Page 5 of 17

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:53 pm
by Sureshot
In the end they are evil even if at the start the Cs had good intentions. If and it's a truly big IF they CS manages to defeat all the evil non-human and human factions. Those in power will not suddenly become altrustic and give it up. You can damn well bet the Proseks and their followers are going to keep all the power they currently have. Even if it means turning on their own people if they have to. Anyone tries to take it away from them they will be framed, jailed or killed off. To ensure that nothing threathens their precious hold on power. At least the Splugorth are evil because of their nature and because they are evil. The CS leadership is simply the same in human form. It's one thing to be evil when one is surronded by enemies on all sides/ It's another to act the same way when any and all major threats have been neuralized. The citizens themselves I think are evil to a small extent as well imo. If one is willing to give up and all rights to be protected. Never question for fear of losing that protection I think makes one evil. There a scene in band of brothers where there a concentration camp located outside of village or town. The citizens tried to pull the "we never knew" BS. The America army declared martial law in that area and made the citizens work and clean up the concentration camp. They knew but as long as it was non-german citizens and their bellies were full. They turned a blind eye. To me the Cs citizens are just like that.

My games the CS are terrifying. I don't pull punches. No PG political correctness. They will kill and murder their own to hold onto to their power. The soldiers will gun down D-bees. Act like a actual Fascist regime and not the toned down one PB is forced to put into their rpg. Want to play the rare good aligned CS squad. Good luck. If words of mouth gets out that the squad is even questioning their orders to kill D-bees it's as good as a death setence. The CS secret service begins spying on you. The squad gets the most dangerous assignments. Thry always get older tech and when they want it new tech is always out of stock. Backup and support either never shows up or at the last minute. Promotions are rare and few and need to be backed up with evidence of the squad following orders and killing D-bees. Those that question too much are given long and extended "vacations" never to be seen again.

Lenwen wrote: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.


Not to mention with those in power evil and corrupt. surronded by those who feel the same way. The "good guys" have to work in secret. Or are jailed, intimidated or murdered by the CS secret service.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:52 pm
by Shark_Force
eliakon wrote:
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....


do you have a date on the establishment of lazlo? or their history? it is doing fine now. it may not have been doing great when the CS was established. how about the colorado baronies, tolkeen, etc? just because they're doing fine now, doesn't mean they were doing fine before. the CS is a gigantic target, and has also cleared out a substantial area of major threats. i'm not saying they're necessary (we don't know), and i'm definitely not saying they aren't evil (their leadership is, and i'd say the population is generally selfish - the good alignments include too many "never" statements to fit with the general CS population, though undoubtedly a few are good people). but they may very well have actually contributed (willingly or unwillingly) to the ability of all the other nations around them to survive, simply by manufacturing enough weapons to allow other people to scrounge up enough gear to arm an actual militia rather than having 2-3 guys with golden age weapons and armour that are about to fall apart, and by creating zones of comparative safety just outside their borders because you know that there are probably not going to be monters coming out of CS territory, plus regular CS patrols are at least more likely to shoot the giant demon in the area than they are to shoot you as long as you don't look too inhuman from 500 feet up in the air.

probably most of the companies that exist depend on the CS too - consider that the CS is probably one of the main reasons wilks is around. who else can buy millions of electronic components per year to fund their research into laser weaponry. NG is practically inside their borders now, and was never really far outside of their borders. do you really think NG set up there without considering the protection from demons and monsters that being near to the CS offers?

and then consider the legitimate threats that the CS *does* actually keep in check. people talk about how they create enemies that go to places like the federation of magic, but let's just stop and consider that for a moment; how many people does dunscon actually have on his side? his federation is frankly kinda crap compared to the CS. and it isn't exactly full of people who would be your friendly neighbours if they weren't busy plotting the destruction of the CS. the fact that dunscon is busy working out how to kill the CS means that he's not busy planning how to destroy lazlo, or the city of dweomer.

or consider the vampires. you notice how they're very busily pretending to not be a threat in the region the CS controls? notice how they're not even a little bit timid about presenting themselves as a major threat on the other end of the vampire kingdoms? do you really think that's just coincidence that they haven't been actively invading territory near the CS and expanding their vampire kingdoms? i mean, you'd think that in their squabbles, one of them would have realized the advantage that can be gained from the millions of humans to the north? if one vampire kingdom managed to add even a few hundred thousand humans, just think how much larger their vampire army could be. and yet, none of them are headed that way. every last one of them agrees that it is best if the CS just thinks the "vampire kingdoms" are full of nothing but roaming packs of wild vampires. none of them are willing to risk expanding into CS territory.

just because they're evil doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of them. though i would agree that just because some good came from them, that doesn't make them not evil. the world would probably be a better place if the coalition states was a place like lazlo or tolkeen (before they allied themselves with demons). but it might actually be a worse place if they weren't there as well. it's hard to say.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:41 pm
by Q99
A whole lot of survival of Rifts Earth is balancing the various bad forces against each other :)

I mean, the *Splugorth* are a bad side, I believe there's little doubt, but at the same time they frighten a number of other forces from acting up too much, and actively fight Vampires, Naut'yll, and similar. Chibola stays low-key because it doesn't want the attention. They try and keep Naruni away. They are against Apocalypse Beasts. Etc..

With the CS, they fight the Xiticix, random demons and monsters have no doubt gone down in number due to their efforts, and they're going to take the brunt of the hit of the Minion War.

Rifts is an interesting setting in that many of the big guns are evil, but good feels like it has a solid chance, because the evil sides have to watch each other just as much as they do good, while good can work together better.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:55 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Q99 wrote:A whole lot of survival of Rifts Earth is balancing the various bad forces against each other :)

I mean, the *Splugorth* are a bad side, I believe there's little doubt, but at the same time they frighten a number of other forces from acting up too much, and actively fight Vampires, Naut'yll, and similar. Chibola stays low-key because it doesn't want the attention. They try and keep Naruni away. They are against Apocalypse Beasts. Etc..

With the CS, they fight the Xiticix, random demons and monsters have no doubt gone down in number due to their efforts, and they're going to take the brunt of the hit of the Minion War.

Rifts is an interesting setting in that many of the big guns are evil, but good feels like it has a solid chance, because the evil sides have to watch each other just as much as they do good, while good can work together better.


Well said!
:ok:

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:06 pm
by Nightmask
Q99 wrote:A whole lot of survival of Rifts Earth is balancing the various bad forces against each other :)

I mean, the *Splugorth* are a bad side, I believe there's little doubt, but at the same time they frighten a number of other forces from acting up too much, and actively fight Vampires, Naut'yll, and similar. Chibola stays low-key because it doesn't want the attention. They try and keep Naruni away. They are against Apocalypse Beasts. Etc..

With the CS, they fight the Xiticix, random demons and monsters have no doubt gone down in number due to their efforts, and they're going to take the brunt of the hit of the Minion War.

Rifts is an interesting setting in that many of the big guns are evil, but good feels like it has a solid chance, because the evil sides have to watch each other just as much as they do good, while good can work together better.


Unfortunately good DOESN'T work together, like at all. The Tolkeen war alone is ample evidence of that, no other good made any effort to stop the CS's genocidal war on them. The most you got was some Cyber-Knights helping and most of that was just evacuating refugees instead of trying to actively stop the massacre in the first place. Good is written as being EXTREMELY dumb in Rifts, bordering on Too Stupid To Live.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:20 pm
by Shark_Force
yeah, that does bother me.

at first, i was like "they should've just done what lazlo said and left".

then i actually thought about it for more than a second and was like "wait, no... those are their homes and their livelihoods. they shouldn't just be expected to leave without a fight, and it isn't a reasonable response for lazlo to tell them that when they clearly did not have an unwinnable war ahead of them"

although you could argue that by the time the CS invaded, tolkeen actually *was* allied with demons, and was not strictly good any more. but then, they did that because nobody else would freaking help them.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:17 am
by Sureshot
Then again it's always been a problem with the way the good factions have been presented from day one imo. Stubborn independant and untrusting of each other to a almost stupid degree. Yet the evil faction seems to get along fine. Or work together at the very least. The good faction all seem to suffer paranoia. Or written that way so they can never unite and to ensure that Rifts never ends.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:24 am
by Tor
possible pre-Rifts mascot for people in the CS Burbs who want to become citizens, insert pics of grunts using lat pulldowns and leg presses.

with the help of Prosek's generosity...

you can become a Coalition Champion

great at beating up necromancers (Taker) and voodoo priests (Warrior)

flatline wrote:By quoting just the snippet, you made it look like I was saying that the CS were bad guys because they treat certain kinds of people badly.

I quoted "they're a bunch of guys who categorically treat certain kinds of people badly" which did not even include "bad", so I don't see how it conveys the idea you were calling them bad, when you were not.

flatline wrote:you totally misrepresented what I said and I don't appreciate it. People will see your post, see the out of context quote of a partial sentence attributed to me, and may believe that I made the argument that the CS are absolutely bad guys when in reality I did no such thing.
Given that I only quoted you calling them "guys" and not "bad guys" I'm just not following this.

Just because you're a dude does not make you a bad enough dude to be a Bad Dude.

Lenwen wrote:You find a direct quote from Kevin himself directly stating the CS ARE THE VILLAINS .. (here is a hint, he created the entire game if he calls them the villains .. that means yes they are thee bad guys .. )

The issue is that he also calls them heroes in CWC and HoH. So they are simultaneously heroes and villains from different perspectives. It's not like "They are THE villains of Rifts" or something. They are instead, the villains of a certain book (Coalition Overkill) and subjectively villains within many campaigns where people might play D-bees or Mages.

Nightmask wrote:Man, you're wrong on so many levels I can't begin to describe it. The books explicitly state that the CS's goals is the extermination of ALL non-humans and magic-users without exception, meaning genocide is their goal.

I'd hold up for debate whether killing magic-users is genocide, as (barring those with inborn magic abilities) it's mostly an occupational choice. If the occupation of target was 'slaver' then would killing all slavers be genocide?

As for exterminating all non-humans, Jorick helpfully provided where we could find the fun Drogue Christmas story, so I am wondering if you could relocate where you read this so we can review the book's page.

Is it possible you are remembering the goal of a certain NPC within the Coalition and ascribing this to be a motive of the entire CS?

Nightmask wrote:There is no evidence that they CS isn't genocidal because they've already shown that they are in fact genocidal.

I would say that Drogue has shown that he is (or at least is engaging in genocidal acts or attempts), but a single person (even if an authority figure) being that does not describe the entire empire.

Nightmask wrote:The Burbs certainly aren't evidence that they aren't, and what you quote certainly isn't.

The burden of proof is moreso on showing they are genocidal than proving they aren't.

Nightmask wrote:The only' too far' part of what happened in Tolkeen with the death camps was the active torture of the victims of their genocidal war first, it ran the risk of making the victims look sympathetic to the masses if they ever found out unlike just nuking them or 'simply' slaughtering them.
I agree this is a plausibly reason, rather than genocide against D-bees being taboo, that the camp would be looked down upon.

That and, the camp also included human sympathizers, some of whom were probably not magic users, and thus would receive more empathy.

Nightmask wrote:Rifts Earth is NOT such a nightmare anymore, it's not Chaos Earth it's an Earth where nations and city/states have been able to form all over the place so it's a world fairly past the nightmare and waking up.

Is it possible that we can agree that North America is more stable in Rifts than it is in Chaos Earth, but that it's still much rougher than Beyond the Supernatural or

Heroes Unlimited, both of which are terrifying compared to our real world?

Debates might be had about comparing the quality of life in Nightbane to Rifts. I think Nightbane is still probably better off. Moloch's genicodal desires are bound to be countered by life-loving Nightlords like Lilith. Skraypers might be a tie for Nightbane though. The Tarlock are oppressive masters but at least they allow you to live in peace as slaves instead of getting eaten by Xiticix.

Rifts might be on par with Splicers or Systems Failure or Dead Reign in terms of post-apocalyptic hard-to-survive-ness.

Dead Reign seems more dangerous to play in than Rifts because the people are so normal. But if you look at Rifts Earth through the eyes of an unequipped DR-like vagabond, it's just as worse, if not more so, in most places.

Nightmask wrote:Prosek is also explicitly stated to actively admire Hitler and simply thinks his methods were flawed but intends to make no such mistakes in his campaign of genocide with the eager backing of his uneducated citizens.

I would like to reread the part where Karl admires Hitler for his genocide against humans rather than other aspects like his ability to manipulate a populace in the way he wants.

Nightmask wrote:It's also ridiculous in the extreme to try and downplay what Prosek and the CS has done by saying he wasn't gone as far as Hitler when he's definitely taken things at least that far if not farther. When you've been actively engaging in the murder of innocent beings for decades wholesale you're as blood-soaked and genocidal as it gets.


If you have some book stats on estimated CS death counts for us to compare to the estimated death counts in WW2, we could certainly analyze the fatalities further.

I do not agree that the wholesale murder of innocents, while certainly bloodsoaked, is necessarily genocidal.

Nightmask wrote:The CS is just as evil as Splugorthian Atlantis, an example of 'He Who Fights Monsters' as they've descended into evil and no longer have any goodness about them if they ever had it in the first place.

Karl and Joseph are evil and Splynncryth is merely selfish, but as for ascribing alignments to the entirety of these nations, I dunno. Whatever your problems with the CS, they are not eating sentient beings for fun, so I think Atlantis may win out in terms of 'slightly more offensive'.

Shark_Force wrote:it doesn't explain why the guy who teaches people about history and free thought is an enemy of humanity.
Free thought is dangerous. Studying pre-Rifts stuff might lead people into reading things which glorify magic (like Harry Potter or Sabrina the Teen-Age Witch) and trick innocent youths into trying to emulate them. The un-prepared should be protected from dangerous ideas that might corrupt them.

The CS is not opposed to the study of history or free thought. They simply control that study (just like they control access to robots in their population centers) like anything else dangerous, so that only people of good moral character, and who have been prepared to process the information with an informed perspective, can make the choice to consent to that study.

These rogues also tend to want to do dangerous things, like teach people how to read. Reading allows people to engage in scroll-reading and become agents of bringing forth dark magicks. Psi-Stalkers and Psi-Hounds can track actual beings bringing magic into the CS, but I don't know what their capabilities are regarding the ferreting out of dangerous stored-magic like Talismans or Scrolls.

Being able to read is like carrying around a stick of dynamite, it only takes a spark and a lot of people could get hurt.

Shark_Force wrote:it doesn't explain why the guy who wants to uncover the technology of the golden age and share it to everyone is an enemy of humanity.
The technology of the Golden Age belongs to Humanity. By sharing it with
"everyone" you give access to GAtech to non-humans and imbalance power against human interests.

Shark_Force wrote:it doesn't explain why the d-bees they interact with every day in the 'burbs without said beings attempting to devour anyone's body or soul are enemies of humanity.
Even if someone interacts with you peacefully so far, they could still be plotting against you, waiting for the right moment. These are still invaders taking up human living space.

Shark_Force wrote:no good aligned person should have a problem with killing vampires or demons or even xiticix (which are not strictly evil).
Not sure I agree with this, I think some good-aligned people could. Demons can merely have selfish alignments and might get their kicks through non-lethal means.

Vampires can even have good alignments as of VKrevised.

Shark_Force wrote:but principled and scrupulous are not generally speaking alignments where you can say "oh, well, yeah, that was a horrible cruel unjustified thing to do, but i'm okay with that as long as it doesn't happen *too* often and good stuff is also being done."
Which isn't applicable if the person thinks it IS justified. What some see as cruelty might be something someone views as regrettable but necessary.

Wise_Owl wrote:I have a feeling if the Coalition was say, a group of Genocidal Elves devoted to defending Elves from marauding menaces, including purging those invaders known as 'Humans' they would be seen alot less sympathetically by alot of people.
Well yeah, because these elves would be genocidal, and the Coalition isn't, it just has some genocidal folk living in it.

Wise_Owl wrote:many also forget that as far as the CS is concerned, every one of us, with our literacy, knowledge of ancient history, and failure to adhere to CS doctrine, would be a criminal probably best 're-educted' or disposed of with a swift shot to the head.
Is there any evidence of the CS shooting people merely for thought-crime, for knowing what they shouldn't?

I thought it was for more blatent stuff like finding restricted literature or you trying to teach those things to others.

I may not easily sympathize with their attitudes, but that may be because I don't live in a world where reading allows any guy to use a piece of paper to launch a bolt of fire which can instantly kill me or control my mind or summon a demon to eat my dog. Reading makes paper into weapons.

Think of people who want fire-arms registered and people allowed a license to be given a waiting period, training, psych screening, etc. Then realize even then, that these often require guns be used in restricted areas and disassembled when not in use. Concealed carry requires a special permit, and such.

Then realize how much easier it is to conceal a slip of paper than it is to conceal a gun. Plus this piece of paper can fire something dozens of times more damaging than a bullet.

Wise_Owl wrote:isn't there a Vampire kingdom whose residents recieve extensive health-care, protection and so forth in return for donating a small portion of blood to sustain the vampire population? Libertarian jokes about taxes not-withstanding, sounds pretty 'moral' to me ;)
Agreed. A debate over the benefits of living in Mexico City vs Chi-Town would be interesting. A central difference in favor of CS might be that in MC: a vamp is probably only going to get a slap on the wrist for putting his hand through your rib cage if irritated. If a monster did that to a human, it's going to tend to get investigated.

Wise_Owl wrote:there are also the Cactus people. And elves. And Zambrak and humans from other worlds and humans who are psychics and mutations and Dog-boys and so forth and so on. The genocide is a non-justifiable response. There decisions are actually economically and politically negative in their affect on their people.
The CS is not committing genocide against humans who are psychics, or against dog-boys, or against all human mutants (intangibles and psi-stalkers are explicitly tolerated, others may be too).

Any evidence of CS committing genocide against Cacti/Elves/Zembahks? Slaying illegal immigrants doesn't seem like a genocide to me, seems like a very assertive border policy.

Shark_Force wrote:if a significant portion of your population are good aligned, some of those are going to be people in the know. people who can't stand by quietly letting you commit murder against innocent people while still being good. people who know other people and are going to mention these things.
Being good doesn't necessarily mean you will feel an unavoidable compulsion to share your opinions when doing so creates a risk of being labelled a subversive. The "always help others" bit is balanced by how, in trying to help person A, you may endanger person B.

Shark_Force wrote:most people are simply neither good nor evil.
I agree, I am fine with assuming the "good and selfish" majority of the CS may be majority selfish. Even though "good" got first mention.

Shark_Force wrote:they aren't going to consistently put the needs of others as equal or above their own (good)

Where do any of Palladium's good alignments mention that you need to do this? It is possible to always help others without considering their needs to be as important as your own.

Shark_Force wrote:they also aren't going to be happy to inflict harm on others for fun or profit (evil).
Aberrents might dispute this includes them.

Lenwen wrote:Default setting is Rifts Earth North America. As in .. THATS .. the area the game is focused up (in case you were unaware of that) Having stated such.. The Coalition are THEE "Bad guys" of the default setting.

So the Xiticix, Kingdom of Dunscon, Grim Reapers and Soul Harvesters are just chopped liver then? The first 2 have been around since the outset, the latter 2 in books 10/12.

The CS being a bigger more established force doesn't make them "the" bad guys. The magic-friendly supernatural-befriending Erin Tarn even summarized the FoM as "a cult of necromancers", "creatures of evil" whose "goal in life is to satisfy their own selfish desires". Tarn is persecuted by the CS far more heavily than the FoM, and in spite of this, she is not this critical of them. That even a subversive like Tarn has worse things to say about the FoM than about the CS should tell something about which is worse.

