What is the difference between the Feudal Technocracy espoused by Oriflamme
and the Centrist bloc and a Technologically-Elevated Dictatorship? Both
seem to have a "them as have the Tech make the rules" vibe.
It has always been a distinction between a ‘terrorist’ and a ‘freedom fighter’. Oriflamme is ours, so they are Feudal Technocracy. Planets in the Wilds are not necessarily friendly towards the RC, so TED.
The moral ambiguity here fits very well with the overall vision of Star Vikings as both bringers of hope and bringers of destruction, depending on who you’re talking to.
Cheers,
Blase
From: []
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:53 AM
To:
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] F-Tech v. TED
What is the difference between the Feudal Technocracy espoused by Oriflamme and the Centrist bloc and a Technologically-Elevated Dictatorship? Both seem to have a "them as have the Tech make the rules" vibe.
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
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.
I'm roadside now but what was the official designation of the Old Man of the Mountain? Was he a TED? If he was he was a particularly benevolent on IIRC.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...
> On May 14, 2014, at 8:12, "John Potter [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
1) a two way social contract. Noblesse oblige and all that while TED are
decidedly one way.
2) Mostly self sufficient and able to produce & maintain their own
technology while TED is anything but, relying on relics and scraps
Federalist sentiments equating the two should be seen as hyperbole.
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On May 14, 2014 8:12 AM, "John Potter [Traveller_TNE]" <
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 12:11 PM, "Master Uxi [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>
> I took F-techs as being:
>
> 1) a two way social contract. Noblesse oblige and all that while TED are decidedly one way.
>
> 2) Mostly self sufficient and able to produce & maintain their own technology while TED is anything but, relying on relics and scraps
>
> Federalist sentiments equating the two should be seen as hyperbole.
>
> - Sent from my SM-N900T
>
>> On May 14, 2014 8:12 AM, "John Potter [Traveller_TNE]" <> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
The primary difference is the same as the difference between rule by a supreme ruler (usually a monarchy) vs. rule by an oligarchy. As portrayed in TNE and in particular in the RC, F-Techs tend to be more benevolent, but aren't always--for example a religious order that uses high tech like magic items. TEDs on the other hand are usually portrayed as bad people who need to be tossed out of power, but aren't always bad people.
In the CoE setting, the Dingirians will work with anyone (TEDs, F-Techs, republics, etc.), so long as they are loyal and aren't too abusive. They are more concerned about maintaining the existing order if it favors them (think British Empire c. 1800s), but aren't above changing it if it does not. The Terrans on the other hand are more likely to land, start converting people to The Faith creating a grass roots organization, then when the time is right, bring in the Marines to help the population "throw off the shackles of tyranny", thus overthrow the existing order and put a Terran governor in place. Of course anything that smells like AI to the Terrans would be shoot first, ask questions later, even if the relationship between the AI and the local humans is benevolent (FYI: the Terran do use AI to kill AI, but the AI they use has been engineered for that purpose, then suicides itself softly).
I don't think there was an official designation, as he was a mysterious figure that the PC were supposed to discover. That said, there's more than enough in his activities to qualify as a TED, and the provision of a decapitation mission in PoT doesn't speak against that.
Eamon
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 14/5/14, DEREK STANLEY [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: F-Tech v. TED
To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May, 2014, 17:04
I'm roadside now but what was the
official designation of the Old Man of the Mountain? Was
he a TED? If he was he was a particularly benevolent on
IIRC.
More of a Remnant Centrist who would mitigate Aubani idealism & naivete
without just using Oriflamme for its resources and manpower and
disregarding their legitimate point of view.
F-Tech seems a good way to husband limited resources but I would prefer a
lower case federalist system.
- Sent from my SM-N900T
So you're from Oriflamme, Uxi? ;-)
Sent from my iPhone
On May 14, 2014, at 12:11 PM, "Master Uxi [Traveller_TNE]" <
> wrote:
I took F-techs as being:
1) a two way social contract. Noblesse oblige and all that while TED are
decidedly one way.
2) Mostly self sufficient and able to produce & maintain their own
technology while TED is anything but, relying on relics and scraps
Federalist sentiments equating the two should be seen as hyperbole.
- Sent from my SM-N900T
On May 14, 2014 8:12 AM, "John Potter [Traveller_TNE]" <
> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
Anton Hault Cavring, AKA 'The Old Man of the Mountain' is the real power on Lote, in Thoezzennt Subsector. Details in Path of Tears.
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 15/5/14, [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: F-Tech v. TED
To:
Date: Thursday, 15 May, 2014, 3:51
Did anyone ever run that pacification mission? (i.e. PoT page 113 "The Old Man of the Mountains is becoming increasingly hostile to Coalition operatives...")