Wilds Government Codes

[rancke]

And MGT explicitly says to roll a separate government type for each "faction."

No, it says to roll a separate " 'minigovernment' " for each faction. I don't know just what a 'minigovernment' is, but I'm pretty confident it isn't supposed to be a regular government. If it was, it wouldn't have the 'mini' and the quotation marks.

It does stop short of saying that they're autonomous,

And most of the examples they list wouldn't be autonomous.

...but given that balkanized worlds merely have MORE factions, not different factions... that's pretty conclusive that the factions may (not must, but may) be separate governments.

Given that balkanized worlds only have one more faction, with a top limit of four, plus the various other oddities and ambiguities, I think the whole rule is so clumsy that you can't conclude anything from it. No matter how you interpret it, you need to modify it heavily to get mych use out of it.


Hans

 

[aramis]

So what label do you put on a world that is divided into several peaceful nations?


Hans

Whatever the economically dominant one is; if two or more are equal, the one surrounding the imperial starport.

From a player point of view, the others really don't matter nearly as much. The charts will list the government they are most likely to do business with.

I think it boils down to emphasis, as well...

I see main world government, the most significant government on-world, you apparently see it broken main world government, the government of the main world.

 

[rancke]

Whatever the economically dominant one is; if two or more are equal, the one surrounding the imperial starport.

From a player point of view, the others really don't matter nearly as much. The charts will list the government they are most likely to do business with.

I think it boils down to emphasis, as well...

I see main world government, the most significant government on-world, you apparently see it broken main world government, the government of the main world.

Repeating something I added while you were responding:

WBH explicitly allows multiple governments only for balkanized worlds. Any other kind of world has one and only one government (except Gov code 0 worlds which don't have any government).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Repeating something I added while you were responding:

WBH explicitly allows multiple governments only for balkanized worlds. Any other kind of world has one and only one government (except Gov code 0 worlds which don't have any government).


Hans

Pretty much irrelevant, given that current rules are multiple discrete quasi-governments on all worlds. And at least one canon world was shown to have a separate nation without being a type 7.

Oh,, and MT defines Type 7 by "Balkanization. No central ruling authority exists; rival governments compete for control."
MGT mentions civil war as grounds for balkanization.

 

[LeperColony]

And I take it you can't find any examples of captive world governments that doesn't answer to offworld authorities. Simple logic says a local group isn't an outside group.

Outside is a relative term. It has no meaning in isolation. You can be outside a family, outside a society, outside a country, outside a world, and so on.

I don't deny that an offworld authority is an outside group, but the fact is, the description of captive has no geographical limitations, unless you choose to read them into it. All it requires is rule answerable to an outside group.

We've reached the point where I could answer you by cutting and pasting from old posts. All government codes deals with how the goverment functions. It's not about where the people who run the government is from. It's about how the goverment works.

Yeah, we are going in circles. Even if we accept your premise that government codes only deal with government functions, Code 6 necessarily includes information regarding the ruler's origins. How this isn't clear especially to you is confusing, since you require the government to answer to an OFFWORLD authority.

If, as you say, Captive requires an offworld authority, then Captive speaks to the origin of the government because it necessarily requires people from another world.

Now you may not like the fact that Captive has that implication under your definition, but it is pretty much inescapable. I would agree that the point of the code isn't to explain the origin of the ruler, but the fact remains that the code provides that information, whether under your definition or mine.

You were describing a population, not a government. A population can't be a captive government, because a population isn't any kind of government (Even an Athenian Democracy doesn't include the entire population).

I agree that a population is not a government. But that was never my contention anyway. My point was that a captive population will tend to have a captive government, because the government will be captive if the population is not permitted to participate, and the rulers are answerable to an outside group.

No, it's not. A government is captive if it answers to an outside group. How it is formed doesn't affect that. Some hows are more common than others, that's all.

I think this became a confusing tangent, because I'm pretty sure we both agree that a government is captive if it answers to an outside group. Or maybe I lost the thread of argument you were responding to.

Montezuma is not a world labeled as a TED that is described as something other than a dictator. It's labeled as something other than a TED but shares many of the charateristics of one. If anything, Seacost is mislabeled the other way.

Montezuma is clearly a TED to GDW, even though it is also a CO-5. Seacost is not the only TED reference in PoT. "Polaris is growing increasingly friendly to the Coalition, and so relations with some of the other TEDs, especially Centrum, are deteriorating." PoT 109, emphasis mine.

From that language it's clear Polaris is a TED (since it said "other TEDs"), it's clear Centrum is a TED, and it's clear at least one other government on the world is a TED, since it said "especially" Centrum.

Yes. But if the competing for control aspect was germane, the rules would provide a different government code for balkanized worlds where the nations weren't competing for control. Since it only provides one code for balkanized worlds the defining characteristic has to be that no central ruling authority exists and the rest of the definition is moot.

