Violation of the Prime Directive? You decide!

[Cdre Bob Wesley]

Okay, here are the facts. I'm running a TOS game where the Captain and crew where sucked through a temporal rift into an alternate reality where Earth never made it through the Eugenics Wars, and thus never achieved warp capability.

So it's an alternate 2268 where the Romulan Star Empire rules that particular sector, including the Terran SOL system. To the Romulans, Earth is regarded as far too insignificant to be of any bother, so they've ignored it.

- The crew beamed down to this alternate Earth, and appeared before a post-apocalyptic tribe of Native Americans, in full uniform, and with visible field equipment on their person. They also chose to defend the tribe from harm by utilizing that same equipment in their full view.

- The crew gave self-revelation and self-identification of members of Starfleet, extraterrestrial members of Starfleet, mission, and technological capabilities to a pre-warp civilization of an alternate Earth, through a Vulcan mind-meld, which included references to space, other worlds, and/or advanced civilizations.

So. . .does this count as a clear violation of the Prime Directive? Why or why not?

The crew goes before a board of inquiry next week. Further questions are always welcome. Thanks.

[Pericles]

Wow, your PCs have managed to create the poster child case for violating the Prime Directive and are all on their way to a penal colony.

1) Assuming they scanned the planet before beam down, they would have know the tech level of the locals. By beaming down in front of them in full uniform, that alone violates the Prime Directive. If they didn't scan the planet first, then why not?

2) The PCs revealed the presence of a superior technology in front of the locals, doesn't matter that they thought they were doing the right thing. They interfered with the natural development of THIS Earth.

- The crew gave self-revelation and self-identification of members of Starfleet, extraterrestrial members of Starfleet, mission, and technological capabilities to a pre-warp civilization of an alternate Earth, through a Vulcan mind-meld, which included references to space, other worlds, and/or advanced civilizations.

3) This is what is going to send them all away for life. Regardless of using a mind meld to impart the information, they have directly assisted in advancing the technology of a primitive people. This is about the grossest most flagrant violation of the Prime Directive I have ever heard. As GM you have no choice, everyone involved has to be cashiered and go to jail for life, no other result is possible. That puts you in a bad spot as GM as you will lose all of your PCs, but you have no choice. If you don't hit them with the full resources of Federation law, the Prime Directive and all other regulations are just white noise that the PCs can ignore at will.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Is this a pre-existing alternate reality, occurring naturally, or one actualized from possibility by the passage through the temporal rift?

Is the Crew speaking in their own defense? Who's their lawyer?

- The crew gave self-revelation and self-identification of members of Starfleet, extraterrestrial members of Starfleet, mission, and technological capabilities to a pre-warp civilization of an alternate Earth, through a Vulcan mind-meld, which included references to space, other worlds, and/or advanced civilizations.

All concepts which had originated pre-Eugenics Wars, on Earth. I think the cultural biases of the inquiry board might come into play here; some admirals might feel like it was the Crew's responsibility to do more, or that there may be a greater chance of predicting changes, since, hey, Earth, and Earth at regular First Contact was pretty post-apocalyptic itself. For bonus weirdness points, one of the admirals in the Board of Inquiry was a descendant of this universe's version of one of the people the Crew saved in the alternate universe.

Who were they defending the tribe against?

EDIT: Was it clear to the Crew that, after passage through the Temporal Rift, their original Federation still existed? If not, that would be the hugest and most salient point I'd use in defense of the Crew–if they were the highest Federation authorities in the universe, they were in a position to abrogate the Prime Directive for the safety and security of said Federation.

[selek]

So. . .does this count as a clear violation of the Prime Directive? Why or why not?

The crew goes before a board of inquiry next week. Further questions are always welcome. Thanks.

I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague Pericles, and echo some of TDK's arguments.

IMO, the actions of the heroes constitute a technical violation of the Prime Directive, but not necessarily one that justifies court-martial (as the action of the landing party does not interfere in the natural development of said planet).

The full weight and might of the Prime Directive is invoked when the away party's actions significantly alter the course of a society's natural development.

In this instance, the heroes actions do not meet that benchmark.

