Registered User
Federation Civil War
I am thinking of a running game set after/during a Federation Civil War.
The setting:
5 years after "Voyager" the Federation becomes deeply divided over civil control, "political correctness", personal freedoms. A large portion of the Fed breaks away and bands together in it's version of the "perfect" Federation (as it was ment to be). One Federation would be more Totalitarian; The other more "open".
What do you think?
Moderator
Personally, if you are looking for a point to have such a schism, I would consider doing it during DS9, prior to the Dominion War. I had heard rumors that Season 4 of DS9 was going to involve planets leaving the Federation due to the paranoia caused by the Changelings.
Moderator
Hmmm, how to put this tactfully....
This is me as a narrator/player, not as a moderator.
Unless your group is of very similar political views, I would be careful with regards to having a Liberal vs. Libertarian schism in the Federation. It seems a good way to cause a lot of dissent and arguments among the players of your group. Such things tend to hit close to home. I ran into a similar issue when I actually wrote an adventure detailing a parallel universe where Nazi Germany won WWII. I pulled it at the last moment when I realized how close to home it would hit for some of the players.
Now if your players are all of similar views, then it could be interesting. However, I would try to avoid contemporary political analogies. The Federation seems to be very different politcally from modern governments. Its own issues seem to be more...
1) how to manage colonies, especially border ones (i.e. the Maquis)
2) how to protect the Federation without compromising its values (Section 31, "Paradise Lost"
These things, taken to reasonable extremes, could also cause a disruption of the Federation Alliance.
Registered User
Quite right about the potential for disruptive modern-day political tensions in player groups, and also about the differences between the politics of the Federation and today.
My own take on the labels I am using is that the real issue is the relationship between the central Federation institutions and the individual member worlds. This effects both the level of automnomy given to colonies, and also the way threats such as the Dominion are handled.
It might be better to call the PC faction Centralists, and the Libertarian faction Decentralists, because that is more what I have in mind. Note that all the members of the Decentralist faction have a long history of doing things their own way, and of pursuing their own interests. Conversely, the Centralists are those planets which I see as having the most influence on central UFP political institutions as of the end of the Dominion War.
I was using the term Libertarian not with modern Libertarians in mind, actually, but to refer to their support of the liberties of individual member races and colonies.
As in the American Civil War, BOTH sides in the UFP Civil War are liberal democracies in terms of individual liberties, though there would be differences of emphasis from age to age, race to race, and faction to faction.
The shared heritage of idealism and democracy could give the UFP Civil War an element of pathos, drama, and tragedy not unlike the American Civil War. Whether it is still Star Trek at that point is an interesting question.
------------------
Slan agat!
Registered User
I think you will be looking at a Confederation vs Federation split. There would be those in the Federation who want it to grow towards a more centralized state where as some would feel these members are corrupting the original Ideals and principles of the Federation and would break away in an effort to "save the Federation".
Terrans would be split as would Andorians
Vulcans might be in favor of Succession as would the Centaurans, But they might just be as divided as Terrans. Tellarites probably on the side of Succession but relutantly.
The others would fall into line with them. A Civil War as proven by our own here in the US could turn even more nastier than the Dominion War as so many species have had to swollow so much from the others there would be time for payback. Even though they are suppose to be so much more advanced once the veil of Serenity and civility is lefted all the members have some very bad faces to show toward the others.
This could be quite interesting but I would put the time frame maybe another 5 years past voyager say 10 instead of 5 and think of some places where the two already begin to conflict much like Kansas and Nebraska did in the 1850's.
Also I would play before the war as while because this might mean your character will have to choose which side and the end of the series could be that Farwell and good fortune and see ya in Hell type parting which was so common in the Army when the Civil War Started.
[This message has been edited by Eric R. (edited 06-21-2001).]
Registered User
I can envision a civil war in the Federation,
but I really doubt that the two sides would
be divided quite so neatly along racial
lines. I can, for instance, envision the
human inhabitants of a recently established
colony siding with the "Libertarians," on
the grounds that they want to run their
world as they see fit. On the other hand,
the human inhabitants of another recently
established colony (in the next star system)
might feel deep gratitude towards the
Federation as a whole after being saved from
some dreadful disaster by Starfleet, so they
would side with the "PC faction."
