Alliance Dictatorships and Feudals have slaves and imperial slaves banned without any strict coercion or enforcement though.
Powerplay The Truth about Pranav Antal Revelaed by David Braben - Power Play
- Thread starter Ben Ryder
- Start date
Alliance Dictatorships and Feudals have slaves and imperial slaves banned without any strict coercion or enforcement though.
If the majority of an Antal control system bubble is democratic, then the fortification trigger increases by 50%, which means you have to ship 50% more political prisoners than normal. And you actually have to ship three times as many political prisoners compared to the same bubble under primarily dictatorships.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Actually those would qualify as either patronage, feudal or corporate government types - not democracies.
Interesting. I didn't know that, thanks for the info. However Slaves and Imperial slaves are not the only things Utopia bans. My point was that being part of Utopia means governments need to respect the strict Utopian code where the basic principle is that humanity has to be respected (even anarchies apply the bans). Glad to see that Alliance feudal and dictatorship types shares the value that any kind of slavery is wrong.
I always thought major faction changes only the name of the minor faction in the right hand panel info and not any game mechanics. Thanks again for correcting.
If democracy worked like it's supposed to work in theory, then yes. It's really the same thing why communism doesn't work in practice even if it's very good idea. In practice the wealth is distributed unevenly in democracies (at least in majority of the cases). Here's just an example from a quick Google search to illustrate my point. I don't live in US (0.801 Gini coefficient) myself but in Finland (0.615) where the wealth distribution is more balanced but still not evenly distributed at all:
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
Anyway the important thing to notice is that people think the wealth is spread a lot more evenly than it is in reality. This is what I meant and it's a solid example of corruption in democratic governments.
Patronage, feudal and corporate types of course have even more uneven distribution, no argument there. My point was that democracies use common people (those with less wealth but equal political power per capita) as puppets to gain political power which in democracies equate to financial power. If you can get majority of people to vote for you, they'll be at your mercy. This way of spread political power is a problem for Utopia because to properly apply strict Utopian code, we need centralized power distribution to achieve even financial and humanitarian distribution. Sacrifices have to be made so blood will be spilled to make Utopia a reality.
Last edited:
People forget that Antal's main areas are co-operatives and communes. Lots of people see the word dictatorship and get fixated on it.
Many think that if you are not in a democracy then you have no say in how your country is run and that life is bad. Consider the number of violent protest in democracies where governments have taken the country to wars that the people did not approve of. Do any spring to mind? The Vietnam War comes to my mind as does the Flaklands and many more in more recent times.
It's also worth considering democracies that have unleashed nuclear weapons on developing countries and are now fearful of the very same countries being in a position to do return the gesture.
Any road-up all that guff aside, the strangest thing of all is that people think in terms of recent history when considering the fantasy galaxy of ED and its political thinking which is far removed from reality and history. Personal real world opinions colour peoples vision of the future, along with how they have been brought up and educated. They call on what they think they know of recent history and reenact attitudes and 'common' sense that was prevalent in the era of the McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts (for example) and other ingrained behaviors rather than looking at the concept of the political and philosophical basis behind each school of political thought within a fantastic setting where things can be and are different. Different to the world they live in and think they understand or know. Myself included. I only studied political philosophy for a few years and still think I know very little about it and certainly wouldnt try and apply anything other than the fundamental ideas behind each to a game. Bringing in the real world is hard to avoid but often very amusing when it's evident when reading people heartfelt opinions about something almost utterly fanciful. Even the very idea of scaling something like a common, time bound and localized idea of democracy from the country one lives in to a huge and diverse galaxy in the distant future is a bit nonsensical. For instance taking the premise that all democracies are the same 21st century fixed format from a single county and applying it to every instance in equal measure through out the Elite Dangerous galaxy is fairly daft. Even to think that democracy has had no history and has not developed or change in recent history is odd in itself. O r that what one understands to be democracy know will be exactly the same everywhere in the distant future is rather limited in perception. I used democracy as an example but I hope you get my gist. The same would apply for any political philosophy or practice. Anyway, I'm rambling. Time for a cuppa.
Utopia. Making the Galaxy a better place on cup at a time
People forget that Antal's main areas are co-operatives and communes. Lots of people see the word dictatorship (which is his actually his last area of strength) and get fixated on it.
Many think that if you are not in a democracy then you have no say in how your country is run and that life is bad. Consider the number of violent protest in democracies where governments have taken the country to wars that the people did not approve of. Do any spring to mind? The Vietnam War comes to my mind as does the Falklands and many more in more recent times.
