• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Aliens; rubbersuits?

Actually, that brings up another point. Why are almost all aliens "savage"?


Daryen,

I can come up with scads of "cracker barrel" psychobabble to answer that one, but instead I'd like to point something else out.

Not only are aliens "savage" but in Traveller Human Minor Races are "savage" too.

You can either google up fan examples from the web or look in GT:Humaniti. So many HMRs are described as "honorable warriors" that it goes beyond laughable and right on out the other side.

It's lazy, it's slipshod, it's infantile, and it's perfectly human. Every RPG players at one time or another wants to play a beserker. It can't be helped. ;)


Have fun,
Bill
 
Last edited:
Whipsnade said:
in Traveller Human Minor Races are "savage" too
Now, that I really don't understand. Surely somewhere in the vastness of Charted Space there are some HMRs that aren't savage?
 
Maybe "barbarian" is a better descriptive than "savage". You know, uncivilized and unsophisticated. No centralized government built on abstract concepts - all laws have a more immediate cause and effect. Nomadic, or non-agrarian. That sort of thing better fits most HMR's, and a lot of the "savage" alien races better. At least in my mind.

LOL..speaking of the pervasivness of the "noble Warrior" sentiment in humanity..."The Last Samurai" was on last night on TV, right before "Dances With Wolves"!!! OMG, what a hoot! Vargr and Aslan?
 
Not only are aliens "savage" but in Traveller Human Minor Races are "savage" too.

You can either google up fan examples from the web or look in GT:Humaniti. So many HMRs are described as "honorable warriors" that it goes beyond laughable and right on out the other side.

Yeah, I intentionally avoided making any mention of the MHRs since almost all of them come in one of two forms:
- "noble warriors"
- "uncreative dolts"

It does get monotonous after a while. Especially when the two traits are combined.

Considering it is only $10, I do recommend getting Humaniti, though. It does have some good, fun races (a little under half of those included) and the bad ones are excellent examples of how NEVER to create an alien culture.

It's lazy, it's slipshod, it's infantile, and it's perfectly human. Every RPG players at one time or another wants to play a beserker. It can't be helped. ;)

Honestly, I have to admit that the reason I probably overreact whenever I see a "noble warrior" race (whether alien or human) is because they have been so ludicrously overdone that even well done examples seem tedious and tiresome.
 
I find the characterization of Aslan as "savage" being rather odd, and at the least, ill informed.

Vargr, certainly a great many are... Dominance infighting, etc.

But the Aslan do not duel to determine leadership; they do so in lieu of civil litigation and tort enforcement. And many are not even fights, but challenges to other skills. At least in AM1 and S&A.

Quite honestly, the Aslan are samurai & lion hybrids, as presented. Nothing savage about it. A different mode of social law enforcement.
 
Just for the record, the Aslan, K'kree, and Hivers are not uplifted anything. The Vargr are pure uplifts. The Droyne were manipulated. The non-Solomani humans were manipulated.

I knew the K'kree and Hivers weren't uplifts, but I had always thought the Aslan were. I never got the supplements on any of them - too much money for stuff I might not use when I was younger - and I never really studied their info in the JTAS.

I just figured the Aslan were either lawsuit proof Kzin knock-offs, or artificials like the Vargr. My bad.

But just imagine a Da Vinci code conspiracy thing that sets out to prove they are ALL uplifts as the basis for a campaign adventure. It has potential.
 
I find the characterization of Aslan as "savage" being rather odd, and at the least, ill informed.

But the Aslan do not duel to determine leadership; they do so in lieu of civil litigation and tort enforcement. And many are not even fights, but challenges to other skills. At least in AM1 and S&A.

Quite honestly, the Aslan are samurai & lion hybrids, as presented. Nothing savage about it. A different mode of social law enforcement.

Fighting for leadership isn't my point. Using weaponless mano-a-mano physical fights as a core component of their societal order is. And, quite frankly, the Aslan fit. Even females are required to fight other females when honor is at stake. And, yes, it generally involves physically squaring off and duking it out. To their credit, at least it is to first blood, not death.

But I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of the Aslan, as that would take too long. I have way more issues with the Aslan than just their "might makes right" legal system.
 
Fighting for leadership isn't my point. Using weaponless mano-a-mano physical fights as a core component of their societal order is.

At the risk of sounding snarky, would it somehow be better if they used weapons? And if that system works for them, what is wrong with it? There are plenty of precedents in human history...you could even say that we carry ti to the ultimate extreme by posturing for and fighting wars.

I mean, c'mon, how many times has it been said that if the people in government had to be the ones to fight and die then maybe things would be a little more peaceful. Likewise, if you had a rigid social pecking order and knew that stepping out of line, or just being a jerk, might get you hurt or killed don't you thnk that would be a valid core value of a society? Oh yeah, we have had a lot of those here....so why not aliens doing it too?

