The Coalition States are not the bad guy

[Mech-Viper Prime]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Humans aren't native to North America, they are just another immigrant to North America.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

I agree they're different, but the NGR still executes d-bees, and without trial, when they feel it necessary or just more convenient. That's a practice they share with the CS. Doing it less doesn't exclude them from having done it.

are they doing this consistently? i don't remember anything about this happening, though i also don't own triax 2.

as i said earlier, doing something once (and voluntarily stopping) is very different from doing something repeatedly with no signs that you ever intend to stop, or indeed when you're explicitly and clearly stating that you intend to keep on doing it.

a person who tells one lie when under great pressure is not the same as a person who always lies any time the truth is inconvenient to them.

a person who steals once when under great pressure is not the same as a person who steals regularly because they don't feel like earning an honest living.

and yes, a nation that wages all-out war after once, after repeatedly occuring recent attacks, and kills a lot of others* while killing primarily combatants but stops voluntarily before killing off all of them is different from a nation that kills people that they have no actual grievance against, which plans to continue killing those people without actual provocation, and has directly stated they intend to continue that practice until they have exterminated any of those people who are unable or unwilling to get off of the planet.

* it is worth noting that some or even most of those "monstrous d-bees" could have actually been the gargoyles' allies and may have been part of the attacks against the NGR that provoked the bloody campaign in the first place, although we have no compelling evidence one way or the other. we do know that the gargoyles will accept a wide variety of creatures into their social structure; we don't know whether the d-bees in question were part of the social structure, though, in much the same way that we don't know how many of the hundreds of thousands killed were d-bees rather than monsters and gargoyles specifically.

ok I guess your saying it's ok for the ngr to do it but not the cs.

[Nightmask]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Which is probably part of the problem when it comes to the CS, some see it as simply the US reborn struggling to reclaim its 'rightful' land so they dismiss its obvious evil just as many Americans will downplay or pretend it never happened that we also engaged in genocide and theft of the land that belonged to others. In the end though the CS is evil, worse than the US was at that time, and while it may have the potential to eventually turn that around as the US did as it moved away from such obvious prejudice and greed currently the CS is evil with no chance of that changing in the foreseeable future (unless in one's game they ran that one Tolkeen Adventure and actually managed to turn Karl around to good so that he'd start working in the coming decades to move the CS from evil to good).

[Killer Cyborg]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Agreed.
But does that (and other, more recent actions) mean that the United States of America is "Evil?"

[Q99]

Wrong, a lot of demons just like to mess around with you, maybe corrupt your morals, take you on as a servant, make you offer it a finger or two to eat.

Note that 'take you as a servant' often means 'slave' and slaves often die under them.

Sure, a number start out with more subtle ways, but their ways, given a choice on their part, usually are very negative for the humans. Heck, the 'corrupt your morals' often involves them manipulating you into attacking someone for their amusement.

But we are discussing the pre-emptive killing of monsters because they 'almost certainly' will try to kill you (you know, the way the CS thinks of mages/d-bees) not actually waiting until they try.

If a being is 'almost certainly' going to, then it's not completely out of the question, especially if there is a very large body of evidence backing that almost-certainty.

And the CS is not doing any due diligence in actually confirming whether their way is true, and even has mages right on their doorstep who don't try and kill them.

I will note if circumstances change and it becomes possible to negotiate with the Gargoyles- as the Minion war may lead to- then that'd of course call for a re-evaluation of tactics.

The victims of the NGR were not explicitly described as doing this.

Right, when they pushed out the D-bees was definitely an immoral act.

So the Succubi aren't master manipulators, they just go around killing people?

They're master manipulates, but the goals of their manipulation sometimes get you killed, sometimes gets you to kill others, and if they get caught out, they'll kill for convenience.

The least-fighty demons still leave body counts in their wake, and, importantly, aren't going to be convinced not to do so.


Though I will note this isn't exactly true of *all* demons- Chinese demons can learn to become not-demons.

[Shark_Force]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

on the plus side, at least the US is not so far gone that they don't consider their actions to have been fair and just in that particular matter.

