Wilds Government Codes

[LeperColony]

Well, remember, origin of government already existed under the old Gov Code. TED replaced Captive Government/Colony, which implied that the government was in the hands of outsiders. All I've really done is used TED to mean "Captive Government sustained through the use of relic technology."

To me, the real difficulty isn't the comment under Totalitarian Oligarchy, though that is a problem. Rather, it's the table the errata adds for TED type, because all the types listed on that table are also on the ordinary Gov chart, and many of them are of the kind that you can see being sustained by relic technology, thereby reducing the distinction between TED X and X with Tech to nothing. Dispensing with the table from the errata would be a solution, I suppose.

I agree with you that the government types are not always clearly delineated sufficiently, which is why I insist so strongly on being able to define unique characteristics of each gov code. Admittedly, in some instances I might have to go outside the strict letter of the wording to find the right inspiration, but all in all I feel it works.

 

[rancke]

Well, remember, origin of government already existed under the old Gov Code. TED replaced Captive Government/Colony, which implied that the government was in the hands of outsiders.

No, it implies that after the Collaspe there are no more captive governments, so the code is available for something else. After all, the fact that government type 7 has been changed from 'Balkanized' to 'Mystic Dictatorship' presumably doesn't imply that balkanized worlds turned into mystic dictatorships during the Collapse. Or civil service bureaucracies into totalitarian oligarchies, impersonal bureaucracies into mystic autocracies, and so on and so forth.

All I've really done is used TED to mean "Captive Government sustained through the use of relic technology."

But there isn't a captive government to be sustained. A captive government is run from offworld, which is a tad hard to do without starships.

I agree with you that the government types are not always clearly delineated sufficiently, which is why I insist so strongly on being able to define unique characteristics of each gov code. Admittedly, in some instances I might have to go outside the strict letter of the wording to find the right inspiration, but all in all I feel it works.

In the end that's all that matters.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

No, it implies that after the Collaspe there are no more captive governments, so the code is available for something else. After all, the fact that government type 7 has been changed from 'Balkanized' to 'Mystic Dictatorship' presumably doesn't imply that balkanized worlds turned into mystic dictatorships during the Collapse. Or civil service bureaucracies into totalitarian oligarchies, impersonal bureaucracies into mystic autocracies, and so on and so forth.

Sorry, failed my English roll there. What I meant was that Captive implied that government was in the hands of outsiders. I was just reinforcing my point that there was already a government code that took origins into account, in answer to your statement that you didn't like a government code being distinguished on the basis of the origin of the rulers.

I'm sure we can all imagine different administrative forms a Captive government might take, but it's the foreign nature of it that makes it Captive.

 

[rancke]

I was just reinforcing my point that there was already a government code that took origins into account, in answer to your statement that you didn't like a government code being distinguished on the basis of the origin of the rulers.

Before the Collapse, a government code 6 took the current state of affairs into account: The government is dictated by people from offworld. It had nothing to do with historical factors. Offworlders: Captive Government; locals: not captive government (Though to complicate things a bit, a local government could be a code 6, because that code was used for two different government types, Captive Government and Military Junta).

I'm sure we can all imagine different administrative forms a Captive government might take, but it's the foreign nature of it that makes it Captive.

After 70 years of no appreciable interstellar contact, everyone are local. There is no such thing as a government dictated from offworld at the beginning of the New Era.


Hans

 

[shield]

Just my take, but I always considered a TED to be a single absolute ruler (with henchmen) who rules through the power of relic weapons.

A TO is a ruling group of individuals or families of approx equal power (something like powerful noble houses). They jockey amongst themselves for power / advantage, but will joint together to crush threats to the system. As the most powerful / rich people they have access to the best tech (something like the european nobles pre gun-powder, only they could afford to outfit knights etc, and provide for them when they trained). The TO families will have access to vital tech i.e. they would hold the dam / water sources on a desert world, or the only filter mask factory and a world with a tainted atmosphere. Tech does not have to be relic but it helps.

A FT is essentially a voluntary govt, where the people put the experts in charge. Ministry of power is run but the power plant operators etc. I always assumed that the general public could apply to enter any of the various tech specialist groups based upon their school grades / training, provided there was an opening. High law level versions might reduce entry options. As it is a voluntary arrangement, if one power plant group didn't perform well, they could be replaced by another power plant specialist group

 

[Starviking]

I thought it just meant that the planet was populated, in the wilds, and not aligned with any organization.