Let's look at this point by point:

1) The heroes used advanced technological devices to defend the natives. In a post-apocalyptic society (or even on Earth today), there will be pockets of technological developments and pockets of technological regression. Some survivors will simply be better outfitted than others, and so this disparity is not egregious in an of itself.

The mere use of such devices is natural and does not alter the society's natural progression- however, GIVING the natives a phaser and how-to manual could significantly alter their natural development.

2) The heroes gave specific identification of self and mission. Specifically forbidden by Starfleet General Orders, this is the most egregious and clearly most prosecutable offense. Yet members of Starfleet have frequently identified themselves as extraterrestrials on non-warp capable worlds without violating the Prime Directive- this example is little different.

Further, Terrans had postulated extra-terrestrial life, Faster-Than-Light travel and the concepts of a interstellar alliances well before the Eugenics War.

3) There is ample precedent to suggest that the natural development of Earth would be to develop a technological society which eventually reaches out to the stars. Based on past examples of Terran behavior, the survivors of the Eugenics War would have eventually rebuilt a technological society and picked up essentially where their forebearers left off, achieving spaceflight and eventually warpdrive (unless the Romulans thwarted them first).

In short, the actions of the landing party confirms theories and suspicions the Terran survivors already had- but it DOES NOT significantly alter the natural development of the culture as a whole.

4) Unless there are significant, widespread violations you've omitted from the report, the "interference" by the away party is very localized and specific.

One small tribe with tales of outworlders from another with "spears of light" and "talking boxes" are apt to be dismissed as having smoked to much radioactive peyote- and are not apt to be taken seriously.

Within a generation or so, the interference will have faded into legend, and within a hundred years, into myth.

As stated, the crew has commited a technical violation of the Prime Directive- but there is ample precedent for doing so- the Enterprise on numerous occasions, the Farragut over Tyree's world, and so on.....

Short of egregious violations (such as Captain Tracy and the U.S.S. Exeter), Starfleet places a lot of stock in the judgement of the man on the scene- and is loathe to second guess him.

If the Captain believed that the "violations" were justified (and unless the violations were extreme or clearly unnecessary), the Admiralty will generally back him.

By the by....comparisons between your away party and Kirk's actions in The Omega Glory are not too far off. Both instances involve post-apocalyptic "Terran" societies.

In short- your crew violated the Prime Directive and needs to face a board of inquiry.

As Narrator/Prosecutor, you should do your level best to make them sweat.

Get them "on the stand" (in character) and grill them. Make them justify their actions and analyze the possible outcome of their actions. If your Captain is up to it, get him on the stand to defend his command judgement.

Make them think.

Make them squirm.

And then reward them for good roleplaying.

In my not so humble opinion, the crew's actions are consistent with those of other Starfleet away parties in difficult situations.

Yes, they clearly violated Starfleet General Orders- but that is not without precedent.

The worst they should receive for this is a letter of reprimand in their personnel jacket- but you don't have to tell them that.....



On a different note, I think the heroes might merit a severe- but private- dressing down from one or more of the Admirals.

Assuming the worst case scenario: that the heroes actions will place the alternate Earth on an accelerated course towards a space-faring society and technological advancement, they could not have done so at a worse time or in a worse way.

The Romulans control the Terran Sector. Any advanced technological development (especially FTL travel) will bring the planet to the attention of the Romulans, who will immediately conquer a/o subjugate the planet.

In short, the heroes may have set in motion a chain of events that will lead to Earth being conquered by the Romulans within the next century or two- with all of the fallout that that encompasses.

The judgement of the man-on-the-scene still justifies the crew's actions: but they've likely placed the alternate Earth on a road to war without providing any means of support or mutual assistance- which is both reckless and immoral.

This would be politically (and morally) comparable in most respects to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956- when the United States encouraged activists to overthrow the Soviet Union's puppet government- but proved unwilling to use military force to protect them from the natural outcome of such a revolt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...lution_of_1956

[selek]

3) This is what is going to send them all away for life. Regardless of using a mind meld to impart the information, they have directly assisted in advancing the technology of a primitive people. This is about the grossest most flagrant violation of the Prime Directive I have ever heard. As GM you have no choice, everyone involved has to be cashiered and go to jail for life, no other result is possible. That puts you in a bad spot as GM as you will lose all of your PCs, but you have no choice. If you don't hit them with the full resources of Federation law, the Prime Directive and all other regulations are just white noise that the PCs can ignore at will.

