Traveller Background 2

From Monday night:

J Robertson [email removed] writes:

> 	Introducing language to your campaign can also help you bring the
> "cultural advantages" Jeff Zeitlin was looking for. If all your NPCs sound
> the same, they'll all seem the same.

I agree completely.  Even if you're not the sort who can ad lib accents, the
very fact that the PCs have to find a translator at times reminds them that
they're "not in Kansas anymore".  Another important point about language was
illustrated by Chewbacca and Artoo-Deetoo in the *Star Wars* films - being
able to *understand* a language doesn't mean you have to be able to (or are
even capable of) *speaking* it.  Contrary to `official' policy, I've never
had Humans able to *speak* Vargr or Aslan languages, nor could these races
speak Galanglic.  Each might understand the other but any being who only
understood one tongue would only get half of an overheard discussion.  This
means that *both* sophonts must posses second languages in order for
communication to take place.

(The *Star Wars* films used the clever device of having other characters
`translate' for us knuckleheads in the audience.  Another clever device was
used in *The Hunt for Red October* in which the Russians started out speaking
Russian with subtitles but `dramatically' switched to English once we got the
point.)

> think a feudal technocracy can be either strong or decentralized, depending
> on just how much authority the chief monarch asks for and is ceded.

The point about feudalism is that a system with a strong monarch is no longer
feudal.  Under feudalism, *all* of the chief's power comes from the support
of her vassals.  Since it's often difficult to keep these vassals in
agreement, feudal systems are prone to fragmentation.  Remember *Excalibur*?
*Any* night could `dub' another night - not just the `king'.

> would be the back&forth of State's Rights in the US, showing that at times
> a rep. democracy can have either a strong central government, or a weak one.

Yes, but the federal government has specific powers granted to it by the
Constitution - particularly taxation and a military; they're *not* `granted'
by the individual States.  A better example would be the European Union, which
has no powers except those granted by the member nations.  And excuse me if I
offend some European sensibilities, but, from this side of the Pond, it
looks pretty fragmented.

> Lucan *could* have cowed the Moot, if he had the backing

Etc.

Again, under a feudal system the Emperor would have had no power to coerce
*anybody* except that granted and *provided* by the Moot (his vassals).  That
Lucan was able to cow the Moot meant that he had access to power *outside*
that of the Moot.  (Or else, he had access to a majority - or plurality -
of the Moot's power and was able to `quell' the rebellious nobles in the
Moot.)  What happened though was that the Imperial Navy existed as a force
external to the Imperial nobility and this was the power used by Lucan to
move against the Moot.

> Examples would include many of the great dictators: Caesar, Napolean, and
> Hitler.

Again, none of these men rose to power in a feudal system.  Both Caesar and
Napoleon used the military as a base of power outside the `nobility' and Hitler
came to power through a political party structure that again was *outside*
the `feudal' apparatus, which, in modern nations, is represented by the
economic power base - corporations and the like.

A centrally-strong feudal structure has never existed.  A good case study
would be Alexander the Great.  Through the force of his personality he was
able to get the various groups he conquered to give up their own interests
in favor of `further' conquests.  As soon as Alexander died and the `Great
Mission' came to an end, his various lieutenants began squabbling among
themselves and the empire fragmented.  Sort of like when Uther Pendragon
died.  You might hold them together in the face of a common enemy but as soon
as the vassals get a breather they'll be at each other's throats.

> their success, and like it or not, they *are* bringing order to their patch
> of space - 200 years down the road, many of the conquered planets will be
> *happy* to be RCES members
> Of course, there's always Quebec :)

Well, actually, there's Africa, South Asia, Latin America, Central Asia.
Eastern Europe, *North* America.  I can't seem to bring to mind *anyplace*
where the locals are glad they were overrun by the `benevolent civilizers'.

> by joing together, forming a - what's that wored? ahhh, COALITION! They would
> then be democratic for a time

Un uh.  Look at the former Soviet states.  They have no tradition whatsoever
of democractic principles.  The current Russian legislture, the Duma, is
named for the *first* legislative advisory body established by the tsars,
who were autocrats, which didn't have the clout of the British Parliament
in Oliver Cromwell's day.  Democratic principles in Western European society
go back hundreds of years and yet just two generations ago we were still
*lynching* folks to keep them from voting here in the US!  The Imperium,
whose roots were in yet another `empire', has been around for 1100 years.
So I ask, where does the idea that `Jane Everybody' has just as much say as
`Peter Plutocrat' come from?

> 	The collapse of markets may have come about during the collapse, but
> I'm sure 70 years is enough time for *new* markets to develop.

May be, but the Star Vikings, at least as they've been described, don't
seem to be interested in markets at all.  I again refer y'all to Beam's
novel.  Lucas Trask, the Space Viking of the title, was one of the few to
realize that he'd be better off `trading' with the worlds of the `wilds' than
he'd be `chicken stealing'.  It's kind of like that story about teaching the
starving man how to fish; and yet the Star Vikings who are `recovering' lost
technology are still looking for that free hand out.

> 	Bootstrap: The RC *will* benefit in the long run, having new trade
> partners that aren't directly controlled by the RCES.

My point exactly.  It's just that there is no current benefit to sell to RC
`voters' except for altruism - again, not something that jumps to my mind
when I think of `gun-toting' vikings.

The key point to remember is that with a strong, central government the RC is
either going to be `altruisitc developers' or `chicken stealers' - there's
no room for both.


James Dening [email removed] writes:

> Some people may argue that in a reasonably medium-high TL (3+?) culture
> where mass media is predominant, this dialect barrier will break down, and one
> homogeneous lingua franca emerge. I believe this is not so.

I guess my point is that regardless of how diverse various dialects might or
might not be these folks can understand the `common' or `majority' language
good enough to get by - or else they'd learn to understand it like Hispanics
in North America and the Japanese have learned American English.  The real
question I guess is how much English the Japanese would speak after 70
years if us Americans `went away'?

Y'all take care, ya heer?

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA