Forums of the Megaverse®

Jorick wrote:

eliakon wrote:One thing I would like to point out about General Drogue is that his actions were extreme yes....but that there is a lot of other text citations to support the claim that the CS was genocidal before. His camps may have been overboard by CS views....but that does not mean that the CS was not genocidal, simply that what was going on at those camps was excessive. And we don't know if it was the killing, or the torture that was not condoned. For all we know the CS is perfectly fine with mass exterminations (There is support for this in the CS Saviors of Humanity book) but that they think that it should be done quickly and cleanly with no torture. That doesn't make them less genocidal, just 'nicer' when they murder their victims.
Certainly though when the CS has already engaged in genocidal actions (Campaign against the FoM is explicitly called genocidal) and they have the stated goal of exterminating Tolkeen and everyone who lives there then it seems to fail the logic test to say that they are not really genocidal.

Again, Please read Coalition Overkill. It's pretty explicit. The first portion of the book can be taken to be the perception of non-CS folks. When the book actually starts talking about the feeling, choices and behavior of the Coalition Officers the picture is much different. Even in the face of the blood-boiling that war causes, the anger and violence that it breeds, the average Coalition Officer is upset about the turn the war has taken. They are upset because this kind of thing has not happened before. It's not how they see the CS. Was it inevitable? Perhaps. But it wasn't the expectation, even for higher ups in the military who were supportive of the war. Even Karl finds it distasteful (though he permits it and figures who cares really?)...but he still hides it from the citizenry.

The Camps are not even known of by ANYONE besides Drogue and his flunkies. The distasteful thing is Drogue's "scorched earth" tactics (like carpet bombing, or dropping napalm? worse?).

If I could quote the entire chapter I would. It's explicit. Drogue is compared, by Kevin, to the Nazis. The rest of the Coalition is not. And, indeed, in most wars, horrible, evil things are done, even by the "good guys" (to say nothing of the relatively "bad guys"). Genocide, the systematic killing of civilians so that an entire population ceases to be, is not the goal of the CS (removing them, or even just their power centers, from the "domain of man" is--they didn't hit the Burbs first, for instance).

No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

Nightmask wrote:No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

I'm sorry, man. I'm re-reading the Siege as we write. Aside from quoting entire chapters I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


If you think that dropping nukes on civilian populations was necessary, or not inherently evil, than I don't think I can have a comprehensible discussion about morality and war with you. I'm trying to argue that the CS has a shaky leg to stand on given the reality they reside in, and you say that they're pure evil. But then you say stuff like that about really horrible decisions and I'm just at a total loss.

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

I'm sorry, man. I'm re-reading the Siege as we write. Aside from quoting entire chapters I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


If you think that dropping nukes on civilian populations was necessary, or not inherently evil, than I don't think I can have a comprehensible discussion about morality and war with you. I'm trying to argue that the CS has a shaky leg to stand on given the reality they reside in, and you say that they're pure evil. But then you say stuff like that about really horrible decisions and I'm just at a total loss.

What about the other things cited?
Such as the quotes Cosmicfish had that said that the CS had engaged in a campaign of genocide against the FoM
And there is the point that Nightmask brings up that the Siege on Tolkeen happened because they failed in their attempt to nuke the city. They couldn't kill everyone with nukes so they had to go in and kill them all by hand. (and kill them all they do. Its pretty explicit that they are not interested in taking prisoners nor in allowing civilians to either live or flee. )
Calling a spade a spade and a genocidal regime a genocidal regime is about as simple as it gets.
We can certainly argue if genocide is evil, we can argue if its justified, but there is no arguing that the CS is explicitly genocidal.

eliakon wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

I'm sorry, man. I'm re-reading the Siege as we write. Aside from quoting entire chapters I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


If you think that dropping nukes on civilian populations was necessary, or not inherently evil, than I don't think I can have a comprehensible discussion about morality and war with you. I'm trying to argue that the CS has a shaky leg to stand on given the reality they reside in, and you say that they're pure evil. But then you say stuff like that about really horrible decisions and I'm just at a total loss.

What about the other things cited?
Such as the quotes Cosmicfish had that said that the CS had engaged in a campaign of genocide against the FoM
And there is the point that Nightmask brings up that the Siege on Tolkeen happened because they failed in their attempt to nuke the city. They couldn't kill everyone with nukes so they had to go in and kill them all by hand. (and kill them all they do. Its pretty explicit that they are not interested in taking prisoners nor in allowing civilians to either live or flee. )
Calling a spade a spade and a genocidal regime a genocidal regime is about as simple as it gets.
We can certainly argue if genocide is evil, we can argue if its justified, but there is no arguing that the CS is explicitly genocidal.

Certainly, according to Nightmask's rubric, the CS retaliating fiercely against the Federation, who wanted to wipe out Chitown, is legitimate. If the goal of the CS was genocide in the magic zone, they failed. The brutality of the retaliation itself would be justified, it seems, by Nightmask, as the nuking of civilian populations in retaliation for an attack on a remote military base is justified. Though such action is not justifiable to me, it also does not automatically mark the aggressor as evil.The CS were proudly brutal of that engagement, and that's terrible. That pride, more than anything, marks the Coalition as evil. And it could be argued that it was the beginning of a very slippery slope that resulted in Drogue. But, up until Drogue, the Coalition was not trying to approach the problem they saw in that way (a problem that, unlike the Nazi's problem, was born of some very real and nearly unmanageable dangers--their foolishness in this regard is also not inherently evil--fear is understandable when the fear is very real, and not born of superstition and envy).

The Coalition had been at war with Tolkeen for a while. They wanted Tolkeen out. They wanted Tolkeen out very badly. Badly enough to do very bad things indeed. They did not however, want to kill all DBs everywhere. They did not and still do not systematically exterminate every DB in CS territory. They are expansionists who have a "domain" they want to secure for themselves. Yolkeen was a powerful force in that zone, preventing that goal of security. Lazlo plead with Tolkeen to move. Had Tolkeen moved, then no nukes. It's not fair. It's not good. It's awful and evil. But it's not genocide.

Lazlo hopes to survive because it hopes that the Coalition will see the error of its ways. That possibility is significant in a discussion that includes "evil" where no such hope exists.

It is explicit in the books that they were taking prisoners, that they were securing civilian areas, rather than flattening them all. Only when Drogue took command did a systematic tactic of hitting defenseless civilian populations, and vaporizing them, emerge. This tactic upset many. Those many who were upset are guilty of not doing enough to stop it, it's true (book is very explicit about that too), but it was not the Coalition way beforehand.


The extent to which the Coalition is like the Nazi's is they let their fear overwhelm better judgement. They cannot see the humanity in some DBs because they are so afraid due to the real horrors that surround them perpetrated by DBs or by humans who take advantage of the unwieldy powers granted by the Rifts. The Nazi's had a similar fear, in a world without Demons, of people, just like them. They imagined the evil to be sourced essentially from different beings (races--who inherently had badness in them). Their fear is less justifiable than the CS' fear. Given the justified nature of the CS' fear, doing bad thing is also, to some extent, justified. Again, to use the extreme example, which I do not agree with, if Americans are afraid of being continuously attacked, and that justifies the USA's use of nukes on purely civilian population centers, with no other value to the war effort beyond lots of death, then the CS has even more wiggle room than I'm willing to give it.

Someone is coming or will be coming for the CS. They are not wrong about that. They're just blinding themselves to the true target(s). Which is evil, but it's evil that is solvable by means other than war.

Man, I think the term "genocide" is really being misused a lot here.

I've gotten a little too busy to be so fully involved in this discussion, but I wanted to point out the existence of the Aberrant alignment - designed explicitly for one who might believe themselves good and might hold a certain degree of honor but nonetheless commit and support evil activities under certain circumstances. Someone Miscreant or Diabolic either suspects that they are the bad guy or just doesn't care, but Aberrants are certain of their justice. I do not doubt that there are those in the CS of good alignment, but I think they are outnumbered by selfish alignments and by the Aberrants that look like good guys until you see what they actually do.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Man, I think the term "genocide" is really being misused a lot here.

"the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group"

No?

cosmicfish wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Man, I think the term "genocide" is really being misused a lot here.

"the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group"

No?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

How about those as definitions?

eliakon wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

How about those as definitions?

Well, they lack brevity but have an abundance of precision. I'm good with those.

cosmicfish wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Man, I think the term "genocide" is really being misused a lot here.

"the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group"

No?

That seems overly broad. It could refer to any wartime activity at all.

How about:

In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959) sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of European Jews. He formed the word genocide by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. In proposing this new word, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

On December 9, 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust and in no small part due to the tireless efforts of Lemkin himself, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes genocide as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish.” It defines genocide as:

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The specific “intent to destroy” particular groups is unique to genocide. A closely related category of international law, crimes against humanity, is defined as widespread or systematic attacks against civilians."

So, according to the above, the CS is guilty of "crimes against DBs with 'humanity' as a characteristic." To some extent, even this is distasteful and seen as unbecoming of the Coalition to many of the perpetrators of the Coalition's violence (the Generals and other officers).

Jorick wrote:That seems overly broad. It could refer to any wartime activity at all.