I want to tackle this one specifically and separately:

The only regulation (of which I'm aware) by which a Commanding Officer can be relieved of his duties specify that he be certified medically or psychologically unfit for said duties- and that attested by documented examinations by the presiding medical authority.

Unless or until the Commanding Officer is rendered (and certified) unfit for duty, his subordinates are morally and legally obligated to follow his orders, except where they are clearly criminal in nature.

The arguments in this thread alone demonstrate that alleged criminality of the actions of the Bretagne and her crew is subject to considerable debate.

Clearly, the officers of the Bretagne can argue that they were following their Captain's orders, and that those orders were not clearly criminal in nature.

This parallels (in some respects) the situation aboard the U.S.S. Pegasus prior to her loss in 2358.

Then-Captain Pressman was operating under Starfleet Authority- but in clear violation of both Federation law and the Treaty of Algeron. Because he knew his actions were a clear violation of the law, he could not claim to be "just following orders".

When the truth finally came out, Pressman and his surviving officers were court-martialed for their actions in violation of law and treaty, in relation to the loss of the Pegasus, and in the subsequent cover-up.

On the other hand, the loss of the Pegasus was a direct consequence of a mutiny aboard. Her senior officers (upon discovering the violation of Federation law and the Treaty), took up arms against the Captain- the ship's lawful authority- and would have faced a court-martial for doing so (had they survived).

The central question would have been: Did the Captain's willful violation of Federation law and treaty justify his removal from command?

I think most of us would agree that it did- the loss of the Pegasus clearly demonstrated that the experiments were not only illegal, but reckless.

The case can be made that by recklessly endangering his ship, and by violating both Federation law and treaty, Captain Pressman was unfit for command. The officers of the Pegasus would very likely have been exonerated at court-martial.

The same cannot be said of the crew of the Bretagne.

Had the crew of the Bretagne mutinied, the question would have been: Did the Captain's apparrent violation of the Prime Directive justify his removal?

It has not been clearly demonstrated that the alleged violations were criminal, nor has it been demonstrated that the Bretagne's captain was recklessly or needlessly endangering his vessel.

In the absence of a clear violation of Federation law or Starfleet regulations, and in the absence of a clear threat to the vessel, the Bretagne's officers had no clear justification to relieve him of command.

As such, they were legally and morally obligated to follow his orders.

Even assuming that the Board of Inquiry decides that the actions in question were a clear and flagrant violation of the Prime Directive, it is far more likely that the Captain of the Bretagne will bear the fullest weight and responsibility for that violation.

Moreover, given the "mild" nature of those violations, he would undoubtedly be stripped of his command and retired in disgrace, but prison is unlikely in any event. The Executive Officer and Away Team leader might face a similar punishment- but prison is simply.

It is even less likely that their subordinates- obeying orders in good faith- would receive more than a letter of reprimand and a black mark in thier service jackets.

[Owen E Oulton]

It's actually a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive and would net them a visit from Dulmer and Lucsley of the DTI...

[Pericles]

In the absence of a clear violation of Federation law or Starfleet regulations, and in the absence of a clear threat to the vessel, the Bretagne's officers had no clear justification to relieve him of command.

I have to completely disagree. Any order to violate the Prime Directive is grounds on its own to be relieved, no other criminal violation is needed. These officers by following illegal orders are just as guilty as the captain. Every GM gets to look at things their way, but in my Starfleet, EVERY one of these PCs would go to a penal colony for life. I know the Star Trek novels are not canon, but the Novel Prime Directive makes it clear that event the intent to violate the Prime Directive will generate an inquiry into the individual's actions. Just because Kirk got away with it all the time, it doesn't mean any other individual can.

[selek]

I have to completely disagree. Any order to violate the Prime Directive is grounds on its own to be relieved, no other criminal violation is needed.