Also, how do you do it in your universe?
 
Now, that I really don't understand. Surely somewhere in the vastness of Charted Space there are some HMRs that aren't savage?


Gruffty,

My piss poor prose style does it again. :(

Let me rewrite one sentence and make it more understandable. Instead of reading:

Not only are aliens "savage" but in Traveller Human Minor Races are "savage" too.

It should read:

Not only are TOO MANY aliens "savage" but in Traveller TOO MANY Human Minor Races are "savage" too.

My apologies for my "Type it at Warp 9" writing style. ;)


Have fun,
Bill
 
At the risk of sounding snarky, would it somehow be better if they used weapons? And if that system works for them, what is wrong with it?


Sabredog,

Because of a little something called: Might doesn't make right.

There are plenty of precedents in human history...

And none of those societies progressed worth a damn.

... you could even say that we carry ti to the ultimate extreme by posturing for and fighting wars.

That's a very faulty analogy. It's a matter of scale.

Sure, human societies fight wars and the "wrong" side can win in war. However, that's on a societal scale. The Aslan fight individually and continuously over any "slight" they can shoehorn into their honor code. They can even fight over facts.

I mean, c'mon, how many times has it been said that if the people in government had to be the ones to fight and die then maybe things would be a little more peaceful.

That statement is so false I don't even know where to begin. It's held to be true in college coffee bars, art exhibition opening nights, dorm room bull sessions, and other such places but any anthropologist would laugh himself sick when they heard it. Google "New Guinea" and "big man societies" for a quick primer on just how faulty that assumption is. There, the leaders (the "big men") fight and take most of the casualties.

Jared Diamond wrote a recent New Yorker article that touched upon the topic. While the New Guinea highlanders still engage in blood fueds and vendettas, they're slowly bowing to the need for a "court system" that doesn't involve physical combat. What's more, when pressed and in private, they admit to preferring the change.

Likewise, if you had a rigid social pecking order and knew that stepping out of line, or just being a jerk, might get you hurt or killed don't you thnk that would be a valid core value of a society?

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a rigid pecking order determined by one individual who has decided to attack you. That their interpretation of social norms is the only one that counts. And, because they happen to better at combat than you, they're now by definition "right". You could have centuries of precedence on your side, you could even have the truth on your side, but you're "wrong" because simply Bluto just stomped a mudhole in you. Does that sound "fair", does that sound conducive to anything resembling "progress' or "independent inquiry"?

Imagine that Newton, instead of simply proving it mathematically, had to physically beat his opponents into "believing" that the force of gravity is proportional to the inverse of the square of the bodies' distance. Now, imagine if Newton was unable to physically beat his opponents. What just happened to the theory of gravity? Do we have to wait until Bluto takes up Newton's cause and physically beats everyone into accepting it because there are no other mechanisms to resolve conflict short of combat?

Aslan society allegedly relies on continuous physical beatings. This is land mine because I beat you for it, and not because I hold title to it, paid for it, or anything like that. I will undertake Action A because my liege instructs me to do so and will either beat me or cause me to be beaten if I do not and not because it is "right". We will invest in Company B, not because our analysis suggest it provides the best chances, but because she who physically beat us says so.

Can you imagine a society built in such a manner achieving anything?


Have fun,
Bill
 
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding snarky, would it somehow be better if they used weapons? And if that system works for them, what is wrong with it? There are plenty of precedents in human history...you could even say that we carry it to the ultimate extreme by posturing for and fighting wars.

No, you are not being snarky.

Yes, actually, it would be better if they used weapons. And they don't even have to be swords or guns. They don't even have to be weapons. Maybe they have a dance-off.

Again, this isn't an indictment of any individual race. Not the Prox, not the Aslan, not the Vargr, not the Hhkar, nor any of the numerous MHRs. It is merely my observation that this type of culture has been done to death. Over and over and over.

Quite frankly, I like your Prox. Taken in isolation, they are a well thought out species that is internally consistent. However, despite that, my initial reaction is still, "Oh, another one of those ..." because on the surface, they are another example of such. Is that unfair? Probably. Am I correct? I don't know. I am just relating my observations.

Again, I don't have a problem with the violence. I don't have a problem with conflict resolution resulting in death. I do have a problem with "warrior cultures", weapon-less "mano-a-mano" duels, natural weaponry nastier than TL10 human melee weapons, "noble savage" cultures, and the like.

A couple of them is fine. But at this point, I have just been beat down by them.
 
Sabredog,Because of a little something called: Might doesn't make right.

Actually, historically, might has made right more often than you want to admit. Where shall I start...here's a good one: the American Civil War! That is a classic case in point - the North won, too. Only because they were the strongest, and because "Right" wasn't enough.

