Forums of the Megaverse®

Rereading some parts of Wormwood more closely (been taking more interest in some of the minor semantic details of certain journals made by scholars) I utterly cracked up last night at how ridiculous this woman is.

Facts:
1) Tarn is a popular person, and many people read her books in WorldGate in particular
2) WorldGate is full of demons who apparently think the city is neutral
3) Confessor tells Erin in confidence that this is a ruse used to spy on and manipulate them
4) Erin gushes about how "special" she feels about being trusted with this secret
5) This is related in a "soon to be released" BOOK she is writing.

This is not "Traversing Our Modern World" where someone stole Erin's private letters to friends and then mass-produced them without her consent... she's actually getting this one published intentionally...

If she were writing a private book to be stored in a library to be revealed to a select few, or maybe something for people to read decades later, after she dies or something (or after the Wormwood wars are ended) I guess that would be okay...

But "released" sounds a heck of a lot like she is putting it on the market... meaning that it will in all probability find its way to WorldGate and into the hands of a demon working for the unholy (or a dark priest) who will then think "oh, well that makes sense" and then make WorldGate a target for the aggression of the Unholy's Empire and ruin all their spying and sabotage plans.

Although the CS would probably have trouble sympathizing with the Kingdom of Light (who is the king, again? Erin mentions a lot of "kingdom" locations without clearly establishes monarchies...I think Psyscape was called a kingdom twice, hopefully future sourcebook gives us a king NPC for the place) what with their embracing techno-wizards and using alien symbiotes and stuff, though I could see them cozying up to the Templars and the Vanguard taking some interest. But even they (if it didn't mean acknowledging Tarn's books) might have something to say about the hypocrisy and how she is (intentionally? ignorantly?) sabotaging humanity's efforts against demon's armies by revealing key intelligence.

Obviously. She's clearly been corrupted by the supernatural and must be destroyed for the good of humanity...

Alternate theory: WorldGate isn't actually working with humanity to fight the demons, they are a corrupt cesspool and the Confessor knew this and knew what a gossip Tarn was, so he fed her some false intel which would eventually damage Worldgate/Empire relations in future years.

idea:
the unholy already know worldgate is being used to gather intell, it's just playing along to feed disinformation to the Empire spies, and to gather info for themselves.

addendum: the Empire already knows this, but keeps up the pretenses because the unholy does let plenty of real info slip (partly by accident, partly to hide the false info in) they are also aware that they let enough info slip the other way, but they also are feeding false info as well.

addendem take 2: the city leadership actually does believe in the neutrality, and aren't aware of the extent of the various espionage plots going on.. they think it's less extensive than it is. (and since that brings trade to the city, they don't really care much)

so basically, both sides know that the other side knows that they know, but they all pretend they don't know because it's still useful to them to keep up the pretenses. the confessor knows that both side knows that the other knows, so saw little reason to hide the fact because revealing it won't change anything anyway.

glitterboy2098 wrote:idea:
the unholy already know worldgate is being used to gather intell, it's just playing along to feed disinformation to the Empire spies, and to gather info for themselves.

addendum: the Empire already knows this, but keeps up the pretenses because the unholy does let plenty of real info slip (partly by accident, partly to hide the false info in) they are also aware that they let enough info slip the other way, but they also are feeding false info as well.

addendem take 2: the city leadership actually does believe in the neutrality, and aren't aware of the extent of the various espionage plots going on.. they think it's less extensive than it is. (and since that brings trade to the city, they don't really care much)

so basically, both sides know that the other side knows that they know, but they all pretend they don't know because it's still useful to them to keep up the pretenses. the confessor knows that both side knows that the other knows, so saw little reason to hide the fact because revealing it won't change anything anyway.

*Thinks we need more levels of "I know that you know that I know that you know......." recursion thrown in here *

And the betting is at what reiteration of this that heads start exploding.

taalismn wrote:And the betting is at what reiteration of this that heads start exploding.

And those exploding heads are secretly what the Confessor wanted in the first place It all makes sense now

Alternate Alternate Theory: It's just bad writing and the author accidentally made Tarn do something incredibly terrible because they just wanted to get some exposition out of the way and didn't bother thinking about the in-universe ramifications of what it would mean to have Tarn tell everyone about a big secret.

Rallan wrote:Alternate Alternate Theory: It's just bad writing and the author accidentally made Tarn do something incredibly terrible because they just wanted to get some exposition out of the way and didn't bother thinking about the in-universe ramifications of what it would mean to have Tarn tell everyone about a big secret.

Yah sure, that's possible. But it doesn't have the cool exploding heads, so I am going to have to dismiss it.

I'd like to think her editors have more sense than to publish something with such information, but unfortunately page 81 of the Federation of Magic book indicates the book was indeed published by that time.

As a consolation though, I don't recall the Aftermath book indicating that the situation in Wormwood had changed any by that time, so either the book hasn't gotten to Wormwood yet or the information just wasn't as damaging as feared. Or, perhaps, it was edited out of the final published version.

eliakon wrote:

taalismn wrote:

eliakon wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:idea:
the unholy already know worldgate is being used to gather intell, it's just playing along to feed disinformation to the Empire spies, and to gather info for themselves.

addendum: the Empire already knows this, but keeps up the pretenses because the unholy does let plenty of real info slip (partly by accident, partly to hide the false info in) they are also aware that they let enough info slip the other way, but they also are feeding false info as well.

addendem take 2: the city leadership actually does believe in the neutrality, and aren't aware of the extent of the various espionage plots going on.. they think it's less extensive than it is. (and since that brings trade to the city, they don't really care much)

so basically, both sides know that the other side knows that they know, but they all pretend they don't know because it's still useful to them to keep up the pretenses. the confessor knows that both side knows that the other knows, so saw little reason to hide the fact because revealing it won't change anything anyway.

*Thinks we need more levels of "I know that you know that I know that you know......." recursion thrown in here *

And the betting is at what reiteration of this that heads start exploding.

And those exploding heads are secretly what the Confessor wanted in the first place It all makes sense now

actually, i just stole a situation from the cold war.. there were plenty of times where both sides knew that the other's intelligence agencies were running various schemes, and didn't stop it because "better the devil you know" and because as long as the scheme was operating,they could use to run some counter scheme to their own benefit.. and just as often, the other side knew the counter scheme was going on, and set into motion schemes to take advantage of the counter scheme to their benefit, etc.

espionage can get complicated very fast.

Rallan wrote:Alternate Alternate Theory: It's just bad writing and the author accidentally made Tarn do something incredibly terrible because they just wanted to get some exposition out of the way and didn't bother thinking about the in-universe ramifications of what it would mean to have Tarn tell everyone about a big secret.

It's too much into meta-gaming territory to focus so hard on author intentions, let's just have fun with the canon we end up getting presented with.

Like how Erin Tarn knows what experience level the people she encounters have and uses that term along with "mega-damage" in her book.

Erin Tarn is Deadpool.

Glistam wrote:I'd like to think her editors have more sense than to publish something with such information, but unfortunately page 81 of the Federation of Magic book indicates the book was indeed published by that time.

A book with "Wormwood" on the spine isn't necessarily Tarn's. That's not even the full title. I guess I could see it getting abbreviated but it wouldn't be THAT hard to fit the full title on a book spine (look how much text PB fits on theirs). I mean if we look at the book on the High Magus' shelf which is definitely hers, let's compare the lengths:

Traversing our Modern World
Wormwood, a Distant World

Using the full title of Wormwood would've actually been shorter.

