Chivalry and Traveller

[kafka47]

In thinking about my Solomani Rim Campaign, I always picture the Solomani the incarnate of proper manners and culture. From the klicking of the heels to the kissing of one's hands or cheeks, as these are customs carried down from old Terra. How much Chivalry exists in YTU given that OTU is premised upon feudal ideals, much of the 3I might carry this over.

 

[mbrinkhues]

I am not convinced that the 3I is build upon feudal ideals. They are IMHO more based on corporate upper management in the pre 1980s European or Japanese style rather than full feudal concepts. So the Emperor is the CEO of the top Zaibatsu and the Moot acts as some board of directors. This would also fit with the Vilanie influence.

OTOH portraing the Solomanie as the proverbial "gentleman" from the Victorian period makes for an interesting concept. Even more so as this would fit the "rasising to human level" concept of being you described in another topic

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I am not convinced that the 3I is build upon feudal ideals.

Michael,

I'm very convinced the Third Imperium is built upon feudal ideas, especially with regards to it's ideas of governence. The Imperium operates under the pre-1770s ideas of territorial supremacy instead of our modern political beliefs of territorial sovereignty.

What I'm also convince of is that feudalism doesn't equate chivalry. One doesn't necessarily mean the other.

Getting back to Kafka's suggestion. I can see certain cultures within the Confederation behaving as he suggests. Cultures are not limited to planets however. The SC Navy could have a culture among it's officers for instance.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[sgbrown]

Originally posted by kafka47:
In thinking about my Solomani Rim Campaign, I always picture the Solomani the incarnate of proper manners and culture. From the klicking of the heels to the kissing of one's hands or cheeks, as these are customs carried down from old Terra. How much Chivalry exists in YTU given that OTU is premised upon feudal ideals, much of the 3I might carry this over.

Guess we tend to make things in an image that suits us - I tend to see the Solomani party types as the Nazi's of the future. The party types are big on tradition and "old world" mannerisms, but they'll view legitimate convictions as suspect or contemptible if they conflict with the party line.

Outside of the areas ruled by the party, I see Solomani as the typical brash frontier's men - Aussie and North American type values with maybe a couple of other influences (not against other influences just don't know that much about them). These are independent folks that don't really stand much on tradition - values yes, traditions no. If they wanted "old world" tradition, they'd be in the party. If they just wanted tradition, they'd have been co-opted by the Villani culture (Tradition above all - even the party line?). Of course that's just the stereotype - individuals will vary tremendously.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I am not convinced that the 3I is build upon feudal ideals.

Michael,

I'm very convinced the Third Imperium is built upon feudal ideas, especially with regards to it's ideas of governence. The Imperium operates under the pre-1770s ideas of territorial supremacy instead of our modern political beliefs of territorial sovereignty.

What I'm also convince of is that feudalism doesn't equate chivalry. One doesn't necessarily mean the other.

Getting back to Kafka's suggestion. I can see certain cultures within the Confederation behaving as he suggests. Cultures are not limited to planets however. The SC Navy could have a culture among it's officers for instance.


Have fun,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]OTOH according to GT:Nobles the lines of fealty goes directly to the Emperor not a "Vassal of a Vassal". At the same time there is a line of communications through the ranks. The whole system resembles a modern military or corporation or the roman system more than a classic nobility. And since Cleon I was an industrialist

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
OTOH according to GT:Nobles the lines of fealty goes directly to the Emperor not a "Vassal of a Vassal".

Michael,

That's why I wrote "built upon feudal ideas" and not "accurately copied to the final degree".

Once the idea of territorial supremacy, a political idea associated with feudal governments, is applied to our canonical descriptions of the Imperium's practice of governance nearly everything falls into place.

It is our automatic assumption that governments enjoy territorial sovereignty, a post-1770s modern idea, that gets in the way of our understanding of the Imperium. A current thread on the TML illustrates this in spades.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Something to consider also is that cultures evolve over time. IMTU, the initial Third Imperium (Milieu 0) is more like a corporate feudal system in mannerisms and customs, much like the above mentioned zaibatsu example. During the Golden Age, the nobility was exiting a period of chivalric behavior and sliding slowly towards decadence (as demonstrated by the Rebellion Era). I assumed that the Third Imperium had gone through two 600-year cycles of high-chivalry/ethics to low-chivalry/ethics as a culture buy The New Era.

