Forums of the Megaverse®

I posted an article on my blog introducing a study on some of the elements that GMs and players alike can perhaps leverage to negate the trope that the Coalition States as a stereotypical monstrosity. This is a polarizing issue for some, yet there is substantive and substantial nuance to be explored, something players and GMs may not take into account; understandably dependent on the player group dynamic, which is completely fine too.

In this article I examine some of the Mechanisms of Influence that would be used by the CS to control and influence its population.

Comments and critiques are welcome, so long as they remain clean and non-confrontational. Differences in opinion is a thing.

https://www.scholarlyadventures.com/pos ... tes-part-1

careful now, you don't want to fall into the trap of portraying a fascist dictatorship in a flattering light because the people controlled by the state "aren't all bad". even kev keeps falling for that one.

The problem really is the philosophical aspect of, "Because some members of the CS are good, does that make the CS not evil?"

In my opinion gre CS is evil because the people at the top are evil and it is lead by an evil leader. They exterminate people who aren't actually threats to them and who aren't even hostile to them.

Tolkeen sent a diplomat and Chi-Town murdered him.

The CS as a whole entity is an evil thing and that should never be forgotten.

Orin J. wrote:careful now, you don't want to fall into the trap of portraying a fascist dictatorship in a flattering light because the people controlled by the state "aren't all bad". even kev keeps falling for that one.

It isn't a matter of portraying fascism as some sort of acceptable option (because, well..... obvious); more an exploration of the dynamic to help provide GMs and players the context that could develop the CS as greater than the "fascist state = baby-killer level bad guys" trope that can be the case. Hopefully it gives enough for some to chew on. I'm not suggesting we all go play CS characters for every session, but provide enough information to allow the option of deviating from the stereotypes.

HWalsh wrote:The problem really is the philosophical aspect of, "Because some members of the CS are good, does that make the CS not evil?"

In my opinion gre CS is evil because the people at the top are evil and it is lead by an evil leader. They exterminate people who aren't actually threats to them and who aren't even hostile to them.

Tolkeen sent a diplomat and Chi-Town murdered him.

The CS as a whole entity is an evil thing and that should never be forgotten.

As an entity, it certainly is easier to lump them together as a whole. That of course falls right into the fallacy of cultural stereotyping. Not that a GM can't use it as such, I'm more interested in the context and different colours within the tapestry to provide a less than trope-ish option.

desrocfc wrote:

Orin J. wrote:careful now, you don't want to fall into the trap of portraying a fascist dictatorship in a flattering light because the people controlled by the state "aren't all bad". even kev keeps falling for that one.

It isn't a matter of portraying fascism as some sort of acceptable option (because, well..... obvious); more an exploration of the dynamic to help provide GMs and players the context that could develop the CS as greater than the "fascist state = baby-killer level bad guys" trope that can be the case. Hopefully it gives enough for some to chew on. I'm not suggesting we all go play CS characters for every session, but provide enough information to allow the option of deviating from the stereotypes.

they....they are the baby-killer level bad guys. they routinely have their forces do that. it's in at least two different books. like, it's not a stereotype it's the goal of their propaganda. individuals may diverge but that's in spite of the coalition, not part of it.

desrocfc wrote:

HWalsh wrote:The problem really is the philosophical aspect of, "Because some members of the CS are good, does that make the CS not evil?"

In my opinion gre CS is evil because the people at the top are evil and it is lead by an evil leader. They exterminate people who aren't actually threats to them and who aren't even hostile to them.

Tolkeen sent a diplomat and Chi-Town murdered him.

The CS as a whole entity is an evil thing and that should never be forgotten.

As an entity, it certainly is easier to lump them together as a whole. That of course falls right into the fallacy of cultural stereotyping. Not that a GM can't use it as such, I'm more interested in the context and different colours within the tapestry to provide a less than trope-ish option.

I think you're trying to insert gray in a place filled with blackness.

As the person above you pointed out, they are baby-killing bad guys. This is a thing that they actually do. During the Tolkeen war they rounded Mages into concentration camps snd started doing human experimentation on them.

They cut off limbs without anesthetic and forcibly grafted bionics in, bionics that were sub-standard to human norms.

The CS literally commits genocide, willingly, with full knowledge of what they're doing.

These aren't "ordinary people in extraordinary situations" these are baby-killing, diplomat murdering, genocidal fanatics that follow a straight-up outright evil megalomaniac.

Are some of them duped by propaganda? Sure. The whole of them, or even most of them? No. The people who thrive in the CS are the most depraved and bloodthirsty. The rare gem isn't, but the organization? Dude, we have Prosek's stats.

I’m with you on most of that, except you underestimate CS propaganda.
Yes, the people who thrive in the CS tend to be the most corrupt and vicious, but most CS citizens do not particularly thrive.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I’m with you on most of that, except you underestimate CS propaganda.
Yes, the people who thrive in the CS tend to be the most corrupt and vicious, but most CS citizens do not particularly thrive.

One thing I like tothrow out there is the ubiquity of CS pop culture. Sure, you've probably got rinky-dink studios in Lazlo and Dweomer and the like, but the CS produces TONS of movies and TV shows that it distributes widely. You might watch them in the NDR, you might watch them in the Dinosaur Swamp. You watch CS cop shows. You watch CS gardening shows. You watch CS instructional videos on how to kill werewolves. Because they can turn out a huge amount of propaganda until Joseph Prosek's Ministry of Information.

Mark Hall wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I’m with you on most of that, except you underestimate CS propaganda.
Yes, the people who thrive in the CS tend to be the most corrupt and vicious, but most CS citizens do not particularly thrive.

One thing I like tothrow out there is the ubiquity of CS pop culture. Sure, you've probably got rinky-dink studios in Lazlo and Dweomer and the like, but the CS produces TONS of movies and TV shows that it distributes widely. You might watch them in the NDR, you might watch them in the Dinosaur Swamp. You watch CS cop shows. You watch CS gardening shows. You watch CS instructional videos on how to kill werewolves. Because they can turn out a huge amount of propaganda until Joseph Prosek's Ministry of Information.

can we really say this is true when the media industry of....pretty much EVERYWHERE ELSE goes unwritten? i mean the only other reference i can think of about it is some two-bit town in canada (i think) and really the other major communities in the setting have gone almost entirely untouched (or were razed without addressing their previous state). for all we know tolkeen broadcased fifty channels of news, entertainment, and education that the CS was furiously trying to jam, or lazlo is well known for producing the most accurate and through nature documentaries in the continental US to the point the CS military uses them. all sorts of tawdry soap operas and talk shows might originate from the new west and we wouldn't know because it's glossed over because that's consistantly ignored in favor of "what does the CS think?" and "what are the splugorth/vampires/archie doing there in secret?".

it's a a crying shame really. if the books weren't so focused on painting a thick dark underbelly on every new location we'd have room to show the culture of the area. cracked open my new west book and silvereno and they seem to produce TVs there (among other things) but most of the description is spent painting a vivid portriat of the vampires lurking inside the city. the CS seems to be the only nation that ever gets any real meat to how they live, everywhere else is written as a restock point for adventurers.

