[Raven Bloodmoon]

Here are my thoughts on a new campaign setting that's been brewing in my head for quite a while. I would love any comments.

Begegnung

Themes

Technologies

Evolution of Politics

[Raven Bloodmoon]

As promised, here's the bit on magic.

Magic

[Dthclaw]

Methinks you need to talk to Ladyo about your page permissions, friend. Can't open the link.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

My mistake. Forgot to click off "publish." It should work now.

[Dthclaw]

Hm. Interesting, though given what I've learned in political science I would have to say that the political premise is awful flimsy (you list the US as collapsing under its own weight; while feasible, it would happen in the early to mid '20s at the earliest, and from Social Security/Medicare debt, not international; also, the EU is already on the verge of internal collapse with the repeated failures to create a constitution, Germany's actions regarding the euro and the WorldBank, and the addition of many Soviet bloc countries into the EU, and it will take several decades for Europe to get its own house in order, let alone tackling the addition of a highly-nationalistic and very foreign United States). If you can create a better explanation behind the wierd political toss-ups, I would be very interested to see where this goes.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

My thinking on the the US collapsing has nothing to do with the debt from Social Security. It comes from revolt. The majority of the US population is steadily being driven into poverty while the social elite rake in record earnings. Taxes are regularly shifted from the wealthy to the poor. If things continue in this manner, eventually a situation will arise where no matter how stupid and inept the average American is, he is hungry, tired, overworked, underpaid, and pissed as hell about it. That can only lead to an insurgeancy. They say any society is only three meals from civil war.

As for the joining of the fragmented states that would likely arise from such an upheaval joining with Europe, this is based on the fact that by the time this all occurs, the two superpowers will most likely be India and China. The western world would be out of the picture if they didn't get their acts together, so it would be logical to make some sort of non-asian economic confederacy happen, just to remain politically and most importantly economically viable. One thing I left out is that with Russia getting a little too friendly with China, China may over the course of a couple decades or so, make a move to absorb Russia through political and economic maneuvering.

Perhaps the fragmented US states and Europe will fail to align themselves together and India and China will merely rule the world the way the US does now (or thinks it does).

Now, the first wave of colonization is started in fairly close timing by all the major powers, initially resulting in a situation similar to the one Europe found itself in around 1700 or so. Lots of colonial powers very far from their territories. The problem is that it is only a matter of time before these colonies decide they want their independance. Once that happened, they formed a confederacy to help establish a more stable business climate in which to operate and trade and also to form a united front against Earth. But because of their mixed backgrounds, the confederation is rife with internal power struggles, grudges, and what not.

Now Earth, stuck by itself and being forced to either dig its own resources out of the ground or buy them from the Confederation, decided they did not like the idea of being dependant in any way on the upstart colonies and set out to make more colonies. This launched a second wave of colonization, each given far more freedom and autonomy from Earth than the original colonies received. The Earth and each colonial world are all part of a large free trade agreement and mutual defense treaty. Several scuffles have arisen between Colonials and the Confederation, but open war has not yet errupted. Instead, a constant and tense cold war rages between the powers.

As for Earth's current political climate, by this time, I suspect that while old grudges are still played out in political venues, the nations have largely decided to get rid of the threat of the Confederation before going back to killing each other. This is not to say that they don't fight in other ways, but when the choice is between fighting each other and fighting the Confederation, they choose to fight the Confederation together.

Those are my thoughts after having been up all night at work. Hope they are coherent enought to respond to. Any more comments would be greatly appreciated. This is actually a world setting that I think I am going to be very very into. I love scifi, having grown up on it, and the chance to have something as politically screwed up as real life combined with fantasy and scifi is just so exciting....

[Dthclaw]

Quote

My thinking on the the US collapsing has nothing to do with the debt from Social Security. It comes from revolt. The majority of the US population is steadily being driven into poverty while the social elite rake in record earnings. Taxes are regularly shifted from the wealthy to the poor. If things continue in this manner, eventually a situation will arise where no matter how stupid and inept the average American is, he is hungry, tired, overworked, underpaid, and pissed as hell about it. That can only lead to an insurgeancy. They say any society is only three meals from civil war.