It also indicated that the Wilds Government Table, p191 TNE Mark 1 Mod 1, was to be used - thus negating the need to define TED governments in standard Traveller terms.

Do you have the Mark 1 Mod 1 version of the rulebook or the earlier one?

Maybe I don't understand the implications fully, but why would that fix things, or provide TED with a clear distinction from other technology based governments?

The TED is defined by the Wilds govt. table as: A leader holds power by virtue of caches of technologically advance weapons.

In addition Path of Tears gives on page 29: The term used for the many planetary warlords scattered through the former Imperium in 1200. They derive their power from the possession of a small number of relic weapons with which they terrorise their populations.

The Totalitarian Oligarchy is defined on the World Government table, p188, as: Government by an all-powerful minority which maintains absolute control through widespread coercion and oppression. The Wilds table adds "often by use of pre-Collapse technology"

The Feudal Tecnocracy is defined only on the World Government table (and thus not applicable in the Wilds): Government by specific individuals for those who agree to be ruled. Relationships are based on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial

In summary:

TED - Rule by terror, by a small group dependent on relic weapons

TO - Rule by coercion and oppression, by a minority - who may use relic
technology, but whose power is not dependent upon it.

FT - Rule by agreement, controlled technology provides mutual benefits.

For modern-day analogues TED: Taliban-esque, TO: Stalin's Soviet Union, Pinochet's Chile, FT: Japan.

Hope that helps.

 

[LeperColony]

Before the Collapse, a government code 6 took the current state of affairs into account: The government is dictated by people from offworld. It had nothing to do with historical factors. Offworlders: Captive Government; locals: not captive government (Though to complicate things a bit, a local government could be a code 6, because that code was used for two different government types, Captive Government and Military Junta).

A Captive Government is merely one where "Ruling functions are performed by an imposed leadership answerable to an outside group. A colony of conquered area." TEDs are essentially military juntas (though does a TEDs technological stranglehold have to be military? Can it be resource, like air purification on a lousy world, or something else?) who rule through virtue of relics.

After 70 years of no appreciable interstellar contact, everyone are local. There is no such thing as a government dictated from offworld at the beginning of the New Era.

Local and native aren't really the same thing though. Before the rise of nationalism, it took far longer to assimilate, and there are examples of ruling classes subverting others and remaining culturally, socially, and politically distinct for long periods, far longer than 70 years.

Norman England is a good example. It would take over 100 years for the Norman kings of England to consider themselves "English" in the sense we might accept as a personal identifier. Virtually the entire political establishment saw the ejection of one group (anglo-saxons and, in the NE, danes) in favor of Normans. For all intents and purposes, it was a Captive Government.

To say that a Captive Government requires starships and multiple systems is, in my opinion, much too narrow. Planet A conquers Planet B and installs Administrator X, a native of A, as the leader, who rules as a dictator without recourse or further instruction (though left with sufficient military strength to hold the world, the military is answerable to X) to Planet A, who never bothers with B again. To you is that Gov 6?

Then, X's son, Y, succeeds his father as dictator. He is raised in the culture of A, has friends descendant from A, and rules in the manner consistent with A political ideology. Since his soldiers are also from A or descendents of A, they are all socially and culturally distant from natives of B, who have no input in government and are ruled by the sword. Is this gov 6, or is it for you the case that the minute someone is born on world, they can never head a captive government there?

 

[rancke]

A Captive Government is merely one where "Ruling functions are performed by an imposed leadership answerable to an outside group. A colony of conquered area."

So? When applied to a world government, 'outside' means 'offworld'. Note the key word of that definition: 'Answerable'.

TEDs are essentially military juntas...

Wrong. A TED is a dictator. A junta is a junta.

Local and native aren't really the same thing though. Before the rise of nationalism, it took far longer to assimilate, and there are examples of ruling classes subverting others and remaining culturally, socially, and politically distinct for long periods, far longer than 70 years.

In which case BOTH groups were native. The ruling class didn't keep in power because it was supported from outside.

Norman England is a good example. It would take over 100 years for the Norman kings of England to consider themselves "English" in the sense we might accept as a personal identifier.

But it only took them a few minutes to consider themselves not ruled by anyone living in Normandy.

Virtually the entire political establishment saw the ejection of one group (anglo-saxons and, in the NE, danes) in favor of Normans. For all intents and purposes, it was a Captive Government.