Nightmask wrote:the CS's stated goals and practices are clearly with the goal of genocide in mind
Which stated goal and/or practice?

Nightmask wrote:it's patently impossible for them to remove all non-human life from earth without performing genocide
That is simply false (plenty of open Rifts to chuck them through without killing them)

Plus the CS has never expressed a desire to remove "all non-human" life from earth. Where would they get hamburgers, cannibalism?

Nightmask wrote:their war with Tolkeen was clearly genocidal
I do not think we have achieved consensus regarding that view point, I adamently disagree with it. WB 11 promo said Karl was ready to launch a campaign of genocide. Pg 21 clarified that the CS does have policies of genocide, and that prior to that, Joseph 1 from Chi-Town did such a campaign against the Federation of Magic (as retribution for FoM attackign them first)

Overkill promo mentions certain officers bring genocide (ie Drogue) but a rogue officer playing genocide without permission from the head of the forces doesn't make the war itself genocidal.

Nightmask wrote:the other generals were just as committed to genocide in the war as Drogue

Where are generals mentioned as being 'as committed to genocide' as Drogue?

Nightmask wrote:Cosmo Knights would certainly consider destroying the CS a good thing
It's plausible more than one would, but if you mean most/all by this, I wouldn't agree. The CS play a vital role in protecting humans and I don't think a wise Cosmo-Knight would want to leave that kind of power vacuum.

Nightmask wrote:there are other threats like the Xiticix that would need to be taken out first
Them and many others. I guess maybe if the CS were teleported into the middle of a CCW planet and started killing Noro mid-song then a Cosmo-Knight would fight them, but barring such an invasion of utopia, naw.

Nightmask wrote:it's not even remotely making the CS look less evil than the Nazis

Book 5 has an officer giving his anti-tank pistol to a D-bee to give them the confidence to escape their death camp. Do we have any inclination that a Nazi did something like this? If not, then I do think the CS is being painted as better for merit of having someone as good as that.

Nightmask wrote:nor would there be any reason for Kevin to try and make a group deliberately patterned after the Nazis and whose leader admires what Hitler did look anything but just as evil if not moreso than the Nazis.
and yet, he proposes playing them as heroes in CWC, so no. I think there is a Reductio ad Hiterum which occurs in the CS, just because Karl admired Hitler, everyone immediately makes comparisons to Nazis as a first resort in most fields. The use of skulls being a good example: we completely ignore that many regiments of the United States Marine Corps use skulls on their emblems.

Nightmask wrote:The entire thing is to show the depths of evil the CS embodies, to the point of turning on and trying to conquer by military force Quebec when they finally seceded even though it was a human-dominated nation they'd been allied with for decades and would never have been a threat to them.
Can't say that for certain. Anyone can be a threat. These guys showed a lack of consideration for human life through reckless use of Juicer technology. They did so in secret without proper forestudy. They didn't use it responsible like Karl did when he added CS Juicers in the military.

A major problem with them was their rejection of Psi-Hounds. Even assuming they still used Psi-Stalkers, this greatly limits their ability to keep magic out of their territory. They endangered their citizens by not properly protecting them from shape-shifters and mind control and concealed weapons. Their deviation from policy was intolerable rebellion, not just against the Coalition, but against the Humanity they are charged to protect.

Nightmask wrote:the CS is not grey, it's as black as it gets.
Their armor, perhaps. If you mean morally, your expression implies nothing blacker. If you think the CS is as bad as the Kingdom of Dunscon... oy.

Jorick wrote:read Siege on Tolkeen 2: Coalition Overkill starting at page 16

(Chapter entitled A Rising Evil) re. Drogue's rise to command and intentions

relative to the expectations of the rest of the CS military.

Excellent consult. Drogue has a "sick" vision of genocide (against Tolkeen) as do

most some (what portion is unclear) like-minded members of "the Second Wave".

A majority (nearly all) entail mass murder (even entire innocent populations, or

using concentration camps) however they will only 'perhaps' do a Holocaust (ie

genocide) so the majority may not actually take the step over the grey line that

exists between the mass murder of towns full of innocent populations in

concentration camps and outright genocide.

As the proportion not willing to take part in genocide is 'substantial' (including

'numerous' officers), it seems like a divided enough nation not to call it genocide

as a whole.

However, when every Tolkeen household conceals demon-summoning magic

circles linked to hell-pits (page 17) you have to be destructive, to protect the

people!

Nightmask wrote:the CS was engaged in a war of genocide against a peaceful

nation/state and WILL eventually kill all of them too

The CS is not indicated as interested in chasing refugees to other dimensions, so I

think 'all of them' is a bit strong. I don't consider Tolkeen "peaceful", personally.

Allowing shadowy dragons (maybe some even eat humans?) to establish a city so

close to Chi-Town doesn't seem too peaceful to me.

Nightmask wrote:they had every right to try to defend themselves against the

unprovoked efforts of the CS to kill every man, woman, and child in their

city/state simply because they existed.

Overkill 17: "there is a substantial element within the Coalition that simply will not

willingly take part in .. butchery of innocent women and children, be they inhuman

or not"

Nightmask wrote:the CS was the deadly monster killing all before it

"all" sounds like as rather 'take no prisoners' attitude for an army which

was taking prisoners

Jorick wrote:The way I interpret the canon is thus: Lazlo is the the foil for the

"bad guys" in North America. Where the CS and The federation behave in certain

ways, Lazlo behaves the opposite way.

They have more in common than we might like to think.

The Federation is a rather big group. We might find that Lazlo has more in

common with Dweomer or Stormspire than it does with Dunscon, but those 2

cities are still not without their faults.

Tarn (staunch Lazlo defender) describes it in Traversing (RMBp149) "all

creatures are welcome". Does that sound SAFE? These guys, rather than close a

rift to protect earth from incoming monsters, would rather 'harness' it as an energy

source. Their head peacekeeper is a Wolfen, known to be a warlike race, no

matter what praise Tarn wants to heap on him.

Lazlo has dangerous priorities. It is the "Free State of Lazlo". Tarn

describes both the Congress and Council as being "dedicated to freedom and the

betterment of all life". It sounds nice and pretty, but when you look closely,

freedom is prioritized (first mention) over bettering life. Also: no distinction is

made as to WHICH lives to better, so apparently bettering the lives of dangerous

things like demons is seen as equally important as bettering the lives of humans.

Never mind that some lives are more vulnerable than others, or some lives thrive

on destroying or controlling other life-forms.

In what ways, other than spending resources to fight the Xiticix, do we know

Lazlo to be more moral than Dweomer or Stormspire?

eliakon wrote:there is a lot of other text citations to support the claim that the CS was genocidal

before.

I would not say 'a lot'.

Joseph the First did a retributionary genocide against the Magic Zone as a

defensive deterrent. It was entirely justified.

The CS is described as having (vague) genocidal policies, but it is not clarified

what those are toward, so those policies may only apply to extreme examples,

like vs Xiticix, which is no worse than Lazlo.

eliakon wrote:For all we know the CS is perfectly fine with mass exterminations (There is

support for this in the CS Saviors of Humanity book

[url=https://palladium-store.com/1001/product/889-Rifts-Coalition-States-

Heroes-of-Humanity.html]Heroes of Humanity[/url] says it is on pre-order, do

you have an advance copy of the book or something to know what's in it? Or is

this based on the store description? I don't see anything about extermination in the

descrip, actually seems to treat the CS pretty neutrally.

eliakon wrote:the CS has already engaged in genocidal actions (Campaign

against the FoM is explicitly called genocidal)

The FoM War began January 12 PA and lasted under a year, and the 2-year

genocide campaign led by General Joseph happened after the war ended, so it

would have ended during 15 PA at the latest.

Although the Coalition States did exist since 1 PA, it's not entirely clear whether

we should attribute the Bloody Campaign as being the actions of the CS, or the

actions of a (possibly as 'rogue as Drogue') single general. Do we know if

Joseph's actions were sanctioned? Per WB16p10 preceding the attack on Chi-

Town, the 'general' Prosek was merely a Brigadier General, the lowest-ranking of

generals if the CS at the time reflected the hierarchy we see on CWCp50.

Outranked by Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, Generals, and General of the

Army. It is possible that the lack of prefix meant he became

Major>Lieutenant>full General, but I can't remember if this was directly

confirmed. Even if he was a full General, does that mean he was General or the

Army? We know that Drogue is an example that a "General" can take acts that go

beyond or against the leadership of the CS. Joseph was not the CS at the time of

the genocide.

Joe merely killed 30 000. Over 11 000 people died in the intial attack on Chi-

Town alone, which took less than 2 days. Estimates start at 50 000 when

considering non-citizens, with a minimum of 12 500 non-human victims. A 50%

success rate doesn't seem that bad considering how hard it is to figure out who

mages are.

We have to keep in mind here: Lone Star was not discovered until 68 PA

(WB13p16) and Psi-Hounds were not developed until 77PA (WB13p22). The

genocide against the Magic Zone happened over 60 years before they had Psi-

Hounds to easily find mages for them. This means relying exclusively on mages

(who they are justifiably mistrustful of now at this point), normal psionics (with all

the downfalls of ISP costs) or Psi-Stalkers. I'm unclear whether Psi-Stalkers

were a part of the CS at this point at significant nubmers compared to the 15%

(WB13p157) of the army they currently are. If they were still mostly wild clans at

this point then the CS may not have had the means besides relying on whispered

rumors to kill mages.

Per FOMp11 over 37 000 CS soldiers died in the process of achieving these 30

000 executions. The minimum 20 000 "warriors" on the side of FoM who died

don't matter to me, as many might have been demons who don't even die when

they're killed, they just zip back to reincarnation. The FoM was so bad that you

even has wizards and D-Bees and cyber-knights aiding the CS during the war.

The 15 000 innocents that were executed during Joseph's campaign are clearly

less than the number of innocent people who died on Chi-Town's side during the

initial attack, much less the months-long war.

eliakon wrote: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.

If your statement is based on some exact text then I would point out "who lives

there". IE stop living there (leave, stop crowding the CS) and you are no longer a

target of extermination. Telling an enemy to get off land you have a claim to under

threat of deadly force is not genocide.

Nightmask wrote:Lazlo was not being used to demonstrate the 'correct' course of action,

NOBODY other than Tolkeen was engaging in the correct course of action.


Assuming there is actually a fixed singular 'the correct' course of action, why was

Tolkeen but not Lazlo engaging in it?

Nightmask wrote:The rest were all acting contrary to their interests or stated

goals (like the Federation of Magic's goal of destroying the CS)

I don't see how. Dweomer and Stormspire and Magestar had no interest in

destroying the CS. This was mostly just Dunscon's kingdom, and he was engaging

in sabotage against the CS, he's just not stupid enough to engage in all-out

warfare because it would alert them to his presence and trigure retributions that

would compromise his forces.

Nightmask wrote:because the CS was designated winner and anything and anyone that would have

otherwise gotten involved and brought about their loss were glued to idiot balls in

order for them to stay out and leave it as just a fight between the CS and Tolkeen

even though realistically that would have never happened.

Others did not entirely stayed out, they helped establish places for refugees to

live, they just realized that engaging the CS was unwise and that Tolkeen

should've just relocated, something not as difficult when you're a city of mages.

Alistair kept the FoM out of it as payback for Tolkeen seceding from the

Federation. If he attacked the CS too much, it would compromise their ability to

damage Tolkeen, that's why he waits until the end when they're guaranteed beat

before pouncing on weakened/distracted/overconfident CS.

Nightmask wrote:Dropping nuclear weapons on civilian targets isn't an inherently evil act, in an all-

out war like WWII it was necessary in order to save lives overall on both sides of

the war. We've just worked harder since then to make it less socially acceptable.

The CS however has no problems doing so since their goal is the killing of

everyone without exception.


Source on that last bit? This may be the goal of Drogue's tactics, but it doesn't

make it the goal of the CS. That's why Drogue's tactics were frowned upon. You

say the CS has no problems with it, so then why were people frowning at

Drogue's scorched-earth policies?

Nightmask wrote:The CS went to war with Tolkeen with the explicit purpose

of killing EVERYONE

Which page says everyone?

Nightmask wrote:tried nuking them first so they wouldn't have to get their

hands dirty or lose resources killing them the old-fashioned way.

The CS didn't want to feed the living beings in their army swiftly to the grave,

those monsters!

Why stop at banning nukes? Killing by vibro-blade is far more old-fashioned and

makes for dirty hands. Those dishonorable guys. The US army should ban guns

and fight by sword, or even bare hands, like real men.

Nightmask wrote:It was a war of genocide
A rogue general doing

unsanctioned genocidal operations does not make the entire war a genocide.

Nightmask wrote:they wanted nothing from Tolkeen but the death of

everyone
and there is NO room to claim otherwise.

Except, y'know, where the purpose of the Siege on Tolkeen has actually been

stated, with objectives other than "kill everyone" being presented as the

Coalition's central aim.

Overkill 7:
"an all-out drive to secure a safe place for humanity's next generation"
"reclaiming the wilderness and pushing back the forces of magic"

Consider some of the prevaling rhetoric in Overkill:
    page 13: "we mean to send them back to wherever they came from. Those

    who put up a fight, we'll gladly send to their grave"

    page 14: "Get out and good riddance. Stay, and you die."

The policy is not 'kill everyone'. It's "kill those who resist relocation"

The harshest thing I have seen regarding CS tactics, I just found on page 14 as

well. But even this is not as bad as some let on about the Coalition/States

At the Tolkeen front, nothing short of complete genocide is acceptable to

the invading Coalition Army.


Discerning the difference of meaning between this and what people are saying in

this thread requires examining context:

1) "at the Tolkeen front" meaning it does not reflect attitudes elsewhere, just in the

heat of a war against people who have not relocated when they've been asked to

do so for years

2) "the invading Coalition Army" meaning it is not the policy of the Army as a

whole (just the invading green troops desperate for survival or picked for

fanatacism) and the attitudes of the Army do not reflect that of the States in

entirety (attitudes between army and civilians can differ)

3) a large portion of the invaders on the Tolkeen front are not even CS citizens,

they are outsiders trying to win citizenship through military service. As such, they

do not actually reflect the attitudes of the Coalition, but rather, of non-Coalition

'Burb residents and similar who are going to be more bigoted since they suffer on

the front lines of supernatural and magical harassment. People raised properly in

the Coalition are far more civilized and honorable.

Nightmask wrote: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.

Which page of which book are we ignoring which says the STATES are

genociding everyone in Tolkeen?

Jorick wrote:you say that they're pure evil.
I don't think Nightmask

used the adjective "pure". It is possible that NM may describe the CS as an evil

which could be impure (ie containing some non-evil) when saying evil.

eliakon wrote: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

Joseph Prosek did a genocidal campaign. We haven't yet established he did so

with CS approval. If it was unsanctioned then we couldn't blame the CS of 14PA

for his actions any more than we can blame the CS of 106PA for Drogue's.

eliakon wrote: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.


IE they tried to take out the leadership of mages/supernaturals and skip

annihilating the farmers. Destroy the city without destroying the towns. Seems

pretty admirable to me.

eliakon wrote: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.

I'm sure this had nothing to do with guerilla warfare being conducted within these

towns.

You really think the CS would have a problem with allowing civilians to flee from

their path if they weren't constantly being attacked by dragons/demons

masquerading as citizens and attacking them unawares?

The failures of the CS newbies getting caught in town-traps is a big reason why

guys like Drogue started rising in rank, since they were keeping soldiers alive by

being ruthless.

Another thing to keep in mind (per CW2p69) is that "entire populations of villages

and towns on the front-lines have risen up and joined the formal Tolkeen military"

So in this case, these towns being wiped out are not exactly non-combatants.

eliakon wrote:there is no arguing that the CS is explicitly genocidal.


Sure there is, since CS stands for Coalition STATES, representing its entirety.

We can agree that elements are genocidal, the problem is when elements

becomes States.

Nightmask wrote:it's patently false to try and argue that the CS isn't guilty of genocide


Blatently?

The CS isn't. Joseph and his campaigners were, but they were a Chi-Town

retribution group, not necessarily reflecting an official decision by the States.

Elements within the CS (Drogue, front-line troops) are described as desiring

genocide. The CS has some policies relating to it.

However I do not see anywhere proof that the States itself has accomplished a

genocide, and I think you need to accomplish it to be guilty of it, otherwise you'd

merely be guilty of wanting/attempting genocide.

Nightmask wrote:or to try and argue that their policies aren't explicitly

genocidal.

I accept that the CS has unidentified-target genocidal policies which may merely

be Xiticix-genocide like Lazlo. As the topic is whether or not they are bad guys,

and even the Torontonian good guys are doing bug-genocide, merely having some

kind of genocide doesn't seem that qualify them.

If you want to argue for any kind of morally reprehensible sort of genocide with a

particular target, more evidence is needed.

Nightmask wrote: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.

So far as I know, only Joseph's Magic Zone campaign has been explicitly called a

genocide. Where has the Tolkeen Siege been called one?

Nightmask wrote: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.


I have only seen it clearly said in the books that they have genocidal policies. Not

that the genocidal policies are regarding ALL non-humans, or that they intend to

wipe out all magic users. They take prisoners and are content with telling mages

to jump through a Rift and never come back, so that seems like securing one's

territory, not genocide.

Keep in mind that all kinds of innocent people were killed in the Chi-Town's

burbs by an army of winged demons that a well-meaning Shifter

ACCIDENTALLY let loose. Mages are frickin' dangerous.

cosmicfish wrote:"the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular

racial, political, or cultural group"

Can you give an example of people who do not belong to a racial group? People

who do not belong to a cultural group?

If "you have a species" means a racial group and "you live in a place" is a cultural

group, then all killing is genocide, and the term loses any unique meaning and

simply becomes a synonym for kill.

We need to establish some reasonable boundaries as to what acts in Rifts we

define as genocide. I think we should solely look at what examples are given of

what is genocide (ie Joseph's Magic Zone campaign) rather than things like the

United Nations, which do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of writers, or people

in Rifts.

Even bleeding hearts like CCW put a 1% minimum and 200,000 population

minimum on things, attitudes as a whole probably require more significant

amounts.

Nightmask wrote:Taking prisoners doesn't constitute evidence that they aren't

genocidal, nor does securing civilian areas

More focus is needed on proof that the CS is genocidal (like the book calling the

States this, rather than sub-groups within it) instead of requests to prove an

unsourced claim wrong.

Nightmask wrote: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

CW5p102 "the Death Camps were never sanctioned by the Coalition High

Command or Emperor Prosek, neither of whom know anything about them"

If he was following policy, then policy would have sanctioned the creation of his

Death Camps.

Since they are unsanctioned, no, he is no longer following policy.

Nightmask wrote: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.

The difference is that the CS violence is focused on pushing undesirables out.

The Nazis did not directly confront undesirables with their intentions. They

rounded them out, promising them temporary inconveniences, and that they would

be returned to their lives, and then they secretly killed them.

This shows the Nazis' focus was on murder while the CS focus is on honest self-

defense. The CS openly tells undesirables to leave, and gives ample opportunity

to do so. Force is used against those who persist in remaining too close.

Nightmask wrote:you're making some awfully bad arguments trying to

downplay or outright pretend the genocidal nature and activities of the CS don't

exist

There's a difference between "activites of the CS" and "activites in the CS".

Nightmask wrote:it's laid out in no uncertain terms what the CS is and what it

is is a Human Supremacist Evil Empire

No, it is only a human-supremist empire lead by an evil-man which rests on the

shoulders of good/selfish people, of whom only a minority are evil.

Nightmask wrote:genocide of all those who work magic or are non-human as

their primary goal.

That has never been stated as a goal, much less a primary goal, of the States.

