Benevolent or oppressive Imperium

[san*klass]

Apologies that this has probably been asked many times before, but:-

Can someone out there please tell me which Classic supplements and adventures support an oppressive Imperium as opposed to the more generally benevolent one that we see later?

I know that Kinnunir adventure does, but after that I not too certain.

All advice greatly appreciated.

 

[MThompson016]

Hmm. Twlight's Peak (Adventure 3) has a neutral Imperium, and a thoroughly villainous Zhodani.

On the Other Hand, GT Nobles starting on page 136 has a lot of info about how to run a more oppressive Imperium. More nobility, and make them more self absorbed. Letting Norris run have his own Secret Police...

 

[Timerover51]

Apologies that this has probably been asked many times before, but:-

Can someone out there please tell me which Classic supplements and adventures support an oppressive Imperium as opposed to the more generally benevolent one that we see later?

I know that Kinnunir adventure does, but after that I not too certain.

All advice greatly appreciated.

The Traveller Adventure shows the Imperium mega-corporations operating in a fairly nasty fashion, and Research Station Gamma shows the Imperium kidnapping Chirpers (Uncasted Droyne) for psionic experiments, the the individual running the experiments has to know that what the Chirpers really are. The mega-corporations are pretty much depicted as unscrupulous and nasty, and given that many of them are partly owned by the Imperial family, that somewhat indicates that as long as no massive destruction takes place, just about anything goes for the corporations. That does give the Imperium a fairly oppressive feel.

 

[Hyphen]

Two words: Prison Planet.

 

[Enoki]

I've always looked at it as a combination of both. Much like empires of old, the Imperium is a combination of ruthless and cruel while at the same time trying to appease the population sufficiently to keep them from revolting. A "bread and circuses" sort of thing.

Since there is a secret police, it's pretty obvious that the Imperium is not a democratic or particularly open empire.

I think the megacorps are the same way. Some are clearly ruthless and utterly criminal when they can be. SuSAG, a pharma corp, for example, is noted as running "shadow factories" and doing black ops which I always took to be a combination of unethical and illegal experimentation and testing combined with being a major supplier of illegal pleasure drugs. Sort of a Cartel with a large legal side that is often above the law.
Other corporations I'd think are relatively cleanly operated, particularly if they have no reason to do otherwise. I see Ling being like that for the most part. They're so big they have no reason to act in an underhanded manner. Sort of an elephant that need not fear jackals.

I'd think the nobility is often harsh to ruthless in their treatment of commoners when they have to be. That is, if there is any popular dissent beyond whispers the nobility moves to crush the opposition as violently and rapidly as possible. They'd have to, to stay in power.

I would think much of the press is controlled by the government. Again, the nobility has a vested interest in retaining power and one way to do that is limit information to the public.

 

[aramis]

Apologies that this has probably been asked many times before, but:-

Can someone out there please tell me which Classic supplements and adventures support an oppressive Imperium as opposed to the more generally benevolent one that we see later?

I know that Kinnunir adventure does, but after that I not too certain.

All advice greatly appreciated.

Adv 1-4 all do, in the library data and patron encounters.

 

[kilemall]

I always viewed the megacorps, and the Imperium itself, as on the rack of the limited communications paradigm.

Several implications that affect the meanness quotient.

There has to be some ruthlessness in putting down things that fester and grow much faster on systems with lightspeed comms.

A corollary is that 1000s of years of dealing with distance has taught humanity that snuffing something out before it gets going is ultimately more humane and less disruptive.

But this approach means squashing things before they are clearly a threat, and itself could be abused. Or worse, culliing the leaders of a legitimate grievance/movement and leaving the original issue in place to create a meaner smarter generation that will ultimately do more damage.

This latter point is where enlightened nobles and diplomats work to do a deal that addresses such things.

Another corollary is that nobles, services and megacorps have enough wiggle room and distance to have local people abuse their power for gain of one sort or another.

A lot of the megacorps 'bad guys' are company officers that see an opportunity for themselves to make money up front or on the side by doing something wrong, and the megacorps' central leadership would never countenance the damage in reputation/clout and fines.

On the other hand all parties see this as an inevitable part of doing business with the long distances. So as long as it's cleaned up and not 'company policy', the megacorps are 'too big to fail' and don't seem to come to a reckoning for their underlings' crimes.

A similar ethos is in play with worlds and nobles, with largely self-determinant planet policy avoiding making local problems Imperial and vice versa which allows for a margin of abuse.

Relative morality defined by the limitations of legal, military, political and economic forces all on the ruthless rack of distance based resources and above all coordination, means some people 'get away with it' and others get hammered as both 'justice' and example.

The dirty deals and 'spin' implied by the JTAS articles would also be a primary tool to keep things from getting out of control.

So to me, you get more of a picture of an Imperium trying to make do with it's basic size/comms problem, that talks softly and carries a big stick, but can't use the big stick all the time. So unfairness and alternating wisdom/brutality results.

Benevolent or oppressive? It's either or both, depending on who is involved with what motivations.