No. William wasn't answerable to anyone outside his kingdom. That made him a local ruler.

To say that a Captive Government requires starships and multiple systems is, in my opinion, much too narrow.

It doesn't. But a captive world government does indeed require someone offworld to be answerable to.

Planet A conquers Planet B and installs Administrator X, a native of A, as the leader, who rules as a dictator without recourse or further instruction (though left with sufficient military strength to hold the world, the military is answerable to X) to Planet A, who never bothers with B again. To you is that Gov 6?

No. It's Gov A. It's not answerable to Planet A.

Then, X's son, Y, succeeds his father as dictator. He is raised in the culture of A, has friends descendant from A, and rules in the manner consistent with A political ideology. Since his soldiers are also from A or descendents of A, they are all socially and culturally distant from natives of B, who have no input in government and are ruled by the sword. Is this gov 6, or is it for you the case that the minute someone is born on world, they can never head a captive government there?

Now it's Gov B.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

So? When applied to a world government, 'outside' means 'offworld'. Note the key word of that definition: 'Answerable'.

There's nothing that requires "outside" to mean "offworld." A foreign group that is not answerable to the native populace is just as "outside." There's a reason why it says "outside" and not "offworld."

Traveller gov codes clearly provide some information regarding the native or non-native state of government, which was your first issue, since you didn't like any government code that relied on the necessity of it being run by foreigners.

Now you're attempting to equate one scenario of Captive Government and assign it to all Captive Governments everywhere. So long as the government is run by a group distinct and separate from the native population, the government is Captive, because it is run by outsiders.

Answerable may mean that they are literally accountable in a hierarchical manner. But it can easily also mean that they are answerable in the sense that they require the explicit or tacit approval of that outside group. If a band of soldiers crashes on Planet A and the commanding officer declares himself king, he is "answerable" to his soldiers in the sense that they can remove him from power, and those soldiers are an outside group. This is a government every bit as captive as a planet that is conquered by another planet.

Wrong. A TED is a dictator. A junta is a junta.

Many TEDs are juntas, or at least originated from juntas. Given that many would also be descendant from old Army units, it wouldn't be a huge surprise to learn that many still organize themselves in some semblance of military hierarchy.

Besides, a TED can be many things, and not necessarily a dictator (despite the acronym). An Oligarchy is not a dictatorship.

In which case BOTH groups were native. The ruling class didn't keep in power because it was supported from outside.

The ruling classes maintained power precisely because they were supported from outside. The Normans, the Norse, the Romans, the Byzantines, France and the Hapsburgs in Italy, all these powers were involved in distant conquests of prolonged duration during which they supplied a leadership caste that never assimilated locally.

I agree that native can mean nothing more than "was born here." In that sense, anyone born on a planet is a native of that planet. But in another sense, of greater importance from a political and social standpoint, if you don't assimilate you are never really native.

The Byzantines encountered the same problem during the struggle to hold Anatolia. If someone embraced Orthodox Christianity, spoke Greek, and wore Byzantine clothes, they were a Byzantine even if they were new. But if you retained your old religion and remained separate, you were foreign even if you had lived in Byzantine territory for generations.

But it only took them a few minutes to consider themselves not ruled by anyone living in Normandy.

If knowledge of the identity of local government was enough to dispel Captive Governments, then only blind, deaf and mute planets could be captively ruled.

At any rate, it is irrelevant whether or not the people considered themselves ruled from Normandy. What matters is that they considered themselves ruled by Normans.

To you, if I become dictator of California and conquer Nevada, Nevada is Captive so long as I remain on the CA side. But once I cross the state line, Nevada is no longer Captive. Does that make sense? What if I keep crossing the line every five minutes. Does each state keep swapping to Captive and not?

To me, if I conquer NV with CA troops, install a government run on CA lines by CA people, then that government is captive because it is led by outsiders, whether or not I am in the state of Nevada.

No. William wasn't answerable to anyone outside his kingdom. That made him a local ruler.

William was answerable to many people outside his kingdom. Just because there is nobody above him doesn't mean he doesn't have to answer to them. Congress answers to the American people, even though the people are not above it on a nested chart of government hierarchy.

In fact, William and his successors were not only answerable to his Norman and French barons, they were in constant strife with them. William, Henry II, Richard I, three of the most famous and effective middle ages kings of England died in France dealing with French issues.

