In the game what determines how a company is viewed?

[Conquistador]

<snip>

I think that we define this genre of games as VICTORIAN Science Fiction, suggests that we as players tend to see things from a British perspective.

Well, perhaps British players or those playing British Companies, anyway.     

I would think each company would see it from their own Victorian viewpoint if they were flesh and blood instead of lead/pewter/paper figures.

if I play the Zulus against the British "oppressors" (in the Zulu view) should I view my company as "Evil" then?

Not that it matters so much for the game but for our discussion..

Gracias,

Glenn

[Conquistador]

Hmm, I see where this could go awry but I will suggest it is the role of the moderators to judge where we leave IHMN matters and go too far into "real world" issues.

I leave it up to all the participants to remember our subject is determining Good and Evil Companies in IHMN terms.

Gracias,

Glenn

Whose personal view of the companies 'alignment"  is distinctly different from what i posted as my understanding of the companies in a British VSF view. 

[Conquistador]

Would Jules Verne view the IHMN companies different from H. G. Wells or Mark Twain or Mary Shelley or George Griffith?

I have no clear answers but I suspect they might clearly differ.

Gracias,

Glenn

[Irishrover13]

Oh silly me I missed the British Gentlemen aspect.

[Conquistador]

Having been in communication with the Moderator I would remind all of us (especially me who is used to more...  er,... open... forums in the past,) that politics is a violation that may get the thread locked.

That said, part of the issue of Good and Evil (which I repeat I do believe exist, in some cases clearly, in many others not so much,) is based on where you view the problem of "Civilizing" non-European cultures ("near and not so dear" to Cherokee descendents like my father) and the status of other European ethnic/national groups (usually but not always in the minority,) in Empires ruled by another Tribe/Ethnicity (i.e., Colonialism in all its forms.)

I think it is hard to have a black and white (um, probably a bad metaphor but I will go with it,) call on many of the Companies.  Companies "defending the Empire (or Republic or tribe/nation or etc.,)" might be seen as "Good"  by the government or group whose political will is being promulgated but at least Grey by competing advanced nations/groups and Evil by those opposing the Company.

Boers versus Zulus versus British is an example of real world conflict where each side can claim some moral ground.  

For IHMN perhaps the Good versus Evil tropes are not appropriate for a game such as VSF where History meetings imaginative versions of "Alt-History" but instead the tropes should be more along the lines of Empire-centric, tribe/ethnicity-centric, and extreme individualistic groups.  To use an early OD&D format: Law versus Chaos though I definitely do not suggest we use those terms.

So perhaps this might be a more viable, less controversial set of references:


British Rifle Company = Empire-Centric (Britain)

The Explorer's Club = Empire-Centric (Britain) with strong elements of individualistic centered aspects

Lord Curr's Company = Very Individualistic (Lord Curr) oriented

Scotland Yard = Empire-Centric (Britain)

The Society of Thule = Empire-Centric (Prussian/German)

Black Dragon Tong = Tribe/pseudo-Ethnicity (the Tong) Oriented

Servants of Ra = Individualistic (the would be Pharaoh)

Wild West Show = Empire-Centric (USA) but with distinct Individualistic elements

Légion étrangère = Empire-Centric (France)

Brick Lane Commune = Individualistic (anarchists)

US Marine Corps = Empire-Centric (USA)

Boer Commando = Tribe/Ethnicity (Boers)

Hunting Party = Individualistic with some Empire Centric leanings

Queen's Own African Rifles = Empire-Centric (Britain)

Sons of the Desert = Tribe/Ethnicity (Arabic)

Zulu = Tribe/Ethnicity (Zulu)

Apache = Tribe/Ethnicity (Apache/Amerindian)

Virginians = Individualistic

Los Diablos = Individualistic

Golden Wheel = Individualistic

Pale Riders = Individualistic

Industrialists = Individualistic

League of Southern Gentlemen = Tribe/Pseudo-Ethnicity ("The South")

U-Troop = Empire-Centric (Canada/Britain)

Red Sect = Individualistic

Secret Service = Empire-Centric (USA)