Nightmask wrote: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.

Incorrect, they may only imprison certain members of the opposition, depending

on their threat.

What people are opposing is not a genocide, it is human expansionism. Killing is

only a means to an end of human security, it is not the prime desire. The CS are

pressuring mages and D-Bees to get away so a safe human zone can exist.

Eventually they do plan to expand that to the entire planet, but they do so at a rate

which gives plenty of people to go jump through a Rift and live somewhere else if

they don't want to get in a fight.

Nightmask wrote: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'.

You are misrepresenting what happened to Larsen (not sure whether to call him

Marcus or Vincent)

You say "the vast majority of CS citizens including the military", but Larsen's

arrest only happened because a single General ordered it to happen.

Furthermore, you conveniently ignore that Karl gave him a complete pardon,

called him a hero, and (speaking on behalf of 'all the people of the CS') wished

him the best. There has been no retribution against Larsen.

Jorick wrote:The Vanguard assassinated the General, who was threatening to

expose the propaganda
Where is this detailed? Sounds cool, I need to

make a note of the page in my Mercs book.

Nightmask wrote: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'

I have bolded aspects I find questionable and would appreciate listing of citations

that back them by anyone who agrees with these views.

Nightmask wrote:The entire Tolkeen war was an act of genocide, from the first failed nuke attempts

to the very end, that's an indisputable fact.
Yet it remains disputed.

Trying to nuke the CITY of Tolkeen to remove the corrupt leadership so that the

KINGDOM of Tolkeen will surrender is not an act of genocide, it's merciful

tactics to try and spare prolonged casualties. But when kings build high walls, they

resist assassination, which leads to a siege.

Nightmask wrote:They routinely destroy smaller targets for the same goal of

genocide

Where is 'goal of genocide' or similar cited as the reason for the destruction of

smaller targets?

Cop shoots person of group A. Must be genocide against group A.

Nightmask wrote:they could finally murder the entire population of a rival

city/state.

Those who left were spared, so not entire.

Nightmask wrote:nothing you say comes from the books
and yet,

Jorick has cited books and explained how his views are shaped by them.

Nightmask wrote:the CS's genocidal activities are well covered in the books


There is a difference between CS activities being covered in books and you

calling them genocidal and the books themselves calling certain activities

genocidal. I think these lines are being blurred.

Nightmask wrote:this kind of aggression is completely normal to them.

CW2p7: "the Coalition found a reason not to attack such targets and kept its

focus on patrolling its borders. A campaign of containment and pacification rather

than all-out war, squashing small bands of rebels, and maintaining a forceful

presence throughout the center of North America."

CW2p9: "the majority of the Coalition troops are/were gree/inexperienced in

fighting magic wielding opponents, particularly in mass combat"

That doesn't sound like SoT is normal aggression for the CS to me.

Nightmask wrote:They aren't 'misunderstood', it wasn't 'rogue elements'

making them look bad

Yet you are not understanding what the books says they are versus what you built

them up as in your head. Yet we have demonstrated that Drogue-is-a-rogue and

that he is making the CS look bad.

Nightmask wrote:they are stated without a doubt to be out for total genocide

of all non-humans and magic-users on the planet
Where? Oddly I think

I've found the closest thing to evidence supporting this line of thinking (though it is

inadequate) than people promoting it...

Nightmask wrote:Tolkeen was simply their largest act of genocide to date.

The claim otherwise is directly contradicting the books.
Where in what

book is the War/Siege on Tolkeen called a genocide? As opposed to what some

have attempted to do within the context of it?

If the entire war were considered a genocide, then why bother identifying

elements within it who desire genocide or are attempting it? If the entire thing was

genocide then all would be desiring and attempting it.

Nightmask wrote: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

Larsen had been speaking out against CS policies (but not against genocide,

because there was no genocide to speak out against) regarding treatment of

mutant animals (and other non-humans) for years without being disappeared.

He was arrested for disobeying a direct order. There is no guarantee he would've

been killed for this. There's no guarantee that Karl would have sided with the

General over Colonel Larsen. Karl may well have investigated and come down

on the General for wasting CS resources for ordering to kill a non-threat.

We don't even know if Karl would have demoted Larsen over the situation.

Lenwen wrote:The Coalition are THEE preEminent power of that default

setting, an are "Villains" in Kevin's eyes as per his own words.

They are also Heroes per the books, so if being the most powerful group who act

as villains makes you "The Bad Guy" then being the most powerful group who act

as heroes should also make you "The Good Guy".

If you admit that the CS are The Good Guys then we will admit they are

simultaneously also The Bad Guys.

Jorick wrote:he not only defied orders but killed Coalition soldiers to escape


Disputing this claim. Mercs85 mentions only 1 death (Colonel Larsen's 2nd in

command, a Major) and the "killed in the shootout" does not mention the

particulars of the death. We not only do not know if Larsen killed him, we also do

not know if it was done by his 12 rescuers. He could have died by friendly fire

(maybe one of the 12 guys who got injured) or by accident himself (not thrown a

grenade far enough?)

Q99 wrote: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.

Referring to "sorcerous criminals" in Bahia does not mean the CS are classifying

all sorcerers in Bahia as criminals.

If I said "X state is a haven for gun-toting criminals" I would not necessarily be

saying that gun-toting is criminal.

Shark_Force wrote:"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

Losing the homes they built on land that was not their own does not guarantee

death for them. It makes it rougher, yes, but not impossible. The sooner you

leave, the more tents you can pack. Sell your homes to some humans who can

use them and use the credits to buy a mobile home.

Shark_Force wrote: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.

Who says it is "their homes" anyway? Earth was humanity's home for a long time.

Others came and took land that humans had claimed for centuries.

This isn't a matter of just not liking D-Bees. It is a matter of lots of them being

really powerful and killing your people lots.

The CS has always allowed D-Bees in their burbs, they just deny them citizenship

and force them outside the boundaries of their secured areas, much like the NGR,

except with more restrictions on the conditions in which they can enter (work visa

versus slave-indentureship).

eliakon wrote:There are plenty of other places that can (and do) actively protect large groups of

humans from multiple threats.

How large a group?

How large a threat?

What resources do they have to work with?

There's a great deal of variables that makes basic comparisons useless.

I am all for comparing CS to other groups which protect humans, but I would

rather see an entire thread devoted towards discussing it, because it could get

VERY complicated.

Like for example: have the Russians or Japanese or England had to deal with the

Cult of Dragonwright?

eliakon wrote:At least some of them protected from everyone....up until the CS came and killed

them all (*cough* Tolkeen *Cough*)

You think normal humans in Tolkeen were protected from everyone?

eliakon wrote:There is no support for the claim that the CS is the only reason why humans

actively have a fighting chance on North America.

Who is making this claim?

I see them as a reason, a big reason, perhaps the primary reason, but not the

ONLY reason.

I want to know who said 'only'. Is anyone in this thread saying it? Is anyone in the

books saying it?

Shark_Force wrote: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.

For a couple years, until the Xiticix and Vampires come up from the north and

south and the necromancers from the east.

West might be safe, unless I'm forgetting a threat from that direction.

Shark_Force wrote: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

In fairness, FQ is small, their lack of aggression can be perceived as having a lack

of power.

The same way that Chi-Town was not aggressive until FoM invaded.

The same way that CS has bided their time and not been aggressive until knowing

they can win fights.

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.

Perhaps because you forgot that Kevin has also directly called them heroes and

good guys. Did you forget Coalition War Campaign? Says some of this was

reprinted from Sourcebook 1 so I would have to do a comparison to check on

what got changed...
*page 45: Coalition Good or Evil?
*page 46: The Average Coalition Citizen
*page 47: CS soldiers as the villain
*page 48: Coalition Soldiers as Good Guy Player Characters

Sureshot wrote: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.

Being ruled by a fascist regime doesn't necessarily make the entirety of a nation

evil.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Magestar has a total population of 1946. 7784 are ordinary humans. 194

are human mages.

If we're going to say 778.4 orginary humans then we should say 194.6 human

mages.

eliakon wrote: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 don't think this is the case, at all.

If the Federation of Magic had conquered Chi-Town, their pattern of wizard-

dueling and small enclaves would be incredibly disorganized and unable to deal

with the Xiticix.

The mass technological response (missiles, aircraft, rail guns) is probably the

prime reason the Xiticix have not swamped the continent.

These things have telekinetic TW rifles with a 4000ft range. They would out-snipe

the vast majority of mages and there would not be mass production of MD

weaponry if they had their way because that creates a threat towards the wizards

and their elitism from the populace they dominate.

The FoM's resistance to empowering their citizens like the CS does would spell

their doom against the Xiticix.

eliakon wrote: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."


I don't agree with the analogies you're making here.

"Coalition States" is more analagous to "Germany" or "Axis Powers"

"Prosek regime" is more analagous to "Nazi regime" or "Hitler regime"

eliakon wrote: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.

It's not. Atlantis is a continent ruled by the Splynncryth Empire, one of many

Splugorth Empires.

eliakon wrote: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."

I'd say that. Watching 'Shiki' made me very sympathetic to vampires. They want

to survive and have family and are victims of bestial impulses. Those who master

their desire to kill and drain without killing should be applauded. Vkingdoms are

not without their problems (they could stand to improve) but the concept as a

whole (aside from Palladium's mass abuse of the term 'kingdom' for non-

monarchies) seems good.

Lenwen wrote: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.


One could argue that England is also evil since Myrrlin is pulling the strings and

Arthuu is a puppet.

Lenwen wrote:it does not matter how you interpret them .. because KS

himself has stated they are Villains.
Cept they're also called HEROES of

humanity... and can be played as Good Guys.

Lenwen wrote: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.



Are we still going on about how they are merely the villains of the Overkill book

and not anything else?

Germans being the villains of the Holocaust wouldn't mean that Germans are the

villain of everything.

Reid's Rangers can play the role of hero and villain too. As can Tolkeen.

Sureshot wrote:In the end they are evil even if at the start the Cs had good intentions. If and it's a

truly big IF they CS manages to defeat all the evil non-human and human factions.

Those in power will not suddenly become altrustic and give it up.

We can't know that. Who's to say what Joseph II's son (or daughter) or other

potential future leadership may think or choose to do?

The CCW are a good example of how, when humans feel safe and rule enough

territory, they are willing to make peace with their neighbours. If CS citizens are

safe enough, the fear-inspired cowing to totalitarianism would lessen.

Sureshot wrote:You can damn well bet the Proseks and their followers are

going to keep all the power they currently have. Even if it means turning on their

own people if they have to.

Karl might, but I don't know if I'd believe that about an honorable fellow like

Joseph II. Particularly with his not-so-hateful interest in the Vanguard. Also keep

in mind: Karl's sister Lisa was allowed to marry an RCSG scientist... you know,

those guys who can float on ley lines, like Line Walkers?

Sureshot wrote:Anyone tries to take it away from them they will be framed, jailed or killed off.


Would they? Joseph II likes competition, and that seems like too easy a win.

Beating a political opponent can be done by winning public approval, it doesn't

require framing/jailing/killing them. Doing so would deprive him of future worthy

opposition and leave him bored.

Sureshot wrote:To ensure that nothing threathens their precious hold on power. At least the

Splugorth are evil because of their nature and because they are evil.

Who's to say human nature isn't evil? Perhaps good/selfish are aberrations.

Plus, the Splugorth ruler on Rifts Earth isn't evil, he's anarchist :)

Does anyone know what Plato's alignment is?

Sureshot wrote:It's one thing to be evil when one is surronded by enemies on all sides/ It's another

to act the same way when any and all major threats have been neuralized.

Okay. You realize the CS is the former, right? There are many un-neutralized

major threats to the CS right now.

Sureshot wrote:The citizens themselves I think are evil to a small extent as well imo.

15% of them are evil, yes. It's smaller than a majority.

Sureshot wrote:If one is willing to give up and all rights to be protected. Never

question for fear of losing that protection I think makes one evil.

No, it doesn't, it makes you scared, probably not a hero, perhaps a coward, but

not evil.

Sureshot wrote:There a scene in band of brothers where there a concentration

camp located outside of village or town. The citizens tried to pull the "we never

knew" BS. The America army declared martial law in that area and made the

citizens work and clean up the concentration camp. They knew but as long as it

was non-german citizens and their bellies were full. They turned a blind eye. To

me the Cs citizens are just like that.

Except that the books clearly indicate that it's basically just Drogue's men working

the camps who actually know about them.

Sureshot wrote:My games the CS are terrifying. I don't pull punches. No PG

political correctness. They will kill and murder their own to hold onto to their

power. The soldiers will gun down D-bees. Act like a actual Fascist regime and

not the toned down one PB is forced to put into their rpg. Want to play the rare

good aligned CS squad. Good luck. If words of mouth gets out that the squad is

even questioning their orders to kill D-bees it's as good as a death setence. The

CS secret service begins spying on you. The squad gets the most dangerous

assignments. Thry always get older tech and when they want it new tech is always

out of stock. Backup and support either never shows up or at the last minute.

Promotions are rare and few and need to be backed up with evidence of the

squad following orders and killing D-bees. Those that question too much are

given long and extended "vacations" never to be seen again.

Sounds like a pretty cool alternate universe. Would be cool for a real CS soldier

to get Rifted there by a Temporal Wizard's mishap and generate roleplaying

opportunities.

Shark_Force wrote:consider the vampires. you notice how they're very busily pretending to not be a

threat in the region the CS controls? notice how they're not even a little bit timid

about presenting themselves as a major threat on the other end of the vampire

kingdoms?

Liking this observation. I always remembered they were hiding from the CS but

overlooked how un-coy they are when dealing with southern powers. They're not

exactly playing dumb with Cordoba are they?

Shark_Force wrote:the world would probably be a better place if the coalition states was a place like

lazlo or tolkeen (before they allied themselves with demons).

I'm not entirely convinced that either of these places have ever, at any point in

their history, been safer for unpowered humans to live in than Lazlo or Tolkeen.

The only exceptions I'd make would be (1) when that FoM shifter loosed a

winged demon army on Chi-Town's Burbs (2) when the Great City invaded Chi

-Town.

Shark_Force wrote:those are their homes and their livelihoods

Just like Atlantis is Splynncryth's home and livelihood?

Shark_Force wrote:they shouldn't just be expected to leave without a fight

D-bees should, they're encroaching on the natives, should be more polite when they want their land back.

Shark_Force wrote:it isn't a reasonable response for lazlo to tell them that when they clearly did not have an unwinnable war ahead of them

They didn't win, so Lazlo's response seems reasonable to me.

Shark_Force wrote:although you could argue that by the time the CS invaded, tolkeen actually *was* allied with demons, and was not strictly good any more. but then, they did that because nobody else would freaking help them.
[/quote]
Others were helping, just not in the way Creed wanted. His ego damaged the process just like Nostrous' did.

Sureshot wrote:Stubborn independant and untrusting of each other to a almost stupid degree.

Why is it stupid?

Psyscape has good reason to distrust Dweomer for having demons. The Three have good reason to distrust psychics since they are vulnerable to them.

Sureshot wrote:Yet the evil faction seems to get along fine. Or work together at the very least.

That's really not the case... Vamps are against pretty much everyone except maybe some friendly Demon Lords Aztec Death Gods. Xiticix have no allies. Naut'Yll as people brought up earlier. Cibola/Lagarto. Tolkeen/Brass. Society of Sages and Grim Reapers. A lot of lone wolves out there among the bad guys.

If you take the perspective of CS as bad, FQ should count too, and they infight. There's also a lot of potential conflict with Desmond's secret projects in Lone Star and others if they find out.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:01 am
by Shark_Force
there is no question as to whether the CS wanted to kill everyone in tolkeen without exceptions. they fired missiles at the city that were designed to kill everyone in it.

"genocidal" is perhaps a bit inaccurate to describe that action (the citizens city of tolkeen are not a race, species, or whatever else), but nobody had a problem with the plan to murder every last one of them, civilians and military alike, using an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.

while it was not strictly speaking a genocidal act (they weren't trying to kill everyone of the species with those missiles, merely everyone who happened to be in that location), i definitely would not use their actions during the war against tolkeen as a defense against the claim that they are genocidal.

but really, i don't have time to go through a 20-page essay of a post and dissect it one piece at a time.

i do, however, have the time to say this:

your attitude towards others *is* your alignment. if you care enough to help others at your own expense, you are either insane, or you view their needs as being of equal or greater importance than your own. if you are willing to harm others for fun or profit (however you define profit - an aberrant person merely has tighter limitations on who they're willing to harm and what reasons they'll consider profitable, be that advancing a cause, making money, or defeating a hated enemy that is perceived as a greater evil), then that makes you evil.

if you are perfectly content to rationalize away someone else's life as having no value, without examining that attitude in yourself, you don't qualify for "good". you can still be a pefectly decent human being, but no, if you can just categorize an entire group of intelligent beings as being worthy of death without making any attempt to examine the situation and your perception of it, then no, you aren't good. you can perceive it however you want. frankly, apart from a select few creatures like demons, most of the "evil" creatures in the megaverse don't think of what they are doing as evil, and they're not doing it because it's "evil", they're doing it because they enjoy doing it or they stand to gain from doing it, and they consider your happiness, life, freedom, etc as being of no value or of less value than what they stand to obtain from doing those acts to you.

when you act the same way towards other beings, you are also evil in exactly the same way. it doesn't matter that you don't think you're being evil. you're still being evil.

this doesn't mean you can't be willing to kill, and still be good, mind you. but it does mean that if you want to be a good person, killing and harming others needs to be something that you don't treat lightly. if all it takes is some person you've never met saying that a person needs to die, then no... you're not good.

just consider some of the descriptions of the good alignments in the books:

"Never kill or attack an unarmed foe"
"Never harm an innocent"
"Always help others"
"Never kill for pleasure; will always attempt to bring the villain to justice alive no matter how vile he may be." (note that the principled version of this is merely "never kill for pleasure", ie, you're not satisfied with attempting to bring someone in alive when they've been accused, you bring them in alive or not at all).

these do not fit in with blindly accepting someone else's word on whether a person needs killing. to be good, you cannot be the sort of person who is okay with the indiscriminate slaughter of other people just because the TV says they're not good people. while there must be some wiggle room (there clearly are not only 7 different ways to treat other people, which is basically what alignemtn deals with), if you do not have these or something fairly similar (as well as a variety of other traits), you are not a good algined person.

because those things are what define someone as being a good aligned person.

and the vast majority of people in the coalition states do not fit that criteria. and anyone who does fit those criteria and is a citizen of the coalition states should be in some way protesting, in word or deed, the actions of the states.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:23 am
by eliakon
I am going to respectfully ask that posts be kept to a readable length. And that they not be formatted to be this long. If they are we seriously need some spoiler tags.

Perhaps Tor you can make a spoiler for each person whom you are addressing. Your is excessively long (and virtually impossible to respond to)

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:59 am
by Tor
Shark_Force wrote:there is no question as to whether the CS wanted to kill everyone in tolkeen without exceptions. they fired missiles at the city that were designed to kill everyone in it.


As there is both a 'City of Tolkeen' and 'Kingdom of Tolkeen' it might be good if we specified CoT/KoT as Tolkeen is a bit ambiguous.

Now: what's this 'everyone' bit about? Missiles tend to have very low blast radiuses, it'd be difficult to fire enough to kill everyone.

When I read Sedition page 9 (report from Jan Yoblonsky) she merely says "CS forces unleashed a volley of low yield nuclear missiles at the enemy as a preemptive strike".

Strikes meant to kill EVERYONE would not merely be pre-emptive, they would be final. There's a limit to how many missiles you can fire in a single volley, and these were low-yield nukes.