It doesn't. But a captive world government does indeed require someone offworld to be answerable to.

So if martians conquer all of Earth except Fiji and install a government covering the same, they don't need offworld administration to be Captive, but if they then conquer Fiji, they do need to?

There's no reason for that distinction except to have it. Which, to be sure, is fine if that's what you want. But the fact is, there are many ways to be answerable to an outside group than to have to report to the Colonies Department of Planet A.

No. It's Gov A. It's not answerable to Planet A.

No it isn't. X doesn't enjoy the confidence of the citizens. Or of anyone, for that matter, aside from his soldiers, who are also from A.

Now it's Gov B.

Only if the former government is A (which it isn't), and if Y succeeds through the normal channels. What are the normal channels? B has been conquered. The channels are whatever X says they are, who is an outsider not answerable to the natives of B. That is the very definition of Captive.

 

[rancke]

There's nothing that requires "outside" to mean "offworld."

Except that if it isn't offworld, it isn't outside of the world.

A foreign group that is not answerable to the native populace is just as "outside." There's a reason why it says "outside" and not "offworld."

And the reason is that on a balkanized world, you can use Gov code 6 to indicate a country that is being governed by someone appointed by another country on the same world. That other country would be 'outside' but not 'offworld'.

Traveller gov codes clearly provide some information regarding the native or non-native state of government, which was your first issue, since you didn't like any government code that relied on the necessity of it being run by foreigners.

It's not at all clear. To the contrary, I think it's clear that they don't provide such information.

Now you're attempting to equate one scenario of Captive Government and assign it to all Captive Governments everywhere. So long as the government is run by a group distinct and separate from the native population, the government is Captive, because it is run by outsiders.

What you're describing is captive populations, not captive governments.

Do you have any evidence to support this interpretation of yours? Any canonical examples of worlds with Gov Code 6 that are run by invaders from outside who are not answerable to anyone?

(And before you ask me the return question of whether I have any evidence myself, look below. I do.)

Many TEDs are juntas, or at least originated from juntas. Given that many would also be descendant from old Army units, it wouldn't be a huge surprise to learn that many still organize themselves in some semblance of military hierarchy.

The 'd' in TED stands for dictator. If it had stood for junta, it would have been a TEJ.

Besides, a TED can be many things, and not necessarily a dictator (despite the acronym). An Oligarchy is not a dictatorship.

Nor is it a TED.

The ruling classes maintained power precisely because they were supported from outside...

Since we appear to have read different history books, I'll leave this tangent of the discussion alone.

If knowledge of the identity of local government was enough to dispel Captive Governments, then only blind, deaf and mute planets could be captively ruled.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

At any rate, it is irrelevant whether or not the people considered themselves ruled from Normandy. What matters is that they considered themselves ruled by Normans.

The Saxons were ruled by Normans. But the Normans answered to William and William didn't answer to anyone. The Saxon part of the population may have been a captive population, but William wasn't a captive king. Hence Norman England is not an example of a captive government. Government <=> Population.

To you, if I become dictator of California and conquer Nevada, Nevada is Captive so long as I remain on the CA side. But once I cross the state line, Nevada is no longer Captive. Does that make sense? What if I keep crossing the line every five minutes. Does each state keep swapping to Captive and not?

If I stay in California and appoint a Viceroy of Nevada, then the government of Nevada is a captive government. If I move to Nevada to govern it myself and someone else takes over as Dictator of California, then Nevada is no longer a captive government.

So if martians conquer all of Earth except Fiji and install a government covering the same, they don't need offworld administration to be Captive, but if they then conquer Fiji, they do need to?

No. Earth would be Code 7, balkanized. Fiji would be whatever government Fiji has and the nation known as Everything Else would be run by a captive government answerable to the Martian High Command.

There's no reason for that distinction except to have it.

The reason to have it is that it's a pretty big distinction with potentially tremendous impact on the process of government.

Which, to be sure, is fine if that's what you want. But the fact is, there are many ways to be answerable to an outside group than to have to report to the Colonies Department of Planet A.

True, but from the evidence they mostly don't get labeled Gov Code 6. Lots of worlds are answerable to megacorporations, but they get Gov Codes 1. The Border Worlds are free and sovereign members of the Border Worlds Confederation, not a Gov Code 6 in sight; they just all happen to have advisers appointed by the Imperial Border Worlds Commission that they listen to a lot.

