>I think it was James Cunningham mentioned that he was a humble
>library science student majoring in arms control. Anyone have
>some thoughts on how arms control is working (and/or failing)
>in the Imperium?
From several of the traveller campaigns I've seen, if you're talking
about firearms, control is non-existent! :-) On the other hand, the No-Nukes
laws seem very firmly in place... even in the campaign I'm in now, in which the
players are caught between two power forces - two contenders for the imperial
throne. On the other hand (hey, this is traveller, we can have three handed
aliens...) the fighting hasn't gotten truly intense yet, and the players are
avoiding the whole mess (or trying to) so we may never know.
>It seems to be working with the Zhodani, but because *they*
>don't care - humaniti is still hesitant. It seems to be
>a cosmic [sic] failure near Capital.
What do you mean, "they don't care?" I'm running a Zhodani character
right now, (and doing it accurately, I think) and while "we" aren't too worried
about the internal power struggles of you imperials, that's dependent upon just
that point - internal. On the other hand, I have the feeling the Consulate
would have strong interests if the fighting spilled over, accidentally or on
purpose, into Zhodani space.
>Maybe Mr. Cunnignham (I sure hope I got it right) can share
>some thoughts on arms control, and why people in the fture
>are no more philospohically advanced than we.
I'd be interested in Mr. Cunningham's thoughts also, but I have the
only answer that counts for your last point - if the people in the future were
more philosophically advanced than we are, nobody would be playing Traveller.
After all, why are we doing this? For fun! And let's face it, a world where
everything is perfect isn't much fun to role-play in. Most campaigns are based
on conflict, between the players and other forces. Remove the conflict, and
you remove the basis for the campaign.
Besides which, I'm not so sure that simply being further along the
time-line must mean that they are more philosophically advanced. Granted, our
civilization is in many ways nicer than civilization a few hundred years ago
(for example, nicer about children & old folks, about racial equality, etc) but
is this necessarily a factor of how much time w've had for philsophical
advancement, or couldn't it simply be a factor of convenience - most cultures
weren't too attached to young kids because it was too likely they'd die young.
As medicine and living conditions have improved, the death rate has decreased,
and parents become more attached to their kids, etc.
Steven J. Owens | [email removed] | [email removed]
"Okay, Major Jonathan "Wrong-Is" Wright rubs his magic ring of Imperial
Intervention and twenty stormtroopers with battledress and gauss rifles
pop out of the microwave oven..."
- Sean T. Grape, in a truly bizarre traveller campaign...
All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.