Federation Morality

[KCHii]

I'm curious - how do you guys think morality should be handled, especially for Federation players?

For example, should Federation players be allowed to hurt other Fed players with any sort of regularity? Even with PVP zones, the thought of Federation built ships blowing each other up every other day just doesn't seem right. I understand that even within the Federation, the game will be set up to allow for factional disputes. But I can't imagine it devolving into any sort of prolonged Fed v. Fed combat, short of civil war breaking out. On the other hand, would it be too limiting if you could only shoot up ships from other races, especially with only 2 to choose from at the start?

[Sevenblade]

Well, generally speaking, you can't PvP attack someone in your own faction. Usually the only people you could attack randomly in a hostile zone is another faction, so I don't think we have to worry about Federation civil war. However, I will be surprised if two consenting Federation ships can't have sort of a "duel", instead of all out PvP. Who knows? It brings up a few opportunities for new storyline. Maybe it's the Maquis, or simply a member of the Federation trying to defect, and we have to take sides.

[RetroX]

I believe the solution to this puzzle will be Wart games:P...maybe you could start your own war games with other vessels/fleets at your choosing...There's a part in Bridge commander where you do battle with another federation ship when you first get the sovereign, they power down the wepons to only portray damage, so something like that?

[Michell]

it was in TNG when captain Picard faced off against temp captain Riker in simulated war untill the Ferengi showed up. so yes they probably will have this in game. they each had their own ship and it was not on the holodeck.

[KCHii]

I'm not a PvP person, so I'm just guessing, but wouldn't holodeck style battles defeat the purpose of PvP? Sure, it'll be fun once in awhile, but where's the thrill if victory or defeat has no real impact on the game?

Anyway, aside from PvP, I can imagine morality impacting non-combat missions as well. I might not always want to walk the high road, even as a Federation officer. Remember Captain Archer losing his warp drive in the Expanse? If the stakes were high and negotiations fail, should we have the option of acting like scum just so we don't fail the mission?

[DFawkes]

I could imagine a system like Mercenaries, where you have a standing with each race, and this shows how they react to you, and more importantly your options against them. You could, for example, start of neutral with a race, then the Federation send you to defend an outpost, which would change your standing with the race you're firing on defensively.

Of course, this might not make sense since other races would rarely hold vendettas against single ships. I'm curious how this'll be handled, I'm sure a far better way than I can imagine :)

[WinterPark1701]

I'm curious - how do you guys think morality should be handled, especially for Federation players?

For example, should Federation players be allowed to hurt other Fed players with any sort of regularity? Even with PVP zones, the thought of Federation built ships blowing each other up every other day just doesn't seem right. I understand that even within the Federation, the game will be set up to allow for factional disputes. But I can't imagine it devolving into any sort of prolonged Fed v. Fed combat, short of civil war breaking out. On the other hand, would it be too limiting if you could only shoot up ships from other races, especially with only 2 to choose from at the start?

It will probobly be tied into earning prestige, that is to say if a Feddy Capt makes a the "Right Choice" he ears more than if he makes the "wrong". prestige would then be turned in for Promotions and/or equipment/ship upgrades.

[bobh]

it was in TNG when captain Picard faced off against temp captain Riker in simulated war untill the Ferengi showed up. so yes they probably will have this in game. they each had their own ship and it was not on the holodeck.

War Games ahve already been mentioned by Cryptic so at least we know they are considering it.

[ValkerOmega]

I could see war games or maybe something where your in a holodeck with the other captain and your battling in there, then you would see damage and all.

as for morality, maybe there will be a measurement or something, but like im always saying there are alot of times when the federation drops there ideas, so i dont think there should be any serious punishment ( if there is any) unless your doing something like breaking the prime directive.

[KCHii]

It will probobly be tied into earning prestige, that is to say if a Feddy Capt makes a the "Right Choice" he ears more than if he makes the "wrong". prestige would then be turned in for Promotions and/or equipment/ship upgrades.

You're probably right. But I can't help feeling that certain actions should be banned or strictly controlled, period, simply because there are griefers out there who may not care about prestige. Imagine if ramming is allowed, and there are no significant penalties for dying. It'll be pretty easy for a bunch of Klingons to sign on as Fed newbies and use their shuttlecraft to suicide gank other Fed ships.

That's just an example, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. This might be merely annoying for other games, but the Federation is all about integrity and idealism. Seeing something like that happen on a regular basis would totally ruin the immersion of the game. Its kinda like the whole ship naming argument, but worse since it gets to the core of what your faction/race is about.

[Michell]

i wonder how Klingon morality would be like in this game.

[Signalsgt]

i wonder how Klingon morality would be like in this game.

Klingon's will be handled through the code of Honor. The problem I've been seeing is from people who are using a personal definition of Honor instead of the true definition. Sort of like my kid's version of a clean room compared to the true definition of a clean room.

We'll have to wait for more information from Cryptic, going by some of the posts I've read, some people are going to hide behind the word Klingon to be a two bit thug and griefer in the game.

[KCHii]

i wonder how Klingon morality would be like in this game.

Interesting question. Klingons seem to have a sacrificial, do or die attitude, enforced by harsh punishments for disobedience. But you can't force players to be that gung ho, and Cryptic doesn't want to impose harsh penalties. Yet, if you did something particularly dishonorable, the whole Klingon back story indicates you'd be executed or sentenced to a painful death in some god forsaken prison colony. The idea of simply losing standing with the High Council seems kinda lame in that context.

[Feryk]

The idea of simply losing standing with the High Council seems kinda lame in that context.

