Forums of the Megaverse®

Axelmania wrote:

HWalsh wrote:One does not use that particular phrasing to mean, "They delivered him back after he suffered a tragic accidental death."

I've seen it used that way. For example: https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/sa ... e/3735643/

May 24, 2019 - "I sent my child to work in the morning hours of June 5, 2012 - they sent him back in a body bag," Sean's dad Brett Scovell said.

The person is blaming the company's unsafe practices. This is not a benign statement.

HWalsh wrote:though it might actually include literal delivery
it never is used if the person did not die as a result of direct action of the sender.

Except that it IS. For another example https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/10/bloomb ... -richmond/

“As a mother, I would not throw my all and my everything into somebody that is just talking," said Calandrian Simpson Kemp, clutching a framed photo of her son, Joseph, Jr.

Kemp and her husband, George, lost their son seven years ago to gun violence. Since then, they’ve supported Bloomberg – even appearing in his Super Bowl ad.

“My child was given to me in a blanket, but because of gun violence, I received him back in a body bag," she said.

Received isn't the same as sent. The person is also directly blaming the death on gun violence.

Axelmania wrote:The problem with comparing to modern nations is that you may have some idea in your head of how these nations would react to countrysides-full-of-demons that could fall short of realistic.

Shows like "The Walking Dead" do a good job of showing how empathy for humanity can be scarce when resources run low and threats run high.

Rifts would be worse because the threats are so much more powerful than zombies.

Don't all countries have walled regions they keep certain people out of?

this is straight a bad-faith argument. axel, you need to be asking yourself why you think you're position on the CS is good instead of asking everyone else to bend to it.

HWalsh wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

HWalsh wrote:One does not use that particular phrasing to mean, "They delivered him back after he suffered a tragic accidental death."

I've seen it used that way. For example: https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/sa ... e/3735643/

May 24, 2019 - "I sent my child to work in the morning hours of June 5, 2012 - they sent him back in a body bag," Sean's dad Brett Scovell said.

The person is blaming the company's unsafe practices. This is not a benign statement.

True, but blaming a company for being unsafe isn't the same as implying they outright murdered their employee.

The statement could merely be saying that the CS didn't take adequate steps to guarantee the safety of the diplomat, which nations are generally expected to do.

HWalsh wrote:Received isn't the same as sent.

You're splitting haired, they are necessarily paired. To receive something, someone must send it.

HWalsh wrote:The person is also directly blaming the death on gun violence.

Yes, but the one doing the sending is not the one doing the violence.

As we see with the Brett Scovell statement from 2019, it obviously doesn't require violence at all. The expression may just be linked to negligence.

The diplomat could well have been murdered, but that could also be because the CS didn't want to spare resources to protect him and he was killed by a third party.

Orin J. wrote:this is straight a bad-faith argument. axel

How so?

The CS seems much more accepting of women in positions of authority than many modern nations, for example, so I can argue they set a precedent as being less sexist.

Look at the position that Carol Black holds in Psi-Battalion, who conveniently also is an example of the CS being less racist, since she is obviously of a not-pale skin tone.

How many nations today have such a parallel?

Orin J. wrote:you need to be asking yourself why you think you're position on the CS is good

I think my position is good because I am arguing from evidence. Feel free to address evidence like Carol if you want to argue about modern nations all being superior to the CS.

Orin J. wrote:instead of asking everyone else to bend to it.

KC commented that "we definitely are nowhere near as bad" as the CS.

I realize looking back that this comment was about the United States (not all modern nations) so I have unconsciously shifted the goalposts a little.

If looking for an American equivalent of Carol Black (a WOC in military authority) equivalents in the United States could be seen in Marcelite J. Harris (Major General in air force). Carol is a Lt. Colonel soon to be promoted to Brigadier General (jumping up 2 spaces, skipping the Colonel rank) but that would still put her 1 slot below Harris (pg 50-51 of CWC, Major General is 1 above Brigadier General).

That said, if we look at their AGES, Harris (born Jan 1943) made Lt. Col in Oct 1981 at 38 yrs, Col at September 86 at 43 yrs, BrigadierG in May 1991 at 48 years old and MajorG in May 1995 at 52. Carol Black is 53 years old, so it seems like the CS is behind...

But we SHOULD probably take into account the CS' extended lifespans for humans. Lone Star 68:

"medical treatment in the Coalition States provides the typical human citizen an average life span of 100-130 years"

Palladium doesn't seem to grasp what "average" means here (there can only be one, for one identifiable group...) but to be conservative, let's go with 100 years, which allows for easy math as saying Carol's age 53 is 53% of her expected lifespan.

Googling tells me that "In 2017, U.S. life expectancy was 78.6 years". I'll round that up to 80 which sounds fair (she actually died at 75). So when we look at Harris' ages of rank attainments as %s of average recent American lifespan:
*38/80 = 47.5% Lt. Col
*43/80 = 53.75% Colonel
*48/80 = 60% Brigadier Gen
*52/80 = 65% Major Gen

If we do the % terms, then at 53% lifespan, Carol Black is on the cusp of attaining the rank Harris did at 60% life span, meaning the CS is actually ahead of the game in terms of progressive promotion. We have to expect they have military activity later into life which is why promotion would take longer.

Axelmania wrote:But we SHOULD probably take into account the CS' extended lifespans for humans. Lone Star 68:

"medical treatment in the Coalition States provides the typical human citizen an average life span of 100-130 years"

Palladium doesn't seem to grasp what "average" means here (there can only be one, for one identifiable group...) but to be conservative, let's go with 100 years, which allows for easy math as saying Carol's age 53 is 53% of her expected lifespan.

Googling tells me that "In 2017, U.S. life expectancy was 78.6 years". I'll round that up to 80 which sounds fair (she actually died at 75). So when we look at Harris' ages of rank attainments as %s of average recent American lifespan:
*38/80 = 47.5% Lt. Col
*43/80 = 53.75% Colonel
*48/80 = 60% Brigadier Gen
*52/80 = 65% Major Gen

this is why i mean by bad faith argument. the CS medical tech is literally the medical technology from before the rifts, I.E. the medical technology that the US possessed at the time. you're comparing the CS to whichever idea of a contemporary flatters them the most at the time whenever you make an argument, usually discarding the context of the other side's opinion at the time. you want your opinions to be handled as trustworthy while not actually acknowledging anyone elses, why should anyone humor that?

Orin J. wrote:this is why i mean by bad faith argument.
the CS medical tech is literally the medical technology from before the rifts,
I.E. the medical technology that the US possessed at the time.
you're comparing the CS to whichever idea of a contemporary flatters them the most at the time whenever you make an argument,
usually discarding the context of the other side's opinion at the time.
you want your opinions to be handled as trustworthy while not actually acknowledging anyone elses,
why should anyone humor that?

I'm not understanding what you're perceiving about "bad faith" in this.

I'll see if I can reiterate the reason I brought up lifespans when evaluating this data.

Carol Black being promoted to Brigadier General at 53 years old seems less progressive than Marcelite Harris being promoted to Brigadier General at 48 years old when you look at the raw data (Marcelite was promoted 5 years earlier than Carol)

However the point I'm making about lifespans is that because the CS would probably have older people serving in the military (their higher tech keeping them vital for longer) it's reasonable to expect them to take more time to promote people to higher ranks, because they have more useful years ahead of them in which to be promoted.

That's why I compared them in terms of % expected lifespan.

Carol Black achieved BrigG at ~53% of average CS lifespan, while Marcelite Harris achieved BrigG at ~60% of average American lifespan. In that respect, when taking into account "promotion relative to age", the CS is more progressive in promoting women of color than present-day United States.

Lifespan is an important thing to take into account.
Elves who live to 500 years promoting a 40 year old elf woman to general
would be a larger feminist achievement than...
Wolfen who live to 50 promoting a 40 year old wolfen woman to general
Do you understand why?

The higher the lifespan, the more survving competing military seniors are getting passed over for that promotion/rank/responsibility. That's why even though Carol Black took 5 years longer than Marcelite Harris to acheive Brigadier General, it's actually EARLIER when you scale it in terms of % of life expectancy.

CS generals can live decades longer and get decades more experience, so you'd expect a much higher bar set for promoting them than with present-day Earth where people suffer sooner from old age and must retire sooner, and so the standards for experience would naturally be lower.