Unfortunately, that's not likely. The mindset of revolt is not in American minds - we live in what is increasingly a welfare state, and the vast majority of Americans depend on and expect the massive beuracracy to provide. Look at Katrina as an example - there was no talk of revolt because of massive governmental failures so much as there was incredible anger because the government wasn't taking a larger stand. Thirty, forty years ago, even, the welfare state mentality had already set in. Plus, Americans rely on an increasingly passive and isolated media for their information. It doesn't take much for media networks to decide they don't want to give any attention to revolutionary thought. No media, no support; no support, no revolt. Take a look at Orwell's 1984; we're living it, like it or not.

Quote

As for the joining of the fragmented states that would likely arise from such an upheaval joining with Europe, this is based on the fact that by the time this all occurs, the two superpowers will most likely be India and China. The western world would be out of the picture if they didn't get their acts together, so it would be logical to make some sort of non-asian economic confederacy happen, just to remain politically and most importantly economically viable. One thing I left out is that with Russia getting a little too friendly with China, China may over the course of a couple decades or so, make a move to absorb Russia through political and economic maneuvering.

China I'll buy. India, unfortunately, is going to have massive problems in a few decades with a population implosion (~90-95% of the country will be male in the next twenty to thirty years because of cultural emphasis on male children and the dowry system; the abortion rate of female children is horrific).

I also doubt that Western powers would be out of the picture entirely, even if they didn't come together. Even at what we would considered economically crippled the US alone would be a match for Eastern countries. (Check GDP from the CIA World Factbook - even at a percentage the US is still pretty high up there)

Russia getting in bed with China? That'll take a bit, especially with the slide back towards a Soviet economy and central control. Russia was as worried about China in the Cold War is it was of us, and those feelings have not changed and likely won't for the foreseeable future. And China definitely won't absorb Russia without bloodshed; Russia is one of the most nationalistic societies in the world. Getting Americans to accept a foreign government would be a cakewalk compared to doing so with Russia.

Quote

As for Earth's current political climate, by this time, I suspect that while old grudges are still played out in political venues, the nations have largely decided to get rid of the threat of the Confederation before going back to killing each other. This is not to say that they don't fight in other ways, but when the choice is between fighting each other and fighting the Confederation, they choose to fight the Confederation together.

Definitely will buy that. Exact same principle used in WW2.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Russia already is getting rather friendly with China. How friendly the two get will determine China's ability to ghost themselves into power in Russia.

One thing I was thinking of wtih regard to the U.S. is what would happen if Bush decides to attack Iran. First thing Iran does is use its midrange missiles to destroy all the oil wells in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Yemen. Now you are looking at $10 / gal gas prices while oil companies continue to earn a profit. Furthermore, with the direction of testing at the Nevada Test Site, particularly Divine Strake, it is becoming increasingly worrisome that tactical nukes would be used in an assault on Iran. As soon as one nuclear bomb tactical or otherwise, is detonated in Iran, I am pretty certain that the US will get hung out to dry by the rest of the world, further exacerbating the already crippled economy. Now, let us suppose that the New American Century people manage to rig another presidential election. Bush's administration stays in power and the face on the TV changes. Things don't get better. We are suffering a depression that is being compared to the Great Depression while watching the leaders of the country prance around all fat and happy. As it stands, I am already looking for another job because I can't afford gas to drive to work. If the price were to tripple, most everyone I know would have to find another job or go broke. That combined with manufacturers having to raise prices because shipping is suddenly expensive as hell would create an environment in which people suddenly start having to skip meals because there is not enough money for food.

As for India, they are going to take the economic lead before China. In the end, they will likely be beaten out by China, however. The fact that their population will implode, as you say, will actually help them somewhat. Right now the better part of their population is uneducated and poor. With the dead weight gone (I know that sounds cruel, but I'm just speaking in terms of the economy), they will be able to grow tremendously. It would actaully provide quite the opportunity to institute national education and other measures to prevent such a large lower class from growing again. Right now, the biggest obstacle to India's growth is the vast number of people living in absolute squalor.

That's all I got at the moment. Sorry if I'm not particularly optimistic about the US. After seeing what the "majority" of Americans seem to think is a good idea, it is hard to be chearful about what my country is becoming. Of course the other option for the US is to extrapolate this current concentration of power in the White House out to the point where a fascist government with a facade of democracy exists. Either way, pretty bleak.