[Zer0 Kay]

A lot of people would, sure. I expect the CCW would also prosecute people who evict people from their planet into a gargoyle pit too, like the NGR does.

I object sir. Gargoyles are not an immediate execution like spacing. So ejection into a gargoyle or other demon infested wilderness is not in itself an immediate death sentence but a callous action from which a person may die but who's death is not guaranteed. Spacing is no different then electrocution or other means of execution where death is almost certain. It is more certain that your gonna kill someone spacing them than shooting them. I'd argue the same for abandoning them at sea. Granted by sea or by space even if given minimal survival gear the survival rate doesn't climb much higher. Of course all of this is dependant on whatever is spaced, or abandoned at sea not being specialized for the particular environment.

Now we should stop comparing it to individuals and compare it to nation/states. A spacing or something equally deadly is an execution, being dumped into the wilderness to rely on their own skill is banishment and in gargoyle territory may still be more survivable than banishment into some of the harsher environments on Earth, even without monsters in them.

Wasn't a similar logic used by the villain in a number of Greek myths to get around being punished by the gods for killing one's kin? Have the baby left out on the hillside with its legs bound. Put the daughter and her child in a box and drop it in the ocean. It was okay to put them in the way of certain death, just as long as you didnt directly kill them.

Ah but being bound or boxed would be closer to execution than banishment.

[Zer0 Kay]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

I wonder if he means modern or historic? The historic didn't claim to own land they held and protected territory but they never thought the dirt they lived on belonged to them. Modern American natives... I have no idea of their thoughts except they sure do own a lot of casinos.

[flatline]

In the absence of a legal system, there is no such thing as "owning" land. The land simply "belongs" to whomever can keep others from taking it.

--flatline

[implementor]

I think Rifts and the issues brought up by the setting are too complex to run as "good guy vs. bad guy". I tend to run the CS as a society that developed out of one that was under constant siege, and thusly, has some pretty good reasons for being anti-magic, and anti-supernatural. I also don't think that a society that embraces psionics as much as the Coalition does would remain independent of psionic control or extreme influence, so I run the elites of Coalition Society, including the Proseks, as being Master Psychics of one flavor or another, usually Mind Melters (although they keep this under wraps for the most part), and that are slowly increasing the influence, power, and acceptance of psychics in Coalition society (including psychic enforcers in the form of Dog Boys and Psi-Stalkers). This brings up the "born with power" (psychics) vs. "learned power" (magic users) conflict, and in my games, was the real reason for the Coalition/Free Quebec split (Chi-Town was trying to do what they've done with every other Coalition State - move in their psychics and take over, and Free Quebec was having none of it).

[flatline]

I think Rifts and the issues brought up by the setting are too complex to run as "good guy vs. bad guy". I tend to run the CS as a society that developed out of one that was under constant siege, and thusly, has some pretty good reasons for being anti-magic, and anti-supernatural. I also don't think that a society that embraces psionics as much as the Coalition does would remain independent of psionic control or extreme influence, so I run the elites of Coalition Society, including the Proseks, as being Master Psychics of one flavor or another, usually Mind Melters (although they keep this under wraps for the most part), and that are slowly increasing the influence, power, and acceptance of psychics in Coalition society (including psychic enforcers in the form of Dog Boys and Psi-Stalkers). This brings up the "born with power" (psychics) vs. "learned power" (magic users) conflict, and in my games, was the real reason for the Coalition/Free Quebec split (Chi-Town was trying to do what they've done with every other Coalition State - move in their psychics and take over, and Free Quebec was having none of it).

Interseting! Where do mystics fit into that with thier magic abilities?

--flatline

[Alrik Vas]

That's for the lawyers to decide

[Mech-Viper Prime]

In the absence of a legal system, there is no such thing as "owning" land. The land simply "belongs" to whomever can keep others from taking it.

--flatline

You are correct, sir, it comes down to who has the firepower to "claim" the land for themselves.
So if you are a leader of a small village with no real firepower and a large military force comes and claims the lands , you get several choices, live under their rules and laws, move away or end up with your body on the ground, that's if they give you any options.