"The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he came from and if he was really evil at heart, what lies or threats led him on this long march from home and if he not rather had stayed there, in peace."

-Faramir, "The Two Towers"

One thing I love about Rifts is that it provides this great villainous faction in the Coalition States and lets its players explore that villainous faction's point of view.

There are a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas to consider within Rifts. To what extent is choosing a lesser of two evils justified, and how do you discern which is the lesser? How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of safety? How much of your own humanity are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of safety? How important is literacy and history? If you find yourself in the midst of evil, is it better to work against that evil from within the system that created it, or is it better to leave and oppose it from the outside? What makes humans special, and to what extent should members of a species favor each other over other sentient life forms?

The Coalition's official answers to these questions are simple and often absolute, and they try to clothe themselves in righteousness with propaganda. Indeed, most Coalition's soldiers see themselves as the heroes of humanity. This makes them excellent villains in that it's easy to see how a nation could get to this point. I find them far more compelling villains than demons, because the people of the Coalition have chosen to follow the Proseks down this rabbit hole of fascism. Thus while it's easy to use them as faceless evils, there is a horrifying and tragic aspect to them as villains: that under different circumstances, these villains might be friends and allies to the same people they fight and persecute.

Giving players the option to play Coalition soldiers is one of the bolder design choices of Rifts, and it's one that I like. If the GM is accommodating, it's even possible for such characters to adventure in some cases as unironic heroes and good guys. Ultimately, however, I don't feel that any Coalition campaign should shy away from the moral and ethical difficulties that come when the players come to face the ugly realities of their government's policies. Even if you embrace the idea of human supremacy, you'll still have to wrestle with being an instrument of authoritarianism, enforced illiteracy, anti-historical propaganda, war against a fellow human country (FQ), and all sorts of ethical issues. Moreover, as you get experience dealing and interacting with debees, mutants, and magic users, you may well start to question your human supremacist ideals.

It's morally and ethically easy to fight simple bad guys who are outsiders, like demons, vampires, bandits, et cetera. It gets a lot harder when you start having to wrestle with a growing understanding that many of the people you see as countrymen, comrades, and possibly even friends are acting as agents of evil. For me, exploring how to be a decent person in such circumstances is the essence of playing a Coalition character. Given the number of times I've seen people I've known make bad moral, legal, and ethical decisions in real life, I think this is a worthwhile and important part of the Rifts setting that I'd encourage more fans to try out.

On a final note, playing a Coalition group can be a great way to elevate your non-Coalition group experience. Getting yourself to understand your enemy's perspective makes even a simple shoot-out with Coalition grunts more complicated and impactful. Having played them before, now you see them not as faceless enemies with skull faces but people, adding a depth and a sense of consequence beyond the scope of the adventure you're in.

Hotrod wrote:The Coalition's official answers to these questions are simple and often absolute, and they try to clothe themselves in righteousness with propaganda.

Surely modern nations also do this in respect to the hunting/caging/displacement of non-human animal species.

Reminder that canonically per Underseas the saltwater dolphins have 2D6+4 IQ, making them having a higher minimum intelligence (6) than humans do. On average they are smart (IQ 11 vs IQ 10.5) and it's only in respect to maximum IQ that they fall short of humanity.

Is our capturing/hunting/displacement of dolphins (as they are statted in Underseas) in modern day really that much worse than what the CS does to various low-IQ subhuman D-Bees like Orcs when putting them to work in labor camps? Those things are less intelligent than dolphins, more violent, more of a threat, etc.

Hotrod wrote:Even if you embrace the idea of human supremacy, you'll still have to wrestle with being an instrument of authoritarianism, enforced illiteracy, anti-historical propaganda,

Books and knowledge of history can be dangerous if it puts knowledge of magic and MD weapon troves into the wrong hands

Hotrod wrote:war against a fellow human country (FQ)

Reckless drug abusers (use Juicers less responsible than less of CS) putting too much power in the hands of potentially disloyal human mutates (psi-stalkers) without the counterbalance of bred-2-B-loyal Psi-Hounds to keep them in check. Dog Boys don't have an incentive to strike deals with mages to get easy access to PPE breakfasts.

Orin J. wrote:

Sambot wrote:I don't think the CS is 100% evil. I don't think any nation is all 100% black or white. I think all nations have a lot of grey. With the CS, there's a lot in the black, a few in white but most are in the grey. Unfortunately, I think more are dark grey than light but there are some good people there.

a nation is not it's people, it is the governance and THOSE are pretty damned evil in the coalition states. a few good people inside the fortress cities are just the margin of error.

Actually, a nation is the people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation#:~ ... 20group%22.

A nation is a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

The governments can change while the nation remains. Of course people can change too but that doesn't always mean the nation will cease.

Killer Cyborg wrote:It’s not just a Few good people in the CS; it’s the general population.
It just doesn’t do much good when all the leaders are corrupt, and the population has been brainwashed.

Exactly. The population are as much victims as the D-Bees. They're tools to carry out the leadership's goals. The good ones will eventually see what's wrong and work to change things. The bad ones won't care and keep on as they have been. That's how it's been for a while. A good soldier might let a harmless D-Bee get away. Evil soldiers will just shoot. We can see a change in attitudes even more with the currant war. CS Soldiers are seeing that D-Bees and Magic users aren't all evil. Even the leadership has suspended the shoot on sight order.

Right now it's to use the D-Bees against a greater evil but later on...? That remains to be seen. I do think that the CS leadership will have a hard time going back to how things were after the war. Too many of their soldiers would have seen the good in those they'd been trained to see as evil. I think there's going to be a fundamental shift in the CS. I don't know how far it'd go though.

HWalsh wrote: I do not believe the general population of the CS is good. If they were good, we would've seen a mass uprising against their government and evidence of significant unrest regarding their government's behavior.

Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

Axelmania wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:moral complicity is far more common in the general population than people want to believe.

Countless Germans, even after the war, fondly remember the years of 1933-1939 as 'The good Years'.

People often compartmentalize whats good for 'them' as oppose to others.

It's natural to compartmentalize based on your actual observations and experiences as opposed to things you had to hear about from reports because you never witnessed it.

No-No. This is far more extreme than that. This is "Well yeah, all the Jews were shoved into a Ghetto, and there were all those riots where there shops were destroyed, but I mean after the War Germans in Poland were forced off their land!" This is an active history of choosing in and out groups and applying one standard to one and another to the other. People want to pretend that 'most people were pretty good just led by evil leaders' but it's far more accurate to say 'Most people were fine with evil that didn't impinge on those they immediately knew. Plenty more were fine as long as the impingement wasn't too bad, and plenty were just morally cowardly and went along to get along'.

Wise_Owl wrote:

The Coalition are Cartoon Bad-Guys.
Prosek literally sits in a giant citadel surrounded by guys dressed as Skulls

Many army units incorporate skull designs as a motif, it's a tribute to American heritage.

Might want to question if you're the baddies then .

Wise_Owl wrote:and probably Cackles alot and occasionally throws thing as his Bumbling side-kicks.

I think you'd need some insanites atop a Diabolic alignment to be that silly.

No-No, you're missing my point there I think. It's that I was being literal. The Coalition aren't some well-thought out interpretation of humanity surviving in a world gone bad. Their the Horde from She-Ra. Their Skeletor and his Goons. They are the Foot Clan from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This becomes obvious when people try to spin elaborate justiifcaitons for the things they do, the tactics they employ, the way they seemingly operate. They aren't intended to be super-complicated and reflect some deep understanding of society and sociology or whatever. They are bad-guys for your players to blow up. Can you do cool things with 'being a member of the coalition'. Yeah sure. I ran a very succesful 'Coalition Military Campiagn' for a half-year that was loads of fun. But it was the same fun I'd have running a game of 'You're all Lex Luthors henchmen and you are responsible for seeing his schemes through without going to jail or being killed as collatoral damage'.

Wise_Owl wrote:But if you want to add mature nuance to the discussion, it becomes much worse.
The Coalition is monstrous and almost certainly unsavable.

I find that a weird expression. Saved from what? The vague idea of what is evil?

Which community on Rifts Earth should it be emulating?

How much do we know about the details of said alternate communtiy, for certain?

I mean that it's doubtable that the Coalition could be reformed without fundementally being destroyed and rebuilt. Something like post-war Japan would have to happen and the Coalition doesn't exist within an Environment where that is likely.