The American Revolution...again, the colonists had "fairness" on their side, but they still had to fight to get it to stick.

World War 2...I think that one's self evident.

Any number of civil wars or revolutions were the people had to resort to war to remove an oppressive government...the people were "right" but it took "might" to make it so.

See, its easy to throw out all kinds of platitudes and noises about how awful it is that the strong dominating the weak when the strong are wrong...but what about when the strong turn out to be right? Is it somehow more morally acceptable for the weak to use might to make their side dominant , even if the weak are "right"?

Before you get your knickers in a twist, let me assuage your fears that I missed your underlying point: that in an advanced civilization the big shouldn't get their way by forcing it on the small. It's not "fair."
Well, whoever told you life was fair in the first place? That's already starting from a rather idealistic and false premise.

And none of those societies progressed worth a damn.

Which societies? The ones in my examples (with the exception of the CSA) lasted a heck of a lot longer than most, and led the world in advancing the arts and sciences. Better than say, the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy.

That's a very faulty analogy. It's a matter of scale.

No its not, and scale is relative..I have been referring to territory and dominating power. Wars are fought (with very rare exceptions) over precisly both those issues and little else. As the man said, war is only an extension of politics. And politics are all about might makes right...even in a democratic society its the majority that wins and the rest just have to suck it up. You don't like that, well, I can sue you or try to pass a law to oppress you. Take your house, get you fired, whatever. Sounds even less fair

Sure, human societies fight wars and the "wrong" side can win in war. However, that's on a societal scale. The Aslan fight individually and continuously over any "slight" they can shoehorn into their honor code. They can even fight over facts.

We fight individually, too, and over facts. The ivory tower crowd knifes eachother over pet theories and politically correct nonsense all the time regardless of the facts. People take eachother to court over the dumbest things imaginable and in spite of the facts. Don't even get me started over the whole Global Warming thing and the academic and political melee surrounding that.

Besides, the Aslan are pretend aliens. They can do whatever they want in a pretend universe.

That statement is so false I don't even know where to begin. It's held to be true in college coffee bars, art exhibition opening nights, dorm room bull sessions, and other such places but any anthropologist would laugh himself sick when they heard it. Google "New Guinea" and "big man societies" for a quick primer on just how faulty that assumption is. There, the leaders (the "big men") fight and take most of the casualties.

Jared Diamond wrote a recent New Yorker article that touched upon the topic. While the New Guinea highlanders still engage in blood fueds and vendettas, they're slowly bowing to the need for a "court system" that doesn't involve physical combat. What's more, when pressed and in private, they admit to preferring the change.

Of course that old chestnut is laughable - that's why I used it, but I guess you couldn't tell because of my dry delivery. BTW: the reason the tribesmen in New Guinea are "bowing" to the new court system isn't because its better, its because they are being forced to. So once again might is making right.

And, yes the "big men" take the casualties - its ritualized combat so the casualties are lighter than anything "moderns" might inflict, and there isn't the sort of collateral damage to innocents and property one experiences in modern combat, but I guess the advantages to that are lost on you.

Believe it our not, once upon a time it was considered better, more honorable, to keep the casualties among the combatants and not the bystanders. It was when kings led the armies, and the ruling class fought, but we have "progressed" beyond such primitive behavior.

As a sidebar, if you actually read my posts you'd notice that the Prox do what they do, not by choice but because of biology enforced by tradition. And those traditions are changing as they interact more with other species. Just wanted to point that out, because it makes for an interesting thought experiment I have have been conducting in my RPG for the last 20 years, or at least since mastering in biology and psychology prior to my current career choice.

Here's a thought experiment.

By definination an RPG is a thought experiment, but go on...

Imagine a rigid pecking order determined by one individual who has decided to attack you. That their interpretation of social norms is the only one that counts. And, because they happen to better at combat than you, they're now by definition "right". You could have centuries of precedence on your side, you could even have the truth on your side, but you're "wrong" because simply Bluto just stomped a mudhole in you. Does that sound "fair", does that sound conducive to anything resembling "progress' or "independent inquiry"?

Weren't you earlier pointing out the lack of progress by civilized societies who do (or did) have independent inquiry and "fairness"?

Imagine that Newton, instead of simply proving it mathematically, had to physically beat his opponents into "believing" that the force of gravity is proportional to the inverse of the square of the bodies' distance. Now, imagine if Newton was unable to physically beat his opponents. What just happened to the theory of gravity? Do we have to wait until Bluto takes up Newton's cause and physically beats everyone into accepting it because there are no other mechanisms to resolve conflict short of combat?

No, we don't have to wait for him to smarten up, we get together and beat Bluto, preferably by dropping heavy objects on his head until he sees the logic in Newton's Laws.

