Need Ideas for a campaign

[JALU3]

So everyone is empowered to strive to fullfill their own ambitions? Whether that ambition is to hunt, and skin one of every non-sentient creature on the planet, or be to pass on the knowledge of how VHS system works and how to repair it, and all those other quirky little things that one could strive to do.

So what if your ambition and what makes you feel fulfilled is against the grain? Say your a a Terraist or Earth Firsty? What then?
And/or . . . What of the Amish . . . say they survive WWIII . . . are they allowed to live in their form of 15th century "utopia" with their self-inforced limitation?
What of other groups . . . are they allowed to venture out into the stars and create their own ideal "utopian" societies?
Those within those socieities, are they allowed to freely leave them? Those who wish to join these inclosed socieities, are they allowed to freely join them, without that societies consent?

[Tobian]

Erm well, no and yes. Breaking the law is breaking the law. If you break the law then yes you have a problem, but that's no different to any society! No one's claiming that even in a utopian society there aren't malcontent's and psychotics (though mental health medicine will be a whole lot better, there is still the problem of I WANT to be psychotic!) but a greater understanding of psychology and brain chemistry is going to help a lot. Boredom is probably the biggest problem: I can see ever more lunatic extreme sports growing hehe (See the woman who wants to circumnavigate the Federation in a warp powered canoe!).

The root cause of a lot of the problems in society will have solutions, without need and want it moves the goalposts somewhat!

Erm with regards to cultures separating themselves from the Federation, because they want to pursue an alternate ideology - I suggest you watch STARTREK, for LOTS of examples :P Colonisation is a definite push of humanity, and so it's probably entirely normal for social groups to leave and do their own things. If they chose to abide by the spirit of the law of the Federation, then the Federation will protect them, but if they want to leave the Federation, no one is going to force them to stay.

Part of the vision of Trek is that Humanity is no longer full of small minded morons, psychotic sociopaths and that the exposure to galactic culture through the founding of the Federation promotes open-mindedness, and exposure to many different points of view. First contact of any species, to another species is always going to be an awe inspiring moment (unless they are singularly unready for it in a medieval religious mindset way) which will make the differences between yourself and your neighbour seem small and insignificant, compared to the differences between you and an alien!

In a post script sense we might look at that society and see it as 'unrealistic' from our point of view (because faster than light travel, aliens and broken physics are of course all 'realistic' :P) but it's a caveat of the show, and the POINT of the show, that humans need to challenge their own preconceptions and flaws as much as they need the challenge of creating new technology. If humanity travels down the dark path of distopianism, then we're not likely to make it to the 24th century without blowing ourselves up, absolute power of technology, without a humanist vector will result in absolute annihilation! Change HAS to happen. If you don't 'get' that you're not getting the show!

[JALU3]

I guess that is why some people disliked DS9, and the ideas that are wrapped around my chosen quote in my signature.

Before DS9, it was commonly accepted that the Federation was a utopia, that it was the spring which the good within the galaxy comes from or at least it best symbolised a utopian and peaceful future for humanity and those who chose to associate themselves with us as a unified society. DS9 changed that equation, starting with the Marqui and the view of the Federation from those who weren't within the happy core bubble, as it were. It showed a possibility of a future utopia which looks pretty, peaceful, and flawless from far away . . . but having some of the same problems but in a different setting that we experience today. A much grimmer future that some didn't think meshed with the idea of what the Federation, and as an out growth, Starfleet, was made out to be in the previous incarnations of the Universe/genra.

However, given the reality shown in DS9, it is shown that not everything is perfect within the Federation. There are groups which desent from the majority. Most are "mostly harmless", some go so far as being seperatist, and others are down right violent and hostile.

The end of the Dominion War, and the aftermath of the recent Remen usurping of the Romulan Star Empire provides a very fluid moment in time for the Alpha/Beta quadrant . . . due to the outcomes of these events this region of space could move in several very intersting, and story/plot filled possible timelines. It is definatly a period of major flux.

So it allows the GM to take it where they wish it to go. Depending on the GM, and the PCs a limitless number of possibilities could occur.

-----

As for humanity. Although it has evolved socially, I think it still tugged by forces which could lead to being more brutish, or more centric, or less open, or so open it losses itself. No society truly escapes it, for it needs to be renewed generation after generation . . . for it isn't static, and the society is always evolving and changing. Therefore it is always under a threat of going down the possibility of self destruction or societal implosion or explosion.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

So everyone is empowered to strive to fullfill their own ambitions? Whether that ambition is to hunt, and skin one of every non-sentient creature on the planet, or be to pass on the knowledge of how VHS system works and how to repair it, and all those other quirky little things that one could strive to do.

