I could see them loving the Alexandrian "To the strongest" argument for who should lead.WhiteDragon25 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:09 pmYou're forgetting that the Klingons killed their gods, so there's no "Mandate of Heaven"-style tradition to fall back on. You want power in the Klingon Empire, you'll have to get it on your own merits, not from sucking up to some long-dead gods.Wargriffin wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:21 pmMartok could easily spin that as the Gods showing him favor, Not only showing their favor to him but also Worf as 'Yet another Klingon screwed by the system who saved the Empire' being his staunch ally, both who really should be heroes of the Klingon people.
Makes me wish the presentation of the fall of the Klingon Empire rests on them being shamed into practicing their merciless warrior ethos that just winds up with a massive civil war that fragments the empire into a patchwork of claimants whose only claims are their violent attempts to seize power.
Martok has the shrewdness to learn he's in a game not of his element and adapt, but Worf? Really?WhiteDragon25 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:09 pm Luckily for Martok and Worf, they both abundantly qualify on the merits part.
Worf to me reminds me why most of those military background do not make good diplomats and it's because of their absolute lack of political acumen. They're been trained all their life to confront problems head on, even when it comes to military cunning. Getting into political intrigue often leaves them either out of their element or a bull in a china store.
A good historical example of the latter is Nelson and how easily manipulated he was while stationed in the Mediterranean protecting Sicily that wound up almost ruining his career until he got his second chance with the Trafalgar Campaign, the latter being most of the German military leadership which played their role in isolating Germany.
Creativity works best when an obstacle is used as an opportunity to deepen a work rather than dismiss it and impose your will upon what came before. I think a problem with Trek and its ilk is that most people don't have an eye to world building and are just writing stories first a foremost not wanting whats established to get in the way of what they want to happen within their plot.
The example I always give for this is Tolkien when he realized he had two Elves with the same name that were clearly different individuals, thus violating his "Elvish names are unique" rule. Instead of simply renaming one and carrying on he stopped to give time over how to harmonize what had just happened and integrate it. In the end, he added to his world exploring an aspect of his Legendarium he'd never considered, that of reincarnation.
From that he kept the names and the character as one adding in that this was the very rare reincarnation of an Elf, something that does happen, all for effectively a footnote character.
A problem too with Trek that I'm unsure how it might continue to influence it is the era TOS came from, that was the very fast and loose "dream like" incoherent era of story telling where characters and their development worked on an archetypal level rather than from episode to episode.
An example of that is the one TOS episode where they run across, what? The Greek gods? Even from a completely secular outlook that would be a giant windfall anthropologically at the very least to be able to interact with them and see how their perspectives influenced people thousands of years ago even if they'd be unreliable narrators.