[implementor]

Interseting! Where do mystics fit into that with thier magic abilities?

--flatline

It's been mentioned in some of the books that psychic development can be directed (that the Coalition can produce Nega-Psychics and Psi-Nullifiers from those who have the potential to develop into Master Psychics), in my games, because of the overarching fear of magic by Coalition citizens, this has prevented them from developing into mystics (they subconsciously direct their development in other directions). It's also been mentioned that approximately 30% of Rifts humans are psychic, I've had that increase to 40% in the Coalition states, as they encourage the development of psychic abilities (as a counter to magic and the supernatural, along with their advanced technology), and increased the integration of psychics into the military (and as a pathway into the elite of Coalition society, at least for some types of psychics).

I've also had the Coalition integrate a clan or two of Psi-Ghosts, much like they integrated Psi-Stalker clans, except they are primarily part of the intelligence forces (as part of the "fully utilize psychics" plan).

[cosmicfish]

But does that (and other, more recent actions) mean that the United States of America is "Evil?"

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

[Alrik Vas]

Times have changed. Older mentalities didn't see it as evil, though I imagine many did even back then. There was less credible information for the public as well.

When your government is telling you that, "out there is wild opportunity, but also beast men who will butcher your family in their sleep"...You tend to go out to the frontier with an attitude to shoot first, curse and scream like a crazy person if you miss and try again without askng how the target feels about it.

Which is pretty confusing for the natives.

Kinda like what the CS does.

[Q99]

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

Yes, at one point the US was engaged in genocide *and* slavery, at the same time. For assigning alignments to nations, it would not have a good, or even neutral one.

[flatline]

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

Yes, at one point the US was engaged in genocide *and* slavery, at the same time. For assigning alignments to nations, it would not have a good, or even neutral one.

The alignment system doesn't even work well for individuals. Why would it work any better for nations?

--flatline

[cosmicfish]

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

Yes, at one point the US was engaged in genocide *and* slavery, at the same time. For assigning alignments to nations, it would not have a good, or even neutral one.

The alignment system doesn't even work well for individuals. Why would it work any better for nations?

--flatline

Does it have to work better? Yes, there are limitations in alignment, both as a gaming characteristic and as an abstract concept, but I do not see why the relative validity matters. If we can call people evil or good or selfish, and if that decision is based on certain actions, then I do not see why we cannot with reasonable consistency extend the same process to groups of people.

[Blue_Lion]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

on the plus side, at least the US is not so far gone that they don't consider their actions to have been fair and just in that particular matter.

At the time they did. In fact it was doing gods work to do such.

[Killer Cyborg]

But does that (and other, more recent actions) mean that the United States of America is "Evil?"

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

Well, it's not like we've given the Natives their land back or anything. Does that affect our national alignment today?
We're still living on stolen land, with the arguably rightful owners living on reservations.

[Zer0 Kay]

But does that (and other, more recent actions) mean that the United States of America is "Evil?"

I don't think the destruction of Native American culture says anything in particular about what the United States is, but I think it is a solid argument that it was evil. Seriously, there was a good couple of hundred years where entire classes of people were enslaved, killed, or abused based on their ethnicity, and I have a hard time coming up with anything better than "evil" to describe that.

Well, it's not like we've given the Natives their land back or anything. Does that affect our national alignment today?
We're still living on stolen land, with the arguably rightful owners living on reservations.

Again, most of the original "rightful owners" didn't have the concept of ownership of land.
That doesn't mean what any colonizing group does is right.

[say652]

The Coalition is actually a bumduck empire.
No magic or magic items or magic creatures????
Thats stupid.
Loads of psionics, mutant animals and ultraTech. All extremely dangerous.
Again stupid.
Ignorant illiterate populace kept inline through fear and propoganda...
Thats genius! !

[Q99]

Again, most of the original "rightful owners" didn't have the concept of ownership of land.

That's not always the case, some were nomadic, but many definitely had a concept of territory. The various tribes and nations were pretty diverse.