Orin J. wrote:can we really say this is true when the media industry of....pretty much EVERYWHERE ELSE goes unwritten?

To my knowledge, my few notes on that blog post are the most extensive description of anywhere's media in all of Rifts.

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.

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.

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.

So, should I feel bad for possibly killing good people just doing their job who work for an evil organization? Even if there is no other choice for them, it isn't like they can just join a good government.

Or, should I feel good for killing possibly bad people who are working for an evil organization that they knowingly support when they could either passively resist, actively resist or leave.

Alternately, should I feel nothing for killing neutral people who are just living their life, but by their non-active resistance are not hindering said government?

This sort of moralizing tripe is how people give themselves PTSD. After all, nothing better than putting yourself in the middle conflict that may, or may not, have anything to do with your character. Yep, becoming a militant against a government that is "bad" when you don't have a dog in the fight is clearly the "right" thing to do....regardless of the body count. I am doing "the right thing" and thus I must destroy this functional nation state and make their lives better, even if I kill sons, daughters, fathers, wives, brothers, and sisters by the dozen. The survivors will thank me when I liberate them

-STS

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.

Well, what if you are just doing your part in your community. You know, a retired CS guy that helps CS vets, or a CS doctor that helps CS kids. Maybe even a CS cop on the beat that helps out a family or two with a bit of extra food. Taking the time to know his city, to help who he can, look the other way when a near human DB makes a mistake, gives a bit of warning when the boys in black want to do a shakedown.

All of those people are doing "good" without actively opposing the government. Should the PCs kill them for not waging an insurgency against their own government?

-STS

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.

This pretty much sums up the problem space I wish to address. If this were the case, how can we accept this has not happened yet when, statistically, we should have around 1/3 of the CS population from a Good alignment? The "why" there hasn't been an uprising is important, as well as the mechanisms the CS uses to maintain their power base. Put simply, by your argument, how could you possibly play a Principled CS character? I posit that it is possible, but perhaps requires a deep dive into the systemic factors.

I'll be brutally honest, I have issues with some of the manner in which the CS is portrayed, let alone the strategies and tactics (another topic entirely) - it simply reinforces a trope that creates one-dimensional entities. I don't do one-dimensional; there is always a second perspective, and more thereafter. All of these are filtered through a worldview that selectively weights certain aspects more than others. For good or ill, worldviews can be tweaked/influenced.

Part of the reason for this post was because I am reviewing WB11. The overview I doe for each of the books has some analysis of the worldbuilding aspects, and this was a factor that simply deserves more than a summary paragraph. Too many nuances to capture.

And not directed at anyone here or online in the Facebook groups, this remains a game. If you choose to add layers to your portrayal of the CS as a GM or a PC, that's fine. If you choose not to but participate in the discussion, bang-on and welcome! If you choose to ignore the concepts and keep with whatever dynamic you currently have, by all means carry on. This is your game, enjoy!

desrocfc wrote:

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.

This pretty much sums up the problem space I wish to address. If this were the case, how can we accept this has not happened yet when, statistically, we should have around 1/3 of the CS population from a Good alignment? The "why" there hasn't been an uprising is important, as well as the mechanisms the CS uses to maintain their power base. Put simply, by your argument, how could you possibly play a Principled CS character? I posit that it is possible, but perhaps requires a deep dive into the systemic factors.

I'll be brutally honest, I have issues with some of the manner in which the CS is portrayed, let alone the strategies and tactics (another topic entirely) - it simply reinforces a trope that creates one-dimensional entities. I don't do one-dimensional; there is always a second perspective, and more thereafter. All of these are filtered through a worldview that selectively weights certain aspects more than others. For good or ill, worldviews can be tweaked/influenced.

Part of the reason for this post was because I am reviewing WB11. The overview I doe for each of the books has some analysis of the worldbuilding aspects, and this was a factor that simply deserves more than a summary paragraph. Too many nuances to capture.

And not directed at anyone here or online in the Facebook groups, this remains a game. If you choose to add layers to your portrayal of the CS as a GM or a PC, that's fine. If you choose not to but participate in the discussion, bang-on and welcome! If you choose to ignore the concepts and keep with whatever dynamic you currently have, by all means carry on. This is your game, enjoy!

"Both sides" talk is the same kind of talk that allows real-world hate groups to grow their membership.

You're white-washing the CS history to change the CS to create layers that aren't there.

First:
The alignments aren't even Steven across the board. They never have been.

Second, you're only giving a partial look at these examples that were cherry-picked. Let me fill in the parts left unsaid.

"Well, what if you are just doing your part in your community. You know, a retired CS guy that helps CS vets"

By reporting them for having doubts about murdering debees so that they can learn that they did nothing wrong. The psi-ops need a word with him.

"A CS doctor that helps CS kids"

By teaching them to hate and fear debees.

"Maybe even a CS cop on the beat that helps out a family or two with a bit of extra food. Taking the time to know his city, to help who he can, look the other way when a near human DB makes a mistake, gives a bit of warning when the boys in black want to do a shakedown."

Who gets caught doing this and, according to SoT, is killed for it.

I recommend everyone take a minute and read CWC p46: The Average Coalition Citizen.

I'd post it, but it's too long and I don't want to cherry-pick statements out of it.

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.

So plants are evil.
Also animals.
Also inanimate objects.
Also, animated objects like remote control cars.
Hell, man... essentially the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is evil* by that standard.

Seems overly pessimistic to me.


*Or at least, are "not good," which would technically allow for Selfish alignments in the Palladium rules.
But of those, "Unprincipled" is still "basically good," and "Anarchist" is practically evil.
So it pretty much nets out the same.

Mack wrote:I recommend everyone take a minute and read CWC p46: The Average Coalition Citizen.

I'd post it, but it's too long and I don't want to cherry-pick statements out of it.

I'm always happy to revisit that section.

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

The whole passage is good, and should be read, but I feel that part right there is the meat of it, the heart.
It lets us know the Rule As Written for CS citizen alignments, as well as the Rule As Intended, as well as shedding some valuable light on how Palladium's alignment system is intended to work.