It's also worth considering democracies that have unleashed nuclear weapons and invented chemical weapons, death camps and unleashed them on developing countries and are now fearful of the very same countries being in a position to return the gesture.
Any road-up all that guff aside, the strangest thing of all is that people think in terms of recent history when considering the fantasy galaxy of ED and its political thinking which is far removed from reality and history. Personal real world opinions colour peoples vision of the future, along with how they have been brought up and educated. They call on what they think they know of recent history and reenact attitudes and 'common' sense that was prevalent in the era of the McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts (for example) and other ingrained behaviors rather than looking at the concept of the political and philosophical basis behind each school of political thought within a fantastic setting where things can be and are different. Different to the world they live in and think they understand or know. Myself included. I only studied political philosophy for a few years and still think I know very little about it and certainly wouldn't try and apply anything other than the fundamental ideas behind each to a game. Bringing in the real world is hard to avoid but often very amusing when it's evident when reading people heartfelt opinions about something almost utterly fanciful. Even the very idea of scaling something like a common, time bound and localized idea of democracy from the country one lives in to a huge and diverse galaxy in the distant future is a bit nonsensical. For instance taking the premise that all democracies are the same 21st century fixed format from a single county and applying it to every instance in equal measure through out the Elite Dangerous galaxy is fairly daft. Even to think that democracy has had no history and has not developed or change in recent history is odd in itself. O r that what one understands to be democracy know will be exactly the same everywhere in the distant future is rather limited in perception. I used democracy as an example but I hope you get my gist. The same would apply for any political philosophy or practice. Anyway, I'm rambling. Time for a cuppa.
Utopia. Making the Galaxy a better place one cup at a time
Cant find the edit button so reposted with edits in
Many think that if you are not in a democracy then you have no say in how your country is run and that life is bad. Consider the number of violent protest in democracies where governments have taken the country to wars that the people did not approve of. Do any spring to mind? The Vietnam War comes to my mind as does the Falklands and many more in more recent times.
It's also worth considering democracies that have unleashed nuclear weapons and invented chemical weapons, death camps and unleashed them on developing countries and are now fearful of the very same countries being in a position to return the gesture.
Any road-up all that guff aside, the strangest thing of all is that people think in terms of recent history when considering the fantasy galaxy of ED and its political thinking which is far removed from reality and history. Personal real world opinions colour peoples vision of the future, along with how they have been brought up and educated. They call on what they think they know of recent history and reenact attitudes and 'common' sense that was prevalent in the era of the McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts (for example) and other ingrained behaviors rather than looking at the concept of the political and philosophical basis behind each school of political thought within a fantastic setting where things can be and are different. Different to the world they live in and think they understand or know. Myself included. I only studied political philosophy for a few years and still think I know very little about it and certainly wouldn't try and apply anything other than the fundamental ideas behind each to a game. Bringing in the real world is hard to avoid but often very amusing when it's evident when reading people heartfelt opinions about something almost utterly fanciful. Even the very idea of scaling something like a common, time bound and localized idea of democracy from the country one lives in to a huge and diverse galaxy in the distant future is a bit nonsensical. For instance taking the premise that all democracies are the same 21st century fixed format from a single county and applying it to every instance in equal measure through out the Elite Dangerous galaxy is fairly daft. Even to think that democracy has had no history and has not developed or change in recent history is odd in itself. O r that what one understands to be democracy know will be exactly the same everywhere in the distant future is rather limited in perception. I used democracy as an example but I hope you get my gist. The same would apply for any political philosophy or practice. Anyway, I'm rambling. Time for a cuppa.
Utopia. Making the Galaxy a better place one cup at a time
Cant find the edit button so reposted with edits in
Good luck finding an example of a current government that is a prison colony, yet they exist in the game.
The game makes a very clear distinction between a democracy and a corporate government, even though it is very easy to argue that in real life the US is pretty much a corporate government rather than a democracy.
Not to mention that the game takes place roughly 1,200 years in the future. You having bought into your own propaganda and somehow convinced yourself that dictatorships are good and democracy is bad, does not make it so in real life.
The game got a few things perfect - there are no good guys, and the player isn't anyone of importance.
Antal is a cult of personality, and co-operatives, communist governments and dictatorships all tend to fall into those trappings.
I view Pranav as a way of living so different to the others it requires constant reinforcement.
With Utopia what the Simguru says is law, so Utopia is a dictatorship. But going on our power bonuses, this shows Pranav wants a better future, even if it means each citizen needs continual guidance to keep them falling off the wagon.