Erin may not be the first person to write about the planet (people have been visiting for thousands of years) or it might be about the plant.

Tor wrote:

Rallan wrote:Alternate Alternate Theory: It's just bad writing and the author accidentally made Tarn do something incredibly terrible because they just wanted to get some exposition out of the way and didn't bother thinking about the in-universe ramifications of what it would mean to have Tarn tell everyone about a big secret.

It's too much into meta-gaming territory to focus so hard on author intentions, let's just have fun with the canon we end up getting presented with.

Like how Erin Tarn knows what experience level the people she encounters have and uses that term along with "mega-damage" in her book.

Erin Tarn is Deadpool.

Sometimes you have to go into metagame territory. Tarn's big reveals of sensitive top secret information are never portrayed as bad or unusual, she's never portrayed as having malevolent intent, the world doesn't see her as a traitor who sabotages the forces of good wherever she goes, and there's never been a backstory or metaplot doohickey where the baddies have succeeded at something by using sensitive information Tarn blabbed to the world.

It's clearly just a brainfart by Siembieda, and saying "Yeah the author didn't intend that, let's just pretend it never happened" is a way less meta fix than trying to second guess the author and pretend you're his editor by significantly changing the game world to reflect what really would've gone down if the world's most famous travel reporter kept sabotaging the goodies by publishing state secrets in all her books.

Also, I think we can all agree that "let's just pretend it never happened" is the best way of handling every in-universe reference to "mega-damage" ever

What other instances are there of Tarn revealing sensitive info? All the data in "Traversing" from RMB was private letters that were compiled and printed without her consent. There's a huge diff between penning Plato and mass-publishing something.

Tor wrote:What other instances are there of Tarn revealing sensitive info? All the data in "Traversing" from RMB was private letters that were compiled and printed without her consent. There's a huge diff between penning Plato and mass-publishing something.

Not a lot really. Since mostly she has been quietly dropped as the 'in world source' anyway.
The original purpose of her has been fulfilled, and in fact is now rather pointless. So why keep her around.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:What other instances are there of Tarn revealing sensitive info? All the data in "Traversing" from RMB was private letters that were compiled and printed without her consent. There's a huge diff between penning Plato and mass-publishing something.

Not a lot really. Since mostly she has been quietly dropped as the 'in world source' anyway.
The original purpose of her has been fulfilled, and in fact is now rather pointless. So why keep her around.

She was always kinda pointless when you get down to it. She was a completely out of the blue piece of subjective in-universe narration in a game world where everything else is described objectively in OOC third person (see that? I just invented a piece of POV terminology that only applies to RPG writing), and she wasn't particularly well written to boot.

Also she comes from the good old days when the Coalition States was supposed to be an unambiguously evil empire without a whole bunch of apologetics to make it easier for the fanboys to justify playing the CS as good guys, so there's no way her stuff would work with later books

Rallan wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:What other instances are there of Tarn revealing sensitive info? All the data in "Traversing" from RMB was private letters that were compiled and printed without her consent. There's a huge diff between penning Plato and mass-publishing something.

Not a lot really. Since mostly she has been quietly dropped as the 'in world source' anyway.
The original purpose of her has been fulfilled, and in fact is now rather pointless. So why keep her around.

She was always kinda pointless when you get down to it. She was a completely out of the blue piece of subjective in-universe narration in a game world where everything else is described objectively in OOC third person (see that? I just invented a piece of POV terminology that only applies to RPG writing), and she wasn't particularly well written to boot.

Also she comes from the good old days when the Coalition States was supposed to be an unambiguously evil empire without a whole bunch of apologetics to make it easier for the fanboys to justify playing the CS as good guys, so there's no way her stuff would work with later books

A rather succinct summation of her original purpose.
Yah, in the first RMB she was a way to pass on information second hand to players 'it is said that' by a quasi-reliable source
She was reused in a few later books but as things got more and more 'explored' the world was more and more filled out. There was no need for a 'vague source telling tales of what might be in ____' when you can just go get the world book and look up the details yourself.
If there is no "ooc" mystery, then why bother with a source for it? Additionally, it gets harder and harder to justify having her be everywhere....so instead when narration is needed now, its just from a new source, that is appropriate to the location.

Rallan wrote:She was always kinda pointless when you get down to it. She was a completely out of the blue piece of subjective in-universe narration in a game world where everything else is described objectively in OOC third person (see that? I just invented a piece of POV terminology that only applies to RPG writing), and she wasn't particularly well written to boot.

I see a huge point to this: we are told (OOC) that Traversing is the most accurate publication about the world that exists... "Splugorth the Terrible" and "Tromm" and all that.

It helps to illustrate the upper tier of knowledge being pretty low and just how ignorant most people will be about the world. People for the most part will know far less than the tiny amount available in Traversing.

Rallan wrote:comes from the good old days when the Coalition States was supposed to be an unambiguously evil empire without a whole bunch of apologetics to make it easier for the fanboys to justify playing the CS as good guys, so there's no way her stuff would work with later books

Her stuff must always work, it's canon, what contrasts are there?

If she errs in describing the CS it's because she's not perfect, either negligient or malicious.

Sides, how bad were the CS to begin with? They were letting Psi-Hounds pilot their SAMAS suits in Lone Star, seemed pretty progressive to me.

Despised the character from the first book. Hate her actions during SoT.

Tor wrote:Sides, how bad were the CS to begin with? They were letting Psi-Hounds pilot their SAMAS suits in Lone Star, seemed pretty progressive to me.

If you just stick with the core book hte CS are unambiguously baddies. For starters everything has skulls on it and the book straight up discusses how much Prosek admires guys like Hitler.

And for seconds, well, there's the setting itself. Literacy is illegal for everyone except the wealthy elite. Chi-Town is rigidly divided into different sections to keep the masses away from the rich and powerful, and the whole place is a mass surveillance state. Magic-users are wanted criminals and psychics are second class citizens even though the book never even suggests that there might be anything objectively bad about magic and psionics. D-Bees and non humans in general are persecuted and the book makes it pretty clear that persecuting D-Bees is officially not very nice. "Rogue Scholar" and "Rogue Scientist" are playable classes, suggesting that this is supposed to be a world where the quest for knowledge is heroic, dangerous, and illegal. And the CS has rewritten history (which is some straight up 1984 stuff) to portray itself as saviors of humanity and cast enemies like the Federation Of Magic as evil baddies who got what's coming to them.

Everything about the core book suggests that Rifts is meant to be played as a game where the CS are a genuine bona fide Evil Empire, a dystopian totalitarian dictatorship that serves as a bigger threat to the free peoples of North America than anything else mentioned in the book.

Tor wrote:Sides, how bad were the CS to begin with? They were letting Psi-Hounds pilot their SAMAS suits in Lone Star, seemed pretty progressive to me.

yeah, but if you pay close attention to the NPC write ups and setting info, you'll notice the leadership for Lonestar is pretty nonconformist.. the scientific staff are doing things on the side that the Prosek's and the rest of the CS would not approve of, and the military staff have been building their own little personal empires and arranging the death of anyone who notices.

the Dogboys flying SAMAS's are permanently attached to the Lonestar facility.. even odds that the rest of the CS is unaware of it.

taalismn wrote:And the betting is at what reiteration of this that heads start exploding.