Even assuming the highest-damage long-range missile ("low" in comparison to the Navy missiles) that will not kill everyone, you just can't cover enough radius with a single volley.

This first volley has estimates of 30 being eaten by a rift, 12 being intercepted by unidentified energies, and 2 hitting an energy field. This means it had at least 44 missiles in the volley. Off-hand I'm not sure if there's CS equipment which can create a volley that large.

It is possible that Jan simply may use volley differently than Kev does though, so she might be referring to missiles fired from multiple points of origin.

Even so, it sounds like it wasn't very many missiles, not enough to wipe out a huge city or kill everyone in it.

They fired more volleys after the first, but that seemed to just be to broach those defenses, try and get through, etc.

This was all in 105 PA. There was brutal kill-all bombing attempt in 104 PA, but that was 'Chalk's Folly' (see CW1p105). He was ordered to keep Tolkeen "contained". He disobeyed this and without consulting Coalition High Command, engaged in Operation Fullbore. That was the 3 days of aerial/ground artillery.

Chalk was a loose cannon taking unapproved actions, just like Drogue. Their attitudes are not CS policy. Might as well say that we should judge the policies of Braddock's Bad Boys by the behavior of Lars Richardson.

Shark_Force wrote:nobody had a problem with the plan to murder every last one of them, civilians and military alike, using an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.

Just because the artillerymen obeyed Chalk's orders doesn't mean they didn't have a problem with them.

You can compartmentalize the military, he could've just given them targetting coordinates and not told them what was there. Details like 'this looks like an orphanage' can be omitted to prevent moral hesitations or distractions.

Shark_Force wrote:i don't have time to go through a 20-page essay of a post and dissect it one piece at a time.

Fair enough, I took the time to read many posts that cropped up in my time off. Smaller posts could happen if I signed on more often I guess :)

Shark_Force wrote:your attitude towards others *is* your alignment. if you care enough to help others at your own expense, you are either insane, or you view their needs as being of equal or greater importance than your own.

That is not correct. I always help my pets by getting them food and water. That doesn't mean I put their wellbeing above my own. I am able to care for them because my needs are taken care of first, and I do so because it makes me happy.

I don't for a minute think that this means I'm a self-sacrificing hero who would give my dogs my last scrap of meat, or give them anything at all if I thought it was truly needed.

It COULD happen, no telling how a bond might be deeper than you'd thought, maybe I think I'm more selfish than I'd be in a crisis, but I wouldn't bet money on it. If I got hungry enough, I might even eat my pets, and feel real sad about it. Or maybe I wouldn't. Hard to say. Can't know for sure until you're put in that situation, just hope one way or the other, or both simultaneously.

Helping others considered to be lower-priority can be done when one has a bounty.

I guess the trouble is how we read 'always'. Is it "frequently, regularly" or "no matter the situation, even if it means depriving yourself and dying". Plus who is the 'other' you are mandated to sacrifice for, does it matter? What if I 'always help' a vampire intelligence by letting it drink my blood? What if I prioritize doing that instead of helping some blood-bank slaves escape?

Shark_Force wrote:if you are willing to harm others for fun or profit (however you define profit - an aberrant person merely has tighter limitations on who they're willing to harm and what reasons they'll consider profitable, be that advancing a cause, making money, or defeating a hated enemy that is perceived as a greater evil), then that makes you evil.

I dunno, 'harm' can have pretty vague boundaries. Harm to a business competitor by forcing him to lower prices? Harm to people in tax debts by repossessing their cars?

An Anarchist will "seldom kill for pleasure", this means that they CAN kill for pleasure, so they could certainly also harm for pleasure, so it is not necessarily evil to do either.

As for mere 'harm', even big shiny Principled only restricts it as "never attack an unarmed foe" and "never harm and innocent". There's nothing forbidding the harming of others for fun, so long as the person you are hurting for fun is not innocent and so far as you harm them through means other than direct attack (blackmail, embarassment, mockery, etc) unless they are armed.

Shark_Force wrote:if you are perfectly content to rationalize away someone else's life as having no value, without examining that attitude in yourself, you don't qualify for "good".

What qualifies people as good is written in the alignments.

Seeing life as having value is not a requirement. Just because you have to 'always help others' doesn't say anything about WHO the others you always help are. Presumably a Principled sees value in the life of those they help, but even then, not necessarily. They may value just their own life but feel their life-value is enhanced by helping others.

Shark_Force wrote:you can still be a pefectly decent human being, but no, if you can just categorize an entire group of intelligent beings as being worthy of death without making any attempt to examine the situation and your perception of it, then no, you aren't good.

The CS doesn't deem them "worthy of death", more "leave our planet, you're worthy of living on Mars". They do analyze the situation and their perception of it, they just reach a conclusion that D-Bees don't like.

Shark_Force wrote:apart from a select few creatures like demons, most of the "evil" creatures in the megaverse don't think of what they are doing as evil

I'm not even sure if they do. I figure the demons who torture you instead of eat you might partly want to make you more interesting as a result.

Shark_Force wrote:they're not doing it because it's "evil", they're doing it because they enjoy doing it or they stand to gain from doing it, and they consider your happiness, life, freedom, etc as being of no value or of less value than what they stand to obtain from doing those acts to you.

The CS doesn't necessarily view what D-Bees do as evil, just unacceptable.

Shark_Force wrote:when you act the same way towards other beings, you are also evil in exactly the same way. it doesn't matter that you don't think you're being evil. you're still being evil.

It's not the same way, the difference of context is that the CS are defending their native land from invaders who are staking claims on it.

Shark_Force wrote: if you want to be a good person, killing and harming others needs to be something that you don't treat lightly. if all it takes is some person you've never met saying that a person needs to die, then no... you're not good.

The ones who don't take it lightly would be that evil minority. The rest will feel the weight of killing.

Your condemnation could be seen as a criticisms of most militaries since most grunts have not personally 'met' or gotten to know the top source of major orders.

Shark_Force wrote:just consider some of the descriptions of the good alignments in the books:

"Never kill or attack an unarmed foe"
"Never harm an innocent"
"Always help others"
"Never kill for pleasure; will always attempt to bring the villain to justice alive no matter how vile he may be." (note that the principled version of this is merely "never kill for pleasure", ie, you're not satisfied with attempting to bring someone in alive when they've been accused, you bring them in alive or not at all).

these do not fit in with blindly accepting someone else's word on whether a person needs killing.

Which people in the CS do not all necessarily do. They don't all have shoot first and ask questions later policies.

Part of operating as a military force is having faith in the wisdom of superiors though.

For example: you may not think an enemy is 'armed' but your officer tells you to fire on them.

If you wasted time asking 'why' it may be too late and get you or others killed.

Your superior Sergeant may know that the person actually IS armed, perhaps with an invisible sword that you can't see. Maybe he was told this by his psychic Corporal or Psi-Stalker.

So if you are a person who thinks "my superior is a good person" then you think "he will not order me to kill an unarmed man".

If you have time later (ie not in a battle) you might later look into why you were given the kill order, and whether or not it was justified.

If it did not seem justified, you might ask the officer/psychic/Psi-Stalker, get explanations, and if they don't hold up, perhaps the next time that person orders you, you don't have faith in them, and intentionally do a near-miss, letting the next target go, feign incompetency, etc.

This could explain possibly Stormtrooper-aim issues with the CS and help PCs to survive them if they are just trying to get away.

Shark_Force wrote:to be good, you cannot be the sort of person who is okay with the indiscriminate slaughter of other people just because the TV says they're not good people.

Good thing it's not just someone talking on the TV, it's real world evidence, like videos of Gargoyles eating children and human Shifters summoning them and cool beans.

Shark_Force wrote:the vast majority of people in the coalition states do not fit that criteria. and anyone who does fit those criteria and is a citizen of the coalition states should be in some way protesting, in word or deed, the actions of the states.

The majority (not sure if vast) are good or selfish. That may mean that individually, there is no majority which is one. It might be 45 selfish 40 good, 15 evil. No majority, but still mostly good or selfish.

Why would they protest the actions of the states if they did not perceive anything wrong with them?

[quote="eliakon]I am going to respectfully ask that posts be kept to a readable length[/quote]
Posts take up more scroll space if they are split.

[quote="eliakon]If they are we seriously need some spoiler tags.[/quote]
That interferes with using the find function.

[quote="eliakon]Your is excessively long (and virtually impossible to respond to)[/quote]

Ctrl+F + "eliakon" will help you skip to things specifically addressed towards you if you wish to ignore replies to others.

Rather than deleting replies to others from the quote text field, it could be simpler to highlight which replies of mine you want to reply to and paste them into a notepad document, that's what I did.

Unfortunately if you do that for a while some word-wrap issues accrue, I fixed that a bit at the beginning but didn't get all the way through, will go back and do so more.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:08 am
by eliakon
We can safely conclude that the majority of the CS military is not good alignment.
This is because the description of the Good Alignments spell out what behavior is allowed for someone to perform and be that alignment.
Since the CS military forces are willing to kill an unarmed foe they can not therefore be good. Its pretty simple there.
There are exceptions (Col. Larson is a good example in fact), but they appear to be the exception not the rule. (evidence for this is the fact that the Siege on Tolkeen operation was performed by soldiers who were willing to kill unarmed foes either by indiscriminate slaughter, artillery strikes, nuclear attacks on cities, and the like. "I was just following orders" does not absolve one from ones alignment. All it does is let you know if the person feels that the action was justified. An alignment is quite literally a measure of what acts a person will perform willingly. Thus it is quite literally measured by your deeds.)

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:08 am
by Q99
Nightmask wrote:Unfortunately good DOESN'T work together, like at all. The Tolkeen war alone is ample evidence of that, no other good made any effort to stop the CS's genocidal war on them. The most you got was some Cyber-Knights helping and most of that was just evacuating refugees instead of trying to actively stop the massacre in the first place. Good is written as being EXTREMELY dumb in Rifts, bordering on Too Stupid To Live.



To... some extent. However, Tolkeen did have the misfortune of being on the other side of the CS from most of the other good nations, who I think hesitated more out of fear that they'd just be throwing lives away rather than lack of desire. They *liked* Tolkeen, they just weren't willing to risk their own safety from it, none of them have forces they can easily risk.

Examples of good working together would include the ocean (Tritonia works with New Navy works with Lemuria [with Lemuria and Tritonia keeping a distances, but still], who all work with Whale Singers), Japan (New Empire and Republic of Japan and Takamatsu are closely allied) and South America where the Arkhons clash with most of their good neighbors, and New Babylon helps supply the Achilles Republic and Empire of the Sun with high tech, though with some tensions. Or in space, the CCW and UWW often ally against bigger threats.

Granted, there could definitely stand to be more alliances between good out there, and there's some feuds and separations between nominally good powers that are fairly counter-productive (like the two non-Cibola 'El Dorados', or the Megaversal Legion's lack of involvement with local politics), but those are situations that are changeable, it's not, like, say, how in the Minion War you're going to see three-way running battles between Demons, Devils, and local evil forces like Splugorth Minions, Russian Demons, the Gargoyle Empire, or what have you. The non-Duscan Magic Zone kingdoms and Lazlo will ally, push comes to shove, while the CS and Duscan never will, nor will Dragonwright-controlled Lagato and the Vampire Kingdom near it, and neither of them will ally with Chibola.

There's some alliances among the evil powers, Brodkil and Gargoyles, and Splugorth and their allied states, but they're either circumstantial or, in the case of the Splugorth, a position where they're the superior partner and gain something from the deal in exchange for little actual responsibility on their part. They will explicitly hang Lagato out to dry if Lagato gets in trouble, for example. They're suppliers and like having manipulatable puppet-states and supplicants, but they don't actually *care* about anyone beyond what can be done for them, you know?

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:11 am
by Tor
CWCp48 says 15% of CS soldiers are evil. This leaves us 85 to split between selfish and good.

Since there are fewer leaders than grunts, it is possible for the majority of the CS military to be good so long as evil maintains a hold on the upper ranks to control their actions, and it is canny enough to keep them unaware of the repercussions.

If you honestly believe a foe is armed, then you do not violate alignment by killing them. Anyone truly unarmed could rationally be believed to have already fled.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:18 am
by eliakon
Tor wrote:CWCp48 says 15% of CS soldiers are evil. This leaves us 85 to split between selfish and good.

Since there are fewer leaders than grunts, it is possible for the majority of the CS military to be good so long as evil maintains a hold on the upper ranks to control their actions, and it is canny enough to keep them unaware of the repercussions.

If you honestly believe a foe is armed, then you do not violate alignment by killing them. Anyone truly unarmed could rationally be believed to have already fled.

if 84% are selfish and 1% are good that is still 85% split.
I am unwilling to believe that one can simply define away the alignment. "Everyone is an active, armed combatant because the innocent would not be here." This sounds like the self-justifications of the Evil Alignment.
If we can simply define away any problems then there is no alignment. While that is a rather interesting philosophical exercise in the official rules being discussed here there are alignments. Therefore the presumption is that the terms of those alignments actually have meaning. If they are all completely relative and subject to being defined in anyway that the view wishes at will then they have no actual moral weight and thus have been rendered moot. If they are moot and non-binding then we are now presuming that the rules of the game are in error.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:43 am
by Tor
Assuming some level of similarity between population/army alignments (not to say they would be super similar or anything) I would not expect to see "most are good and selfish" if the amount of good people was in such a minority. If listing 2 out of 3 groups as what 'most' people are, you would expect both to be the largest and the 1 out of 3 to be the smallest.

Course it could be possible that 15% of the army is evil and only 1% is good...

But if so few good people are in the army, that would mean we'd see more good people in the normal population.

I am unwilling to believe that one can simply define away the alignment. "Everyone is an active, armed combatant because the innocent would not be here." This sounds like the self-justifications of the Evil Alignment.

The perspective some Second-Wavers bring forth may be a way around this, and they could convince people to think this way, on Overkill 17...

"Tolkeen is a vast swarm of deadly, magic wielding insects too numerous and resilient to kill one by one. To defeat them, one must defeat all of them."

If one views an enemy as a singular 'swarm' then the swarm is certainly armed (it wields many weapons) even if invidual building blocks are not. Kind of like how my hand may be holding an MD pistol but my nose can't directly harm you. However as a collection of body parts, I am armed.

The Xiticix could probably be viewed similarly: or is a Principled person unable to kill a Xiticix Larva?

Plus the vagueness of 'armed' too. Taken at its most inclusive "this guy has an arm, he can punch me or choke me" so "I am merciful, I stop when I chop off my opponent's arms". Or maybe tongue if they're a spellcaster. Or maybe eyes if they can silent-cast or use psi. For someone to be purely 100% unarmed, must they be utterly uncapable of launching attacks? Or just unabl to launch one that can hurt you? But what if, while they can't hurt you, they could hurt others, or interfere with your ability to stop other threats? Then they are still armed in a non-lethal way which could lead to your downfall.

Kind of like how someone wielding a stun pistol is technically armed even if they can't kill you with it, just give you combat penalties. They are still a threat.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:02 am
by Korcheski
I just feel people treat the CS like they treat Dark Elves in the other system, each and every one of them is evil and that is that. If you don't know the human handshake you are dead. However as we know, the CS is human and humans don't work that way. Don't get me wrong, people can play the CS anyway they want but that doesn't mean it is correct. I can play them as pacifist who decide to hug it out with any of their old enemies. Maybe they help rebuild Tolkeen and build a memorial for the fallen. Or i could play the CS as an entity where players who are seen by another CS citizen has to go out of their way to prove they are human and non-magical or they will be immediately executed in the street by the large numbers of human supremacist attack squads. Again, to each their own but don't assume your way of playing is the correct way.

People point to Tolkeen alot in this thread at proof of how evil the CS really is, but that is shooting their point in the foot. I have gone back and reread through the Siege on Tolkeen series again. While it does ensure the reader is very aware of how bad the CS is, it also does not play Tolkeen as the victim in any sense of the word. Even Erin realizes how fanatically evil these guys are, especially after Lazlo refuses to ally with them. They are an a "If you aren't with us, you are against us" type of people. The book explains very well they are the magical equivalent to the CS in fanatical magical hate.

The final straw, to the growing mountain of straws, that put the CS over the edge to declaring war on Tolkeen was the abduction of the Emperor's wife and the murder of his son by the Federation of Magic. It clearly states that Tolkeen had full knowledge this was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. In the end the attack by magic using forces completely and utterly proved the CS was correct for fearing and hating magic users, as even the most powerful family in the CS could fall victim to magic. The whole attack on Tolkeen could have been avoided if Tolkeen would have done something, anything to stop this from happening. But again by letting it go down Tolkeen doomed itself. If the FoM could pull off an attack like this, there is no reason to believe that Tolkeen couldn't as well. Tolkeen is more on the vengeance radar than FoM, and while the FoM would/will pay for the attack the CS sees Tolkeen as just as bad and capable of this kind of attack. So the CS has to decide, do we play offense or defense in our war against magic?

So the CS does not see any difference between magic users, D-bees, and the Xiticix. Why does that make them evil? All are dangerous, none of them are native to the world, and all have proven to be capable of wiping out humanity once and for all. Yes the Emperor has his own selfish and evil agenda, but he has also kept is people alive and thriving in a world where everything can kill them ten times over and often does try to!

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:41 am
by Shark_Force
if the emperor's wife had been kidnapped by someone using a laser pistol, would you consider that legitimate cause to declare war on everyone who has a laser pistol?

would you consider it reasonable to declare war on a nation that did not in fact participate in the attack, and completely ignore the nation that did participate in the attack?

tolkeen was very much a victim. you can argue that by the time the CS invaded (after decades of threatening to attack them in their homes and murderer them), they weren't strictly speaking good people either (allying yourself with demonic forces will do that to you). but they were very much still victims. they were attacked, unprovoked, by an enemy with something like 15 times their population base (not including unofficial population, which makes it even more lopsided) and probably hundreds of times as much production (techno-wizardry makes awesome stuff, but it doesn't make awesome stuff fast).

no, not every single person living in CS territory is evil. but an uncomfortably large amount are. seriously, stop and think about this for a minute:

imagine we were to put you in a room with 10 random people. how many of them do you think would be willing to kill an unarmed foe? heck, if we take aberrant out of the equation, how many of them do you think would kill or torture people for the fun of it? how many would betray their friends (not just some random person, but their actual friends)? how many of them do you think will see nothing wrong with hurting random people that have done absolutely nothing to them?

because in the CS, there's a pretty decent chance 2 of the people in that room fit a large part of that description, and the rest of the people in that room largely don't care what they do to you unless you happen to fit into a narrow group of people who by virtue of being born to the right parents in the right place at the right time don't deserve it in their minds.

they may not be the most evil place in the world, or even close to it. but they sure aren't very good either.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:45 am
by Sureshot
Even if other factions gave the CS good cause to act. The CS or it's leadership would have likely gone to war anyway imo. THe CS leadership wants more territory. They will get it anyway possible. No matter how many CS soldier lives they have to waste. The hardship on their people. Or the piles of D-Bee bodies they have to walk over. It's all good to say not every CS soldier is evil. In the grand scheme of things the leadership is. The few good apples in a rotten basket don't say anything. Or try to work in the system. The ones who are vocal you can bet are placed on a blacklist and watched constantly by the CS secret service. To use the dark elf comparison. Sure they maybe one Drizzt for every 100 dark elves. They either leave, are exiled or eventually end up killing themselves or worse sacrificed to Lotlh for their beliefs.