There's a similar passage/section in SB1 as well, IIRC.

Mack wrote:I recommend everyone take a minute and read CWC p46: The Average Coalition Citizen.

I'd post it, but it's too long and I don't want to cherry-pick statements out of it.

That section is in part a reason for this series of posts/analyses. I'm actually outlining an article for later on about the alignment system in order to flesh out Coalition-based PCs and NPCs.

HWalsh wrote:You're white-washing the CS history to change the CS to create layers that aren't there.

First:
The alignments aren't even Steven across the board. They never have been.

Second, you're only giving a partial look at these examples that were cherry-picked. Let me fill in the parts left unsaid.

Not white-washing, contextualizing, which is a nuanced difference but an important one. It's not a developmental series to excuse the "what" or "how" that the CS is vilified for, but provide a more in-depth response to "why" than CS = baby killers. It was an oversimplification in the returning Vietnam veterans example, it is a trope in the game example. Now, if you wis to play them as such, by all means, I'm not asking you to change on my account. If it's of use, by all means use it, if not, "swipe left."

As for the alignments, this is something I am bringing up later in another article. I made the assumption that there is roughly a third to each Alignment Group (Good, Selfish, Evil). This isn't a debate about the statistics, it's what I am using.

As for the cherry-picking, you'll have to help me out because I'm not catching what you're trying to sell me on here... What part of the post is cherry-picked?

desrocfc wrote:Not white-washing, contextualizing, which is a nuanced difference but an important one.

and one you're very likely to end up on the wrong side of from what i've read so far. the average member of the CS probably doesn't see themselves as evil- the average person that lived in nazi italy probably didn't either. the problem is that the context they live under is manufactured to make them feel better doing evil and suppressing the rights of others which means that any attempt to justify it is white-washing.

the nuance of the coalition states is the same in any fascist empire- a carefully arranged pile of stones to hide the ugly reality of what they're doing, one that can come crumbling away at the lightest touch of truth and reveal the atrocities that they have until now gone about with wide-eyed exuberance nestled comfortably in their belief they did "the right thing". while i wouldn't expect most of the citizens (or even the soldiers) to be diabolical monsters gleefully slaughtering anything not human enough for them to bathe in their terror, the coalition as a whole very much is that exact thing and trying to hide behind the people it controls to soften that is misdirection at the least..

Orin J. wrote:and one you're very likely to end up on the wrong side of from what i've read so far. the average member of the CS probably doesn't see themselves as evil- the average person that lived in nazi italy probably didn't either. the problem is that the context they live under is manufactured to make them feel better doing evil and suppressing the rights of others which means that any attempt to justify it is white-washing.

Yeah, but no. I'll respectfully have to disagree on this one, not the dynamic I'm heading for, which is all-too often the way most try to take it. Nowhere in this is there justification for it.

Case in point, there is nothing in that post that is at all limited to a fascist regime.

Orin J. wrote:the nuance of the coalition states is the same in any fascist empire- a carefully arranged pile of stones to hide the ugly reality of what they're doing, one that can come crumbling away at the lightest touch of truth and reveal the atrocities that they have until now gone about with wide-eyed exuberance nestled comfortably in their belief they did "the right thing". while i wouldn't expect most of the citizens (or even the soldiers) to be diabolical monsters gleefully slaughtering anything not human enough for them to bathe in their terror, the coalition as a whole very much is that exact thing and trying to hide behind the people it controls to soften that is misdirection at the least..

And yet this pretty much accurately describes the aim of what I'm getting at. The veneer of evil (and there is no doubt a thick coat of it) is pretty much where most people stop looking. They equate the worst of the society as the whole of the society. While there is some truth to that, most people likely just us the CS as a trope villain with little thought to providing more behind it. If that is how someone wants to play them, by all means. But like any party to a conflict, there is more to the dynamic, otherwise we'd just call BS on anyone who deigned to play a Principled CS OCC. Hopefully future posts will build this into a more cogent piece for anyone who wishes to use it. For those who don't, by all means ignore my ramblings.

Not directed at you Orin J., but any thought for cause that this is an excuse for white-washing and justification for the evils perpetrated by the CS will be hit with a respectful but hard no.

it's.....not a veneer. it's at the very core of the nation and government. you can play a principled CS O.C.C. but they're going to have several massive crisis-es of faith the moment they step outside of the coalition's system and realize the reality of their actions in contrast to the delusions they had operated under with it. that's why fascism is is such a vile idelogy, it deliberately twists the facts in every aspect of life to make people believe they MUST support it or they're monsters, even as they cheerfully call the police to bludgeon a small child to death for having a funny looking nose.

Orin J. wrote:it's.....not a veneer. it's at the very core of the nation and government. you can play a principled CS O.C.C. but they're going to have several massive crisis-es of faith the moment they step outside of the coalition's system and realize the reality of their actions in contrast to the delusions they had operated under with it. that's why fascism is is such a vile idelogy, it deliberately twists the facts in every aspect of life to make people believe they MUST support it or they're monsters, even as they cheerfully call the police to bludgeon a small child to death for having a funny looking nose.

I'm not disagreeing with you on any specific point, except that most people take one look at the CS and immediately stop at the most vile historical stereotype and call it a day. I'm not proposing fascism isn't what it is. I'm proposing a way to make PCs/NPCs more multi-dimensional. Hopefully further posts will demonstrate that. <shrug>

Orin J. wrote:

desrocfc wrote:Not white-washing, contextualizing, which is a nuanced difference but an important one.

and one you're very likely to end up on the wrong side of from what i've read so far. the average member of the CS probably doesn't see themselves as evil- the average person that lived in nazi italy probably didn't either. the problem is that the context they live under is manufactured to make them feel better doing evil and suppressing the rights of others which means that any attempt to justify it is white-washing.

I really like the way you phrase the bolded part!
In any given system, people will pretty much behave the same ways, with some rare exceptions.
The CS has set up a system that encourages evil actions and behaviors, but that don't require the people involved to necessarily BE Evil.
Their system is a flawed machine that cranks out horrific results, but while that means that the system is evil, it doesn't necessarily speak about the alignment of everybody involved in lesser ways.

Consider how (from memory) the Nazis set up the death showers; they broke everything down into morally bite-sized pieces.
"I'm not killing these people; I'm just recording their names and information."
"I'm not killing these people; I'm just taking their clothes and belongings, and putting them in a locker."
"I'm not killing these people; I'm just pushing a button or lever..."

