Blockquote Ah, PCs who would have been booted out of Starfleet long before the campaign even started…!
Oy vey to the Nth degree.
Admittedly, I have never ran a game Star Trek Adventures game, but I ran a few in older game systems, and knowing gamers from oh so many other games, this is something that always annoyed me.
Wanting to paly in a specific setting, with the assumptions of that setting, and then purposely going against those assumptions every chance the player gets , and then claiming it is for ‘role playing’
Is there room for variation in Star Trek, yes by all means, and is it good to have a character or 2 have a friction point, or skeleton in the closet, of course.
However, when you have a character (or all the characters) that would not have made it into the academy, yet they are somehow in star fleet, have background history that would have got them standing tall before the ole man and gotten them stacks of reprimands counseling etc, (which KILL an o’s chance at promotion) and yet they are holding rank and in charge of x y or z, and they continuously go against the state feel of the setting in the games. Why play that setting in the first place.
We have a female Green Orion who is the consort and transporter operator of the captain in our Klingons side-campaign. We also have two Orions in our free traders side-campaign — a male Green Orion mad scientist and a female Ruddy Orion cat burglar. These characters have all proven vivid and versatile. I highly recommend not allowing them in Starfleet because (at least in “The Cage”) they are living symbols of the opposite of Starfleet: chaos and crime and illogic. Of course any PC can be an exception to the rule; I just think different races are more effective if they are not samey.
While it’s originally a Vulcan concept, I do believe IDIC has been carried forward into Starfleet. If so, then there is nothing so diverse that is really the opposite of it (other than, perhaps, total uniformity–so the Borg).
True enough. But I think it’s fair to say Star Trek makes generous use of juxtaposition. Klingons are big on surveillance, Orions are big on slavery, etc. These are antithetical to Starfleet ideals, and things Kirk and Pike wouldn’t tolerate, though Spock might.
It’s funny how the Klingon Empire becomes the truest ally of the Federation in the 24th century despite the Empire’s continuing forced subjugation of other species.
That’s the logic of racism, though: the idea that attitudes and values and opinions of a person can be reduced to a simple attribute such as whether or not they’re Orions.
It’s also true that, while the Orion Syndicate (as a nation/state/power) may be pursuing crime and slavery, individuals frequently have values that aren’t reflective of the power systems that they have to exist in.
Finally, on top of all that, people throughout all of history have migrated to find new opportunities. Just because someone is Orion (in the “descended from Orion people” sense) doesn’t mean that they’ve ever lived under Orion systems of government.
Not necessarily. I mean, remember we’re talking about a fictional species which can have a number of interpretations or be used for a number of different story purposes. Of course you could tackle issues of human racism in this context, but that’s not the only possible issue that you can explore in science fiction. So if you invent a fictional nation of small people named Lilliputians, you could perhaps tackle issues of height discrimination, or you could say the Lilliputians symbolize people with a narrow outlook, who mind the petty and trivial things. In the latter case, could you have a Lilliputian who was not petty? No, because in the language of symbol, that person would no longer be small, therefore they would by definition not be a Lilliputian.
I think I’ll just quote China Miéville, who says this much better than I do:
In the broader sense, I absolutely do think that the implicit politics of our narratives, whether we are consciously “meaning” them or not, matter, and that therefore we should be as thoughtful about them as possible. That doesn’t mean we’ll always succeed in political perspicacity—which doesn’t mean the same thing as tiptoeing —but we should try. So for example: If you have a world in which Orcs are evil, and you depict them as evil, I don’t know how that maps onto the question of “political correctness.” However, the point is not that you’re misrepresenting Orcs (if you invented this world, that’s how Orcs are), but that you have replicated the logic of racism, which is that large groups of people are “defined” by an abstract supposedly essential element called “race,” whatever else you were doing or intended. And that’s not an innocent thing to do. Maybe you have a race of female vampires who destroy men’s strength. They really do operate like that in your world. But I think you’re kidding yourself if you think that that idea just appeared ex nihilo in your head and has nothing to do with the incredibly strong, and incredibly patriarchal, anxiety about the destructive power of women’s sexuality in our very real world. These things are not reducible to our “intent”—we all inherit all kinds of bits and pieces of cultural bumf, plenty of them racist and sexist and homophobic, because that’s how our world works, so how could you avoid it?
So I’d suggest that one should be open-eyed about the facts that the categories with which we think and write and read, are not innocent, and that we should do our best not to use them to replicate the worst aspects of the cultural bumf that put them in our heads in the first place.
I’ve been thinking about this, the above seemed off to me and I disagree with it. However, it took a bit before I could give a good counter.
One thing is it/we are crossing two distinct different wires. It talks about race, and then brings in modern political views of raciest sexist etc stance. Where if someone has a counter view they can be labeled as raciest sexist homophobic etc.