Let's have a look at the type 6 governments in the Spinward Marches in 1117 (courtesy of the Regency Sourcebook):

Errere (0103)          Owned by Chronor
Ninjar (0608)          Owned by Chronor
Indo (0703)            Owned by Nerewhon
Cipango (0705)         Owned by Chronor
Rushu (0215)           No owner
Uniqua (0129)          Owned by Garoo
Engrange (0425)        Owned by Ilium
Wonderay (0340)        No owner
Karin (0534)           No owner
Gohature (0632)        Owned by Iderati

Ralhe (0731)           Owned by Iderati
Ochecate (0837)        No owner
Chwistyoch (0904)      No owner
Zircon (1110)          Owned by Arden
Utoland (1209)         Owned by Arden
Foelen (1401)          Owned by Farreach
Garda-Vilis (1118)     Owned by Vilis
Calit (1515)           Owned by Denotam
Tarkine (1434)         Owned by Dallia
Elixabeth (1532)       No owner

Talchek (1631)         Owned by Elixabeth
Mille Falcs (1637)     No owner
Jenghe (1810)          Owned by Regina
Treece (2311)          Owned by Inthe
Melior (1736)          No owner
Egypt (1737)           No owner
Weiss (1934)           Owned by Glisten
New Rome (1938)        Owned by Glisten
Jae Tellonae (2814)    No owner
Kegena (3016)          Owned by Bevy

Powaza (3220)          Owned by Tacaxeb
Mercury (2624)         No owner
Brodie (3021)          Owned by Powaza 
Burtson (2534)         Owned by Squanine
Keltcher (2639)        Owned by Robin
Farquahar (2839)       Owned by Dodds
Katarulu (3032)        No owner
Youghal (3039)         Owned by Trin
Zephyr (3138)          Owned by Youghal

So 27 out of the 39 worlds with Code 6 governments in the Spinward Marches in 1117 are colonies belonging to other worlds. Of the remaining 12, there's no canonical evidence (unless you accept Behind the Claw as canonical; see below) for what their governments are. For all we know they could all be military juntas or apponited by interstellar governments (Imperium and Consulate).

Now, if you do accept BtC, we do have some additional information:

Rushu: Missing from the book.
Wonderay: Owned by Aslan clan Aokhalte
Karin: Military governor appointed by the Admiral of the 208th Fleet
Ochecate: Governor appointed by Mewey
Chwistyoch: Zhodani military governor
Elixabeth: Dictator appointed from Forine
Mille Falcs: Imperial navy governor
Melior: Run by Imperial Colinial Office
Egypt: Run by Imperial Colonial Office
Jae Tellonae: Run by Imperial Navy
Mercury: Run by Imperial Navy
Katarulu: Military (Imperial Protectorate)

From the available evidence it could be argued that the canonical definition is actually too lax; government code 6 seems to be reserved for governments appointed by outsider governments, not just any old outsiders. But be that as it may, in all of the examples here the gov code 6 government is answerable to offworld authorities. There may be other examples where this is not the case, but if so, I'm not aware of them.


Hans

 

[Starviking]

Wrong. A TED is a dictator. A junta is a junta.

I think we have to be careful defining things concretely in Traveller, especially when official designations can have a lot of leeway.

If we look at a Junta, we could define it as a Charismatic Oligarchy, if it has popular support, a Charismatic Dictatorship - if there is one supreme leader, or a TED if it depends on the tech it has to maintain power. I'm sure there are many more govt. code variations possible.

Note also that the Colony/Junta code 6 is assigned to TED in the Wilds and not available for Junta. Also, some TEDs do have military ranks in TNE - Colonel Boukart of Eloji in Smash and Grab and General Lazsczansk of Nex in Path of Tears come to mind. Are these people truly sole dictators, or do they have to rely on the support of the leaders of the other military services? Who knows?

EDIT The Eloji Dictator is just that, Wilds Govt Code 4: Charismatic Dictator.

 

[JustinInOz]

With respect to Junta-Dictator differences I think it is important to look at the two words. A dictator is singular. It is a person that rules by giving orders and is answereable to no one else. The dictator does not have to consult anyone to govern. In the case of Traveller the TED derives the power behind their dictates by monopoly of access to or implied threat of old tech.

Junta is a Spanish word that has come into an English context through Military Juntas in Latin America. I am very happy for someone to challenge my asertions with respect to how the word came into English. Junta in Spanish means "joined". The word in Spanish for "Board of Directors" as in the group which governs public companies, is Junta Directoria. A junta is a body of people who make decisions together. They answer to each other.