This has apparently taken on a discussion of it's own with Aramis, so I won't argue it further, but needless to say we disagree.

My suggestion would be to drop the 'D' part of TED and just add 'TE' to the comment field of all technologically elevated governments.

This would not be a bad way to handle it. Again, this thread started because of confusion I had when reading the errata.

 

[rancke]

Pretty much irrelevant, given that current rules are multiple discrete quasi-governments on all worlds.

First of all, unless you're referring to other rules, I don't think the current rules are multiple discrete quasi-governments on all worlds. Even 'quasi-government is too strong a word. Rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels, "and so forth" will have leaders, yes, but how often do they amount to actual discrete governments? At best it might be up to four overlapping organisations, which, frankly, is rather niggardly. When I detail a world I usually come up with a lot more than four rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels, "and so forth".

And at least one canon world was shown to have a separate nation without being a type 7.

Right, because it's not like Traveller authors ever make mistakes. How is it that evidence that supports me is irrelevant but evidence that supports you is absolute proof?

Which canon world would that be, incidentally?

Oh,, and MT defines Type 7 by "Balkanization. No central ruling authority exists; rival governments compete for control."
MGT mentions civil war as grounds for balkanization.

Oh, and WBH allows multiple governments only for Gov code 7 worlds.

That is hugely relevant. We've got a vague MGT rule that I think has to be twisted way beyond what the phrasing can bear to be interpreted as referring to discrete nations, but at the moment I'm not in the mood to try to convince you of that.

Instead, let me just say that it can also be interpreted to refer to something other than discrete nations (such as, you know, rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels, "and so forth"). I trust you will admit that the rule could, just concievably, be interpreted that way?

So we have two rival interpretations. One of them contradicts previously published material (that would be yours) and the other one doesn't contradict previously published material (that would be mine). I submit that under such circumstances, choosing the one that does contradict PPM is contra-indicated.

Or, if it turns out the second interpretation is contradicted by that canon world you mentioned, we have one interpretation that contradicts a general rule and one that contradicts a specific example. Again, the best choice is to go with the one that only contradicts one specific example.


Hans

 

[LeperColony]

And yet the errata matches word-for-word one unofficially suggested by HIWG members on the TML several months before the Mark 1 Mod 1 version of TNE was released to correct problems with the first version. Why would GDW, over two years later want to release an update for an outdated version of the rules, rather than the current one they'd been using?

Also, I think it's Don's notes, and I think they're in error.

Maybe to bring the original up to Mk1 M1? I don't know. I didn't even know about the different versions until I visited this forum, so I'm not really in a position to talk about the history of the development of the errata. I have no clue who's ideas are what, I was just going by what was said in the errata thread. I actually just visited the errata in the hopes that it would make combat more risky, but it didn't seem to.

Did the errata make it onto the CD? Is it "official?"

 

[aramis]

Maybe to bring the original up to Mk1 M1? I don't know. I didn't even know about the different versions until I visited this forum, so I'm not really in a position to talk about the history of the development of the errata. I have no clue who's ideas are what, I was just going by what was said in the errata thread. I actually just visited the errata in the hopes that it would make combat more risky, but it didn't seem to.

Did the errata make it onto the CD? Is it "official?"

Don's errata for CT and MT is official; I'm uncertain about TNE. I also don't have the TNE CDs to check.

As for making combat more risky, the usual solution is d10's instead of d6's for damage...

 

[LeperColony]

I was thinking about changing the scaling on wound thresholds instead.

 

[aramis]

First of all, unless you're referring to other rules, I don't think the current rules are multiple discrete quasi-governments on all worlds.
Hans

Hans, wrong. Each faction is rolled as a government, no matter the description. Go LOOK at it.

Also, T20, p 370, description of UWP locations: "Government: Government Code, indicating the nature of the dominant world government"
(Note Dominant.)

The Amber Zone in TTB shows that Heya is not a unified world government, despite code 4, as there is an active rebellion (one of several descriptions for Balkanized in later editions), and notes that the law level is effectively only in the capital.

Tarsus notes that Sternmetal Horizons has a corporate enclave on world. That enclave is not explicitly extraterritorial, but since it's policed by corporate mercs... It's also a tiny fraction of the population.

TTA has several worlds where the "Government" has limited influence - The Patinir belt is actually not even governed from the belt, but from the trojans of the GG, and they have little authority outside that enclave. Also, Junidy has restricted regions of Dandies...
"Government claims of complete equality between the two species are now largely perceived to be a sham, as there is no unified, integrated structure
to the co-dominium. Humans run human affairs, Dandies run Dandy affairs, but all are still answerable to the (human) governor-general and his staff of (mostly human) advisors." (TTA p84)

TTA p 115 shows gov't code 0 to also include private worldwide holdings by a family... Lewis was/is "owned by the Tukera Family" and there are independent settlers; they got the Marquis of Aramis to interdict the world in an attempt to isolate the settlers. Really, it's two distinct sets of familial governments, with two different tech levels, even...

