Discussion: Divided We Fall
By
2short2care,
Posted on: 2011-09-07 11:12 in News, Events and Announcement Discussion
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
I'm just saying the definition you posted was highly subjective and not a true objective definition.
It may as well have had a picture of Stalin saying "there, he was a dictator" and given no reasons why or how he was a dictator, just lumped all his actions together under the term. Hell, we're all dictators whenever we tell someone "do this" or "do that" or are having a secretary write something down for us(called "dictation" though far from evil). The definition needs to be as precise as possible or it is wrong. Dictators do not need to be evil, but dictators can be evil, which is why you get the phrase "evil dictator". Obviously, I caused confusion among everyone here, especially Golden Girl, and I apologize. I tried to be absolutely clear, but apparently that was a mistake. |
Funny thing about what you're saying... and what I challenge my fellow Patriots to point out; is how much of their 'chain of command' allows for democratic participation.
Many parents don't allow it.
The education system limits it.
Many workplace environments probably frown down upon it.
Even some residential communities limit it.
Better not bring the ballot box to church either.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Quote:
All those people are ultimately accountable to *someone*. They may not be accountable to the people they have authority over, but they do not possess ultimate unchecked authority. The alternative to totalitarian rule isn't unrestricted democracy. Parents don't have to give their children a vote, but they are accountable to others for how they treat their children. The only time my employees have a vote is when I give it to them (which I do often, but its entirely at my discretion). But even I am ultimately accountable for my decisions, just not to them.|
Originally Posted by Yogi_Bare
Funny thing about what you're saying... and what I challenge my fellow Patriots to point out; is how much of their 'chain of command' allows for democratic participation.
Many parents don't allow it. The education system limits it. Many workplace environments probably frown down upon it. Even some residential communities limit it. Better not bring the ballot box to church either. |
Cole believes he is accountable to no one, and believes he shouldn't be accountable to anyone.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Not quite what I was pointing out (was just showing some parallels between the citizenry under authoritarian rule and citizenry under democratic rule); comparable 'freedom(s)' under differing systems.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
All those people are ultimately accountable to *someone*. They may not be accountable to the people they have authority over, but they do not possess ultimate unchecked authority. The alternative to totalitarian rule isn't unrestricted democracy. Parents don't have to give their children a vote, but they are accountable to others for how they treat their children. The only time my employees have a vote is when I give it to them (which I do often, but its entirely at my discretion). But even I am ultimately accountable for my decisions, just not to them.
Cole believes he is accountable to no one, and believes he shouldn't be accountable to anyone. |
Wasn't really touching base on Cole, but I will at this point; since there was discussion on systems being evil (diverging from the people that head them being evil).
We're assuming Cole is in control. He may or may not be. Maybe the Well is in control. It's possible that he's just an overpowered figurehead and his Praetors are really running the show (which is what it really appears like to me, atm. IMO). There could be something that hasn't been revealed yet.
But for the sake of argument, lets assume that Cole is the undisputed head honcho.
If Cole, as an individual, is evil enough to corrupt the system he's using to be likewise; then so can a democratic system be corrupted to allow control to be maintained by a group representing a similar evil (instead of an individual). The method of removal concerning these evils; whether its by force or vote is somewhat irrelevant being that in either case... the evil can be 'removed' (or at least, exchanged).
I would even venture to say that the main relevance it would hold is how we would classify our removal of Cole; as a Primal or as a Praetorian. Good or Evil? Are we taking into account the risks that come with his removal (at this point in the active story) or are we just fighting Fire with Fire burning everyone in the process (collateral damage)? Or both...
As stated earlier, I don't think think this is Good vs. Evil anymore; its Evil vs. Evil. The conversation is leaning towards which Evil is preferable (Chaotic or Lawful). It may be more difficult for those who primarily dwell blueside to see that angle... but some redsiders already know the conflict for what it is; a basic power struggle to gain control at some capacity.