I was going for the short version, but it is essentially the same as the first part of your definition. Your definition basically takes my "could refer to any wartime activity at all" definition and adds some extra circumstances.

The difference is that in war the goal is to defeat, while in genocide the goal is to destroy. But again, I am being brief, so refer back to the long definitions if that seems inadequate.

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

I'm sorry, man. I'm re-reading the Siege as we write. Aside from quoting entire chapters I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


If you think that dropping nukes on civilian populations was necessary, or not inherently evil, than I don't think I can have a comprehensible discussion about morality and war with you. I'm trying to argue that the CS has a shaky leg to stand on given the reality they reside in, and you say that they're pure evil. But then you say stuff like that about really horrible decisions and I'm just at a total loss.

There's no way you're going to convince me of something that's patently false, and it's patently false to try and argue that the CS isn't guilty of genocide or to try and argue that their policies aren't explicitly genocidal. By every measure the CS is devoted to genocide and has actively engaged in genocide with their most blatant act of genocide its war against Tolkeen. The books make it clear that the CS is all about genocide regarding all non-humans and magic-users, with the few who aren't being exceptions not the rule.

Jorick wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, the entire CS is compared to the Nazis because they're explicitly modeled on the Nazis, and no the CS was indeed engaged in exactly what you write there, the genocide of everyone in Tolkeen. It was why the attacked Tolkeen in the first place, to kill everyone and you clearly are ignoring everything in the books regarding the CS to try and paint them as not being genocidal in spite of them explicitly being so.

I'm sorry, man. I'm re-reading the Siege as we write. Aside from quoting entire chapters I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


If you think that dropping nukes on civilian populations was necessary, or not inherently evil, than I don't think I can have a comprehensible discussion about morality and war with you. I'm trying to argue that the CS has a shaky leg to stand on given the reality they reside in, and you say that they're pure evil. But then you say stuff like that about really horrible decisions and I'm just at a total loss.

What about the other things cited?
Such as the quotes Cosmicfish had that said that the CS had engaged in a campaign of genocide against the FoM
And there is the point that Nightmask brings up that the Siege on Tolkeen happened because they failed in their attempt to nuke the city. They couldn't kill everyone with nukes so they had to go in and kill them all by hand. (and kill them all they do. Its pretty explicit that they are not interested in taking prisoners nor in allowing civilians to either live or flee. )
Calling a spade a spade and a genocidal regime a genocidal regime is about as simple as it gets.
We can certainly argue if genocide is evil, we can argue if its justified, but there is no arguing that the CS is explicitly genocidal.

Certainly, according to Nightmask's rubric, the CS retaliating fiercely against the Federation, who wanted to wipe out Chitown, is legitimate. If the goal of the CS was genocide in the magic zone, they failed. The brutality of the retaliation itself would be justified, it seems, by Nightmask, as the nuking of civilian populations in retaliation for an attack on a remote military base is justified. Though such action is not justifiable to me, it also does not automatically mark the aggressor as evil.The CS were proudly brutal of that engagement, and that's terrible. That pride, more than anything, marks the Coalition as evil. And it could be argued that it was the beginning of a very slippery slope that resulted in Drogue. But, up until Drogue, the Coalition was not trying to approach the problem they saw in that way (a problem that, unlike the Nazi's problem, was born of some very real and nearly unmanageable dangers--their foolishness in this regard is also not inherently evil--fear is understandable when the fear is very real, and not born of superstition and envy).

The Coalition had been at war with Tolkeen for a while. They wanted Tolkeen out. They wanted Tolkeen out very badly. Badly enough to do very bad things indeed. They did not however, want to kill all DBs everywhere. They did not and still do not systematically exterminate every DB in CS territory. They are expansionists who have a "domain" they want to secure for themselves. Yolkeen was a powerful force in that zone, preventing that goal of security. Lazlo plead with Tolkeen to move. Had Tolkeen moved, then no nukes. It's not fair. It's not good. It's awful and evil. But it's not genocide.

Lazlo hopes to survive because it hopes that the Coalition will see the error of its ways. That possibility is significant in a discussion that includes "evil" where no such hope exists.

It is explicit in the books that they were taking prisoners, that they were securing civilian areas, rather than flattening them all. Only when Drogue took command did a systematic tactic of hitting defenseless civilian populations, and vaporizing them, emerge. This tactic upset many. Those many who were upset are guilty of not doing enough to stop it, it's true (book is very explicit about that too), but it was not the Coalition way beforehand.

Taking prisoners doesn't constitute evidence that they aren't genocidal, nor does securing civilian areas, and contrary to what you're insisting on Drogue was not some rogue agent responsible for committing genocide in the 'poor, innocent' CS's name he was following the policy and goals of the CS as part of their genocidal plan to kill all those associated with Tolkeen.

Oh, and yes it's genocidal when you set out to kill an entire population in order to take what is theirs for yourself, and that's what the CS did. When you murder to take what isn't yours it's evil, when you're an expansionist nation with the goal of claiming an entire planet and killing off everyone that isn't like you you're genocidal. When the CS attacked Tolkeen and sent in millions of troops using lethal force without provocation or warning that was an active act of genocide. There is no way you can spin it that you can clean the blood off the CS's hands because the blood is theirs and the label of genocidal monsters firmly belonging to them and until dealt a defeat like Nazi Germany suffered they will continue with their acts of genocide until stopped or they've killed everyone on the planet that's not human or works magic no matter how innocent or benevolent.

Jorick wrote:The extent to which the Coalition is like the Nazi's is they let their fear overwhelm better judgement. They cannot see the humanity in some DBs because they are so afraid due to the real horrors that surround them perpetrated by DBs or by humans who take advantage of the unwieldy powers granted by the Rifts. The Nazi's had a similar fear, in a world without Demons, of people, just like them. They imagined the evil to be sourced essentially from different beings (races--who inherently had badness in them). Their fear is less justifiable than the CS' fear. Given the justified nature of the CS' fear, doing bad thing is also, to some extent, justified. Again, to use the extreme example, which I do not agree with, if Americans are afraid of being continuously attacked, and that justifies the USA's use of nukes on purely civilian population centers, with no other value to the war effort beyond lots of death, then the CS has even more wiggle room than I'm willing to give it.

Someone is coming or will be coming for the CS. They are not wrong about that. They're just blinding themselves to the true target(s). Which is evil, but it's evil that is solvable by means other than war.

No, the extent to which the CS is like the Nazis is because they're actively genocidal, only instead of the 'undesirables' being Jews or Homosexuals or Gypsies they label anything non-human as undesirable and targets for killing along with anyone who uses magic. Seriously, you're making some awfully bad arguments trying to downplay or outright pretend the genocidal nature and activities of the CS don't exist when it's laid out in no uncertain terms what the CS is and what it is is a Human Supremacist Evil Empire with the genocide of all those who work magic or are non-human as their primary goal. They intend to kill everyone on the planet that fits that criteria or opposes their genocide and every success only fills them with encouragement to fill even more mass graves with their victims.

Jorick wrote:

cosmicfish wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Man, I think the term "genocide" is really being misused a lot here.

"the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group"

No?

That seems overly broad. It could refer to any wartime activity at all.

How about:

In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959) sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of European Jews. He formed the word genocide by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. In proposing this new word, Lemkin had in mind "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."

On December 9, 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust and in no small part due to the tireless efforts of Lemkin himself, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes genocide as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish.” It defines genocide as:

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The specific “intent to destroy” particular groups is unique to genocide. A closely related category of international law, crimes against humanity, is defined as widespread or systematic attacks against civilians."

So, according to the above, the CS is guilty of "crimes against DBs with 'humanity' as a characteristic." To some extent, even this is distasteful and seen as unbecoming of the Coalition to many of the perpetrators of the Coalition's violence (the Generals and other officers).

No, that's seen as just fine and dandy by the vast majority of CS citizens including the military. When a rising star in their military, Larson, tried to speak against the policies and eventually refused to kill a peaceful D-Bee village he was arrested and imprisoned because of it as he refused to follow CS policy and massacre them for the 'crime' of not being human. His men had to rescue him and high-tail it out of there before he was 'disappeared'.

Nightmask wrote:
There's no way you're going to convince me of something that's patently false, and it's patently false to try and argue that the CS isn't guilty of genocide or to try and argue that their policies aren't explicitly genocidal. By every measure the CS is devoted to genocide and has actively engaged in genocide with their most blatant act of genocide its war against Tolkeen. The books make it clear that the CS is all about genocide regarding all non-humans and magic-users, with the few who aren't being exceptions not the rule.

So, like, I get that I'm not going to convince you something that's written has been written. But, for the sake of posterity, I'll try to explain my experience with the books.


At first, it seems like the Coalition is all about Genocide to me. They're painted essentially as Nazi's and what's not to hate about them really?

But the books keep talking about the Burbs. The Burbs are one of, if not the most central areas for adventure in Rifts. There are CS megacities, and around them are Burbs. In the megacities, no non-human or magic user may live. But just outside the megacities there are large populations of non-humans. "How can this be," I think to myself, "if the Coalition is genocidal?"