Heck, famously before the trail of tears, the people involved went to the US court and won, because they not only had the concept but a full knowledge of the law. Andrew Jackson sent in the army to move them anyway.


Lesse, other fun tidbits: Some of the 'sell the land for beads' type stuff happened because the people being negotiated with weren't even the people living there, they were the neighbors-who-didn't-care-for-the-people-who-lived-there. So some of the time, it was jerk neighbors providing Europeans with an excuse.

Not long before the colonists arrived in force, European diseases had already wiped out large amounts of the population. It was, frankly, as close to a post-apocalyptic scene as there's been.

Some of the natives in some areas welcomed the colonists just fine and pointed them to good land, on the basis that, well, no-one else was using it. Many colonists mistook some areas as naturally plentiful, when really they were previously tended lands who's inhabitants were no longer around and they were kinda happy to just have people around again.

[eliakon]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Humans aren't native to North America, they are just another immigrant to North America.

Its really hard to claim that the CS is the 'rightful owner' of the land though and that the D-Bees are simply invaders.....when the CS doesn't have any more right to (and in fact in many cases LESS right to) the land they claim than the D-Bees.
My point is simple. The CS has no moral claim to the North American Continent. They can claim it yes, but they do not have standing as having a pre-existing claim to the land.

[Alrik Vas]

Pffft, divine right, handed down by God to the emperor.

CS totally has claim.

[eliakon]

Pffft, divine right, handed down by God to the emperor.

CS totally has claim.

But the CS doesn't believe in gods....at least ones they cant kill.......

[Blue_Lion]

Pffft, divine right, handed down by God to the emperor.

CS totally has claim.

But the CS doesn't believe in gods....at least ones they cant kill.......

What book states that?

[Nox Equites]

Pffft, divine right, handed down by God to the emperor.

CS totally has claim.

But the CS doesn't believe in gods....at least ones they cant kill.......

What book states that?

I know Spirit West gives that impression when describing the CS attitude towards the Traditionalists.

[Blue_Lion]

Pffft, divine right, handed down by God to the emperor.

CS totally has claim.

But the CS doesn't believe in gods....at least ones they cant kill.......

What book states that?

I know Spirit West gives that impression when describing the CS attitude towards the Traditionalists.

So the treatment of magic using native Americans means they do not believe in any god?

[Alrik Vas]

It's really immaterial to the discussion, as only if a God created the land could it have authority to grant claim to it.

I was giving a hubris example of, "This is ours by right!" Which is just pretense anyway.

[Killer Cyborg]

The CS has no intention of sharing with the various other humans who have as much (if not better) claim to the land. Ask the Native Americans who have been on North America for millennium who has rights to the land.....but the CS says that they need to go....

Hm.
Do you consider the United States of America to be Evil?

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Humans aren't native to North America, they are just another immigrant to North America.

Its really hard to claim that the CS is the 'rightful owner' of the land though and that the D-Bees are simply invaders.....when the CS doesn't have any more right to (and in fact in many cases LESS right to) the land they claim than the D-Bees.
My point is simple. The CS has no moral claim to the North American Continent. They can claim it yes, but they do not have standing as having a pre-existing claim to the land.

They have the same claim that started at least half the wars in history: "At some point in the past, this land belonged to our ancestors, therefore it is ours by right."

[eliakon]

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Humans aren't native to North America, they are just another immigrant to North America.

Its really hard to claim that the CS is the 'rightful owner' of the land though and that the D-Bees are simply invaders.....when the CS doesn't have any more right to (and in fact in many cases LESS right to) the land they claim than the D-Bees.
My point is simple. The CS has no moral claim to the North American Continent. They can claim it yes, but they do not have standing as having a pre-existing claim to the land.

They have the same claim that started at least half the wars in history: "At some point in the past, this land belonged to our ancestors, therefore it is ours by right."