The last one is Highly Questionable morally, but emotionally pushing a button that kills people doesn't necessarily FEEL wrong when:
a) You've been convinced that it's the best/only option
b) You don't see the people die, so you don't have to face the horror of your own actions. It seems less real.
and
c) You're afraid that if you don't do your duty, YOU might face some severe penalties.

the nuance of the coalition states is the same in any fascist empire- a carefully arranged pile of stones to hide the ugly reality of what they're doing, one that can come crumbling away at the lightest touch of truth and reveal the atrocities that they have until now gone about with wide-eyed exuberance nestled comfortably in their belief they did "the right thing". while i wouldn't expect most of the citizens (or even the soldiers) to be diabolical monsters gleefully slaughtering anything not human enough for them to bathe in their terror, the coalition as a whole very much is that exact thing and trying to hide behind the people it controls to soften that is misdirection at the least..

If you're saying "The Coalition is Evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their citizens are," I agree.

Here's a question:
Take any Evil person: Jeffrey Dahlmer, Adolph Hitler, Nickelback, etc.

The person is evil, but are the cells in their bodies evil?
Are their organs evil?
Just because the entity in question as a whole is evil, does that mean that every part of the entity is necessarily evil?

I'd say no.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Here's a question:
Take any Evil person: Jeffrey Dahlmer, Adolph Hitler, Nickelback, etc.

The person is evil, but are the cells in their bodies evil?
Are their organs evil?
Just because the entity in question as a whole is evil, does that mean that every part of the entity is necessarily evil?

I'd say no.

Ah, but you're not thinking with magic... consider, for example, the Hand of Glory (or, conversely, the body parts of saints). Those objects, associated with great good or great evil, carry with them that moral weight, and draw strength from it. Heck, "pieces of the True Cross" were supposed to carry power, even if they were not actually pieces of the True Cross, simply by being associated with it.

Imagine how much of a relic (in the magical sense) the Skull of Adolf Hitler would be... or the left nut of Karl Prosek.

Now, alignment in Palladium is USUALLY descriptive when it comes to mortals... that is to say, Nickelback is evil because he does does evil things. However, supernatural evil is also a thing... Demons radiate evil because they are Evil, and that can be detected by supernatural powers (or, sometimes, even by sub-psionic psychic sensitivity common to most people). And the question becomes whether or not the Coalition rises to the level of that sort of evil... and I think it would be an interesting campaign where the worship of millions of people imbued the Coalition, embodied in Karl Prosek, with immense, supernatural, evil power.

I mean, Gaius Julius ascended with far fewer people, in a far less magical time.

Mark Hall wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Here's a question:
Take any Evil person: Jeffrey Dahlmer, Adolph Hitler, Nickelback, etc.

The person is evil, but are the cells in their bodies evil?
Are their organs evil?
Just because the entity in question as a whole is evil, does that mean that every part of the entity is necessarily evil?

I'd say no.

Ah, but you're not thinking with magic... consider, for example, the Hand of Glory (or, conversely, the body parts of saints). Those objects, associated with great good or great evil, carry with them that moral weight, and draw strength from it. Heck, "pieces of the True Cross" were supposed to carry power, even if they were not actually pieces of the True Cross, simply by being associated with it.

Imagine how much of a relic (in the magical sense) the Skull of Adolf Hitler would be... or the left nut of Karl Prosek.

Now, alignment in Palladium is USUALLY descriptive when it comes to mortals... that is to say, Nickelback is evil because he does does evil things. However, supernatural evil is also a thing... Demons radiate evil because they are Evil, and that can be detected by supernatural powers (or, sometimes, even by sub-psionic psychic sensitivity common to most people). And the question becomes whether or not the Coalition rises to the level of that sort of evil... and I think it would be an interesting campaign where the worship of millions of people imbued the Coalition, embodied in Karl Prosek, with immense, supernatural, evil power.

I mean, Gaius Julius ascended with far fewer people, in a far less magical time.

Every once in a while--often a long time--somebody in the forums comes up with an utterly fascinating angle of looking at things that I have NOT considered, but for which consideration is inescapable once that angle is pointed out.
This kind of response is one of the reasons why I still come to these forums after decades of arguing over everything, then rehashing everything ad nauseum... there's still some wonderful ideas out there!
So, thank you.


Off the top of my head, certain variations (at least) of Sense Evil allow the psychic to sense not only Supernatural Evil, but also intensely evil/psychotic mortals.
IN such a case, I can certainly see an argument that the person is SO evil that their evilness permeates all the parts of their body. Kind of like how the fingerbones and such of saints are Holy Relics, the fingerbones and such of Nickelback could well become Unholy Relics.
And I can seen an argument that with an entity such as the Coalition, the evilness of the Government could to at least some degree trickle down and permeate the civilian population and/or even the physical infrastructure in some ways.
Furthermore, in real-world history, the King (or Queen) was believed to affect the land itself that they ruled in some ways; the moral failings of the king might bring blight to the land, for example. Under that kind of mysticism, the evils of the Coalition may well similarly corrupt the land itself to some degree.
I'm going to be thinking about this kind of thing for a while!



We do know that in canon:
-Most CS citizens are Good or Selfish, not Evil.
-The CS farmlands are incredibly bountiful.

Still, this doesn't necessarily mean that the evil of the government isn't pushing people toward corruption and evilness on a mystic level, it's something that could be going on subtlely, without being overt enough to be noticeable yet.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Furthermore, in real-world history, the King (or Queen) was believed to affect the land itself that they ruled in some ways; the moral failings of the king might bring blight to the land, for example. Under that kind of mysticism, the evils of the Coalition may well similarly corrupt the land itself to some degree.
I'm going to be thinking about this kind of thing for a while!



We do know that in canon:
-Most CS citizens are Good or Selfish, not Evil.
-The CS farmlands are incredibly bountiful.

Still, this doesn't necessarily mean that the evil of the government isn't pushing people toward corruption and evilness on a mystic level, it's something that could be going on subtlely, without being overt enough to be noticeable yet.

Ah, but you are not taking into account the reinforcing aspects of belief... the PPE of the entire nation is directed towards the idea that the nation provides and the nation is bountiful and rich while those around them are barren and bereft and tainted with evil.

So it is not that the CS is tainted and corrupt... it is that it creates taint and corruption at its borders, which it is then obligated to fight, expanding its borders, which are mystically purified by the power of their belief.

The CS is a cancer.

Mack wrote:I recommend everyone take a minute and read CWC p46: The Average Coalition Citizen.

I'd post it, but it's too long and I don't want to cherry-pick statements out of it.

Damn, sir. I had forgotten that particular piece of that book was there.

I'll also refrain from posting snippets, but I know the parts I'd bring up...

