Galactic Federations/Republics or Galactic Empires: which do you personally prefer?
Large numbers of self-sufficient planets that lack the infrastructure to interact with each-other in any meaningful way.
Alongside powerful and independent Merchant-Princes who act as go-betweens for the rich and powerful.
>>47960051
To live in? Republics because, on some level, the government is meant to listen to the people.
To rule? Empire because absolute authority kicks ass.
However i'd prefer a true meritocracy ruled by a council of the best of every field because then, at the very least, I can be sure that the government is competent.
I'm a sucker for The Republic/The Alliance/The Federation.
I was always rooting for the Old Republic/New Republic/etc in Star Wars even though they're forever doomed to be civilization-wide 'backdrop good guys who lose so the real heroes can rise up and save us'. I mean, at least all the Empires /get/ a golden period of winning and being strong.
Similarly, in LOGH, I was firmly on the Alliance's side even given all their issues. I sympathized with all of said problems, as an American and holy shit wow that hurts bad and hits REALLY close to home, plus >modern style, plus >democracy, >berets, etc.
LOGH also helped me get over my Empire-phobia a bit, but I'll always support Freedom and Democracy in the end. Republics in particular sound cool to me.
Federal Empire is obviously the correct way to do it, on the "Don't make me come over there" model.
>>47960109
Basically this or Feudalism in space
>>47960051
Some of all.
>>47960051
Buddhist theocracy ruled by an AI 'God', who's brain is multiple dyson sphere computers linked by wormholes.
>>47960051
Galactic Kingdoms
Because feudalism makes sense on such a large, decentralized scale
>>47960051
Empires.
>>47960051
I like it whe- >>47960109
Oh, well that should lead to >>47960557 >>47961397
Guess that about covers my contribution then, carry on.
hundred of thousands of small states/empires
example: a system has a station city state under a communist rule, and next to it there is a multysystem federation or empire etc etc
>>47960051
Imperial republic, but with the voting population being semi-randomly chosen from the entire population, 10% of the population is granted suffrage for 10 years, and that 10% is chosen from the wealthiest half of the population, as well as those who have served in the military, or those that hold a [equivalent of graduate] degree in some scientific or professional field.
Basically, the poor who are unwilling to better themselves or to fight for their empire are excluded from the selection pool, and a very small proportion of the selection pool is even allowed to vote.
However, those that are chosen to vote are required to do so, and failure to engage in the political process would result in the permanent loss of any future voting rights, as well as some real nasty taxes.
>>47960051
It doesn't matter if it's a President or an Emperor, when they're a year out each way by fast courier. Who runs things on-planet?
>>47961736
the local imperial governor and his garrison.
>>47960051
Well, it really depends on the thematic flavor of each. For instance, I adore the Old Republic from Star Wars more than its later incarnation of the Galactic Empire, but I favor the Cybran Nation (Which is essentially an autocracy without any heirs because Brackman's brain is immortal) from Supreme Commander over the United Earth Federation.
>>47960051
Whichever one serves the story/game better. Good science fiction makes a world that facilitates good storytelling, not stories/games that facilitate the writer/GM giving exposition on their special homebrew world.
>>47962024
I agree as long as that's not used as an excuse to crank out yet another generic space setting full of 21st century characters IN SPAAAAACE and bad, lazy science, all flimsily justified by "muh storytellin".
>>47960051
Galatic Empires because I love imperial politics and policy. Also because imperialism gives me a hard on. "The Imperial Fleet" or "Imperial Army" also has a better ring to it than "the Federation Fleet/Army/Navy"
RHIBERTY STANDS FO PHREEDOM
>>47960051
Empires. I love reading about space empires like the one from The Mote in God's Eye.
>>47962510
>space setting full of 21st century characters IN SPAAAAACE and bad, lazy science, all flimsily justified by "muh storytellin".
You literally just described the original trilogy, and Firefly, both of which are PRIME examples of the setting existing to serve the purposes of the story rather than the other way around. With as little as a gimmick like "it's like the southern reformation on the rim kind of I guess," or even "empire what looks like nazis bad, plucky rebels good, dark space magic bad, light space magic good," if the game/story is compelling enough, it's justified.
>>47960051
Galactic Commonwealth
>>47960051
i bet that stupid cat meows to be let outside
Direct imperial hierarchy, nearly militaristic in its structure.