[Dthclaw]

Quote

Sorry if I'm not particularly optimistic about the US. After seeing what the "majority" of Americans seem to think is a good idea, it is hard to be chearful about what my country is becoming. Of course the other option for the US is to extrapolate this current concentration of power in the White House out to the point where a fascist government with a facade of democracy exists. Either way, pretty bleak.

Understandable; I'm just pointing out the areas where it is literally impossible given economic and political fact.

Quote

Russia already is getting rather friendly with China.

From an outsider perspective, yes. However, the Russian economy is beginning to recentralize, as is political power into the hands of the President (which, btw, has already served a significant number of years in office; I'm not sure if the Russians have a longer term or not, but Putin has been in power for years and he's not exactly renowned for his democratic leanings).

Quote

One thing I was thinking of wtih regard to the U.S. is what would happen if Bush decides to attack Iran.

Bush has enough on his plate with Iraq; there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'll get Congress to authorize war with Iran at this point. And even with the Presidential power to deploy Marines, that power expires after, I believe, 60 days. Which is not enough time to accomplish anything in Iran, and Bush would probably get impeached before then.

Quote

First thing Iran does is use its midrange missiles to destroy all the oil wells in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and Yemen.

Thereby inviting a massive coalition to completely demolish Iran much like Desert Storm did to Iraq. Unlike Hussein, Iran has no delusions about any meaningful power group supporting them, especially not their neighbors.

Quote

Now you are looking at $10 / gal gas prices while oil companies continue to earn a profit.

5 or 6 tops. And it would serve as grounds for the declaration of a national emergency, thereby allowing use of the Strategic Oil Reserves until the oil supply is reestablished or at least partially reestablished.

Quote

Furthermore, with the direction of testing at the Nevada Test Site, particularly Divine Strake, it is becoming increasingly worrisome that tactical nukes would be used in an assault on Iran.

No. Bush, for all his talk about the development of TN's, won't authorize the deployment of such. The fallout would be nothing compared to what would happen to him, personally, if he were the second President to authorize the use of nuclear weaponry; from a much colder standpoint, whatever can be accomplished with TN's (in terms of any use they would see in Iran) can and would be performed for a fraction of the cost (financially and politically) with cruise missiles and stealth aircraft. Divine Strike is, to put it mildly, never going to see the light of day on the battlefield.

Quote

Bush's administration stays in power and the face on the TV changes.

A shadow government? Unless Bush somehow gains control of all the media before he leaves office and somehow keeps it, I doubt it.

Quote

We are suffering a depression that is being compared to the Great Depression while watching the leaders of the country prance around all fat and happy. As it stands, I am already looking for another job because I can't afford gas to drive to work.

I agree that there is already massive economic disparity in the US. Unfortunately, it has always been that way, and for reasons already citied the possibility of any kind of revolution or similar is nil. While I can appreciate the problem regarding gas prices, its hardly indicative of a new Great Depression.

Quote

That combined with manufacturers having to raise prices because shipping is suddenly expensive as hell would create an environment in which people suddenly start having to skip meals because there is not enough money for food.

You'd be surprised how resourceful people can be when it comes to where their next meal comes from.

Quote

The fact that their population will implode, as you say, will actually help them somewhat.

Unfortunately, it isn't just the uneducated and poor that are doing this.

Quote

It would actaully provide quite the opportunity to institute national education and other measures to prevent such a large lower class from growing again. Right now, the biggest obstacle to India's growth is the vast number of people living in absolute squalor.

Again, though, it comes back to politics, politics, politics. The thing about programs like those is that it requires the cooperation of a great many groups, many of which don't like each other very much (whether ethnic or political). A lot of these groups would be much happier shooting at each other than building schools. The kind of disaster that a population implosion would bring would tear India apart, not build it up.

I'm perfectly willing to help you with background for this sort of thing. Just remember that you have to shroud opinion in fact. You can have the bleak post-Bush setting, but you'll need the facts to back it up

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Bush has mentioned the use of tactical nuclear weapons for destroying bunkers in Iran multiple times. Furthermore, Divine Strake (that name just scares the bejesus out of me) is a 700 ton FAE designed to reproduce the detonation of a nuclear weapon. The problem with a 700 ton bomb is that there are no aircraft capable of lifting even half of that weight. In fact, it would require four C5 Galaxies to lift that. You mention cruise missiles, but he problem with those is that they don't back any punch for affecting targets deep underground. The same is true of any other conventional weapons. Divine Strake is alleged to be the first of a series of tests to create conventional weapons capable of this task. The problem, as I have mentioned, is that there are no aircraft capable of delivering such an ordinance. Pretty much the only thing you can do with such a bomb is use it to see how big of a nuke you need to accomplish the same task.

