the throne and all the perks that came with it.

It didn't win him the War however. King George was a King George Washington was not, so it could be argued that his SOC score is not as high, I think he would be the equivalent of a knight at best, as one of his ancestors was one. I think George Washington had a better quality of leadership that King George had, and the soldiers that fought under him knew it! I think second generation and later monarchs most often aren't as good leaders as those who had started their dynasty Napoleon for example created his own Empire, he made himself emperor of it based in his military skills in leading and directing troops, so I figure his INT Score would be more important that whatever he was born into, same with Washington. Most of his class came with marrying his wife Martha, she owned most of the slaves, and owning slaves was what defined the planter class down south, that and land of course. I would give Washington a SOC of 9 I think, King George would get a 15, 10 Knight, 11 Baron, 12 Count, 13 Duke, 14 ArchDuke or Marquis, 15 King. Yes King George was a 15, George Washington had no official title, he was just a planter who own slaves and a soldier.

 

[baithammer]

Washington's abilities didn't help when he was trying to gain a commission with the British army, he was turned down everytime.

But with his connections he managed to get commissions in the colonial armies. (Governor Robert Dinwiddie was a big part of Washington's advancements.)

Natural abilities are often mote point when you have a class system, although with the right connections you could rise further than your starting status.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Washington's abilities didn't help when he was trying to gain a commission with the British army, he was turned down everytime.

But with his connections he managed to get commissions in the colonial armies. (Governor Robert Dinwiddie was a big part of Washington's advancements.)

Natural abilities are often mote point when you have a class system, although with the right connections you could rise further than your starting status.

George Washington was not of a high enough class for the British to take seriously, and they thus underestimated him. What a class system often does is promote incompetant people to high positions.
Having a high class doesn't automatically provide one with enough smarts to win battles

 

[phavoc]

The answer... it depends on how you want to play it. In general a baronet in the Imperium retains their SOC privileges everywhere... in reality that can mean a great many things. Remember that Imperial worlds can have their own government. So while your baronet from Planet A is on Planet B, it is a socialized world that has no ranks (i.e. a working communistic society). Being a baronet there would provide them no special privileges. In fact the populace may be subtly or overtly hostile to the baronet there. This may take place via social shunning, or perhaps some of the inhabitants want to debate the baronet in the fact that they have no shit over them, ergo they are a baronet (or king). The localized populace may pay zero attention to a governmental system that has distant emperor tarts who distribute baronet titles via swords as the ultimate form of government. Far be it for the locals to recognize supreme authority that didn't derive its' power from the masses.

Or, the society may be quite socially based, with people constantly vying for power via sycophancy. A lowly baronet is still an Imperial-granted title, and knowing someone like that may be the fastest route to stepping up to their own locally, or Imperial-based socially recognized ladder.

So it just depends on what the game referee wants to do with the game. Sometimes it can be core to the adventure, and other times its simply having fun with the PC's, err, I mean providing them ample opportunity to role play their characters.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

What about this baron?

Could the Third Imperium have anyone like him, in a science fiction sort of way?

 

[baithammer]

Absolutely, as all that requires is someone to give patronage to them and be gullible enough to fall for the fiction.

 

[steve98052]

George Washington trivia: adjusting for inflation, he was the richest US president in history (with the possible exception of the current occupant of the White House, whose finances are opaque). If Kennedy had outlived his father, he would have been the wealthiest; his share of old Joe's estate would have been almost twice as large as Washington's wealth.

In the present day US, wealth is one of several paths to social status, along with formal political status and celebrity standing.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

George Washington trivia: adjusting for inflation, he was the richest US president in history (with the possible exception of the current occupant of the White House, whose finances are opaque). If Kennedy had outlived his father, he would have been the wealthiest; his share of old Joe's estate would have been almost twice as large as Washington's wealth.

In the present day US, wealth is one of several paths to social status, along with formal political status and celebrity standing.

George Washington wasn't by any stretch a billionaire, he was a farmer who owned slaves. I think John Handcock might have been richer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock

 

[baithammer]

Washington wasn't a farmer, he and his family were major landowners with his father holding County Sheriff's position.

Washington also got commissioned into the Colonial forces with his last rank as Colonel. ( Got stymied on getting a British Officer's commission.)

After that he expanded his holdings and was in politics, with a big bump in standing with his marriage with Martha.

That was before the War of Independence.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Washington wasn't a farmer, he and his family were major landowners with his father holding County Sheriff's position.