I would say that depends entirely on context. As a player, if I'm looking to advance in the Empire, it would make all of my social interactions a lot harder if I were to be tagged with a 'COWARD' badge. I might not be able to get my ship fixed/upgraded as easily as others. Some NPCs might refuse to deal with me, and I could be challenged to combat by members of my own House for my betrayal.

Of course, I could redeem myself by demonstrating exceptional bravery...and there should be a way to do that.

There could be some pretty serious consequences to roaming my own Empire with a price on my head otherwise.

[Kinjiru]

Interesting question. Klingons seem to have a sacrificial, do or die attitude, enforced by harsh punishments for disobedience. But you can't force players to be that gung ho, and Cryptic doesn't want to impose harsh penalties. Yet, if you did something particularly dishonorable, the whole Klingon back story indicates you'd be executed or sentenced to a painful death in some god forsaken prison colony. The idea of simply losing standing with the High Council seems kinda lame in that context.

The best possible explanation that I can find about Klingon morality and honor was written by Ron Moore. I found this (basically essay) by him on Memory Alpha:
Writer Ronald D. Moore, who has defined much of Klingon culture, commented:

"Theirs is not an egalitarian society based on certain guaranteed freedoms and notions of justice. They have a ritualistic, almost hidebound culture that values notions of honor and tradition above almost everything else. I doubt that "social progress" is valued by them very much, if at all.

"This is a race where the House you are born into has more influence over your destiny than the merits of you as an individual. This a planet that not only embraces war, but employs it to seek out strange new worlds and [conquer] them. This is a system of justice that allows a son to be tried for the crimes of his parents. This is a world ruled by a group of families that fight amongst themselves for glory and power. This is a culture that elevates personal duels and assassination to legitimate options for resolving conflict. This is not an enlightened race of people." [1]

Moore later elaborated:

"The Mistress of a Great House wields considerable power and influence in Klingon society as I currently see it. The fact that she is not the titular Head does not mean that she does not make most, if not all, the decisions regarding the running of that House and how it functions internally. It probably varies from family to family and depends more on the individuals involved than it does on strictly observed codes of behavior. As Dax pointed out in "Soldiers of the Empire", the Klingons are as diverse a people as any other. Some Klingons take ritual and tradition far more seriously than others, just as some take the very concept of honor far more seriously than others. While we've seen female warriors many times, I also think there's nothing wrong with women who may not choose to be warriors in the literal sense. (Just as there was nothing wrong with the man who chose to become a Klingon "lawyer" in "Rules of Engagement".)

"I think that there's an unfortunate tendency to apply contemporary notions of American sexual equality to this ancient (and oh yeah, fictional) race. They have a long and complicated backstory that probably does not replicate our own history of male/female relations. They do have different notions than we do for the "roles" of men and women in society, but using terms like "co-dependency" confuses the issue and implies a similarity with today's culture that does not exist. As I've said many times, the Klingons hold many values that are at odds with contemporary norms: expansion by conquest, blood feuds, subjugation of enemies, rule by oligarchy, condemnation of children for their parents' sins, exaltation of a warrior cult, etc. It only makes sense that their take on male-female relations is less "enlightened" than ours.

"My belief is that woman are greatly valued, honored, and respected as equals in Klingon society even if it doesn't seem that way at first blush. If you had to apply a contemporary concept to their culture it would be something like "separate but equal" (this is an admittedly imperfect analogy, since the concept as usually applied stems from Brown v. Board of Education and dealt with racial issues). The Klingons see men and women as having certain separate roles in their culture, but probably view them as equivalent.

"For instance, while a man may lead a Great House and serve on the High Council, I don't think that this political power is seen by the Klingons as intrinsically superior to the social power wielded by a Mistress of a House who may approve or disapprove all marriages, decide who's having children and how they will be raised, and in general have the last say on all matters related to the internal operations of the House and family. Klingon family affiliations are considered paramount in their society, so it only makes sense that someone charged with running a House should be considered at least as important as the person charged with making political decisions for the Empire. This is in stark contrast to our own culture which has traditionally given men power over both the political and the social aspects of society until very recently." [2]

"I think in fairness, I should point out that the Klingons were exceeding sexist when they were created. In "The Trouble with Tribbles", Koloth says something to the effect that Klingon vessels don't have certain... ah, luxuries, and then makes the hourglass shape of a woman with his hands – implying that not only don't Klingon ships have women on them, but that the boys can't wait to get their hands on a few for, er... liberty. In fact, there were no women seen in TOS at all until Mara's appearance in "Day of the Dove" and it was implied that she was only there because she was Kang's wife. Given the established backstory, I think it's even perfectly understandable that more than a hint of male dominance has crept into the way their culture has been portrayed over the years. Some of the overt sexism can be rectified and some will have to be written off as part of their cultural history." [3]

The article then goes on to compare Klingons to Vikings who die glorious deaths to get into Valhalla, but personally, I think it appears that there are many parallels to Japanese feudalistic society. But again, that's just my opinion. :)

[TheMasterpiece]

Well, generally speaking, you can't PvP attack someone in your own faction. Usually the only people you could attack randomly in a hostile zone is another faction, so I don't think we have to worry about Federation civil war. However, I will be surprised if two consenting Federation ships can't have sort of a "duel", instead of all out PvP. Who knows? It brings up a few opportunities for new storyline. Maybe it's the Maquis, or simply a member of the Federation trying to defect, and we have to take sides.



We oculd have federation ships having a simulated battle IE tng or bridge commander

[Sevenblade]

We oculd have federation ships having a simulated battle IE tng or bridge commander

Yeah, that's war games. I think someone brought that up already.

[Trekkie]

I definitely think that more rules should be in place for Federation characters, but I do not want those rules to limit what a player can do with that character.