Just so long as it doesn't look like what happened in Kingsman...that was LAME.

Rallan wrote:If you just stick with the core book hte CS are unambiguously baddies. For starters everything has skulls on it and the book straight up discusses how much Prosek admires guys like Hitler.

Using a skull motif and admiring Hitler doesn't make you a bad person. You can value someone's charisma and ability to control society without agreeing with all the changes they made to society.

Rallan wrote:Literacy is illegal for everyone except the wealthy elite.

In a world where a "scroll of annihilate" or "scroll of dimensional portal" can exist, I think that is a wise precaution.

Rallan wrote:Chi-Town is rigidly divided into different sections to keep the masses away from the rich and powerful, and the whole place is a mass surveillance state.

In a world invaded by shapeshifters of a draconic or demonic nature with MD grenades selling for the cost of a week's stay in a motel, this seems like a wise precaution to me.

Rallan wrote:Magic-users are wanted criminals and psychics are second class citizens even though the book never even suggests that there might be anything objectively bad about magic and psionics.

Considering a 1st level shifter or TW starts out knowing Call Lightning they are incredibly dangerous. You can disarm people carrying MD pistols but you can't disarm a spellcaster, so it makes sense to control their introduction to your society.

Since some of them know spells to mess about with thinking, it is wise to keep them completely segregated. The Vanguard understood this.

Rallan wrote:D-Bees and non humans in general are persecuted and the book makes it pretty clear that persecuting D-Bees is officially not very nice.

Officially to whom? Tarn? D-Bees are all invaders. If they are accidental immigrants they are free to turn themselves over to CS authorities for slave duties until Desmond Bradford learns how to relocate them somewhere. Ghettos can be created for them, there are corners to cower in, they will be tolerated so long as they do not interfere with human expansion or security.

Rallan wrote:the CS has rewritten history (which is some straight up 1984 stuff) to portray itself as saviors of humanity and cast enemies like the Federation Of Magic as evil baddies who got what's coming to them.

I don't see how this is a rewrite. The FoM do include baddies and those who consort with them. The CS is saving humans. Seems legit.

Rallan wrote:Everything about the core book suggests that Rifts is meant to be played as a game where the CS are a genuine bona fide Evil Empire, a dystopian totalitarian dictatorship that serves as a bigger threat to the free peoples of North America than anything else mentioned in the book.

and Shifters and City Rats and Headhunters and Juicers and Crazies are just cute fuzzy little rebels with a heart of gold?

Are you seriously trying to say that the core book didn't paint the CS as baddies, or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

Rallan wrote:Are you seriously trying to say that the core book didn't paint the CS as baddies, or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

Wouldn't be the first person to try and claim the CS aren't explicitly meant to be an Evil Empire if so, in spite of the books making it clear that they are.

There's a difference between 'the core book' and 'the books'? I am open to agreeing that not all books paint them in the same light.

Phase World for example has CJ classing them as equal to and edging to worse than the Kreeghor. I'm not sure if I'm buying that though. The CS has not gone to other plants and taken out their native species, they are simply trying to reclaim their own home planet.

Tor wrote:The CS has not gone to other plants and taken out their native species, they are simply trying to reclaim their own home planet.

by engaging in casual genocide, yes..

Tor wrote:There's a difference between 'the core book' and 'the books'? I am open to agreeing that not all books paint them in the same light.

Phase World for example has CJ classing them as equal to and edging to worse than the Kreeghor. I'm not sure if I'm buying that though. The CS has not gone to other plants and taken out their native species, they are simply trying to reclaim their own home planet.

Except that they are also out to kill the other natives of that planet (True Atlantians, Lemurians, Purca Red Giants.......)

Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

glitterboy2098 wrote:by engaging in casual genocide, yes..

Do you have any evidence that the Coalition States has killed a higher enough percentage of any race for it to qualify as a genocide?

Trying to reclaim your planet from aliens by killing them is not genocide. Following them back to their home planet and trying to wipe them out there and anywhere else they spread is more along those lines.

DB2p108 clearly says that the CS are only Aggressive Racial Supremists, like the Kreeghor or the Splugorth. They are only 'leaning towards' genocidal xenophobes'.

This is understandable since they are in a far more vulnerable position than Kreeghor/Splugorth. If they actually had the security of securing their home planet (much less an empire of dozens, maybe hundreds of planets, like those two) then their attitudes could soften.

You can clearly see by looking at other humans that we progressed to Enlightened Imperialists in Britain/US to Peaceful Expansionists in the CCW, allying with Noro interests.

The attitudes of the CS reflect the place they live in, their survival depends on it.

eliakon wrote:they are also out to kill the other natives of that planet (True Atlantians, Lemurians, Purca Red Giants.......)

From the CS perspective, assuming they even know that Lemurians/Pucara exist, they would perceive them as being aliens.

If these guys want to make a good impression they can send aid packages to the CS, help fight their enemies, etc. If they open diplomatic ties they might eventually convince the CS of this being a possibility.

But the CS can't just accept the word of 'we were here first too' from any random species that shows up that they've never heard of and can't find reliable reference to in Pre-Rifts lore.

As for the True Atlanteans, I doubt they would be subject to persecution beyond that of any t-man. So long as they didn't use their weird magical abilities. They're basically indiscernable.

CS citizens can be long-lived anyway, the issue would only crop up after a century or two where the person isn't aging properly.

These guys allow their RCSG scientists to ley-drift and ley-heal so they might possibly tolerate a True Atlantea's ability to sense lines/nexi/rifts/vampires. An inability to be transformed isn't the worst thing.

The most controversial would probably be the ley line phasing, they can avoid doing that though. Considering psychics from Psyscape can merge into a ley line it doesn't seem like the worst thing. In spite of this, Psi-Bat still accepts Psi-Warriors.

eliakon wrote:Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

If the ends do not justify the means then it is never acceptable to kill or even harm another just because it serves the ends of self defense.

Tor wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:by engaging in casual genocide, yes..

Do you have any evidence that the Coalition States has killed a higher enough percentage of any race for it to qualify as a genocide?

The intent to kill the entire present population in a geographical local is one of the legal definitions of genocide....

Tor wrote:Trying to reclaim your planet from aliens by killing them is not genocide. Following them back to their home planet and trying to wipe them out there and anywhere else they spread is more along those lines.

Not true
1) the C.S. does not have provable legal claim to the planet
2) the extermination of a population in a specific geographical location IS genocide.

Tor wrote:DB2p108 clearly says that the CS are only Aggressive Racial Supremists, like the Kreeghor or the Splugorth. They are only 'leaning towards' genocidal xenophobes'.

The matter of their behavior is best judged by actions. They have engaged in genocidal behavior ergo they are genocidal.

Tor wrote:This is understandable since they are in a far more vulnerable position than Kreeghor/Splugorth. If they actually had the security of securing their home planet (much less an empire of dozens, maybe hundreds of planets, like those two) then their attitudes could soften.