 

[Enoki]

Whereas, I see the brutally squashing things early means fewer people will ever know about it. With communications being what they are, the model is more like early 19th Century or earlier communications.

That is, the means are limited. You have the X-boats but the government controls those so they can simply not allow communications about something to travel on them.
The number of ships going out of a system are also limited. Many are going to be owned by corporations or others who have some degree of cooperation with the government. They too will likely limit communications the government doesn't want spread.
So, that leaves word of mouth by those ship's crew which often might be taken as the equivalent of sea stories... "There be monsters there!" sort of thing, and small individually owned ships.
Therefore, if you squash an uprising or what have you in a single system or a few systems before it builds, time is against getting the word spread. The communications systems available to spread it are slow and limited.

Thus, on an interstellar scale the news will be very prone to propaganda and government control. Locally it might be very free but that freedom clearly doesn't extend to other systems.

 

[GypsyComet]

Any given region of the Imperium has numerous powerful parties. The Imperial balancing act is to make sure they don't all go toxic at the same time. Why? Because tyrannies are *really* expensive to keep running over communication lag distances.

Each of the Imperial uniformed organizations (Navy/Marines, Scout Service, and the cadre forces of the "Imperial Army") represent a possible power bloc, though when all is working correctly they are a single bloc. Every Noble with practical power represents a possible rogue from the Imperium's "property management" power bloc, and any world with significant economic clout or dreams of conquest can become a concern. While not all megacorps have the internal scope to become regionally toxic, several could easily slip that way or already embrace the role of disruptor.

 

[Ulsyus]

I think the megacorps are the same way. Some are clearly ruthless and utterly criminal when they can be. SuSAG, a pharma corp, for example, is noted as running "shadow factories" and doing black ops which I always took to be a combination of unethical and illegal experimentation and testing combined with being a major supplier of illegal pleasure drugs. Sort of a Cartel with a large legal side that is often above the law.
Other corporations I'd think are relatively cleanly operated, particularly if they have no reason to do otherwise. I see Ling being like that for the most part. They're so big they have no reason to act in an underhanded manner. Sort of an elephant that need not fear jackals.

I'd think the nobility is often harsh to ruthless in their treatment of commoners when they have to be. That is, if there is any popular dissent beyond whispers the nobility moves to crush the opposition as violently and rapidly as possible. They'd have to, to stay in power.

I would think much of the press is controlled by the government. Again, the nobility has a vested interest in retaining power and one way to do that is limit information to the public.

Well, the megacorps are constructs that are way beyond the multinationals that exist today. I'd be keen to find a person who could tell us that they do no evil, hold the actions of all their employees to an accountable ethical standard, and don't at times behave in a manner that couldn't stand up to scrutiny in court or a newspaper expose. That said, they're made up of people, so the gamut of actions that they would undertake are as wide as the range of employees within the organisation.

Another factor about the Nobility is that they're intrinsically linked to the megacorps. They may not all have stock portfolios like the Imperial family, but after 1100 years a lot of them would be relatively well off. So the Nobility could be as harsh or as benevolent as they need to be to preserve their way of life, which means preserving the Imperial system that empowers and enriches them. That said, some nobles would likely be of a different mind and heart to their fellows, at each end of the Bell curve. Some may be utterly ruthless and present a risk to the order of things by way of what could become unacceptable behaviour. Others would be at the other end and feel angst for what their position offers them above the rest of the trillions across the sector. Another Lord Byron (within bounds).

But one thing that I think is fundamental is that the 3I is a system. After its trials and tribulations it is designed to work to ensure its survival, otherwise it would have collapsed earlier (as it almost did). If it needs to be ruthless to survive, it will. If it needs to be benevolent to survive, it will. It will just do those things in the right times and measures because it's had several hundred years to gauge how much of each it needs where and when its needed.

It would take a confluence of several latent social factors, coupled with treachery married to a monumental ego, to crack it apart. Surely that wouldn't happen?

 

[mike wightman]

My preferred analogy for Imperial nobility is to describe them as akin to mob bosses appointed to oversee a particular region (subsector). Very similar in fact to the old Roman Empire provincial governors and military commanders from whence the term dux originates.

 

[Ishmael]

The highest ups will do whatever is necessary to stay in power.
The higher ups will do whatever is necessary to keep the highest ups from finding out they screwed up.
The high ups will do whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo.
They all will do whatever is necessary to curry favor with the next higher ranks.
If that means keeping the lower ups in their place, so be it.
No morality.

Travellers operate in the cracks between levels.

 

[Enoki]

Well, the megacorps are constructs that are way beyond the multinationals that exist today. I'd be keen to find a person who could tell us that they do no evil, hold the actions of all their employees to an accountable ethical standard, and don't at times behave in a manner that couldn't stand up to scrutiny in court or a newspaper expose. That said, they're made up of people, so the gamut of actions that they would undertake are as wide as the range of employees within the organisation.

Oh, I think they all do some degree of criminal and evil activity. It's how the corporate management reacts to that that varies. For some anything you can get away with is just fine and little is done about it.
For others, the central management, or higher ups, find out some local manager is doing illegal stuff they send "people" to deal with it and fix the problem. That sort of corporation wants at least the façade that they're ethical, even if it's only for show.