EXACTLY
Which means that when it is claimed in this thread that the CS is simply taking back what is theirs and that the D-Bees are just invaders taking others land.....that it is not true. Or more accurately it is not True. The CS can claim that it is so sure....but that does not mean that they have the actual True moral right to it, just that they feel entitled. There is a rather large difference.
The first case makes it an actual issue of Good and Evil. The second is just an opinion.

[Alrik Vas]

Well, you do have to admit that there's a difference between, "This land is claimed by X" and, "Well...guess we'll settle here..."

One is active and seeks order, the other is just rolling with the chaos and seeks no responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, the CS is murdering it's way to gain land for humans, but those in the way don't have to be there, and are rather foolish to stay considering uncle Skullhead's rep.

Not that it's always the settler's fault, but that's the situation.

[eliakon]

Well, you do have to admit that there's a difference between, "This land is claimed by X" and, "Well...guess we'll settle here..."

One is active and seeks order, the other is just rolling with the chaos and seeks no responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, the CS is murdering it's way to gain land for humans, but those in the way don't have to be there, and are rather foolish to stay considering uncle Skullhead's rep.

Not that it's always the settler's fault, but that's the situation.

Not really.....remember the majority of these people were here before the CS went all Evil Empire on people. Blaming people for living in their city is like saying "Well those Russians should have just moved away, its their fault that they got killed by the Nazis".....
Its blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser and then saying that they had the gall to not give their victimizer what they wanted "Gee if they had just given that mugger their money they wouldn't have been shot"....which soon becomes "Well if they hadn't lived in the same town as that known sex offender they wouldn't have been raped".....
This is the fault of the CS and trying to shift the blame to the victims is disingenuous at best.

[Killer Cyborg]

At times our policy towards them have been.
The treatment of Native Americans during much of our nations expansion is a dark chapter in our history.

Humans aren't native to North America, they are just another immigrant to North America.

Its really hard to claim that the CS is the 'rightful owner' of the land though and that the D-Bees are simply invaders.....when the CS doesn't have any more right to (and in fact in many cases LESS right to) the land they claim than the D-Bees.
My point is simple. The CS has no moral claim to the North American Continent. They can claim it yes, but they do not have standing as having a pre-existing claim to the land.

They have the same claim that started at least half the wars in history: "At some point in the past, this land belonged to our ancestors, therefore it is ours by right."

EXACTLY
Which means that when it is claimed in this thread that the CS is simply taking back what is theirs and that the D-Bees are just invaders taking others land.....that it is not true. Or more accurately it is not True. The CS can claim that it is so sure....but that does not mean that they have the actual True moral right to it, just that they feel entitled. There is a rather large difference.
The first case makes it an actual issue of Good and Evil. The second is just an opinion.

What makes it NOT true?

[Alrik Vas]

Well, you do have to admit that there's a difference between, "This land is claimed by X" and, "Well...guess we'll settle here..."

One is active and seeks order, the other is just rolling with the chaos and seeks no responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, the CS is murdering it's way to gain land for humans, but those in the way don't have to be there, and are rather foolish to stay considering uncle Skullhead's rep.

Not that it's always the settler's fault, but that's the situation.

Not really.....remember the majority of these people were here before the CS went all Evil Empire on people. Blaming people for living in their city is like saying "Well those Russians should have just moved away, its their fault that they got killed by the Nazis".....
Its blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser and then saying that they had the gall to not give their victimizer what they wanted "Gee if they had just given that mugger their money they wouldn't have been shot"....which soon becomes "Well if they hadn't lived in the same town as that known sex offender they wouldn't have been raped".....
This is the fault of the CS and trying to shift the blame to the victims is disingenuous at best.

That's enough words in my mouth, thank you.

Besides, who guarantees rights in Rifts, and who has authority to do so? When it comes down to it, you fight for your claim, or you choose non-violence and flee or submit yourself to the aggressor's mercy. How am I saying the CS is in the right and d-bees should leave and that it's their fault for being there? I pointed out facts in the situation, those being that the CS is murdering their way across NA and that people who stay in the way fight, flee or submit. How is it the victim's fault? How are you getting that I'm saying it's their fault when I literally said, "it isn't always the settler's fault"...?