The Last sentance is a bit weird; We know as much about any community as is published and we want to accept into our games. This is fiction, and light-hearted fare at that. I've always been suspicious of the continegent of the Rifts crowd who seem to want to make the Laser-Totting Nazi's the Good guys, so I'll stand by that.

Oh, and for a few others; I picture Karl as more like classic Skeletor, because it ammuses me. "Your Bumbling Fools! You can't bring me one old woman!" or maybe a classic late 80's/early 90's Anime Villian? His son could tottaly go Bishonen .

Wise_Owl wrote:for a few others; I picture Karl as more like classic Skeletor, because it ammuses me. "Your Bumbling Fools! You can't bring me one old woman!" or maybe a classic late 80's/early 90's Anime Villian? His son could tottaly go Bishonen .

I will always now hear Karl Prosek voiced by Frank Langella.

HWalsh wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:for a few others; I picture Karl as more like classic Skeletor, because it ammuses me. "Your Bumbling Fools! You can't bring me one old woman!" or maybe a classic late 80's/early 90's Anime Villian? His son could tottaly go Bishonen .

I will always now hear Karl Prosek voiced by Frank Langella.

I guess that makes Erin Tarn the sorceress then... I wonder who would be He-Man and She-Ra then.

Karl's son though could be played similar to Prince Lotor from the old Voltron cartoon. Or Leader Deslock from Star Blazers.

and now that theme song is stuck in my head......again.... Hit it maestro....

We're off to outer space
We're leaving mother Earth
To save, the human race
Our Star Blazers

Searching for a distant star
Heading off to Iscandar
Leaving all we love behind
Who knows what dangers we'll find

We must be strong and brave
Our home we have to save
If we don't in just one year
Mother Earth will disappear

Fighting with the Gamalons
We won't stop until we've won
Then we'll return and when we arrive
The Earth will survive with our Star Blazers

Sambot wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

I agree with HWalsh, and I respect the difficulties Sambot brings up. This is why I think it’s important to try role playing as a CS soldier.

The greatest moments in history are those of change and awakening, when people turn from the evils they inherited towards something greater and nobler and more difficult than what they were raised and conditioned to be. Exploring that kind of experience in role playing can help prime us for such moments of revelation In our own lives and open us up to the possibility of change.

Hotrod wrote:

Sambot wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

I agree with HWalsh, and I respect the difficulties Sambot brings up. This is why I think it’s important to try role playing as a CS soldier.

The greatest moments in history are those of change and awakening, when people turn from the evils they inherited towards something greater and nobler and more difficult than what they were raised and conditioned to be. Exploring that kind of experience in role playing can help prime us for such moments of revelation In our own lives and open us up to the possibility of change.

Thanks.
Thing is to a D-Bee the CS is evil. To the CS they're good and the D-Bee is evil. The problem is both sides are painting each other not just with the same brush but the same paint. Unfortunately its an all to easy thing to do. It's happening even now.

People take one thing and then paint an entire organization with the same brush. The problem is not everyone in that organization is there because they agree with that one thing. They could be against it but still part of that organization because the organization is more than just that. But they're painted the same because of association not belief. It's wrong. What worse is if you point that out you're painted with the same brush. It's wrong too.

When you look deeper very few things are 100% black or white. Even the most evil person in the world had some good in them. Even Darth Vader had some good in him.

Sambot wrote:

Hotrod wrote:

Sambot wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

I agree with HWalsh, and I respect the difficulties Sambot brings up. This is why I think it’s important to try role playing as a CS soldier.

The greatest moments in history are those of change and awakening, when people turn from the evils they inherited towards something greater and nobler and more difficult than what they were raised and conditioned to be. Exploring that kind of experience in role playing can help prime us for such moments of revelation In our own lives and open us up to the possibility of change.

Thanks.
Thing is to a D-Bee the CS is evil. To the CS they're good and the D-Bee is evil. The problem is both sides are painting each other not just with the same brush but the same paint. Unfortunately its an all to easy thing to do. It's happening even now.

People take one thing and then paint an entire organization with the same brush. The problem is not everyone in that organization is there because they agree with that one thing. They could be against it but still part of that organization because the organization is more than just that. But they're painted the same because of association not belief. It's wrong. What worse is if you point that out you're painted with the same brush. It's wrong too.

When you look deeper very few things are 100% black or white. Even the most evil person in the world had some good in them. Even Darth Vader had some good in him.

Careful there Sam.

You're skirting into some arguments used to normalize actual real-world hate groups. A LOT of things are binary. A 1 or a 0. If your organization is filled with racists, and all racists are backing your organization, even if you're not racist, then it's time to find a new organization.

HWalsh wrote:

Sambot wrote:

Hotrod wrote:

Sambot wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

I agree with HWalsh, and I respect the difficulties Sambot brings up. This is why I think it’s important to try role playing as a CS soldier.

The greatest moments in history are those of change and awakening, when people turn from the evils they inherited towards something greater and nobler and more difficult than what they were raised and conditioned to be. Exploring that kind of experience in role playing can help prime us for such moments of revelation In our own lives and open us up to the possibility of change.

Thanks.
Thing is to a D-Bee the CS is evil. To the CS they're good and the D-Bee is evil. The problem is both sides are painting each other not just with the same brush but the same paint. Unfortunately its an all to easy thing to do. It's happening even now.

People take one thing and then paint an entire organization with the same brush. The problem is not everyone in that organization is there because they agree with that one thing. They could be against it but still part of that organization because the organization is more than just that. But they're painted the same because of association not belief. It's wrong. What worse is if you point that out you're painted with the same brush. It's wrong too.

When you look deeper very few things are 100% black or white. Even the most evil person in the world had some good in them. Even Darth Vader had some good in him.

Careful there Sam.

You're skirting into some arguments used to normalize actual real-world hate groups. A LOT of things are binary. A 1 or a 0. If your organization is filled with racists, and all racists are backing your organization, even if you're not racist, then it's time to find a new organization.

"wait, but we have skulls on our heads" says the coalition soldier before looking at the camera "are we the baddies?"

*scene pans to karl prosek at a desk, signing a law calling for the gassing of all larmacs in comically large letters*

"careful there private, you're painting with an awfully wide brush." karl says as he rises and puts his hand on the soldier's shoulder "very few things are black and white. let me explain the details to put our mind at ease!"

-excerpt, "the coalition is evil, actually: an explanation of fascism and how it plays out in our times"; Free lazlo press productions

HWalsh wrote:

Sambot wrote:

Hotrod wrote:

Sambot wrote:

HWalsh wrote:Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

Why would you oppose evil when all your life, your parent's lives, your grandparent's lives has been brought up to believe that evil was good?

Like I said above, I do think we're going to see a shift in attitudes. There will have to be.

I agree with HWalsh, and I respect the difficulties Sambot brings up. This is why I think it’s important to try role playing as a CS soldier.

The greatest moments in history are those of change and awakening, when people turn from the evils they inherited towards something greater and nobler and more difficult than what they were raised and conditioned to be. Exploring that kind of experience in role playing can help prime us for such moments of revelation In our own lives and open us up to the possibility of change.

Thanks.
Thing is to a D-Bee the CS is evil. To the CS they're good and the D-Bee is evil. The problem is both sides are painting each other not just with the same brush but the same paint. Unfortunately its an all to easy thing to do. It's happening even now.

People take one thing and then paint an entire organization with the same brush. The problem is not everyone in that organization is there because they agree with that one thing. They could be against it but still part of that organization because the organization is more than just that. But they're painted the same because of association not belief. It's wrong. What worse is if you point that out you're painted with the same brush. It's wrong too.

When you look deeper very few things are 100% black or white. Even the most evil person in the world had some good in them. Even Darth Vader had some good in him.

Careful there Sam.

You're skirting into some arguments used to normalize actual real-world hate groups. A LOT of things are binary. A 1 or a 0. If your organization is filled with racists, and all racists are backing your organization, even if you're not racist, then it's time to find a new organization.

I agree that a lot of things are binary, and while I'm no fan of guilt by association, I think that associating with groups driven by hate will tend to radicalize people.

On the flipside, "othering" such groups, drawing hard lines, and calling them evil effectively distances them and makes it hard to influence them into deradicalization. Sometimes it takes understanding an the perspective of an evil and its rationalizations in order to overcome that evil. Changing basic beliefs and values systems is hard.