At least a portion of our evil (Primal) isn't fighting their evil for the betterment of both societies (except to satisfy limited game mechanics and storytelling - there's a spoiler hidden in there); its doing so, so it can fill the void once that challenge to their seat of power is removed.
The other portion of our evil (also Primal) is fighting their evil so that our evil can be allowed to run its chaotic course (because if they were really serious about preventing evil, they would have to start modeling their actions (here and there) after the evil they're supposed to be fighting).
Heck, if it weren't for our selfish desire to stay alive; we wouldn't even acknowledge his regime and the poor victims that reside under it.
[***at this point, my brain is fried... if you still want to continue this; then catch me after the boards come back up tomorrow
***]
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yogi_Bare
Not quite what I was pointing out (was just showing some parallels between the citizenry under authoritarian rule and citizenry under democratic rule); comparable 'freedom(s)' under differing systems.
Wasn't really touching base on Cole, but I will at this point; since there was discussion on systems being evil (diverging from the people that head them being evil). We're assuming Cole is in control. He may or may not be. Maybe the Well is in control. It's possible that he's just an overpowered figurehead and his Praetors are really running the show (which is what it really appears like to me, atm. IMO). There could be something that hasn't been revealed yet. But for the sake of argument, lets assume that Cole is the undisputed head honcho. If Cole, as an individual, is evil enough to corrupt the system he's using to be likewise; then so can a democratic system be corrupted to allow control to be maintained by a group representing a similar evil (instead of an individual). The method of removal concerning these evils; whether its by force or vote is somewhat irrelevant being that in either case... the evil can be 'removed' (or at least, exchanged). I would even venture to say that the main relevance it would hold is how we would classify our removal of Cole; as a Primal or as a Praetorian. Good or Evil? Are we taking into account the risks that come with his removal (at this point in the active story) or are we just fighting Fire with Fire burning everyone in the process (collateral damage)? Or both... As stated earlier, I don't think think this is Good vs. Evil anymore; its Evil vs. Evil. The conversation is leaning towards which Evil is preferable (Chaotic or Lawful). It may be more difficult for those who primarily dwell blueside to see that angle... but some redsiders already know the conflict for what it is; a basic power struggle to gain control at some capacity. At least a portion of our evil (Primal) isn't fighting their evil for the betterment of both societies (except to satisfy limited game mechanics and storytelling - there's a spoiler hidden in there); its doing so, so it can fill the void once that challenge to their seat of power is removed. The other portion of our evil (also Primal) is fighting their evil so that our evil can be allowed to run its chaotic course (because if they were really serious about preventing evil, they would have to start modeling their actions (here and there) after the evil they're supposed to be fighting). Heck, if it weren't for our selfish desire to stay alive; we wouldn't even acknowledge his regime and the poor victims that reside under it. [***at this point, my brain is fried... if you still want to continue this; then catch me after the boards come back up tomorrow ***] |
Finally, somebody understands the whole idea of "the lesser of two evils" and "moral gray" and Praetoria actually being a choice between two factions instead of right and wrong.
Good post.
Quote:
It's good vs evil - the blue side of the game is always the heroic, morally correct one - Heroes only ever fight people who are doing something wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Yogi_Bare
As stated earlier, I don't think think this is Good vs. Evil anymore; its Evil vs. Evil.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
I think the basis of a free society is a constituition and a bill of rights, not democratic elections per se. Whether an election happens every 4 years or 10 or 100 is irrelevant, as long as the ruler in power isn't allowed to squash the rights of his citizens. It's all about economic politics and minute applications of the law which, if unpopular or unconstitutional, won't get past the supreme court of justice or risk perpectual jury nullification (ala euthanasia and anti-abortion laws). Your vote doesn't count for much, anyway, all you ever get to choose is blue or red, since it's always either Democrats or Republicans that get the seat.
