On the Virus

  Mr. White's opinions on the Virus and the New Era background in general were
very thought-provoking. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, and it isn't
my intent to change those opinions (I doubt if I could anyway), but to present
some of my own on the New Era background.
  I will certainly agree that the Third Imperium was a wonderful background for
a science-fiction roleplaying campaign; one needs only look at some other SFRPG
to see how widely it's been imitated. One nice thing about this is that if one
still desires to use that background, one can.  GDW owns Traveller, and they
can of course do whatever they like with the published background-but once YOU
buy the game, you can do whatever YOU want with it. If you feel that the saga
of the Third Imperium should have a different ending, then it can.
Hopefully, GDW will realize that a lot of others feel this way, and when the
New Era materials have been established, will put out sourcebooks for those who
prefer to game within the confines of the Imperium.
  That being said, I must say that throughout the original Traveller writings,
I always had a feeling that the Imperium was stretched to it's limits, and was
in danger of the very thing that happened to it with the Rebellion. The vast
areas that needed to be governed, and the vast diversity of interests which
were present in Imperial Space virtually assured that the Imperium would fail
in a major way someday. While Virus and it's effects may not have been part of
a master plan (if indeed there was one, whether by Marc Miller or someone else)
it always seemed to me that the disintegration of the Imperium was virtually
assured. I think it's important to point out that a careful reading of Hard
Times points out that the Third Imperium died long before the Virus. Virus
trashed interstellar civilization as a whole, not just what was left of the
Imperium.
  The AI Virus was an act of desperation, somewhat akin to the fears that
people had that the Soviets might have a "doomsday device" which they would use
to destroy civilization on Earth should they be losing a war. The fact that it
was set off by Dulinor rather than Lucan is immaterial; it was still Lucan's
doomsday device, although he didn't intend it to be. Catastrophes happen. Not
all stories are allowed to proceed to a logical conclusion. The very act of
conceiving of the Virus proved that Lucan, like all the other factions in the
Rebellion, was thinking only of his agenda. ARRIVAL VENGEANCE clearly showed
that there was no hope of ever reuniting the Imperium. The logical conclusion
to the story would have been that a series of squabbling interstellar states
would have settled into place, and that somewhere down the line, someone would
have tried to unite them, with a huge war which would have killed trillions.
The Virus, whether by accident or by Hiver design, as some have suggested, has
wiped the slate clean, teaching humanity an abject lesson and hopefully making
sure that the state which replaces the Imperium will be better governed.
  Or maybe that should be states! The Regency will eventually begin expanding
outward, and will run into the Reformation Coalition at some point. It's been
hinted in CHALLENGE that there will be a supplement dealing with this. When
they meet, they may make bitter war at first. Eventually they may become like
the United States and England are now, because despite some differences, they
both beleive in the same thing; the importance of returning humanity to the
stars, and the fundamental rights of all beings. Whereas one mighty Imperium
couldn't rule the stars effectively, two smaller but allied powers just might
be able to make it work.
  I too like the Third Imperium; I also like the New Era. That's why I run in
both. As gamemaster, I can keep or throw out whatever I like. If you like the
Imperium, and wish to extend it's history beyond 1116 or 1130, by all means
do so.
    Sorry about the length; I guess I had more to say than I thought.
                                                    Allen Shock

I couldn't manage to pass up an opportunity to reply to
William White's thoughtful post.  Thank you, William; you've
made one of the most intelligent and reasonable posts that
I have ever seen on the New Era / Virus issue.


William White [email removed] writes:
>      That may sound like a boring question, but it really isn't.
> The workings of government are the game mechanics of freedom, if
> I may be excused for drawing such a metaphor.  They're important.

And it's one of the more important and thoughtful questions that Traveller
has ever raised.  And this from a game that has, like it's source material,
Science-Fiction literature, frequently addressed moral issues that many
games ignore.

Early role-playing games had built-in black and white morality: The PCs were
Lawful Good, and the bad guys were Evil, so it was OK to slice and dice them
on sight.  Traveller was one of the first games to break away from that mold
entirely, and present a universe that had as many shades of gray as the
referee and the players were prepared to deal with.

Even within the confines of the Third Imperium, there was a great variation
on what level of detail you could play at, and what kind of universe you
played in.  You could explore issues from animal testing (Research Station
Gamma) to saving the whales (Nomads of the World Ocean) and from meddling in
the affairs of worlds for fun and profit (Divine Intervantion) to saving
worlds from ecological disaster - like it or not (Chamax Plague/Horde).

And then a very interesting question was posed: What holds the Imperium
together?  How do you govern something that large?

>      Unleashing the Virus put the brakes on how that issue gets
> resolved, in our fictional Traveller universe at least.  And
> that's an unsatisfying resolution to a rather dramatic story.
>
>      "But who won?" one asks.
>      "Oh," says GDW.  "Nobody.  Everybody dies at the end."

"Nothing holds it together", or "You can't".

Not very dramatic, and not very heroic.  And there's nothing that the PCs
can do about it.  While Dominic Flandry's ultimate goal, holding the Terran
Empire together, is futile, he *can* make a difference - at least on the
scale of individual worlds, and he *can* make it measurably better for his
efforts.

>      Dave Nilsen (I think) has Dr. Kuligaan seemingly argue in
> _Survival Margin_ that to resolve the Rebellion in victory or
> compromise would be to fool (imaginary Traveller universe)
> humanity into believing that it could routinely walk along the
> brink of the abyss without plunging over.

To continue the Civil War metaphor you introduced above, the American Civil
War showed the people of the United States that they can routinely walk the
abyss?  I don't think so.  Did the fact that the Jews, as a people, survived
a monster like Adolf Hitler mean that we should be willing to allow another
such madman to come to power?  I sincerely hope not (although the current
Balkan situation is enough to make me pause before I say that).

In the Traveller universe, the Third Imperium was the greatest social
construct Humaniti had ever created.  The Rebellion was the greatest blow it
had ever been dealt.  Had some faction won, had Avery Alkhalikoi re-united
the Third Imperium in 1160, the effects of the Rebellion, even without the
Virus, would still be felt for hundreds of years.  Like in similar conflicts
before, the horror and bloodshed would be enough to remind humaniti: "Never
Again".

>      Because the question of how to best rule 11,000 worlds
> hasn't been resolved, and seems to be part of what drives
> the RCES' Star Vikings and the Regency, with its newer, more
> democratic institutions.

Are you sure about this last?  When I read the Star Vikings material, I see
an interstellar government that is *LESS* tolerant that the Imperium.
According to Traveller: The New Era, worlds that survived the Crash have had
to embrace the Leader Principle: a government, typically a charismatic
leader who makes the hard decisions, and is willing to implement them for
the good of all of the people.

 The
The Reformation coalition thinks nothing of toppling governments that it
doesn't approve of, or institutions that could become potential obstructions
to it's expansion plans.

Note the "could become" - a government or institution doesn't actually have
to be malignant before it is removed.  It can even "... do a lot of good
 ..." and "... be successful in moderating the worst excesses of the local
warlords ..." or "... be quite popular with the people ...".  It would still
need removing, if it is in the way of "... an ideal site for establishment
of a RCES hub base ...".

It's also worth noting that the toppling of governments and institutions is
so routine and accepted within the Reformation Coalition that these
decisions are not made, or quite possible even discussed, at the top level.
A relatively small staff, operating out of a planning bureau, can order up
such missions relatively informally.  To put this into perspective, it's as
if the U.S. military operation had been undertaking without the knowledge or
approval of the President, but instead on the authority of a Marine Lt.
Colonel operating on a planning committee somewhere.



[email removed]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In the Far Future