The first one probably gets you put in therapy. The second one gets you hanging out in antique shops.

So what if your ambition and what makes you feel fulfilled is against the grain? Say your a a Terraist or Earth Firsty? What then?

You write pamphlets and run for office.

And/or . . . What of the Amish . . . say they survive WWIII . . . are they allowed to live in their form of 15th century "utopia" with their self-inforced limitation?

As long as they fix social problems like the massive suicide rate among females, what would the problem be? There's probably tons of luddite colonies around.

What of other groups . . . are they allowed to venture out into the stars and create their own ideal "utopian" societies?

Yes. Of course they are; how many human colonies have we seen that are based on some form of "ideal living"?

Those within those socieities, are they allowed to freely leave them?

The Masterpiece Society?

Those who wish to join these inclosed socieities, are they allowed to freely join them, without that societies consent?

They'd have to take that up with the society. Presumably, it would be up to the colony's leaders, but I doubt that excluding someone from, say, Beta Amishland V would be infringing upon their rights.

I guess that is why some people disliked DS9, and the ideas that are wrapped around my chosen quote in my signature.

Before DS9, it was commonly accepted that the Federation was a utopia, that it was the spring which the good within the galaxy comes from or at least it best symbolised a utopian and peaceful future for humanity and those who chose to associate themselves with us as a unified society. DS9 changed that equation, starting with the Marqui and the view of the Federation from those who weren't within the happy core bubble, as it were. It showed a possibility of a future utopia which looks pretty, peaceful, and flawless from far away . . . but having some of the same problems but in a different setting that we experience today.

"It's easy to be a saint in Paradise."

It is, and that's what the core worlds of the Federation are. DS9 didn't say the Federation wasn't Utopia; it pointed out how difficult it can be to keep it Utopia. Unlike the inferred reality of magical cohension in TNG, DS9 displayed a society built upon the individual choices of the people involved. Choices made by people seeking fulfilment, whether it's Sisko's dad or Bashir's parents.

However, given the reality shown in DS9, it is shown that not everything is perfect within the Federation. There are groups which desent from the majority. Most are "mostly harmless", some go so far as being seperatist, and others are down right violent and hostile.

There were always dissenting groups, and I don't think that the previous examples from Trek implied that there weren't.

As for humanity. Although it has evolved socially, I think it still tugged by forces which could lead to being more brutish, or more centric, or less open, or so open it losses itself. No society truly escapes it, for it needs to be renewed generation after generation . . . for it isn't static, and the society is always evolving and changing. Therefore it is always under a threat of going down the possibility of self destruction or societal implosion or explosion.

"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nog. They're a wonderful, friendly people — as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts ... deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers ... put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time ... and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those faces, look at their eyes..."

It's not about magically angelic humans, it's about people seeking to improve themselves. Trek has faith that they can improve, and that it's a worthy pursuit.

Moreover, I think that the 'dark ages of the Federation' idea is lame simply because it's a lame rehash of stuff that's been done over and over in SF, from reestablishing an empire in Foundation to 'the dark ages of the Federation with its serial numbers filed off' in Andromeda. I guess you could run it, and it's possible that it could be done well, but I'm not sure it'd be the best way of utilizing the ideas in Trek.

[JALU3]

I never said that the Federation, and its Earth and other core-world centric, society was a bad thing. What I am saying is that like a star it is always under pressures to expand outwardly violently, or implode inwardly violently. With every new generation, given their experiences, education, and surrounding environment, the ideals of the society have to be taught to them, be accepted by them, and implemented in the way they see best.

Thus in watershed periods such as where the Trek Universe has left off . . . the possibilities are endless . . . what one group sees as the best way to continue the ideals of the society maybe be wholey opposed by other groups. For every group believes that they are doing the best thing . . . otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it, unless they are only doing the best thing as far as they are concerned and doing give a Flying F about anyone else, then they are just plain evil (in the D&D sence).

To roleplay these situations would be very interesting indeed.

Oh, and that is a great quote from Quark, what episode is that? The one where Nog loses his leg?
Nog definatly developed into a different character due to those experiences.

And why would a hunter be put into therapy . . . because it's not a social norm? What of tolerence of others ideas? Not that society has to accept the others actions, but that they must be tolerent of their beliefs as long as they don't harm others.