Another factor about the Nobility is that they're intrinsically linked to the megacorps. They may not all have stock portfolios like the Imperial family, but after 1100 years a lot of them would be relatively well off. So the Nobility could be as harsh or as benevolent as they need to be to preserve their way of life, which means preserving the Imperial system that empowers and enriches them. That said, some nobles would likely be of a different mind and heart to their fellows, at each end of the Bell curve. Some may be utterly ruthless and present a risk to the order of things by way of what could become unacceptable behaviour. Others would be at the other end and feel angst for what their position offers them above the rest of the trillions across the sector. Another Lord Byron (within bounds).

This is another reason to want at least the appearance of acting legally and ethically in public. If the crimes or unethical behavior aren't public, the corporation handles it internally and without public notice. If the behavior was profitable, the most that many might do is tell the parties involved to "knock it off" or promote them elsewhere to keep an eye on them better.

But one thing that I think is fundamental is that the 3I is a system. After its trials and tribulations it is designed to work to ensure its survival, otherwise it would have collapsed earlier (as it almost did). If it needs to be ruthless to survive, it will. If it needs to be benevolent to survive, it will. It will just do those things in the right times and measures because it's had several hundred years to gauge how much of each it needs where and when its needed.

It would take a confluence of several latent social factors, coupled with treachery married to a monumental ego, to crack it apart. Surely that wouldn't happen?

I see the nobility as a law unto itself. In the Middle Ages there were three primary classes of citizen:

Nobles. They owned all the land and made the rules.

Clergy: They had many of the privileges of nobles and were for all intents the ones that made the social norms and rules, and even often enforced them.

Commoners: These were the public at large and they had a separate set of rules that were often more onerous than those imposed on nobles or clergy regarding behavior. They had limited rights to land and access to social advancement.

 

[san*klass]

Adv 1-4 all do, in the library data and patron encounters.

Aramis many thanks for your direct steer. Definite grist for my Ebay mill!

And thanks to all for the thought exercises that point out that even a seeming benevolent 3I may not REALLY be.

I haven't run CT in over 20 years and back then ran a 3I is good Zhos are bad campaign.

I am brainstorming a potential new campaign but being a bit darker this time around.

 

[aramis]

76 Patrons has a few doozies, too.

 

[Vargas]

Adv 1-4 all do, in the library data and patron encounters.

Yup. Early CT has a fairly sinister Imperium. After that it's just this big thing that has bad aspects to it.

 

[Ulsyus]

My preferred analogy for Imperial nobility is to describe them as akin to mob bosses appointed to oversee a particular region (subsector). Very similar in fact to the old Roman Empire provincial governors and military commanders from whence the term dux originates.

That's a fitting analogy...

The highest ups will do whatever is necessary to stay in power.
The higher ups will do whatever is necessary to keep the highest ups from finding out they screwed up.
The high ups will do whatever is necessary to maintain the status quo.
They all will do whatever is necessary to curry favor with the next higher ranks.
If that means keeping the lower ups in their place, so be it.
No morality.

Travellers operate in the cracks between levels.

I'm reading Tom Holland's "Dynasty" about the house of Caesar at the moment when time permits. Your two posts seem to fit the descriptions of governors' positions that were meted out under Tiberius. He'd learnt from Augustus to ensure he was the only game in town, so limited the access of senators, the only class that could possibly contest with him for power, to positions that had previously be proconsular. Woe betide someone who upset a province and caused grief that had to be remedied unnecessarily. But it was equally damning to be a raging success and obvious about it.

The 3I may not be in that position in the 1100s, but in the hierarchy of power, a lower-up who causes shudders in the tower of state may be hard pressed to retain their position.

Just a thought - if the 3I has a policy of non-interference with the activities of world governments, but one of those is run as an autocracy with an Imperial noble and their clan at the top, and there's a revolution to depose them underway, would the 3I still stay out of a domestic matter or intervene because an Imperial noble family is involved?

 

[mike wightman]

The Imperium has all sorts of reasons to interdict worlds...

 

[Condottiere]

Temporary governor appointments lent themselves to full economic exploitation by the appointee and his clientele of said province.

Permanent bailiwicks tend to require more care, if the noble wants to keep oy's value and pass it down to his heirs.

 

[mike wightman]

This is the Imperium I use:

The lmperium is a strong interstellar government encompassing 281 subsectors and approximately 11,000 worlds. Approximately 1100 years old, it is the third human empire to control this area, the oldest, and the strongest. Nevertheless, it is under strong pressure from its neighboring interstellar governments, and does not have the strength nor the power which it once had.

Interdicted worlds are interdicted because the lmperium is trying to conceal
its mistakes in social and political planning.

The lmperium has been suppressing political dissent in order to keep peace in
the Regina subsector.

Add to that imprisonment of political opponents without trail, imprisonment without trial full stop, kidnapping, enslavement, experimentation on intelligent beings and it's no wonder my group prefers the Ine Givar to the Imperial government.