While I thought this out to make more sense out of the OTU, I've also gone away from it in order to provide interesting adventures for my players. As always, YMMV.

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I am not convinced that the 3I is build upon feudal ideals.

OTOH portraing the Solomani as the proverbial "gentleman" from the Victorian period makes for an interesting concept. Even more so as this would fit the "rasising to human level" concept of being you described in another topic

Ideals, Bill, not ideas in that we are both saying the same thing. However, sound the ideal is, it remains that as something to aspire to and strive toward not necessarily achieving them.

And, my Michael, my actual thought patterns were running around the Austrian-Hungarian ideal (especially of the latter) rather than the Victorian gentlemen. As their fascist movements were rather half-hearted and more influenced by kultur rather than revolutionary ideals, as they were in Germany premised on the destruction of the old to make way for the new order. Otherwise, a more conservative Nazism that borders on more on paternalism and authoritarianism.

 

[rogermccarthy]

I think the word Nazism is way too specific for this discussion - it really only applies to he 1933-45 German regime and movements that directly emulate it.

fascism (with a small f) is much more appropriate covering as it does a much wider range of ideas and movements - some of which were either ambivalent towards or even opposed to Nazism (many of the military and aristocratic plotters who almost killed Hitler on July 20th 1944 for instance could be described as small-f fascists).

However one key fascist element that is missing from the Solomani movement is a dictator figure - after all even the Spanish Falangists had Franco - and for this reason I think a soviet model is closer.

Probably the closest RW analogue would actually be the 'market-leninist' regime of present-day China which has an oligarchic party which monopolises political power but tolerates limited levels of internal and external dissent (check), a deeply nationalistic and xenophobic but not insanely expansionist or genocidal ideology (check), a pragmatic attitude to economic policy (check), a ruthless and powerful but not all-pervasive secret police (check) - and so on.

My Solomani Confederation would be much more based on the more successful and corrupt late-communist states like China or Vietnam than a full-on fascist or Stalinist regime with its fantasies of engineering the human soul and creating a New Man.

That is not to say that there are no fanatics or idealists in the party - only that at the confederation level they are kept in check by the cynics and realists.

However the Confederation is large enough and decentralised enough to have worlds that look a lot like 1984 or Equilibrium (and in fact there is no reason why such worlds can't exist within the Imperium as well).

Is there any room for 'chivalry' in that kind of society - none that I can see - in fact most Solomani probably regard the chivalric affectations of the Imperial nobility as another sign of its frivolity and decadence.

If the Solomani have a historical model it is far more likely to be the Terran Confederation of the Interstellar Wars than any pre-industrial Earth society.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
OTOH portraing the Solomanie as the proverbial "gentleman" from the Victorian period makes for an interesting concept. Even more so as this would fit the "rasising to human level" concept of being you described in another topic

Yes, this would definitely fit a more "White Man's Burden" type of paternalistic colonial racism rather than a genocidical "Pure Race" ideal. In such a model, the Solomani won't try to exterminate alien cultures, but rather to subjegate them and to put them under the proper "civilized" and "enlightened" rule of Solomani administrators (and, ofcourse, to open their worlds to full exploitation by Solomani corps). They'll definitely worship the old "Solomani Values" of the Family, the "proper" behavior, and of gallantry of the Victorian type. The Imperial propaganda machine, ofcourse, will spin-doctor these ideas into the familiar "Nazi Sollies" image, which would be very inaccurate. Not only would this false image help the Imperial war efforts against the Solomani, but would also help conceal the fact that the Imperium isn't that better than the Confederacy, and is actually worse in some fields.

EDIT: Ofcourse, the Confederacy is factionalized enough to have a genuinely fascist and ultra-racist wing of its party (the Hardliners) who, in extreme cases, might perform "ethnic cleansing", but the above would probably refer to most of the Confederacy except for a few worlds where the Ultra-Hardliners predominate.