However, what is being talked about is species. An elf is an elf and it is a separate species than human, it is not a human with pointy ears. An orc is an orc and it is not a human with green skin and pointy teeth. A hyena is not a dog and it does not act as a dog, it is not physically the same as a dog and to say they are the same or act the same is dangerous (if you live around hyenas) and undercuts the species differences.
Different species have different physical make up, different mindsets, different cultural assumptions, and the list can go on.
Now I’m not saying you can’t have a world/galaxy where different species are morphic and there is little difference between humans orions elf orc and what ever. It is your game do in your game what ever is fun and enjoyable to you.
However, when someone has a world where a human is a human and has species difference from other species, and orc is a different species and the species norm is brutality and strength, an elf is a species and the species is beauty ( insert Tolkien elf abelites), an Orion is a species with green skin, alluring sensuality (and some have pheromones) and slavery is the norm, and it is implied that that is raciest sexists etc does attempt to force the one making the world to modify what they are making for their enjoyment in a game into what others consider acceptable and not what they find enjoyable.
I guess this is the old debate of nature vs. nurture.
When taking about real scientific species, like dog vs. cat, then you are right. You can for example teach a dog tricks and commands, but not a cat (generally speaking). However, from what is portrayed on the show, I tend to view the different species more like nationalities or cultures. There is nothing inherently devious in a Romulan, and Orions are not naturally prone to capturing slaves. These are cultural traits for me.
And while your take on different species may be scientifically more accurate, I believe that it is actually the intention of Star Trek to portray most of the differences between the species as cultural rather than genetic. Of course there are always some things that are inherit of a species, such as Worf’s anger issues.
To be clear: This is my opinion, I don’t want to infer that anyone is wrong or racist or something.
I was thinking of playing an Orion at one point and figured his motive to enter SF would be something like: The Orion syndicate has a “hit” put out for him and he enters SF initially as a means of self preservation. His Orion culture would put him in conflict, from time to time, with SF protocols, etiquette and philosophy but he would eventually call SF his home. You could do some great adventures that challenge his loyalty.
Gorn PC would be awesome as well (TOS Gorn of course )
Blockquote I was thinking of playing an Orion at one point and figured his motive to enter SF would be something like: The Orion syndicate has a “hit” put out for him and he enters SF initially as a means of self preservation. His Orion culture would put him in conflict, from time to time, with SF protocols, etiquette and philosophy but he would eventually call SF his home. You could do some great adventures that challenge his loyalty.
Honestly I like the idea of that, and especially the 'you could do some great adventures that challenge his loyalty.
However, if it is as dificult to get into Star Fleet as it is presented - especially the TNG shows dealing with Wesley trying so hard to get qualified for SF - How does an 18 to 20 year old Orion on the run from the syndicate with a price on his head qualify for SF academy ???
I know how hard it is to get into the current military academies - I got to work with 3 AF Os that were academy grads & they were all very smart - 2 ended up being good Os one was an … Oxygen thief and a … well I can’t cuss here but I’m sure you all can figure what I’m thinking - and more from the Army academy - and they too were exceptionally smart and well trained (though some of them too had their own issues). Plus I had a young troop that made it into the AF academy prep course - he dropped after a year, he was too tainted with our team thought and had to much real combat experience to fit in with the academy mindset.
TNG makes it as hard, or harder, to get into Star Fleet, and the other shows (well not Enterprise) imply it is as hard too. So if that is the established cannon of Star Fleet, then how would someone on run from the mob make it into Star Fleet ???
One thing that could fix it is a DS9 answer. Have the character start out as a non Star Fleet individual, but one that works with them and has valuable experience skills etc, Then as they prove their abilities and worth they are brought into Star Fleet without going through the normal Star Fleet pipeline. Now … how that fits into your game is the rub … do you start it with him on the run and needing to prove to SF how valuable he is, do you start with him established with SF and now working toward getting accepted into SF officially, or do you start with him fully in SF and have all that be his back story ???
Exactly. What you suggest are all possibilities and if he has a game where he saves the ship or a colony, then he starts proving himself invaluable. Uncommon bravery can go a long way. Maybe he’s an awesome pilot/ helmsman to boot? Maybe it was his higher morals and betraying orders that brought the hammer down from the Syndicate? Maybe it will take time for him to change that value of “Revenge is a dish best served cold?” Intriguing stuff for a GM and fun for a player.
My experience with RPG’s is that it just depends on GM and player creativity to make something happen. This is an opportunity where the game can break away from series canon and start writing its own. Which to me is the whole point of playing STA.
No, not quite. I think that this is the old debate of conscious vs. unconscious.