Aslan society allegedly relies on continuous physical beatings. This is land mine because I beat you for it, and not because I hold title to it, paid for it, or anything like that. I will undertake Action A because my liege instructs me to do so and will either beat me or cause me to be beaten if I do not and not because it is "right". We will invest in Company B, not because our analysis suggest it provides the best chances, but because she who physically beat us says so.

Can you imagine a society built in such a manner achieving anything?

Maybe, but then that's the difference between you and me - I play a sci-fi RPG to experiment with these sorts of questions and you worry about if the internal logic of a game is consistant with the real world you live in. Even if that were not the case your world and mine differs vastly in reality, and in our personal views of how it ought to be if either of us was king. That's the beauty of an RPG like Traveller: we can set up our little kingdoms and let them run on however we want.

If someone wants Aslan, so what? Even if they are real, they are aliens after all, and they don't always have to make sense to humans. After all this discussion I finally read the Alien Module on them and while there are gaps and some weird aspects to them, they are internally logical - at least as much as is needed for a game. If I were to use them I'd probably have them enter into a period similar to the Enlightenment and se if they can survive as a society the turmoil of being forced to get past their savage ways.

Have fun, Bill

Oh, I am! :D
 
Last edited:
Also, how do you do it in your universe?

I just realized that I didn't answer your question. Actually, pretty much straight up.

I very much like the Vargr. They are fun. Also, while they are "dog-men" there is absolutely no pretension around them. They really are dog-men. Know that; use that; love that. I really do enjoy playing them.

The biggest thing I do with them is stress that fights for dominance can take any form. Sure, there can be the very occasional mano-a-mano fight, but that is nearly unheard of. And completely unnecessary. Most likely what will happen is that someone will simply attempt a usurpation and the followers will either up and follow the new guy or not. No fight; it just either happens or doesn't happen. The big difference with human cultures is that, to most humans, that is a mutiny. To the Vargr, that is a legitimate change of command.

The Hivers are fun, too. Again, not the CT-AM7 versions that have less depth than a cookie sheet, but the TNE/GT versions. They have a lot of nuance, are an acknowledged evolutionary anomoly, and openly duplicious (to the point of self-delusion). Most "manipulations" are straight up snow-jobs that have gained popular acceptance. They are a total mess, but they work out well that way.

The K'kree are used straight. They also have a lot of nuance once you realize their entire culture is self-defeating. However, they collectively refuse to address the issues, so they just march forward. As a character, I would avoid them like the plague they are, but from a referee and meta-game point of view, they are very workable and quite handy.

The Aslan. Ah, the Aslan. Well, they have lots and lots of problems. First, they are simply samurai cat-men, but, unlike the Vargr, we are supposed to be in denial about that. That is a conceit I just hate. Then, most (if not all) of these cultural things are supposed to be instinctual, but obviously they are not (including the "male lust for land"). They are simply cultural. Finally, we are told how their culture is supposed to work, but then they don't work that way in the OTU history.

I will flat out admit that the absolute worst part of working on 1248: Spinward States was dealing with the Aslan. Making them work was absolutely painful, and I was continually changing things right up to the end. (And I am not entirely sure they worked even in the end.) The fact that the only group portrayed in a positive light was the Fteirsyar should be extremely telling.

The Hivers, K'kree, and Aslan cultures all contain important deceptions. They all hide inconvenient things that don't want to be admitted. The difference is that for the Hivers and K'kree, it is the in-game Hivers and K'kree that engage in the self-deception. For the Aslan, it is the players that are expected to engage in the self-deception.
 
Last edited:
The Aslan. Ah, the Aslan. Well, they have lots and lots of problems. First, they are simply samurai cat-men, but, unlike the Vargr, we are supposed to be in denial about that. That is a conceit I just hate. Then, most (if not all) of these cultural things are supposed to be instinctual, but obviously they are not (including the "male lust for land"). They are simply cultural. Finally, we are told how their culture is supposed to work, but then they don't work that way in the OTU history.

I will flat out admit that the absolute worst part of working on 1248: Spinward States was dealing with the Aslan. Making them work was absolutely painful, and I was continually changing things right up to the end. (And I am not entirely sure they worked even in the end.) The fact that the only group portrayed in a positive light was the Fteirsyar should be extremely telling.

The Hivers, K'kree, and Aslan cultures all contain important deceptions. They all hide inconvenient things that don't want to be admitted. The difference is that for the Hivers and K'kree, it is the in-game Hivers and K'kree that engage in the self-deception. For the Aslan, it is the players that are expected to engage in the self-deception.

I have always had the same problem with them, but I admit that if the whole OTU was around when I first started playing I'd probably loved the Aslan. So would my friends playing in my game. After all, we were just a bunch of 14 and 15 year olds at a time when not even D&D had any support to speak of, let alone knowing anyone else who knew what you did with the initial 3 LBB's.