EDIT2: here is a discussion of this subject on the Comstar board.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
OTOH according to GT:Nobles the lines of fealty goes directly to the Emperor not a "Vassal of a Vassal".

Michael,

That's why I wrote "built upon feudal ideas" and not "accurately copied to the final degree".

Once the idea of territorial supremacy, a political idea associated with feudal governments, is applied to our canonical descriptions of the Imperium's practice of governance nearly everything falls into place.

It is our automatic assumption that governments enjoy territorial sovereignty, a post-1770s modern idea, that gets in the way of our understanding of the Imperium. A current thread on the TML illustrates this in spades.


Have fun,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]What does territorial supremacy mean compared to territorial sovereignty?

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by alte:
I think the word Nazism is way too specific for this discussion - it really only applies to he 1933-45 German regime and movements that directly emulate it.

fascism (with a small f) is much more appropriate covering as it does a much wider range of ideas and movements - some of which were either ambivalent towards or even opposed to Nazism (many of the military and aristocratic plotters who almost killed Hitler on July 20th 1944 for instance could be described as small-f fascists).

However one key fascist element that is missing from the Solomani movement is a dictator figure - after all even the Spanish Falangists had Franco - and for this reason I think a soviet model is closer.

Probably the closest RW analogue would actually be the 'market-leninist' regime of present-day China which has an oligarchic party which monopolises political power but tolerates limited levels of internal and external dissent (check), a deeply nationalistic and xenophobic but not insanely expansionist or genocidal ideology (check), a pragmatic attitude to economic policy (check), a ruthless and powerful but not all-pervasive secret police (check) - and so on.

My Solomani Confederation would be much more based on the more successful and corrupt late-communist states like China or Vietnam than a full-on fascist or Stalinist regime with its fantasies of engineering the human soul and creating a New Man.

That is not to say that there are no fanatics or idealists in the party - only that at the confederation level they are kept in check by the cynics and realists.

However the Confederation is large enough and decentralised enough to have worlds that look a lot like 1984 or Equilibrium (and in fact there is no reason why such worlds can't exist within the Imperium as well).

Is there any room for 'chivalry' in that kind of society - none that I can see - in fact most Solomani probably regard the chivalric affectations of the Imperial nobility as another sign of its frivolity and decadence.

If the Solomani have a historical model it is far more likely to be the Terran Confederation of the Interstellar Wars than any pre-industrial Earth society.

Lots of interesting ideas here...

I had not really thought of the Confederation as a Market Stalinist regime...I guess the various pockets of democracy playing the role of Hong Kong or an absorbed Taiwan vis-a-vis China.

Liberty without the right of faternity and nominal equality of opportunity...

Whilst, the Solomani Party, is the only big player in that particular corner of Chartered Space, it is far from monolithic nor the only party on many worlds, therefore, nazism or even fascism does not apply which need to be one-party states. However, you want to dress it, they still remained fascists and fascism does strive to eliminate all oppoients to the one creed, whereas, in the OTU, the Cause is the unifying element.

The Cause, is the Solomani's Manifest Destiny, providing an illusion and a raison d'etre which is not so much as creating a new man but establishing the presence of Man amongst the Stars. As history's losers, they are determined to rebuild and fortify themselves against the 3I which for them represents a polyglot entity that dilutes the presence of Man akin to what Austrian Germans felt about their subjects who were not German speaking. However, in the process having to come up with many local compromises but as a way of ensuring a Solomani or more accurately a Terran image, they reproduce the same customs and cultures of old Terra hence the drift toward romanticism and chivalry.

 

[jatay3]

Guess we tend to make things in an image that suits us - I tend to see the Solomani party types as the Nazi's of the future. The party types are big on tradition and "old world" mannerisms, but they'll view legitimate convictions as suspect or contemptible if they conflict with the party line.