I kind of like the idea of a Federation civil
war, but making species a major deciding
factor in where the line of battle is drawn
seriously cuts against the central "Star
Trek" themes of "free will" and "rising
above mere heredity and lower instincts."
Registered User
Yeah, maybe we should read those races as just refering to the homeworlds, that is, where Earth, Andor, and so on would end up.
Colonies might well jump any which way depending on local cultures and histories. This would also give PCs, in this case meaning Player Characters, a chance to be on any side regardless of race.
Some planets might end up divided, too, leading to either neutrality or nasty little local civil wars ala Missouri in the American Civil War. Some of those might easily end up uglier and longer than the main war.
What the other major powers, Romulans, Klingons, Cardassholes (can I say that?), and so on might do is anyone's guess.
And then the Borg invade and assimilate everyone.......they all died miserably ever after.
------------------
Slan agat!
Moderator
A further caveat - would the members of the Federation truly fight each other? I could see distrust. But if a member did leave the Federation of its own accord, would the Federation try to force it back by means of military force? There was considerable debate during the US Civil War. Would the Federation actually initiate a war?
Personally I think not.
Unless, of course, something was causing the leaders of the Federation to act a bit differently. An Admiral Leyton? "Mr. President, you must give me the authority..."
Something about that bothered me, to. Especially in the TNG Core Game book, p 21. second column,<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Stack:
A further caveat - would the members of the Federation truly fight each other?
Personally I think not.
Unless, of course, something was causing the leaders of the Federation to act a bit differently. An Admiral Leyton? "Mr. President, you must give me the authority..."
</font>
If I read this correctly, if members went to war against each other in civil war, you could argue that the Federation is dissolved.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The UFP will not extend membership to a world at war wtih any current member, nor one involved in a war of aggression against any sentient life form.
</font>
I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that.
------------------
Impossibilities are merely things which we have not yet learned. — Charles W. Chesnutt
Registered User
What about people who want to leave the Federation? Are the UFP and Starfleet required to relocate people who disagree with current Federation politics? What if (nearly) half the Vulcan population decides that they want nothing to do with all the other races?
Registered User
I think a Federation Civil War would not be racially divided but rather Core World vs Colonies. I have always felt that the Federation's one race one vote was a pot waiting to boil. I think that the Maquis is an example of this. A group of colonists who lived on thier planets for years given up for a peace in a war that they suffered in. They were given up by thier core worlds who were never effected by the war. If I were on one of the other colinies I would begin to wonder if my goverment would use me as a consession for peace, say with hostle Romulans or Breen. I think that after the Dominion War thses feeling would increase because you would see most of the rebuilding effort aimmed at the Core Worlds. I would want a voice for my colony on the Federation Council and Demand each planet of system have a vote.
Registered User
Oh, man, do I disagree! Respects to you Dan, but Trek has always been a mirror for contemporary issues. Particularly political ones:<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Stack:
Hmmm, how to put this tactfully....
This is me as a narrator/player, not as a moderator.
Unless your group is of very similar political views, I would be careful with regards to having a Liberal vs. Libertarian schism in the Federation. It seems a good way to cause a lot of dissent and arguments among the players of your group. Such things tend to hit close to home. I ran into a similar issue when I actually wrote an adventure detailing a parallel universe where Nazi Germany won WWII. I pulled it at the last moment when I realized how close to home it would hit for some of the players.
Now if your players are all of similar views, then it could be interesting. However, I would try to avoid contemporary political analogies. The Federation seems to be very different politcally from modern governments. Its own issues seem to be more...
1) how to manage colonies, especially border ones (i.e. the Maquis)
2) how to protect the Federation without compromising its values (Section 31, "Paradise Lost"
These things, taken to reasonable extremes, could also cause a disruption of the Federation Alliance.</font>
I've been doing my best to protray the Federation as well-intentioned, idealistic...and wholly naive and inefficient. A centralized government of 150 some planets? Bureaucratic nightmare! And trying to make laws that will respect all cultures? Good luck. At best you'd get a confederation...and one that would constantly be strained by the self-interest of the individual worlds.