We had cats, dogs, lizards, snakes, spiders from outer space, holy toledo - just about everything imaginable as aliens. And they were mainly just for cannon-fodder anyway because that's how it was in the movies and books we grew up on. The Aslan would've fit right in.

As I grew up and my tastes and education (not to mention just plain common sense) advanced most of my aliens were reduced to weird, dangerous animal status and the intelligent ones were few indeed. And became far more interesting and detailed. I only have 4 major races, none OTU, and a few scattered minor ones that are the poor benighted heathen (a lot of Kiplingesque/ Exotic East flavors my campaign along the frontiers) forever condemned to "native" status because they didn't have the good fortune to "get there first". They live pretty much on their own worlds and the youth dream of someday leading their people to the stars.

In some cases this is too formidable a hurdle (like the dolphins in World of Ptaavs, Niven) because of the expense vs. return not penciling in for the "uplifting" race, or because of simple human or alien chauvinisms, which have sometimes made for interesting adventures when players play one side of the issue or the other.

The Prox are considered the most "primitive" of the major races, but only because they are the lowest tech. They have several large and powerful trading houses along the rim (the edge of the empires) and also do a lot of exploration work for the survey section of the scouts. They also hire out a lot of mercenary units (and privateer captains for the Trade Wars) which send significant portions of their income back to the homeworlds to help pay for research and education abroad for others in the society, and to help advance the race as a whole. I think of the Prox as my version of the 16th century Swiss landsknechts – the guys everyone wants but few can afford. They even use hovertanks so they are my poor imitation of Hammers Slammers. The other major races look down on them a little, and their disproportionate involvement in organized crime and piracy doesn’t help. But as I said before – territory and dominance can mean a lot of things and Prox do what they can for both.

The humans are humans. The Confederation recently collapsed into an Empire after the last war so they are going through a major societal change. Nobility and titles are coming into fashion and everyone is toadying to get one. Because my future history from the beginning had assorted cultures and races leave Earth to set up their own “perfect worlds” when the first jump drives (and some before that on slowboats) there is a lot of ethnicity to my human universe.

The Askorrians are the other major empire. A race of mammalian reptiles that have a natural caste organization that made for specialization among their types. Once they advanced to biogeneering these castes have been even further advanced, mainly in the warriors and subsets of that caste (pilots, navigators, etc.) so they are better tailored to the needs of their place in society. The leader caste became smarter, faster, ..Smarter anyway. They also clone humans to use as spies in the Terran Empire, a yellow-green lizard thing would be too obvious even in a trench coat and reading a paper. They see themselves as the masters of this part of the galactic arm and humans are first real challenge to that. Right now there is a sort of détente. Lots of good will tours and parties at trading stations. Kind of a Cold War feel. Askorrians have the problem of having such a enjoyment of combat being not just bred into their warrior caste (and it’s leader subset), but being part of their character as a race that they often forget that combat isn’t always the only, or best, option. They are learning, though.

The Casarans are the advanced (TL-16+) aliens who are disappearing from the area for some unknown reason and locking up their area of space. No one knows why and they aren’t talking. I don’t know why yet, myself, but I just want to get the players away from trying to trade for anti-matter power plants and such, and off in another direction to explore an unmapped area in space. The Casarans have always been benign, a wee secretive, friendly toward humans and others (even the Askorrians), and were always a good source of advanced tech. They are bipedal humanoid amphibians who look a little like a toad on two thick legs. They never had any warships or military that anyone saw, but they had the excellent survival trait of psionically eliminating themselves from your attention if you frightened one. That’s a steal from Gift from Earth, Larry Niven again.

The last are the Bandahar, TL-12 and counting, they are slightly smaller than humans. They began as tree-dwelling mammalian reptiles (they are from the same region as the Askorrians) with prehensile tails which they treat as just another manipulating limb. They also fought upon initial contact with the humans, but only because we shot first - everyone was a little trigger-happy back then because of initial encounters with the Prox had meant vanishing colonists until it was figured out. Because they are both so close (geographically) to Askorrian territory trade, and a bit xenophobic (they don’t like the idea of aliens traipsing about unsupervised on their worlds for various reasons) trade with the Bandahar is highly regulated and takes place at only a few places. Bandahar go back and forth a lot in their domains over the issue of opening their borders more, but it’s their choice to seal them. Bandahar ship crews often head out into open space to make it rich and then go home to eager buyers of alien tech, but trading with them is exasperating sometimes. They have a lot of rules about what can and can’t be brought home because of the fear of alien contamination. Kind of like 19th century Japan and prior to the Mejia Restoration. They are not as aggressive as the Askorrians in empire building aspiration; they are mainly trade oriented and really pretty peaceful little guys. They especially go nuts over new odors and spices.
 