Considering and truly role playing the perspective of the CS requires us to acknowledge the potential for that kind of evil in ourselves. That can be a difficult thing to do, but in my opinion, it's worth it.

HWalsh wrote:
Careful there Sam.

You're skirting into some arguments used to normalize actual real-world hate groups. A LOT of things are binary. A 1 or a 0. If your organization is filled with racists, and all racists are backing your organization, even if you're not racist, then it's time to find a new organization.

True some groups are binary but not all.

Hate groups are hate groups. They exist for hate. Other groups have haters among their members but they're not all haters. And there's all kinds of reasons for their joining. Some are just people defending their home. Others had no choice. Others agree with some parts but not everything. Others were pushed into joining by haters on the other side. Some believed but the organization changed or was taken over. In a lot of cases its the haters being a very vocal minority. Sometimes not. But paining them all with the same brush is not only wrong but it can get really stupid when the organization is looked at more closely. Even more so when not looked at through the lenses of, "If you don't agree with me you're a ***ist."

Orin J. wrote:-excerpt, "the coalition is evil, actually: an explanation of fascism and how it plays out in our times"; Free lazlo press productions

"Free Lazlo Press? Isn't that published published by those evil magic users? They'll say anything to besmirch the Coalition States. And I would hope you haven't read directly from their papers. Everyone knows they're bewitched to brain wash you and open your mind to possession." Gives a look and pulls a gun. "In fact how do I know you're not possessed now? SECURITY!!!"

Sounds silly doesn't it?

Hotrod wrote:I agree that a lot of things are binary, and while I'm no fan of guilt by association, I think that associating with groups driven by hate will tend to radicalize people.

On the flipside, "othering" such groups, drawing hard lines, and calling them evil effectively distances them and makes it hard to influence them into deradicalization. Sometimes it takes understanding an the perspective of an evil and its rationalizations in order to overcome that evil. Changing basic beliefs and values systems is hard.

Considering and truly role playing the perspective of the CS requires us to acknowledge the potential for that kind of evil in ourselves. That can be a difficult thing to do, but in my opinion, it's worth it.

Not only will "othering" people do as you said, it will eventually push those in the middle into joining them as they may seem not so extreme. And that's the thing. Most people are going to be some where in between the two extremes.

Sambot wrote:The good ones will eventually see what's wrong

Optimistic

Sambot wrote:A good soldier might let a harmless D-Bee get away.

A good one, or a negligent/lazy/disobedient/arrogant one? Even if he thinks they're harmless, perhaps his superiors are privy to classified intelligence which is why they gave the order to exterminate it.

Sambot wrote:Evil soldiers will just shoot.

Maybe... or they might capture it to sell it into slavery, torture it, experiment, etc.

Sambot wrote:We can see a change in attitudes even more with the currant war. CS Soldiers are seeing that D-Bees and Magic users aren't all evil. Even the leadership has suspended the shoot on sight order.

Is that some kind of minion war thing? I need to refresh myself on the later books I think.

Wise_Owl wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:moral complicity is far more common in the general population than people want to believe.

Countless Germans, even after the war, fondly remember the years of 1933-1939 as 'The good Years'.

People often compartmentalize whats good for 'them' as oppose to others.

It's natural to compartmentalize based on your actual observations and experiences as opposed to things you had to hear about from reports because you never witnessed it.

No-No. This is far more extreme than that. This is "Well yeah, all the Jews were shoved into a Ghetto, and there were all those riots where there shops were destroyed, but I mean after the War Germans in Poland were forced off their land!"

To whoever lost land and then regained it (regardless of the causes of those two events' disconnect) they would subjectively view it as a "good" thing on a personal level.

Pretty much how settlers/pioneers of North America coming from Europe probably thought it was a great time (government awarding free land to farm, getting a fresh start from whatever problems you left behind on the old continent) however to those already occupying North American prior to them, it probably was subjectively not so great an experience for them in situations where they were displaced or had increased competition for food.

You can say there is moral complicity in the settlers and I agree, but at the same time we can also acknowledge that they probable have a different perspective/narrative they've internalized compared to other perspectives those they displace have, or perspectives taken decades later with a longer view on the effects and bias of narratives presented during those times.

Wise_Owl wrote:This is an active history of choosing in and out groups and applying one standard to one and another to the other. People want to pretend that 'most people were pretty good just led by evil leaders' but it's far more accurate to say 'Most people were fine with evil that didn't impinge on those they immediately knew. Plenty more were fine as long as the impingement wasn't too bad, and plenty were just morally cowardly and went along to get along'.

While that does exist, there's also simply people believing what they want to believe and echo chambers.

While few Germans today believe Polish troops attacked Sender Gleiwitz on 31 August 1939 for example, I'd bet many Germans bought that story at the time. It went with the narrative already built, being told about ex-Germans in the former west prussia (annexed into Poland post WW1) being abused, being told they're planning to invade, etc.

Coalition citizens could similarly be told stories like that, which is even easier for them to buy since the FOM had actually invaded Chi-Town for real, whereas Poland had never invaded Germany before. So it would be even easier for Coalition citizens to buy into false-flag attacks such as the burning of the Chi-Town Library.

Wise_Owl wrote:The Coalition aren't some well-thought out interpretation of humanity surviving in a world gone bad.
Their the Horde from She-Ra.

As the "Princesses of Power" remake shows, there's certainly a multi-faceted away of looking at them (look at all the char building they did with Catra!) but even in the original show, Adora began as a member of the Horde herself, so they should be looked at in a multi-faceted way. The Horde is not Hordak and The Coalition is not Karl Prosek.

Wise_Owl wrote:Their Skeletor and his Goons.

Ah, but if you look into Skeletor's lore, he's not a B+W char either.

The 2012 comic "Origin of Skeletor" reveals how his dad King Miro rejected him (he was the firstborn son and true heir to Eternia) for being a half-blood (Miro hooked up with a Gar mommy) to make the 2nd-borne Randor the heir instead. Skeletor had good reason to be bitter and see corruption in Adam's dad.

Wise_Owl wrote:They are the Foot Clan from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Like the CS, the Foot Clan has changed over time with multiple incarnations. Keep in mind that Hamato Yoshi was once a member of it.

Foot-under-Karai can be a pretty different animal to Foot-under-Shredder. There are always factions working in different ways in groups like these.

Wise_Owl wrote:They aren't intended to be super-complicated and reflect some deep understanding of society and sociology or whatever.
They are bad-guys for your players to blow up.

Maybe if you're playing anti-CS, but if you're playing CS then ley line walkers are just bad guys for your players to blow up...

Or maybe in either case, groups could player more complicated roles than that.

Wise_Owl wrote:it's doubtable that the Coalition could be reformed without fundementally being destroyed and rebuilt.
Something like post-war Japan would have to happen and the Coalition doesn't exist within an Environment where that is likely.

Based on what? I thought that whole plot about giving Karl that thing to enlighten him (forget name) was that he actually could gradually steer the CS in a new direction.

Wise_Owl wrote:I've always been suspicious of the continegent of the Rifts crowd who seem to want to make the Laser-Totting Nazi's the Good guys, so I'll stand by that.

I guess I could just call Dweomer's magi "spell-toting Nazis", but you'd probably disagree with that the same way I disagree with your generalization.

Wise_Owl wrote:I picture Karl as more like classic Skeletor, because it ammuses me.
"Your Bumbling Fools! You can't bring me one old woman!"

ah, but would that be Tarn or his kidnapped wife?
Must be Tarn, since he legit thought his wife was murdered by wizards for years and we're explicitly told this instigated his military escalations.
TBH we don't even know if Karl was Diabolic prior to Jo-Anna's disappearance. He might very well have been Aberrant or Unprincipled prior to that. *shrug*

HWalsh wrote:You're skirting into some arguments used to normalize actual real-world hate groups.
A LOT of things are binary.
A 1 or a 0.
If your organization is filled with racists,
and all racists are backing your organization,
even if you're not racist,
then it's time to find a new organization.

I don't view racism as binary though, there's no perfectly non-racist person or perfectly all-racist person. It's a spectrum. Same thing with sexism, ageism and all other kinds of unfair prejudices.