And yet Riker did not relieve Picard, Chakotay never relieved Janeway, Dax never relieved Sisko (nor did Kira),Spock never relieved Kirk.

All of these commanders commited violations of the Prime Directive every bit as flagrant as those committed by the Bretagne and her officers.

These officers by following illegal orders are just as guilty as the captain.

And yet it has not been demonstrated that the Bretagne's captain had exceeded his authority, let alone committed an illegal act.

The alleged violation of the Prime Directive is not as open-and-shut a case as you presume- as demonstrated by the dissenting opinions you've received.

Every GM gets to look at things their way, but in my Starfleet, EVERY one of these PCs would go to a penal colony for life.

And I acknowlege that this is how you run your games. I (and others) simply disagree.

I know the Star Trek novels are not canon, but the Novel Prime Directive makes it clear that event the intent to violate the Prime Directive will generate an inquiry into the individual's actions.

I've read that particular novel many times, and your accusation holds no merit.

"Intent" is a thought-crime. The Federation does not prosecute such things (unless Admiral Satee happens to be around). Perhaps you meant the "attempt" to violate the Prime Directive?

Kirk was relieved of his command for the flagrant violation the Prime Directive, a crime which was aggravated by the genocidal war which took place at the same time, and for which Enterprise was blamed.

Millions (if not billions) were dead- and yet Kirk was not put through a court-martialed and was instead allowed to resign. No prison time involved.

Spock (as Executive Officer) was broken back to Ensign and reassigned. No court-martial was invoked, and he too was eventually allowed to resign. No prison time was invoked or involved.

In fact, each of the officers on the bridge: Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, and McCoy were DENIED court-martials in the incident and were simply black-listed and allowed to resign. No prison time involved.

Uhura was detained/imprisoned for her refusal to sign the alleged confession- not for her contributions to the violation of the Prime Directive.

Just because Kirk got away with it all the time, it doesn't mean any other individual can.

But it wasn't just Kirk.

It was Kirk, Picard, Janeway, Sisko, Archer. In short, every "regular" series Captain has committed "egregious" violations of the Prime Directive- and Starfleet Command and the Federation have bowed to the judgement of "the man (or woman) on the scene".

We understand how you'd run it, were it your game.

I and others are simply far less stringent in our interpretation of the matter.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

It's actually a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive and would net them a visit from Dulmer and Lucsley of the DTI...

Good point!

[Cdre Bob Wesley]

Is this a pre-existing alternate reality, occurring naturally, or one actualized from possibility by the passage through the temporal rift?

Uhh. . . >.> *flips a coin*

Is the Crew speaking in their own defense? Who's their lawyer?

Well, I'd like to keep it as close to canon as possible. I was thinking they would maybe face a board of inquiry first.

For bonus weirdness points, one of the admirals in the Board of Inquiry was a descendant of this universe's version of one of the people the Crew saved in the alternate universe.

I was not aware of that. Do tell!

Who were they defending the tribe against?

I had established that all humanity on Earth had "devolved" to a sub-human neanderthal race of beings that threatened the last remains of a dying tribe of Klamath-Modoc Indians. The crew of the Bretagne was defending the lives of these same Indians.

Was it clear to the Crew that, after passage through the Temporal Rift, their original Federation still existed? If not, that would be the hugest and most salient point I'd use in defense of the Crew–if they were the highest Federation authorities in the universe, they were in a position to abrogate the Prime Directive for the safety and security of said Federation.

Which could not be determined for certain from the alt-reality they were currently in. Food for thought. Thanks!

[Cdre Bob Wesley]

I want Selek's NPC as attorney for the defense!

[Cdre Bob Wesley]

After dealing with this issue for the first time as a GM, I think the Prime Directive creates its own problem from TV series to RPG.

- In TV, you just get a team of writers to rationalize the violation(s), or ignore them altogether.

- In an RPG, it's more of a cold improv for the players, and so becomes it's own Catch-22.

On the one hand, you can't violate the Prime Directive, because it sets the tone of Starfleet officers. You threaten to violate the entire genre, or at least set a precedent for it.

On the other hand, you're almost always in a situation where you can be accused of violating the Prime Directive (or you soon will be).

