You have permission to expand it; the subject of slavery is being allowed in this thread for comparative purposes even to the present day forms.
I'll note that BBC world was talking about modern slavery during my drive home tonight.
The Problem with the Zhodani
- Thread starter daryen
- Start date
I'll note that BBC world was talking about modern slavery during my drive home tonight.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thank you.
I will still try to remain as non-contentious as possible, if anything does overstep the line I will delete it or if a mod can edit once my time frame for editing expires.
Slavery is alive and well here in the modern world. There are many countries and cultures that still practice it and they don't consider it evil, it is just economics.
Even in the so called western liberal democracies there is underground slavery, people trafficking to work in various illegal activities for example.
I will still try to remain as non-contentious as possible, if anything does overstep the line I will delete it or if a mod can edit once my time frame for editing expires.
Slavery is alive and well here in the modern world. There are many countries and cultures that still practice it and they don't consider it evil, it is just economics.
Even in the so called western liberal democracies there is underground slavery, people trafficking to work in various illegal activities for example.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Compulsion is a matter of degree.
I never knew the term wageslave until I read ShadowRun.
I never knew the term wageslave until I read ShadowRun.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
So, the idea that slavery is evil is just a modern construct?
In other words, you are basically saying that slavery not isn't evil, but it is perfectly fine? Am I understanding that correctly?
I ask because, the evilness of slavery isn't going to change. If it was fine for 99% of human history, it is fine now. What I hear you saying is that "modern liberals" are the weirdos thinking slavery is wrong. If that's your position, fine. But I have to ask.
And before you trot out Biblical examples, remember that the ancient Israelites were ordered by God to commit genocide. More than once. Compared to that, slavery is sadly a step up. (In fact, there is one example where a Canaanite group submits to slavery to avoid genocide!) So, be careful making those comparisons.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yes, the idea that slavery is immoral or evil is a modern construct, I say modern, it was the British in the early 1800s that changed the paradigm and even then it is only really western liberal democracies that subscribe to this view.
I am a product of a western liberal democracy so my moral parameters consider slavery to be evil and abhorrent, but people born to different cultures have a different moral outlook, there is no universal human right. Human rights are only granted at the point of a gun or the threat of nuclear destruction. Are you saying all the people of Earth who do not share our moral code are evil?
I am a product of a western liberal democracy so my moral parameters consider slavery to be evil and abhorrent, but people born to different cultures have a different moral outlook, there is no universal human right. Human rights are only granted at the point of a gun or the threat of nuclear destruction. Are you saying all the people of Earth who do not share our moral code are evil?
daryen
SOC-14 1K
You pretty much quoted it for me, so there you go.
My assumption is the opposite. The psionic shield is just up and it takes conscious effort to drop it. Its default state is up and it is always up. As you state above. That means it takes a conscious decision (if not effort) to lower it and keep it down. So, it they aren't thinking about it, it's up. (It is heavily implied to work this way in the Basic Traveller rules, in addition to AM4,)
I figure the Thought Police simply revert to non-psionics means (which they are extremely skilled at) to keep tabs on prions. They are telepathically scanning them, though. So, yes, they are "scanning" everyone, but they are only passively scanning the Proles because they are the only ones that are unshielded.
One thing that is not clear is the effectiveness of psi shield. Are they fail-proof?
I mean, should a character with PSR 12 try to read through the shiled of someone with PSR 3, would this shied be always effective?
As per RAW, I understand yes, it is, but I feel it somewhat odd...
I mean, should a character with PSR 12 try to read through the shiled of someone with PSR 3, would this shied be always effective?
As per RAW, I understand yes, it is, but I feel it somewhat odd...
daryen
SOC-14 1K
I am not talking about a complete moral code. I am saying that enslaving another sapient being is an evil act. To do that is to commit evil. Does that make the person doing it evil? That's a bigger question about that person. But the act is evil, yes.
I will assert that if slavery wasn't evil for 99% of human history, it isn't evil now. And those of us who are a product of a western liberal society are flat out wrong in our judgement. So, either slavery has always been an evil act, or I am wrong for believing that it is now.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Depends on the alternatives.
Educated Greeks used to sell themselves into slavery as part of their career path.
Educated Greeks used to sell themselves into slavery as part of their career path.
As someone said, good and evil are not absolute things, but cultural ones.
And even so, sometimes we don't understand one another (to name two esamples, without taking sides nor trying to discuss them ourside the pit, US and European citizens don't understand each other views in weapons control or public helath system), even being not only from the same planet, but with a common cultural basis (what is known as western liberal democracies).
So, how can we understand what would be a fully different culture, with no common cultural background (not even planetary things as the day duration would be common)?
Sorry, but I cannot imagine a single situation where this sentence may apply in society/government decisions and actuation
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It is only evil to us due to our moral code. There are a lot of people on this planet that do not consider it evil. Do you believe that your moral code is superior to everyone with a contrary view.