I don't believe acknowledging that necessitates a path towards normalizing extreme versions of it. Rather it suggests relabeling (less racist / more racist) and making structured comparisons.

The risk we have with such false dichotomies is an extreme lack of humility by accusers, often accompanied by tunnel vision or hypocrisy. Like for example, legitimate victims of racism engaging in racism against other groups, which does happen: in viewing those who prey upon them as "the racists" one becomes unable to apply that analysis inward to realize "No, John. You are the racists."

Hotrod wrote:On the flipside, "othering" such groups, drawing hard lines, and calling them evil effectively distances them and makes it hard to influence them into deradicalization. Sometimes it takes understanding an the perspective of an evil and its rationalizations in order to overcome that evil.

I think othering can lead to sort of a feedback loop. When all-or-nothing false dichotomies come across in semantics used by arguing groups, a group who is actually worse (but never the ONLY group doing bad stuff) will light upon the irrationality of the dichotomy to construct their own: "they speak unreasoanbly, they are unreasonable folk, we are reasonable folk"

This is of course itself a further problem: both groups are capable of reasoning, even if each group has regions in which they reason better than others, neither is UNreasonable. While comparatively either could could be "more reasonable" or "less reasonable" in certain individual debates, both are prone to the unreasonable seduction of othering and exaggerating deficiencies in virtues as utter absences of them.

Sambot wrote:Hate groups are hate groups.
They exist for hate.

Seems oversimplifying. Hate seems like a vehicle driven from other aims, like desire. Though maybe that's getting too Jedi?

IE to evil leaders who want to use hate groups just to consolidate power, hate is a vehicle they use to pursue the true purpose for it's existence: getting resources for the leader, whether that's material assets or having loyal minions.

To the followers, the vehicle of hate is one I think they embrace because they are convinced that the things they hate are threats to whatever things they want to protect, perhaps things they love. Whether that's their family/friends or a sense of culture or safety.

I don't want to generalize that all hate derives from fear and that all fear derives from love, but people probably could paint that causality chain for a lot of stuff.

Love/Fear do not always lead to rational places, and hate is one such place it can lead as anger is directed in an often-confused way of trying to enact change or prevent change.

Sambot wrote:Other groups have haters among their members
but they're not all haters.
And there's all kinds of reasons for their joining.
Some are just people defending their home.

Not mutually exclusive either: joining the CS to defend your home can also coexist with hatred towards those you think are threats to the home.

Axelmania wrote:

Sambot wrote:The good ones will eventually see what's wrong

Optimistic

I try to be. It's not always easy though.

Sambot wrote:A good soldier might let a harmless D-Bee get away.

A good one, or a negligent/lazy/disobedient/arrogant one? Even if he thinks they're harmless, perhaps his superiors are privy to classified intelligence which is why they gave the order to exterminate it.

Either or both and if caught faces court martial.

Sambot wrote:Evil soldiers will just shoot.

Maybe... or they might capture it to sell it into slavery, torture it, experiment, etc.

Maybe. Depending on the group and circumstances.

Sambot wrote:We can see a change in attitudes even more with the currant war. CS Soldiers are seeing that D-Bees and Magic users aren't all evil. Even the leadership has suspended the shoot on sight order.

Is that some kind of minion war thing? I need to refresh myself on the later books I think.

This is the one you want. It talks all about the Coalition's response and currant situation.
https://palladium-store.com/1001/produc ... anity.html

Pretty much how settlers/pioneers of North America coming from Europe probably thought it was a great time (government awarding free land to farm, getting a fresh start from whatever problems you left behind on the old continent) however to those already occupying North American prior to them, it probably was subjectively not so great an experience for them in situations where they were displaced or had increased competition for food.

You can say there is moral complicity in the settlers and I agree, but at the same time we can also acknowledge that they probable have a different perspective/narrative they've internalized compared to other perspectives those they displace have, or perspectives taken decades later with a longer view on the effects and bias of narratives presented during those times.

Some settlers did treat the natives fairly. Unfortunately, others not so much.

Coalition citizens could similarly be told stories like that, which is even easier for them to buy since the FOM had actually invaded Chi-Town for real, whereas Poland had never invaded Germany before. So it would be even easier for Coalition citizens to buy into false-flag attacks such as the burning of the Chi-Town Library.

Exactly. Add in that D-Bees actually have invaded the Earth, even if unwillingly, and some probably do attack humans while in competition for resources, and its easy for the Coalition to paint them all with the same brush.

As the "Princesses of Power" remake shows, there's certainly a multi-faceted away of looking at them (look at all the char building they did with Catra!) but even in the original show, Adora began as a member of the Horde herself, so they should be looked at in a multi-faceted way. The Horde is not Hordak and The Coalition is not Karl Prosek.

So agree.

Wise_Owl wrote:They aren't intended to be super-complicated and reflect some deep understanding of society and sociology or whatever.
They are bad-guys for your players to blow up.

Maybe if you're playing anti-CS, but if you're playing CS then ley line walkers are just bad guys for your players to blow up...

Or maybe in either case, groups could player more complicated roles than that.

Could be a CS soldier who ends up having to depend on a Ley Line Walker.

Wise_Owl wrote:it's doubtable that the Coalition could be reformed without fundementally being destroyed and rebuilt.
Something like post-war Japan would have to happen and the Coalition doesn't exist within an Environment where that is likely.

Based on what? I thought that whole plot about giving Karl that thing to enlighten him (forget name) was that he actually could gradually steer the CS in a new direction.

You can see a shifting in attitude already. First the CS decides to let Free Quebec be and now how they see D-bees and magic users is changing.

Wise_Owl wrote:I've always been suspicious of the continegent of the Rifts crowd who seem to want to make the Laser-Totting Nazi's the Good guys, so I'll stand by that.

I guess I could just call Dweomer's magi "spell-toting Nazis", but you'd probably disagree with that the same way I disagree with your generalization.

Generalization

The risk we have with such false dichotomies is an extreme lack of humility by accusers, often accompanied by tunnel vision or hypocrisy. Like for example, legitimate victims of racism engaging in racism against other groups, which does happen: in viewing those who prey upon them as "the racists" one becomes unable to apply that analysis inward to realize "No, John. You are the racists."

So true.

This is of course itself a further problem: both groups are capable of reasoning, even if each group has regions in which they reason better than others, neither is UNreasonable. While comparatively either could could be "more reasonable" or "less reasonable" in certain individual debates, both are prone to the unreasonable seduction of othering and exaggerating deficiencies in virtues as utter absences of them.

Well, some people are unreasonable and nothing you say will change their minds. Those are the one at the far ends. Everyone else is in between and can be reasoned with. Might take a while but they can eventually.

Sambot wrote:Hate groups are hate groups.
They exist for hate.

Seems oversimplifying. Hate seems like a vehicle driven from other aims, like desire. Though maybe that's getting too Jedi?

IE to evil leaders who want to use hate groups just to consolidate power, hate is a vehicle they use to pursue the true purpose for it's existence: getting resources for the leader, whether that's material assets or having loyal minions.

To the followers, the vehicle of hate is one I think they embrace because they are convinced that the things they hate are threats to whatever things they want to protect, perhaps things they love. Whether that's their family/friends or a sense of culture or safety.

I don't want to generalize that all hate derives from fear and that all fear derives from love, but people probably could paint that causality chain for a lot of stuff.

Love/Fear do not always lead to rational places, and hate is one such place it can lead as anger is directed in an often-confused way of trying to enact change or prevent change.

Sometimes it is that stupid simple.

I do agree that hate can be used for power and that a lot of hate comes out of fear. A lot of the time the fear is because of generalization. When proved unfounded its a good thing. When proven true it just reinforces the fear making it harder for others later on.

Sambot wrote:Other groups have haters among their members
but they're not all haters.
And there's all kinds of reasons for their joining.
Some are just people defending their home.

Not mutually exclusive either: joining the CS to defend your home can also coexist with hatred towards those you think are threats to the home.

Absolutely.

Sambot wrote:some people are unreasonable and nothing you say will change their minds.
Those are the one at the far ends.
Everyone else is in between and can be reasoned with.
Might take a while but they can eventually.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There's no way to really prove someone is 'unreasonable' or test the "nothing you say" hypothesis since you can't really say EVERYTHING. Some are just harder to reach than others, and I guess you can't verify "reachability" until having actually accomplished it, but a failure to accomplish isn't really proof of unaccomplishability?