The most plausible answer is given in the Siege books. The history becomes more clear. The CS begins, as do its principles, in retaliation to The Federation. Chitown fights back after avoiding complete destruction. They wage a brutal campaign, and return "victorious" (according to their propaganda), but do not kill nearly everything in the Magic Zone, do not destroy the Federation, and do not occupy or do anything further to an area that proves too difficult for them to manage at all.

Instead they consolidate. They create a magacity, and encourage others to do the same. They become a Coalition of similarly minded states. Outside the megacities, and other protected cities and towns, they allow DBs to live. They don't like it, and are often ruthless in policing and controlling them. But they do not come close to destroying them all, or trying to.

In 105 they start gearing up to do more. They want to expand to fill "the domain of man." Their first actions in this regard are the attacks on Free Quebec and Tolkeen (instead of the more obvious actually genocidal first action of cleansing the already controlled areas). They want to hit a powerful rival to prove their worth and send a message. Perhaps this desire cannot lead to anything but genocide or whatever equally horrible outcome one can imagine. But the CS army is not used to this sort of confrontation. They do not do this sort of thing, not at this scale and not to this end.

Thus their war against Tolkeen results in a pyrrhic victory. The soldiers (as illustrated by Deon in the Siege books) become bloodthirsty and then come to their senses. They grow a distaste for harming innocents. The Generals, once to scared to deny Drogue his urges, now look at him as a failure (due to his complete dismantling in the Sorcerer's Revenge) and a shameful evil idiot. They do not want to repeat the same mistakes again.

This mentality will lead right into the Minion War, where the Coalition will be forced to work with lots of magic users and DBs. How will their mentality change further?

Regardless, this kind of aggression was new to the Coalition. Maybe they were destined to get there. Maybe they foolishly set off on an evil path, but they did not realize how evil it was.

Nightmask wrote:
No, that's seen as just fine and dandy by the vast majority of CS citizens including the military. When a rising star in their military, Larson, tried to speak against the policies and eventually refused to kill a peaceful D-Bee village he was arrested and imprisoned because of it as he refused to follow CS policy and massacre them for the 'crime' of not being human. His men had to rescue him and high-tail it out of there before he was 'disappeared'.

Larson isn't "disappeared." A deal is made and he's hailed as a hero by Coalition propaganda. The General that tried to have him killed lost his career.


EDIT: Actually I'm wrong. The Vanguard assassinated the General, who was threatening to expose the propaganda, so the Coalition wouldn't have to, and could blame it on magic users.

Nightmask wrote: you simply don't have a leg to stand on claiming the CS's stated policies and actions aren't the total genocide of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet because those are EXACTLY what the CS's goals are.

So... why don't they have a "kill on sight" policy when it comes to mages?

They often do, but they use their judgement where it's worth their time, whether they can use it to their advantage in some way (watching a mage rather than killing them may lead to discovery of more mages), and so on.

It's definitely illegal and usually ends in the death of the mage, it's just there's some discretion involved.

They've got some cautious streak to them for all of their power. They're, to an extent, bullies who like winning, but don't like using up their strength and being hurt to do so, and are thus normally fine with beating and driving off magic users and such if it's safer for them.

Which, in Rifts Earth is fairly sensible thanks to the history. Be too aggressive and you'll be caught out and other forces will rip you a new one. In the early-early days, Chi-Town likely saw that happened to other communities and such. Maybe they even heard of the other state the Republicans tried to set up which got ripped apart. And taking the magic zone and trying to hold it likely would've been a bridge too far.

So while their offensive power is pretty great, and they have the ability to roam over a lot of territory with pretty good confidence that it's 'theirs', they do also think in the mentality of the people who live within walls and view those walls as where the real important things to protect live.

I wonder if the influx of voices from more recently joined states, who aren't so walled up, help lead to the aggressive policy, or perhaps the inverse, the softening of the defensive mindset lead to the addition of less well-defended states and the attack on Tolkeen.

Q99 wrote:They often do, but they use their judgement where it's worth their time, whether they can use it to their advantage in some way (watching a mage rather than killing them may lead to discovery of more mages), and so on.

For example?

It's definitely illegal and usually ends in the death of the mage, it's just there's some discretion involved.

You lost me.

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:There's no way you're going to convince me of something that's patently false, and it's patently false to try and argue that the CS isn't guilty of genocide or to try and argue that their policies aren't explicitly genocidal. By every measure the CS is devoted to genocide and has actively engaged in genocide with their most blatant act of genocide its war against Tolkeen. The books make it clear that the CS is all about genocide regarding all non-humans and magic-users, with the few who aren't being exceptions not the rule.

So, like, I get that I'm not going to convince you something that's written has been written. But, for the sake of posterity, I'll try to explain my experience with the books.

Correction, you're not going to convince me that something that ISN'T written and is in fact in direct contradiction of what's written is what's actually written. So when the books clearly state the CS is a human supremacist empire actively engaging in a war of genocide against all non-humans and magic users and even recently went to war complete with nukes to kill a neighboring city/state for the sole reason of killing everyone for that 'crime' and your response is 'oh no they weren't really engaging in genocide and the books don't say that that's their goal' of course it's going to get rejected because it's as contrary to what the book says as if you were arguing the Splugorth in charge of Atlantis was a great guy who devotes himself to the welfare of others and has created a paradise where everyone lives in peace and harmony.

Jorick wrote:At first, it seems like the Coalition is all about Genocide to me. They're painted essentially as Nazi's and what's not to hate about them really?

But the books keep talking about the Burbs. The Burbs are one of, if not the most central areas for adventure in Rifts. There are CS megacities, and around them are Burbs. In the megacities, no non-human or magic user may live. But just outside the megacities there are large populations of non-humans. "How can this be," I think to myself, "if the Coalition is genocidal?"

I've heard that before, trying to twist the existence of the Burbs into somehow 'proving' the CS isn't genocidal simply because they haven't killed everyone there YET. The Burbs are a honeypot for one, meant to lure in enemies and give them a chance to gain intelligence on possible threats. Like that one town that Free Quebec uses for similar reasons, it also helps provide a false sense of security to enemies. What it DOESN'T provide is 'proof' that the CS isn't genocidal, because they explicitly are.

Jorick wrote:The most plausible answer is given in the Siege books. The history becomes more clear. The CS begins, as do its principles, in retaliation to The Federation. Chitown fights back after avoiding complete destruction. They wage a brutal campaign, and return "victorious" (according to their propaganda), but do not kill nearly everything in the Magic Zone, do not destroy the Federation, and do not occupy or do anything further to an area that proves too difficult for them to manage at all.

Instead they consolidate. They create a magacity, and encourage others to do the same. They become a Coalition of similarly minded states. Outside the megacities, and other protected cities and towns, they allow DBs to live. They don't like it, and are often ruthless in policing and controlling them. But they do not come close to destroying them all, or trying to.

In 105 they start gearing up to do more. They want to expand to fill "the domain of man." Their first actions in this regard are the attacks on Free Quebec and Tolkeen (instead of the more obvious actually genocidal first action of cleansing the already controlled areas). They want to hit a powerful rival to prove their worth and send a message. Perhaps this desire cannot lead to anything but genocide or whatever equally horrible outcome one can imagine. But the CS army is not used to this sort of confrontation. They do not do this sort of thing, not at this scale and not to this end.

Uh no, seriously, no. The entire Tolkeen war was an act of genocide, from the first failed nuke attempts to the very end, that's an indisputable fact. They routinely destroy smaller targets for the same goal of genocide and decided they'd had so much success on the smaller targets that they could finally murder the entire population of a rival city/state.

Jorick wrote:Thus their war against Tolkeen results in a pyrrhic victory. The soldiers (as illustrated by Deon in the Siege books) become bloodthirsty and then come to their senses. They grow a distaste for harming innocents. The Generals, once to scared to deny Drogue his urges, now look at him as a failure (due to his complete dismantling in the Sorcerer's Revenge) and a shameful evil idiot. They do not want to repeat the same mistakes again.

This mentality will lead right into the Minion War, where the Coalition will be forced to work with lots of magic users and DBs. How will their mentality change further?

Regardless, this kind of aggression was new to the Coalition. Maybe they were destined to get there. Maybe they foolishly set off on an evil path, but they did not realize how evil it was.

Seriously, just what books are you reading? Because nothing you say comes from the books, the CS's genocidal activities are well covered in the books and this kind of aggression is completely normal to them. They aren't 'misunderstood', it wasn't 'rogue elements' making them look bad, they are stated without a doubt to be out for total genocide of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet and Tolkeen was simply their largest act of genocide to date. The claim otherwise is directly contradicting the books.

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:
No, that's seen as just fine and dandy by the vast majority of CS citizens including the military. When a rising star in their military, Larson, tried to speak against the policies and eventually refused to kill a peaceful D-Bee village he was arrested and imprisoned because of it as he refused to follow CS policy and massacre them for the 'crime' of not being human. His men had to rescue him and high-tail it out of there before he was 'disappeared'.

Larson isn't "disappeared." A deal is made and he's hailed as a hero by Coalition propaganda. The General that tried to have him killed lost his career.