There is no good or evil, they are human constructs.
Now you are starting to see the difficulty in comparative cultures - what is evil to one is good to another.
Hence the Imperials consider the Zhodani to be evil while ignoring the evil within the Imperial system. meanwhile the Zhodani consider themselves to be good and the Imperial view to be misguided. Always remember the Alien Modules were written by an in universe Imperial author and suffer from the unreliable narrator 'flaw'
As you say, our assumptions are opposite here. As I see it, it takes a conscieus decision (not even worth to call it effort) to either raise or lower it. Having it "up" means you (to use the rules own words) "protect the mind from unwanted telepathic interferences", but, what is a "unwanted telepathic interference"?
Of course, mind assault probes and read thoughts are, but is it also a unexpected message sent by "send thoughts"? I guess so, and that means if shields are "up" you cannot receive them.
To give you an analogy, raising your shield would be as turning off your cellular so that it cannot disturb you, but at the same time not allowing incoming calls (that in many cases can be called an interference) to reach you... How many people do you know that use to have their cellulars off?
That's why I think most Zhodani nobles/intendants will not rutinelly have their shield up, as I assume telepathy is quite a common way to communicate among them, and they don't expect to need the protection in their usual lives (unless this would distrub other activities), as most telepathic activity will not be hostile. Imperial psionic characters (the usual psionic character for most games, I guess), OTOH, use to have them raised, as they don't expect such incoming messages to be usual and any telepathic activity to be hostile per default.
I hope to have explained myself well enough on this, and I know it's not supported (but neither denied) by the rules, so it's just my view, and (again) YMMV...
Last edited:
The "shields up/shields down" thing may have a "Fourth Amendment/Fifth Amendment (US-ism)" connotation in their context: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Legally, it's not required. Socially, it'll get people wondering what you're up to and whether you might need "help".
It's worth noting that understanding Zhodani (from the perspective of getting "into character" in a RPG context) isn't easy. They're not "ordinary people with mental superpowers in an ordinary society" because their culture itself is different. You're not the only one with mental superpowers!
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Maybe so, but a significant chunk of Zhodani civilization has one or both eyes -- and the ones who can do mental reprogramming actually experience life among the "blind" via telepathy rather than just seeing it from the outside.
It's worth noting that understanding Zhodani (from the perspective of getting "into character" in a RPG context) isn't easy. They're not "ordinary people with mental superpowers in an ordinary society" because their culture itself is different. You're not the only one with mental superpowers!
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." Maybe so, but a significant chunk of Zhodani civilization has one or both eyes -- and the ones who can do mental reprogramming actually experience life among the "blind" via telepathy rather than just seeing it from the outside.
Universal Morality: to hold other sentient beings as valueless, is evil. To hold other sentient beings as having value, is not evil.
This applies irrespective of the existence or non-existence of slavery.
The Feudal Contract formed during the early dark ages offered protection to allow serfs to survive as society and order collapsed. A vassal that held the human beings under his protection as having value, would have been more “good” than a vassal that held them as “without value” or a man that was content to survive and allow those “strangers” to be murdered by lawless bands.
A person in modern society granted the “freedom” to starve without infringements of their ”rights” may not be the most moral high ground.
Which is not to say that “slavery is good”, rather it is to say that “slavery” is a symptom rather than the ”disease” that creates the condition of “good” or “evil”. Anarchy is complete freedom from control by others, but few would find a lawless society “good”.
An argument could be made that the Zhodani place greater innate worth on all citizens … valuing them enough to help those in need rather than leaving them the freedom to harm themselves and others.
This applies irrespective of the existence or non-existence of slavery.
The Feudal Contract formed during the early dark ages offered protection to allow serfs to survive as society and order collapsed. A vassal that held the human beings under his protection as having value, would have been more “good” than a vassal that held them as “without value” or a man that was content to survive and allow those “strangers” to be murdered by lawless bands.
A person in modern society granted the “freedom” to starve without infringements of their ”rights” may not be the most moral high ground.
Which is not to say that “slavery is good”, rather it is to say that “slavery” is a symptom rather than the ”disease” that creates the condition of “good” or “evil”. Anarchy is complete freedom from control by others, but few would find a lawless society “good”.
An argument could be made that the Zhodani place greater innate worth on all citizens … valuing them enough to help those in need rather than leaving them the freedom to harm themselves and others.
If we’ve gotten to the point where we argue over definitions and base assumptions, then I think we’re about done with the topic and can get a consensus.
***
My thoughts.
Traveller, as a game, is at its core about the agency of the player character. That’s why there’s no ansible, for example (Marc brought that up last week).
The Imperium, especially early on, indicates that getting caught up in politics or getting in someone’s way can end up in the suppression of a character’s agency. Generally Imperials act as though wrongful imprisonment and similar things are punishments and are not good things.