Washington also got commissioned into the Colonial forces with his last rank as Colonel. ( Got stymied on getting a British Officer's commission.)

After that he expanded his holdings and was in politics, with a big bump in standing with his marriage with Martha.

That was before the War of Independence.

There is the part on getting stymied in getting a British Officer's position, maybe his rank was lower in British society than in American society, and he resented the British upper crust looking down on him. In a sense colonial America was a seperate country before the Revolution, that seperation occured gradually over 150 years. The British treated Americans as something other than British citizens and that was what they became, they wanted someone to exploit, just like they did with India, and the Native Americans in the 13 colonies were hard to exploit so they were left with the colonists they sent over here. When George Washington realized that he wasn't being treated as an equal by the members of British Aristocracy, he decided to become a rebel and fight for seperation, that way he could become a "bigger fish in a smaller pond". But GW had some other qualities besides being high in American society, I think his owning slaves opened his mind to the possibility of Americans becoming slaves to the British, his plantation was a microcosm of what he feared could become of America, he knew his slaves, he knew how to manage and control them, yet he also knew they were people much the same as he was. George Washington had some mixed feelings about the institution of slavery, he inherited them, his power and his position on American society was linked to owning them, and he married another slaveowner, and his relatives kept dying off, adn he inherited their lands and their slaves as well. I think GW felt he had an important part in forming a new society, and he eventually resolved that slavery should be ended, yet he felt it was too early for him to take that step when he had the British to fight and a war to win, but he did free all his slaves in his will upon the deaths of both himself and his wife Martha. George Washington was an unusual man. The Roman Empire had Julius Caesar as its "Founding Father", he was a military genius, but he also had a huge ego and he craved power, George Washington was a bit different than this, though I believe he ended up being every bit as important as Julius Caesar in the history books.

 

[steve98052]

According to the list below, was no five-year period when George Washington was the richest person in the US (or the colonies immediately before independence). John Hancock was the richest in 1790, but he was never the president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

According to the list below, was no five-year period when George Washington was the richest person in the US (or the colonies immediately before independence). John Hancock was the richest in 1790, but he was never the president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_history

The most important role George Washington played was that of Commander in chief of the Continental Army, his presidency was just a result of him leading the forces of a successful revolution. The French played a large role in this victory at the battle of Yorktown and then proceeded to lose the British afterwards, but by then it didn't matter. The American Revolution was a series of improbable events, the most improbable one of all was to have a man like George Washington leading it. The leaders of most revolutions aren't like George Washington at all, they are more like Napoleon or Caesar or Hitler or Lenin, those are the sorts of people most revolutions get.

 

[Yatima]

There was a great article on SOC in the Traveller's Digest 7, called "Characters With Class", by Gary L. Thomas.

This article begins by noting that the rules for nobles in the 3I setting are different than the rules that should apply to commoners. It states that the primary influence on social standing is income and wealth, although the occupation of the character’s mother and father have a bearing.

On the issue of whether SOC changes per society, the article says yes:

“The character’s social standing represents his social status on his home world, or in some cases, the status he had on his world of prior service. This status may not be the same as he travels from world to world around the imperium.”

“In general, a character’s status will be less when he is away from his home world. On ‘average’ Imperial worlds … this reduction will ordinarily be only 1 point of social standing. If a foreign culture is especially different, though, the character’s status may change dramatically.”

This all amounts to SOC varying for commoners based on the circumstances on the world they are on, as decided by the referee. On a xenophobic world, characters may suffer a large reduction in SOC, on a world where the character's technology has them seen as god-like by the locals they may see a large increase in SOC – and everything between those extremes.

This works for any campaign in any setting, as the 3I setting specific stuff is really wrapped up in the rules for Imperial nobility and the advantages nobles enjoy in the 3I setting.

J

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Makes one wonder why the character gets the SOC score and not the society. Different societies may have different opinions about specific individuals based on the previous experience with them. On one planet a character might be very popular, and on another, he might not be, so why should a character carry his Soc Score from one planet to another?

 

[Condottiere]

1. Washington - Maybe he wanted to get into a specific regiment, since you can buy your way in for most line regiments, there would have to be specific objection by the commander to refuse the sale of a commission in his unit.

2. Social standing - this may be, I think the descriptor is meta, characteristic in the game; GURPS is probably more accurate in this regard, by specifying the exact type of influence, social position, and rank the character has.

3. You could view it as social capital, which within the Imperium naturally regenerates; this may not be the case outside the Imperium, where regeneration is slower, or if used is gone.