Quote from: estar;899672Depends on the time. The times of a strong emperor (the chinese) or we approach the Renaissance in Western Europe, then nobles become more of the local political boss than the biggest baddest guy of the region. As long as there a rule of law than nobles can be something else other than a (mostly) popular thug.

As for Space Aristocrats they will likely be new nobles type who are jockeying for rights and positions to for money and power. A technological civilization can be autocratic but I have a hard imagining a plausible situation where it would be a bunch of barbarians except for very limited cases.

John Adams is famous for saying when writing the US Constitution: "We shall be a nation of laws, not men." It is reasonable to assume that as soon as the rule of law becomes dominant, the power of the aristocracy is in decline. Ultimately a monarchy, etc. is just dictatorship or warlord-ism, if space nobles are just something else redefined, that's just semantics, once again though, I have a feeling it is all just predetermined, how is it going to be more efficient than having professional managers? If not, those less efficient societies will fall to the more efficient ones, if it all falls to some dictator, that's the society getting ready to crash and burn.

Quote from: estar;899688My point is that technological civilization will collapse in a very different way than Rome or China did. For no other reason that the successors will be technological civilizations themselves.

There are plenty of historical cases of massive step changes downward in civilisational complexity - 'collapse'.  I can't see any reason to think that won't/can't happen again. It's most common in colonised or semi-colonised cultures like Roman Britain or much of post independence Africa, but the modern 'failed states' show a similar dynamic. As long as there are civilisational cores still healthy then such changes tend to be marginal and temporary, but when a core collapses you can get a massive step change downward, as in the Western Roman Empire - northwest from the Germanic invasions, southwest from the Arab/Muslim conquests a few centuries later. Some tech is retained (traditionally, useful military tech like personal arms and armour), some is lost. I can't see any reason why a notional interstellar civilisational collapse wouldn't follow a similar dynamic.

I've usually roleplay Traveller nobles as better than fantasy nobles.

My favorite space fantasy nobles however are in Fading Suns.

Damn, I'd love to run Fading Suns using Traveller rules.

Quote from: S'mon;899796There are plenty of historical cases of massive step changes downward in civilisational complexity - 'collapse'.  I can't see any reason to think that won't/can't happen again. It's most common in colonised or semi-colonised cultures like Roman Britain or much of post independence Africa, but the modern 'failed states' show a similar dynamic.

The problem is that we still don' t what it would look like for a technological civilization. Right now all the examples we have are regional collapses that still have industrial goods flooding in from more stable areas of the world. The rest are a clash of culture or ideology where both sides have a working industry based on technology. With two industrial revolutions and an information revolution, humanity in new territory. Sure definitely risk of bad things happening but it going to be a different sort of "bad" than we have seen before.

Quote from: estar;899820The problem is that we still don' t what it would look like for a technological civilization.

Do you mean post-industrial-revolution civilisation? I agree that no country that has gone through the industrial revolution internally has collapsed, although there have been some highly disruptive step changes in societal organisation (eg fall of the USSR), AFAICR there has been no large-scale societal collapse causing tech collapse at least since the Mongol invasions.

But Rome was a technological civilisation compared to its successors, and huge amounts of tech know-how were lost (possibly twice over - lost in the West, then lost in the East). We know about a lot of the large scale engineering project tech that was lost, I doubt we know about a lot of the smaller scale stuff.

In the modern world I think large scale societal collapse is very unlikely, there are too many independent tech centres - eg even if Europe & USA collapsed, China & Japan would still be there; people in Europe would still have access to tech even if they lost the ability to make it. Likewise if China collapsed. With a star faring civilisation it would depend on things like communication and the source of the collapse. If the sf universe resembles the modern world then general collapse would seem unlikely.

Regardless of the time period, I'd keep one word in mind when RP'ing a member of the aristocracy--"Entitled." A second thing? "Out of touch" (with society, reality, what have you). A 3rd aspect I guess would be "connected."

That said, I really don't know how to be accurate to medieval times. The thing that sums this up for me is how the upper crust treats meals in modern society.  

For a poor person: "Did you have anything to eat?"
For the middle class: "Did you get enough to eat?"
Upper crust: "Was the food presented well?"

Quote from: cranebump;899861Upper crust: "Was the food presented well?"

True. But while presentation is important, it isn't the only thing, e.g. Kobe beef and Dom Perignon do taste different than Freixenet and NY Strip steak from your local chain grocery store. And beyond the taste, the price and rarity makes them much better status symbols than anything readily available to the middle class.

The enforcement of courtesies and social niceties among the aristocracy had a practical purpose. It was important that those close to centre of power had strong self-control. The realm didn't need bull-headed lords who let their tempers and jealousies get the better of them. To much risk of dissension within the realm and and diplomatic incidents outside it. So behaving like a civil person in court and at table - not spitting or pissing or fighting or farting or yelling with your mouth full - showed that you had control over yourself and could conform to rules of behaviour, no matter how arbitrary.