Both are false premisies
1) presumes (falsely) that their security requires the extermination of others. Places that are NOT human only demonstrate that this is false.
2) this presumes that their behavior is self justifying. the statement we are genocidal to defend ourselves from those whom we are trying to kill is a valid reason to kill the people you are, in many cases, preemptively attacking. This is circular logic
3) this is also speculative AND circular. "Well if we exterminate everyone else on earth, then we wont have to exterminate anyone else"

Tor wrote:You can clearly see by looking at other humans that we progressed to Enlightened Imperialists in Britain/US to Peaceful Expansionists in the CCW, allying with Noro interests.

The attitudes of the CS reflect the place they live in, their survival depends on it.

No their survival does NOT depend on it. The survival of the political elites power base depends on it. These are different

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:they are also out to kill the other natives of that planet (True Atlantians, Lemurians, Purca Red Giants.......)

From the CS perspective, assuming they even know that Lemurians/Pucara exist, they would perceive them as being aliens.

Their false claim that they are not natives does not mean that they are not natives.
Ergo the claim that they are trying to reclaim the planet for its natives is thus false. This means that they are trying to take the planet for them selves.
This is shown best by the fact that the CS government knows that Victor Lazlo (and others) had written about the presence and use of magic pre-rifts. Thus they are deliberately lying when they persecute mages as being 'a post rifts problem' since they have evidence that this is not true.
False claims are not a valid support for a truth dependent stance.

Tor wrote:If these guys want to make a good impression they can send aid packages to the CS, help fight their enemies, etc. If they open diplomatic ties they might eventually convince the CS of this being a possibility.

This is both speculative (they might change things....even though all past actions in this vein have failed); requires that the victims accept blame for a situation (well if they had tried harder to be nice then the CS wouldn't kill them); AND goes against all the established written material (Lazlo has tried to be diplomatic, the Vanguard project was working for the CS, etc)

Tor wrote:But the CS can't just accept the word of 'we were here first too' from any random species that shows up that they've never heard of and can't find reliable reference to in Pre-Rifts lore.

The CS is already ignoring the evidence that they DO have or deliberately altering it to support their claims. This sort of removes any claim to them following (or accepting) evidence

Tor wrote:As for the True Atlanteans, I doubt they would be subject to persecution beyond that of any t-man. So long as they didn't use their weird magical abilities. They're basically indiscernable.

The fact that they can not be told apart normally does not mean that they would be accepted. They would still be treated as supernatural monsters (note the treatment of other human mutants)

Tor wrote:CS citizens can be long-lived anyway, the issue would only crop up after a century or two where the person isn't aging properly.

Again they would be seen as human mutants and treated accordingly

Tor wrote:These guys allow their RCSG scientists to ley-drift and ley-heal so they might possibly tolerate a True Atlantea's ability to sense lines/nexi/rifts/vampires. An inability to be transformed isn't the worst thing.

Again this requires a deliberate ignoring of canon text (stance on human mutants)

Tor wrote:The most controversial would probably be the ley line phasing, they can avoid doing that though. Considering psychics from Psyscape can merge into a ley line it doesn't seem like the worst thing. In spite of this, Psi-Bat still accepts Psi-Warriors.

And we are still on the 'well if I ignore what is written I can justify things'

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

If the ends do not justify the means then it is never acceptable to kill or even harm another just because it serves the ends of self defense.

Incorrect. The means must be justifiable in and of themselves
Thus stopping a mugger by shooting them is proportionate and justifiable
Stopping a mugger by using a nuclear weapon to vaporize the city we are standing in (and killing all 11 million inhabitants) is not.
They both have the same ends "stop the mugger" but the seconds means is not justified by that end.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

If the ends do not justify the means then it is never acceptable to kill or even harm another just because it serves the ends of self defense.

Incorrect. The means must be justifiable in and of themselves
Thus stopping a mugger by shooting them is proportionate and justifiable
Stopping a mugger by using a nuclear weapon to vaporize the city we are standing in (and killing all 11 million inhabitants) is not.
They both have the same ends "stop the mugger" but the seconds means is not justified by that end.

Depends on your jurisdiction.
In Canada (Current time/Real World), shooting a mugger not armed with a firearm will end-up with you going to jail. It would be called excessive force. (Plus, there would be the issue of transporting a loaded and presumably unsafed firearm...after all, how many muggers are going to give you enough time to take-off a trigger lock after taking out of a transport case, and then loading it?)

Borast wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

If the ends do not justify the means then it is never acceptable to kill or even harm another just because it serves the ends of self defense.

Incorrect. The means must be justifiable in and of themselves
Thus stopping a mugger by shooting them is proportionate and justifiable
Stopping a mugger by using a nuclear weapon to vaporize the city we are standing in (and killing all 11 million inhabitants) is not.
They both have the same ends "stop the mugger" but the seconds means is not justified by that end.

Depends on your jurisdiction.
In Canada (Current time/Real World), shooting a mugger not armed with a firearm will end-up with you going to jail. It would be called excessive force. (Plus, there would be the issue of transporting a loaded and presumably unsafed firearm...after all, how many muggers are going to give you enough time to take-off a trigger lock after taking out of a transport case, and then loading it?)

How about "Is arguably proportionate and can be rather easily justified (or not)"

eliakon wrote:How about "Is arguably proportionate and can be rather easily justified (or not)"

Yes, it is easily Justified, and I'm all for it. However, the Law and the Legal System aren't, and we have to work within the local framework, which is why so many people on Border Security end-up in court or being bounced back with the loss of property for bringing their Legal Medicine (which is technically also legal here), or legal at home pistols (etc) across the border.

eliakon wrote:The intent to kill the entire present population in a geographical local is one of the legal definitions of genocide....

I dispute that. If I want to kill all the rats in my home, that is genocide?

Also: the CS does not necessarily want to kill all of the population: just enough so that they will all bugger off and go live somewhere else. If invaders will not leave and they die as a result, that is not genocide, it's home defense.

Say for example: my home is invaded by Miroslav Barnyashev (aka Alexander Rusev on WWE, former United States Champion, feuding with John Cena). Miroslav is 100% of the Bulgarian population in my home. I tell him to leave and he doesn't. I threaten to bean him with my 1lb pink dumbbell if he does not leave. He then whips out paired Russian AK-47s (he is strong so he can dual wield) and starts spraying everywhere, and a bullet hits my TV and refrigerator. I then bean him with the pink DB in self defense.

As he is 100% of the Bulgarian population present in the geographical area which is my home, and I throw my DB to kill so that he will stop spraying my house with bullets, that would fit your definition of genocide.

eliakon wrote:1) the C.S. does not have provable legal claim to the planet

How do we know that?

Not to mention: the CS is also acting on behalf of (and in co-operation with) other groups and allies

eliakon wrote:2) the extermination of a population in a specific geographical location IS genocide.

I find that too broad, rejected. We need something a bit more exclusive than that. Otherwise killing a single Boogie Man living in your basement is genocide because that is a specific geographical location.

Until you can get a specific and reliable source here, I am going with the definition in Dimension Book 3 page 8: deliberately causing the death of at least 1% of the known population of a

sentient species
race
ethnic group
planetary population (minimum population 100 000)

So unless the CS has done that, they have not committed genocide. If they are accused of aspiring to genocide then we must prove they have such a goal for one of those 4 groups.

I don't see any of the 4 as a goal. If the CS committed genocide it might be as an accident of applying force to evict invaders, not an intent, so I would not call the creator of an accidental genocide 'genocidal'.

eliakon wrote:The matter of their behavior is best judged by actions. They have engaged in genocidal behavior ergo they are genocidal.