HWalsh wrote:The problem really is the philosophical aspect of, "Because some members of the CS are good, does that make the CS not evil?"

False dilemma, mechanically in Palladium only characters have alignments, groups of characters do not have a collective alignment.

HWalsh wrote:In my opinion gre CS is evil because the people at the top are evil and it is lead by an evil leader.

Do we have any indication of the alignment of Joseph Prosek the 1st? If he was not evil, does that mean the CS was non-evil before Karl took power?

Does that mean the CS instantly became evil as soon as Karl was elected chairman?

Do we even know if Karl was ALWAYS diabolic, or if that might be more of a recent drop in the past decade or so?

HWalsh wrote:They exterminate people who aren't actually threats to them and who aren't even hostile to them.

Which communities on Rifts Earth do we know for 100% certain have not done this?

Maybe uber-pacifists such as the Grey Seers?

I'm betting even assumed 'nice guys' like Magestar / New Lazlo have probably done this type of thing too.

HWalsh wrote:Tolkeen sent a diplomat and Chi-Town murdered him.

Naw, my headcanon is that he choked on a chicken bone (the glutton!) and the CS provided a body bag and transport back home free of charge.

HWalsh wrote:The CS as a whole entity is an evil thing and that should never be forgotten.

Oversimplification. Applying alignments to organizations seems strange to me.

I suppose there's some precedent for average alignments like with Circus design rules in Vampire Kingdoms (or Merc design rules in Mercs) and I remember at one point we were quote-mining stuff about alignment averages in CS from CWC.

A lot of this is kinda subjective though because sometimes people do things retroactively considered atrocious despite perhaps not knowing better.

For example: people in Japan who hunt dolphins. Yeah we definitely have a lot of research on their intelligence and stuff, but none to indicate the stats they're given in Underseas. If they do turn out to have Carella-tier IQ and skills then hunting and eating them seems far more barbaric than it would to those who just think of them as more fishlike.

Another thing might be the raising and butchering of pigs for pork since apparently pigs can be a lot smarter than cows/chickens. For those with pet pigs, this practice might be looked down upon and compared to those who eat cats/dogs for those who anthropomorphize them as is common in the west.

Also keep in mind we live in a society who endorsed the murder of poor Harambe just IN CASE he hurt a kid near him.

Keep in mind many of the D-Bee races coming to Earth are 2D6 IQ things like goblins who probably aren't much smarter than gorillas on average, and much more violent.

We actually already prioritize human life at the expense of near-sapient sentients like gorillas/dolphins. A big part perhaps because we can't communicate with them via language. But we are also very territorial with property when it comes to other humans too.

When you look at it like the CS as humans seeing non-humans invading their property, they're standing their ground.

Warnings have probably been issued for DECADES in all variety of language the CS is able to translate for D-Bees to back up off human territories, that they have no claim to them. The CS may not agree with squatter's rights.

While OOC we know that humanity seems to have been at fault for the Coming of the Rifts (nuking each other) it's unclear whether anyone in the CS understands that, so from their perspective the Cataclysm might've been an assault from alien invaders. The mystery surrounding that means ANY of the new immigrants might've been behind it.

I'll have to read that article for some NPC/PC ideas.

I'll be honest, though... I've always felt that the scariest villain you could have in a campaign is the one that has a Principled alignment. Wait, what's that you say? That's a good alignment, how could they be the bad guy?

Easily...by working for the betterment of the Coalition States.

Now, I know, we think of these types of characters as essentially being the Paladin archetype, or the people that truly are 100% good & decent (i.e. Mother Theresa). But consider,if you will, that it comes down to "interpretation" of the description of the alignment (for the purposes of this post, I'm looking at p. 289 in RUE).

First, we have the general/generic info. Principled characters "attempt to work with and within the law, and have a high regard for (and trust of) authority" (emphasis is from the text), & "are usually compassionate, merciful, cooperative and sincere" (emphasis added by me). They have the "highest regard for...freedom, truth, honor and justice". That's all well and good. However, right there we have a bit of basis for "evilness". The Coalition States make it pretty much illegal for D-Bees to be citizens, let alone "dirty mages", so right off the bat that means there are laws that specifically codify a different treatment for someone residing in a Coalition State, simply based on a) whether you were born in the Rifts Earth dimension or not, b) whether or not you're a homo sapiens, & c) whether or not the person has chosen to follow Evil Dark Arts (aka learning magic). So, right off the bat, a citizen of the Coalition of Principled alignment can be justified in following along with the attitudes prevalent within the Coalition States -- especially if serving in their military or one of the police/paramilitary units -- simply because the established authority (Coalition government) has enacted laws that make it legal.

"But wait!", you'll say. "They can't possibly justify all of the evil acts committed by CS troops & officials! That would violate the stipulations of their alignment!!" Well, not exactly. Again, remember that people can distinguish between something being "wrong" if they were to do it, but not necessarily be "wrong" if someone else does it, especially if it's legal. For example, there are people who would never serve in any military, because they're not comfortable with the idea of personally trying to kill an enemy combatant...but they fully support those in the military who have trained to do just that, because they recognize that those soldiers are helping to protect them & their way of life.

More importantly, though, many of the other stipulations in the alignment can even be subject to interpretation.