EDIT: Actually I'm wrong. The Vanguard assassinated the General, who was threatening to expose the propaganda, so the Coalition wouldn't have to, and could blame it on magic users.

Like I said, if Larson's men hadn't rescued him he'd have been 'disappeared' as is CS policy for someone who actively speaks out against their genocidal policies, they only made the deal because they kept losing their engagements to try and kill him and his men and felt it better to cut their losses by saying 'you stay away from us and we'll stay away from you' and lying that he'd quit the CS to go his own way to save face rather than look like laughingstocks because they couldn't kill him after all the propaganda about how unstoppable their war machine was.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote: you simply don't have a leg to stand on claiming the CS's stated policies and actions aren't the total genocide of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet because those are EXACTLY what the CS's goals are.

So... why don't they have a "kill on sight" policy when it comes to mages?

Same reason that the Nazis didn't kill on sight all the targets on their lists...
They do arrest mages (who will be killed if they resist) and send them to their prison system. Execution is pretty common there.
Its even mentioned that they will arrest mages in the Burbs if they come to their attention. (And the Burbs are pretty much a Freeport)

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not at all. ---> There are plenty of Bad Guys in North America. <----
Region doesn't have anything to do with it.

Goal post moving .. The point is not there are plenty of bad guys, but "WHOM" is --> Thee baddest guy <-- out of all the baddies. And for that and many other reasons, it is in fact Thee Coalition.

I've proven threw the words of the games creator himself, they are the defacto "thee bad guys" of the default setting. Stop trying to move the goal post please, an stick to the topic at hand , which was as the title of the thread dictates "The Coalition Starts are not the bad guy"

When yes, not only are they the bad guy .. they are "thee bad guy" of the default setting (Rifts North America) what makes me say this ?

1) - No other aspect has been as fleshed out as North America ( This proves, this is the default setting in an of itself, yet I will go further)
2) - No other aspect of the game (world books / dimension books) push the time line unless it has something to do with North America .. Period (Again further providing that the North American continent is in fact thee default setting of the entire setting )
3) - The Coalition are THEE preEminent power of that default setting, an are "Villains" in Kevin's eyes as per his own words. Thus making them the "Default setting" "Bad guys" aka .. The Coalition are the defacto .. "THEE BAD GUYS" of the setting ..

However Killer Cyborg .. we can make this Extremely easy to disprove.

Show me 1 "Bad guy" of the setting, that provides Time movement .. such as the Coalition books do. I'll give you this one, if you can show me 1 time update (new month / year) that does in fact not involve The Coalition at all ...

Thus disproving my entire theory that the Coalition are "THEE BAD GUYS" of the setting. This should be relatively easy yes ?

Nightmask wrote:

Jorick wrote:

Nightmask wrote:
No, that's seen as just fine and dandy by the vast majority of CS citizens including the military. When a rising star in their military, Larson, tried to speak against the policies and eventually refused to kill a peaceful D-Bee village he was arrested and imprisoned because of it as he refused to follow CS policy and massacre them for the 'crime' of not being human. His men had to rescue him and high-tail it out of there before he was 'disappeared'.

Larson isn't "disappeared." A deal is made and he's hailed as a hero by Coalition propaganda. The General that tried to have him killed lost his career.


EDIT: Actually I'm wrong. The Vanguard assassinated the General, who was threatening to expose the propaganda, so the Coalition wouldn't have to, and could blame it on magic users.

Like I said, if Larson's men hadn't rescued him he'd have been 'disappeared' as is CS policy for someone who actively speaks out against their genocidal policies, they only made the deal because they kept losing their engagements to try and kill him and his men and felt it better to cut their losses by saying 'you stay away from us and we'll stay away from you' and lying that he'd quit the CS to go his own way to save face rather than look like laughingstocks because they couldn't kill him after all the propaganda about how unstoppable their war machine was.

Maybe he would have faced court martial and been executed. But Larsen was a hero for the justifiable acts of destroying Pecos Bandits and Vampires. The propaganda machine had already made him a hero in the eyes of the people. Therefore, even when he not only defied orders but killed Coalition soldiers to escape, a deal was struck to keep him a hero, so the propaganda machine wouldn't have to confuse people. The propaganda is more important than the actual killing. Hence the General who ordered the killing of innocents, and who tried to hunt Larsen down, being "disappeared" by Coalition allied magic-users to make the story easy to tell.

Officer after officer in the books is portrayed as not being especially brutal. The ones who are brutal get away with it. I'm not saying the Coalition does not ever kill innocents. They do it a lot, and it's generally not seen as wrong by the leadership. But it's not a simple mindset of "we want to kill them all!"

Loni Kashbrook, the general in command of Lone Star, is a good example. She will "not hesitate to gun down a village," because she sees DBs as alien invaders, and "in her mind the Coalition has made it clear that they are not wanted, must leave, and have been given every opportunity to do so." "She is not a bloodthirsty zealot looking for people to destroy, and prefers to strike against military targets and professional soldiers." She's worried about general Kalpov's mindset, and that his "take no prisoners" approach will increase the difficulty of securing Lone Star. She thinks his henchmen are bloodthirsty fanatics.

Buck Murphy, on the other hand, is another celebrated hero (not a dirty secret), due to his heroics against the Xiticix. He hates the frequent follow up missions after battles, where he kills what we can understand as civilians and (probably) innocents. He's not sure why he feels this way, because he also sees them as invaders and dangerous.

Jerico Holmes, the great hero of the Tolkeen conflict, who navigated the hivelands successfully, and struck the blow against Tolkeen rear lines that won the war was already a Medal of Honor winner for single-handedly holding off 300 bandits/headhunters, among many other medals.

"The General is a dyed-in-the-wool human supremacist who views all D-Bees as dangerous vermin who must be pushed back to the ends of the Earth. Just as one can not afford to let a city become overrun by rats, so must the Coalition cleanse itself of any non-humans who have come through the Rifts. Despite this outlook, General Holmes is not a cruel or sinister man. He is not particularly bent on genocide and would rather banish D-Bees from Coalition territory than kill them. To the General's point of view, slaying D-Bees unnecessarily will only prompt their friends and children to take revenge on the Coalition, furthering lasting and escalating hostilities. If the vermin are willing to move away from human territory, then so be it. Mission accomplished. Those who resist such banishment or who pose an open threat to the CS, however, must be destroyed, no questions asked. The General's first and only aim is to secure greater peace and prosperity for the Coalition, and if showing mercy to those who have earned it helps bring that about, then so much the better.
Part of this mentality stems from General Holmes' true warrior nature. Although a little too old (and frankly, too important) to be sent on combat operations, the General deeply misses the glory and danger of fighting. During his younger days, he often would spare the lives of opponents he deemed worthy of mercy, and on more than one occasion, this show of honor saved his life. To this day, there are at least a dozen high-ranking mages (and it is said, even a dragon or two) who owe their lives to General Holmes, and will return the favor if the General is in their clutches. Such is the legacy of one of the Coalition's great superpatriots, a man of uncompromising principle and courage, a pillar of strength in the campaign that might change the face of the Coalition forever."

That changing face are the "men rising in the ranks around him" [Drogue's peeps], "men without any sense of honor or justice. Soldiers bent on winning at all costs and devoid of mercy. Warriors who see nothing wrong with wholesale slaughter or genocide. In fact, many revel in such barbarism. This will inevitably create friction between the noble General Holmes and other leaders on the war front (many of whom think General Holmes' antiquated sense of honor and approach to war are holding them back)."

The Coalition is pretty fierce, and judgement is clouded by fear and propaganda. It's hard to imagine that such things wouldn't lead to horrible ends. But the celebrated heroes are actually heroes. They have vanquished, not innocents, but monstrous unstoppable horrors. When it comes to burning down a village, they either don't do it, try to get innocents to leave first, feel bad about it after, and/or justify it to themselves as an act of defense, because they've seen what can happen if they do otherwise (similar maybe to American soldiers in Vietnam, or other theaters where the military and civilian populations are hard to distinguish).

The results of their actions are often terrible, but there is a line. The line is blurred because of the ignorance imposed by the Prosek regime. Karl has a lot of blood on his hands. But until Tolkeen, the bloodthirsty mass murderers didn't have control of the operation. Once they did, it turned everyone else off.

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not at all. ---> There are plenty of Bad Guys in North America. <----
Region doesn't have anything to do with it.

Goal post moving .. The point is not there are plenty of bad guys, but "WHOM" is --> Thee baddest guy <-- out of all the baddies. And for that and many other reasons, it is in fact Thee Coalition.

I've proven threw the words of the games creator himself, they are the defacto "thee bad guys" of the default setting. Stop trying to move the goal post please, an stick to the topic at hand , which was as the title of the thread dictates "The Coalition Starts are not the bad guy"

When yes, not only are they the bad guy .. they are "thee bad guy" of the default setting (Rifts North America) what makes me say this ?

1) - No other aspect has been as fleshed out as North America ( This proves, this is the default setting in an of itself, yet I will go further)
2) - No other aspect of the game (world books / dimension books) push the time line unless it has something to do with North America .. Period (Again further providing that the North American continent is in fact thee default setting of the entire setting )
3) - The Coalition are THEE preEminent power of that default setting, an are "Villains" in Kevin's eyes as per his own words. Thus making them the "Default setting" "Bad guys" aka .. The Coalition are the defacto .. "THEE BAD GUYS" of the setting ..