What action are you saying is genocidal behavior? Why could it not be described as being simply a result of aggressive racial supremism?

eliakon wrote:presumes (falsely) that their security requires the extermination of others. Places that are NOT human only demonstrate that this is false.

To demonstrate this as being false, you have to supply a place with non-humans in an equal or superior role where normal humans are collectively safer than they are in the Coalition States. Which place are you talking about?

The CS is not necessarily the only place with some measure of 'security', but their extermination of supernatural and magical threats may result in their populace being safer.

Keeping in mind that you should limit this to Rifts Earth since places like the Consortium of Civilized Worlds have had millenia to work at a peaceful intergalactic empire, not a couple centuries in an armageddon.

eliakon wrote:2) this presumes that their behavior is self justifying. the statement we are genocidal to defend ourselves from those whom we are trying to kill is a valid reason to kill the people you are, in many cases, preemptively attacking. This is circular logic

What makes you think the CS fired the first round? Seems to me that they occurred as a result of aliens and monsters going around eating people and being invaded by an empire of mages. Aliens invaded the human sovereignty, that is an aggressive act. There are things going around killing humans for fun, eating them, enslaving them, etc. The CS could only be viewed as pre-emption in short-term where you only look a fixed degree back, go back far enough and it is built upon the skeletons of humans who have died defending their own.

eliakon wrote:3) this is also speculative AND circular. "Well if we exterminate everyone else on earth, then we wont have to exterminate anyone else"

Where has the CS been described as killing to kill rather than killing to secure?

If I could blow a whistle and send all of the rats out of my home to forage in the wilderness, I would totally do that. But I know of no such reliable means, so I put out traps to kill them.

The CS seems like they are doing what is possible to secure their nation, their planet, against invaders who are very capable of victimizing them.

eliakon wrote:their survival does NOT depend on it. The survival of the political elites power base depends on it. These are different

How do you know this? Do you know what state North America would be in without the CS to stabilize it?

What of the NGR and Europe?

eliakon wrote:Their false claim that they are not natives does not mean that they are not natives.

What false claims? Has the CS even commented on Lemuria or the giants? Seems you are coming up with a hypothetical confrontation and judging the CS based on how they might respond to them.

If the CS were misinformed then objectively they would be in the wrong but subjectively, their mind would be in the right places.

eliakon wrote:Ergo the claim that they are trying to reclaim the planet for its natives is thus false. This means that they are trying to take the planet for them selves.

Fair enough: but let's judge this by modern standards. Humans already prioritize their own species over other natives because they view themselves as the most moral, the most intelligent, the most worthwhile. Is the CS truly more villainous than us?

eliakon wrote:This is shown best by the fact that the CS government knows that Victor Lazlo (and others) had written about the presence and use of magic pre-rifts. Thus they are deliberately lying when they persecute mages as being 'a post rifts problem' since they have evidence that this is not true. False claims are not a valid support for a truth dependent stance.

Would anyone recall where it talks about the CS painting mages as a post-Rifts problem? I would like to review this.

eliakon wrote:requires that the victims accept blame for a situation (well if they had tried harder to be nice then the CS wouldn't kill them)

Why are the D-Bees automatically the victims here? Many of them game to Rifts Earth intentionally. Yes, there are some accidents, but how can the CS reliably sort this out? It would be easy to lie about.

Just because you shipwreck onto a man's beach doesn't mean you deserve a stake in the beach.

eliakon wrote:goes against all the established written material (Lazlo has tried to be diplomatic, the Vanguard project was working for the CS, etc)

Everyone "tries to be diplomatic". You could say this of Iran and Russia. Lazlo is still giving real estate to supernatural shape-shifters who use magic, dangerous beings, the CS wants to prioritize securing land for Earth's pre-Rifts majority sentient population.

Pretty sure the Vanguard understand CS reasoning for abandoning a magical division, that's why they still help them.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:But the CS can't just accept the word of 'we were here first too' from any random species that shows up that they've never heard of and can't find reliable reference to in Pre-Rifts lore.

The CS is already ignoring the evidence that they DO have or deliberately altering it to support their claims. This sort of removes any claim to them following (or accepting) evidence

What evidence exists of beings the CS would label 'alien' being native to Earth? Where does it talk about the CS either ignoring or altering this evidence?

eliakon wrote:They would still be treated as supernatural monsters (note the treatment of other human mutants)

I am noting that. Other human mutants are not treated as badly as supernatural monsters. They are treated second-class, yes, but not genocidally. They are viewed as the threats to stability which they are, due to the power they wield.

eliakon wrote:Again they would be seen as human mutants and treated accordingly

Yes: monitored and expected to serve the more vulnerable. Treated second-class to compensate for their advantages. That's not genocide, it's aggressive racial supremism. It's like the difference between racial segregationists and the Nazis. Hitler wasn't just driving Jews out of Germany and killing them if they resisted, he was actively rounding them up and killing them under subterfuge. The CS isn't doing this, they are openly telling D-Bees to get out and leave their nation in the short-term, their planet in the long-term. Those who volunteer for slavery would be assets, and spared. Kind of like how the Kreeghor treat other species as 2nd-class species. Or how the Splugorth treat their minions. Except the CS is holding this policy while trying to to secure their home planet, not an inter-galactic/dimensional empire. They are situational Aggressive Supremists, not Genocidal Maniacs.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:they might possibly tolerate a True Atlantea's ability to sense lines/nexi/rifts/vampires. An inability to be transformed isn't the worst thing.

Again this requires a deliberate ignoring of canon text (stance on human mutants)

By 'tolerate' I mean 'monitor and utilize rather than burn in a fire'. This isn't ignoring any canon text, make sure to read the entire quotes.

eliakon wrote:we are still on the 'well if I ignore what is written I can justify things'

When talking about what is written, reiterating any relevant pages/quotes would be good.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:Never mind the whole question of if the ends justify the means (I would say they do not)

If the ends do not justify the means then it is never acceptable to kill or even harm another just because it serves the ends of self defense.

Incorrect. The means must be justifiable in and of themselves
Thus stopping a mugger by shooting them is proportionate and justifiable

That is not merely a means, it is a situation and a response to it.

Are you not allowed to arrest/deport the people supporting the mugger even if they don't do any actual muggings?

eliakon wrote:Stopping a mugger by using a nuclear weapon to vaporize the city we are standing in (and killing all 11 million inhabitants) is not. They both have the same ends "stop the mugger" but the seconds means is not justified by that end.

That has ends besides 'stop the mugger' though, I weigh ends collectively.

Article II of the Rome Statute on the International Court wrote:...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That is the definition of the word 'Genocide' its not really up to individuals to accept or reject.....

Tor, just because the CS is not actively committing Genocide does not mean that it's policies are not Genocidal.

Besides, if I recall the write-ups correctly, the presence of DBs in the 'burbs is "illegal." Killing a DB is legal...tacitly encouraged in fact.
A Deadboy tosses an HE grenade into a crowd of DBs, all that will happen might be a disciplinary note for wasting munitions. That's if his CO is annoyed at him.
If he kills a human, even a non-citizen, that is another story...

Borast wrote:Tor, just because the CS is not actively committing Genocide does not mean that it's policies are not Genocidal.