As far as whether or not Bush would nuke Iran, what does he have to lose? He's not going to be president in 2008. He is already stiring the pot in Iran, and he doesn't have the ground forces for a third war. There is only one way to fight a war without soldiers and have a hope of winning, and that is by nuking the country into submission. If the Democrats had more then three balls in the entire party, I might have some confidence that the public would not be easily swayed into backing a nuclear strike, but Americans are categorically the mental equivalent of retarded hampsters with attention deficite disorder.

As far as congress declaring a war is concerned, they haven't declared war on a nation since December 10, 1941. As far as authorizing military deployment is concerned, the Republicans hold the majority in both houses, and if Bush starts the war with nukes, it won't much matter what they authorize. Furthermore, Bush has already usurped the power to declassify information (according to Gonzales), abduct American citizens, imprison them without a lawyer, try them before a military tribunal, and torture them in the meantime, and pass legislative pieces without the approval of Congress or any other branch of the government. These power grabs have already been made. They just are not being publicly used to great effect at the moment, which could actually lead to a far more interesting course of events to be mentioned later in this post.

As far as Iran's response to an invasion is concerned, what would they have to lose? If the US actually launched a real invasion of Iran or started nuking Iran, what would the Iatolah have to lose? The most logical response would be to launch the only coutnerattack against the US available--destroy as much of its most vital commodity as possible. Yes, there are oil reserves, but how long do you think those will last? Yes, prices would just about tripple if the majority of the world's oil reserves stopped producing oil. Yes, it would piss off the rest of the world, who would likely already be pissed at the US for starting yet another war in the Middle East. And while they would not like Iran too much for such an action, I doubt they would let the US off the hook for it either.

Shadow governement? Bush staying in office? Controlling the media? What are you talking about? I said that the people behind Bush, most of whom belong to the New American Century and who have currently hijacked the Republican party, would merely nominate the next Republican president. The same people would be pulling the strings, and if they rig a third election, then they will still be in power. I doubt you actually think that Bush is smart enough to orchestrate all that has occurred in his time as president.

So scratch China and India and substitute China and Russia. Our old buddies. Either way, we have competition, but with the strength of the Chinese economy, it will royally suck not to have a strong India to at least keep them competing with someone other than us. Especially since they hold so much of our national debt now.

Okay, now for some semblance of creativity instead of defense. How about this for the US' future. As mentioned, the typical US citizen is becoming more cowardly every day. They want to be protected and coddled like helpless little toddlers, and by whom? The government. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that any society that trades a little liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. Bush's presidency has already laid some dangerous groundwork, as I mentioned above. What if a later president, perhaps another member of the New American Century (sorry, I just like a good conspiracy--makes things interesting) is elected and starts to make use of some of these powers. He spies on all of his enemies within the country and has them disappear. More and more legislation is passed through presidential order. Perhaps a few more liberties are taken away and a national ID card is instituted after some sort of national threat is faked. Maybe another terrorist attack, or perhaps something involving Russia or China. Next thing you know, the US citizens are doing what they are told by the government so they can stay safe. They are willing to allow their own movments throughout the country to be tracked in the name of safety. They are willing to tolerate the abduction and retention of US citizens who are "suspected" of being enemies. Heck, perhaps it is even incouraged to spyon your own neighbors. After all, safety starts at the homefront. All in all, you end up with a very Orwellian vision of the US that way. Perhaps more plausible than the breakup of the US.