Axelmania wrote:

Sambot wrote:some people are unreasonable and nothing you say will change their minds.
Those are the one at the far ends.
Everyone else is in between and can be reasoned with.
Might take a while but they can eventually.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There's no way to really prove someone is 'unreasonable'-

it's very easy to prove someone is unreasonable to someone else. part of being unreasonable is refusing to accept you're being unreasonable on the topic which is the fault of the person being unreasonable, and not an issue with the discussion itself.

Orin J. wrote:it's very easy to prove someone is unreasonable to someone else.
part of being unreasonable is refusing to accept you're being unreasonable on the topic
which is the fault of the person being unreasonable,
and not an issue with the discussion itself.

You could call this a semantic objection, but I don't like the prefix "un" being thrown about, it has strong connotations which are very dismissive of essential traits of personhood. Calling someone 'unreasonable' or 'unintelligent' or 'unemotional' simply because they are merely LESS than some established baseline, conveys a sense of denying what wisp of virtues still exist.

Shakespeare's use of "The unreasonable fury of a beast" in R+J at least is describing an emotional state (fury) which at least doesn't dismiss a beast as entirely unreasonable, but only in it's moments of anger.

I guess in the sense if we mean "abstract thought" by reasoning (ratiocination) then that is seemingly absent in emotional states, though I still think there are snippets.

I guess I just prefer stuff like "less" rather than "un", since it acknowledges a continuum of measurements of value rather than a discrete yes/no for describing traits which I see as more trickling down in quantity and becoming increasingly hard to imagine or perceive, but not necessarily non-present as a result of that non-detection.

Axelmania wrote:

Sambot wrote:some people are unreasonable and nothing you say will change their minds.
Those are the one at the far ends.
Everyone else is in between and can be reasoned with.
Might take a while but they can eventually.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. There's no way to really prove someone is 'unreasonable' or test the "nothing you say" hypothesis since you can't really say EVERYTHING. Some are just harder to reach than others, and I guess you can't verify "reachability" until having actually accomplished it, but a failure to accomplish isn't really proof of unaccomplishability?

Unfortunately some people are unreasonable. We can see it happening now. Someone says something and because you disagree you're an evil _ ist. You can't talk with them or reason with them because to them anyone who doesn't agree them is evil so they must be silenced. And everything that offends them must be destroyed.

Axelmania wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:moral complicity is far more common in the general population than people want to believe.

Countless Germans, even after the war, fondly remember the years of 1933-1939 as 'The good Years'.

People often compartmentalize whats good for 'them' as oppose to others.

It's natural to compartmentalize based on your actual observations and experiences as opposed to things you had to hear about from reports because you never witnessed it.

No-No. This is far more extreme than that. This is "Well yeah, all the Jews were shoved into a Ghetto, and there were all those riots where there shops were destroyed, but I mean after the War Germans in Poland were forced off their land!"

To whoever lost land and then regained it (regardless of the causes of those two events' disconnect) they would subjectively view it as a "good" thing on a personal level.

Pretty much how settlers/pioneers of North America coming from Europe probably thought it was a great time (government awarding free land to farm, getting a fresh start from whatever problems you left behind on the old continent) however to those already occupying North American prior to them, it probably was subjectively not so great an experience for them in situations where they were displaced or had increased competition for food.

You can say there is moral complicity in the settlers and I agree, but at the same time we can also acknowledge that they probable have a different perspective/narrative they've internalized compared to other perspectives those they displace have, or perspectives taken decades later with a longer view on the effects and bias of narratives presented during those times.

That's kind of my point though; People are often entirely complicit doing things to 'the other' they wouldn't to those in the in-group. That flies in the face of 'Well the Germans just didn't know' or 'They were ignorant of what was really going on'. Even after the Holocaust was revealed, there were plenty of Germans for whom the events of the 1930's were still viewed as a positive.

Wise_Owl wrote:The Coalition aren't some well-thought out interpretation of humanity surviving in a world gone bad.
Their the Horde from She-Ra.

As the "Princesses of Power" remake shows, there's certainly a multi-faceted away of looking at them (look at all the char building they did with Catra!) but even in the original show, Adora began as a member of the Horde herself, so they should be looked at in a multi-faceted way. The Horde is not Hordak and The Coalition is not Karl Prosek.

I think that actually makes my point; I would say that the portrayel of a few people within the Horde in the new She-Ra had some complexity to it, though it is also played often for laughs(Glimmer and Bow pointing out that Adora works for an organizaiton called the Evil Horde. Cat-Ra mockingly suggesting that of course she knew what the Horde 'really does' how could anyone not?). The Coalition as presented though are not morally complex. Their are stories to be told in regards to moral complexitiy within that organization, but they are Comic-Book Nazi's.

Wise_Owl wrote:Their Skeletor and his Goons.

Ah, but if you look into Skeletor's lore, he's not a B+W char either.

You can try and make anyone sympathetic if you want, people literally started doing that with the embodiment of all evil in what, the Renaissance? The point is that doing so for the Coalition, and then expecting the rest of us to buy into it is silly. It's made slightly less silly by the fact the Coalition are 'Ethnic Supremacists' Nazi's and our present political moment should suggest that trying to portray Nazi's of any stripe as 'the good guys' or 'misunderstood' or 'maybe they have a point' can have real horrible consequences in the real world.

Or perhaps to put it in very stark words; The Coalition is no more misunderstood than Atlantis is.

Wise_Owl wrote:They aren't intended to be super-complicated and reflect some deep understanding of society and sociology or whatever.
They are bad-guys for your players to blow up.

Maybe if you're playing anti-CS, but if you're playing CS then ley line walkers are just bad guys for your players to blow up...

Or maybe in either case, groups could player more complicated roles than that.

Ley Line Walkers don't, by definition of their role, engage in Genocide.

Wise_Owl wrote:it's doubtable that the Coalition could be reformed without fundementally being destroyed and rebuilt.
Something like post-war Japan would have to happen and the Coalition doesn't exist within an Environment where that is likely.

Based on what? I thought that whole plot about giving Karl that thing to enlighten him (forget name) was that he actually could gradually steer the CS in a new direction.

What examples do we have of a Fascistic society gradually reforming? What do you want to use as an example? Franco's Spain?

Wise_Owl wrote:I've always been suspicious of the continegent of the Rifts crowd who seem to want to make the Laser-Totting Nazi's the Good guys, so I'll stand by that.

I guess I could just call Dweomer's magi "spell-toting Nazis", but you'd probably disagree with that the same way I disagree with your generalization.

You could, but the coalition are literally based on Nazi's, utilize Nazi iconography, have an ideology that is expressly based on Nazism. That's all in the text. Dweomer, to be blunt, isn't.

Could the Coalition be transformed into a None-Fascistic, None-Human Supremacist organizaton? Sure. There are even Human Supermacists organizaitons within the World of Rifts that are less terrible. There are human dominated polities that are less awful. You could certainly make an interesting RPG group of trying to 'fix' the Coalition. You could go the Cartoon route I would suggest is the most appropriate(Kill Karl and Jo and there henchmen and suddenly their are celebrations in the streets and everybodies free, roll credits), you could be more complex about it, etc. But it would involve fundementally defeating the Coalition on some level.

Just to lay out a perspective here; I spent a good while in the late 90's early 2000's trying to 'square the circle' and generate coherence to 'Rifts'. Eventually I realized that you would always run into the problem that the world itself exist under a comic-book logic. The coalition can suddenly have an army of millions of robots that nobody knew about in a world with Psychics because it's the most interesting thing to have happen to small bands of wandering murder-hobo's. Don't get me wrong, I love Rifts still, but it's the Heavy Metal Van Panel of RPG's. It's struts do not hold up well under other considerations.

TL:DR; "Coalition is just misunderstood.."
UH...no.
The State, Nation and Party of the Coalition states is EVIL. All caps.
The INDIVIDUALS within it, may not be, but that does not negate the fact the polity and military of the CS is EVIL (again; all caps). The only thing that sepperates them from The Daemonic & Infernal legions of the minion-hordes? They're mortal / human. That's it.
They have proppegated atrocities (in canon, mind...read the books) that make even the Hell Lords smile.