Outside of the areas ruled by the party, I see Solomani as the typical brash frontier's men - Aussie and North American type values with maybe a couple of other influences (not against other influences just don't know that much about them). These are independent folks that don't really stand much on tradition - values yes, traditions no. If they wanted "old world" tradition, they'd be in the party. If they just wanted tradition, they'd have been co-opted by the Villani culture (Tradition above all - even the party line?). Of course that's just the stereotype - individuals will vary tremendously.

Traditions differ. What if they have differing traditions from either group that they consider incompatable?

 

[Tellon]

In thinking about my Solomani Rim Campaign, I always picture the Solomani the incarnate of proper manners and culture. From the klicking of the heels to the kissing of one's hands or cheeks, as these are customs carried down from old Terra. How much Chivalry exists in YTU given that OTU is premised upon feudal ideals, much of the 3I might carry this over.

For the lil TU I have -- the main world happens to be a B877ADE-A, thus the nobility got the boot -- but the worlds, moons of the mainworld and systems beyond still has nobility -- and this chivalry (to a point)

Thenobility are on the board of directors of large corporations, heads of non-profits -- directors of government agencies -- and so on, so they continue to lead even from positions where people wouldn't expect them to be.

And they want thier *old* lands back -- so they have dealings on the old-world in order to slowly work towards thier goal -- lol

 

[jatay3]

I do have chivalry IMTU. It is premised more on eighteenth and nineteenth century ideas then on feudal ones per se. It is on the Spinward Marches not the Rim so this may be less applicable to this thread.

Servants of rival states have a Horatio Hornblower like courtesy toward one another when they are not busy killing each other. Exception's to this are those "beyond the pale" like pirates, terrorists, etc. Exactly where the line between worthy and unworthy opponent is, can be vague, but it is a safe bet that large states that can afford professional forces will behave "professionally" in that regard. There would be accepted face-saving gestures and so on and arrangements for ransom or exchange of prisoners of war.

On the Rim. I would say that this would apply between the Imperial and Solimani Navies as well though not to SolSec who are more sinister.

I also draw a distinction between frontier and Capital nobility. Capital nobility is more "refined" in bearing and frontier nobility would be "tougher". This would show in clothes, bearing, mores, and so on. For instance Navy uniforms might be more popular in Norris' court then Strephon's. In some ways Imperial frontier nobles would have more in common with their counterparts outside then they do with those at Capital.

 

[Cryton]

I do use several styles of chivalry IMTU:

For the Imperial nobility, I use a style similar to the 16-17th century, including a dueling code for ending diputes that can be at times fatal. They are very much the Nobility of a universe where territorial supremacy is fact. Those toward the core are more decadant than those at the frontiers, plotting and scheming more often as they have less external threats to worry about. Thats not to say there is no honor amongst them, just that they tend toward decadance more than the Frontier/Border Nobles. IMTU the frontier Nobles are a bit rougher around the edges, and more prone to act than plot than those of the core. They are the true "working" Nobility IMTU.

For the Solomani of the Sphere, while they lack a true noble class, they do practice a form of chivalry akin to that practiced during the Victorian Era. Gentleman adventurers and staunch defenders of the "Solomani Way" and Human superiority. As Golan2072 put it: "practicing a type of paternalistic colonial racism rather than a genocidical "Pure Race" ideal.", and yes, their extreamists are very "Nazi" like. It just works well for me, and the differences cause pleanty of conflict with the Imperials.

 

[jatay3]

The land of my Big Darned Heroes has some resemblances to Medieval Italy, with family loyalties and feuds and patronage webs amid a semi-republican system of government. It also has some resemblances to Scotland, as a clan can contain several extended families and hundreds of individuals. Aristocracy is based on training like Chinese Mandarins, or the German General Staff rather then on birth. Nepotism does play a part as by a quirk no one is allowed to pay their own tuition into an academy and therefore all must have a sponsor.

Interclan espionage is a stylized game, played to certain rules. It gets rougher when foreigners are involved or when two clans are having a feud or a trade war. But in between it is taken for granted. In one episode the Hero was being watched by the local IISS while in a coffeeshop. The hero made them so he took a picture then walked over to the window, waved to them, and held up his camera to rub in the fact that he had won that round.