[Dthclaw]

Quote

Okay, now for some semblance of creativity instead of defense. How about this for the US' future. As mentioned, the typical US citizen is becoming more cowardly every day. They want to be protected and coddled like helpless little toddlers, and by whom? The government. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that any society that trades a little liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. Bush's presidency has already laid some dangerous groundwork, as I mentioned above. What if a later president, perhaps another member of the New American Century (sorry, I just like a good conspiracy--makes things interesting) is elected and starts to make use of some of these powers. He spies on all of his enemies within the country and has them disappear. More and more legislation is passed through presidential order. Perhaps a few more liberties are taken away and a national ID card is instituted after some sort of national threat is faked. Maybe another terrorist attack, or perhaps something involving Russia or China. Next thing you know, the US citizens are doing what they are told by the government so they can stay safe. They are willing to allow their own movments throughout the country to be tracked in the name of safety. They are willing to tolerate the abduction and retention of US citizens who are "suspected" of being enemies. Heck, perhaps it is even incouraged to spyon your own neighbors. After all, safety starts at the homefront. All in all, you end up with a very Orwellian vision of the US that way. Perhaps more plausible than the breakup of the US.

Much more believable, and one that I don't see any problems with (just don't go claiming Russia is going to economically push anyone out of the way!).

Heck, you don't even need a national threat for an NIDC. States are already issuing federally mandated drivers licences that double as NIDCs; that has come and gone. Actually, just about everything you've listed has come and gone. Your campaign just has to take it to the finish line.

As for additional terrorist attacks, be careful how it is portrayed.

Possible events due to China and Russia:

-China stops buying US Bonds (unlikely, given how much they depend on the US to sustain their own economy, but possible)
-Russia loses control over a handful of WMDs (for a truly horrific one, perhaps they lost one of their 55 MTon H-Bombs... one of those going off in downtown Omaha would light all of Des Moines on fire 160 miles away)
-China deploys first-generation OWPs
-Russia experiences a total re-centralization of power
-China, in total defiance of common sense and national self-interest, attacks Taiwan
-Russia's government collpases (unlikely, but given the ineffectiveness of the government a military coup by pro-Soviet generals is possible)

Quote

Bush has mentioned the use of tactical nuclear weapons for destroying bunkers in Iran multiple times. Furthermore, Divine Strake (that name just scares the bejesus out of me) is a 700 ton FAE designed to reproduce the detonation of a nuclear weapon. The problem with a 700 ton bomb is that there are no aircraft capable of lifting even half of that weight. In fact, it would require four C5 Galaxies to lift that. You mention cruise missiles, but he problem with those is that they don't back any punch for affecting targets deep underground. The same is true of any other conventional weapons. Divine Strake is alleged to be the first of a series of tests to create conventional weapons capable of this task. The problem, as I have mentioned, is that there are no aircraft capable of delivering such an ordinance. Pretty much the only thing you can do with such a bomb is use it to see how big of a nuke you need to accomplish the same task.

Raven, there are several non-nuclear bunker busters already in existence. And aerial attacks are not the only method available - in Iraq, special forces had already infiltrated and destroyed communications infrastructure as the first salvos were being fired. In the unlikely event an attack on Iran, spec.ops. would be a major component, not nukes.

BTW, 700 ton probably isn't the weapon's weight... that's heavier than any nuclear weapon ever made. That's heavier than an ICBM. And if Divine Strike gives you the heebies, how about the scrapped Crusader mobile artillery system?

Quote

As far as congress declaring a war is concerned, they haven't declared war on a nation since December 10, 1941. As far as authorizing military deployment is concerned, the Republicans hold the majority in both houses, and if Bush starts the war with nukes, it won't much matter what they authorize. Furthermore, Bush has already usurped the power to declassify information (according to Gonzales), abduct American citizens, imprison them without a lawyer, try them before a military tribunal, and torture them in the meantime, and pass legislative pieces without the approval of Congress or any other branch of the government. These power grabs have already been made. They just are not being publicly used to great effect at the moment, which could actually lead to a far more interesting course of events to be mentioned later in this post.

They haven't declared war, per se, but they do have to authorize, and that's the key.

Yeah, Republicans currently hold the majority. And a lot of Republicans are pissed with Bush. Another war on top of Iraq and Afghanistan is going to destroy what little support he has left in Congress.

You do know that it takes more than just the President to say 'nuke 'em' for it to happen, right? There are incredibly tight restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons; while their use requires presidential authorization, there are many, many layers of security that stop any psycho (our President or otherwise) from taking matters into their own hands.

The power has, technically, been in existence for a long time. The Patriot Act certainly didn't help, but even before then martial law could be declared, effectively establishing a military dictatorship. It would only require a governor or two and a willing quantity in the military.