However Killer Cyborg .. we can make this Extremely easy to disprove.

Show me 1 "Bad guy" of the setting, that provides Time movement .. such as the Coalition books do. I'll give you this one, if you can show me 1 time update (new month / year) that does in fact not involve The Coalition at all ...

Thus disproving my entire theory that the Coalition are "THEE BAD GUYS" of the setting. This should be relatively easy yes ?

I think the OP was just pointing out that there was a lot of "gray area" in the "badness" of the Coalition. That the Coalition's bad actions are actually in response to "greater evils." Thematically, are the Coalition central? Yes. That does not mean they are written as the pure or ultimate evil. Like science fiction should be, the Coalition become an exploration of human action in a fictitious future. When surrounded by such frightening, despicable, merciless and unending horrors, what do you do?

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nightmask wrote: you simply don't have a leg to stand on claiming the CS's stated policies and actions aren't the total genocide of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet because those are EXACTLY what the CS's goals are.

So... why don't they have a "kill on sight" policy when it comes to mages?

Same reason that the Nazis didn't kill on sight all the targets on their lists...
They do arrest mages (who will be killed if they resist) and send them to their prison system. Execution is pretty common there.
Its even mentioned that they will arrest mages in the Burbs if they come to their attention. (And the Burbs are pretty much a Freeport)

Got a quote on that?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Q99 wrote:They often do, but they use their judgement where it's worth their time, whether they can use it to their advantage in some way (watching a mage rather than killing them may lead to discovery of more mages), and so on.

For example?

It's definitely illegal and usually ends in the death of the mage, it's just there's some discretion involved.

You lost me.

I lost you on the Coalition viewing magic as illegal?

To give an example, the Coalition expedition to South America that visited Colombia also stopped by Bahia and described it as, quote, "a depraved haven for D-bees and sorcerous criminals." That's a freakin' foreign sovereign nation with a mutual defense deal with Colombia and it still gets classified as 'criminals' for using magic.


If I could characterize their views, they seem to view random mages much as how we'd view pirates and bandits (pirates being officially 'hostis humani generis' in international law, beyond legal protection and arrestable by anyone, not just those attacked). You're not necessarily going to drop everything, or deviate from another mission, just to kill or even necessarily go after pirates who haven't directly been affecting you, but if a unit does divert to do so, Lieutenant Jane thinks it's worth the time, and puts "we engaged and killed 10 magic users and D-Bees we encountered on patrol, catching them by surprise and eliminating them, suffering no casualties in return," Jane's boss is likely going to say, "Good job, Lieutenant." But even Lieutenant Jane isn't going to shoot every magic user she sees, because the patrols are to keep an eye out for big dangers like demons, Brodkil, and such, and if you raid every little D-bee town or village with a mage, you're not going to be spending enough time on those (I'd guess most raids on random D-Bee/magic user towns are a result of either CS missions where the commander has concluded larger threats aren't present, and/or the more zealous officers, of which there is gonna be plenty).


The coalition does conduct raids on D-Bee and mage villages in the magic zone, new west, and elsewhere, that's mentioned often enough in various character's backstories, and heck, even burn down parts of the Burbs occasionally. One of the examples off the top of my head is the Krenin cyborgs. They got branded invaders/particularly dangerous because they had the misfortunate of a lot of them appearing at the same time some demons were attacking, and even though they were fighting the *demons*, that put them on the CS's priority-target list.

There's no doubt these hostile actions do occur and command sanctions such attacks, but at the same time, the more upright sent on those very same patrols as Jane above, are likely to focus their engagements more to actual demons and known-hostiles and ignore random D-Bees. Though, as mentioned, 'known hostiles' could include ones like Krenin who high command has told them is an invader, and not just actual aggressive species!

You lost me by using the word "it's" without any clear attachment or indicator of what you were referring to.

Killer Cyborg wrote:You lost me by using the word "it's" without any clear attachment or indicator of what you were referring to.

Being a mage, as indicated by that being the subject of every sentence in that post.

"we were willing to let them abandon their homes and go die as a result of not having the protections they've established here instead of getting murdered just for existing" does not move you a great distance higher on the morality scale than just murdering people for existing. i mean, obviously it is less bad than just murdering people without giving them a chance to escape. but driving people out of their homes just because you happen to not like them (not that you took any time to actually get to know them) and you want to take their homes for your own use is still an evil act.

Q99 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:You lost me by using the word "it's" without any clear attachment or indicator of what you were referring to.

Being a mage, as indicated by that being the subject of every sentence in that post.

"Being a mage" isn't the same as "magic."
So now you've switched it, but whatever.


Nightmask: you simply don't have a leg to stand on claiming the CS's stated policies and actions aren't the total genocide of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet because those are EXACTLY what the CS's goals are.
Killer Cyborg: So... why don't they have a "kill on sight" policy when it comes to mages?
Q99: They often do, but they use their judgement where it's worth their time, whether they can use it to their advantage in some way (watching a mage rather than killing them may lead to discovery of more mages), and so on.=
It's definitely illegal and usually ends in the death of the mage, it's just there's some discretion involved.

"It's" in this context could refer to "having a leg to stand on," "total genocide," "having a kill-on-sight policy," "killing mages," "using their judgement," and possibly some other stuff that I'm missing.
"Every sentence of that post" is TWO sentences, one of which starts with the term that was unclear in context.
So really it's one sentence that you're talking about.
And that sentence is talking about the CS having a "kill on sight" policy in a way that's not really a policy, not about "magic."

Now that I have a clearer idea of what you were trying to say, we can try to move on with the topic, or we can discuss the miscommunication some more.
Which would you like to do?

Killer Cyborg wrote:"Being a mage" isn't the same as "magic."
So now you've switched it, but whatever.

Both are illegal, and indeed, one normally implies the other. I was being general.

"It's" in this context could refer to "having a leg to stand on," "total genocide," "having a kill-on-sight policy," "killing mages," "using their judgement," and possibly some other stuff that I'm missing.

Though most of those don't actually make sense with the rest of my post, so I figured you'd figure out from the context. Obviously, 'genocide' couldn't be illegal, and the example I gave of using their judgement was whether or not it'd be more advantageous to kill a mage now or use them to find more mages.

So, taking just the 'it's' statement on it's own, sure, it could mean those things, but in the greater context of an example of killing mages being to their advantage in some cases but not others, it can be inferred that I'm referring to their being willing to kill mages, but having discretion over it.

Now that I have a clearer idea of what you were trying to say, we can try to move on with the topic, or we can discuss the miscommunication some more.
Which would you like to do?

Well, obviously, the miscommunication has been cleared up, right? With some added explanation for clarity above!

Q99 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:"Being a mage" isn't the same as "magic."
So now you've switched it, but whatever.

Both are illegal, and indeed, one normally implies the other. I was being general.

I get that now that you've explained.
Not sure why we're still talking about it, although I can't remember how illegal magic is in the CS, and I don't have CWC with me to check.

"It's" in this context could refer to "having a leg to stand on," "total genocide," "having a kill-on-sight policy," "killing mages," "using their judgement," and possibly some other stuff that I'm missing.

Though most of those don't actually make sense with the rest of my post,

Neither did "magic," for that matter.
Either way, with a potential list that long, I'd rather just ask for clarification than to start sifting and guessing.

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not at all. ---> There are plenty of Bad Guys in North America. <----
Region doesn't have anything to do with it.

Goal post moving .. The point is not there are plenty of bad guys, but "WHOM" is --> Thee baddest guy <-- out of all the baddies. And for that and many other reasons, it is in fact Thee Coalition.

Again...
viewtopic.php?p=2864170#p2864170

Killer Cyborg wrote:The debate was over whether the CS were "The Bad Guy."
Many of the responses have been, "they're bad guys... just not THE bad guys."
Calling them villains doesn't make them THE Bad Guys.

Another debate has been over whether or not they're evil, and to what extent.
Being a villain doesn't mean that you're necessarily evil, especially in Palladium's alignment scales.

The original post didn't define what "the bad guys" meant, but it DID say this:
I don’t see them as the bad guys, for the world is not black and white. There are sure some very evil people running the CS, and their policies on magic and D-bees is very harsh if not overly aggressive. But as a whole the world seems a much better place because of the CS from a human perspective. The CS is the only reason why humans actively have a fighting chance on North America. No other city/nation has the sheer resources to actively protect large groups of humans from multiple threats.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not at all. ---> There are plenty of Bad Guys in North America. <----
Region doesn't have anything to do with it.

Goal post moving .. The point is not there are plenty of bad guys, but "WHOM" is --> Thee baddest guy <-- out of all the baddies. And for that and many other reasons, it is in fact Thee Coalition.

Again...
viewtopic.php?p=2864170#p2864170

Killer Cyborg wrote:The debate was over whether the CS were "The Bad Guy."
Many of the responses have been, "they're bad guys... just not THE bad guys."
Calling them villains doesn't make them THE Bad Guys.