• Always keep their word: A D-Bee may ask a Principled character to "give their word" that they won't kill the D-Bee. It does not mean that the Principled character is required to say, "Yes, I promise that I won't kill you". They can honestly state, "I'm sorry, but I can't promise that", & still be holding fast to the "keeping their word" statute; if you don't promise not to do something, then you haven't broken any promises when you go ahead & do it. Alternately, they could say, "I'm sorry, I have to kill you know, but I promise it will be quick & painless", & they can then literally kill the D-Bee and still "keep their word".
• Avoid lies: Kind of follows on with the first one. Plus, it only says they avoid lies, not that they can't lie.
• Never kill or attack an unarmed foe: This one is actually surprisingly easy. I can easily see a Principled character viewing a D-Bee the same way as we might view a honey badger, one of Carol Baskin's tigers, or any other wild animal. They may not be carrying a knife or a gun, but they have built-in weapons -- claws, teeth, or superpowers/psionics/magic-based abilities -- that mean that they will never (at least to the Principled character) qualify as an "unarmed" foe. Plus, we've all seen plenty of action movies where a character is considered a "living weapon" because of their martial arts training (whether we're talking ninjas, street martial artists from a dojo with a powerful master, or even Special Ops-style training). Again, those kinds of characters might not be carrying a weapon...but they aren't necessarily the same as you or me when it comes to being "unarmed".
• Never harm an innocent: There is a ton of gray area here. After all, what exactly makes someone an "innocent"? Remember, so many of the Coalition's laws make being a mage or a D-Bee pretty much illegal, which makes them de facto criminals...& to some law-and-order types, if you're a criminal, you're no longer an "innocent". But even if they were to decide that, barring the committing of another crime (i.e. theft, assault, murder, etc.), a D-Bee might still technically qualify as "innocent", they can still interpret that to mean that they cannot inflict direct harm on the D-Bee or mage...but it doesn't mean they can't force them to get in their vehicle (with or without packing their things) & keep driving until they're outside of CS-controlled territory...nor would it then stop them from setting a few plasma grenades inside the mage's former home after they're far enough away from the blast radius. And again, if you think by their very nature that a D-Bee or mage is not innocent, then there's nothing to stop you from simply killing them because they exist...
• Never torture for any reason: This probably has the least amount of wiggle room. Remember, you may not be able to torture, but it doesn't say you can't kill...& it doesn't say that (as long as higher authorities don't disapprove) your underlings can't engage in torture...
• Never kill for pleasure: This is also fairly easy. For every soldier depicted in fiction as being ready to kill anything that moves or wears an enemy uniform, there's probably 10-100 in real life that, whether in their training for a day that may not come, or because they actually did serve in a combat zone, have killed enemy soldiers without actually enjoying it. In my family's case, we know that my grandfather ended up with a Bronze Star from something that happened in early Spring 1945 (he was with the US Army in Europe), but not only did he never tell us grandkids about it, he never talked about his wartime service even with my dad or his siblings. Heck, he never talked about it with his cousin, & they were best friends before the war. They just know that it contributed to some of the drinking he did after the war (along with a lot of other former soldiers, especially since they weren't calling what they had PTSD at the time). My other grandfather was in the Navy (pharmacist's assistant), so he didn't have it quite as up close...but as a stroke of luck he was put off ship right before CA-35 USS Indianapolis left for Tinian Island with the parts for the USA's first two nukes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35))...which meant he missed out on the shark swimming that his former shipmates had to deal with when they were sunk on the way back (& were left in the water for days because the mission was so secret no one was looking for them). My mom says he wasn't much of a reader before the war, but she remembers growing up & seeing him read everything he could about how Hitler & the Nazis came to power, because he wanted to understand how people could have let it happen. So yeah, I could see a Principled CS soldier or officer be able to kill a D-Bee or mage without having any pleasure out of it...possibly satisfaction in having "done their duty", but not actual enjoyment out of it.
• Always help others: Kind of have a spectrum here too. Some Principled characters will help D-Bees & mages get out of Coalition territory, because their view would be that once they're outside of the Coalition, it's no longer the Coalition's issue to deal with. Others could decide that "for the greater good of the Coalition" they will do everything they can to "help" D-Bees & mages get a quick death & a shallow grave...
• Always work within the law whenever possible: Also one of the easiest. When the Coalition says that D-Bees & mages are huge threats to the Coalition & its citizens, & has codified those into law, that makes it really easy for the Principled character to go along.
• Never break the law unless conditions are desperate: See the prior item.
• Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honour: Ditto.
• Work well in a group:
• Never take "dirty" money, or ill-gotten valuables or goods: Again, there's no real issue here. If they make the D-Bees & mages just "keep moving" right out of the Coalition, they can just let them go with their possessions...or, if the possessions are seized, they just make sure that everything is carefully catalogued before being handed over to a charitable organization for it to be given to needy CS citizens. For those that are real sticklers for making sure no one can accuse them of impropriety regarding the goods, may follow the example of General Suitan Khorea (a Jann character from The Wolf Worlds, the 2nd book in Alan Cole & Chris Bunch's STEN series of military sci-fi novels): according to the story, while serving as a subaltern (i.e. "butter bar" LT, or whatever you call your lowest-ranked officer that's graduated from your academy but not much else), the starship he was on came across another ship (either an independent trader that got lost, or possibly an actual smuggler)...& before his CO could even give orders of "kill everyone to set an example', Khorea led his detachment over to the other ship, slaughtered everyone on board, then blew the entire ship to bits so no one could have any excuse to accuse him of profiteering. As mentioned before, a few to 10 plasma grenades, or a couple of fusion blocks, make it very easy to ensure that no one thinks you're selling confiscated contraband to the Black Market on the side...
• Never betray a friend: Obviously, someone who believes in the Coalition, its laws, & everything it stands for, will almost certainly never consider a D-Bee or mage to be a friend. A CI (Confidential Informant), of course. A potentially useful bargaining chip for negotiations, to be sure. A useful asset, that alternately is viewed as the equivalent of a very intelligent attack/service dog, a mercenary to be used when Coalition assets aren't in the area, or even essentially a living weapon to be kept in your arsenal as long as they're useful, oh heck yeah. But a friend? Someone you'll hang out with after your shift is done, drinking Old Chi-Town Light while watching reruns of My Mother-In-Law Was a D-Bee? Someone you'd invite over with their family to have dinner with your family? No way.

Sorry, ended up being kind of a long rant. Just something I've had in my head for a long time now. Just like I think sometimes that the perfect alignment for someone trying to lead a Resistance-like group of "freedom fighters" against the Coalition would be someone of Aberrant alignment...

Good rant.

That's basically the reason why I don't use Alignments.

Axelmania wrote:False dilemma, mechanically in Palladium only characters have alignments, groups of characters do not have a collective alignment.

Oh come on. You know exactly what we mean.

Do we have any indication of the alignment of Joseph Prosek the 1st? If he was not evil, does that mean the CS was non-evil before Karl took power?

Irrelevant.

HWalsh wrote:Tolkeen sent a diplomat and Chi-Town murdered him.

Naw, my headcanon is that he choked on a chicken bone (the glutton!) and the CS provided a body bag and transport back home free of charge.

Your head canon is wrong. You know good and well what the text meant. Stop trying to roleplay a CS propaganda officer. It is annoying and nerve wracking. It makes any kind of good faith discussion with you impossible.

Oversimplification. Applying alignments to organizations seems strange to me.

It shouldn't.

My opinions on this topic have become more complex as time has gone on, but in a study of say, Nazi Germany, but also a study of other states commiting various atrocities and broad immoral policies, I think I've come to the conclusion that 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. People remember the offenses perpetrated against their own group above those of another. It takes actual effort to recall and deal with your own evils.

If anything the situation in the United States at the moment should be a poignant reminder of that. If, in the current day US, more than a century and a half out you can have countless apologists for Chattle slavery...