Another point that most gloss over: the Federation is a communist government. That means centralized control over a series of levels of govrenment. This is no democracy: the Federation Council operates by votes of the representatives sent there by planetary government. They might be elected, but the reps aren't. The prez isn't. Hence the administration is not answerable to the common Fed citizen.
Think about it...how many layers of red tape would you have to go through to get to anybody of any real clout in the UFP? How much stovepiping of data is there, and how does that effect the decisionmaking process? A lot of people forget that these were intrinsic problems in every communist regime we've seen so far. (In the case of China, the introduction of capitalism I thnk gives a lot of ammunition to claim them fascist...not communist anymore.)
This is a contemporary parallel, in many ways, to the conflict in this country politically: do we let issues like political correctness, the government keeping us 'safe', and give up a little freedom? Do we allow the people to decide for themselves, with the government as an arbiter only?
I hear some of you out there..."But, qerlin, that's what Trek is all about, overcoming our baser instincts to become better, more noble creatures." Weeeeeell, that's all well and good...but I think the movies and later shows have disproven that we've come that far...the way the Maquis were treated by the UFP. The internal plots against peace with the Klingons, the constant intelligence battles with the Romulans. Section 31...
Admittedly, this is opinion, but what about reality isn't based on perception, hence opinion? (Wow, I've got to stop reading Phillip K Dick stuff...) If they were to truly reflect the best interests of each individual, you would have a VERY loose alliance of worlds with very libertarian outlook. I think this is a well thought-out way to go. And that's not just 'cause we're doing something similar here...
We're just seeing the starts of a collaspe of the Fedration in our campaign; not full blown civil war but a lot of the newer or outlying colonies breaking away. Members like Betazed and Benzar aren't pleased the Fed left them to hang in the wind during the war (yes...they had no choice, but try to reason with a concentration camp victim. No dice...) They are disturbed by lapses in the Fed's ideals: dealing with the Sona, trying to steal Baku, aiding the Cardies in crushing the Maquis.
There's a lot for them to not like...
Would the Federation races fight each other? Abso-bloody-lutely, as me mum would say. There are plenty of differences in culture and interests, but also there are strata of members: the core races that founded the UFP would be horrified by a rejection of their core beliefs and this entity (UFP) they've built.
You would see something like a terran/vulcan/andorian faction that would be very pro-Fed; Tellarites would so enjoy the arguement, I think they would be willing to sit back and mediate differences...but I thik if they were exposed to a REALLY good arguement against the UFP, they'd ditch.
The next group of members: Deltans, and the other movie era guys, would be pro-Fed, but might be looking for some kind of change in the structure to empower the outlyers in opinion. There would be the new guys that would see the internal struggle and might want to get clear...or take advantage of it to improve their lot. There would be the guys that suffered through the war, the Maquis sympatizers, and the like. They would be very prone to Ferengi/Orion influence; and make no mistake, they would view the UFP as a major enemy -- an imposition on their right to free trade and profit.
I LOVE this idea. Run with it, man!
[This message has been edited by qerlin (edited 06-21-2001).]
Registered User
Warning, I'm babling here but this is my idea. I'm writing this on the fly so it may fall apart.
I remember watching a movie called 'the 2nd Civil War' on HBO about something very similar. In the movie, the governor of Idaho starts doing some things the feds don't want him to do and the situation gets tense really fast. Other states that are dissatisfied also throw their lot in with Idaho and a military stand off ensures. What causes the whole thing to blow up is a miscommunication aout the governors intent. After that, all out war starts.
Applying this to Star Trek, lets say the Vulcan government decides that it doesn't like where the Federation is going. To show their disapproval, they with hold their contribution to the Federation 'until certain issues are dealt with'. Nothing really major there unless some of what the Vulcans are wanting to change hits a few other nerves.
The president would probably like to keep this from getting out of hand and would send in the person who can deal with the Vulcans in the best manner. The best person would be Captain Picard because of his binding with Sarek. So in goes Picard and the flagship of the Federation.