The Zhodani, in applying what is essentially a re-programming activity broadly across their population, show a measure of totalitarian control that is designed to make us shudder in revulsion. It is intended to make us think, but probably also to make us worry.
Note that worlds in the Imperium might well have a brain-washy Society, and the Imperium has no specific rules against this. As long as economic activity, like the Spice, flows. That too should make us think.
***
My thoughts.
Traveller, as a game, is at its core about the agency of the player character. That’s why there’s no ansible, for example (Marc brought that up last week).
The Imperium, especially early on, indicates that getting caught up in politics or getting in someone’s way can end up in the suppression of a character’s agency. Generally Imperials act as though wrongful imprisonment and similar things are punishments and are not good things.
The Zhodani, in applying what is essentially a re-programming activity broadly across their population, show a measure of totalitarian control that is designed to make us shudder in revulsion. It is intended to make us think, but probably also to make us worry.
Note that worlds in the Imperium might well have a brain-washy Society, and the Imperium has no specific rules against this. As long as economic activity, like the Spice, flows. That too should make us think.
Last edited:
This is where I was coming from upthread. If we take the (rather tiresome IMO) idea that the info provided to us as referees is from an unreliable Imperial point of view, then yeah, it’s pretty easy to see them in a dark and sinister light. Easy to presume they are the boogeymen and the Frontier Wars are acts of aggression against the One True Way. And their use of psionics on their own population is evil.
But in the spirit of referees being free to chose for themselves how to read the material, it could be seen as a philosophy of healing. That the Imperials are way too paranoid, their proximity poisonous to the delicate balance of Zhodani society. And maybe the Ine Givar are right.
Much more interesting situation to me.
I’ll note that there is a world named Esalin on the frontier between Imperial and Zhodani space. The Esalen Institute near Big Sur CA is dedicated to transformative healing and growth and in the 1980’s hosted a series of Soviet-American citizen diplomacy gatherings, including hosting a visit from Boris Yeltsin.
You're imposing your modernist view as a universal absolute.
Good and evil are not universal absolutes in the world we live in.
Every culture and every nation has changed over time what is considered good and what is evil.
In the last 100 years, homosexuality has gone from being considered a mental illness, a moral flaw (and one of the most serious sins), and homosexual sexual acts a crime, to it being a protected class in most of the English speaking world.
In the last 100 years, mixed ethnicity couples have gone from being unlawful and considered evil by many in a significant portion of the English speaking world to being not uncommon.
Good and Evil are intellectual constructs. You may consider certain things to be Universal Evils, but it doesn't make them so.
There are certain fairly common beliefs; most religions do specify a few things: killing coreligionists without good reason is wrong, taking things from coreligionists without permission is wrong, bearing false witness against coreligionists is wrong, Some extend those past coreligionists. Most do not directly condemn slavery, but often restrict it to non-correligionists as slaves.
But there is no universality to those past correligionists. And the level of justification for killings (The division between justified and not) varies incredibly widely. Many allowed human sacrifice... Most now do not, As recently 150 years ago, the syncretic Samurai Taoist/Buddhist/Shinto hybrid allowed killing for uninvited touch...
The only true universal seems to be that most primitive (iron age and earlier) cultures believe in supernatural beings.
Bring the pizza, beer, and coffee -- we're re-enacting a dorm-room group-study session for Intro to Philosophy!
I see this as along the idea of indentured servitude. One has bargained something of value (their current and future promise of labor) in exchange for some benefit.
I am not schooled in philosophy or whatever this idea is. If it is a repeat of something else maybe I heard elsewhere and forgot, sorry.
I see freedom and slavery as a spectrum of the idea of agency. There are degrees of ranging from from complete and absolute where I can think and do what I wish regardless of consequence and if there is consequence, meh, so what, I don't suffer from it and you cannot stop me. At the other end is complete slavery where control of my body and even my thoughts have been usurped entirely as in being brainwashed. Along that spectrum there are impediments to absolute freedom, most are voluntary impediments: "I won't (insert activity here), because friends / family / work / society will be hurt / angry / (name it). " going down to increasing coercion and punishment until finally you have no agency, even to chosing to die.
Sort of got this idea from Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"
I see freedom and slavery as a spectrum of the idea of agency. There are degrees of ranging from from complete and absolute where I can think and do what I wish regardless of consequence and if there is consequence, meh, so what, I don't suffer from it and you cannot stop me. At the other end is complete slavery where control of my body and even my thoughts have been usurped entirely as in being brainwashed. Along that spectrum there are impediments to absolute freedom, most are voluntary impediments: "I won't (insert activity here), because friends / family / work / society will be hurt / angry / (name it). " going down to increasing coercion and punishment until finally you have no agency, even to chosing to die.
Sort of got this idea from Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"