So I think there are moral paradigms under the quesiton, and the way that it is framed in much of the Rifts Text that is to the advantage of people who want to dismiss or ignore particular aspects of historical violence, opression, etc. By framing complicity as not that important. Sure, you went along with Slavery, but you were still just a 'Good Man, looking after his family'. Sure, you voted for the Nazi party and actively cheered at Rallies, but you were just going along with the crowd, and Life was getting better under Hitler. Sure, you turned your neighbourhood's kid in when you discovered he might be psychic and was unregistered, but hey, that's just the law right? He should be following the Law?

I mean my ultimtae original answer to these quesitons still holds; The Coalition are Cartoon Bad-Guys. Prosek literally sits in a giant citadel surrounded by guys dressed as Skulls and probably Cackles alot and occasionally throws thing as his Bumbling side-kicks. But if you want to add mature nuance to the discussion, it becomes much worse. The Coalition is monstrous and almost certainly unsavable.

HWalsh wrote:

Axelmania wrote:False dilemma, mechanically in Palladium only characters have alignments, groups of characters do not have a collective alignment.

Oh come on. You know exactly what we mean.

And wrong, in a couple of respects.

First of all, IIRC, there's alignments applied to organizations in several of the organization creation systems Palladium has done.

Secondly, since Palladium alignments are purely descriptive, pretty much anything that acts in a self-aware manner can have an alignment.

Wise_Owl wrote:My opinions on this topic have become more complex as time has gone on, but in a study of say, Nazi Germany, but also a study of other states commiting various atrocities and broad immoral policies, I think I've come to the conclusion that 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. People remember the offenses perpetrated against their own group above those of another. It takes actual effort to recall and deal with your own evils.

My view on morality in the real-world is that it's a function of perceived group.
We recognize our own suffering naturally, and we recognize (or feel that we recognize) when things are unfair to US as individuals; this is built into our natural wiring and such.
Morality comes in by extending our sense of self to include others, and from empathy. We recognize in other people, and in animals, the basic capacities for pain and suffering, for love and for joy, and we identify with those recognizable emotions, creating a kind of bond.
The stronger the empathy, and the stronger the bond, the more closely we identify other individuals as being "our kind."
The more differences between ourselves and other individuals, the less likely we are to extend our sense of self to include them, the less likely we are to see them as being of Our Group.
The more likely we are to Other them.
And morality is something that we only ever apply to other beings to the extend that we emotionally accept them as being similar to ourselves, to being part of Our Group.

What this means is that it's not only perfectly possible, but also perfectly standard, for human beings to effectively operate with one alignment when dealing with Our Group(s), and with another alignment when dealing with Other Groups (or perceived Other Groups).

Consider for a moment Doctor Feral from TMNT 85.
Alignment: Scrupulous (with twisted perceptions)
He is a very Good person in many ways. He does not allow racial or sex discrimination in any of his businesses, he condemns dictatorships or racist behavior, he is generous with friends, employees, educational institutes and the poor. In short, he is an ideal citizen.
He is also completely contemptuous of any animal who tries to act like an independent being. To him, all animals can be divided into two categories; useful tools and candidates for experimentation and vivisections. He is fully aware of the existence of mutated animals and is always interested in acquiring them to further his knowledge.

TMNT 87
Doc Feral is not in any way evil or malicious toward fellow humans, he is, in fact, scrupulous in alignment.

This shows how the Palladium alignment system is intended to interact with racist/speciesist people; their alignment is intended to reflect their general behavior toward members of their own Group, NOT how they behave toward members Other Groups.
It kind of has to be this way, or everybody who eats meat would be considered Aberrant at best, based on their treatment of animals. The whole reason why we as a species tend to morally justify eating animals is because we Other them, because we see them as living beings who are capable of pain and suffering... but who are not members of Our Group.
PETA, in contrast, at least philosophically perceives animals as being members of Our Group, so they extend the same kinds of morality normally reserved for humans to animals as well. (in theory; their practices often fall far short, but that's a side issue in the context of this conversation).

Doc Feral is a Bad Guy, a Villain.
He is also morally of Good alignment, even though he vivisects living, sentient, even sapient beings.
I see no reason to believe that it doesn't work the way for many members of the Coalition.
So among the CS citizens of Good alignment, we'd see some folk who are simply incredibly ignorant of the true nature of things due to the CS propaganda department's brainwashing of the masses, censorship, and so forth; they simply don't have a close enough understanding of reality to recognize D-Bees, Mages, Etc. as members of Their Group in a moral sense.
These are the folks who are likely to turn against the CS if they ever get exposed to enough reality.
But there would also be some other folks who more or less understand how things lie; they know that these are sentient, even sapient beings, but they still do not recognize them as equals or Group members, so they will still react to those beings with behaviors that would be considered Evil if used against members of their own Group.

If anything the situation in the United States at the moment should be a poignant reminder of that. If, in the current day US, more than a century and a half out you can have countless apologists for Chattle slavery...

Indeed.
If the forums didn't try to downplay and quash real-world politics in the gaming sections, quite a comparison could be made between the modern US and the Coalition states (although we definitely are nowhere near as bad).

I mean my ultimtae original answer to these quesitons still holds; The Coalition are Cartoon Bad-Guys. Prosek literally sits in a giant citadel surrounded by guys dressed as Skulls and probably Cackles alot and occasionally throws thing as his Bumbling side-kicks. But if you want to add mature nuance to the discussion, it becomes much worse. The Coalition is monstrous and almost certainly unsavable.

I don't necessarily agree with the "unsavable" part.
If you could remove the current corrupt government, and put better people in place, the Coalition States might be able to change for the better.
The people are not inherently immoral/evil; they simply have bad leadership and bad information.
Garbage In, Genocide Out.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't necessarily agree with the "unsavable" part.
If you could remove the current corrupt government, and put better people in place, the Coalition States might be able to change for the better.
The people are not inherently immoral/evil; they simply have bad leadership and bad information.
Garbage In, Genocide Out.

i mean, the whole government is created by the prosek family, they dictate pretty much who's in it (hence the name dictatorship) so there's really only the one way to put better people in place and that's force.

which explains why force is their specailty...

[

I mean my ultimtae original answer to these quesitons still holds; The Coalition are Cartoon Bad-Guys. Prosek literally sits in a giant citadel surrounded by guys dressed as Skulls and probably Cackles alot and occasionally throws thing as his Bumbling side-kicks. But if you want to add mature nuance to the discussion, it becomes much worse. The Coalition is monstrous and almost certainly unsavable.[/quote]


I am now picturing Prosek sitting on his throne twirling a long mastache and speaking in Dick Dastardly's voice, while his faithful dog boy Muttly sits nearby snickering under his breath.