[Tobian]

If I were to run a 'medieval' federation, I'd definitely want a different system, with maybe a morality system built in to it, to run it in, because without the ethics of Federation norm, Trek technology is nightmarish, and from game perspective it'll be horrible. People trampling over other peoples ideologies, and using high powered energy weapons to back that up! Players suddenly realise they can vaporise people with no consequences! It would rapidly devolve into a nightmare... D&D Trek... "Oh look a Dragon." *setting 16 - BLAST* "that was easy, what next?!"

Having a post-federation game, while perhaps intriguing, wouldn't be Trek, because it wouldn't be exploring of the strange and the new, it would be a desperate fight for survival.

It is fair to say that the Federation does have teeth, and will show them. They do not live in some sort of dreamy bubble reality. They have ships with WMD, and they fight off aggressors, they just maintain their ethics and standards as best they can. If anything DS9 didn't take away from Trek it was simply a show about 'how the other half lives' it showed the ugly side of technology, without enlightenment, ethics and morality. It would be easy for the Federation to become the Ferengi, the Dominion, the Klingons, the Romulans, but they maintained their values, and suffered heavily for it. The answer is was it worth it, and of course yes it was.

A little meme I picked up from Adama in new BSG is one of the core concepts of the show "it isn't enough that we survive, we have to deserve to survive", and that applies very much to the Federation. The ethics of their existence means that to win at any cost means loosing! That's their viewpoint, and in an ideal world it would be mine too, though I don't live in one, they do

I'm not sure about your idea of them banning 'hunters'. Most people in the Federation find killing animals for meat distasteful, just like most people in the western world would balk at going up to a chicken and wringing it's neck for our supper. That has nothing to do with the choice to eat meat and hunt for food. Hunting for sport would probably not be allowed, as that's cruel (like badger baiting and such), and somewhat redundant. I'm sure there are people who get a great thrill at tieing razor blades to chickens and have them fight each other, in the future. They'd be deemed just as sick then as they are now! There's a big difference between hunting animals cleanly, and being unnecessarily cruel, and in that era, the excuse not to cull humanely would be even smaller than it is now: When you have a lazer guided super sniper gun, tied into a tricorder, so you can precisely kill an animal at 4km, instantly, they aren't going to look well on someone who uses horrible traps, which leave animals to slowly die of starvation and blood loss over days, unless it was out of necessity (in the case of those who simply don't have such technology, or who are desperate). The ability to replicate meat, without having to kill animals removes ethical problems somewhat, or simply takes away some of the 'vegetarian dilemma' but we know there are people who like to cook real food even then (such as Sisco's dad) so it's not outlawed then.

[Tricky]

We are sooooo off topic!

I had a die-hard Trekker tell me that WE, meaning 21st century humans. could never comprehend life in the FED because it is, for the lack of a better world, alien to us. We HAVE to work for money to buy things, we DISTRUST things that are different from us, and we STRUGGLE and fight just to get ahead (or stay in place, for some of us...).

A world where you didn't have to slog through an 8+ hour day just to get the basics of life, where everyone is treated fairly, and where personal rather than material achievement is the end goal is more alien to us that the life of a Klingon or Ferengi.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

We are sooooo off topic!

No, we're not. Trek is not (should not be) content-free entertainment. These issues are things at the heart of what Trek is about.

A world where you didn't have to slog through an 8+ hour day just to get the basics of life, where everyone is treated fairly, and where personal rather than material achievement is the end goal is more alien to us that the life of a Klingon or Ferengi.

Well, Klingons are more or less feudal. Ferengi are 80s capitalism.

I had a die-hard Trekker tell me that WE, meaning 21st century humans. could never comprehend life in the FED because it is, for the lack of a better world, alien to us. We HAVE to work for money to buy things, we DISTRUST things that are different from us, and we STRUGGLE and fight just to get ahead (or stay in place, for some of us...).

I believe the term is "Religious Marxists." It assumes that everyone has a rather pathetic and shallow imagination, unable to see the five feet beyond the hole we've dug for ourselves–or even the reasons the hole exists.

So, I suppose, for them, it is true. But their lack of faith in human ability is, itself, rather un-Trek-like.

[JALU3]

OK, if we're off topic, then the question is why place your campaign 200 years in the future of the post-DW, post Nemesis setting? Or are you talking about 200 years from now . . . one can be to allow drastic social and/or technological changes occur . . . another is to reduce technology due to some tragedy . . . while trying to rediscover what use to be common place and our cutting edge, while doing so in a moral/ethical manor . . . to remove yourself far enough from present cannon to allow an otherwise unlikely campaign setting to form.
200 years is a long time . . . imagine if you were to take someone from say 1799 and place them in 1999 . . . the person would see the familiar warped and altered in ways that would take them a considerable time to comprehend . . . society may have taken an idea and interpretted it in a complete opposite position as was originally intended.

