------------------------------

Bundle: 570
Archive-Message-Number: 7152
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 20:44:52 CST
From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson)
Subject: Traveller Background 7

Gentlesophonts:

From Friday night:

Allen Shock [-- REDACTED --] writes:
 
> Mr Johnson:
> You are effectively trying to lead a
> discussion about this without yourself having done any research on the
> subject.

Well, I wouldn't say I haven't done anything.  I do read what the rest of
y'all are posting - closely and with a great deal of interest.  I also am
a little uncomfortable with the idea of `leading' the discussion.  Maybe I
just post too much and need to get a life.  :-)

> You haven't read Path of Tears, or any of the material in the rulebook
> which pertains to the RC. This would be much akin to trying to lead a literary
> discussion without knowing anything about the author or his/her writings.

It's true I haven't read *Path of Tears* or *any* of the other TNE material
but, having actually lead a literary discussion or two in my day, I would
propose that one *can* examine another's presentation of a particular work
for internal consistency and reasonableness without having read the actual
work itself.  When someone points out that my understanding of the facts
of the RC (or any other aspect of TNE) are incorrect I have revised my
opinions, but again just because some GDW product says such and such doesn't
necessarily make it gospel.  My own interest in background stems from a
fascination with the need to keep any setting believable and consistent.
IMHO, GDW has stuggled with this sort of problem, as would be expected in
any multi-collaborative work, since the days of Classic Traveller.  

> Time
> and again, I can't help but think your understanding of these issues-and even
> your ability to play Devil's Advocate-would be enhanced if you would simply
> buy
> Path of Tears and read it.

Well, I might understand the `facts' better but I feel pretty comfortable 
with the `issues' (such as the effectiveness of a stable, central government
versus that of an unstable, fragmented one) now.  How would being in possession
of *Path of Tears* or any other TNE product better help one to understand
these sort of issues except to be able to say, "But GDW says so on page XX"?
If there's some specific issue you believe I'm not getting because I don't
have the rulebook please let me know what it is.

> If you then decide you don't care for TNE, I know
> two people you could sell your copy to if no one on the TML wants it.

Well, I'm not going to buy it.  If this means I can't `play' just let me
know and I'll shut up.  :-)  I'd like to think I can still discuss the
background without having to buy in to the product.  Maybe we should move
our discussion on to the Regency and other areas and then this issue of
what's in the GDW `bible' wouldn't be relevant?  It seems to me though that
most folks are unwilling to discuss the Regency much because GDW hasn't
weighed in yet with a sourcebook.  If this is how things are going to be
then why discuss anything?  We can all just wait for the next sourcebook
for GDW to tell us what's going on.

>    You seem to be interested in this "good vik, bad vik" thing. 

Well, actually, no.  What I've been trying to insist upon is consistency.
My own view is that a fragmented Coalition with `empire-builders' (Centrists?)
and `altruistic developers' (Federalists?) competing for control is the most
interesting but I don't see this as being possible with a stable, centralized
government.  I don't know how exactly reading *Path of Tears* would settle this
issue. I've read reviews of *PoT* here on TML that have come down on *both*
sides of the fragmented/centralized Coalition government issue.

> The RC is
> like any other government; it can fall prey to corruption and infighting, and
> the danger of this is already evident in the war of words between the
> Centrists
> and the Federalists.

My point is that regardless of what the pols back home are pontificating about
if the RCES is being truly effective then it is getting consistent direction
and the debates in the Assembly are largely irrelevant.  If this is the case,
then the RCES is either going to be generally `benevolent' *or* `malevolent',
but not both.  Under these conditions my preference would be to play the RCES
as `benevolent'.

On the other hand, if the Assembly debates are affecting the RCES mission
then the RCES will suffer from a lack of consistent direction and both 
`benevolent' *and* `malevolent' vikings will exist and each will enjoy 
succor from its respective bloc.  The overall RCES mission will be less
effective under these conditions but the adventure potential is enhanced in
my view.

> However, the RCES sets standards for it's troops;
> according
> to the book, they want to avoid the reputation for being as bad or worse than
> the invaders from previous times (the Solomani and the Imperium) were.

The RCES may set standards but those standards, or at least the degree to which
they are enforced, will depend upon the direction received from the govern-
ment (this is a result of that wonderful `democracy' stuff).

> They
> are spread very thin, however, and must sometimes hire freelancers and THEY
> don't have to follow accepted RCES procedures.