Pointing out that they can move away doesn't make the CS right, what I AM saying is that things aren't so simple when you built a farm on land an enemy lays claim to, no matter who that enemy is.

[eliakon]

Well, you do have to admit that there's a difference between, "This land is claimed by X" and, "Well...guess we'll settle here..."

One is active and seeks order, the other is just rolling with the chaos and seeks no responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, the CS is murdering it's way to gain land for humans, but those in the way don't have to be there, and are rather foolish to stay considering uncle Skullhead's rep.

Not that it's always the settler's fault, but that's the situation.

Not really.....remember the majority of these people were here before the CS went all Evil Empire on people. Blaming people for living in their city is like saying "Well those Russians should have just moved away, its their fault that they got killed by the Nazis".....
Its blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser and then saying that they had the gall to not give their victimizer what they wanted "Gee if they had just given that mugger their money they wouldn't have been shot"....which soon becomes "Well if they hadn't lived in the same town as that known sex offender they wouldn't have been raped".....
This is the fault of the CS and trying to shift the blame to the victims is disingenuous at best.

That's enough words in my mouth, thank you.

Besides, who guarantees rights in Rifts, and who has authority to do so? When it comes down to it, you fight for your claim, or you choose non-violence and flee or submit yourself to the aggressor's mercy. How am I saying the CS is in the right and d-bees should leave and that it's their fault for being there? I pointed out facts in the situation, those being that the CS is murdering their way across NA and that people who stay in the way fight, flee or submit. How is it the victim's fault? How are you getting that I'm saying it's their fault when I literally said, "it isn't always the settler's fault"...?

Pointing out that they can move away doesn't make the CS right, what I AM saying is that things aren't so simple when you built a farm on land an enemy lays claim to, no matter who that enemy is.

The argument that Tolkeen (which as a nation btw existed before the CS was formed....) should move because the CS says that the now own that land is ludicrous.
The argument that a D-Bee villiag that has existed for centuries should move because someone moves in and thinks that they have claim to the land is silly.
And what is sillier is that somehow that not moving means that the aggressor has some sort of moral authority. They don't. At least in Palladium they don't, because in the Palladium universe we can look at what the definition of good and evil are and see where stealing lies......

[Alrik Vas]

Yeah, but nowhere did I suggest any kind of moral v authority. And the idea of, "Well we were here first" is equally silly.

[eliakon]

Yeah, but nowhere did I suggest any kind of moral v authority. And the idea of, "Well we were here first" is equally silly.

So what better system is there than "who was living there first gets to say that they are the ones that get to use it"

And since the entire thread is about moral authority, good and evil....and that my statement was specifically on the faultiness of the CS proponents claim to moral authority I kind of assume that replies to it, unless otherwise specified.....are about the morality of the situation.

[Alrik Vas]

Well...If that's it, then, humans were there before d-bees...So the CS has greater claim based on their party line of human supremacy.

Other nations don't claim to be there for humanity's sake, so why would they have a leg to stand on?

As to what system is better? "Its too much trouble to dislodge the foe" usually works pretty better than, "because we say so."

[eliakon]

Well...If that's it, then, humans were there before d-bees...So the CS has greater claim based on their party line of human supremacy.

Other nations don't claim to be there for humanity's sake, so why would they have a leg to stand on?

As to what system is better? "Its too much trouble to dislodge the foe" usually works pretty better than, "because we say so."

Except that's the point. The CS isn't humanity. And they don't claim to be for humanity They claim that humans are better, but they do not claim to represent humanity. This is especially true since the Humans that were here before the CS are being displaced and killed just as much as the D-bees. And when one adds in the fact that it is incontrovertible that there was magic and other races in earths history (since in universe the various religions myths are in fact true) the idea that one bunch of humans has a better claim than any other bunch of humans is pretty laughable on its face.

[Alrik Vas]

So...being there first only matters if your claim is a moral one. Got it.

There's nothing moral about claim to land.

[Blue_Lion]

So...being there first only matters if your claim is a moral one. Got it.

There's nothing moral about claim to land.