Besides, if I recall the write-ups correctly, the presence of DBs in the 'burbs is "illegal." Killing a DB is legal...tacitly encouraged in fact.
A Deadboy tosses an HE grenade into a crowd of DBs, all that will happen might be a disciplinary note for wasting munitions. That's if his CO is annoyed at him.
If he kills a human, even a non-citizen, that is another story...

Actually, the burbs are a legal-no-mans-land where, offically, no one is a legal resident, human or otherwise, and ANYONE may be subject to expulsion or death for any or no reason. that's why occasionally the CS will just raze an entire section to make a point.

Yeah, why is there an argument that the CS isn't a bunch of fascists bent on murdering in the name of protecting their home from what they consider filth? because that's what they are.

But that's proper.

I'd turn my lasgun on the demon for my race too.

FOR THE EMPEROR!

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Actually, the burbs are a legal-no-mans-land where, offically, no one is a legal resident, human or otherwise, and ANYONE may be subject to expulsion or death for any or no reason. that's why occasionally the CS will just raze an entire section to make a point.

True, but that is an organised mission.
I'm referring to a "Good-Ol' Boy" letting off steam.

Borast wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Actually, the burbs are a legal-no-mans-land where, offically, no one is a legal resident, human or otherwise, and ANYONE may be subject to expulsion or death for any or no reason. that's why occasionally the CS will just raze an entire section to make a point.

True, but that is an organised mission.
I'm referring to a "Good-Ol' Boy" letting off steam.

in that case, no. it is not tacitly encouraged, merely not harshly punished. remember, if you cause a riot or a bunch of outrage, then they have to send in even more to keep things under control and some general is going to come down on your supervisor for disturbing his tuesday martini.

IF you have at least a semi-legitmate excuse they can use as a justification, then yea, no punishment will be forthcoming. if you just casually toss grenades around, you're not just wasting D-bees, your making things difficult for your squadmates who have to clean up after you.

eliakon wrote:

Article II of the Rome Statute on the International Court wrote:...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That is the definition of the word 'Genocide' its not really up to individuals to accept or reject.....

There is no "the" definition, the use of definite article implies singular authority, it is merely "a" (indefinite) definition.

The definition use for genocide in Dimension Book 3 is the only one I'm currently aware of in a Palladium book, so I think we ought to go by that.

The version in the Rome Statute sounds pointlessly broad as you have pasted it. You could "destroy in part" a "national group" by "killing members of the group" by shooting a single enemy soldier in a war. These requirements define any kind of murder as genocide, it's stupid.

1% of a species (although I would at least require the species to number 200, to avoid the 'single murder is genocide' silliness) is a far more useful definition. Good work CJ.

Borast wrote:Tor, just because the CS is not actively committing Genocide does not mean that it's policies are not Genocidal.

If the CS has not fulfilled Palladium's definitions of genocide, then if you want to argue that their policy is genocidal, you must provide evidence to support it.

Dimension Book 2 clearly states that CS/Kreeghor/Splugorth are not in the genocidal category, they are in the aggressive racial supremist category.

Genocidal policies would mean they would have wiped out all the Dog Boys and any D-Bee slaves.

The CS could eventually become genocidal, it's fine to predict that in the future. Dimension Book 2 even hints they are moving in that direction. But they are not there yet. The Kreeghor also might eventually become genocidal, but they are not there yet, so we should not call them that.

Borast wrote:if I recall the write-ups correctly, the presence of DBs in the 'burbs is "illegal." Killing a DB is legal...tacitly encouraged in fact.

The presence of a species within a specific location being illegal does not mean you are committing genocide against that species.

The killing of members of a species being legal or encouraged does not mean you are committing genocide against that species.

Look at the Splugorth. Killing humans in legal in Atlantis. It's encouraged for entertainment or for food. But the Splugorth are not committing genocide against humans, they are too useful and fun to do that. They actually breed them, as a resource, and keep them as slaves, the same way the CS breeds non-humans and enslaves non-humans.

Borast wrote:A Deadboy tosses an HE grenade into a crowd of DBs, all that will happen might be a disciplinary note for wasting munitions. That's if his CO is annoyed at him. If he kills a human, even a non-citizen, that is another story...

Not punishing the killing of a species with severity is not the same as the government being genocidal against that species.

The soldier would also get in trouble for nading a crowd of D-Bees if they were the slave property of a citizen who is a businessman and wanted to use them in a work camp to plough fields for humans to farm in.

Governments do not punish us for killing mosquitos. That does not mean the government holds a mosquito genocide policy. If that were the case, scientists would not be allowed to breed mosquitos in captivity for scientific purposes, because soldiers would storm the lab and kill the mosquitos.

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, why is there an argument that the CS isn't a bunch of fascists bent on murdering in the name of protecting their home from what they consider filth? because that's what they are.

Whose argument are you talking about here?

The argument I'm having is about whether they are "genocidal" which is a whole other thing from fascism or murderous.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Borast wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Actually, the burbs are a legal-no-mans-land where, offically, no one is a legal resident, human or otherwise, and ANYONE may be subject to expulsion or death for any or no reason. that's why occasionally the CS will just raze an entire section to make a point.

True, but that is an organised mission.
I'm referring to a "Good-Ol' Boy" letting off steam.

in that case, no. it is not tacitly encouraged, merely not harshly punished. remember, if you cause a riot or a bunch of outrage, then they have to send in even more to keep things under control and some general is going to come down on your supervisor for disturbing his tuesday martini.

IF you have at least a semi-legitmate excuse they can use as a justification, then yea, no punishment will be forthcoming. if you just casually toss grenades around, you're not just wasting D-bees, your making things difficult for your squadmates who have to clean up after you.

They wouldn't be happy about the wasted ordinance either, since what you waste won't be there if something serious happens and worse you may have provoked the serious thing as well. Higher ups are not going to be pleased as you creating a situation that wastes manpower and resources like that especially if anyone gets killed on the CS side.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Article II of the Rome Statute on the International Court wrote:...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That is the definition of the word 'Genocide' its not really up to individuals to accept or reject.....

There is no "the" definition, the use of definite article implies singular authority, it is merely "a" (indefinite) definition.

The definition use for genocide in Dimension Book 3 is the only one I'm currently aware of in a Palladium book, so I think we ought to go by that.

You can use that one if you want...but I would just point out that it is simply the legal definition of the crime as defined by the court system of the CCW and not an attempt at a definition of the word.

Tor wrote:The version in the Rome Statute sounds pointlessly broad as you have pasted it. You could "destroy in part" a "national group" by "killing members of the group" by shooting a single enemy soldier in a war. These requirements define any kind of murder as genocide, it's stupid.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean its stupid. It just means that you disagree with the actual, real world, legal definition of the crime of genocide as defined by the Signitories of the Rome Statute (which includes the United States, which ends up meaning that US law also defines it this way. This is important when we are using words in English....because the official English definition of that word has become this one (as all the English Speaking nations are signatories....)

Tor wrote:1% of a species (although I would at least require the species to number 200, to avoid the 'single murder is genocide' silliness) is a far more useful definition. Good work CJ.