Ergo, one can play a CS soldier who wants to atone for the evils they have done while serving under the CS, but you can not in any stretch of logic, reason or REALITY have a "GOOD" CS centric campaign. Ever.
Unless your IRL world-view is that twisted.
In which case, have fun and stay the [censored] away from my game table.

Sambot wrote:Unfortunately some people are unreasonable.
We can see it happening now.
Someone says something and because you disagree you're an evil _ ist.
You can't talk with them or reason with them because to them anyone who doesn't agree them is evil so they must be silenced.

I guess I still like to think of it as 'less reasonable'. Even in the throws of cognitive distortions there is SOME level of reasoning going on.

I think there are points where any of us gain confidence toward labeling people as being a certain thing or thinking a certain way, where we lose hesitance about how to define their behavior.

Even when we disagree with the confidence people gain (thinking it premature, or ill-founded) we can usually understand some level of reasoning underpinning what led up to those conclusions, usually we sift through those good parts in their thinking to try and isolate components to single out for questioning when trying to convince them otherwise.

DhAkael wrote:the polity and military of the CS is EVIL (again; all caps).

Miscreant, Aberrant or Diabolic?

The only thing that sepperates them from The Daemonic & Infernal legions of the minion-hordes?
They're mortal / human. That's it.
[/quote]
Demons do stuff like destroy souls or indefinitely imprison them to power weapons. They do stuff like eat babies for fun. There are obviously lots of things besides mortality that separate the CS from them.

DhAkael wrote:They have proppegated atrocities (in canon, mind...read the books) that make even the Hell Lords smile.

You can make bad guys smile and still be different than them.

DhAkael wrote:you can not in any stretch of logic, reason or REALITY have a "GOOD" CS centric campaign. Ever.
Unless your IRL world-view is that twisted.

Why can't you play a good grunt who is stationed outside the local human farming community defending it from Xiticix scouts?

Wise_Owl wrote:People are often entirely complicit doing things to 'the other' they wouldn't to those in the in-group.
That flies in the face of 'Well the Germans just didn't know' or 'They were ignorant of what was really going on'.
Even after the Holocaust was revealed, there were plenty of Germans for whom the events of the 1930's were still viewed as a positive.

I'm not sure I agree that viewing something as a positive makes you complicit in what actually happened.

Like for example, if someone today says "I'm glad the Spanish Inquisition happened" does that mean they were complicit in making it happen centuries ago?

Wise_Owl wrote:The Coalition as presented though are not morally complex.
Their are stories to be told in regards to moral complexitiy within that organization,
but they are Comic-Book Nazi's.

I see them as morally complex, I don't think you can have morally-complex stories told within an organization without that inherently making the organization complex as a result.

Wise_Owl wrote:The point is that doing so for the Coalition, and then expecting the rest of us to buy into it is silly.
It's made slightly less silly by the fact the Coalition are 'Ethnic Supremacists' Nazi's

Where do you get ethnic supremacist? The CS seems very tolerant of different ethnicities, there doesn't seem to be black v white racism or whatever, never saw it mentioned for Carol Black or otherwise.

If you mean a sort of "we think our approach is best" vs other human nations with different policies (FQ, NGR, Cordoba) well yeah, but we see that with modern nations too. There often seems to be a sense of "our policies work best, that's why we want autonomy and not just to merge/defer to other powers" going on with nations.

Wise_Owl wrote:and our present political moment should suggest that trying to portray Nazi's of any stripe as 'the good guys' or 'misunderstood' or 'maybe they have a point' can have real horrible consequences in the real world.

What if I don't agree with portrayal of the CS as "Nazi"? I've always found that an oversimplification. Hitler is one of several dictators Karl studied, POSSIBLY the most influential one, but he shouldn't get all the attention.

What matters is whether or not the CS has a point, not how exploring that might look in "present political moments". I'm pretty sure people have explored this idea for the past 30 years, so why stop now?

The CS seems like a good example of how bad men can manipulate people using good ideas. The CS does have a good "face idea" in their message: protecting squishies from the crazy powers of magic/psi/supernatural which could otherwise dominate them. That is how Karl is able to expect such volunteerism from his people, which minimizes the amount of oppression he needs to spread around.

Wise_Owl wrote:Or perhaps to put it in very stark words; The Coalition is no more misunderstood than Atlantis is.

Atlantis goes further than the CS and you know it. The CS are trying to survive on their homeworld. The Splugorth are dimension-faring species who own many planets and have the resources to keep safe and probably feed the hungry using their advanced magic and tech, instead of trying to enslave others for max profits.

Wise_Owl wrote:Ley Line Walkers don't, by definition of their role, engage in Genocide.

Neither does a CS grunt.

Of course: a LLW employed by Lazlo could be ordered to engage in Genocide against the Xiticix, just as some grunts might be ordered to exterminate a D-Bee village instead of guarding a grain silo. But that's all on a case-by-case basis.

Wise_Owl wrote:What examples do we have of a Fascistic society gradually reforming? What do you want to use as an example? Franco's Spain?

Perhaps Rome? Constantine/Licinius legalized the practice of Christianity which had previously been persecuted by Nero, for example.

Wise_Owl wrote:You could, but the coalition are literally based on Nazi's, utilize Nazi iconography, have an ideology that is expressly based on Nazism.

If you mean the skulls, NSDAP was neither the first or the last to use them, so I don't agree. "Expressly based on" is questionable too. We're told Karl studied Hitler amongst a list of other guys, and tarn said he wrote a paper on Hitler. It was actually critical because Karl thought he could "do better" if I recall (perhaps be more oppressive)

Wise_Owl wrote:That's all in the text. Dweomer, to be blunt, isn't.

Maybe we should call them demon-worshippers because they allow demons as citizens and one of their automatons looks like a demon?

If we're talking about actual policies, who's to say theirs are any better? We expect critics of Karl to get shushed, but critics of The Three might be equally shushed in Dweomer.

Axelmania wrote:

DhAkael wrote:They have proppegated atrocities (in canon, mind...read the books) that make even the Hell Lords smile.

You can make bad guys smile and still be different than them.

Explain how you expect this to be interpeted, please.

DhAkael wrote:TL:DR; "Coalition is just misunderstood.."
UH...no.
The State, Nation and Party of the Coalition states is EVIL. All caps.
The INDIVIDUALS within it, may not be, but that does not negate the fact the polity and military of the CS is EVIL (again; all caps). The only thing that sepperates them from The Daemonic & Infernal legions of the minion-hordes? They're mortal / human. That's it.
They have proppegated atrocities (in canon, mind...read the books) that make even the Hell Lords smile.

Ergo, one can play a CS soldier who wants to atone for the evils they have done while serving under the CS, but you can not in any stretch of logic, reason or REALITY have a "GOOD" CS centric campaign. Ever.
Unless your IRL world-view is that twisted.
In which case, have fun and stay the [censored] away from my game table.

That's painting everyone with the same brush. It's also a very ___ist thing to say. It's divisive, offensive and just pushes people further away. You can have a "good" CS centric campaign. Just because someone is in the CS does not mean that they have done evil things. Even Kevin, the creator of the Coalition States says they're not all bad. They can also pick any alignment. They can be played totally evil, completely good, or anything in between.

Axelmania wrote:

Sambot wrote:Unfortunately some people are unreasonable.
We can see it happening now.
Someone says something and because you disagree you're an evil _ ist.
You can't talk with them or reason with them because to them anyone who doesn't agree them is evil so they must be silenced.

I guess I still like to think of it as 'less reasonable'. Even in the throws of cognitive distortions there is SOME level of reasoning going on.

I think there are points where any of us gain confidence toward labeling people as being a certain thing or thinking a certain way, where we lose hesitance about how to define their behavior.

Even when we disagree with the confidence people gain (thinking it premature, or ill-founded) we can usually understand some level of reasoning underpinning what led up to those conclusions, usually we sift through those good parts in their thinking to try and isolate components to single out for questioning when trying to convince them otherwise.

I would hope that most people can eventually be reasoned with. The sad truth though is that I don't believe everyone can.

Thing is behavior can be defined. People not so much. People shouldn't be defined by a behavior. A behavior may be more common among a people but that doesn't mean they all have that behavior.

I've played around with the idea of a Dynastic Schism in the Coalition States, with Joseph Prosek II putting forward a plan of a false acceptance of non-monstrous D-Bees to the pretended outrage of his father. It's a sourcebook I would love to see.