Another debate has been over whether or not they're evil, and to what extent.
Being a villain doesn't mean that you're necessarily evil, especially in Palladium's alignment scales.

The original post didn't define what "the bad guys" meant, but it DID say this:
I don’t see them as the bad guys, for the world is not black and white. There are sure some very evil people running the CS, and their policies on magic and D-bees is very harsh if not overly aggressive. But as a whole the world seems a much better place because of the CS from a human perspective. The CS is the only reason why humans actively have a fighting chance on North America. No other city/nation has the sheer resources to actively protect large groups of humans from multiple threats.

Okay. So we can pretty well show that this statement is actively wrong.
There are plenty of other places that can (and do) actively protect large groups of humans from multiple threats. At least some of them protected from everyone....up until the CS came and killed them all (*cough* Tolkeen *Cough*)
There is no support for the claim that the CS is the only reason why humans actively have a fighting chance on North America. (Unless you go by CS propaganda)
Thus the whole edifice is built on a false premise (The CS is bad...but its a necessary evil.)

not necessarily.

the CS is currently occupying a lot of territory. if we replace it with essentially uninhabited wilderness without removing anything from any of the other communities, then sure those places would be fine.

but the thing is, we don't know if those other communities had to rely on stolen or smuggled CS weapons for decades before wilks and NG really got going. we don't know that the CS, by being a bunch of gigantic <censored>, have managed to draw attention away from everyone else. we don't know that CS territory would not have become a splugorth outpost or another vampire kingdom.

on the flip side, we also don't know that it wouldn't all be part of the empire of free quebec, which has just as much hatred but none of the blind aggression, either. nor do we know that it wouldn't be the home of half a dozen nations that embrace d-bees and magic so long as they are not causing problems.

but it just isn't as simple as leaving the rest of the world exactly the same but removing the CS to determine whether the CS is a necessary evil or not. certainly, they aren't the worst thing that could be around.

Are the things they do evil?
Is Carl Prosek evil?

Sadly, it only makes them the sometimes bad guys of the setting, but I've yet seen them portrayed as direct good guys in any case.

I love me some uncle skullhead, but he's a bad man.

I still can't believe posters needed direct quotes from Kevin to be shown to a large extent that the CS are one of the bad guys in the setting.

Perhaps to a lesser extent than say Atlantis yet to me at least they are evil and the bad guys. They get into wars that by luck, skill and resources have so far won. They engage in genocide of alien speices. Yes other non-humans do as well but it's not exactly a great endorsement of their culture. Those in power. Who control everything are evil. They don't do things that better humanity. They do it for themselves. As they are greedy and corrupt. That they are keeping humanity safe is a added bonuses. Truth be told they are out for number one themselves. Fighting wars that more often than not don't need to be fought. Antagonizing enemies or neutral factions that they should be leaving well enough alone. One thing that SOT and then Aftermath did very poorly is show the negative effects of the SOT. Yes the CS won. But it must have also been a strain on the entire infrastructure. One cannot simply field such a large army of such a size then keep the civilian population happy. On the surface sure the citizens are happy. Once the shortages of all kinds of stuff like food and other stuff begin as the army gets the bulk of it. The population becomes unhappy. Soldiers who come home injured mentally and physically. Our current governments do a **** poor job in the treatment of veterans. I can't see the CS doing a better job.

Sure maybe Fred the CS officer with connections to a rich family in the upper levels may get the best treatment money can buy. Archie the CS Grunt from humble beginnings in the Burbs is crap out of luck. Maybe if he thought ahead and saved all his pay. If not another burden on the people of the CS. Which was whitewashed in the books. Only in the CS anthology was their a store of a soldier who came back changed. Why so I think they are evil because even if they somehow manage to clear the planet of the all the d-bess and human undesirables. Those in charge will not suddenly have a epiphany and become a democratic form of government. Why would they really. They have the power. Those who says anything are made to look like traitors. Who are then exiled or sent to be re-indoctrinated. Those who comply are made productive members of society. Those that don't more than likely will be taken far away and quietly shot and buried in a deep grave. What do you think happened in Germany during World War II. The germans who were horrified of what the Nazis were doing. Either left their country. Kept their mouth shut and ignored what was happening. Or were sent to concentration camps. Soldiers who said anything were jailed, shot or sent to the Russian front.

I notice on these boards members tend to ignore, bury or simply gloss over the more unsavory elements of what happens in a Fascist regime. Another reason why they are evil. Even if the CS joins other factions like Lazlo to defeat a strong non-human enemy. Unlike Lazlo chances are good that if the Cs sees a weakness in their allies after the conflict. That the CS will shoot their own allies in the back. Killing two birds with one stone or something similar.

Shark_Force wrote:not necessarily.

the CS is currently occupying a lot of territory. if we replace it with essentially uninhabited wilderness without removing anything from any of the other communities, then sure those places would be fine

Except that it wouldn't be replaced with uninhabited wilderness would it.
It would be replaced with what would be there if the genocidal CS hadn't taken over.
Chi Town would be there for instance.....but it wouldn't be the nexus of a murder fueled police state.

Shark_Force wrote:but the thing is, we don't know if those other communities had to rely on stolen or smuggled CS weapons for decades before wilks and NG really got going. we don't know that the CS, by being a bunch of gigantic <censored>, have managed to draw attention away from everyone else. we don't know that CS territory would not have become a splugorth outpost or another vampire kingdom.

Considering that everyone else seems to have done fine until the formal, modern genocidal CS formed in the FoM war.....then yes we can pretty well say that the genocidal CS is not, and never has been important for human survival outside of their own propaganda.

Shark_Force wrote:on the flip side, we also don't know that it wouldn't all be part of the empire of free quebec, which has just as much hatred but none of the blind aggression, either. nor do we know that it wouldn't be the home of half a dozen nations that embrace d-bees and magic so long as they are not causing problems.

but it just isn't as simple as leaving the rest of the world exactly the same but removing the CS to determine whether the CS is a necessary evil or not. certainly, they aren't the worst thing that could be around.

So because it is possible to construct a worse evil everyone else gets a pass?
The CS is, simply put bad guys. Period. Sure there are other evils out there, but that does not mean that they get off. It just means that they join the list of evil bad guys.
And again I would like to note that this is not some sort of 'remove the CS' its "The CS regime is evil."
Just like removing Nazi Germany did not require turning all of Occupied Europe into uninhabited wilderness....

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not at all. ---> There are plenty of Bad Guys in North America. <----
Region doesn't have anything to do with it.

Goal post moving .. The point is not there are plenty of bad guys, but "WHOM" is --> Thee baddest guy <-- out of all the baddies. And for that and many other reasons, it is in fact Thee Coalition.

Again...
viewtopic.php?p=2864170#p2864170

Killer Cyborg wrote:The debate was over whether the CS were "The Bad Guy."
Many of the responses have been, "they're bad guys... just not THE bad guys."
Calling them villains doesn't make them THE Bad Guys.

Another debate has been over whether or not they're evil, and to what extent.
Being a villain doesn't mean that you're necessarily evil, especially in Palladium's alignment scales.

The original post didn't define what "the bad guys" meant, but it DID say this:
I don’t see them as the bad guys, for the world is not black and white. There are sure some very evil people running the CS, and their policies on magic and D-bees is very harsh if not overly aggressive. But as a whole the world seems a much better place because of the CS from a human perspective. The CS is the only reason why humans actively have a fighting chance on North America. No other city/nation has the sheer resources to actively protect large groups of humans from multiple threats.

Okay. So we can pretty well show that this statement is actively wrong.
There are plenty of other places that can (and do) actively protect large groups of humans from multiple threats. At least some of them protected from everyone....up until the CS came and killed them all (*cough* Tolkeen *Cough*)
There is no support for the claim that the CS is the only reason why humans actively have a fighting chance on North America. (Unless you go by CS propaganda)
Thus the whole edifice is built on a false premise (The CS is bad...but its a necessary evil.)

Tolkeen had something like hundreds of thousands of people in their total population, IIRC.
The CS has a population of unknown millions of people.
If you don't care about numbers, then sure... other places could and did save humans. Just nowhere near as many as were in the CS.
Also, if anybody has the book that describes Tolkeen, I'd be curious what their population of mundane humans specifically was.

Since I have FoM, I can look up some other places for comparison:
Dweomer has a population of 49,626 total citizens. 12,407 of those citizens are ordinary humans. 13,895 of them are human mages.
The City Of Brass has a total population of 18,900. 4,347 of them are ordinary human citizens. There is also a slave population of around 4050 on average, 1215 of which are ordinary humans.
The Grey Seers have a total population of 187, all human. 10+ of which might be ordinary humans.
Magestar has a total population of 1946. 7784 are ordinary humans. 194 are human mages.
Stormspire has a total population of 18072 (not including slaves, mercenaries, or transients). 4157 of them are ordinary humans.
The town of Finton from SB1 has a population of 700 normal humans.
Lazlo (as of RUE) had nearly 1 million people as of 100 PA, with another 250,000 living in the surrounding 150 miles. There are no population breakdowns of Lazlo that I'm aware of, but it is a city where "all creatures are welcome" and where "all philosophies are discussed." I find it difficult to believe that the majority of citizens are mundane humans.