I think that it is a mistake to conflate these two terms. They have very different meanings. I understan what you mean when you say that traveller uses government terms in different ways. For example a junta might be a group of merchants instead of military men. As an example I would argue that Venice in the 13th century was governed by a Junta of Merchants. Both Guatemala in the 80s and Venice would fit the definition of Junta, though they were quite different governments. It would be a mistake to call any of them a Dictatorship.

 

[rancke]

If we look at a Junta, we could define it as a Charismatic Oligarchy, if it has popular support, a Charismatic Dictatorship - if there is one supreme leader, or a TED if it depends on the tech it has to maintain power. I'm sure there are many more govt. code variations possible.

Note also that the Colony/Junta code 6 is assigned to TED in the Wilds and not available for Junta. Also, some TEDs do have military ranks in TNE - Colonel Boukart of Eloji in Smash and Grab and General Lazsczansk of Nex in Path of Tears come to mind. Are these people truly sole dictators, or do they have to rely on the support of the leaders of the other military services? Who knows?

A government code is a label. There's only a very limited number of different labels to choose from. Sometimes it blindingly obvious which one is appropriate. Sometimes it's very much not obvious. If you have an officer surrounded by a bunch of other officers, it may be one decision-maker assisted by a staff or it may be a council of decision-makers able to outvote the chairman. It may be difficult to figure out which it is; sometimes mistakes may even be made. But IF it is a lone decision-maker, it's a military dictator and not a junta; contrarywise, if it's a council, it's a junta and not a dictator.

It's not about having to rely on other people. All governments have to rely on the support of people outside the government. It's about the decision-making process. Who has a say and how much of a say? And a important thing to keep in mind is that there are more different ways to organize a government than there are labels to describe them, so occasionally you have to use one that's a poor fit, but the best available.

Take a billionaire who pays a bunch of mercenaries to invade a small country and make him President-for-Life. What government code should his government be assigned? It's not a captive government, because as long as his money holds out, he doesn't answer to anyone. It's not a Code A, because the people think he's a stinker. And it's not a Code B, because he didn't inherit the post. But none of the other codes match at all. What's a poor Scout Survey Chief to do? Most likely he'll decide that the guy is a dictator and not a charismatic one, stick a B on the file and move on.


Hans

 

[aramis]

ANd the difference to the people between dictator+staff and "dictator" as mouthpiece of junta militaria is just about nil. In practice, either one, supported by control over technology superior to the locals, is a TED.

Hans, I think you are putting way too much emphasis on the "a" of "a leader"... the phrase "a leader" doesn't always mean a singular leader, tho almost never does it mean a large group. I think it was simply a shorthand; no leader ever truly leads alone, even if nominally a singular dictator.

 

[Starviking]

Good points in the last two posts, but Aramis' is telling: there has to be a support structure - I don't think there are many TEDs with overarching control of the relic technology they use.

 

[Jeffr0]

TED's in the Promise subsector were given advanced technology by vampire fleets in return for a steady supply of human slaves.

 

[McPerth]

After 70 years of no appreciable interstellar contact, everyone are local. There is no such thing as a government dictated from offworld at the beginning of the New Era.

More than in time, assimilation to the point of considering themselves locals is by generations, and in 70 years, with high tech Traveller allows, it's quite possible there is still people who remembers pre collapse times (mostly if of Vilani blood), and so they feel temselves as 'stranded outsiders', still believing (or claiming) they answer to outside autority (more or less, as Norris did in Rebelion times, efectively independent, but claiming loyality (and so answerable) to the foreign Imperium, even knowing that it doesn't exist any more as somewhat to answer to).

From the available evidence it could be argued that the canonical definition is actually too lax; government code 6 seems to be reserved for governments appointed by outsider governments, not just any old outsiders. But be that as it may, in all of the examples here the gov code 6 government is answerable to offworld authorities. There may be other examples where this is not the case, but if so, I'm not aware of them.

During Hard Times, Six Gun (Diaspora 0723) is given as 6 after its army takes control of the planet (AGD page 11, MT). They are not outsiders, do not claim to answer to anyone else oustide the planet, but they are given anyway as captive government/military rule...

