Quote from: The Shaman;277819CJ Cherryh's Union comes to mind.

I thought the very same thing.

-clash

Ummm...I would play Dark Heresy. Although not necessarily winning the war (and not necessarily losing either), all of the imperium is united in fighting it and every planet contributes in its own little way.

Battlestar Galactica looks like another model.  Loyalty will be to The Fleet or Humanity/the People.

Role of women is a big issue.  A highly militarised culture engaged in long term high intensity warfare will want women producing as many children as possible, so they may be kept away from certain forms of combat.  Or perhaps unmarried women fight, married women stay home and raise the children.

The Israelis were mentioned upthread.  The surrounding Arab groups opposing them arguably give other examples of militarised cultures, eg the Hezbollah-led Shi'ites in Lebanon or the Palestinians.  The whites in Rhodesia or apartheid South Africa another modern example.

The tone of a campaign like this is going to vary greatly depending on how the culture views the war/wars it is engaged in.

Glory - If the society's culture is based on the gaining of glory, then trophy gathering, great sagas of exploits, and merit based societal advancement could all figure. "'Tis a good day to die." Glory could be personal glory (maybe even in times of peace, gladatorial games are popular), or the glory of the society. The gaining of glory could be an honour system or at the other end of the scale, extreme, rampant expansionism.

Fatalistic - Could be that they are necessarily militaristic. Surrounded by enemies, or the worship of a Death God or cult. Such society might revere death in battle and have little regard for personal safety or individualism.

Despotic - The wheels of war are greased with the disgruntled populace. Military service and training is imposed. This might make the actual rank and file ripe for revolt against their despotic overlords.

Esoteric - War is a way of life and is the basis of the society's philosophies and ethos. Teachings all venerate war in some way - education systems, advancements, doctrines, the arts, etc.

With over “over 60% of the population is in the military at any given time” you aren’t really going to have a society as much as a military with those to old or to young to be in it. I could only imagine how much of the “GDP” would be spent strictly on the military.

A look at the Soviet Union during the Cold War might be a good starting point. A huge chunk of their economy and population was involved in the military.

Quote from: CavScout;277850A look at the Soviet Union during the Cold War might be a good starting point. A huge chunk of their economy and population was involved in the military.

Ba'athist Iraq and some other Oil States also followed the Soviet model.  I think these nations were more bureaucratised than militarised though - everyone has a government job, there's a huge military, but the society itself isn't really shaped around The War or The Military but around totalitarian control.

Quote from: S'mon;277855Ba'athist Iraq and some other Oil States also followed the Soviet model.  I think these nations were more bureaucratised than militarised though - everyone has a government job, there's a huge military, but the society itself isn't really shaped around The War or The Military but around totalitarian control.

Would not a military that is your society be effectively "totalitarian control"? He's looking at a society with 60% in the military, I can't think of anything that comes close to that in modern times.

Quote from: Haffrung;277742I'd look to the Spartans and Zulus as models. Regimented, collective child-rearing. Strong sense of collective identity, and corresponding contempt for enemies and foreigners. Status of citizens determined largely by their battlefield accomplishments (can only marry after your cohort wins a battle, etc.)

There's lot of historical information on military cultures. But to second Age of Fable's comment, I think it would be difficult to make such a society admirable or sympathetic in a role-playing game.

Sorry, I should have specified that this is a sci-fi context where the "society" in question is descended from our own society, so you really need to start from 21st century earth, and see how 40 years or so of nearly constant warfare where humanity was under threat of extinction (and where sizeable percentages of the human race were wiped out) more than once would change the society we know. There should be some things (customs, social mores, etc) that are standard, while others have simply vanished.

So would child rearing be very regimented? Yes; given that kids would have grown up on starships and been raised in a military environment on ships that (though perhaps not on the front line) were in situations of war. But would you have collective-childrearing where children are separated completely from the family? No, I don't think so.

Social status could certainly depend a great deal more on either military rank or level of public service (slackers would be seen FAR worse than in our society), but you wouldn't have a bunch of klingons who'd rise up in rank purely based on the number of kills they racked up.

Democracy is considered a quaint political system of the past, though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;277749Like Clash, I can't see the problem with the premise.  ("Evil")

But let's move on to Pundit's question.  I think this is cool and look forward to hearing more details as he sets it up and plays.

Here are some things that popped into my head right off the bat.  You might have thought of them, or they might not work with the system, but here goes.

* Every PC is in the military in some way.

Correct, even though not everyone in the society is in the military. What you'd see is something like Israel is today, where a period of military service is essentially obligatory for any able bodied young person; only where a far larger percentage of people would go on to make careers of it.
Also, certain professions that in our world are "civilian", in this world are almost exclusively military careers (ie. Doctor, Scientist), even if their work caters to both military and civilians, all the infrastructure for these kinds of jobs are in the military.
But yes, in the campaign, the PCs are all in the military.

Quote* I really like the idea of families being important (Pundit, you brought up the fact that large chunks of families have died, so I'm going to run with it...)  I think the Players should generate immediate family members, noting how they affected by the war (serving; MIA; KIA; on a conquered planet; living behind lines whatever -- but relate each family member to the war)

Yes, that was done; given the nature of the setting, the majority of PCs have very few living family members, however.

Quote* I'd think about PC goals within the culture: Is the PC looking forward to getting out?