Depends on what you mean by "prefer". If you mean in regards to story/setting either can be the best if there is good writing to support it. Dune made a feudal empire work by having a thought out universe to justify it. The good episodes of Star Trek made a Socialist Democratic Republic work because the history and rules of the universe justified it.
If you mean which is better in real life it's Republics/Federations. The time honored story of weak ineffectual democracies vs strong competent empires is a lie. While a particular democracy may be weaker than a particular empire empire by their definition cannot allow accountability to the nations success over that of the monarch. History has also shown over the past two centuries that in America and the west at large that increased democracy has actually gone hand in hand with more powerful, centralized and efficient governments that both maintain greater power and control and greater prosperity and freedom for their subjects. Look at all the authoritarian systems today, they are all corrupt, poor and incompetent, and they are no more so than past empires.
Galactic councils made up of elder races that mostly just sit on their asses and let the younger races do whatever they want, unless somebody threatens the stability of the galaxy.
Scattered primitive planets trading with, preyed upon, or protected by various spacefaring cultures with no centralized leadership.
A bunch of abortive fragments of empires that fall apparent as due to the inherent inefficiency of centralized power structures on such a large scale. Imperial fleets reduced to piracy.
Vast pantheon of literal space gods, each of which is but a small aspect of a supreme deity who embodies the universe itself.
>>47961394
Is the AI a Bodhisattva or just a Deva still seeking enlightenment?
Empires. I'd rather be led by a bunch of nobles who at the very least might have a sense of noblesse oblige than have to live in the plutocracy that all Republics seem invariably to become.
>>47960051
both existing at the same time, with an uneasy truce happening between them, and the slightest wrong move would undoubtedly unleash a chain of events that could decimate the sector if not the entire galaxy.
It really depends on the kind of scifi setting I'm trying to go for and what themes I'm trying to capture, so I've no real preference in the end as all it is to me is a means to an end.
Empires are good at some things, Federations and Empires are at another set of things.
>>47960051
>>47960315
iv been on a big space opera/space politics kick lately, rewatching Babylon 5, getting into legend of the galactic hero's, etc,etc. and I got to say as ahuge americuntI prefer the republic to the empire. LOGH does an awesome job of illustrating the good points of both the empire and the republic as well as the shitty points. I prefer the republic for things like the fact if you have a problem with the leaders you can at least try to get a redress of grievances where as in the empire if you have a problem with the nobles and you yourself are not a noble then your shit out of luck.
>>47960051
Aristocratic republic. So that in spirit, at least, Polan can into space.
>>47971068
what about empires without nobles? I mean there is still an emperor but there are no privileged pansies prancing around playing grab ass
>>47960360
How on Earth would a 'federal empire' work, man?
>>47973431
>inb4 it turn zealous and elects a king, fucks its shit up not only for itself but for the neighbouring nations as well
just like real Poland did ;)
>>47973565
Or Britain this week. But I digress.
>>47973515
Actually the idea of an "empire", modeled on the HRE, is linked to autonomy in the smaller states/feudal entities, isn't it?
>>47973677
yeah but brits are brits you cant trust the to run a bath, nor a country in that matter. But I too digress
>>47971068
>Try to get a redress of grievancesRIP Jessica ;_;
>>47973509
I don't know what to tell you, anon. Nobles exist because a monarch is literally incapable of managing all the stuff that falls under his umbrella. Even if you did away with the massive noble class which arises naturally as a result of this need for micromanagment, and replaced it with a technocratic or meritocratic setup, you'd just end up with a class of people who are noble in all but title. Either that, or a situation like absolute-monarchy France, where all the power is concentrated on the king and there's rampant corruption and inefficiency (only that was probably the nobles' fault that time, not the lack thereof.)
I'm guessing why there aren't too many examples of settings like that, barring examples where the head honcho CAN micromanage everything, as in the case of, like... iunno, SHODAN, or something similar. Someone who can literally be everywhere at once and not have their focus suffer for it.
>>47973723
Hey, Bath runs just fine. Lovely city, don't know what you've got against it.
>>47973821
but the bath in bath is in ruins because you couldn't run a bath in bath
>>47973509
Nobles are just a fancier title for advisers, administrators, governors, and bureaucrats. They're required for every system of government that actually works.