I must warn you I'm not a fan of TNE, and only own and have readed its main book (and some Challenge articles), but let me add another controversy here:

If a planet is governed by a vampire ship/squadron (good stain, more or less like in Idol Dreams, TNE, page 153) that governs with absolute power, would that be seen as a TED? As a Captive Government?

EDIT: NOTE: in Idol Dreams, the goverment code of the planet is 7, as the Excalibur only dominates part of the planet

 

[Jeffr0]

In Path of Tears, Promise is listed as a totalitarian oligarchy (wilds code 8) and is described as a council made up of the largest sentient data-processing systems on the planet.

 

[rancke]

And the difference to the people between dictator+staff and "dictator" as mouthpiece of junta militaria is just about nil.

And what relevance does that have to the matter under discussion? The difference to the people of living under a clever benevolent dictator and under a brutal despotic dictator is presumably quite noticeable, but they'd both be the same government form. The difference between a dictator+staff and a junta with a mouthpiece might be practically nil to the people, but they're two very different government forms.

In practice, either one, supported by control over technology superior to the locals, is a TED.

Do you have a canonical quote to back this up or is it just an opinion? Or an example of a government labeled a TED but described as a junta?

Hans, I think you are putting way too much emphasis on the "a" of "a leader"... the phrase "a leader" doesn't always mean a singular leader, tho almost never does it mean a large group. I think it was simply a shorthand; no leader ever truly leads alone, even if nominally a singular dictator.

The standard (non-Wilds) list of government codes has three different types of dictators (A, B, and D) and three different types of oligarchies (3, C, and E). I'm pretty sure the difference between dictatorships and oligarchies is, in fact, the diffference between singular and plural when it comes to decision-making. Now, implementing the decisions would always require multiple people, but that really doesn't come into it. If it did then all governments would be pretty much the same. After all, they all need the support of the army...

But maybe the people who wrote up the TNE disagrees with me. I don't claim to be an expert on TNE material. So just quote me the bit of canonical text that explains that a TED can be a group of people or give me a list of canonical worlds with TEDs that are described as juntas.

Until you do, I prefer to believe that the text we do have means what it says.


Hans

 

[rancke]

More than in time, assimilation to the point of considering themselves locals is by generations...

That is both variable and irrelevant. People can assimilate a lot faster than that or remain unassimilated for centuries. But I'm not talking about assimilation, I'm talking about belonging. As I pointed out in an earlier post, two separate groups can both be local.

...and in 70 years, with high tech Traveller allows, it's quite possible there is still people who remembers pre collapse times (mostly if of Vilani blood), and so they feel temselves as 'stranded outsiders', still believing (or claiming) they answer to outside autority...

They might claim it but it wouldn't be true. A religious dictator might claim that he answered to his deity and was merely passing along divine commands. He might even belive this to be true. But he still wouldn't be a captive government.

...(more or less, as Norris did in Rebelion times, effectively independent, but claiming loyality (and so answerable) to the foreign Imperium, even knowing that it doesn't exist any more as somewhat to answer to).

Norris effectively declared independence in 1124 or 26 or whenever it was Arrival Vengeance returned and told him the Imperium was no more. Ten years later, with the Quarantine in place, he couldn't have answered to an outside authority if he wanted to.

During Hard Times, Six Gun (Diaspora 0723) is given as 6 after its army takes control of the planet (AGD page 11, MT). They are not outsiders, do not claim to answer to anyone else oustide the planet, but they are given anyway as captive government/military rule...

That's a result of one code ('6') being used for two different government types. Either captive government or military junta. Messy (And not being helped any by the fact that you could have a military junta that was answerable to an outside authority ).

BTW, where did that bit about Code 6 also being used for juntas originate? I've been trying to track it down, but no luck.

If a planet is governed by a vampire ship/squadron (good stain, more or less like in Idol Dreams, TNE, page 153) that governs with absolute power, would that be seen as a TED? As a Captive Government?

As an aside, being a captive government is not mutually exclusive with any other form of government. If a TED answered to an outside authority, he'd be both.

Anyway, it would depends on whether the vampire ship/squadron answers to an outside authority or not. Also, if the ships can build the equipment they use, they're not technologically elevated, they just have a high tech level.

If the ships moved around and left someone behind to be in charge, that someone would be a captive government. If the ship furnished that government with relic technology, it would be technologically elevated. If the ship furnished newly built equipment the government wouldn't be technologically elevated but just have a high tech level, but outside observers might erroneously believe that it was technologically elevated.


Hans