This thread is about moral aliment of a nation. People are pointing out that displacing people from the place that they lived for quite some time is a immoral action.

Despite claims by the CS as being champions of humanity they do not claim land for all humans (many of the leadership and people of Tolkeen where humans after all) but for there nation. The nation of the CS never owned the land they took by force and if the D-bees that lived there did not move away because the CS told them to the D-bees faced death.

Not all D-bees are invaders many where pulled to earth through rifts, trapped explores or even born on earth. The claim that all D-bees are inhuman invaders is based on racism not fact.

[Alrik Vas]

Sure, the act of displacing people is immoral. Yeah. They were living there, doing what they can...Then uncle Skullhead comes along and chases them off, or outright annihilates them. That's immoral. No argument.

I'm not saying the CS is the good guy. Never really have. Not saying Karl Prosek and his lackies aren't evil. Never really have.

What I AM saying (again) is that living on land doesn't give you right to it, so that shouldn't be a part of our conversation. It isn't a factor in the Coalition's evil. The only thing, even when a government "gives" you land that makes it yours, is your ability to hold it when challenged (whether legally by law of the land, or through force of arms).

Should the CS stop displacing and murdering innocent beings? Absolutely. That would be the moral choice. They won't, however, as it conflicts with their goals. When their goals change, things might be different and they'll look back on this chapter of their history with shame, but continue on regardless.

[eliakon]

Sure, the act of displacing people is immoral. Yeah. They were living there, doing what they can...Then uncle Skullhead comes along and chases them off, or outright annihilates them. That's immoral. No argument.

I'm not saying the CS is the good guy. Never really have. Not saying Karl Prosek and his lackies aren't evil. Never really have.

What I AM saying (again) is that living on land doesn't give you right to it, so that shouldn't be a part of our conversation. It isn't a factor in the Coalition's evil. The only thing, even when a government "gives" you land that makes it yours, is your ability to hold it when challenged (whether legally by law of the land, or through force of arms).

The palladium alignment system would seem to disagree with you. It seems to imply that property rights 1) do exist and 2) have moral value.
That would suggest to me that the question of who has a right to land is relevant to the question of the morality. As the taking of others land by force is yet one more act that belies the claim that the CS is 'good'

[Alrik Vas]

Where does it imply property rights exist, and that they have moral value?

[Blue_Lion]

Where does it imply property rights exist, and that they have moral value?

So you are saying that invading another nation to take its land has no moral value?
I think if nothing else it falls under theft and murder. (or in some cases genocide.)

[Nightmask]

Sure, the act of displacing people is immoral. Yeah. They were living there, doing what they can...Then uncle Skullhead comes along and chases them off, or outright annihilates them. That's immoral. No argument.

I'm not saying the CS is the good guy. Never really have. Not saying Karl Prosek and his lackies aren't evil. Never really have.

What I AM saying (again) is that living on land doesn't give you right to it, so that shouldn't be a part of our conversation. It isn't a factor in the Coalition's evil. The only thing, even when a government "gives" you land that makes it yours, is your ability to hold it when challenged (whether legally by law of the land, or through force of arms).

Should the CS stop displacing and murdering innocent beings? Absolutely. That would be the moral choice. They won't, however, as it conflicts with their goals. When their goals change, things might be different and they'll look back on this chapter of their history with shame, but continue on regardless.

How could one living on the land particular for generations NOT give them a right to it? What could possibly give one the right to it if that doesn't? Heck by that argument those D-bees attacking the CS and trying to take their land have every right to do so because the CS has NO right to the land either if living somewhere for generations gives you no right to the land meaning no one has any right to anything going by that logic. Since that's clearly ridiculous you certainly do have a right to the land you've been living on and someone insisting it belongs to them because 'well you aren't one of us so that means it belongs to us not you' is clearly a thief and if he kills you a murderer and if you've got a nation that believes that then THEY are thieves and murderers as well.

[Alrik Vas]

This one way street you guys are arguing for is a magical place of moral righteousness...

No one has right to a land other than what they can enforce.