SereneTsunami wrote:The SoT tells us there was a significant amount of opposition to the path to war that King Creed had chosen. With Erin Tarn and Lord Coake doing the asking how hard would it of been to convince a group of Tolkeinites to form an "Undergound RR' to a new location? Impossible? That happens in RIFTS before breakfast.
Again. What location?
Where are we putting this new nation?
And just saying "the impossible happens so I don't have to worry about it." is, to me, saying that its not a discussion its just saying that any flaw doesn't exist because plot.
It is also pretty disingenuous because it basically presupposes that 'boom' I want to prove that my way is better... so I will simply give myself a working system and take away all the problems that the current system has and there, proof, that my system is superior to the status quo.
SereneTsunami wrote:Lord Coake's motivation is saving lives, supposedly his idea for the Knights.
again.
He is already saving lives
And more over you still haven't explained how getting rid of the current knights and putting them all in one city state will save more people than the current system.
SereneTsunami wrote:He convinces the Knights and works with those who agree with him. Choosing to build up a community does not mean they cannot also continue their hobo's crusade.
Ummm yes it does.
For several reasons
the first and simplest is that if your going to argue that the "hobo crusade" as you derisively call it is wrong/bad and that they need to abandon it to make a city then presumably... they will abandon it to make a city
the second is that there isn't an infinite pool of knights to just pull out of thin air. So putting 'the knights in the city to protect it' sort of means that they are not out protecting the rest of the people
the third is that once the Knights give up their neutrality
they give up their neutrality. You can't both pick a side
and be the impartial one. The knights reputation is based on being impartial...
SereneTsunami wrote:The idea of war criminals in the refugees is a sticky one, but I'm sure Coake and Tarn could work it out, because the impossible happens in Rifts all the time.
Again this is not an answer.
Simply saying that any problem with your argument will be solved because the impossible happens, but that any flaw on the other side must be explained, in detail and with book citations... well its a double standard.
I bring it up because it is quite literally one of the reasons that the Refugees are not being settled right
now.
The reason that they are still refugees instead of being taken in by Lazlo or Arzno or the like? The issue of War Crimes and Necromancy, and Pacts with Demons, and Demon Summoning and Blood Magic and the rest...
So yes, just hand waving away
the entire reason there is a problem right now to say that your solution is the one that works and that it proves your the good guys because no one else is providing a solution?
Yeah totally not legit.
SereneTsunami wrote:The location isn't all that important IMO. With a little forethought and help from his friends it would be easy to find a hidden spot in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah. You assert that the west is "full up", but that's not canon. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding that point.
It is.
Those places are all claimed.
He is going to have to take territory that is claimed by an Indian Tribe, or a Psi-Stalker Tribe, or the Apocalypse Calvary... the west is basically already spoken for.
I know there is this European imperialist view that if there isn't a European style city on the land that its free for the taking...
...but that's not how it works.
So, again, where are they putting this kingdom? How big is it going to be? And how are they going to placate the neighbors who are pretty much all going to be Traditionalist Natives and militantly anti-technology and anti "white mans magic"
SereneTsunami wrote:There's lots of leylines and great climate around Olympia National Forest, how about that for starters? There is literally 10,000 hidden valleys and secluded rivers in NA to hide 150,000 people.
Okay. So lets
That's the territory of the Northern Plateau Tribes and the Cyber-Horsemen of Ixion as I read the maps. So who is going to tell these people that they need to give up their territory for this new city of people. Oh, and that city will be full of necromancers, and witches and people who are allied with demons and blood mages and murderers and stuff... but its all cool because the cyber-knights will keep an eye on them this time, promise.
Now, what resources are they using for their city?
What are they building it out of?
And just saying "Plot" doesn't cut it.
A city of 150,000 people is going to be pretty big. Its going to need a sewage treatment system, fresh water, power, garbage disposal (hundreds of tons per year) and so on...
SereneTsunami wrote:You are throwing up reasons why doing something more then Coake chose to do would be hard. Heroes do things that are hard in order to save lives. Coake didn't do those things. I'm supposing that he made the choice to do nothing more then he did for less savory reasons then "it's too hard".
I know.
Your thread title and constant derision of the knights makes it pretty clear that you dislike them, dislike Coake and choose to assign malice and cowardice to his actions so that you can then make any other action the heroic one.
I am just calling the spade a spade here.
SereneTsunami wrote:In SoT 4 the text gives me the impression that Coake's choice not to help Tolkein was a selfless act born from a steadfast adherence to principles that were essential to the Cyber-Knight's identity. It portrays the Knights who broke with Coake as short-sighted and or foolish, even if good hearted. I offer the idea that it is the other way around, and that Coake was the foolhardy and short-sighted one.
That's not near as good as Hotrod, but it's the meat of my argument/theory/question.
Again I get that you wish to make Coake out to be a villain that you are now redeaming. That's an interesting storyline to explore...
...but it requires discarding the entire written history of the Cyber-Knights, their leaders, their motivations and goals and substituting new ones.
I am wishing to point out that there is a world of difference between changing everything to turn Coake into a villain to redeem with a new noble gesture and the actual Coake.
I am wishing to point out that its disingenuous to try and equate the two Coakes as the same and that the motivations are the same
I am wishing to point out that simply stating that "everything is wrong and evil" is fine... but it needs to be explicitly stated that that is what is being done, not to try and pretend that the knights really are that way and then go off of that.
Basically I am saying "Coake isn't a "Hobo King"