Drugs, all slaves (Imperial or otherwise) alcohol, all banned. So no-one has to fear destructive addiction or face a lifetime of servitude. To some this is hell (or a smuggling opportunity), while to others it is freedom.
Utopian criminals are punished twice as severely as anyone else in their systems when they break the law. They are also rewarded almost as well as Hudson or ALD for upholding the law too. So from this we know Utopia values law.
From DBOBE himself: https://twitter.com/DavidBraben/status/710038424363773952 shows although strict, Utopia is a true collective.
Dissidents:
Democracies are bad in some ways, as they allow by their nature destructive ideas to emerge: extreme right wing ideologies and politicians like Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen. These individuals are disruptive, but because they are allowed to flourish they cause huge social damage. Moral Enforcers are protecting us from ourselves in the context of our bonuses outlined above. A dissident could be anything from an alcoholic to a hardened terrorist or subversive politician. Utopia has rules and a goal, people who fall outside that are subject to correction, by various means. This could be anything from therapy to beatings or full exile, the latter something that is worse than death for Utopian citizens.
So, we follow a leader who to the 'lower worlds' looks like a cultist. But what if his ideals and goals are better in the long run at the expense of social freedom?
The Powers are fantastically realized in this respect. They are all flawed and no-one is totally 'good' in the traditional sense.
With Utopia what the Simguru says is law, so Utopia is a dictatorship. But going on our power bonuses, this shows Pranav wants a better future, even if it means each citizen needs continual guidance to keep them falling off the wagon.
Drugs, all slaves (Imperial or otherwise) alcohol, all banned. So no-one has to fear destructive addiction or face a lifetime of servitude. To some this is hell (or a smuggling opportunity), while to others it is freedom.
Utopian criminals are punished twice as severely as anyone else in their systems when they break the law. They are also rewarded almost as well as Hudson or ALD for upholding the law too. So from this we know Utopia values law.
From DBOBE himself: https://twitter.com/DavidBraben/status/710038424363773952 shows although strict, Utopia is a true collective.
Dissidents:
Democracies are bad in some ways, as they allow by their nature destructive ideas to emerge: extreme right wing ideologies and politicians like Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen. These individuals are disruptive, but because they are allowed to flourish they cause huge social damage. Moral Enforcers are protecting us from ourselves in the context of our bonuses outlined above. A dissident could be anything from an alcoholic to a hardened terrorist or subversive politician. Utopia has rules and a goal, people who fall outside that are subject to correction, by various means. This could be anything from therapy to beatings or full exile, the latter something that is worse than death for Utopian citizens.
So, we follow a leader who to the 'lower worlds' looks like a cultist. But what if his ideals and goals are better in the long run at the expense of social freedom?
The Powers are fantastically realized in this respect. They are all flawed and no-one is totally 'good' in the traditional sense.
US was not the only example I gave or do you now argue that in the current real world there are no democracies at all?
I didn't say dictatorship is good and democracy is bad. I merely said that democracies interrupt to mechanics of how Utopia works. Also I specifically said there's no such thing as absolute good so I do agree that there are no good guys in the game. All gov types have pros and cons.
... and I do agree Antal is a cult of personality and it works the best with co-operatives, communist governments and dictatorships. What's wrong with following benevolent leader who is trying to make the galaxy a better place? If you want to call Utopian way of life a trap, you are entitled to your opinion (before you are enlightened by Utopian publicity that is ;-). I also acknowledged that blood has to be spilled to get there and all that is actual ingame lore.
I only brought real life examples to the discussion because you argued indirectly that democracies would have even wealth distribution by saying this: "Actually those would qualify as either patronage, feudal or corporate government types - not democracies.". The game doesn't give data of wealth distribution of the system so I had to use real world example to make a valid point. I realize the game is fiction but to argue that it wouldn't have any correspondence to real world gov types is pretty silly. Why use the same words to describe them if they are not the same and also make the descriptions fit how those governments operate in theory in real world? That said, I agree that there are huge variations in how the same gov type can function in practice. This also backs the fundamental workings of Utopia. Utopia can exist in democratic government too but enforcers have to work harder to upkeep the law and in some places it doesn't work like it's illustrated by Utopia failing prep, expansion or losing systems to turmoil (and not all of them were democracies). It's the will of the people that keeps Utopia alive no matter the gov type.
Last edited:
The idea of a "benevolent dictatorship" is a concept beloved of teenage nerds from time immemorial. What if you just MADE people be nice? I'm sure I don't have to outline the flaws in that idea, but I've always been interested in the way Antal does things.
