ILLUMINARRPG: (05–0935) tlha'nISta'. Tags Sekal, McKenzie.

[Frank Truelove]

Mission:  For Honor
Day: 5
Stardate: 2446.04.29

(Q'onoS — Diplomatic Quarters — aCSO, LT tlha'nISta' — 0935)

Lanista's single working theory was that the Klingons were stalling because
they did not perceive themselves to have a decisive position. In the
theater of war, acting on the advantage was typically obvious and hard to
miss. In diplomacy, however, there was always nuance. Subtlety. Thus,
conversely, the maneuvers in the intellectual battlespace were covert and
at times easy to miss. This was not always the case. Certainly there were
some clear statements. Often, there might be, in fact. But there would
always be the shrouded. The veiled. And even the unsaid.

The Illuminar's acting CSO, therefore, began to devise an alternative to
her working theory. If the Klingons were "stalling" but for another reason
than that they believed the position is not immediately actionable, what
other cause could there be for the delay?

The abrupt and unheralded arrival of the quite extensively wounded Galk
interrupted Lani's thinking briefly. There was also now the presence of a
bat'leth embrued with blood. This presented a significant contrast to the
very most recent and largely academic discussion of when to bear weapons.
Lanista's eyes darted from Galk to McKenzie. The contrast between the two
men was stark.

Lanista had never met Galk before, though she had heard of him. He had a
fine reputation, both in and out of Klingon space. He was not one to suffer
fools or insults — likely the impetus behind whatever fracas he'd just been
in. And he was a pure-blooded Klingon as well as a warrior in good
standing, at least so she had heard.

McKenzie, however, was in many ways Galk's opposite. Not only was he no
warrior, Lani' didn't believe there'd be any circumstance in which he would
(or could) kill her. The Klingons would also sense this from him. Whether
or not he was conversant in the use of arms, his decision to decline to
carry Lani's offered blade indicated that he would be willing to meet death
unarmed. ~If you will not fight for what is yours, it is not yours. You
merely have it until someone will take it from you.~

If the Klingons perceived McKenzie as Lani' did, under the circumstances,
the impasse might have been caused by McKenzie's failure to earn their
respect. McKenzie seemed disinclined to negotiate with Klingons as Klingons
do. He didn't seem like the sort of man who was willing to brag about his
achievements. He didn't come across as the type to argue passionately, face
to face, spitting as he spoke with verve. He was … restrained. And that
must have suited him well in many cases before this one. Decorum did have
its place.

However, Human decorum and the Klingon version differed significantly. In
the Federation, one would never engage in discourse with the deliberate
intent to insult someone as a means of taking the measure of a man. The
Klingon tradition of «mu`qaD veS» or "curse warfare", on the other hand,
was a tool for doing precisely that. Lanista could not imagine that
McKenzie would have even thought to say to his opposite "Your mother has a
smooth forehead" as an opening gambit. She surmised, with insufficient
evidence, that his bearing was bloodless. He didn't appear to have a dog in
the fight, so to speak.

If that were the case … if the Klingon perception was, "Since you want
nothing from these negotiations, you will get nothing", this theory too
would explain the impasse. And, certainly, both suppositions could be at
least partly true.

"Captain," she said, gesturing toward one corner of the room, "a moment of
your time?"

(Reply Sekal)

"If I may, I have a second hypothesis regarding the delay. You'll recall
that my first was that the Klingons believe you have the upper hand, and
that their pride is what's keeping them from admitting that. I do not like
to act on just one theory. I prefer to have alternatives, and to test them
simultaneously. Therefore, I have a second theory. I think it is possible,
though not necessarily likely, that the Klingons have seen nothing from the
good Ambassador to make them believe he cares about the outcome. His
demeanor — not to mention his refusal to be armed — do not suggest he is
willing to fight for what he wants."

(Reply Sekal, McKenzie)

"Logic dictates that if how the Klingons esteem the diplomat is the flaw,
that flaw should be removed."

Sekal objected, "I find the replacement of the Ambassador at this late
stage to be an illogical step. Federation diplomatic protocols would void
the delegation and require a return to Sector 001 for a replacement which
would set back the process by months."

Lanista countered with, "No, I'm not suggesting his replacement! Merely a
bit of a ruse. To Klingons, all conflict is war. Even humans refer to
warfare in terms of theater. The 'theater of war.' Well, diplomacy involves
its own pretense, does it not? One of your tools must be at least partly
charade? I am not part of the delegation, nor have I been introduced as
such. My late arrival will, however, need to be explained or excused in
some way. To that end, I offer a bit of 'theater.' What if I am Ambassador
McKenzie's 'targ?' His war-dog? Unleash me, at the appropriate time, and
let me bark at your opponents, in your stead. Show them, through me, that
you ARE willing to fight for … something — and that I am your proof of
intent. None of this, of course, needs to be true. It merely needs to be
convincingly sold. The price won't be paid in darseks, however. It'll be in
concessions."

(Reply Sekal, McKenzie)
(Posted by Frank)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://startrekfreedom.com/pipermail/illuminar-rpg_startrekfreedom.com/attachments/20221019/d443163f/attachment.html>