Even the chapter on Aramis really shows that the Government of Aramis really is only the government of Leedor... but then, Leedor is almost the entire population of the planet.

The whole concept of government codes was at odds from the start.

An important quote is from Sup 3, p 38:
"In effect, government types express the level of government which the average traveller encounters. The upper level mechanizations of government are less important to an individual than the actual conditions which will be encountered at the personal level."

Also note: post collapse balkanized worlds are noted with a trade code, not a government code, and are always showing the dominant world government.... (p.191)

There is no doubt that the gov't codes represent the dominant government of the world... but there is evidence that it's not inherent that it's the only government on world, and that its reach may in fact be quite limited. And in TNE, it explicitly doesn't preclude lesser governments, especially since Balkanized has dictionary denotations of hostility as a normal component.

 

[rancke]

Hans, wrong. Each faction is rolled as a government, no matter the description. Go LOOK at it.

Wil, not wrong. Each faction (a word that does NOT mean government or country) is rolled AS a government. That doesn't mean it is a government. 'Faction' is NOT a synomym for country or for government. Go look it up. Organizations other than governments have leaderships too and they are organized in various ways that, not surprisingly, resemble the ways governments are organized. That does not make them into governments.

Also, T20, p 370, description of UWP locations: "Government: Government Code, indicating the nature of the dominant world government"
(Note Dominant.)

Note the word 'world' in 'world government'. The dominant government of a balkanized world is not a world government. I'm at a loss to explain just what a non-dominant world government is, but it isn't the government of a sovereign nation on that world.

The Amber Zone in TTB shows that Heya is not a unified world government, despite code 4, as there is an active rebellion (one of several descriptions for Balkanized in later editions), and notes that the law level is effectively only in the capital.

Tarsus notes that Sternmetal Horizons has a corporate enclave on world. That enclave is not explicitly extraterritorial, but since it's policed by corporate mercs... It's also a tiny fraction of the population.

TTA has several worlds where the "Government" has limited influence - The Patinir belt is actually not even governed from the belt, but from the trojans of the GG, and they have little authority outside that enclave. Also, Junidy has restricted regions of Dandies...
"Government claims of complete equality between the two species are now largely perceived to be a sham, as there is no unified, integrated structure
to the co-dominium. Humans run human affairs, Dandies run Dandy affairs, but all are still answerable to the (human) governor-general and his staff of (mostly human) advisors." (TTA p84)

TTA p 115 shows gov't code 0 to also include private worldwide holdings by a family... Lewis was/is "owned by the Tukera Family" and there are independent settlers; they got the Marquis of Aramis to interdict the world in an attempt to isolate the settlers. Really, it's two distinct sets of familial governments, with two different tech levels, even...

Even the chapter on Aramis really shows that the Government of Aramis really is only the government of Leedor... but then, Leedor is almost the entire population of the planet.

All these are examples of situations where reality doesn't conform neatly to theory. Heya's rebels are not recognized by the Imperium as a sovereign government. Sternmetal's enclave may or may not be immune to Tarsan government interference, but the Imperium evidently does not recognize it as a sovereign government. Junidy's government nmay not be what it claims to be, but the Imperium accepts the claim. The Lewis situation is highly influenced by Tukera lobbying at Court. None of these examples represent more than one (recognized) government on a non-balkanized world.

An important quote is from Sup 3, p 38:
"In effect, government types express the level of government which the average traveller encounters. The upper level mechanizations of government are less important to an individual than the actual conditions which will be encountered at the personal level."

That could also mean that if the dictator of the world claims that his government is a representative democracy, the government code will nevertheless be A or B.

Also note: post collapse balkanized worlds are noted with a trade code, not a government code, and are always showing the dominant world government.... (p.191)

As opposed to the non-dominant world governments?

There is no doubt that the gov't codes represent the dominant government of the world... but there is evidence that it's not inherent that it's the only government on world, and that its reach may in fact be quite limited.

But there is every doubt that a world government isn't the only recognized government of the world. That is doesn't actually control all the world doesn't affect that.

And in TNE, it explicitly doesn't preclude lesser governments...

And in WBH it explicitly does rule out multiple governments. True, there are worlds described in TNE that are not listed as balkanized where the world government doesn't control all of the world. However, the other "governments" all seem to be rebels, nomads or bandits. The world government claims sovereignty over those areas and the RCES evidently does not dispute that.

I will concede that you can have disputed regions on a non-balkanized world, but you can't have multiple recognized governments. If the Imperium ever recognized Heya's rebel government, Heya would become a balkanized world. Evidently that hasn't happened.

