Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dogbrain" data-source="post: 1633973" data-attributes="member: 14980">One more thing:  Agreements with "good" leaders will not stop human swarming.  An example of this is the history of the USA.  The US government enacted treaty after treaty limiting settlement.  Each one was eventually broken.  This was not by policy.  The common folk simply ignored the government.  Since the USA has a representative government, that meant that leaders who enacted treaties faced the threat of replacement if they didn't go along with the flow.If a "good" government actively halted further spread, it would become "tyrannical"--indeed, if there were a lot of pressure by the commons, it would have to adopt draconian measures.  If it simply let the neighbors kill all humans who got outside the borders, it would be seen as "neglectful"--and the locals would take matters into their own hands.In the 1740s, New England conquered Quebec.  Britain made them give it back.  In the 1760s, Britain enacted a treaty guaranteeing the Old Northwest to the tribes who lived there.  This fed revolutionary resentment.  Men like George Washington even hired surveyors to illegally go north of the Ohio river and plat out land for later sale.So long as a valuable resource belongs to "the other", some human will feel justified to take it by any means.  This only stops if "the other" is strong enough to put a stop to the spread directly or if sufficient profit exists in permitting "the other" to keep control of that resource as to make forceful takeover not worth ones while.Were saints as common as air, we would not have saints.</blockquote>

Verification