What I mean by the good factions being too stubbornly independant to a almost stupid degree. The various good factions that have similar alignments and beliefs are always portrayed as being distrustful of outsiders. I would understand and accept if the alignments and beliefs are different. Not to mention in a world overrun by evil monsters, factions as well as being pretty much destroyed. Your asking for your faction to be wiped out. I'm pretty sure America and Great Britain hated having to work with Stalin. The alternative was far worse. Stubborn independence works when things go consistently your way. It maes one look useless and not knowing what they are doing when it's not imo.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:08 am
by cosmicfish
Tor wrote:CWCp48 says 15% of CS soldiers are evil. This leaves us 85 to split between selfish and good.

No, it doesn't. The number you cited was part of a series of paragraphs, and you have picked one part of it and acted like it was the whole. Here is a little more of what those paragraphs said:

"At least 75-85% of all Coalition troops are anti-human and pro-Coalition fanatics. The bottom line: a CS soldier shoots first and rarely bothers to ask questions. If you are an enemy of the States, you better flee or die..."

"While we've focused on the general public thus far, there is a frightening percentage of villains and hatemongers among the Coalition Military. At least 20% are so filled with hate, revulsion and fear regarding nonhumans and other CS enemies that there is no reasoning with them (anarchist and evil alignments). Many of these vile characters enjoy killing and torturing the enemy and have no qualms about murdering defenseless D-bee women and children..."

"Others (10%) are opportunists who are primarily concerned with their own careers and self-interest. The military, especially one as aggressive and hate-filled as the CS, is the perfect place for people who might be considered cruel or miscreants in polite society. It is an attractive environment for those who see the military as a means to power, fame, glory and wealth. If others must fall so that they succeed or advance, so be it... These characters are typically
anarchist or evil (any) alignment; many are officers."

"Then, there are the acts of CS soldiers who are truly creatures of evil (15%). Men, women and CS mutants who are thrilled by combat and derive pleasure by inflicting pain and suffering..."

"In a strictly game context, the CS military forces pitted against our player character heroes are likely to be predominately evil or self-serving scum, but this is not necessarily the average CS soldier!"


Some observations as I reread this:
  • Paragraphs 2-4 above do not appear to be limited to either the portion of the Coalition military facing the PC's or to the larger portion attacking Tolkeen, but rather would seem to apply to the Coalition military as a whole. The last paragraph appears to skew the forces fighting the PC's to be more evil than the norm ("predominantly").
  • Your 15% is on top of another 30% that explicitly fit evil or Anarchist alignments, with a lot of text describing distinctly evil acts attributed to many of the possibly Anarchist contingent. We have no guidance as to whether the remaining 55% are good, selfish, or simply some variety of evil that does not fit well into the previous three categories.
  • The first paragraph above suggests that the solid majority of the military on a path that, were they players, would be leading them in the direction of evil alignments.
  • The preceding section of the CWC, "The Average Coalition Soldier", states that "these soldiers are, without a doubt, misguided individuals unwittingly serving an evil cause." which is another canon condemnation of the Coalition as a military/political entity.
  • The book describes those of good alignment as being either "indoctrinated" or else struggling to find a way to protect their own people while working against the Coalition's evil plans.

So I disagree with your reading of this book.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:22 am
by cosmicfish
Shark_Force wrote:"genocidal" is perhaps a bit inaccurate to describe that action (the citizens city of tolkeen are not a race, species, or whatever else), but nobody had a problem with the plan to murder every last one of them, civilians and military alike, using an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction.

while it was not strictly speaking a genocidal act (they weren't trying to kill everyone of the species with those missiles, merely everyone who happened to be in that location), i definitely would not use their actions during the war against tolkeen as a defense against the claim that they are genocidal.

Genocide (as was defined in this thread not long ago), is not limited to race. It includes national and religious groups, for example, and the question of whether or not it would apply to an occupation is not defined - the term genocide itself was invented to describe the atrocities of Hitler and has evolved since then to encompass other actions where one group has tried to eliminate another group from existence. Genocide could apply to Tolkeen (CoT or KoT) if the goal of the Coalition was to kill as many citizens as possible* as opposed to merely defeating their military and imposing political will. It is also not a stretch to extend the term genocide to include the hunting down of people who can use magic, as the actions of the Coalition fit the term in everything but the nature of the group targeted - it seems to me that a real-world campaign against martial artists** would likely see some version of "occupation" to be added to the definition.

*: "As possible" because no genocide can plan to be perfect!
**: I know the original comparison was slavers, but in the last few hundred years slavery has been almost overwhelmingly reviled in the western world, and a nation attacking slavers would enjoy broad support. Conversely, outside the CS and a few small sympathetic states, it does not appear that this consensus exists in North America in Rifts.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:31 am
by Korcheski
This is really the only damning statistic as far as i can see:

"Then, there are the acts of CS soldiers who are truly creatures of evil (15%). Men, women and CS mutants who are thrilled by combat and derive pleasure by inflicting pain and suffering..."

Let's look at this another way. We have focused on the Xiticix, but maybe a better example would be the movie Aliens. Did anyone have issue with Ripley killing the aliens in this movie? When she took her flame thrower to the unhatched pods at the end (facehuggers - baby aliens), did anyone scream in outrage? Did anyone walk away and say "Those aliens had just as much right to live, breed, and survive as the humans on that planet?" By cheering for her victory in the end, does that make you just as villainous? She nuked the planet...she killed each and every last alien on that planet. There may have also been human survivors who she also killed with this act of genocide! This is all a matter of perspective. It has been said over and over again.

I think you need to add the whole paragraph here:
The average CS soldier may not be inherently evil, but he is dedicated to crushing the enemy and that includes practitioners of magic, D-bees, other nonhumans, and anybody who opposes the CS (and all too often, those who associate with the enemy)! At least 75-85% of all Coalition troops are anti-human and pro-Coalition fanatics.

Again using my Aliens argument, by the standards of this paragraph we would all fit nicely into the average CS soldier. You don't stop and ask questions, you just gun down the aliens.

I think it is only fair to add this as well when throwing around quotes from the CWC book:

In a strictly game context, the CS military forces pitted against our player character heroes are likely to be predominately evil or self-serving scum, but this is not necessarily the average CS soldier! The player characters are likely to avoid problems with most fair and reasonable people, but clashes with arrogant, mean, and corrupt characters (who may come to them looking for trouble) is inevitable. It is the evil squad leader or Commander who will ask or put the player characters in a position to compromise their morals. It is the brazen warrior responsible
for horrible atrocities and/or has something to prove who will clash with characters not willing to back down to his or her will.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:44 am
by cosmicfish
Korcheski wrote:I just feel people treat the CS like they treat Dark Elves in the other system, each and every one of them is evil and that is that. If you don't know the human handshake you are dead. However as we know, the CS is human and humans don't work that way.

And the authors have already gone to painstaking lengths to show that there are good people in the CS, either ignorant of reality or fighting against those policies from within.

Korcheski wrote:Don't get me wrong, people can play the CS anyway they want but that doesn't mean it is correct. I can play them as pacifist who decide to hug it out with any of their old enemies. Maybe they help rebuild Tolkeen and build a memorial for the fallen.

Sure, and maybe the Third Reich would have apologized for Auschwitz and put Jews in government! The farther you deviate from the current path, the bigger the justification you require, and nothing published in Rifts would justify anything even near what you describe.

Korcheski wrote:So the CS does not see any difference between magic users, D-bees, and the Xiticix. Why does that make them evil?

Because (1) they have the ability to see the difference even if they are not using it and/or ignoring what they see, (2) because the decision to kill innocents is one of the defining characteristics of evil (in Rifts and reality), and (3) taking the action to kill morally requires (in Rifts and reality) a reasonable attempt to determine if the act is just. The Coalition has the ability to know that magic-users are D-bees are no threat, but chooses to ignore that. In most of their actions they have many opportunities to determine whether their targets are evil or predatory or anything else that would justify violence... they just don't. That's evil, by the book.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:03 am
by cosmicfish
Korcheski wrote:This is really the only damning statistic as far as i can see:

"Then, there are the acts of CS soldiers who are truly creatures of evil (15%). Men, women and CS mutants who are thrilled by combat and derive pleasure by inflicting pain and suffering..."

Why is that the only damning one??? The other two groups (comprising another 30%) are explicitly described as being evil or anarchist! The last group is the worst, but you cannot let the other off the hook when they are explicitly being called out by the authors for their evil actions and natures!

Let me put it this way:

20% will kill innocent members of defined enemies of the CS because they believe that even innocent members of those groups deserve to die, in a manner that explicitly makes them at best anarchist, at worst evil.

10% will kill enemies of the CS because it gets them something that they want. The difference between the anarchist and evil members of this group is simply what they are willing to do, but this group remains a mix of anarchist and evil.

15% will kill anyone, and have decided to focus on killing the enemies of the CS because it suits them to do so. If the rest of the CS went all kum-by-yah tomorrow, they would just move on to killing who ever was most entertaining to kill.

The fact that that last group is the worst does not absolve the others, any more than the existence of the vampires absolves the CS or the existence of Josef Mengele absolves SS executioners.

Korcheski wrote:Let's look at this another way. We have focused on the Xiticix, but maybe a better example would be the movie Aliens.

Another bad example. Why? Lots of reasons.
  • We have no real measure of the intelligence of the aliens, in that we do not know if they are smart animals or sentient beings, but they do not demonstrate any real characteristics of what we would call sentience.
  • To the extent shown in that movie, they appear to be dependent on humanity to survive - killing something that wants to eat you or use you as a parasitic host is not immoral.
  • There is no evidence of any member of that race trying to live cooperatively with or even communicate with humanity.

The enemies of the CS include many groups that fail all three of these criteria.

Korcheski wrote:I think it is only fair to add this as well when throwing around quotes from the CWC book:

In a strictly game context, the CS military forces pitted against our player character heroes are likely to be predominately evil or self-serving scum, but this is not necessarily the average CS soldier! The player characters are likely to avoid problems with most fair and reasonable people, but clashes with arrogant, mean, and corrupt characters (who may come to them looking for trouble) is inevitable. It is the evil squad leader or Commander who will ask or put the player characters in a position to compromise their morals. It is the brazen warrior responsible for horrible atrocities and/or has something to prove who will clash with characters not willing to back down to his or her will.

I quoted part of that earlier. So? All it says is that, to keep the game simple, players will only meet "bad" Coalition soldiers unless the plot benefits from them meeting a "good" one. It simply identifies a tactical gaming simplification.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:05 am
by Jorick
Larsen's story is told in two books: Mercs and Aftermath. Aftermath adds the bit about the Vanguard. It doesn't go into much detail. I was hoping we'd learn more about Larsen in Megaverse in Flames (since the Brigade got stuck fighting in Calgary on it's way to Tolkeen), but if it were meant to be there at all it got cut.



I think people just don't like subtlety or moral ambiguity, or hard choices, in their fantasy. The OP never said the CS was good.

It's just a balancing act. One I think Lazlo does well. Everyone could have attacked the CS. To what end? They definitely could have stopped the first assault cold. Destroyed those armies. But then what? The CS would be back, and angrier, with more men, and more tactics. Even more bloodthristy.

I know many don;t think they could be any more bloodthristy than they are, but I really think I've presented evidence from the books that shows that they can be worse than they are. I agree they almost got there. I agree that's the road they seem to be travelling. But maybe they can be turned from the path.

If everyone attacked the CS, and the invading armies were destroyed, should Tolkeen and Lazlo and the FoM and others continued through the CS? Should they have tried to destroy all of the CS' power? What would that have looked like? They probably would have failed against the most populous, most resourceful group on the continent. But failing could still mean the deaths of millions in the case of the CS (and many thousands in the case of the others). Success would mean the same. How is that a good thing?

The CS is at fault for putting everyone in this situation. But the CS is itself a product of horror. It's not just one state. Or one state that captured other states. The largest human populations on the continent (which faced far more horror, according to the books, than did Europe/the NGR), all agreed to this "human supremacy" thing. Being paranoid saved more humans than not. That doesn't make paranoia "good," but a good person should realize the cause and work to overcome it.

For years now, before the Siege, Lazlo has been working with the CS against the Xiticix (because Lazlo doesn't have a prayer without them--which means no one does). It was very foolish of the CS to fight Tokeen first. The good thing to do, is to get the CS to realize what it's priorities should be. That will take some time and patience and luck. Just like letting magic and monsters in one's home, after figuring out which ones are cool, takes time and patience and luck. It takes some measure of heroism.

Destroying, or trying to destroy, the CS because they're "evil" is just as counterproductive (and from a practical survival sense perhaps more counterproductive) than the CS destroying Tolkeen. There are other things one can try to do that are "good" and not "stupid" or "evil."

I'm pretty sure that's all the OP was trying to say. This, thankfully, is not a simple, black and white game. There's a lot of depth. That means complexity for the characters to navigate. Making things cut and dry doesn't make for an interesting story.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:42 am
by Pepsi Jedi
What I find funny is all the talk of Genocide and using that as a defining characteristic of an evil group of people. Genocide against Dbees and or mages (Though that wouldn't be genocide, but I get what people are trying to say). Thing is, noone has any problem what so ever with killing of demons. Any demon. All demons, all the time.

It's perfectly ok for 'Forces of light' to fight armies of demons because they're demons. They invade our world. They enslave our people if they're lucky. Rape and kill them if they're not. Eat them sometimes. Killing every last one and they're heroes. Why? Well we all know Demons are bad right? Thats what we've been told. That's what we've seen. Demons=bad. Thus ok to kill um all and be heroes.

*looks around* How is that OK, but the CS's doing any different? DBees invaded our world. They enslave humanity. They rape and eat humanity, they kill them. All the time.

But.. it's "Evil" when the CS kill them.

But it's perfectly "Ok" When other factions and heroes of light, commit genocide on Demons and Devils.

Now. Some of you are going to say "Not all DBees are bad. There's some good ones that only want to help. Some are just lost here on earth" Yeah there are, but how is one supposed to tell the difference until they try and bite your head off? After 200 years of aliens and Dbees preying on humanity, are you going to stop and ask a Dbee if he wants to play nice? Are you going to trust him if he says yes? No. You're going to lump him/her in with the others. The ones that have preyed on humanity for generation after generation after generation.

Just like Demons and Devils and what not. Are all of them bad? No. How do we know? They're optional player characters. I'm playing one right now in an HU Game. They're not all bad but noone has a problem with lumping them all together and killing them all and being 'heroes'.

It's just bad when the CS lumps creatures together and does it.

There seems to be a double standard here.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 11:44 am
by Jorick
Pepsi Jedi wrote:What I find funny is all the talk of Genocide and using that as a defining characteristic of an evil group of people. Genocide against Dbees and or mages (Though that wouldn't be genocide, but I get what people are trying to say). Thing is, noone has any problem what so ever with killing of demons. Any demon. All demons, all the time.

It's perfectly ok for 'Forces of light' to fight armies of demons because they're demons. They invade our world. They enslave our people if they're lucky. Rape and kill them if they're not. Eat them sometimes. Killing every last one and they're heroes. Why? Well we all know Demons are bad right? Thats what we've been told. That's what we've seen. Demons=bad. Thus ok to kill um all and be heroes.

*looks around* How is that OK, but the CS's doing any different? DBees invaded our world. They enslave humanity. They rape and eat humanity, they kill them. All the time.

But.. it's "Evil" when the CS kill them.

But it's perfectly "Ok" When other factions and heroes of light, commit genocide on Demons and Devils.

Now. Some of you are going to say "Not all DBees are bad. There's some good ones that only want to help. Some are just lost here on earth" Yeah there are, but how is one supposed to tell the difference until they try and bite your head off? After 200 years of aliens and Dbees preying on humanity, are you going to stop and ask a Dbee if he wants to play nice? Are you going to trust him if he says yes? No. You're going to lump him/her in with the others. The ones that have preyed on humanity for generation after generation after generation.

Just like Demons and Devils and what not. Are all of them bad? No. How do we know? They're optional player characters. I'm playing one right now in an HU Game. They're not all bad but noone has a problem with lumping them all together and killing them all and being 'heroes'.

It's just bad when the CS lumps creatures together and does it.

There seems to be a double standard here.



The double standard is extended if the CS is "bad" like the Demons are (aka the "real bad guys in the game"). Which therefore means it's ok to kill all CS?

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:02 pm
by Killer Cyborg
cosmicfish wrote:
Korcheski wrote:
Korcheski wrote:Let's look at this another way. We have focused on the Xiticix, but maybe a better example would be the movie Aliens.

Another bad example. Why? Lots of reasons.
  • We have no real measure of the intelligence of the aliens, in that we do not know if they are smart animals or sentient beings, but they do not demonstrate any real characteristics of what we would call sentience.
  • To the extent shown in that movie, they appear to be dependent on humanity to survive - killing something that wants to eat you or use you as a parasitic host is not immoral.
  • There is no evidence of any member of that race trying to live cooperatively with or even communicate with humanity.

The enemies of the CS include many groups that fail all three of these criteria.


I'd say that the Xiticix meet all of those criteria.

Although I'd also say that list of criteria is kind of arbitrary to begin with, and rather unimportant.
"We don't know how smart they are" makes genocide okay?
"They don't talk to us?" makes genocide okay?
Not really.

The main one that makes genocide okay is the self-defense aspect, the "it's us or them" bit.
And the CS has that on their side, because of all the various races and people out there that the CS are trying to exterminate, one heck of a lot of them DO want to kill or destroy the CS and/or humans.
The problem is that the CS has trouble telling apart the races/classes that are evil and the races/classes that aren't, and that the CS leadership doesn't really care.
But if you're sitting at home, and the Star Wars Cantina crowd shows up on your lawn, and at least half of them start trying to eat you (or your soul), how picky are you going to be about sorting out which ones might be good guys when you shoot back?

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:11 pm
by cosmicfish
Pepsi Jedi wrote:There seems to be a double standard here.

No, there really isn't.

Demons and vampires and Xiticix are (with extremely rare exceptions) presented in the game as being either monolithically evil (in a way that even the CS is not), and/or as preying on humanity. We don't have "good demons" or "neighborly Xiticix" or "vegan vampires"... and when we do they are presented as being so rare that their appearance is absolutely astonishing, their circumstances are generally given is essentially unrepeatable, and when they are revealed they are generally protected by forces of good. And we have abundant good and neighborly and (tragically) vegan D-bees and wizards and such.

The real issue is due diligence - at what point has one individual taken adequate steps to verify that killing another is justified? A good individual tries their hardest to ensure that the killing is justified - it may not be possible in the heat of battle, but outside that they will use their best knowledge and effort to avoid killing or harming an innocent. An Unprincipled individual weighs the cost of that diligence against their own needs and compromises - they won't deliberately kill an innocent but won't go to great lengths to avoid it, either. An Anarchist won't deliberately kill an innocent but won't spend any real effort to avoid it, relying on snap judgments because more effort is not worth their time. An evil individual kills innocents for any of a dozen reasons, and are the only ones to do so regardless of their knowledge of their innocence - the exceptions are Aberrants, and they will do all but kill and believe that they are actually good!

The other issues you mention are the same struggles that PC's face in every single game, as do members of other groups on Earth. That D-bee might be waiting to kill you? Sure, but if they don't attack immediately odds are pretty good that they aren't going to, so you can wait and observe and collect more data rather than just vaporizing them... unless you are the CS, of course. Xiticix or demon flying overhead? Odds are probably less than one in a billion that this creature is going to operate outside the bounds of "evil", so it is not unreasonable to go ahead and take the shot unless you see something that solidly sways your opinion... and every "good" group on Earth will agree with your decision.