I agree with Rubbernuke that the moral ambiguity of all the powers is really interesting, and I also appreciate the economy of language in the fluff, forcing you to fill in the gaps yourself. We know that Antal brutally rounds up people who disagree with Utopian principles and ships them to Polevnic for "processing". That probably doesn't involve simply blasting them out of an airlock, because why not just do that in situ? A lot is talked about (in very vague terms) about improving mankind through technology, and that Utopia makes extensive use of sim-sense technology. My personal interpretation of all of this is that Utopia Dissidents are essentially having their personalities re-programmed with sim technology at Polevnic to make them more compliant.
That sort of thing's always been a sci fi talking point since forever, since it's a massive moral grey area. Is it morally equivalent to killing someone? Is it justified if it actually makes society better? What if it saves lives? Is Antal sincerely trying to make the galaxy a better place, or is he just a wannabe emperor with a fancy coat and a self-help book?
Personally, I just like having found a power that supports my weird social experiments and has a community of highly motivated, energetic cultists to help me out.
I agree with Rubbernuke that the moral ambiguity of all the powers is really interesting, and I also appreciate the economy of language in the fluff, forcing you to fill in the gaps yourself. We know that Antal brutally rounds up people who disagree with Utopian principles and ships them to Polevnic for "processing". That probably doesn't involve simply blasting them out of an airlock, because why not just do that in situ? A lot is talked about (in very vague terms) about improving mankind through technology, and that Utopia makes extensive use of sim-sense technology. My personal interpretation of all of this is that Utopia Dissidents are essentially having their personalities re-programmed with sim technology at Polevnic to make them more compliant.
That sort of thing's always been a sci fi talking point since forever, since it's a massive moral grey area. Is it morally equivalent to killing someone? Is it justified if it actually makes society better? What if it saves lives? Is Antal sincerely trying to make the galaxy a better place, or is he just a wannabe emperor with a fancy coat and a self-help book?
Personally, I just like having found a power that supports my weird social experiments and has a community of highly motivated, energetic cultists to help me out.
Last edited:
Have you ever read Appleseed, a fantastic manga by Masamune Shirow? In that, after WW3 the world is governed by socially conditioned clones, and is a fun extrapolation of Utopian ideals.
I guess you didnt see the picture before you posted of saying prison colonies dont existt? guantanamo
I Antal is a cult personality, you can consider every single one of the other power to be a cult personalities too. What makes Antal A cult personality and none of the others?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Some examples of benevolent dictators and its not hard to find more form real life.
Josip Broz Tito[edit]
Although Tito led the former republic of Yugoslavia as Prime Minister and President (later President for Life) from 1944 until his death in 1980 under what some criticized as an authoritarian rule,[6][7][8] he was widely popular and was "seen by most as a benevolent dictator".[2]
King Abdullah II of Jordan[edit]
Despite ruling over a monarchy, King Abdullah is often seen as a reformist and progressive leader whom is seen to many as a 'benevolent' monarch.[9] As one of only two Arab nations that recognize Israel, his regime has been at the cornerstone of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.[10]
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk[edit]
Known affectionaly as 'Ataturk' by many, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is credited with removing foreign influence from former Ottoman territory, and is looked fondly upon as 'the father' of modern Turkey.[11] He passed a series of societal reforms such as allowing women to vote, removing Islam as the state religion, and adoption of a Western criminal code.[12]
Lee Kuan Yew[edit]
Known to be the man who transformed Singapore from a poor agrarian society into one of Asia's wealthiest nations, is often called a 'benevolent dictator.' [13] As a leader who was in power for thirty one years,[14] he implemented some laws that were deemed to be autocratic, and attempted to dismantle political opposition. Despite this he is often looked upon favorably for his transformation of Singapore, and is considered by many to one of the most successful political pragmatists.[15]
Qaboos bin Said al Said[edit]
A key ally for many Western governments, the Sultan of Oman is often seen as a benevolent dictator.[16] Under his long running leadership, the country has modernized and has experienced an increasing quality of life.[17]
Paul Kagame[edit]
Leading the country since the end of the Rwandan Genocide, he has been credited with the recovery and reformation of Rwanda.[18] The country is known to be relatively free from corruption, stable, and safe, particulary when compared to its unstable neighbors.[19] Despite successes in a variety of areas, his regime has been criticized for crackdowns on media freedom, fraudulent elections, and discrimination against the Hutu majority.[20]
[up] Best reason ever!