I would imagine that in this society, a certain number of years of "military service" are required (possibly as many as 8 years); people enter the military young (at 16). The military essentially takes the place of higher education.
And "military service" doesn't mean frontline fighting, or even what we'd imagine as a military career (like I said, you can spend your military service being a medic or a lab tech working toward a career in science or medicine; or working in the engineering sections working toward a career in that).
After that, people can get out whenever they want, but many of the real opportunities for careers would be military.
One good question is what essential careers would exist that would NOT be within the military structure?
I think, for example, there would be an "entertainment industry" where the actual entertainers would not technically be in the military, but all entertainment would have a propagandistic side to it and the delivery of entertainment being handled by the Communications division of the military forces.
 

Quote* I'd make sure that the the character sheet is marked with a significant event from every term of service -- how they fit in with the war as a whole, and their government as a whole.  (Promotions, commendations, medals, injuries, imprisonment for insubordination, special tasks, locals thinking they were a hero, putting down a rebellion, whatever...)  

The PCs are all relatively young, 15-22 years old (one of them lied about his age to get in before the age of 16), and they're coming out of one of those brief "lull periods" where for a few years (in their area of space at least) there hasn't been any serious conflict, so none of them have any really serious combat experience yet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;277767Child Soldiers - when they muster up some NPCs for their next suicide mission, give them a bunch of 12-16 year olds with guns.   Make half of them girls.   Then blow them apart like rag dolls full of meatsauce.

Again, the human military has been on the (slowly, generally) winning side of things for the last long while now, so the need for child soldiers really isn't there, the minimum age for full-blown military service has been 16 for at least a decade or so now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: S'mon;277837Battlestar Galactica looks like another model.  Loyalty will be to The Fleet or Humanity/the People.

Role of women is a big issue.  A highly militarised culture engaged in long term high intensity warfare will want women producing as many children as possible, so they may be kept away from certain forms of combat.  Or perhaps unmarried women fight, married women stay home and raise the children.

Probably because the culture comes out of western human culture from the 21st century, women have been seen as "equals" to men for a long time now. For about 20 years or so, the supreme commander of the armed forces was a woman (who's now retired, but still around).
There are certainly probably big incentives for women to have babies, and probably a lot of rules making it possible for women to have babies safely and often without suffering consequences to their military career if they're in the forces.

And, human society being what it is, the frontline combat forces have a vast gender disparity in favour of men, while most women tend to serve on ships as crew, technical officers, or in other non-frontline capacities. However, any woman who wants to be a pilot or a grunt (and is physically and mentally capable) is allowed (and in this setting some of the most famous soldiers/aces were women).

RPGPundit

Quote from: CavScout;277865Would not a military that is your society be effectively "totalitarian control"? He's looking at a society with 60% in the military, I can't think of anything that comes close to that in modern times.

Yup, this is a setting that hasn't known a functioning democracy in something like 45 years. There is, however, a civilian "government" that is selected by a mix of military, scientific, and technical/professional bureaucrats, and is almost inevitably composed of ex-military individuals.  This is a necessity due to the humans being part of a political alliance with several alien worlds, and the "government" (aside from handling the bureaucratic aspects of human life) are mainly there to represent humanity in that context.
In theory, the "president" of the human culture has the highest authority, but the head of the armed forces has over-ruling powers in the case of "military matters", and since almost everything is a "military matter" in practice the armed forces head is really the one who calls the shots.

A note on the question of "evil society"; this is a society that sees itself as fighting for humanity's survival (and currently, the Earth's liberation), and believe very strongly in the value of human life. The NPCs who run things are not evil people, or corrupt, they're people who've given their entire lives, sacrificed their own happiness, and sometimes their own children, to the cause, and they act in generally principled ways.  However, the system they work under (essentially a dictatorship) is one that is rife with the opportunity for abuse, and there have been incidences of corrupt officers and generals doing terrible things, and it is evident that if someone other than the current good people were in charge, everything could go to hell very quickly.

RPGPundit

You should really look at John Scalzi's The Ghost Brigade for this. Although reading Old Man's War prior to it will help explain a culture of  genetically engineered and nanotech modified warriors with computer implants to provide tactics & communications but have the emotional maturity of their physical age (in single digit years).

Quote from: CavScout;277865Would not a military that is your society be effectively "totalitarian control"? He's looking at a society with 60% in the military, I can't think of anything that comes close to that in modern times.

It's a question of purpose.  Taking Iraq in the '80s, Iraqi society was never really purposively organised for winning the Iraq-Iran war, it was much more organised towards the purpose of maintaining the control of the regime, and especially a small Tikriti cabal around Saddam Hussein.  The USSR in the latter part of WW2 was highly organised towards defeating Nazi Germany, but that was a temporary phenomenon, before and after WW2 the USSR's organisation was not directed primarily towards military victory, but towards internal control.

Quote from: S'mon;277887It's a question of purpose.  Taking Iraq in the '80s, Iraqi society was never really purposively organised for winning the Iraq-Iran war, it was much more organised towards the purpose of maintaining the control of the regime, and especially a small Tikriti cabal around Saddam Hussein.  The USSR in the latter part of WW2 was highly organised towards defeating Nazi Germany, but that was a temporary phenomenon, before and after WW2 the USSR's organisation was not directed primarily towards military victory, but towards internal control.

But a military is about control, and so would a society that is 60% military. A military doesn't work (well) without control.