That is the issue, that is why the CS stands alone on this. If D-bees and wizards possess human-ish distributions of good and evil then arbitrarily killing them is no more justified than arbitrarily killing humans under the same circumstances. If you would give a human a trial, or at least an opportunity, then a wizard or D-bee deserves the same.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:20 pm
by Shark_Force
Pepsi Jedi wrote:What I find funny is all the talk of Genocide and using that as a defining characteristic of an evil group of people. Genocide against Dbees and or mages (Though that wouldn't be genocide, but I get what people are trying to say). Thing is, noone has any problem what so ever with killing of demons. Any demon. All demons, all the time.

It's perfectly ok for 'Forces of light' to fight armies of demons because they're demons. They invade our world. They enslave our people if they're lucky. Rape and kill them if they're not. Eat them sometimes. Killing every last one and they're heroes. Why? Well we all know Demons are bad right? Thats what we've been told. That's what we've seen. Demons=bad. Thus ok to kill um all and be heroes.

*looks around* How is that OK, but the CS's doing any different? DBees invaded our world. They enslave humanity. They rape and eat humanity, they kill them. All the time.

But.. it's "Evil" when the CS kill them.

But it's perfectly "Ok" When other factions and heroes of light, commit genocide on Demons and Devils.

Now. Some of you are going to say "Not all DBees are bad. There's some good ones that only want to help. Some are just lost here on earth" Yeah there are, but how is one supposed to tell the difference until they try and bite your head off? After 200 years of aliens and Dbees preying on humanity, are you going to stop and ask a Dbee if he wants to play nice? Are you going to trust him if he says yes? No. You're going to lump him/her in with the others. The ones that have preyed on humanity for generation after generation after generation.

Just like Demons and Devils and what not. Are all of them bad? No. How do we know? They're optional player characters. I'm playing one right now in an HU Game. They're not all bad but noone has a problem with lumping them all together and killing them all and being 'heroes'.

It's just bad when the CS lumps creatures together and does it.

There seems to be a double standard here.


i don't see anyone saying the actions of the CS are not understandable.

it is perfectly understandable to stop caring about right and wrong and just kill everything because it's easier than doing the right thing. that's kinda the scary thing about the CS: under the same circumstances, would i be able to overcome my fears and do the right thing, or would i just be another one of those CS citizens that stands by passively or even helps commit these evil acts? are they really all that different from how i would be in that situation?

but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it any less evil. the fact that i can understand their reason for doing evil things does not make it any less evil to do those things.

and no, i don't see it being a bad thing for everyone banding together to defend against the CS. you're gonna have to do it eventually anyways. provided you can make the main cities too difficult to take out directly (which tolkeen did a bad job of, admittedly), you can put them into a situation where they are going to need to defend every single military asset in their entire territory, or else get constantly picked apart and suffer shortages. it may not win you any friends, but eventually people are going to get less enthusiastic about sending their soldiers into the meat grinder when they start realizing that before declaring war, a few thousand people died in a year (if that) due to monster, demon, and mage attacks, and during the war, that number has gone up to a hundred times as much, almost as if previously most of them didn't care to attack the CS.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:35 pm
by Jorick
cosmicfish wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:There seems to be a double standard here.

No, there really isn't.

The real issue is due diligence - at what point has one individual taken adequate steps to verify that killing another is justified? A good individual tries their hardest to ensure that the killing is justified - it may not be possible in the heat of battle, but outside that they will use their best knowledge and effort to avoid killing or harming an innocent. An Unprincipled individual weighs the cost of that diligence against their own needs and compromises - they won't deliberately kill an innocent but won't go to great lengths to avoid it, either. An Anarchist won't deliberately kill an innocent but won't spend any real effort to avoid it, relying on snap judgments because more effort is not worth their time. An evil individual kills innocents for any of a dozen reasons, and are the only ones to do so regardless of their knowledge of their innocence - the exceptions are Aberrants, and they will do all but kill and believe that they are actually good!

The other issues you mention are the same struggles that PC's face in every single game, as do members of other groups on Earth. That D-bee might be waiting to kill you? Sure, but if they don't attack immediately odds are pretty good that they aren't going to, so you can wait and observe and collect more data rather than just vaporizing them... unless you are the CS, of course. Xiticix or demon flying overhead? Odds are probably less than one in a billion that this creature is going to operate outside the bounds of "evil", so it is not unreasonable to go ahead and take the shot unless you see something that solidly sways your opinion... and every "good" group on Earth will agree with your decision.

That is the issue, that is why the CS stands alone on this. If D-bees and wizards possess human-ish distributions of good and evil then arbitrarily killing them is no more justified than arbitrarily killing humans under the same circumstances. If you would give a human a trial, or at least an opportunity, then a wizard or D-bee deserves the same.


Lazlo may have waited too long to find out if the Xiticix were worth extermination or not.

I agree with your last sentence. In general, I agree with the sentiment of your response above. However, I do not think that just because the CS is "bad" for the reasons stated above, that they are not to some extent justified or reasonable in their response.

It is not unreasonable to believe that the majority of magic users and DBs are evil. Even if they swing both ways, the environment of Rifts Earth makes most people more aggressive than they tend to be in modern society (the CS is a good example). With such a power divergence on an individual level, a trial is not always reasonable regardless of one's morals.

Also, there's just a lot of ignorance. Lazlo has a lot of megaversals, apparently. They can publish books on demons for the benefit of the CS and others. The CS, in its limited wisdom, has adopted those publications as valid. Given the CS' ignorance in general (because they're humans, from Earth, that was essentially destroyed, and never even believed in magic before, regardless of education), there's little way for them to distinguish between the 'obviously always evil" demons, and anything else.

Evidence should suggest that just about everything is "obviously always evil" given the limited interactions, and the results. Conversely, there's no more reason for the CS to assume that Demons are always evil, or more often evil, than anything else. They do so for the same reasons (the violence, and their limited knowledge) with which they do most things.

Now, it is also clear that despite all of the above, they have come to recognize that some beings are pretty much "innocents," and they know that for at least some mages, for some period of time, "evil" is not inherent (though magic may be necessarily corrupting). That they know these things and still mistreat, and kill people is why they are bad. They lean towards fear more than hope, quick action more than patience. They are cowardly, in this way. Not heroic.

Can one truly expect more out of people in such a situation? What does it take to move people to think and act differently?

And as for the subject of this thread: given the above, is the CS really the "bad guy" as compared to so many others? Perhaps they're really the "guy so fearful and stupid that they become villainous." And perhaps they need rescuing more than fighting. Perhaps that would be the best course of action for all good people.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:42 pm
by cosmicfish
Killer Cyborg wrote:I'd say that the Xiticix meet all of those criteria.

They are intelligent, and they do not significantly prey on humanity, but they do not communicate with any other species and do not live cooperatively with them. Even if you accept the idea that they have sovereignty over their current domain, they expand into other areas killing wantonly as they do so. Actions as necessary to prevent this expansion and associated loss of life are justifiable. Whether or not that permits their genocide depends a lot on what other options are available and/or have been tried.

Killer Cyborg wrote:"We don't know how smart they are" makes genocide okay?

Not "how smart", but "sentient" - exterminating animals may be tragic, may be evil, but it is not genocide. Genocide is defined in relation to "people", and only human supremacists would consider sentient non-humans to not be "people".

Killer Cyborg wrote:"They don't talk to us?" makes genocide okay?
Not really.

Not by itself, no. But communication is key to brokering peace. That is why I included it with "living cooperatively".

Killer Cyborg wrote:The main one that makes genocide okay is the self-defense aspect, the "it's us or them" bit.
And the CS has that on their side, because of all the various races and people out there that the CS are trying to exterminate, one heck of a lot of them DO want to kill or destroy the CS and/or humans.

But the issue with genocide is that it says "kill ALL of this group", and that can only be justified if ALL of that group tries to kill you. If only "one heck of a lot of them" are trying that, then you lack justification for the ones who are NOT trying to kill you.

Oh, and "want" is very different than "trying to". I may be certain that the guy I **** off in the bar "wants" to smash my face in, but if I swing before he does, I'm the one going to jail.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The problem is that the CS has trouble telling apart the races/classes that are evil and the races/classes that aren't,

No, they don't, at least not any more so than any type of enemy faced by any other military or government in history. The stakes are higher, but not even tremendously so.

Killer Cyborg wrote:and that the CS leadership doesn't really care.

Yep. And that is the guiding hand of evil, right there.

Killer Cyborg wrote:But if you're sitting at home, and the Star Wars Cantina crowd shows up on your lawn, and at least half of them start trying to eat you (or your soul), how picky are you going to be about sorting out which ones might be good guys when you shoot back?

And yet we have tried our own soldiers for war crimes when they failed to make those distinctions. Depending on the circumstances, faced with a snap decision, you may make mistakes. But if the US went into Fallujah and indiscriminately killed men, women, and children, even with evidence that "at least half" were trying to kill us, we would be roundly condemned the whole world over. Because if you have the time and resources to parse them, that's what you do if you don't want to be evil.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:51 pm
by cosmicfish
Jorick wrote:It is not unreasonable to believe that the majority of magic users and DBs are evil. Even if they swing both ways, the environment of Rifts Earth makes most people more aggressive than they tend to be in modern society (the CS is a good example). With such a power divergence on an individual level, a trial is not always reasonable regardless of one's morals.

I am not talking about a trial, even some basic observation would suffice. If I see some jerk with a gun, their ability to deal out death vastly outmatches my own unarmed ability - that doesn't mean I (or a police officer!) gets to assume that they are worthy of death unless they cross the line where it is reasonable to assume that they intend to use that ability and actually deal out some death! A trial is a very specific formality - judgment is something that is available to everyone, all the time.

Jorick wrote:Also, there's just a lot of ignorance.

And the resources to end it, as well.

Jorick wrote:Now, it is also clear that despite all of the above, they have come to recognize that some beings are pretty much "innocents," and they know that for at least some mages, for some period of time, "evil" is not inherent (though magic may be necessarily corrupting). That they know these things and still mistreat, and kill people is why they are bad.

Evil, actually. Even if I think that (for example) meth turns people to evil and crime and murder, I am not morally allowed to kill someone for smoking it. Killing someone intentionally and unnecessarily is a pretty strong indicator of evil, in both Palladium and in real life.

Jorick wrote:And as for the subject of this thread: given the above, is the CS really the "bad guy" as compared to so many others? Perhaps they're really the "guy so fearful and stupid that they become villainous." And perhaps they need rescuing more than fighting. Perhaps that would be the best course of action for all good people.

I don't doubt that there are some in the CS ignorant enough to believe that, but CWC and the SoT series clearly indicate a totalitarian state that uses conquest and fear to unite and maintain control over its populace. You may excuse the citizenry and even the common soldiers of the Third Reich as merely ignorant, but the leadership and the SS and the Reich itself were not ignorant, they were evil... and such is the case with the CS. And with the CS, there are strong indicators that the common soldiers are more evil than the Reich ever managed outside the elite SS.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:03 pm
by Jorick
cosmicfish wrote:And yet we have tried our own soldiers for war crimes when they failed to make those distinctions. Depending on the circumstances, faced with a snap decision, you may make mistakes. But if the US went into Fallujah and indiscriminately killed men, women, and children, even with evidence that "at least half" were trying to kill us, we would be roundly condemned the whole world over. Because if you have the time and resources to parse them, that's what you do if you don't want to be evil.



Completely agree with this. It's also born of rules of morality and war that have existed for about 50 years, themselves born out of ideas about "humanity" that have existed for about 300 years.

Before that, there was no such consideration.

Rifts Earth occurs 300 (+?) years in the future after the complete obliteration of human civilization, and the introduction of untold numbers of different moralities, and the added complexity of completely different species. Because Rifts Earth is written by Americans in the late 20th and 21st century, the cosmic morality is based largely on our current morality. And that's cool. (Not the case in other similar realms, like Warhammer 40k...who's the good guy there, given our morality? Is that more or less realistic?).

However, for instance, would a Cosmo Knight, or Gods of Light (Gods based on mythologies from far more brutal and less humanistic societies in our past), check out some primitive (lets say Earth level circa 1940's) planet in the 3Gs, and intervene in a world war where one side was threatening genocide against the other side? I'm pretty sure doing so is against the CCW code at least. Why? Are there not good reasons for this?

The only thing that makes Earth interesting to the "forces of good" is that really nasty pure evils can use it to spread that evil throughout the megaverse. In comparison, the CS is small potatoes. It's evil. It's just an (relatively) innocent evil that has been accosted by megaversal forces (much like any planet contacted too early by the CCW might be). The CS, assuming it never turns to magic (a possibility which is not to be dismissed), doesn't even have the capability to move beyond the planet. Magic, indeed, would make the potential of the CS' evil far greater.

The CS is bad. No one is saying it isn't. It's just that, in this particular reality, there is so much more going on. If there was an inherent difference between races of human beings, and some of those races were somehow inherently "evil," then some measure of control of those races would be warranted. The thing is, according to our morality, all humans beings are essentially the same because of their sentience (aka their "humanity").

In Rifts, sentience does not lead to inherent equality. There are sentient beings who will always (or almost always, but for a visit to the mind change thingy in Splynn or something similar), be "evil" and do evil things eventually. There are vast physiological differences between sentient beings, creating inherent inequalities in power, choice, and self-determination in this world. It's not the same moral universe. There are different priorities, even for those who are incredibly good all the time, than there is for us in our world.

The CS is not the highest priority. And they may even be, not just a lesser of evils, but a hopeful useful and willing ally in the fight for good.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:23 pm
by Jorick
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:And as for the subject of this thread: given the above, is the CS really the "bad guy" as compared to so many others? Perhaps they're really the "guy so fearful and stupid that they become villainous." And perhaps they need rescuing more than fighting. Perhaps that would be the best course of action for all good people.

I don't doubt that there are some in the CS ignorant enough to believe that, but CWC and the SoT series clearly indicate a totalitarian state that uses conquest and fear to unite and maintain control over its populace. You may excuse the citizenry and even the common soldiers of the Third Reich as merely ignorant, but the leadership and the SS and the Reich itself were not ignorant, they were evil... and such is the case with the CS. And with the CS, there are strong indicators that the common soldiers are more evil than the Reich ever managed outside the elite SS.


I'm pretty sure the leadership of the Third Reich believed that Jews and others were a different sort of being. They may have blinded themselves to reality due to vices and moral failings. Greed, envy, etc. But they were believers. What they did was evil. Why they did it was (hopefully) a lesson in what causes humans to do evil things. But they weren't "inherently evil" people. They couldn't be, because no human can be inherently evil. To think otherwise is to think like they did.

But in Rifts Earth, there are many inherently evil sentient beings. The false logic, born of vice, does not need to exist in order for good people to want to kill a lot of other people. Cosmo Knights and Cyber Knights, and Spirits of Light, and everything else that rhymes with right will not stop fighting until every last whatever is dead or powerless to continue to do whatever it is they do.

That's a legitimate course of action in Rifts. It cannot and can never be a legitimate course of action in a real world where all humans are basically the same, but for life experience.

So the CS does something that is half legitimate, and the other half is born out of something completely legitimate, and taken too far (and, again, even then they do not yet go so far as many have in our history). Given what they face, their fear and hatred is far more legitimate than the fear and hatred the Nazis had for people just like themselves.

If Jews (like me) really did have horns and fangs and eat children, and suck the goodness out of everything German, have greed and the domination of all others running through our blood, so that we can never be different than sinful, hurtful, civilization destroying monsters, then what else are good people supposed to do?

The belief in such things was as ridiculous as the belief in magic. But on Rifts, there is magic. On rifts, there are horned demons who can be nothing other than evil. And they do evil things to innocent people the CS tries to protect all the time. The fear is legitimate. The heroic good guys would try to temper the fear. To teach otherwise.

Just as Lazlo risks everything to try to communicate with the Xiticix first, to try to understand them first, good forces should try everything they can, up unto the point of self-annihilation, to get through to the CS. It might be suicidal (as is trying to do anything but completely obliterate the Xiticix), but that type of risk taking is what makes good heroes good heroes.

All Demons gotta die though. We know that (know it with certainty because this is a work of fiction that allows for such certainty). There is no reasoning. They are pure evil. They, and others like them, are the ultimate bad guy.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:37 pm
by Killer Cyborg
cosmicfish wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I'd say that the Xiticix meet all of those criteria.

They are intelligent, and they do not significantly prey on humanity,


They're intelligent... but their intelligence is mostly instinct. I don't see any evidence that they're overall much smarter than the xenomorphs in Aliens.
They regard other life forms as their enemies, and their constant expansion eliminates competing life forms, including humans. Their purpose is to eventually dominate the planet, which would render other lifeforms extinct.
XI 10
they regard all other diminant life forms as their enemies and systematically exterminate them. Humans, D-Bees and most intelligent beings fall into the category of rivals and are marked for extermination.

And while they don't actively eat humans, the bugs do devour humans and regurgitate them into sludge.

but they do not communicate with any other species and do not live cooperatively with them. Even if you accept the idea that they have sovereignty over their current domain, they expand into other areas killing wantonly as they do so. Actions as necessary to prevent this expansion and associated loss of life are justifiable. Whether or not that permits their genocide depends a lot on what other options are available and/or have been tried.


"Permits" by whose standards...?

Killer Cyborg wrote:"We don't know how smart they are" makes genocide okay?

Not "how smart", but "sentient" - exterminating animals may be tragic, may be evil, but it is not genocide. Genocide is defined in relation to "people", and only human supremacists would consider sentient non-humans to not be "people".


https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... 8&oe=utf-8
1. human beings in general or considered collectively.
2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

Regardless, since the CS are human supremacists, they wouldn't consider the extermination of other races to be genocide.

Killer Cyborg wrote:The main one that makes genocide okay is the self-defense aspect, the "it's us or them" bit.
And the CS has that on their side, because of all the various races and people out there that the CS are trying to exterminate, one heck of a lot of them DO want to kill or destroy the CS and/or humans.

But the issue with genocide is that it says "kill ALL of this group", and that can only be justified if ALL of that group tries to kill you. If only "one heck of a lot of them" are trying that, then you lack justification for the ones who are NOT trying to kill you.


So in the case of Aliens, Nuking them from orbit was an evil act, since there were still individual xenos who had not yet tried to kill Ripley and company?

Killer Cyborg wrote:The problem is that the CS has trouble telling apart the races/classes that are evil and the races/classes that aren't,

No, they don't, at least not any more so than any type of enemy faced by any other military or government in history. The stakes are higher, but not even tremendously so.


Look at history.
Look at the actions of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, where our troops have trouble telling which groups are enemies and which aren't.
Take Vietnam, for example, where the US troops had trouble telling the VC from innocent locals.
Look at the colonization of America, and all the stuff that happened because the settlers and military had trouble telling the difference between a hostile Indian tribe and a non-hostile one.

Except that in Rifts, as you say, the stakes are higher.
Also, there are more factors.
That human waving at you from the hillside might be a dragon.
That guy selling you fruit might be a mind melter or mind bleeder.
That soldier fighting next to you might be an Auto-G, or he might be possessed.

LOOK at history.
Look at how paranoid humans have gotten in times of danger, and how they've treated people who are different from them.
The CS behavior in their extreme circumstances is not particularly unusual, considering the sheer number and varieties of enemies they're up against, all the unknown and unseen powers that many of these enemies have.

Killer Cyborg wrote:and that the CS leadership doesn't really care.

Yep. And that is the guiding hand of evil, right there.


Agreed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:But if you're sitting at home, and the Star Wars Cantina crowd shows up on your lawn, and at least half of them start trying to eat you (or your soul), how picky are you going to be about sorting out which ones might be good guys when you shoot back?

And yet we have tried our own soldiers for war crimes when they failed to make those distinctions.


We have also NOT tried our own soldiers in those circumstances.
But yes... the modern United States is overall more enlightened than a post-apocalyptic empire hundreds of years in the future, just as we're overall more enlightened currently than we were during the McCarthy period, or the Salem Witch Trials, and any number of other periods of time.

