...the Imperium is a political entity, not a force of nature. Even if it has military power sufficient to convince many citizens that it must be merely accommodated, does not make it universally acceptable. There must be objections to it from people who see it as a contingent rather than necessary phenomenon. It is widely known that two Imperiums rose and fell before this third -- what makes it any different? What gives it the right to tell <insert world or subsector name here> what to do? The nobility and the megacorps are made up of people, replete with flaws and sins... surely some worlds must bridle under their rule?
Absolutely. There's the Ine Givar, to name a canonical example. And there's a world that is under Imperial Edict not to build its own navy. Presumbly that world is less than enamoured of the Imperium. But except for some worlds in the Solomani Rim, where the problem is the Solomani Cause, I can't think of any example where the problem is anything more than the Imperium's refusal to grant the world the freedom to attack its neighbors. In other words, purely pragmatic concern. The Ine Givar presumably has an ideology, but the authors deliberately didn't spell out what it was, except that they were anti-Imperium..
The 3I distinguishes itself from Imperiums past by allowing a great deal of latitude in the governance and practices of individual member worlds... but I imagine the central government must encourage and foster the adoption of Imperial norms on as many important worlds as possible. This is a question of security as much as it is a question of unity.
As long as the worlds pay their taxes and fulfil their obligations to the Imperium, I don't see that secuity is much of an issue. Having a lot of worlds with the
same non-Imperial culture would be a risk (as demonstrated by the Ilelish Revolt), but I don't think the Imperium would be much woried over individual planetary cultures. And the fact that there is a Vilani region and a Darmine region and a Lancian Region and an Antarean Region after 1100 years (and even an Ilelish Region 700 years after the Ilelish evolt was crushed) shows that the Imperium isn't doing much suppression of those planetary cultures.
That's not to say that if a GM wants an Imperium that actively attempts to suppress local planetary cultures and substitute an Imperial ditto, he can't select a duchy where the local duke (or his father or grandfather) decided that some of his worlds desperately needed a culture transplant and set about organizing just that. (I'm very much in favor of individualizing duchies).
And the effects of interstellar trade (and the open markets that the Imperium demands) must have a destabilizing effect on individual worlds' economies and cultures.
Destabilizing? If we can draw a parallel to the current globalization of national economies here on Earth today, ecenomic interdependency seems to increase economic stability. Unless, of course, a sizable part of the economy falters, in which case the dominoes may begin to fall. But America is a much bigger slice of Earth's economy than any single world would be of the Imperium's.
Even without abrogating their responsibilities as member worlds under the liberal rules of the Imperium, there must be some political factions that advocate greater integration and those that want less. This sometimes comes down to symbolic cultural issue -- for instance, a religious theocratic government may oppose the Imperium because they worship a false god (the Emperor.)
Absolutely. But I don't think that sort of thing will be an Imperium-wide phenomenon.
The Imperial political system is nominally feudal -- which is a cultural system, based on shared codes of honour and duty to ones betters.
The operative word there is nominal. It's not really feudal. It's more like the British Empire with hereditary governors.
The only meme for the Imperial nobility that I can recall in canon is
Noblesse Oblige. Which is about duty to ones subjects. I'd interpret that to mean that in exchange for being born to high position, one is obliged to do the job well.
This seems far removed already from "Old Terra Western Norms." If you want a liberal western empire, you're on the wrong side of the Long Night -- the Solomani had their chance, and they bunged it up.
I've always imagined that the UN Charter became the model for the constitutions of thousands of worlds and pocket empires -- including the Sylean Federation. However, the main reason why I want the Imperium to inculcate Western values in its servicemen, is that practically every adventure and anber zones assumes that those are the prevailing values. Even when the PCs are hired for antisocial activities, it's Western social mores they're supposed to violate.
How important is the notion of "fealty"? If you have a member world that is willing to trade and willing to obey Imperial law outside the system, but unwilling to swear fealty the interstellar noble hierarchy, topped by the Emperor, is this acceptable?
The member worlds may not be required to swear fealthy to the Emperor. They sign membership treaties with the Imperium, ceding certain of their sovereign rights to it. The people the Imperium sets to exercing those rights have to swear fealthy to him.
Military force, while it might seem to be a concrete thing (either you're blown up or you aren't) always has a cultural dimension... it is here that it finds its legitimacy. So too with economic preeminence. Does the Imperium bring down the boom to enforce cultural norms that legitimize its power and influence? How do worlds signal their independence even as they satisfy the cultural demands of the Imperium?
The only norm the Imperium really needs to enforce is that of keeping one's word. Combine that with a treaty and what else do you need?
Hans