And with a projected risk outcome like that, I might as well be playing Call of Cthulhu. Since your rank/command determines your character in ST:RPG, then no matter what I do, I will eventually lose my character.

Even I didn't know what I was getting into until we were hip-deep in the dilemma. But thanks for the insight, all. It's been most informative.

[selek]

On the other hand, you're almost always in a situation where you can be accused of violating the Prime Directive (or you soon will be).

It's called the burden of command, and if it's done right, it can be A LOT of fun (for the Narrator/GM!)

Our crew has a 'special guest star' filling in for our regular captain. He's the 'Commodore' of the local collection of Star Trek clubs, and a life-long Trekkie- but a fairly novice gamer.

Last Wednesday, he ordered the ship and crew into Romulan space (not the Neutral Zone, but into the Empire itself) to rescue the crew of a missing Federation starship lost 14 years prior.

Sunday evening, he called me at home wanting assurances that this was the right decision and that there were indeed survivors to be rescued- in short, that he wasn't risking ship and crew needlessly.

He was both amused and troubled when I refused to give him the comfort and reassurance he sought.

Burden of command indeed!

Since your rank/command determines your character in ST:RPG, then no matter what I do, I will eventually lose my character.

Actually, that's not neccesarily true- start your players off with little things and encourage 'Starfleet' thinking, then when the pattern is established, escalate to the harder stuff. Your players will surprise you. They've already demonstrated they want to be heroes- it's your job as GM to help them become heroes in the mold of Kirk, Pike, and Archer...

Even I didn't know what I was getting into until we were hip-deep in the dilemma.

To me, that's the fun of roleplaying...taking the story places you'd never thought to go.

[Pericles]

And I acknowlege that this is how you run your games. I (and others) simply disagree.

I guess that ends the discussion as I still completely disagree.

[selek]

I guess that ends the discussion as I still completely disagree.

It need not end the discussion entirely, but I don't see how we can come to more than an impasse.

And I especially don't want it to escalate into some sort of half-baked hostility between us.

We disagree. C'est la vie!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm also not convinced that the Bretagne's intervention amounts to a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive, as we are talking about independent/alternate timelines.

Given the degenerate state of humanity as described by Commodore Bob, the Bretagne's actions in defending the tribe against the proto-Morlocks could be described as preventing genocide- just as were the Enterprise's actions with Yonada (Natira's people), the Hill People ("A Private Little War"), and Miramanee's planet ("The Paradise Syndrome").

In point of fact, the crew of the Bretagne did nothing to alter the planet's past, and as demonstrated above, it's arguable (at best) that they altered the planet's future.

The fact that the tribe in question was essentially a stone-age culture to begin with makes it even more unlikely that the Bretagne's actions would have a lasting long-term effect on their development.

Given the minimal effect of the Bretagne's "intervention" and the fact that the ship was from roughly the same historical era, I doubt an effective case could be made for either a Prime Directive or Temporal Prime Directive violation.

As far as "intent" goes, there is one incontrovertable fact that must be acknowledged: the crew was acting under emotional and moral duress.

They could risk violating the Prime Directive (historically subject to Captain's discretion) or they could stand idly by and watch mass murder and genocide being committed.

Either way they chose, their actions were morally or legally questionable. In my considered opinon, they chose the lesser of two evils and acted within the guidelines and discretion afforded them by Federation law and Starfleet regulations.

Their actions were (arguably) morally and ethically responsible and were carried out in an effort to preserve life.

They did not act with callous disregard for the consequences of thier actions (which was one of the accusations made against Kirk in Prime Directive), nor was there any criminal intent.

To quote Gene Hackman as Captain Frank Ramsey, "What'd you think, son? That I was just some crazy old coot, putting everyone in harm's way as I yelled "YEE-HA!"? "

There is no indication that the Captain of the Bretagne nor any of his officers acted in any fashion that was clearly and blatantly contradictory to the laws of the Federation, the regulations of Starfleet, or to the best interests of the population of the alternate timeline.

Unless reckless disregard, ill-intent, or clear, blatant, or flagrant violation of the law or Starfleet regulations can be demonstrated, there are no grounds for a full court-martial, let alone for mandatory prison sentences.