Now then, imagine if you were someon who was disgruntled and saw the Federation sending in Starfleets most powerful ship. I can see a few looking at it as a sign that the Federation is moving away from its ideals and would support Vulcan by not giving the Federation its dues and maybe sending an ambassador (read their own defence for) to show support to the Vulcans.
Given the skill that Picard has shown and Vulcan logic, it isn't hard to see the two sides coming up with an agreement. However, when it gets to the council floor, it causes some major outbursts and several of the delegates from the disgruntled worlds walk out. When word of this gets back to their homeworld, their delagates are recalled home as a stronger protest. To make the situation worse, one of the worlds, lets say the Tellarites, were so insulted by the council that they order all Starfleet vessels and personel to leave their system while their own defence force takes over.
Now then, Starfleet probably wouldn't like it nor would many of the people, but what choice does Starfleet really have? Get into a very tense stand off with a member world? Starfleet would probably want to take as much of its equipment as possible but I doubt the defence force would let them bring ships in. Instead the Tellarites will relieve the personel and transport them to waiting ships.
The situation gets worse when a few Starfleet (dominion war veterans) personel get mad at the Tellarites for their actions and start a fight. This naturally will get out of hand and several people on both sides are severly wounded before order can be restored. Now you have a really bad situation.(if you really want things to get out of hand, have some of the ships take pot shots at each other)
This serves as the rallying point for several other worlds who follow Tellars lead and try to evict Starfleet (and maybe even other government officials) as well as send some delegates to Tellar. The rift is formed and all it takes is a match to the powder keg.
Unfortunatly,I'm out of time and can't post again until Monday.
Registered User
I think your ideas can work together: the movement to secede begins during the Dominion War, both due to Changeling-inspired paranoia, and also due to the growing conformism in the UFP. A secession movement takes time to develop, however, and so the actual secessions do not take place until some time after the war.
An added wrinkle is that I suspect there would be three factions, and not just two. You have the Libertarian secessionists. But then you also have the Totalitarian PC Camp, and a third group who just want the UFP to stay the way it is. We'll call them Conservatives.
Here is how I think the various races would break down, a ? next to a race means that it is divided against itself, or that I just don't know:
Humans PC
Centaurians PC
Andorians Libertarian
Tellarites Libertarian
Vulcans Conservative
Tiburons Libertarian
Axenari ?
Bolians PC
Betazoids PC
Deltans Conservative
Betelgeusians ?
Benzites Conservative
Grazerites PC
Napeans PC
Zakdorn Libertarian
Zaldans ?
Ktarians Libertarian
Looking at that lineup, the Conservatives would probably try to declare neutrality in the war. They don't seem to have the military strength or numbers to prevail. The Libertarians and PC sides are pretty evenly matched. The PC faction has more races, but the Libertarians include more warrior races, not an insignificant consideration.
Would get interesting, and probably ugly, eventually.
------------------
Slan agat!
[This message has been edited by Aedh Rua (edited 06-21-2001).]
Registered User
Several very interesting scenarios. I especially like the the point about the "one race, one vote" thing. I suspect that this would be only one of several issue, though.
Just like in real history, this is going to be messy. There will be races with planets on both sides of the issue. Both major sides, Decentralist and Centralist, will promise different types of concessions to colonies to get them to join with them. I can see the Centralists trying to give each planet a vote, but the Decentralists guaranteeing the sovereignty and territory of each colony world.
This makes it a hard choice for the colonies. One side will give you a vote, but might trade you to the Romulans someday. The other will never give you to the Romulans, and will give internal autonomy, but won't listen to you.
What does the Federation charter say about member worlds seceding? The question of whether the Federation worlds will fight or not might be settled they have a constitutional right to leave. In that case, instead of a civil war, you have the (more or less) peaceful division of the Federation, followed by a long series of court cases.
Both factions might prefer that. We have to remember that the Federation is surrounded by predatory races, some powerful, some less so, who would no doubt love a chance to take a chunk of Federation space. In the end, whatever the flaws of both sides, most member worlds would prefer any kind of Federation rule to life under, say, the Tholians.
------------------
Slan agat!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote