Re: On the Virus

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