Re: F-Tech v. TED

Part of thread: F-Tech v. TED · 1 reply ↳ In reply to Re: F-Tech v. TED — rogerclarktopaz Re: F-Tech v. TED — DEREK STANLEY
As others has pointed out its a matter of perception. A TED can be a good
or bad ruler in my view and F-Tech rulers can also be good or bad also.
Also I prefer a mix of both in each case this usually creates interesting
tensions as well as morally gray space for players to live in if they
choose to.

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:47 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:

>
>
> If you ask a Federalist they would probably say there is no difference,
> OK, I'm a Federalist, but to be honest there is a subdual difference.
>
> TEDs set on a throne (so to speak) and do little or nothing to support the
> people they rule. F-Tech, at least provide some kind of service in
> exchange for being the ruler. An example of a F-Tech, think of a world
> that has regressed to TL-4 and has TL-12 fusion power plants. The
> technological guild that keeps these power plants running would be a F-Tech
> as their words would hold strong meaning to the people that need the
> electricity to survive. Even TEDs are not all black. In PoT I remember
> there is at least one TED that is actively working to better his people, in
> fact Oriflamme is trying to sponsor the world for entry into the RC. Now
> as a Federalist, I just can't resist pointing out that F-Tech Oriflamme
> sponsors "Lancers", that are no better than pirates and raiders, well at
> least some Flammers do.
>
> I guess that here you have to say actions speak louder than titles.
>
> Roger
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.