The above is not a complete list of non-CS humans, of course, but it gives us a gist.
Everything I listed other than Lazlo has a combined normal human population of 29,405.
Let's say that a full HALF of Lazlo's population are normal humans, just to be incredibly generous. That brings us up to 529,405.
Let's say for now that Tolkeen had a population of 1 million, and again--just to be incredibly generous--that a full HALF of their population are normal humans.
That brings us up to 1,029,405 normal humans.

"Sure," you're probably thinking, "But D-Bee and mages count for something too!"
And I say, "Allrighty. Let's look at total populations for a moment, even though this topic IS about "the human perspective" specifically.

The TOTAL populations of the places above (assuming 1 million for Tolkeen), including humans, mages, D-Bees, Demons, Dragons, and whatever, comes to about 2,089,431.
That sounds pretty impressive.

Let's compare to the CS...

As of SB1 (p. 12), in the year 102 PA, the CS had a total population of 14 million normal humans, with an additional 10 million D-Bees, mutants, and other intelligent non-humans living in CS territory.

Sureshot wrote:I still can't believe posters needed direct quotes from Kevin to be shown to a large extent that the CS are one of the bad guys in the setting.

Again, the majority of responses have been along the lines of "They're bad guys... they're just not THE bad guys."
Compare them to the surrounding comparable powers:
The Xiticix
Atlantis
The Vampire Kingdoms

Sure, people occasionally can (and do) make the argument that any of those other three large powers are morally superior to the CS... but for the most part, such arguments aren't taken seriously.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Sureshot wrote:I still can't believe posters needed direct quotes from Kevin to be shown to a large extent that the CS are one of the bad guys in the setting.

Again, the majority of responses have been along the lines of "They're bad guys... they're just not THE bad guys."
Compare them to the surrounding comparable powers:
The Xiticix
Atlantis
The Vampire Kingdoms

Sure, people occasionally can (and do) make the argument that any of those other three large powers are morally superior to the CS... but for the most part, such arguments aren't taken seriously.

I would say in many ways they are THE bad guys.....
Because they are hindering the coordinated response to the other threats. North America would be more able to deal with the Xiticix and the Vampires if the CS were not the way they are.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Sureshot wrote:I still can't believe posters needed direct quotes from Kevin to be shown to a large extent that the CS are one of the bad guys in the setting.

Again, the majority of responses have been along the lines of "They're bad guys... they're just not THE bad guys."
Compare them to the surrounding comparable powers:
The Xiticix
Atlantis
The Vampire Kingdoms

Sure, people occasionally can (and do) make the argument that any of those other three large powers are morally superior to the CS... but for the most part, such arguments aren't taken seriously.

I would say in many ways they are THE bad guys.....
Because they are hindering the coordinated response to the other threats. North America would be more able to deal with the Xiticix and the Vampires if the CS were not the way they are.

I'd say the reverse, that without the CS, America wouldn't stand a chance against the Vampires.
Hell, just having 2.4 million Dog Boys and however many psi-stalkers gives an INCREDIBLE edge against the vamps.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Korcheski wrote:world seems a much better place because of the CS from a human perspective.

And a Spider eating a fly is not evil, from the Spiders perspective..

But as we have Direct words from KS himself in of all books, "Coalition war campaign" itself .. he bluntly states the CS ARE .. the bad guys Period. That ends any / all debate on yes or no if they are truly the bad guys or not.

When the creator of the entire system itself, flat out bluntly states they are the bad guys we love to hate .. guess what people .. THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS !

Well, give a direct quote and end the controversy.

CWC, pg 8. wrote: The Coalition States and Emperor Prosek are the *villains everybody loves to hate, I know I do.

First quote .. following along further down the same paragraph .. we also get this lil gem ..

CWC pg 8 wrote: I've been formulating plans for "our" favorite --> villains <-- for a long time.

So not just once, (could be defended as an accident) but Twice in the very book dedicated to / about the Coalition itself .. we see Kevin Siembieda flat out stated .. Multiple times the Coalition ARE the VILLAINS ..

Debate over.

Nope.
The debate was over whether the CS were "The Bad Guy."
Many of the responses have been, "they're bad guys... just not THE bad guys."
Calling them villains doesn't make them THE Bad Guys.

Another debate has been over whether or not they're evil, and to what extent.
Being a villain doesn't mean that you're necessarily evil, especially in Palladium's alignment scales.

It does nothing to end the debate. In the same book there's a section addressing this very point. It's cleverly hidden under the title 'Coalition States Good or Evil" it starts on page 45 and says that the core of the leadership and much of the leadership are self serving villians. Page 45. Then on page 46, it states clearly that while the leadership are mainly evil and self serving that the average person is good or at worst selfish. With outlying criminal element ranking in as 'evil.'.

"In game terms, the average citizen of the Coalition States is of a good or selfish alignment. Of course, there is your criminal element and those of evil alignments who prey on others, just as we have in our real world today. However, the majority are wellmeaning people who try to eke out fruitful, happy lives without intentionally hurting anybody. Anybody human, that is.

The orientation, beliefs, fears, and morals of the average CS citizen makes them the enemy of men of magic, mutants, nonhumans, and D-Bees. Why? Because they have been taught that these strange people are the enemy and should be feared, hated, shunned, enslaved, or destroyed. They genuinely fear nonhumans and believe these creatures will subvert their civilization and destroy humankind. Many humans have experienced or witnessed attacks by supernatural monsters and evil human or Dbee sorcerers, which only substantiates their worst fears and supports the government's propaganda. Consequently, the citizens are not evil when they notify the ISS or NTSET to capture or gun-down a D-bee. Nor are they necessarily evil when an angry or terrified mob traps and kills an invading wizard or mutant who has snuck into the city. After all, by their perception, these characters are not feeling people like them, but monsters that threaten their lives. At best, the fiend is an enemy spy or scavenger
who probably has the blood of countless humans on his hands (no doubt killed in their sleep).
Is it wrong to lie to the enemy so that he may be apprehended? Is it wrong to kill a murderer or monster? The problem is a matter of perception and degree. The average citizen's perception is simply very different than those who live beyond the protective walls and borders of the Coalition States. They have come to accept the views of isolation and human supremacy. From our point of view as the omnipotent reader who sees the overview of the world in far better perspective, we know they are wrong and unjust. Many D-bees and practitioners of magic are well-meaning, caring people. Many are peace-loving heroes who fight for the rights of all living beings. We see the citizens of the Coalition as frightened, uneducated, misguided, and often fanatical people who fiercely cling to their narrow and self-serving view of life. They see themselves as the last bastion of humankind fighting for their very existence in a world gone mad.
All a matter of perception and degree. "


It goes on. For another three pages addressing this stuff. It's not one or two off hand comments in the preface. It's directly addressed in detail and for palladium, at length in the book. Goes from page 45 though page 48. With subsections on the average CS Citizen, the CS Soldiers, and specific subsections on the CS Soldier as a villain and another on them as heroes.

It boils down to this "The Leadership has a large evil element with in it. The average person in the CS is good or selfish. Like average people anywhere. They fear monsters and magic (Rightly so) Which the evil element has capitalized upon, to militerize the nation. The military are mostly made up of people that honestly want to protect humanity. Just like any military there are people/units/aspects with in the military that are evil and just want to slaughter and kill (Yes even ours have these sorts.)

They're a piece of the rifts universe that can be either good or evil, and are purposefully written in a fashion that they exist, as BOTH, in the universe as Canon. It's which aspect your GM chooses to focus on for your games, that defines them.... in your games.

I beg to differ.
The argument that "well its only the leadership that's evil so the CS isn't evil" doesn't wash. That is quite latterly like trying to say "well the average German citizen in WWII wasn't evil. So therefore the Nazi regime wasn't evil."
NO! The Nazi regime was evil. The morality of the nation is unfortunately dictated by that of the leaders that choose the actions of that country. If the leaders are evil and order evil acts the citizens morality only matters if they resist those orders. Otherwise those 'good innocent citizens' are now at best complicit in that evil and tacitly allowing it to happen in their name.
This is like trying to say that just because the majority population of Atlantis is slaves, and then that most of those slaves are not evil themselves....means that Atlantis is really not an evil empire.
Or that the Vampire Kingdoms are not evil, just because the leaders are evil hey all the residents aren't. So we should just say "oh well the Vampire Kingdoms aren't evil, they are just misunderstood."

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It does nothing to end the debate. In the same book there's a section addressing this very point. It's cleverly hidden under the title 'Coalition States Good or Evil" it starts on page 45 and says that the core of the leadership and much of the leadership are self serving villians. Page 45. Then on page 46, it states clearly that while the leadership are mainly evil and self serving that the average person is good or at worst selfish. With outlying criminal element ranking in as 'evil.'.

"In game terms, the average citizen of the Coalition States is of a good or selfish alignment. Of course, there is your criminal element and those of evil alignments who prey on others, just as we have in our real world today. However, the majority are wellmeaning people who try to eke out fruitful, happy lives without intentionally hurting anybody. Anybody human, that is.