Sabredog,

First, let me say that my comments were not directed towards your Prox. To be frank, I only skimmed those posts. Like Daryen I said to myself "Oh, another one of those..." and moved on.

Before you get your knickers in a twist, let me assuage your fears that I missed your underlying point: that in an advanced civilization the big shouldn't get their way by forcing it on the small.

Sorry, but you did miss my underlying point. In fact, you completely missed it. I'm not concerned over realpolitik between differeing societies, civilizations, and species. I fully expect those struggles to be nasty and "unfair".

What I was adressing were about day-to-day conflicts within societies. While "might makes right" works well enough on one scale, it fails utterly on another.

No its not, and scale is relative..I have been referring to territory and dominating power.

And I was referring to how a society works within itself day-to-day. In that case, scale is entirely relative. Day-to-day life in a "might makes right" society would be wholly Hobbesian. In the long run and without some form of a social contract, such a society would be too chaotic to progress. Parking tickets needn't always involve a punch in the nose.

Again, please re-read my original post. I referenced the Aslan and, by extension, all the other cookie-cutter "honorable warrior" or "noble savage" aliens and HMRs in Traveller. I've no opinion regarding the Prox because I haven't bothered to read about them.

Wars are fought...

Once again, I was not writing about wars. I was writing about day-to-day life within a society.

We fight individually, too, and over facts. The ivory tower crowd knifes eachother over pet theories and politically correct nonsense all the time regardless of the facts. People take eachother to court over the dumbest things imaginable and in spite of the facts. Don't even get me started over the whole Global Warming thing and the academic and political melee surrounding that.

And none of those arguments are decided on the basis of physical combat. That means all of those issues can eventually be re-examined regardless of the physical prowess of the participants. That allows for free and fair inquiry. Perhaps not free and fair all the time, but free and fair often enough to make a difference.

BTW: the reason the tribesmen in New Guinea are "bowing" to the new court system isn't because its better, its because they are being forced to. So once again might is making right.

Wrong. First, read Diamond's article and, second, visit PNG as both he and I have done. I've been to Irian twice for industrial projects. Generally speaking, those highland groups who have embraced the court system are those who are flourishing and those groups who cling to vendettas are not. The highlanders prefer a court system because they know it will (usually) produce fair results regardless of the participants stature and because it breaks the endless cycle of blood fueds and vendettas. That court system isn't being imposed on the point of a bayonet either. Lone officials trek into the back country, make rulings, and hike away unharmed because all parties know the rulings are "fair" and - more importantly - can use the ruling as an "excuse" not to begin a feud.

Believe it our not, once upon a time it was considered better, more honorable, to keep the casualties among the combatants and not the bystanders. It was when kings led the armies, and the ruling class fought, but we have "progressed" beyond such primitive behavior.

More fairy tales? Please. Try reading some actual history for a change. The slaughter of civilians was a normal part of war for millennia. It was only when societies tried to bring the conduct of war under a legal code that such activities were frowned upon. Please note that; it was only when certain aspects of war were brought under a "fair" conflict resolution system that killing non-combatants was frowned upon. In other words, people decided that in certain situations "might isn't always right".

As a sidebar, if you actually read my posts you'd notice that the Prox...

Once again, I didn't read the posts about the Prox because they didn't interest me. My post had to do with the implausible aspects of the myriad canonical "noble savage" species and HMRs and nothing to do with your posts. I'm not opining about the Prox because I haven't read anything about the Prox. We're on two "different" tracks within the same thread here, which I didn't make that clear in my original post.

By definination an RPG is a thought experiment...

Of course, throught experiments should be intellectually honest lest you end up with situations like D&D's randomly populated dungeons or hordes of "noble savage" species
flying starships.

Maybe, but then that's the difference between you and me...

The actual difference is that we're talking about two different things. You're defending your Prox and I'm talking about the implausible and boring nature of many canonical Traveller races.

... I play a sci-fi RPG to experiment with these sorts of questions and you worry about if the internal logic of a game is consistant with the real world you live in.

Those two views are not mutually exclusive.

If someone wants Aslan, so what? Even if they are real, they are aliens after all, and they don't always have to make sense to humans.

That's the trouble. They make too much sense to humans. They are too pat, too formulaic, too easy to grok. They should be alien and not samurai pizza cats.

Oh, I am!

Whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

However, and as I've repatedly pointed out, we're talking about to different topics. I've no opinion regarding your Prox or their plausibility. I wrote about the canonical races only.


Have fun,
Bill
 
So what do you do in YTU to make aliens alien enough?

And we still seem to just be flying past each other. I stuck with the Prox because I'm intellectually honest enough to use my own example rather than someone else’s choice. Others can do what they want with the Aslan or whatever; it’s their game so who am I to judge. I never used them because I couldn't suspend enough disbelief.