Texas Rangers = Empire-Centric (Texas)

Enforcement Companies = Empire-Centric (Mexico under the current government)

Mexican Rebels = Tribe/Ethnic (California/Mexico freed from the current government)

Le Cabinet Noir = Empire-Centric (France)

Cognoscenti = Tribe/Ethnicity (the members of the group)

Vlad Tepes = Individualistic

Hellfire Club = Individualistic

Okhrana = Empire (Russia)

Ottomans = Empire (Ottomans)

Templars = Tribe/Ethnicity (the Members of the group)

Totenkopf Battalion = Empire-Centric (Prussia/Germany)

Tarzan (as I envision him) = Tribe/Ethnicity oriented if you consider the Apes/Africa as a tribe/Ethnic structure.

Yes, I like that much better for the purposes of a VSF game.  Anyone have a different structure to suggest?

Note, you play the game just fine without any of these structures.  Most of us will...

Gracias,

Glenn

Edit:  I have thought about Irish Nationalists in this era and see them as Tribe/Ethnicity oriented but since my ancestors left Ireland multiple decades ago I would say that is just IMHO and may be completely wrong.

[Tehet]

The British Empire was pretty much founded on piracy and trade with the Treasury taking an unofficial cut as the monarchy turned a blind eye to the most flagrant breaches of international etiquette. Nearly all the wars fought were either to force countries to trade with us, i.e. the opium wars, or the result of upsetting foreigners when they objected to our ‘agents’ seizing their ships and confiscating the merchandise, i.e. the Armada and the war of 1812. As long as you were willing to trade with us, on our ‘fair’ terms, there was no problem. But interfere with an English merchant’s profits and a gunboat would appear and blow holes in you!

To use the old D&D terms I would definitely describe the English and later the British as Neutral, or Lawful Neutral for the Armed Forces and Chaotic Neutral for the less scrupulous agents such as Cecil Rhodes. The British pursued the right to trade above all, (except when they got the chance to lay one on the French!), abolishing slavery and adopting organised drug dealing because they all helped the balance of British Empire PLC profits or reduced those of the other powers.

[abdul666lw]

Since nobody except for very few sadistic perverts feels oneself 'evil' the issue is largely subjective, and inappropriate to gaming.
Even Moorcock could not keep the Chaos - Law opposition 'neutral' and, despite lip homage to the Cosmic balance, tended to assimilate Chaos with Evil. Even the Japanese in their anime aimed at the Western market such as the 'Record of the Lodoss War' are 'contaminated' by 'our' approach and, while keeping some typical features of their culture ('noble characters' among the 'baddies')hav ethe 'good guys' fighting a 'chaotic' character.

As a 'moralistic' referential for a game I favor the Tékumel approach: 'Change' and 'Stability' are equally necessary and are devoid of moral connotations, ethical judgements apply only to 'noble' or 'ignoble' behaviors. Though of course Man has a tremendous ability to lie, including to oneself, and to justify almost any behavior on 'good intentions' bases.

[religon]

In response to Conquistador's call for "a different structure to suggest"…

One way to look at the world presented in IHMN is that of two struggles, a struggle of nations that mirrors the real world colonial struggles of the 1890's and a struggle of destructive chaotic forces with altruistic parties willing to sacrifice themselves for the betterment on humanity. Fortunately, this second struggle has little in the way of a real world counterpart. Each company appears motivated by different things presented in the game fluff.

Nationalists are motivated by supporting the power structure of their nation state. This power structure could be a government, the military-industrial complex or even oligarchs. Populists attempt to better the lives of those with whom they identify. (I have classified tribal groups as populists for simplicity.) I guess individual players can determine which nationalists and populists are in opposition or allied. It need not reflect real world geopolitical alignments of the period. Is the IHMN version of the US in The Gilded Age pursuing an isolationist agenda?

I use Section 1.5, The Golden Rules, as a guide to making such geopolitical determinations. A sanitized British sensibility and perspective to colonialism and what constitutes gentlemanly behavior is presented. This is certainly not the more objective perspective of the real world offered by Tehet.