As for making public show of your access to rare foods, that's an ingrained status-seeking characteristic of humanity, independent of social status. Everyone likes to demonstrate they have more and better stuff than their neighbours. For some it's Dom Perignon, for others it's a barbeque or truck.

Quote from: Haffrung;899868The enforcement of courtesies and social niceties among the aristocracy had a practical purpose. It was important that those close to centre of power had strong self-control. The realm didn't need bull-headed lords who let their tempers and jealousies get the better of them. To much risk of dissension within the realm and and diplomatic incidents outside it. So behaving like a civil person in court and at table - not spitting or pissing or fighting or farting or yelling with your mouth full - showed that you had control over yourself and could conform to rules of behaviour, no matter how arbitrary.

I find this explanation unlikely. One reason is that aristocratic behavior in much of Europe in the late Renaissance and early modern period included a dueling ethos that resulted in, say France, the deaths of hundreds of aristocrats per year. If dueling etiquette was supposed to induce self control, it failed pretty miserably. It seems more likely that aristocratic manners were a fairly arbitrary method of signaling who was an aristocrat and who was not.

QuoteAs for making public show of your access to rare foods, that's an ingrained status-seeking characteristic of humanity, independent of social status.

But the types of scarce items (and their associated costs) are different for different status groups. Lots of people can afford barbecue, it's not that costly (I eat a lot of barbecue). Dom Perignon on the other hand, is beyond most people's price point. Similarly, many people in the middle class can afford a big pickup truck (my wife has one), only the very wealthy can afford a yacht. Expensive luxury spending is a way for the wealthy to signal that they are wealthy - to themselves and to others outside that group.

Quote from: Bren;899863True. But while presentation is important, it isn't the only thing, e.g. Kobe beef and Dom Perignon do taste different than Freixenet and NY Strip steak from your local chain grocery store. And beyond the taste, the price and rarity makes them much better status symbols than anything readily available to the middle class.

On a related note add the following rule: "Why pay fair market price for something, when you can pay 10x as much and call it better?"

Quote from: cranebump;899861Regardless of the time period, I'd keep one word in mind when RP'ing a member of the aristocracy--"Entitled."

"Entitled" appears to be an American dog-whistle-politics rant-worth knee-jerker at the moment. Could you explain for the rest of the world what this means to you? Making strong assumptions, with high expectations, about their rights?

QuoteA second thing? "Out of touch" (with society, reality, what have you).

As said above in the thread, you don't get to run a society while "out of touch" with the realities of _your_ world

QuoteA 3rd aspect I guess would be "connected."

This is a good point and relates to a point that I think has been missed. The picture of aristocrats has been largely based on how they treat others of much inferior status. However, to consider them as functioning people, you should really consider they treat others of their own social status - even if it's those of broadly the same status.  That's them in their home element with their network.

I don't think you'd be a successful courtier by being a total dick to the rest of the court. Even if there's subtle games of oneupmanship to establish the fine detail of the pecking order in that broad class then it isn't done boorishly.

Finally, I'd say to everyone: Brush Up Your Shakespeare.  Shakespeare served as one of the King's Men for most of his career and so performed to the Court. He saw these people close up and - being Shakespeare - I imagine it highly helped the depiction of nobles in his plays.

Quote from: Anselyn;899872Finally, I'd say to everyone: Brush Up Your Shakespeare.  Shakespeare served as one of the King's Men for most of his career and so performed to the Court. He saw these people close up and - being Shakespeare - I imagine it highly helped the depiction of nobles in his plays.

You may have resisted the temptation, but I won't :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJIpp2Jj8AQ

With the stream of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, I think an important point's being missed: there's no such thing as a "standard" aristocrat.  Different times, places, milieus, an aristo's going to be different in an era of stability, wealth and peace than in one of strife and societal upheaval.  Even within a particular paradigm, they're people, and people differ from one another.

Quote from: Haffrung;899868As for making public show of your access to rare foods, that's an ingrained status-seeking characteristic of humanity, independent of social status. Everyone likes to demonstrate they have more and better stuff than their neighbours. For some it's Dom Perignon, for others it's a barbeque or truck.

Or, the rich are what the rest of us would be if we had money.

JG

QuoteEntitled" appears to be an American dog-whistle-politics rant-worth knee-jerker at the moment. Could you explain for the rest of the world what this means to you? Making strong assumptions, with high expectations, about their rights?

Entitled=a belief in inherent superiority, despite all appearances to the contrary, I.e., "daddy made all the money, I inherited it, and that makes me better." i' better, and I deserve everything I have because I'm better, even if, in reality, I'm a witless duck living on a trust fund.

QuoteAs said above in the thread, you don't get to run a society while "out of touch" with the realities of _your_ world

Bullshit. Sometimes you get lucky by being born into it, which is how it certainly worked back in the day (and still works to extent right now).

Anyooo, out of touch means they can't comprehend how the common folk live, because they've never had to worry about, oh, say, their next meal. in modern terms, it's not knowing the cost of a gallon of milk, because you never have to buy groceries yourself.