Quote

Shadow governement? Bush staying in office? Controlling the media? What are you talking about? I said that the people behind Bush, most of whom belong to the New American Century and who have currently hijacked the Republican party, would merely nominate the next Republican president. The same people would be pulling the strings, and if they rig a third election, then they will still be in power. I doubt you actually think that Bush is smart enough to orchestrate all that has occurred in his time as president.

You said the Bush administration. To me, that means Bush is more or less in charge.

Don't judge a book by the cover. The 'idiot image' may have some measure of truth, but look what judgments based on that have done - they've wound up losing ground to the 'idiot.'

The apparently smart people don't worry me. It's the ones where you're not sure if they're smart or not that put me on edge.

Which could be a powerful aspect of your campaign - people that the PCs make the fatal assumption that they couldn't possibly be behind whatever's happening actually are. For a conspiracy, it is perfect cover if the counter-conspiracy discounts potential conspirators.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Just to follow the tangent a little further, it is called Divine Strake. Not Strike. Strake. As in a ridge. And the bomb does weigh 700 tons. It is an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion with a yield of 593 tons of TNT. It is intended to simulate a low-yield nuclear weapon ground shock. That's why they are using an FAE instead of 700 tons of TNT - bigger shock wave over a larger area. And you are right, an ICBM could not lift it. Nothing could. That's what has everyone a little jumpy about it. There is no possible way that Divine Strake could possiblely be deployed. So why bother with it? Either way, they are bothering with it on June 2. If you are anywhere near the Nevada Test Site, they say you won't hear it beyond its boarder, but bring some binoculars. The expected mushroom cloud might make for interesting viewing.

Now, back on topic. I seriously doubt that Russia will gain any amazing amount of economic influence. China would be the scary one. And they would not stop buying US bonds because they are buying this country's debt that way. In essence, the US is becoming more and more indebted to their most dangerous enemy every day. That's frightening enough as it is. As far as the power grab, that's easily worked in. Russia recentralizing power may be a good impetous for the US going fascist. Perhaps an H-bomb going missing and detonating in a major US city would make a good excuse for the Russians to use to begin rapidly recentralizing power. If terrorists managed to steal such a weapon and it was stracked back to Russia, the political fallout would be pretty nasty. Russia could use it as an excuse to clamp down on security. Of course clamping down on security would actually result in a vast shift back to Soviet ways.

Now, with the corporate factions I see also opperating in the world, it would be easy to create a conspiracy as to how this all occurs easily. Arms dealers (aka military contractors) are probably the most influential and by far the richest people in the world. And nothing makes business suck more than peace breaking out. During the cold war, they couldn't open offshore accounts fast enough for all the money they were making, so starting up another cold war with a nifty arms race would really suit them well. Smaller hot wars could be maintained in smaller countries where they don't have to worry about their biggest customers blowing each other up. How hard would it be for Russia to look the other way when the bomb is stolen? How hard would it be for customs to miss the bomb as it is smuggled into the US? Once it goes off, everyone gets what they want. Putin, assuming he is still in power, gets to take russia back to the old ways, the US leaders get to centralize even more power and start to actually use that power, and the arms dealers, with whom everyone is already in bed, get to make money hand over fist. Just need to work in the oil companies and pharmaseudicals and the axis of evil is complete.

[Dthclaw]

Well, there you go A complete and believable back-story

Wait, why am I using smilies?

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Cool beans. As apposed to hot beans, which aren't quite as good.

So now I guess the fun bit starts when we try to extrapolate the relationships between the different member worlds of the Confederation depending on who colonized them. I am planning on having around fifty-odd worlds in the Confederation and probably only about 20 or so Colonials out there so far. The older Confederate worlds are going to be on par with Earth's civilian technology for certain, and probably not doing too badly militarily speaking. The Colonials have all of the technology of Earth and are actually equal players in their own sort of interstellar confederacy, except that still supports them a whole lot. The oldest colonial world is still only about fifty years old. I really don't know what else to babble about at the moment, so I'll just let you respond as you see fit.

[Dthclaw]

Any ET's? Plenty of them from my Final Horizon setting you can rip if you'd like (I would have to put them into d20 Stats, but I think they're a lot more original than the Alternity rip-offs of d20 Future).

If you'd like a hand designing various future military tech, I'm also more than willing on that end, too.

And ships. I love ships. Given that all my major Bryce undertakings have been starships