Much depends on a shame culture and while there is no ritual suicide as such, nobles who disgrace themselves have been known to kill themselves.

Making to obvious a display of privilege is not done, though of course there are ways to show off.

They have a "rough" frontier noble air about them. Much of the ethos is tribal; not quite like mafioso for most are not criminals per se. Though when they are far from the government's protection many would not be averse to using vigilantism as a substitute.

Other analogies to the culture would be Vikings and Medieval Arabs. Except they are more urbanized then Vikings and less hierarchial then Medieval Arabs.

 

[Plankowner]

I have used the idea that IMOTU, Nobles do not lie.

It is a point of honor that as a noble, you never lie.

Referencing the Bene Gesserit of Dune and the Minbari of B5, you can do a lot by omitting certain parts or misleading someone without actually lying.

IMOTU, that shade of deception is perfectly acceptable provided the noble does not actually speak a falsehood.

It has worked very well for me with the few noble characters that have been in my games, it really adds a special dimension to the noble PC character; they have to be VERY CAREFUL when their character speaks.

It also added a bit more grayness with the Zhodani...

 

[jatay3]

I have used the idea that IMOTU, Nobles do not lie.

It is a point of honor that as a noble, you never lie.

Referencing the Bene Gesserit of Dune and the Minbari of B5, you can do a lot by omitting certain parts or misleading someone without actually lying.

IMOTU, that shade of deception is perfectly acceptable provided the noble does not actually speak a falsehood.

It has worked very well for me with the few noble characters that have been in my games, it really adds a special dimension to the noble PC character; they have to be VERY CAREFUL when their character speaks.

It also added a bit more grayness with the Zhodani...

The way I handle that is:

It is accepted and laudible to deceive a rival who knows you are trying to do so in a context where deception is considered acceptable(sports, war, politics) because that shows your skill.

It is not accepted to deceive someone in a context which depends on trust(trade or sophant relationship).

A lie is defined primarily as taking advantage of someones trust. Where someone is not being expected to trust you(again in that specific context; they may trust you on normal occasions) it is different.

Stratagems are laudable. Merely lying in your speech is not for two reasons. For one thing it is childish and inelegant. One should deceive with style. The second is that the act of communicating can be considered a sign that trust is restored. Thus The Man Who Never Was was an honorable deception because it had been done with style. The Frenchman who captured a bridge in the Napoleonic wars by coming under a white flag and telling the Austrians that peace had broken out, was just being uncouth. As you point out, when you can mislead someone without "actually lying", where's the fun in lying. IMTU deceptions are expected to be elegant and to make a good yarn.

Among the variations of this are that it is considered fine to deceive a business competitor(by letting his agents think the really good market you found was on a different planet for instance). It is not fine to attempt to deceive a partner in a contract(by letting him think your product was better then it is). Another is that the use of moles is looked upon with jaundiced eye, because moles, unlike ruses, threaten another faction's in-group loyalty and trust and loyalty is one of the most valued of virtues. If you are going to accept treachery from someone else's brother who knows where that will lead. IMTU they would have thought Fredo Coreleone got exactly what he deserved. Of course moles are still used and quite widely(disapproval of them is by nature unenforceable). But it is theoretically not held in high favor.

And finally it is not honorable to deceive members of your in-group. Nor is it laudable to deceive except to protect the In-groups interests. Protective missions like war or police work justify deception, productive missions like trade don't(I got that point from Jane Jacobs' Systems of Survival). Where there is confusion between the two types of missions the sages can argue. An exception to this is of course sport. Poker players are allowed to deceive each other within the rules because that is the point.

IMTU

 

[Murph]

I disagree, I see the Solomani as more the "Old South" with levening of Upper Crust British Colonial paternalism as Golan stated, with some small-f fascist like Benny the Moose and his Italian fascist party. I also see the Solomani Upper crust, and middle class wannabes as "Victorian" in manners, and outlook to some extent. I see the leaders all being from similar schools in a sort of "Old school tie" sort of event. But then again, I LIKE the Solomani.