And I think I'll repeat the major point I made in my previous post which you ignored:

Oh, and WBH allows multiple governments only for Gov code 7 worlds.

That is hugely relevant. We've got a vague MGT rule that I think has to be twisted way beyond what the phrasing can bear to be interpreted as referring to discrete nations, but at the moment I'm not in the mood to try to convince you of that.

Instead, let me just say that it can also be interpreted to refer to something other than discrete nations (such as, you know, rival political parties, cultural groups, religions, rebels, "and so forth"). I trust you will admit that the rule could, just concievably, be interpreted that way?

So we have two rival interpretations. One of them contradicts previously published material (that would be yours) and the other one doesn't contradict previously published material (that would be mine). I submit that under such circumstances, choosing the one that does contradict PPM is contra-indicated.​

(Note that I have modified my original interpretation to allow non-recognized regional pseudo-governments on worlds that are alleged to be non-balkanized.)


Hans

 

[Cryton]

Balkanize, Balkanise [ˈbɔːlkəˌnaɪz]
vb 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (tr) to divide (a territory) into small warring states
2. to divide (a group or organization) into small factions Balkanization , Balkanisation n
Balkanized , Balkanised adj


Just thought a defination might help.

 

[aramis]

In American English, World Governments refers to those governments generally recognized (essentially by the UN). Note the plural. Dominant World Government would thus be (depending upon timeframe) US, UK, or Rome... with China being a viable alternative, as it has the largest plurality of population, and the USSR via its puppets having been another very significant block.

Non-dominant world government would thus be all 130-some of the other ones...

 

[Cryton]

By definition a goverment code that is listed as Balkanized means the world is divided into small warring states.

"Divided into small warring states" is what the word means when refering to a government, and from what I've read, seems to be the intent of the government code, despite arguments to the contrary.

Please, enough already.

 

[rancke]

In American English, World Governments refers to those governments generally recognized (essentially by the UN). Note the plural. Dominant World Government would thus be (depending upon timeframe) US, UK, or Rome... with China being a viable alternative, as it has the largest plurality of population.

Non-dominant world government would thus be all 130-some of the other ones...

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: World government: No entry.
Wikipedia: "World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity."

Oh, and WBH allows multiple governments only for Gov code 7 worlds.

By definition a goverment code that is listed as Balkanized means the world is divided into small warring states.

Yes, yes, but assuming for purposes of argument that you wanted a word that meant that the world was divided into multiple nations, regardless of the state of internastional tension. Is there any word that does that better than 'balkanized'?

I repeat, there is no code for worlds that are divided into small non-warring states.


Hans

 

[Cryton]

Sure there is. Its code 0 in its application of No WORLD government.

 

[Cryton]

Also the definition in Mgt for govenment type 7 is (as per pg175):

"Balkinization Description No central authority exists; rival governments compete for control. Law level refers to the government nearest the starport. Examples Multiple governments, Cival War."

It dosn't state that they have to be at war, only that the compete for control of the world. Also, as thats the most recent AND CANONICAL definition. I'd have to say that covers exactly what you said it dosn't Hans. Sorry.

 

[rancke]

Sure there is. Its code 0 in its application of No WORLD government.

No, that's no world government AND no national governments. Family and/or tribal bonds only.

"Balkinization Description No central authority exists; rival governments compete for control. Law level refers to the government nearest the starport. Examples Multiple governments, Cival War."

It dosn't state that they have to be at war, only that the compete for control of the world. Also, as thats the most recent AND CANONICAL definition. I'd have to say that covers exactly what you said it dosn't Hans. Sorry.

That's not what I said, though. What I said was that by default it ALSO covers worlds with no central authority and peaceful, cooperative nations. In other words, that it covers ALL versions of worlds with multiple national governments and no world government. Not just the ones where the nations act like 20th Century Balkan states.

And can you guess how I know that for sure? That's right, because (altogether now!) "WBH allows multiple governments only for Gov code 7 worlds"! The other codes (except Code 0) cover worlds where a central authority does exist.


Hans

 

[Cryton]

That's not what I said, though. What I said was that by default it ALSO covers worlds with no central authority and peaceful, cooperative nations. In other words, that it covers ALL versions of worlds with multiple national governments and no world government. Not just the ones where the nations act like 20th Century Balkan states.

Hans

Not quite true:

I repeat, there is no code for worlds that are divided into small non-warring states.

Hans

And by your own admittance: Government code 7 works for "worlds that are divided into small non-warring states."

'Nuff said.

 

[rancke]

Not quite true.

That's taken out of context. I was refuting the claim that Code 7 only applied to competing nations. If that had been the case, there would have been a code that covered worlds with no central authority and peacefully co-existing nations.


Hans