Some groups in IHMN seem to be willing to cause wanton death, destruction and chaos to further their own selfish ends. Often these ends have little to do with national interests or colonialism. These ends are simply base power and wealth. Only altruistic groups or those whose national interests are threatened are likely to be motivated enough to thwart such groups.

Some mercenary groups seem to have scruples. Money is the goal. They are unwilling to cause chaos to further their self interest. Multi-national industrialists with scruples may be mercenary in nature.

Some IHMN groups seem to have genuine intellectual curiosity. The real world period reflected in the game word was also one of discovery and exploration. It appears than some companies just seek adventure at times to potentially discover something interesting or useful.

British Rifle Company = Nationalist
The Explorer's Club = Nationalist, Intellectual, Altruistic
Lord Curr's Company = Mercenary, Altruistic, Nationalist
Scotland Yard = Nationalist, Altruistic
The Society of Thule = Nationalist, Self Interest (Chaos)
Black Dragon Tong = Self Interest (Chaos), Mercenary
Servants of Ra = Self Interest (Chaos), Intellectual
Wild West Show = Nationalist
Légion étrangère = Nationalist, Altruistic
Brick Lane Commune = Populist, Opposition
US Marine Corps = Nationalist
Apache/Tarzan/Zulu = Populist
Irish Nationalists = Populist, Opposition

[Conquistador]

I like that model, Religion, it is nice and neutrally separated just enough from 'real world history,' shows ethical perspectives, and is a good framework IMO.

Again, in our games, it is for fun, perhaps a bit of playing tropes or 'lite' acting, and real world judgments need to be tempered by cultural awareness for the games sake.

For example I played a year or two ago a multiple player adaptation of TS&TF where my leader character was the 'person of interest' the Force Publique was trying to capture (or kill if necessary) and I played the "Don't Squeeze the Shaman" line, a play off the "Don't Squeeze the Charmin" commercials,) to the hilt.  The GM had never seen me in Manic mode and really didn't know quite how to respond.  The other players really got into it big time especially the dice went hot/cold and several attempts by the 20 figure unit across the stream from me resulted in 3 rounds of volley fire that had zero hits.  We natives lost but we got our licks in and had the moral victory of totally disrupting the cohesion of the F. P. players (one of whom just rolled his eyes a lot and the other kept saying, "there are magic rules in this game?" * for several turns.) Three spear units and one pygmy archer unit (plus leaders) versus a cannon and three FP units (one just a collection of armed locals essentially) and a low morale mercenary spear unit probably were a ta disadvantage (we had some terrain advantages - two linear sets of trees on each side of the stream and a stream that required 3 turns to approach/cross/move away - between our village and the FP. Really strict PC types might not have liked some of the comments 'the Shaman' or the one FP player (in role) made but it was understood in the context of the game.  The local club 'president for life' is a (self described) 'black war game nerd'  who was running a large 'serious' 6 mm WW2 East Front game nearby and he thought it was a funny if slightly silly game, not one he would play in but still fun to watch.

Gracias,

Glenn

* they really had no effect on the game except the one turn where the one use spell caused the rifle fire to act was "water bullets"  on my character.  The overall commander could have fired on the casualty ridden spearmen unit nearby or the unit manuvering on his flank but the player specifically targeted the shaman so I think that was simply karma (he kind of lost track on the capture part of "capture or kill" objective of his side where capture was a major victory and kill a tactical victory.)

[Craig]

I do love it when people overthink things.

IHMN is set in a deeply divisive historical period and we could have applied our own morals and ethics to the companies, but we did not.

Instead we wrote it more from a Boys Own Stories/Ripping Yarns perspective. Lot's of jolly fun what? This is why the poor Germans are portrayed as 'the damned Hun'.

With the range of companies available, and the fact that it is an alternative history setting, the game allows people to have fun playing men and women they would never mix with in polite society. There is a certain thrill, I can tell you, in marching your Totenkopf forwards and gassing your foe into submission  Just as there is playing the heroic Captain Napier.

[Conquistador]

I do love it when people overthink things.
<snip>

Hardly, sir.      Me, overthink?   Harummmpph!  I hardly ever think, a gentleman just "knows" how toa ct!  Think, who would have thought I would be accused of thinking?  Much less over-thinking?