About your position that combat by legal proxy is somehow more fair and progressive than any other means let me point out that all that means is that the one controlling the law is the one that wins, whether by bayonet point or economic means. It makes no difference in the end to the one who loses merely because he can't afford the process. Regardless of the esteemed JD's and your travels and opinions of the "progress" made to uplift the PNG tribes, what is happening to them is a result of the sort on western intrusion JD declaims in Guns, Germs, and Steel. Yes, I have read it. Are really you really so naive as to believe that the authorities in the region wouldn't use force to impose the law upon those people? It’s the very nature of law that at some point force must be used to enforce it.

As for historical fairy tales: I have read history. I didn't say the ideal was the rule, I merely pointed out what was considered honorable when the ruling class was also a combatant. This idea of the ruling class fighting continued even into industrial society. I personally think it’s a good idea, but I'm a romantic. I also think dueling and the death penalty are good for a civilized society, and that if you are not willing to serve the community in some way then you shouldn't benefit from its wealth. These things leak into my RPG by way of aspects of the various alien species and their societies.

Personal responsibility shouldn't be something you can hide behind a lawyer. That is why I think the Aslan might be on to something. If your decision to force your will on someone else could have negative and immediate consequences to yourself then maybe it wouldn't happen as often as you think it does among even the samurai cats.

Regardless of all that, before we get too far off the thread (since it’s an interesting one), tell us who you run aliens in your TU and we'll go from there.
 
Last edited:
Let me see how many times I can flip-flop on this subject:

I agree with Whip; the canon alien species are very white bread but it's up to us as players and GMs to make them otherwise. I think the Alien Modules did as much harm as good by encapsulating only a small portion of what the 3I would know about their neighbors. And there are definitely details left out by the authors (no disrespect), and when included are totally ignored by players, that would help give the species more than just two dimensions.

But again, it's all about the game and the fun fleshing these species out in each of our TUs brings. MTU is very different from anyone else's here, but I know it better than the OTU, and getting me to stick to canon would require a team of non-domesticated equines.

I think the Alien Modules and other canon sources should be viewed as the common 3I human citizen's view of these species; providing easily understood human proxies for attitudes and behaviors. They are written as university papers, IISS reports, and the like. In no way should they considered the seminal work on the subjects.

That said, I find a black and white universe to be much easier to control. Of course, just as with humans, individual and state agendas will vary, but IMTU, I've purposely tried to keep these things simple so others can be complex. Again, I've consciously decided to prevent regular contact between the species, contact that would normally produce improved relations, so that strong racial stereotypes result. I really like the image of my players listening in on human ship captains and mercenaries gossiping about alien encounters, embellishing them with all sorts of misconceptions, half-truths, and out-right lies.

IMHO, there is great appeal to learning the truth about the universe a player is gaming in, particularly when the knowledge brings power that credits or equipment would not.
 
That said, I find a black and white universe to be much easier to control. Of course, just as with humans, individual and state agendas will vary, but IMTU, I've purposely tried to keep these things simple so others can be complex. Again, I've consciously decided to prevent regular contact between the species, contact that would normally produce improved relations, so that strong racial stereotypes result. I really like the image of my players listening in on human ship captains and mercenaries gossiping about alien encounters, embellishing them with all sorts of misconceptions, half-truths, and out-right lies.

IMHO, there is great appeal to learning the truth about the universe a player is gaming in, particularly when the knowledge brings power that credits or equipment would not.

Not to mention mysteriously vanishing colonists, ships found empty and adrift, and spooky physical evidence of somebody having been here. Here Be Tygers sort of events out in the dark unknown.
 
Sabredog,

How did I use aliens in my games? That depended on the alien. ;)

Broadly speaking Traveller's aliens fall into three general categories: "rubber suit" aliens, "somewhat alien" aliens, and "truly" aliens. All the Major Races, all of the Human Minors, and nearly all the non-human Minors fall into first two groups. The Aslan, Vargr, and Human Minors are in the first group with the Droyne, Hivers, and K'Kree in the second. Only a few canonical Minor Races fall into the third group.

If we sort Traveller's aliens by the ease in which they can be played as PCs and NPCs, they'll fall into the same groupings. That's the Achilles' Heel of any RPG alien; playability(1). If you present an alien species, most GMs and players will want to use that species as either a PC or NPC - regardless of whether they should or not. Simply put, the more a species and it's thought processes are non-human - the more they are alien - the more poorly suited they are as PCs and NPCs.