Depending on the circumstances, faced with a snap decision, you may make mistakes. But if the US went into Fallujah and indiscriminately killed men, women, and children, even with evidence that "at least half" were trying to kill us, we would be roundly condemned the whole world over. Because if you have the time and resources to parse them, that's what you do if you don't want to be evil.


In today's modern world, sure.
A few hundred years ago?
Nope.
A few hundred years from now, after an apocalypse?
Nope.
Judging a society that's hundreds of years apart from us with modern eyes isn't exactly a fair judgment.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:43 pm
by cosmicfish
Jorick wrote:Completely agree with this. It's also born of rules of morality and war that have existed for about 50 years, themselves born out of ideas about "humanity" that have existed for about 300 years.

Before that, there was no such consideration.

Rifts Earth occurs 300 (+?) years in the future after the complete obliteration of human civilization, and the introduction of untold numbers of different moralities, and the added complexity of completely different species.

None of that changes the fact that said morality seems to have survived and thrived elsewhere on the continent. The questions are being asked, and answered, and everyone else seems to get the question right. And remember that the CS, as the aggressor, determines how much time they have to answer it. Tolkeen made some bad snap decisions, the CS made bad decisions with great deliberation and intent.

Jorick wrote:Because Rifts Earth is written by Americans in the late 20th and 21st century, the cosmic morality is based largely on our current morality. And that's cool.

And, more importantly, canon. Because there is an absolute, or "cosmic", morality in Palladium, and it is based on the better ideas of current western thought. Applying may be challenging, should be challenging in a good game, it does not change that choosing to do evil by the standards of early 21th century America makes you evil in Rifts as well.

Jorick wrote:However, for instance, would a Cosmo Knight, or Gods of Light (Gods based on mythologies from far more brutal and less humanistic societies in our past), check out some primitive (lets say Earth level circa 1940's) planet in the 3Gs, and intervene in a world war where one side was threatening genocide against the other side? I'm pretty sure doing so is against the CCW code at least. Why? Are there not good reasons for this?

I am not sure what you are asking. For the Cosmo-knights, their code has about a dozen references that would require their intervention in WWII. As for Gods of Light, you would need to be more specific - there are a lot of variations between the pantheons and certainly within pantheons, and some Gods of Light are more like Gods of Twilight*.

Jorick wrote:The only thing that makes Earth interesting to the "forces of good" is that really nasty pure evils can use it to spread that evil throughout the megaverse. In comparison, the CS is small potatoes. It's evil. It's just an (relatively) innocent evil that has been accosted by megaversal forces (much like any planet contacted too early by the CCW might be). The CS, assuming it never turns to magic (a possibility which is not to be dismissed), doesn't even have the capability to move beyond the planet. Magic, indeed, would make the potential of the CS' evil far greater.

So? For those facing the CS, they are generally (and easily) the greatest evil they face. That those not facing the CS may have more powerful evils in their sights is not relevant.

Jorick wrote:The CS is bad. No one is saying it isn't.

I'm pretty sure many are indeed saying it isn't.

Jorick wrote:It's just that, in this particular reality, there is so much more going on. If there was an inherent difference between races of human beings, and some of those races were somehow inherently "evil," then some measure of control of those races would be warranted.

There is a lot going on, but the Coalition still dominates a lot of activity in North America. And there is nothing inherently evil about most D-bees or practitioners of magic. And "kill them all" is not a moral form of control. Monitoring, absolutely, and punishing the ones who actually were evil, of course. But the CS largely just kills.

Jorick wrote:The thing is, according to our morality, all humans beings are essentially the same because of their sentience (aka their "humanity"). In Rifts, sentience does not lead to inherent equality. There are sentient beings who will always (or almost always, but for a visit to the mind change thingy in Splynn or something similar), be "evil" and do evil things eventually.

Absolutely, but the CS essentially treats the "inherently evil" and the "same as humans" identically, whereas everyone else understands the difference.

As a side note, do we have any canonical statements that racial alignment, even for things like demons and splugorth, are inherent? I suspect some would be, but I am curious how many "evil" beings could be raised among the good and turn out with non-evil alignments.

Jorick wrote:The CS is not the highest priority. And they may even be, not just a lesser of evils, but a hopeful useful and willing ally in the fight for good.

With the current leadership**, the best they could be is an ally against a common evil like the Xiticix. Anything more than that would require the destruction of the CS as it exists and rebuilding a select portion of it into something new.

*: As in "balanced between day and night", not "deities of crappy vampire romance novels".
**: And I mean this broadly, there is no one currently in the CS civilian or military leadership who seems to be anywhere in the same ballpark as "good".

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:46 pm
by Killer Cyborg
cosmicfish wrote: Tolkeen made some bad snap decisions


Didn't they build up their military for years before the siege?

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:00 pm
by Jorick
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:The only thing that makes Earth interesting to the "forces of good" is that really nasty pure evils can use it to spread that evil throughout the megaverse. In comparison, the CS is small potatoes. It's evil. It's just an (relatively) innocent evil that has been accosted by megaversal forces (much like any planet contacted too early by the CCW might be). The CS, assuming it never turns to magic (a possibility which is not to be dismissed), doesn't even have the capability to move beyond the planet. Magic, indeed, would make the potential of the CS' evil far greater.

So? For those facing the CS, they are generally (and easily) the greatest evil they face. That those not facing the CS may have more powerful evils in their sights is not relevant.


I disagree with this. The life expectancy of DBs in the Burbs is one of the many differences between facing the CS and facing life away from CS guns. The CS is brutal. But it's almost impossible to live outside CS territory, unless you have a lot of inherent power, or are one of the very few who finds protection under that power, because of the even greater, completely merciless brutality of monsters, many of which are sentient.

Most of those with "a lot of inherent power" are themselves at least as evil as the CS. If you want to live in the City of Brass, you either have to be a slave or also an evil person. If you want to be a CS citizen, or even in the Burbs, you don't have to be either. You can be a good person completely ignorant of what your military may be up to, living a full and good (though limited in geography) life. Even in the Burbs, you might be "second class" or mistreated (and often at risk of death) relative to people in the city, but your'e living more of a life than most just a few miles away.

cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:The CS is bad. No one is saying it isn't.

I'm pretty sure many are indeed saying it isn't.


I disagree with this too. I don't think anyone has said the CS is good across the board. At best, they are a force that is a net positive for good, given the other evils and what those other evils do or want to do. Like in the Minion War. Thank goodness for the CS.


Hopefully, through such engagement, over time, the CS can be taught the error of their ways. That might result in the death of the Proseks. Or it might not. (Joseph and his father have very different notions about things. Mommy Prosek has even more complicated notions, given her experience. Karl is a believer. But he could be lead, like his, wife, to believe otherwise. Joseph isn't a believer (according to the preview for upcoming books), and is willing to use magic 'cause all he cares about is power.

Regardless, trying is the "good" course of action. Killing lots of CS soldiers and citizens in retaliation is not. Killing lots of Demons in retaliation for being demons is good. That's a huge difference. That's something good beings should be, and I think are (given Lazlo's edicts) aware of.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:10 pm
by Shark_Force
i dunno that i can agree that the CS is the only place you can survive. there are a lot of other communities, and there are enough people in the wilderness that travelling operators trading some repair work for food and shelter and maybe a few credits, or farmers that own shiny new triax laser rifles, are a thing, not to mention places like lazlo, pre-war tolkeen, etc.

there are certainly a lot *more* people living in the CS 'burbs than elsewhere. but really, there is no indication that the world is such a hostile place *now* that you must have a small army or be the equivalent of one yourself to survive.

30 years ago? might have been another story entirely. but by the time the very first rifts book was set in, it really doesn't look much like the world is such a hostile place that you cannot survive without an absurd amount of power.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:21 pm
by cosmicfish
Killer Cyborg wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:I'd say that the Xiticix meet all of those criteria.

They are intelligent, and they do not significantly prey on humanity,


They're intelligent... but their intelligence is mostly instinct. I don't see any evidence that they're overall much smarter than the xenomorphs in Aliens.
They regard other life forms as their enemies, and their constant expansion eliminates competing life forms, including humans. Their purpose is to eventually dominate the planet, which would render other lifeforms extinct.
XI 10
they regard all other diminant life forms as their enemies and systematically exterminate them. Humans, D-Bees and most intelligent beings fall into the category of rivals and are marked for extermination.

And while they don't actively eat humans, the bugs do devour humans and regurgitate them into sludge.

The intelligence of the Xiticix is intentionally and canonically alien and ill-defined, but I thought the higher classes were categorized as having "regular" intelligence. I was wrong there, they are not sentient as far as I can tell (for the purposes of this discussion). And the "regurgitate into sludge" thing is only by a small fraction and is not limited to sentient creatures, like it is with vampires and the like.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Actions as necessary to prevent this expansion and associated loss of life are justifiable. Whether or not that permits their genocide depends a lot on what other options are available and/or have been tried.


"Permits" by whose standards...?

The standards of those making the decision against the absolute moralities of the Palladium multiverse.

Killer Cyborg wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+people&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
1. human beings in general or considered collectively.
2. the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

Regardless, since the CS are human supremacists, they wouldn't consider the extermination of other races to be genocide.

Those definitions were created by a universe that only has one identified sentient race, and most groups that have discussed it agree that it will not stand in a multi-racial universe. And most groups committing genocide don't consider their victims to be people, their opinion doesn't really count, any more than a cannibal's opinion of "good food to eat".

So in the case of Aliens, Nuking them from orbit was an evil act, since there were still individual xenos who had not yet tried to kill Ripley and company?

No. They did not appear sentient or communicative (precluding discussion), she had sampled a large portion of that specific population without finding any "good" ones (suggesting that statistically they were all "bad"), she had observed their collective evil behavior outside of duress (i.e., prior to her arrival they had elected to kill their noncombatant captives), and the belief (true, no less) that allowing them to remain would alive would result in their killing more people.

Conversely, the CS is targeting sentients with whom they can and do communicate, sampling the targeted populations for "good" ones is so easy that it substantially influences the behaviors of many indoctrinated CS soldiers who interact with them, groups like Tolkeen have committed their "crimes" largely under stress with their backs to the wall, and (the innocents, at least) aren't killing people when left alone.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Look at history.
Look at the actions of our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, where our troops have trouble telling which groups are enemies and which aren't.
Take Vietnam, for example, where the US troops had trouble telling the VC from innocent locals.
Look at the colonization of America, and all the stuff that happened because the settlers and military had trouble telling the difference between a hostile Indian tribe and a non-hostile one.

In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, the trouble of parsing hostiles from civilians was and is difficult... but we still do it, and we still absorb the cost of our errors as an alternative to turning to evil, and we still punish those who decide that distinctions between innocent and evil are too hard or meaningless. If we followed the CS model in ANY of those wars, it is likely World War III would have already started, and it would be the US against the world!

And as for the colonization of the Americas, we fought alongside large numbers of native Americans right up to the point where we disarmed the last ones and put them on reservations - the problems Europeans had were not really about identifying hostiles. If you still want to give that one a run, I might hand you over to my wife, she did her masters thesis on colonial/native interaction, I just read the danged thing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Except that in Rifts, as you say, the stakes are higher.
Also, there are more factors.
That human waving at you from the hillside might be a dragon.
That guy selling you fruit might be a mind melter or mind bleeder.
That soldier fighting next to you might be an Auto-G, or he might be possessed.

Sure, and what are the odds of those, compared to the cost of being wrong? What methods do you have for determining the truth before acting lethally based on suspicion? Paranoia does not justify evil.

Killer Cyborg wrote:LOOK at history.
Look at how paranoid humans have gotten in times of danger, and how they've treated people who are different from them.
The CS behavior in their extreme circumstances is not particularly unusual, considering the sheer number and varieties of enemies they're up against, all the unknown and unseen powers that many of these enemies have.

And look how often western civilizations have later apologized for those actions, too. Saying that people can be coerced, or pushed, or led, or get scared into evil actions explains how they got there but does not make their actions any less evil, nor does it forgive what they have done.

Killer Cyborg wrote:In today's modern world, sure.
A few hundred years ago?
Nope.

Why is that even a standard? Why does what was acceptable a few hundred years ago matter to any of this?

Killer Cyborg wrote:A few hundred years from now, after an apocalypse?
Nope.
Judging a society that's hundreds of years apart from us with modern eyes isn't exactly a fair judgment.

True, but the CS is being judged by their contemporaries, and outside the NGR (who aren't exactly paragons of virtue themselves) found wanting. Plus, as has been noted on here already, Palladium does have an absolute morality that gives us an exacting standard against which to judge, and while individual "lesser" members of the CS may pass that standard the leadership and actions of the nation do not.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:22 pm
by cosmicfish
Killer Cyborg wrote:
cosmicfish wrote: Tolkeen made some bad snap decisions


Didn't they build up their military for years before the siege?

Yes... but is having a military evil? I was referring to summoning demons, I don't recall them doing that (as a nation) prior to the invasion! I really don't see your point.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:24 pm
by Jorick
Shark_Force wrote:i dunno that i can agree that the CS is the only place you can survive. there are a lot of other communities, and there are enough people in the wilderness that travelling operators trading some repair work for food and shelter and maybe a few credits, or farmers that own shiny new triax laser rifles, are a thing, not to mention places like lazlo, pre-war tolkeen, etc.

there are certainly a lot *more* people living in the CS 'burbs than elsewhere. but really, there is no indication that the world is such a hostile place *now* that you must have a small army or be the equivalent of one yourself to survive.

30 years ago? might have been another story entirely. but by the time the very first rifts book was set in, it really doesn't look much like the world is such a hostile place that you cannot survive without an absurd amount of power.


A few things.

I think the most important is that, in the post-apocalypse, if you have very rare skills that people don't have to the extent that you can do a circuit of multiple villages to make money, you're far above average for life expectancy in general.

I think most travelling operators, and the like, are doing so well within the "domain of man" where there is a lot of space to not be directly under CS observation, but CS activity is the most significant reason why it's safe. Like, you might be travelling around upper Michigan (Northern Gun), or in Arkansas. But East of the Missisippi, no. I don't think the life expectancy of a even travelling operator is gonna fair well. West of the CS controleld area, the primary populations (other than the Baronies) are marauding bandits, psystalkers, simvan, and, if you're lucky(?) Native Americans. South of Lone Star are mostly marauding bandits and vampires.

A lot of the marauding those bandits do is against the CS, but they also use what small communities they can, and hit ttrade between the CS and others, and among others (being a caravan operator cannot be a fun job). Such small communities are damned if they do, damned if they don't, probably only around because the bandits kill the monsters, and then always at the mercy of the bandits. It's no wonder that DBs would stay in the Burbs, despite the risk, rather than not (a much greater risk).

There is little reason to think there are too many population centers outside of the one's mentioned in the books. There's always room given to add more for your own fun. But environment after environment is described as unceasingly hostile. Except for the Domain of Man. Those who survive outside have techno-wizardy, at least.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:32 pm
by cosmicfish
Jorick wrote:I disagree with this. The life expectancy of DBs in the Burbs is one of the many differences between facing the CS and facing life away from CS guns. The CS is brutal. But it's almost impossible to live outside CS territory, unless you have a lot of inherent power, or are one of the very few who finds protection under that power, because of the even greater, completely merciless brutality of monsters, many of which are sentient.

And yet humanity seems to be everywhere, and there are many other nations that provide security to their populace (well, one less, now). And that is really the issue - it is not like there is the Coalition way and then there is the law of the jungle. There are lots of other places where humanity gets along just fine without the actions of the CS.

Jorick wrote:Most of those with "a lot of inherent power" are themselves at least as evil as the CS. If you want to live in the City of Brass, you either have to be a slave or also an evil person. If you want to be a CS citizen, or even in the Burbs, you don't have to be either.

So? We don't let convicted killers walk just because they didn't cannibalize their victims and wear their faces to parties! If you lined up every nation or city-state in NA on a spectrum of good and evil, yes, the CoB would be more evil than the CS, but they would be the exception.

Jorick wrote:You can be a good person completely ignorant of what your military may be up to, living a full and good (though limited in geography) life. Even in the Burbs, you might be "second class" or mistreated (and often at risk of death) relative to people in the city, but your'e living more of a life than most just a few miles away.

If you are saying that there are good people in the CS, I agree. If you are saying that there are people in the Burbs who are living a better life than they would elsewhere, I agree with that too.

But there are a lot of people in the CS who know exactly what is going on. And there are probably a lot of people in the Burbs who are accepting worse conditions because it either gets them something they want (like a business opportunity) or because they are hoping for something that is to them worth the gamble (like citizenship). And none of that justifies what the CS does to everyone else.

cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:The CS is bad. No one is saying it isn't.

I'm pretty sure many are indeed saying it isn't.

I disagree with this too. I don't think anyone has said the CS is good across the board. At best, they are a force that is a net positive for good, given the other evils and what those other evils do or want to do. Like in the Minion War. Thank goodness for the CS. [/quote]
Explain to me the difference between "net positive for good" and "not evil", because I am having trouble seeing how saying they are a net positive for good can coexist with calling them not evil. We have to speak about the "net" of what they do, because there is no nation that does not perform at least one act of evil, and no nation that does not perform at least one act of good.

Jorick wrote:Regardless, trying is the "good" course of action. Killing lots of CS soldiers and citizens in retaliation is not. Killing lots of Demons in retaliation for being demons is good. That's a huge difference. That's something good beings should be, and I think are (given Lazlo's edicts) aware of.

Was I, or anyone else, advocating genocide against the CS? Or even retaliation? I thought this was just a debate about "are they the bad guy", not "what should be done about the bad guy?"

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:41 pm
by eliakon
Okay so here is my question.
Can anyone find a defense for the Good Alignment to be allowed to commit genocide?
Under what circumstances can Selfish do so? What alignment do they have to be to allow it?

If we know this then we can look at the CS empire as a whole and decide what alignment it could be (My money is on Aberrant Evil)

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:51 pm
by Jorick
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:I disagree with this. The life expectancy of DBs in the Burbs is one of the many differences between facing the CS and facing life away from CS guns. The CS is brutal. But it's almost impossible to live outside CS territory, unless you have a lot of inherent power, or are one of the very few who finds protection under that power, because of the even greater, completely merciless brutality of monsters, many of which are sentient.

And yet humanity seems to be everywhere, and there are many other nations that provide security to their populace (well, one less, now). And that is really the issue - it is not like there is the Coalition way and then there is the law of the jungle. There are lots of other places where humanity gets along just fine without the actions of the CS.


There was another thread on these forums discussing why the CS is pretty much ignorant of most of the continent beyond the Domain of Man, given how fast their stuff can fly.

In the books, very often it is noted that long distance patrols tend to not make it back. That is, the life expectancy of a squad of SAMAS (nothing to sneeze at, power-wise), or better, is a matter of hours in the wilderness. And they're not hunting anything. Just looking.

cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:Most of those with "a lot of inherent power" are themselves at least as evil as the CS. If you want to live in the City of Brass, you either have to be a slave or also an evil person. If you want to be a CS citizen, or even in the Burbs, you don't have to be either.

So? We don't let convicted killers walk just because they didn't cannibalize their victims and wear their faces to parties! If you lined up every nation or city-state in NA on a spectrum of good and evil, yes, the CoB would be more evil than the CS, but they would be the exception.