The orientation, beliefs, fears, and morals of the average CS citizen makes them the enemy of men of magic, mutants, nonhumans, and D-Bees. Why? Because they have been taught that these strange people are the enemy and should be feared, hated, shunned, enslaved, or destroyed. They genuinely fear nonhumans and believe these creatures will subvert their civilization and destroy humankind. Many humans have experienced or witnessed attacks by supernatural monsters and evil human or Dbee sorcerers, which only substantiates their worst fears and supports the government's propaganda. Consequently, the citizens are not evil when they notify the ISS or NTSET to capture or gun-down a D-bee. Nor are they necessarily evil when an angry or terrified mob traps and kills an invading wizard or mutant who has snuck into the city. After all, by their perception, these characters are not feeling people like them, but monsters that threaten their lives. At best, the fiend is an enemy spy or scavenger
who probably has the blood of countless humans on his hands (no doubt killed in their sleep).
Is it wrong to lie to the enemy so that he may be apprehended? Is it wrong to kill a murderer or monster? The problem is a matter of perception and degree. The average citizen's perception is simply very different than those who live beyond the protective walls and borders of the Coalition States. They have come to accept the views of isolation and human supremacy. From our point of view as the omnipotent reader who sees the overview of the world in far better perspective, we know they are wrong and unjust. Many D-bees and practitioners of magic are well-meaning, caring people. Many are peace-loving heroes who fight for the rights of all living beings. We see the citizens of the Coalition as frightened, uneducated, misguided, and often fanatical people who fiercely cling to their narrow and self-serving view of life. They see themselves as the last bastion of humankind fighting for their very existence in a world gone mad.
All a matter of perception and degree. "


It goes on. For another three pages addressing this stuff. It's not one or two off hand comments in the preface. It's directly addressed in detail and for palladium, at length in the book. Goes from page 45 though page 48. With subsections on the average CS Citizen, the CS Soldiers, and specific subsections on the CS Soldier as a villain and another on them as heroes.

It boils down to this "The Leadership has a large evil element with in it. The average person in the CS is good or selfish. Like average people anywhere. They fear monsters and magic (Rightly so) Which the evil element has capitalized upon, to militerize the nation. The military are mostly made up of people that honestly want to protect humanity. Just like any military there are people/units/aspects with in the military that are evil and just want to slaughter and kill (Yes even ours have these sorts.)

They're a piece of the rifts universe that can be either good or evil, and are purposefully written in a fashion that they exist, as BOTH, in the universe as Canon. It's which aspect your GM chooses to focus on for your games, that defines them.... in your games.

Indeed.
It's one of those things that has been addressed pretty thoroughly in the books, but people still want to argue about.
"Is The Coalition Evil?" depends on how you define the key terms.
Are you talking about "The Coalition" as a nation? Or as a government?
For example.

eliakon wrote:I beg to differ.
The argument that "well its only the leadership that's evil so the CS isn't evil" doesn't wash. That is quite latterly like trying to say "well the average German citizen in WWII wasn't evil. So therefore the Nazi regime wasn't evil."
NO! The Nazi regime was evil. The morality of the nation is unfortunately dictated by that of the leaders that choose the actions of that country. If the leaders are evil and order evil acts the citizens morality only matters if they resist those orders. Otherwise those 'good innocent citizens' are now at best complicit in that evil and tacitly allowing it to happen in their name.
This is like trying to say that just because the majority population of Atlantis is slaves, and then that most of those slaves are not evil themselves....means that Atlantis is really not an evil empire.
Or that the Vampire Kingdoms are not evil, just because the leaders are evil hey all the residents aren't. So we should just say "oh well the Vampire Kingdoms aren't evil, they are just misunderstood."

The difference is that "The Coalition" could refer to the CS government, or to the nation as a whole.
If you're asking about the CS government when you're asking "Is the CS Evil," then the Nazi comparison is perfectly applicable.
If you're asking about the nation overall when you're asking, "Is the CS Evil," then the analogous question would be "Was the nation of Germany Evil in WWII?"

Similar questions, but the answers aren't necessarily the same.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:It does nothing to end the debate. In the same book there's a section addressing this very point. It's cleverly hidden under the title 'Coalition States Good or Evil" it starts on page 45 and says that the core of the leadership and much of the leadership are self serving villians. Page 45. Then on page 46, it states clearly that while the leadership are mainly evil and self serving that the average person is good or at worst selfish. With outlying criminal element ranking in as 'evil.'.

"In game terms, the average citizen of the Coalition States is of a good or selfish alignment. Of course, there is your criminal element and those of evil alignments who prey on others, just as we have in our real world today. However, the majority are wellmeaning people who try to eke out fruitful, happy lives without intentionally hurting anybody. Anybody human, that is.

The orientation, beliefs, fears, and morals of the average CS citizen makes them the enemy of men of magic, mutants, nonhumans, and D-Bees. Why? Because they have been taught that these strange people are the enemy and should be feared, hated, shunned, enslaved, or destroyed. They genuinely fear nonhumans and believe these creatures will subvert their civilization and destroy humankind. Many humans have experienced or witnessed attacks by supernatural monsters and evil human or Dbee sorcerers, which only substantiates their worst fears and supports the government's propaganda. Consequently, the citizens are not evil when they notify the ISS or NTSET to capture or gun-down a D-bee. Nor are they necessarily evil when an angry or terrified mob traps and kills an invading wizard or mutant who has snuck into the city. After all, by their perception, these characters are not feeling people like them, but monsters that threaten their lives. At best, the fiend is an enemy spy or scavenger
who probably has the blood of countless humans on his hands (no doubt killed in their sleep).
Is it wrong to lie to the enemy so that he may be apprehended? Is it wrong to kill a murderer or monster? The problem is a matter of perception and degree. The average citizen's perception is simply very different than those who live beyond the protective walls and borders of the Coalition States. They have come to accept the views of isolation and human supremacy. From our point of view as the omnipotent reader who sees the overview of the world in far better perspective, we know they are wrong and unjust. Many D-bees and practitioners of magic are well-meaning, caring people. Many are peace-loving heroes who fight for the rights of all living beings. We see the citizens of the Coalition as frightened, uneducated, misguided, and often fanatical people who fiercely cling to their narrow and self-serving view of life. They see themselves as the last bastion of humankind fighting for their very existence in a world gone mad.
All a matter of perception and degree. "


It goes on. For another three pages addressing this stuff. It's not one or two off hand comments in the preface. It's directly addressed in detail and for palladium, at length in the book. Goes from page 45 though page 48. With subsections on the average CS Citizen, the CS Soldiers, and specific subsections on the CS Soldier as a villain and another on them as heroes.

It boils down to this "The Leadership has a large evil element with in it. The average person in the CS is good or selfish. Like average people anywhere. They fear monsters and magic (Rightly so) Which the evil element has capitalized upon, to militerize the nation. The military are mostly made up of people that honestly want to protect humanity. Just like any military there are people/units/aspects with in the military that are evil and just want to slaughter and kill (Yes even ours have these sorts.)

They're a piece of the rifts universe that can be either good or evil, and are purposefully written in a fashion that they exist, as BOTH, in the universe as Canon. It's which aspect your GM chooses to focus on for your games, that defines them.... in your games.

In the end .. They are all evil. The entire Coalition is evil based off the decisions of its leadership. Sure you can have "some good guys" but they are not in position of influence or power enough to make the changes needed to show the Coalition in a positive / good guy light.

And ultimately .. it does not matter how you interpret them .. because KS himself has stated they are Villains.

If the creator calls them Villains (in the same sentence does in fact not pick / choose .. he calls them all villains) then they are in fact Villains.

If the head of an organization does evil things .. an people everywhere see them as evil .. (its not the people being led) they are then evil.

If you remove those in power right now .. whats behind those evil people leading the CS ? (Yep, you guessed it ..) MORE .. evil people .. There is a hook line / sinker to the effect of removing those in power right now .. You would have to remove those in power, as well as those directly under them in power .. just to have a small % chance , that the 3x removed from power individuals do in fact not lean twords evil in themselves ..

THATS .. how evil the leadership is .. And thus the entire CS is.

Lenwen wrote:If the head of an organization does evil things .. an people everywhere see them as evil .. (its not the people being led) they are then evil.

If you remove those in power right now .. whats behind those evil people leading the CS ? (Yep, you guessed it ..) MORE .. evil people .. There is a hook line / sinker to the effect of removing those in power right now .. You would have to remove those in power, as well as those directly under them in power .. just to have a small % chance , that the 3x removed from power individuals do in fact not lean twords evil in themselves ..

THATS .. how evil the leadership is .. And thus the entire CS is.

Possibly, but we can't say for certain what would happen if the top tier of CS Command was removed.
The soldiers as a rule are Good/Selfish, just like the rest of the population.
Emperor Karl is Diabolic.
Joseph Prosek (Head of Propaganda) is aberrant.
General Cabot is Aberrant.
Generall Ross Underhill is Anarchist... which is better than Evil, but he's still a "fanatical human supremacist," so it's not by much.
Colonel Thaddius Lyboc is Miscreant

All of which goes along with your overall point, but I'm not sure who's underneath those people.
If no more than that are listed, then that just leaves us with a big question-mark as to their nature.