Emerald MoonSilver wrote:

Wise_Owl wrote:I mean my ultimtae original answer to these quesitons still holds; The Coalition are Cartoon Bad-Guys. Prosek literally sits in a giant citadel surrounded by guys dressed as Skulls and probably Cackles alot and occasionally throws thing as his Bumbling side-kicks. But if you want to add mature nuance to the discussion, it becomes much worse. The Coalition is monstrous and almost certainly unsavable.

I am now picturing Prosek sitting on his throne twirling a long mastache and speaking in Dick Dastardly's voice, while his faithful dog boy Muttly sits nearby snickering under his breath.

really judging from their bios, his son joey jr. is the more "laugh and twirl moustache" type than his dad, who seems more the lex luthor "behold my master plan, superma-Erin Tarn!"

HWalsh wrote:Oh come on. You know exactly what we mean.

No, I actually don't. I have difficulty with these concepts. Throw together thousands/millions of people and generalize them and it risks erring.

HWalsh wrote:

Do we have any indication of the alignment of Joseph Prosek the 1st? If he was not evil, does that mean the CS was non-evil before Karl took power?

Irrelevant.

The relevance is obvious here, if you're arguing CS evil relies on the top leader's evilness, then the CS were not evil prior to Karl turning diabolic.

HWalsh wrote:Your head canon is wrong. You know good and well what the text meant.

I know what it literally meant, and what you probably infer from a supposed implication.

HWalsh wrote:Stop trying to roleplay a CS propaganda officer.
It is annoying and nerve wracking.
It makes any kind of good faith discussion with you impossible.

I'm talking about metaplot and RPG alignment classifications, that's now how a CS officer would talk.
What you are finding annoying is disagreement.
It is possible to mirror my good faith.

HWalsh wrote:

Applying alignments to organizations seems strange to me.

It shouldn't.

Why? Alignments were written for individuals.

What is the alignment of the Cyberknights, then?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Mark Hall wrote:there's alignments applied to organizations in several of the organization creation systems Palladium has done.

I already mentioned that in my June 18 post, so calling me "wrong" for being confused about it is disingenuous.

Even though Palladium has done it, it's rare enough compared to individual alignments that it's still hard to think of.

Usually it's "average alignment" but I draw a distinction between average alignments of members and overall alignment of policy/behavior which could be shaped by leaders who deviate from an average.

Mark Hall wrote:Secondly, since Palladium alignments are purely descriptive, pretty much anything that acts in a self-aware manner can have an alignment.

An interesting experiment.

Perhaps we should toy with some criteria to see where the CS could fit.

For example, Principled vs. Diabolic to start.

Killer Cyborg wrote:quite a comparison could be made between the modern US and the Coalition states (although we definitely are nowhere near as bad).

I could make the argument that the CS is better than all modern nations in many respect.

I bet for example that they have a lot less racism involved between humans, being unified against non-humans as they are.

Plus I'm pretty sure for all the rosey-cheeked optimism we have about how our modern nations would treat elves/changelings/goblins that we'd probably be just as brutal as the CS in dealing with them. The 2016 series on BBC "The Aliens" had an interesting take.

The CS might also have abolished certain cultural practises I personally find barbaric but will not go into particulars about.

We condemn them for banning literacy and stuff, but we've never lived in a world where a scrap of paper can function like a loaded gun (scroll of MD fire bolt, some middle-schooler vaporizing his classmates) meaning literacy is nearly as dangerous as having super powers. It's understandable, with that in mind, why they might move to image-based icons with an emphasis on audio communications.

Ok Axle, I'm going to try to explain this to you, going under the assumption that you speak in good faith and understanding the fact that you have difficulty understanding common parlance phrasing.

When someone uses the phrase, "Sent him back in a body bag."

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

That phrasing is "common parlance."

Meaning an English phrase that has a specific and commonly known and understood meaning.

It is not intended as a non-contextual literal statement, 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.

This is used in two ways:

1. A direct murder.
2. In the service to an organization.

In the 2nd, it means that they have to serve that organization, so the phrase doesn't apply to the CS.

Palladium did not use that phrase to create ambiguity.

I do not understand why this is so hard for you to understand, if you suffer from some kind of cognitive impairment though, it helps clear up why you have these difficulties.

Axelmania wrote:I could make the argument that the CS is better than all modern nations in many respect.

only by massively misrepresenting their quality of life and ignoring their treatment of "undesirables", which includes every human they DON'T let into their special walled cities.

HWalsh wrote:Ok Axle, I'm going to try to explain this to you, going under the assumption that you speak in good faith and understanding the fact that you have difficulty understanding common parlance phrasing.

When someone uses the phrase, "Sent him back in a body bag."

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

That phrasing is "common parlance."

Meaning an English phrase that has a specific and commonly known and understood meaning.

It is not intended as a non-contextual literal statement, 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.

This is used in two ways:

1. A direct murder.
2. In the service to an organization.

In the 2nd, it means that they have to serve that organization, so the phrase doesn't apply to the CS.

Palladium did not use that phrase to create ambiguity.

I can vouch for all of that.

green.nova343 wrote:I'll have to read that article for some NPC/PC ideas.

I'll be honest, though... I've always felt that the scariest villain you could have in a campaign is the one that has a Principled alignment. Wait, what's that you say? That's a good alignment, how could they be the bad guy?

Easily...by working for the betterment of the Coalition States.

<snip>

LOL, your breakdown of the Principled alignment is actually where one of my posts was going.

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.

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.

NBC writer Enzo Domingo goofed a little in describing that interview (the son's name is actually George H. Kemp Jr. not Joseph Jr.) but otherwise I'd assume the direct quote was accurate.

I do not take that as meaning that Calandrian is saying that her son is dead as the result of a direct action of the coroner's office.

HWalsh wrote:I do not understand why this is so hard for you to understand,
if you suffer from some kind of cognitive impairment though,
it helps clear up why you have these difficulties.

I believe we all suffer from cognitive impairments to varying degrees as there is no perfect brain.

I understand the two usages you are referring to, but I believe you have artificially narrowed the spectrum of human parlance based on your experiences.

The expression has a literal no-strings no-insinuation usage which I've demonstrated in the IRL examples above. We should entertain it could mean that.

It is perhaps strongly implied to be sinister? Sure. But there's a difference between implications and RAW.

Orin J. wrote:

Axelmania wrote:I could make the argument that the CS is better than all modern nations in many respect.

only by massively misrepresenting their quality of life and ignoring their treatment of "undesirables", which includes every human they DON'T let into their special walled cities.

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?