They, and the Vamp Kingdoms, and the Xiticix, the simvan, psystalker tribes, some of the Native Americans might be aggressively protective enough to be the same difference, Pecos bandits, other bandit groups (that one in New West?), Grim Reapers, Barbarians in the East, Splugorth Outposts, Mechanoids (and other random, yet probably frequent, occurrences), Calgary, any village lorded over by an evil dragon, necromancer, demon, etc. etc.

cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:You can be a good person completely ignorant of what your military may be up to, living a full and good (though limited in geography) life. Even in the Burbs, you might be "second class" or mistreated (and often at risk of death) relative to people in the city, but your'e living more of a life than most just a few miles away.

If you are saying that there are good people in the CS, I agree. If you are saying that there are people in the Burbs who are living a better life than they would elsewhere, I agree with that too.

But there are a lot of people in the CS who know exactly what is going on. And there are probably a lot of people in the Burbs who are accepting worse conditions because it either gets them something they want (like a business opportunity) or because they are hoping for something that is to them worth the gamble (like citizenship). And none of that justifies what the CS does to everyone else.


Maybe the difficulty is in the word "justifies." It's wrong, what the CS does. But they're in a really crappy situation. That can be understood. And worked with. Plato is an ancient great horned dragon. He's almost invincible (one of the most powerful beings in the megaverse, a small step below a God). He can change how he looks. He can control your mind. He can pretend to be good or whatever he wants for his own purposes, and if the results are bad for him, he can just leave the dimension on a whim and start over somewhere else. No consequences at all. How do you trust such a thing?

cosmicfish wrote:Explain to me the difference between "net positive for good" and "not evil", because I am having trouble seeing how saying they are a net positive for good can coexist with calling them not evil. We have to speak about the "net" of what they do, because there is no nation that does not perform at least one act of evil, and no nation that does not perform at least one act of good.


I've been trying to explain that. That's pretty much all I've been trying to explain. If you can understand that even "evil" nations do some good, and, more to the point, that "good" nations do some evil, than you can understand that humans do what humans do. This is different than demons doing what demons do. The CS is weak, in mral fiber and other ways, the way humans tend to be. Hence they are inherently not the "evil" of greatest import. Rather, being "good" to humans means recognizing they make (sometimes horrible) mistakes, and they have to be worked with. Some evils are unworkable, and therefore greater. The CS, for all its faults, helps the good mission ultimately more than it hurts the good mission.

cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:Regardless, trying is the "good" course of action. Killing lots of CS soldiers and citizens in retaliation is not. Killing lots of Demons in retaliation for being demons is good. That's a huge difference. That's something good beings should be, and I think are (given Lazlo's edicts) aware of.

Was I, or anyone else, advocating genocide against the CS? Or even retaliation? I thought this was just a debate about "are they the bad guy", not "what should be done about the bad guy?"
[/quote]

There was advocacy of retaliation, yes. I think it was Nightmask (maybe someone else? it was a while ago) who was using the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan as an example of justified retaliation. There was a lot of discussion of what Lazlo should have done. There was discussion of how Tolkeen was right to stand and fight, rather than move.

That discussion is relevant. Is the CS so evil that it requires retaliation (or even genocide) like the demons and Xiticix do? If the answer is no, then we can use that as evidence that the CS is not the baddest of bad guys, and that they should be treated differently. For these reasons and for others discussed.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:11 pm
by Shark_Force
Jorick wrote:A few things.

I think the most important is that, in the post-apocalypse, if you have very rare skills that people don't have to the extent that you can do a circuit of multiple villages to make money, you're far above average for life expectancy in general.

I think most travelling operators, and the like, are doing so well within the "domain of man" where there is a lot of space to not be directly under CS observation, but CS activity is the most significant reason why it's safe. Like, you might be travelling around upper Michigan (Northern Gun), or in Arkansas. But East of the Missisippi, no. I don't think the life expectancy of a even travelling operator is gonna fair well. West of the CS controleld area, the primary populations (other than the Baronies) are marauding bandits, psystalkers, simvan, and, if you're lucky(?) Native Americans. South of Lone Star are mostly marauding bandits and vampires.

A lot of the marauding those bandits do is against the CS, but they also use what small communities they can, and hit ttrade between the CS and others, and among others (being a caravan operator cannot be a fun job). Such small communities are damned if they do, damned if they don't, probably only around because the bandits kill the monsters, and then always at the mercy of the bandits. It's no wonder that DBs would stay in the Burbs, despite the risk, rather than not (a much greater risk).

There is little reason to think there are too many population centers outside of the one's mentioned in the books. There's always room given to add more for your own fun. But environment after environment is described as unceasingly hostile. Except for the Domain of Man. Those who survive outside have techno-wizardy, at least.


that's nice. but in order for there to be villages for bandits to plunder, towns where the operator can trade their services for food and shelter, and trade caravans to travel through the wilderness from place to place, there must be villages, towns, and centers of trade to go to.

an operator, no matter how tough, cannot travel through the wilderness trading with people who do not exist. a bandit, no matter how bloodthirsty and well-equipped and regardless of the number of friends they have, cannot raid a town that is not there. a caravan cannot go off into the wilderness and make profitable trades with nobody.

this all speaks to the fact that there are perfectly normal people out there. there are towns that are capable of surviving bandit raids. there are places that can get by with months in between visits from a travelling operator. there are places that not only exist, but are doing well enough and producing enough goods that trade caravans can expect to profit by going there without facing sufficient risk to deter them from trying.

if the world is so hostile that you need to be a great horned dragon just to survive, those people should not be there (unless they are all as tough as great horned dragons).

everything points to the fact that, while certainly much more wild than the world we live in, the world of rifts earth is (at present) sufficiently non-threatening for civilization to establish itself, without the need for having a giant army that slaughters anything that might conceivably be a threat.

yes, that person waving to you in a friendly way might be a dragon or a demon wanting to murder you in your sleep. but it is really unlikely. it is vastly more likely that if you see someone waving to you in a friendly way, they're actually a friendly traveller, possibly looking for a place to rest for the night, or just wanting to trade gossip, or looking to see if you need a hand with harvesting your crops.

humanity is thriving, but it is thriving both in and out of the CS area of control.

it may not have been that way 20 or 50 or 100 years ago. honestly, i'm not sure (but those travelling operators seem to have maintained their knowledge starting from way back to the coming of the rifts, most likely by being travelling operators... so i'm inclined to say that there were people around back then, and that you were far more likely to encounter people who look like people than you were to encounter bloodthirsty murdering demons that look like people)

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:18 pm
by eliakon
Jorick wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:I disagree with this. The life expectancy of DBs in the Burbs is one of the many differences between facing the CS and facing life away from CS guns. The CS is brutal. But it's almost impossible to live outside CS territory, unless you have a lot of inherent power, or are one of the very few who finds protection under that power, because of the even greater, completely merciless brutality of monsters, many of which are sentient.

And yet humanity seems to be everywhere, and there are many other nations that provide security to their populace (well, one less, now). And that is really the issue - it is not like there is the Coalition way and then there is the law of the jungle. There are lots of other places where humanity gets along just fine without the actions of the CS.


There was another thread on these forums discussing why the CS is pretty much ignorant of most of the continent beyond the Domain of Man, given how fast their stuff can fly.

In the books, very often it is noted that long distance patrols tend to not make it back. That is, the life expectancy of a squad of SAMAS (nothing to sneeze at, power-wise), or better, is a matter of hours in the wilderness. And they're not hunting anything. Just looking.

Source?
That's a pretty bold claim I would have to see some proof of it before I will believe that SAMAS squads have short lives.


Jorick wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:Most of those with "a lot of inherent power" are themselves at least as evil as the CS. If you want to live in the City of Brass, you either have to be a slave or also an evil person. If you want to be a CS citizen, or even in the Burbs, you don't have to be either.

So? We don't let convicted killers walk just because they didn't cannibalize their victims and wear their faces to parties! If you lined up every nation or city-state in NA on a spectrum of good and evil, yes, the CoB would be more evil than the CS, but they would be the exception.


They, and the Vamp Kingdoms, and the Xiticix, the simvan, psystalker tribes, some of the Native Americans might be aggressively protective enough to be the same difference, Pecos bandits, other bandit groups (that one in New West?), Grim Reapers, Barbarians in the East, Splugorth Outposts, Mechanoids (and other random, yet probably frequent, occurrences), Calgary, any village lorded over by an evil dragon, necromancer, demon, etc. etc.

Ummmmm I really don't think you can reasonably or fairly put groups like
Bandits
Secret Death Cult
Ultra-Rare Alien Monsters
And other super rare non-governmental groups in on a scale for governemnts.
Its deliberately altering the scale by weighting it with irrelivent trash
Look at the OTHER GOVERNMENTS ON NORTH AMERICA
When we do THAT it suddenly is a lot less charitable for the CS. We start to notice that the majority of city states in North America are pretty decent places (Lazlo, New Lazlo, Tolkeen pre-war, Dewomer, Silverano, Arnzo, Char, Psiscape, Magestar, Mystic Triad, New Kenoria, Queens Harbor, Kindgsdal, Newtown, Los Alamos.....)

Jorick wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:You can be a good person completely ignorant of what your military may be up to, living a full and good (though limited in geography) life. Even in the Burbs, you might be "second class" or mistreated (and often at risk of death) relative to people in the city, but your'e living more of a life than most just a few miles away.

If you are saying that there are good people in the CS, I agree. If you are saying that there are people in the Burbs who are living a better life than they would elsewhere, I agree with that too.

But there are a lot of people in the CS who know exactly what is going on. And there are probably a lot of people in the Burbs who are accepting worse conditions because it either gets them something they want (like a business opportunity) or because they are hoping for something that is to them worth the gamble (like citizenship). And none of that justifies what the CS does to everyone else.


Maybe the difficulty is in the word "justifies." It's wrong, what the CS does. But they're in a really crappy situation.

A situation of their own devising.
Look at the giant list of OTHER nations on north America.
Now note how many of them are genocidal maniacs that are known conqurors.
Oh wait....The CS is in the situation of being always attacked....because it has started to attack everyone else. You can not start a war, and then justify your actions in that war by saying "but we are at war"

Jorick wrote: That can be understood. And worked with. Plato is an ancient great horned dragon. He's almost invincible (one of the most powerful beings in the megaverse, a small step below a God). He can change how he looks. He can control your mind. He can pretend to be good or whatever he wants for his own purposes, and if the results are bad for him, he can just leave the dimension on a whim and start over somewhere else. No consequences at all. How do you trust such a thing?

An Ad-Hominem attack on Plato does nothing for this argument. This is not a place for CS Propaganda.
They way you trust him is you look at his actual actions. His Deeds. What he says and does. THAT is how you judge him. I would like to note that Lazlo (which is small and also constantly under siege from demons and monsters) has managed to thrive with out expelling outsiders, or genocide, or mass murder, or....
Hmmmmm


Jorick wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:Explain to me the difference between "net positive for good" and "not evil", because I am having trouble seeing how saying they are a net positive for good can coexist with calling them not evil. We have to speak about the "net" of what they do, because there is no nation that does not perform at least one act of evil, and no nation that does not perform at least one act of good.


I've been trying to explain that. That's pretty much all I've been trying to explain. If you can understand that even "evil" nations do some good, and, more to the point, that "good" nations do some evil, than you can understand that humans do what humans do. This is different than demons doing what demons do. The CS is weak, in mral fiber and other ways, the way humans tend to be. Hence they are inherently not the "evil" of greatest import. Rather, being "good" to humans means recognizing they make (sometimes horrible) mistakes, and they have to be worked with. Some evils are unworkable, and therefore greater. The CS, for all its faults, helps the good mission ultimately more than it hurts the good mission.

I do not see how "makes north America a place of war and genocide that is incapable of knowing peace" helps the good mission.
They are the evil. The good mission can't take place until the CS is stopped. Litterally. Until the CS stops making North America a constant hotbed of hatred and war there is no possible way to achieve peace and prosperity for the rest of the nations on North America.
The only peace that the CS desires is the peace of the grave for everyone else.



Jorick wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Jorick wrote:Regardless, trying is the "good" course of action. Killing lots of CS soldiers and citizens in retaliation is not. Killing lots of Demons in retaliation for being demons is good. That's a huge difference. That's something good beings should be, and I think are (given Lazlo's edicts) aware of.

Was I, or anyone else, advocating genocide against the CS? Or even retaliation? I thought this was just a debate about "are they the bad guy", not "what should be done about the bad guy?"


There was advocacy of retaliation, yes. I think it was Nightmask (maybe someone else? it was a while ago) who was using the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan as an example of justified retaliation. There was a lot of discussion of what Lazlo should have done. There was discussion of how Tolkeen was right to stand and fight, rather than move.

That discussion is relevant. Is the CS so evil that it requires retaliation (or even genocide) like the demons and Xiticix do? If the answer is no, then we can use that as evidence that the CS is not the baddest of bad guys, and that they should be treated differently. For these reasons and for others discussed.[/quote]
There has not been any advocacy of retaliation.
Nightmask was asking if it was justified for people to fight back because people were claiming that the Tolkeen war proved that Tolkeen was bad and in the wrong. He rightly pointed out that the victims of aggression have the right to fight back and that they can use heavy force.
This in no way lets the CS off the hook. Especially since in every case here (with the sole exception of provications from the CoB) the CS is the aggressor not the victim.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:22 pm
by Nightmask
Jorick wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:What I find funny is all the talk of Genocide and using that as a defining characteristic of an evil group of people. Genocide against Dbees and or mages (Though that wouldn't be genocide, but I get what people are trying to say). Thing is, noone has any problem what so ever with killing of demons. Any demon. All demons, all the time.

It's perfectly ok for 'Forces of light' to fight armies of demons because they're demons. They invade our world. They enslave our people if they're lucky. Rape and kill them if they're not. Eat them sometimes. Killing every last one and they're heroes. Why? Well we all know Demons are bad right? Thats what we've been told. That's what we've seen. Demons=bad. Thus ok to kill um all and be heroes.

*looks around* How is that OK, but the CS's doing any different? DBees invaded our world. They enslave humanity. They rape and eat humanity, they kill them. All the time.

But.. it's "Evil" when the CS kill them.

But it's perfectly "Ok" When other factions and heroes of light, commit genocide on Demons and Devils.

Now. Some of you are going to say "Not all DBees are bad. There's some good ones that only want to help. Some are just lost here on earth" Yeah there are, but how is one supposed to tell the difference until they try and bite your head off? After 200 years of aliens and Dbees preying on humanity, are you going to stop and ask a Dbee if he wants to play nice? Are you going to trust him if he says yes? No. You're going to lump him/her in with the others. The ones that have preyed on humanity for generation after generation after generation.

Just like Demons and Devils and what not. Are all of them bad? No. How do we know? They're optional player characters. I'm playing one right now in an HU Game. They're not all bad but noone has a problem with lumping them all together and killing them all and being 'heroes'.

It's just bad when the CS lumps creatures together and does it.

There seems to be a double standard here.



The double standard is extended if the CS is "bad" like the Demons are (aka the "real bad guys in the game"). Which therefore means it's ok to kill all CS?


There isn't any double standard, and no 'the real bad guys in the game' are not JUST the demons but ALSO those like the CS, who're arguably worse than demons since demons are effectively born to be evil whereas the CS CHOOSES to be evil. When you choose to do evil things and dedicate yourself to doing evil things you're without question a bad guy. You choose to kill someone for no other reason than the aren't like you you're a bad guy, you choose to kill someone because you want their land, you're a bad guy, and since those are what the CS chooses to do then the CS is without question a bad guy. The members that are exceptions are just that, exceptions, the overwhelming majority are the rule and the rule is that they're evil.

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:23 pm
by Jorick
Shark_Force wrote:
Jorick wrote:A few things.

I think the most important is that, in the post-apocalypse, if you have very rare skills that people don't have to the extent that you can do a circuit of multiple villages to make money, you're far above average for life expectancy in general.

I think most travelling operators, and the like, are doing so well within the "domain of man" where there is a lot of space to not be directly under CS observation, but CS activity is the most significant reason why it's safe. Like, you might be travelling around upper Michigan (Northern Gun), or in Arkansas. But East of the Missisippi, no. I don't think the life expectancy of a even travelling operator is gonna fair well. West of the CS controleld area, the primary populations (other than the Baronies) are marauding bandits, psystalkers, simvan, and, if you're lucky(?) Native Americans. South of Lone Star are mostly marauding bandits and vampires.

A lot of the marauding those bandits do is against the CS, but they also use what small communities they can, and hit ttrade between the CS and others, and among others (being a caravan operator cannot be a fun job). Such small communities are damned if they do, damned if they don't, probably only around because the bandits kill the monsters, and then always at the mercy of the bandits. It's no wonder that DBs would stay in the Burbs, despite the risk, rather than not (a much greater risk).

There is little reason to think there are too many population centers outside of the one's mentioned in the books. There's always room given to add more for your own fun. But environment after environment is described as unceasingly hostile. Except for the Domain of Man. Those who survive outside have techno-wizardy, at least.


that's nice. but in order for there to be villages for bandits to plunder, towns where the operator can trade their services for food and shelter, and trade caravans to travel through the wilderness from place to place, there must be villages, towns, and centers of trade to go to.

an operator, no matter how tough, cannot travel through the wilderness trading with people who do not exist. a bandit, no matter how bloodthirsty and well-equipped and regardless of the number of friends they have, cannot raid a town that is not there. a caravan cannot go off into the wilderness and make profitable trades with nobody.

this all speaks to the fact that there are perfectly normal people out there. there are towns that are capable of surviving bandit raids. there are places that can get by with months in between visits from a travelling operator. there are places that not only exist, but are doing well enough and producing enough goods that trade caravans can expect to profit by going there without facing sufficient risk to deter them from trying.

if the world is so hostile that you need to be a great horned dragon just to survive, those people should not be there (unless they are all as tough as great horned dragons).

everything points to the fact that, while certainly much more wild than the world we live in, the world of rifts earth is (at present) sufficiently non-threatening for civilization to establish itself, without the need for having a giant army that slaughters anything that might conceivably be a threat.

yes, that person waving to you in a friendly way might be a dragon or a demon wanting to murder you in your sleep. but it is really unlikely. it is vastly more likely that if you see someone waving to you in a friendly way, they're actually a friendly traveler, possibly looking for a place to rest for the night, or just wanting to trade gossip, or looking to see if you need a hand with harvesting your crops.

humanity is thriving, but it is thriving both in and out of the CS area of control.

it may not have been that way 20 or 50 or 100 years ago. honestly, i'm not sure (but those travelling operators seem to have maintained their knowledge starting from way back to the coming of the rifts, most likely by being travelling operators... so i'm inclined to say that there were people around back then, and that you were far more likely to encounter people who look like people than you were to encounter bloodthirsty murdering demons that look like people)


Most of the bandits are in the "Domain of Man." I covered the possibility of the presence of the bandits being what allows the village to exist (this is explicit in some cases in Texas). The "world" is threatening. The domain of man is "sufficiently non-threatening." There are numbers given in the books, quoted by others in this thread. Humanity is not thriving outside the CS.

What are "perfectly normal people" in Rifts? Towns outside of the Domain are often described. Some have entire books written about them. They have control of great powers, even if they themselves are not dragons. Or they are towns comprised of bandits etc. Even so, they are few and far between.

There are two trade routes discussed at some length in the books. One is in Arizona, and if fraught with peril. The other is through the no-man's land between the CS and Pecos Bandits. To the extent that there are others discussed, it is generally the rivers. They have their own problems (like the Mississippi and its ever open rift, or the Ohio going right through Dunscon's territory).

There's that family farm in the dinosaur swamp. It's one of a few that have relations with each other. They survive with techno-wizardry. They are constantly in peril (even an adventure around the idea iirc). They are not trusting of anyone that comes by that they don't already know. That's life in the wilderness for those that can wield magic (human or DB). What do "normal" people (human or DB) do?