     

Seriously, it was an idle "inspiration" based on the good/bad thread earlier.  

My personal opinion is that it is like the OD&D "alignment" thing - it doesn't matter...  I know too many players who wrote C/G (Chaotic/Good) on their character sheets when they acted Chaotic/Greedy.  If a player did something noble with Lord Curr that would not break the game.  Even the most evil characters can be gentlemen.  The word hardly means "good" in the original meaning but a social class distinction.  We players provide the good in our sportsmanship in play.

If (for example) you read the first few books in the Tarzan series and are objective he hardly comes over as a saint.  Yet most of us pull for Tarzan to win Jane, live free, and 'protect' the Jungle.

Gracias,

Gleen

It was a question to invite opinion but TBH I think in a Fallen World there no pure 'saints' only those with goals that are a range of "Us" to "Me" in orientation.

[religon]

@Glenn,

I don't think players are overthinking matters by considering the motivations and alignment of the companies. As a hobby, knock yourself out so long as you are amusing yourself. If, like me, you contemplate a campaign with various companies contending for goals, it is imperative to address the motivations of the companies in order the structure the campaign. Is alt-1895 like BattleTech's 3025 with amoral military companies serving nationalistic interests? Are the companies able to pursue their own goals? Is alt-1895 like BattleTech's 3050 with good (Inner Sphere) vs. evil (The Clans)? The authors, rightly so, did not dictate these alignments allowing enthusiasts to tweak these answers to our tastes.

It's fair to consider, "In alt-1895, would the Scotland Yard Company enter a pitched battled opposing a British Rifle Company?" At an American convention in 2014, players would be curious under what conditions this would happen. "Why did Lt. Higgins cheer after shooting that scoundrel Holmes?" I don't think the Queen would be amused.

[Conquistador]

<snip>"Why did Lt. Higgins cheer after shooting that scoundrel Holmes?" I don't think the Queen would be amused.

No, I suppose not.

As a "Lt. Higgins" character I might not have shot Holmes unless convinced (in character) it was for the best Interests of the Empire...

[abdul666lw]

I believe that to introduce Real World™ concerns, be they ethical, patriotic, political or religious, in a game is a good way to spoil it (so I'm fond of wargaming with Imagi-Nations in the age of the supposedly 'gentlemanly' Lace Wars).
Now, to be nitpicking...
- The 'mainstream VSF' approach, as opposed to steampunk, is to abide to historical Victorian perspectives / prejudices. Is this really self-consistent? Such approach is 'realistic' in a setting akin to Verne's novels: a lone genius managed to build the Albatross or the Nautilus and challenges the society of his time. Similarly in 'The War of the Worlds' "innovation" come from outside the historical Victorian society. But is this really the case in IHMN? Indeed the background is not a 'steampunk' one as in the works of Robida, where every house has a TV, a videotelephone connected to the Internet  and robotic domestic appliances, where every family own a flying car. Yet neither it is 'our' Victorian era: science and technology produce very 'advanced' weapons, 'psychic powers' exist and are in use (maybe people of the Helena Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley types are recognized scientists, maybe the Secret Services of all Major Powers have a necromantic branch?). Since it's an *alternate* Victorian era the ethics / roles / values are unlikely to be exactly the same as in 'our' History.

- Are we really using the perspectives of the time, or some later ones projected backwards? For instance I doubt the German were called 'Huns' before the invasion of Belgium in 1914: was no the Kaiser the beloved nephew of Queen Victoria (Gaud Bless 'er) or something? On the other hand the Crimean War was not enough to have the British public opinion forgetting that France was the 'hereditary enemy' since the time of Richard the Lion Heart and before, and the Great Scramble for colonies was keeping the rivalry / potentially hostility well alive, re the Fashoda incident.

[Conquistador]

Okay, pardon the prejudice and not to offend anyone (good points Abdul666) but this has becoming a steampunk versus "pure VSF" potential discussion and I am choosing to lock it.

Gracias,

Glenn