This is used as a cover for a sinister plan.

Joseph Prosek II, has recognized the sheer amount of resources, and lives that are being thrown at the genocidal campaign against so called "peaceful D-Bees". He has also seen the negative sentiment it has generated towards the CS... "Too long have states like Lazlo been able to point at villages of near-human and peaceful D-Bees, burned to the ground and call us Monsters!"

Recognizing the utility these events have for States like Lazlo, to be used as weapons to unite beings against the CS, Prosek II has decided to disarm them. In a Magnanimous act recognizing the heroism of D-Bees who have fought alongside the Coalition against Magic Users, Xiticix, and Traitors Joseph Prosek II has extended an offer of amnesty to any D-Bees who acknowledge humanities sovereignty over the earth. To prove this he has begun sending aid to war-stricken villages of D-Bees, negotiated trading treaties with the Simvan, and established an Office of Amnesty. Posters of Joseph Prosek II with Golden Laurels wreathing his hands bequeathing food to grateful D-Bees have been circulated. In one swift move the Coalition has seized control of the Optics of the situation.

In reality these acts cover a much more devious plot. The trading treaties with the Simvan allow the Coalition to track and fully map their numbers, and locations. The Office of Amnesty collects valuable tactical information on settlements of undesirables, and the sympathizers for D-Bees, emboldened by the Emperor's own Son's actions are already beginning to come out of the wood work. How long will the Coalition need to wait, before they have all the information to secure their grip on the future of RIFTS Earth? And perhaps, the Megaverse?

So, what I really like about this is it opens up the Coalition to alternative views and political intrigue. Lazlo of course doesn't buy into the propaganda, but can they convince distressed, desperate refugees? Many of whom are straining Lazlo's resources after the fall of Tolkeen? Will the Coalition follow through on it's promise of peace until the D-Bees can be returned home, or will they at some future date begin secret purges? How will this change be received by the common people? What are Prosek Sr. and Prosek Jr. really up to?

Anyhooow, if anyone else likes the idea I'd love to hear about it over the summer.

Dear Kevin Siembieda, I've truly enjoyed RIFTS my whole life... but the Coalition doesn't need... more, it needs conflict, internal fatigues of an oppressed people, political intrigues with the details of the true structures of power in the Coalition. It needs two futures, seemingly divergent, but covertly consistent. It needs the passing of power from one generation to the next with a flair. Perhaps... needs isn't the right word, but... this is what I would find fascinating as new material regarding the Coalition States.

HWalsh wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Orin J. wrote:

Sambot wrote:I don't think the CS is 100% evil. I don't think any nation is all 100% black or white. I think all nations have a lot of grey. With the CS, there's a lot in the black, a few in white but most are in the grey. Unfortunately, I think more are dark grey than light but there are some good people there.

a nation is not it's people, it is the governance and THOSE are pretty damned evil in the coalition states. a few good people inside the fortress cities are just the margin of error.

It’s not just a Few good people in the CS; it’s the general population.
It just doesn’t do much good when all the leaders are corrupt, and the population has been brainwashed.

I do not believe the general population of the CS is good. If they were good, we would've seen a mass uprising against their government and evidence of significant unrest regarding their government's behavior.

Straight up:
If you're not opposing evil, then you're not good.

You are assuming a worldview of a globe full of civilized nations, our current world. The Coalition States exists in the fires of a literal Hell. Would the result of a civil war in the Coalition States be the destruction of every human's chance at survival in the CS? Would an uprising result in freedom? Or utter collapse, and ruin? That is the dilemma each would be virtuous Coalition citizen must face when trying to overthrow the current regime.

It takes a truly virtuous individual to stand for what is right when it means the Death of all hope for a future for anyone they are fighting for. Overthrow the Coalition, and then what?

Seriously; you guys just don't [censored] read do you. My post was as writ and NOT subject to "interpratation". FINE... you [censoreds] want "spring time for Hitl -ahem- Prossek" that's you own get out.
Personally your defense (albeit of a fictional polity) that is EVIL by any definition makes me and quite a few others sick.
Have fun.

And get an education.

Orin J. wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

DhAkael wrote:They have proppegated atrocities (in canon, mind...read the books) that make even the Hell Lords smile.

You can make bad guys smile and still be different than them.

Explain how you expect this to be interpeted, please.

For example: Splynncryth could smile at the NGR deporting D-Bees to the front lines as a buffer for the Gargoyle hordes, where they can easily be kidnapped by Blind Warrior Women to be sold into slavery, but that doesn't mean the NGR is as bad as Splynncryth.

Sambot wrote:You can have a "good" CS centric campaign. Just because someone is in the CS does not mean that they have done evil things. Even Kevin, the creator of the Coalition States says they're not all bad. They can also pick any alignment. They can be played totally evil, completely good, or anything in between.

We should also point out that swell guys like Nemo Dobson (Nemo-2, Sea Titan who runs New Navy via Ticonderoga in Underseas) seems pro-CS.

He's pretty high-IQ and likely has a more informed perspective than average CS citizen and still is pro-CS (thinking about helping them) so why are we in such a rush to question his judgment?

Sambot wrote:I would hope that most people can eventually be reasoned with. The sad truth though is that I don't believe everyone can.

I think while I'm right in the sense that you can't prove someone "absolutely can't be convinced by reason" you are also right in that I can't actually prove someone can be convinced by reason without actually convincing them.

My optimistic perspective is more like "even if I can't reason with them on subject A, they can be reasoned with on subject B, so it shows they're capable of reason in some fields"

Various subjects would exist on a continuum of "easy to reason on" and "hard to reason on", and the difficulty of the latter could be beyond my capabilities but not others, or maybe beyond the capabilities of all current existing intellects but achievable by some future higher-intellect.

Axelmania wrote:

Orin J. wrote:

Axelmania wrote:You can make bad guys smile and still be different than them.

Explain how you expect this to be interpeted, please.

For example: Splynncryth could smile at the NGR deporting D-Bees to the front lines as a buffer for the Gargoyle hordes, where they can easily be kidnapped by Blind Warrior Women to be sold into slavery, but that doesn't mean the NGR is as bad as Splynncryth.

so you missed the analogy entirely then. got it.

Axelmania wrote:He's pretty high-IQ and likely has a more informed perspective than average CS citizen and still is pro-CS (thinking about helping them) so why are we in such a rush to question his judgment?

considering helping the CS isn't the same thing as approving of their methods, due to the complexity of the situation in NA.

Guys another good point I want to bring up here is the idea of RACIST DOLPHINS.

Underseas pg 77 the alignment of dolphins is "usually good". 70% to be specific (25 principled, 45 scrupulous).

If you read the preceding section (pg 75) "Dolphins & The Human Language" you can get their perspective on D-Bees.

They do not refer to D-Bees as people, either calling them "bad others" or "the others".

Alien life forms not indigenous to earth are "not welcome". Using 'people' indicates perceiving someone as equal/brethren.

The most flexible they seem to be is with "dog people" where they like dog boys and wolfen.

CB had mentioned wolfen can breed with dog boys, so that might simply be due to dolphins not recognizing these are D-Bee immigrants from Palladium Fantasy. I sometimes wonder how much the CS understands in that regard, or if wolfen immigrants might be perceived as feral-born dogboys mysteriously missing their psi abilities.

The biggest difference might be the direction of the knee joint?

So anyway, dolphins and CS seem to have roughly the same views on D-Bees and dolphins are 'mostly good' so it's plausible CS population is 'mostly good' while taking an anti D-Bee stance.

Or are the majority of dolphins also Nazis? =/

Orin J. wrote:so you missed the analogy entirely then. got it.

Perhaps this is some issue of you using a metaphor rather than being literal, that can be confusing sometimes.

Orin J. wrote:considering helping the CS isn't the same thing as approving of their methods,
due to the complexity of the situation in NA.

Obviously different nations don't always 100% approve of each other's methods (otherwise they'd probably just merge into a single nation if there was 100% agreement) but my point is that Dobson goes beyond merely tolerating the CS (ie not attacking them) to actively AIDING them. They secretly assist CS ships by destroying hostile sea monsters along shipping lanes and coasts. Nemo + Fleet Command have even considered "offering their services" except for wanting to preserve independence and knowing the CS would be suspicious of offers.