[Improve subject line, resent to [email removed], came to
[email removed] instead -- James]
[email removed]:
>Q: I can't remember where it is stated but it is my impression that once
>you go outside the boundaries of the starport on the world you are subject
>to that world's law level. So what happens if/when PCs get in trouble? Can
>the Imperial gov't intervene, and does it? How would this relate to the
>Imperial Ministry of Justice as described in a Challenge article some time
>ago?
As you said in your own answer, much of this will be dependent upon that
planet's relations with the Imperium. Some will be like the city/county/state/
federal hierarchy of the modern US; others may actively resent Imperial
"meddling" and either stall or negotiate their dealings with the Imperium;
depending on a criminal's crime, he may be welcomed (secretly) by members
of certain worlds! But generally, I think local laws, including ordinances
mandated by the Imperium, will be enforced by the local constabulary, with
the Imperium retaining the right to arrest criminals who have broken Imperial
law elsewhere (whether offworld or in space).
I think extradition between worlds (i.e, you run a stoplight at Matewan
and flee to Jamaica but the Imperium has no rule against running stoplights)
will not involve the Imperium except in unusual circumstances (hostility
between worlds, for instance)
>Q: If the law & government level describes the world outside the starport,
>what determines what is the law level and government type -in- the
>starport?
I've always taken them to be inclusive of the starport, and assumed that
starports (but not naval bases and the like) fell under the purview of
the local planetary or stellar government.
>Q: If you assume the UWP is describing the world and not the starport, what
>tech level should the starports be?
Again, I find it easier to put them at world TL; if that is not high enough
for the construction of a starport, make it the minimum needed.
>Q: If a world is TL'n', does that mean that outside the starport the PCs
>are limited to TL'n' equipment? If not, how do you deal with the effects of
>having PCs with high tech equipment on low tech worlds? And what about the
>reverse?
>A: Yes, characters are limited to equipment in the same tech code. Why? so
>they don't disrupt the local society and economy too much. Political,
>social, and economic stability are valued highly, and having all three most
>of the time is probably why the Imperium lasted as long as it did.
Don't be silly. If I gave a fusion gun and you have bows and arrows, who's
going to stop me from going wherever I want. (flippant answer).
Seriously though, this will again be dependent upon the world. I believe that
many worlds allow people to walk around with their own equipment, 1) to
encourage trade and 2) it's too difficult to keep all that stuff out. Granted,
in many instances there will be provisions regarding high-tech assault weaponry
(the aforementioned fusion gun) which will likely be prohibited anyway, and
enforced (if need be) with specialized paramilitary units or by petitioning
the Imperium to enforce the law. Whatever the case, however, I believe it
will be different from planet to planet.
- -Shalom Zaidfeld:
>What does a Combat Enginner do?.. Could you discribe the skill a bit?
Combat Engineers construct platforms, dig embankments, build bridges, and
create other structures and fortification in a battle area. They also destroy
said structures.
Such a skill would involve rudimentary knowledge of demolitions, structural/
civil engineering, and possibly mining (they started out as diggers who built
tunnels beneath castle fortifications, and later moved to constructing
earthen embankments that could withstand the recoil of early field artillery).
>. . .[computers could become}
>smaller by using small screen that could be worn like eyeglasses and
>positioned in front of the user's eye when in use. In Traveller hologram
>projecters would be another alternative to screens to permit miniturization.
>An alternate method of input that is within reach today are computers that
>accept voice commands and eliminate the need for keyboards.
Ah, but how does one initiate commands in say, a word processor? I think a
small unit consisting perhaps of nothing but control/alt/delete will be
neccesary so that the computer knows you want to "save" a document, not add
word "save" to it.
>Granted there will probably be limits to miniturizing computers but smaller
>devices than currently present in official rules are within reason.
Essentially, the control devices will mass more than the processors themselves,
except in the case of neural implants. Maybe in the future the computer will
be carried from point to point, plugging them into whichever peripheral is
handy.
J Roberson