Dave Nilsen spoke the truth about this and was savaged for that truth (among other things). If you actually believe you can play an alien PC or NPC, you're lying to yourself. Make-believe is one thing, believing in make-believe is something else entirely. Using two gaming analogies here; the fact that I routinely win as the British in Afrika Korps doesn't mean that I'm a better general than Erwin Rommel and doing well in any one of the myriad first person shooter games doesn't mean you'll be able to lead a foot patrol in Iraq without getting your ass shot off and your squad butchered. Similarly, playing an alien in a RPG doesn't reveal anything but your human nature; no matter what you're still just a man in the rubber suit All this means is that Traveller is a game and we shouldn't read too much into it.

When "rubber suit" aliens appeared in my games, they were used in much the same way aliens are used in Star Trek; i.e they're essentially humans with plumbing supplies glued on their faces(2). The Vargr were somewhat flighty, easily influenced extroverts continually backstabbing and backbiting those above them and "peeing on the peons" below them while the Aslan were moody, touchy, grouchy, potentially violent paranoids constantly worried about "face" and constantly pretending ignorance of certain topics due to social taboos(3). In other words, the Vargr and Aslan were essentially human and their "psychology" was essentially human, albeit with certain aspects emphasized. While both were present as both PCs and NPCs in my games, fortunately IMHO, none of my players ever expressed interest in adventures or campaigns that featured either solely or in the majority.

When "somewhat alien" aliens appeared in my games, they appeared as NPCs only. Sometimes they were part of the plot on one level or another, but most times they were "scenery". Aside from the problems with actually playing a Droyne, Hiver or K'Kree, there are also "logistical" issues involved. While a Droyne sport can very plausibly be away from its oytrip(sic), the "reins" are short as it will eventually have to report back to its leader. While a lone K'Kree is by definition insane, besides also certainly being suicidal, and thus not the best candidate for a PC or even a long term NPC, a stable K'Kree is just one part of a huge family group containing dozens of members. While a lone Hiver outside of the Federation isn't rare at all, they'll usually have some sort of an entourage too - whether the entourage knows it or not. Too short a "leash" and/or too many "spear carriers" slows the game rapidly. When the Droyne, Hivers, or K'Kree had roles beyond that of "scenery", my players rarely worked "for" or "against" them. That is to say, while the PCs' "business" may have intersected or impacted whatever "business" the Droyne/Hivers/K'Kree had, the PCs' "business" was never the same as the aliens' "business". None of my players ever asked about playing either a Droyne, Hiver, or K'Kree and, if they had, I would have argued against it.

"Alien" aliens in my game was the kind of aliens I very much preferred because those aliens are easier to "fit" into the flow of the game. The role of these aliens in the game was that of an "event"; i.e the PCs would sight a sublight Jgd-il-jgd vessel or receive a wholly cryptic message from them that needed to be passed along to the authorities. These aliens were "events", very vaguely akin to rolling for an earthquake on a travel table. Sometimes the alien event was nothing but "scenery", sometimes the alien event held a clue, sometimes the alien event was simply unknowable. The last type was one of my favorites. I've always felt that things are too pat, too certain, in most RPG adventures. The PCs eventually learn all there is to learn. Adding a little mystery, especially mysteries that can't be solved and are never meant to solved, only adds to the "reality quotient" IMEHO. Let me spin you an example:

I've written several times about a fairly successful IISS active duty campaign I ran. I rolled up a stack of scouts in various points of their careers and had the players choose which character they wanted to play. The group of 4 to 5 then manned a scout/courier in the Trin subsector for 24 months of game time. What little "plot" there was involved the group's "captain" who wanted to be knighted; the PC had a SOC of 10 already, and his increasingly desperate attempts to make a big splash during his tour aboard the courier created lots of tension and plot hooks. anyway, they handled all sorts of odd jobs and then I threw the Jgd-il-jgd at them.

The first encounter was just an "event", just a little bit of "scenery" I set down to ginger things up a bit. The tuft hunting captain blew it all out of proportion naturally and began volunteering for missions that would give him better chances for more contact. I played along, having the same Jgd-il-jgd ship contact them a few more times and even allowing them to transfer some "trade" goods. The captain began trumpeting his "experience" in "contacting" the Jgd-il-jgd, so I pulled the rug out. He kept trying to interact with them, but their use for him (whatever it had been!) was now over. Eventually, I had them shoot at the courier to get the point across.

You will ask what was the "psychology" behind those encounters. The answer is: None. There were "events" I used to play into the captain's assumptions and mess with his goals(4). The Jgd-il-jgd did what they did. Period. There's no comprehensible "reason" for it because they're alien. There's no Jgd-il-jgd chargen or psych profiles or any of that rubbish. They're aliens. They first contacted the courier for alien reasons and most likely didn't even realize they were "talking" to the same courier later on. When the courier became annoying, they scared it off. There's nothing more to the story. It was alien, it was unknowable. (continued)
 
Back
Top