A nice excuse but if the RCES is `benevolent' then abuses will be minimized
as the `abusers' are not retained or disciplined and other potential `abusers'
learn that abuses won't be tolerated.  On the other hand, if abuses *do*
continue and become the pattern then one has to question the motivations of
the RCES itself. 

> This combined with propaganda
> from the Star Guild (who coined the name "Star Vikings" to conjure up just the
> sort of negative imagery that it seems to invoke in many people around here)
> is what results in the view that history will have of the RCES, as denoted in
> several "future history" extracts in both the TNE rules and Survival Margin.

What I suspect is really going on here is the `rehabilitation' of the RCES
by GDW.  Early releases painted them as bloodthirsty `Space Vikings' but
subsequent thought felt this might not be a favorable enough image.  (Sort 
of like when the producers of the third *Star Wars* film forced Paramount
to change the name of *Star Trek II* from "The Vengeance of Khan" to "The
Wrath of Khan" to avoid conflict with the working title of the third *Star
Wars* film, "Revenge of the Jedi" which was subsequently changed when someone
belatedly pointed out that `revenge' was `not the Jedi way'.)

> As is the case with any organization, there will be "bad apples", but the
> stated goal of the RC is to be the "good guys", according to what has been
> written thus far.

Fine.  Goals are nice.  But the character of the Coalition government is going
to affect the actual *conduct* of the RCES much more than any set of goals.
This is not a criticism but rather an realistic expectation that, IMHO, can
lead to some very interesting adventure possibilities.

> The Regency
> has a similar problem; they have better manufacturing tech, and a higher
> overall technology level, but are simply running out of room for their
> economy.
> Their overly paranoid fear of Virus has locked them in, and the economy will
> bottom out soon unless they expand.

Okay, let's discuss the Regency for a moment.  I'm not sure I agree that the
Regency has to continue to expand in order to survive (sounds like Reaganomics
to me!) but assuming it *wants* to expand it faces several challenges besides
the threat of the Virus.  (And be warned, the following views are expressed
without the benefit of access to the `official' TNE material.)  The Regency
must be secure that no threat will arise from the Zhodani, the Aslan or
the Vargr.  It must be convinced that whatever gains are to be made by
expanding into regions devastated by the Virus will offset the risk involved
in venturing into these `unclean' regions.  It must be convinced that the 
exisiting Virus quarantine will be maintained and that it will not have to
deal with an incursion of the Virus into the interior.  It must be prepared
to accept the possibility of encountering a hostile major power that makes
similar claims to the legitimacy and heritage of the Imperium.

BTW, has TNE dealt with the Darrians and Sword Worlders?  Maybe the Regency
can hire Sword Worlds mercenaries for that fateful encounter with the
Coalition some day?

> So, the RC has to move beyond "chicken
> stealing" (again, POT is fairly clear that the RCES does NOT take tech from
> planets that need it! They take it only from dead worlds (now we'll hear the
> accusations of grave-robbing...), despots and derelicts!)

Well, okay, except that we've already established that the RCES gets to make
its own determinations about who's `dead', `despotic', or `derelict'.
Certainly, if the US can be threatened by Grenada, then the potential exists
for *significant* abuses of the RCES `principles'.

>    As for the criticisms which seem to say that the RCES has no right to
> force planets to join-no one does! However, it has happened many times, not
> only throughout our history, but through the fictional Traveller universe's
> history as well.

Well, yes, but then it would be difficult to make the case that the RCES are
`good guys'.  Wouldn't they just not be any worse `bad guys' than anyone
else then? 

> So why is the RC any different?

Indeed!  Isn't this the question I asked several weeks ago when I asked what
TNE had to offer over CT/MT?  :-)

>   Is the RC more "enlightened" than the Imperium? Probably not, but they THINK
> they are, 

Well, great, but as real folks aren't we able to make some sort of judgement
about the validity of this claim?

My sense is we've pretty much beat the Coalition to death at this point now
as well.  (Don't let that stop you if you've still got a point.)  Maybe it
would be good to move on to Rodge's suggestion of a Regency discussion?  I
know some of you have expressed a preference for the Regency over the Coalition.
Tell us why.  And tell us what challenges you see the Regency facing.

What about all those Pocket Empires?  Someone has suggested that the Coalition
is just another Pocket Empire with some Hiver technical assistance.  If this
is the case then all(?) those Pocket Empires might provide as much potential
as the Coalition has.  Who's adventuring in Pocket Empires?

And we've yet to hear much about non-TNE Imperium campaigns or from completely
non-Imperium Traveller campaigns.  Mayday, mayday, calling all backgrounds.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------