So why 200 years . . . why not 2 years, 20 years, or 2000 years?

Depending on what you fill that time with things can alter drastically, or very little . . .

Say you don't take a dreary point of view, and everything within the Alpha and Beta Quadrant go swimmingly, and there is some super-UFP kind of like NATO in the sence that member states enjoy their own soveriegnty but the unit against common threats . . . say a resurgent Borg or a recon in force by the Kelvin Empire . . .
Or for more peaceful means . . . technology is developed to cross the two great barriers of the galaxy allowing for safe exploration/colonization/expansion into areas thought to be otherwise inaccessable . . . and meeting new and interesting species both sentient and non-sentient within those areas.

So the first question ot the original poster would be why do you want to advance into the future . . . if you answer that, it could allow us to focus our thoughts better.

[Karg]

Just to add an idea, When was that battle supposed to take place that Archer time jumped into (When he was on to the Enterprise-J with Dnaiels) that was shown in Star Trek: Enterprise?

I seem to remember that was in the 26th century

Add:
Yes this was one of the possible futures & it was the 26th Century

The episode is "Azati Prime"

From Startrek.com

As he prepares for the mission, Archer is confronted by the mysterious time-traveling operative known as Daniels. This time, Daniels brings Archer four hundred years into the future to the Enterprise-J. Daniels illuminates the mystery behind the Expanse's sphere-builders. The sphere-builders are trans-dimensional beings — the test subject Enterprise recently encountered belonged to the same species. As Archer suspected, these beings are reshaping the Expanse to make it habitable for their species. It is, Daniels notes, a prelude to an invasion. In the future, the "Federation" Daniels keeps mentioning — which humans are an integral part of — drives these trans-dimensional beings back into their own realm. The beings, who are able to examine alternate timelines, have seen this future and are determined to change the outcome. They are the ones who convinced the Xindi that humanity needed to be destroyed. In fact, Daniels says, humans will one day protect the Xindi from the sphere-builders.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

But it was also in a timeline that was supposedly prevented...

[JALU3]

My question is . . . what would it take to make technology stagnate compared to its relative rate of advancement . . . and what other factors would it take to rapidly increase the rate of advancement.

What would it take to create havoc to the political/social systems that we observe in late 24th century Star Trek . . . how would that effect certain segments of the known area of space . . . would it be benificial to some, yet utterly harmful to others?

Could the region go through a period such as 1000-1800 Germany, where the region breaks up into several smaller states and fight amoungst themselves . . . or it can be like UK where within itself it is relativly stable, but with many far flung areas of control . . . or It could be like Italy . . . with several major states that unite into one larger state.

The future is what you make of it based on the factors you place on it. Sometimes.

[tonyg]

My question is . . . what would it take to make technology stagnate compared to its relative rate of advancement . . . and what other factors would it take to rapidly increase the rate of advancement.

TO make it stagnate you'd simply need to have it stop providing new benefits. For instance, maybe they reach a plateau in thier scienfic knowledge where they no longer are coming up with new advances. New warp drives, weapons, transporters, are no longer better than the old ones in a singifnant way. Or maybe some technology has unforeseen consequences (like when Warp drives were wrecking space) that makes people rethink everything.

What would it take to create havoc to the political/social systems that we observe in late 24th century Star Trek . . . how would that effect certain segments of the known area of space . . . would it be benificial to some, yet utterly harmful to others?

Could the region go through a period such as 1000-1800 Germany, where the region breaks up into several smaller states and fight amoungst themselves . . . or it can be like UK where within itself it is relativly stable, but with many far flung areas of control . . . or It could be like Italy . . . with several major states that unite into one larger state.

The future is what you make of it based on the factors you place on it. Sometimes.

Basically unrest, havok and breakup occurs when a power fails to provide for wants and needs of parts of it's populace, especially the needs. The Federation is a near utopia becuase they have managed to provide for the vast majoity of wants and needs of the vast majority of it's membership. They have virtually eliminated, poverty, hunger, illness, and are doing a pretty decent job on war.

Bring one of morse of the "four horsemen" into the Trek setting and everything could fall apart. For example, what if it were discovered that replicated foodcan cause some sort of illness/genetic mutation that can't be countered with Federation medicine? That starts to put a strain on food resources.

Do a few things like that, and toss in complication due to culture (for example, what if replicated meats were safe, but replicated vegatable matter isn't, so the UFP concil wants Vulcans to eat meat.) and things could start falling apart.