As @bcholmes pointed out (and rightly so, thank you! ) both are interdependent. Their argument was that our fiction (as created by us, consciously) is not independent of the reality we live in and that we should think about the concepts we use in our fiction, unconsciously, as they could reinforce how we perceive these concepts in reality. There is lots of truth in this argument.
When @Falconer made their point, they were emphasing Orions being symbols and this is the important point here. Falconer did not discuss Orions, specifically, but the role Orions take in the symbolism of the Star Trek stories. It was about the concepts Orions stand for. And it is correct that Orions represent crime, lust, mischiveous power etc., just like Klingons represent wild rage and brute force, Vulcans represent pure logic, Romulans represent lies and deceit, Ferengi ruthless sexist capitalists and so on.
@bcholmes did not contest this statement, but the concept of these ‘symbols’ as such. It is indeed the ‘logic’ of racism that a group distinguished by non-chosen aspects (i.e. skin colour vs. job) would share certain personality traits, in general. And they stated that we should reflect whether we want to introduce this ‘symbolism’ in our games as they would (unconsciously) reinforce a concept that has proven to be toxic in the real world.
And both are right to a certain extent.
To give an example: Imagine a fictional world where all the good guys wear blue socks and all the bad guys wear green socks. That’s just the way it works: Blue socks – good guys, green socks – bad guys. This is a very useful trait of this world, since a spectator (just like us), would easily be able to see whether some character in this world was a good guy or a bad guy. Until some good guy for some random reason decided to put on green socks. Which would make him a bad guy, since he wears the symbol of the bad guys, right? And yet, he’s a good guy at heart, acting like a true good guy – because he is. This would break the concept we just established about the good guys wearing blue socks and the bad guys wearing green socks.
Falconer would now say: Well, don’t let good guys wear green socks, green socks are the symbol of the opposite of good (becaus, well, evil).
To which bcholmes would reply: This use of symbols is problematic, because a strict symbolism that derives truth about personalities from features and not actions is how racism works. Racism has proven to be a toxic concept and we should reflect whether we should accept the strict and exceptionless use of such a concept in our games.
By the way, blue and green are my two most favourite colours.
And thus, @Lurker, neither is it about race, nor is it about species, but about the use of symbols and how this use of symbols affect our perception of the real world.
@bcholmes did not imply that it is racist in any way to have Vulcans with pointy ears or Andorians with antennas or Ferengi with ears of absurd dimensions. Neither did they labeled anyone racist, nor did they want to force someone to modify their game worlds. They just pointed out that one should think about the way of thinking that would lead to the conclusion that ‘Klingons can never be pacifist and Romulans can never be honest, becaus they would stop being Klingons or Romulans in that instance’.
Please excuse the wall of text. It’s hard for me to debate this in english; I need more words doing so.
But, back to topic, shall we?
I’d go with your DS9-answer, seeing Nog as the perfect example. Also, maybe making them a non-com at first with a promotion to ensign. Also, not every officer in contemporary armies did attend years of officer school, even if ‘normal’ officers of said forces ‘normally’ do. Some simply join the military after non-military training useful for the forces and attend only some basic training to learn about the directions to point in guns and some weeks of training how to behave like a proper officer and that’s it.
This. If the players want something to happen in the game, they will find a reason to make it happen and not break the game. It’s all about creativity, which is why we play this game in the first place, right?
It’s not necessary to be obnoxious about it. It has never been considered canon that Saavik was half-Romulan. The standard, historically, has been “If it appears on screen it is canon.” Which does not include deleted scenes. That doesn’t mean you cannot make her half-Romulan in your game!
[quote=“Lurker”]With that, is there any expanded info on making an Orion PC – either in an official write up or house ruled write ups?
As a side note, are there any examples in any of the shows or movies of an Orion (male or female) in Starfleet ? I can’t remember seeing any, but like I’ve said before I have missed most of the shows, but I may have missed it.
[/quote]
Anyway, Orion PC lifepath in the Shackleton book. Good Starfleet example: Tendi from Lower Decks.
“It was hard getting into the academy. There’s still a lot of stigma around Orions. A lot of humans think we’re all thieves and pirates… Wait! My cousin works in a thieves den in a pirate outpost in this sector.”
“It was hard getting into the academy. There’s still a lot of stigma around Orions. A lot of humans think we’re all thieves and pirates… Wait! My cousin works in a thieves den in a pirate outpost in this sector.”
" And for your information, many Orions haven’t been pirates for over five years!"
)
) both are interdependent. Their argument was that our fiction (as created by us, consciously) is not independent of the reality we live in and that we should think about the concepts we use in our fiction, unconsciously, as they could reinforce how we perceive these concepts in reality. There is lots of truth in this argument.