I would counter that the court of the 3gs is rather irrelevant to a discussion of Rifts.....
However even if we use it....that 1% would be the number of the species present on the planet/nation at the time (other wise you get into the semantics game of "in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of people, so no matter how many I kill its still just an infinititly small number" And any stance that requires us to define that genocide is impossible and doesn't exist is by definition not valid for defining what is genocide.)

Tor wrote:

Borast wrote:Tor, just because the CS is not actively committing Genocide does not mean that it's policies are not Genocidal.

If the CS has not fulfilled Palladium's definitions of genocide, then if you want to argue that their policy is genocidal, you must provide evidence to support it.

False statement
The legal definition of a crime in the CCW is not the same thing as Palladiums definition of something.
Also please note that killing 1% of a population of 100,000 or more is genocide. (this means that Tolkeen, by CCW law was genocide)

Tor wrote:Dimension Book 2 clearly states that CS/Kreeghor/Splugorth are not in the genocidal category, they are in the aggressive racial supremist category.

Genocidal policies would mean they would have wiped out all the Dog Boys and any D-Bee slaves.

False. You can be selectively genocidal
Just because you are genocidal against elves does not mean you also have to be genocidal against dogboys.

Tor wrote:The CS could eventually become genocidal, it's fine to predict that in the future. Dimension Book 2 even hints they are moving in that direction. But they are not there yet. The Kreeghor also might eventually become genocidal, but they are not there yet, so we should not call them that.

As of the Siege on Tolkeen (which comes after DB2) the CS has actively committed Genocide and is thus, genocidal.

As that same series (SoT) says, those extermination camps were the result of a rather radical and unofficial sect of the Coalition Army, not official Coalition States Policy. Even Emp. Prosek wouldn't have gone that far. He'd just have their houses burnt down and anyone that didn't try to resist would be escorted out of CS territory at gun point.
Heck, their greatest hero, Gen. Jericho Holmes lets non-combatant D-Bees run away.

Besides, all that revisionist history about magic would have had to be penned after the Vanguard was exiled, which means it was after the mages of the FoM unleashed all kinds of baddies to attack the population of Chi-Town, not just it's military.

eliakon wrote:You can use that one if you want...but I would just point out that it is simply the legal definition of the crime as defined by the court system of the CCW and not an attempt at a definition of the word.

A legal definition is an attempt to define.

eliakon wrote:The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean its stupid.

I never based my condemnation on how I liked it, I based it on it not being descriptive of anything apart from murder, since it was too vague.

eliakon wrote:It just means that you disagree with the actual, real world, legal definition of the crime of genocide as defined by the Signitories of the Rome Statute (which includes the United States, which ends up meaning that US law also defines it this way.

Yes, because the SotRS (and US law) are not the only definitions of the word. I explained how what you posted was broad to the point of paralysis, it allows any kill to be called a genocide. It is sleazy and is clearly designed to allow wiggle room for people to call stuff whatever they want for emotional effect.

The actual useful application of the term, when you look at the word, is trying to kill off a genetic line, mass assault on a familial group. CCW uses it in broad terms like 'species' while our single-planet also includes ethnic groups within that species.

eliakon wrote:This is important when we are using words in English....because the official English definition of that word has become this one (as all the English Speaking nations are signatories....)

Wrong. Nations signing to agree to something does not make it "the official English definition". Governments are not the final authority on the meaning of language.

eliakon wrote:I would counter that the court of the 3gs is rather irrelevant to a discussion of Rifts.....

Considering that Dimension Book 2 makes mention of the Coalition States and classifies them as approaching (but not part of) a "genocidal" level, it would make sense to use the definition of genocide used in DB3 to understand what is meant by that, since CJ wrote both.

eliakon wrote:However even if we use it....that 1% would be the number of the species present on the planet/nation at the time (other wise you get into the semantics game of "in an infinite universe there are an infinite number of people, so no matter how many I kill its still just an infinititly small number"

That may depend on how much population a judging party thinks exist. It allows genocide to be determined subjectively.

If I think I am killing the last dodo bird, I view it as a genocide, but it may not actually be one if there are a million dodos living in an alien space-ship. I would be genocidal, but the result would not be genocide.

The CS, while not super-knowledgeable about other dimensions, I believe thinks there are plenty of these invading species on their home planets, so would not view killing the invaders as being a genocide.

If we allow for location-based exception, then I am genocidal against mice for laying traps for them in my home, even though I reasonably expect they survive outdoors or in other homes.

eliakon wrote:any stance that requires us to define that genocide is impossible and doesn't exist is by definition not valid for defining what is genocide.

Genocide is not impossible, it just means we must take into account the opinions of the person evaluating genocide in regard to opinions. What the CCW thinks is 1% of humanity and what the CS thinks is 1% of humanity would be widely different.

eliakon wrote:The legal definition of a crime in the CCW is not the same thing as Palladiums definition of something.

Closest thing, the CCW are clearly presented as the moral-authority good guys when weighing the major powers in the 3 galaxies. They're basically Starfleet Federation. We expect their definitions to be better than our IRL definitions since they are a more advanced civilization.

eliakon wrote:please note that killing 1% of a population of 100,000 or more is genocide. (this means that Tolkeen, by CCW law was genocide)

Wrong, that bit is about a "planetary population". Tolkeen is a city population. It is not a sentient species, race, or planetary population.

Not sure how it would apply to pocket dimensions like the City of Brass or Psyscape, you might be able to consider them their own worlds.

The closest thing would be to consider "Tolkeenites" an "ethnic group" but that seems to be stretching things a bit, they never seemed particularly cohesive. That could work for chummier folk like the Spirit West guys or the 3rd eye guys in Psyscape, that's cohesive enough for me to think of it as an ethnicity. Would religious groups count as an ethnicity, you think? Or people of a certain occupation like spellcaster?

eliakon wrote:False. You can be selectively genocidal. Just because you are genocidal against elves does not mean you also have to be genocidal against dogboys.

True, valid correction.

eliakon wrote:As of the Siege on Tolkeen (which comes after DB2) the CS has actively committed Genocide

Wrecking a city during a war to end a threat doesn't seem like genocide to me. Would the 2 atom bombs count as genocides?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... g_of_Japan says in 1945 there was over 71 million people and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki says over 129 thousand died. 1% of 71 million is 710 thousand though, so it wasn't 1% of nation as a whole, but it was certainly far higher than 1% of the population of the respective cities themselves.

I realize Tolkeen is both a Kingdom as well as a City... but I still don't really see it as a genocide because they didn't seem to have much of a cohesive ethnic identity. Tolkeen just doesn't seem to fit the "geno" aspect the same way the nation of Japan would.

I'd actually like to review the fatalities too. How many of them were summoned demons/daemonix/elementals who weren't even the citizenry?

actually Eli is speaking of the CS deathcamps for the Dbee's and magic users they captured during the war. one's modeled on the ones Nazi Germany ran in ww2

SoT book 2, pg69, introduces the CS's plans to exterminate the population of Tolkien.
pg71 explicitly calls it genocide. the Dbee's and magic users will be exterminated, the non-magical human population of tolkien is sent to concentration camps and worked to death as slave labor. all of the population of Tolkien is declared by the CS to be combatants, they recognize no civilians.

also, as to the CS's policies outside the war..
CWC, pg 23, under "other enemies" it lists Dbee's and practitioners of magic.
"all nonhumans and sorcerers are considered to be enemies of the states and presumed to be armed and dangerous. Lethal force is suggested in the 'dispersement' of these 'enemies' from coalition territories and warzones. this merans it is open season for these two groups of people. whethher or not they are shot on sight depends on the commander of the coalition force that encounters them. more often than not, such characters can expect a hostile encounter"

so basically, the CS has an official "shoot on sight" orders for anyone not human or using magic, and their official policy for non-humans communities in or near CS borders is application of lethal force to remove said communities.. regardless of what the community is or is doing.

Eliakon, remember, the CS does not view Dr. Bradford's animal experiments as sapient. They are (when working with the CS) considered ANIMALS at worst, pets at best. So, why kill useful animals that can be used to prevent the loss of Human life? (Much the same way Militaries today use animals, except they are being used as front-line troops in some cases in the CS's doctrines.)

Borast wrote:Eliakon, remember, the CS does not view Dr. Bradford's animal experiments as sapient. They are (when working with the CS) considered ANIMALS at worst, pets at best. So, why kill useful animals that can be used to prevent the loss of Human life? (Much the same way Militaries today use animals, except they are being used as front-line troops in some cases in the CS's doctrines.)

1) It does not matter if they view them as people or not. Otherwise we get into the slippery slope argument of "well if I don't think they are people then its not genocide" which gets us back to the "genocide is impossible because we have defined it away"

this is rather moot because....

2) I was not talking about the dog boys (Although by the Rome Statute the actions of the CS in regards to the Dog Boys are genocide (they forcibly relocate children, force breeding, force sterilization, forbid on pain of death the development/ continuance of an individual culture, and exterminate wild/escaped Dog boys)

glitterboy2098 wrote:actually Eli is speaking of the CS deathcamps for the Dbee's and magic users they captured during the war. one's modeled on the ones Nazi Germany ran in ww2

SoT book 2, pg69, introduces the CS's plans to exterminate the population of Tolkien.

No, it introduces General Drogue's plans. An officer's attitudes do not necessarily reflect the attitude of the government or society he is part of.

I am curious: Operation Hardball is described as a 'plot hatched' by Drogue, do we know if it (or its Phase Two concentration camps) were enacted? Do later books make this clear? If it was, do we know who signed off on it? Who was aware?

Considering that high-ranking officials sometimes do things under their boss's noses (Bradford designing Psi-X aliens, that woman who cloned Bradford...) them plotting something or even accomplishing the plot doesn't necessarily reflect the attitudes of the leadership.

I mean heck, even if Karl himself held an opinion or goal, does that necessarily reflect all or even most of CS society? If Obama likes pickles on his burger does that mean America does? Did over 50% of Germans know of the gas chambers?

glitterboy2098 wrote:pg71 explicitly calls it genocide.

Are you referring to "that pre-Rifts instrument of genocide, the concentration camp" ?

Being an instrument used to attempt 1 thing does not mean that a use of that instrument is necessarily for that one thing. Guns are instruments used to attempt murder, but can also be used for target practise or shooting someone in the knee-cap to disable them non-lethally.

glitterboy2098 wrote:the Dbee's and magic users will be exterminated, the non-magical human population of tolkien is sent to concentration camps and worked to death as slave labor. all of the population of Tolkien is declared by the CS to be combatants, they recognize no civilians.

Which is harsh, but not genocidal. Tolkeen had plenty of time for peaceful folk to leave and go refugee/inhabit other places. People who remained behind are assumed hostile and dangerous. D-bees are unknowns and possibly as dangerous as a magic user, too hard to manage.

Enslaving an enemy isn't genocide. Working them to death is harsh, but also not genocidal, just impartial. The Splugorth also work humans to death, they aren't genocidal.

glitterboy2098 wrote:CWC, pg 23, under "other enemies" it lists Dbee's and practitioners of magic.
"all nonhumans and sorcerers are considered to be enemies of the states and presumed to be armed and dangerous. Lethal force is suggested in the 'dispersement' of these 'enemies' from coalition territories and warzones. this merans it is open season for these two groups of people. whethher or not they are shot on sight depends on the commander of the coalition force that encounters them. more often than not, such characters can expect a hostile encounter"

so basically, the CS has an official "shoot on sight" orders for anyone not human or using magic, and their official policy for non-humans communities in or near CS borders is application of lethal force to remove said communities.. regardless of what the community is or is doing.

They do not have an official 'shoot on sight' policy, re-read this please. "Whether or not they are shot on sight depends on the commander" is not a 'shoot on sight' policy. 'Open season' means it is okay to shoot people, not that you are obligated to do it, or that you are shooting to kill, or that you are shooting to wipe out the species.

Some legislation in the US is being pushed to have a 'shoot on sight' policy for wolves. This may be done on a temporary basis until their population and threat to humans is curbed by lowering their numbers. Since shoot-on-sight policies are not by necessity permanent, they do not convey an intent to genocide.

They are assumed armed/dangerous and force (including lethal) is authorized to disperse them. Disperse means "run away, this is human territory" not "I'm going to lock you in your home and burn it down" or "I'm going to kidnap you and gas you".

eliakon wrote:1) It does not matter if they view them as people or not. Otherwise we get into the slippery slope argument of "well if I don't think they are people then its not genocide" which gets us back to the "genocide is impossible because we have defined it away"

Genocide has been used in popular media to refer to non-humans: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/eep/news/endspecies.html

so we could avoid the 'what is people' thing altogether. Even if that was an original component, its use seems to have broadened since then. Betting the CWC doesn't care, and they're better than the UN.

eliakon wrote:by the Rome Statute the actions of the CS in regards to the Dog Boys are genocide (they forcibly relocate children, force breeding, force sterilization, forbid on pain of death the development/ continuance of an individual culture, and exterminate wild/escaped Dog boys

In 1943 when Raphael Lemkin coined the term 'genocide' to mean "deliberate extermination of a people" I don't think the mere act of relocating children would qualify as it, unless you were relocating them into a gas chamber.

Forced breeding is like... the opposite of genocide. Are we committing genocide against pandas by coercing them to breed in captivity to prevent their extinction?

I don't think exterminating wild/escaped qualifies since you're not trying to exterminate a people, just subjugate them.

Forbidding continuance/development of culture is more of a gray area. I think there is a difference between exterminating a people and exterminating their culture. I guess it depends on whether you think a person dies if you change significant things about them.

Like for example... if I kidnapped all humans and put their brains in full conversion cyborg bodies, is that a genocide? I haven't killed them, but I've signifigantly changed things about them.

Did Mephisto commit genocide against humans when he made them forget Spider-Man was Peter Parker? After all, he's prevented the continuance of the culture of knowing who Spider-Man is.

Seems slippery to define the wiping out or spread of knowledge of genocide. It's oppressive and all that, but it's not murder.

If forbidding the continuance/development of a culture is genocide then we could say the CS is genocidal against humanity be forbidding the C/D of literacy among the majority of its populace, and it seems odd to think of the CS as being in a genocide against humans. Books don't really fit a "geno-" type.

I could see how forced sterilization could qualify as it's kind of an indirect/delayed extermination. But I could only see that if it was done against the majority of them.

I don't think the CS necessarily sterilizes ALL their psi-hounds, does it? They do grow them in tubes but I had thought they had traditional births as well, meaning that some remain fertile. Not sure what portion. Otherwise we would not have those bits about being separated from parents.