On the other hand, unhindered democratic elections (the majority vote) have given rise to some of the greatest atrocities in history. I seem to recall that Hitler was elected by a majority, it's not like he conquered Germany. In the US slavery was only abolished in 1863, and miscegenation only became legal in 1967 (!!). Ancient Greece was a democracy, though only free male citizens could vote. The Inquisition in the 16th century was very popular in Spain, similar to parades we see happening today. And when did women start to vote in most democracies, anyway? Why aren't people below the age of 18 allowed to vote today, when they're bound by adult laws by the time they hit 16? Why do people in Nevada get arrested for failing to pay their casino debts? Why does the federal government get to try murder cases in Massachussets and ask for the death penalty when the death penalty was abolished in the state? In most cases, these leaders were empowered by popular vote to specifically oppress minorities, and had there been laws to prevent it, such abuses would not have taken place.
Marcus Cole might be a tyrant, perhaps even an evil tyrant, but he is a dully elected one. Too bad there's no Praetorian constitution or bill of rights to protect its people from him and his goons.
Quote:
everything about Cole is anti freedom and and rights. He creates obedience by fear and death squads called ppd . This is not a utopia is is a hell with a pretty face.
|
Originally Posted by Zemblanity
I think the basis of a free society is a constituition and a bill of rights, not democratic elections per se. Whether an election happens every 4 years or 10 or 100 is irrelevant, as long as the ruler in power isn't allowed to squash the rights of his citizens. It's all about economic politics and minute applications of the law which, if unpopular or unconstitutional, won't get past the supreme court of justice or risk perpectual jury nullification (ala euthanasia and anti-abortion laws). Your vote doesn't count for much, anyway, all you ever get to choose is blue or red, since it's always either Democrats or Republicans that get the seat.
On the other hand, unhindered democratic elections (the majority vote) have given rise to some of the greatest atrocities in history. I seem to recall that Hitler was elected by a majority, it's not like he conquered Germany. In the US slavery was only abolished in 1863, and miscegenation only became legal in 1967 (!!). Ancient Greece was a democracy, though only free male citizens could vote. The Inquisition in the 16th century was very popular in Spain, similar to parades we see happening today. And when did women start to vote in most democracies, anyway? Why aren't people below the age of 18 allowed to vote today, when they're bound by adult laws by the time they hit 16? Why do people in Nevada get arrested for failing to pay their casino debts? Why does the federal government get to try murder cases in Massachussets and ask for the death penalty when the death penalty was abolished in the state? In most cases, these leaders were empowered by popular vote to specifically oppress minorities, and had there been laws to prevent it, such abuses would not have taken place. Marcus Cole might be a tyrant, perhaps even an evil tyrant, but he is a dully elected one. Too bad there's no Praetorian constitution or bill of rights to protect its people from him and his goons. |
Quote:
You didn't get my point.|
Originally Posted by Thany144
everything about Cole is anti freedom and and rights. He creates obedience by fear and death squads called ppd . This is not a utopia is is a hell with a pretty face.
|
Here's an example of democracy at its worst: "The crops have been terrible ever since that old woman moved into town. She's obviously a witch, and I say we burn her! Who's with me?"
Now, if the town's sheriff stops the villagers from burning the woman alive, he'd be opposing the majority and protecting a minority. That, my friend, is the basis of a modern free society, not blindly following a popular show of hands. You have the right not to be burned at the stake even if you're an old woman with a crooked nose and everyone else in town wants you gone.
Cole was (apparently) elected by popular vote and given free reign to do whatever he deemed necessary to ensure the survival of the human race in Praetoria. Unfortunately, no one bothered to put restraints on what he could do, and we see his lieutenants abusing their power every day (not Cole himself, though).
Opposing Emperor Cole's regime because it allows psychic women into bondage, that's laudable. Saying Cole's martial law should have been abolished by now is debatable (because we know the devouring earth are still a threat). But accusing Cole of being evil simply because he hasn't scheduled a new round of elections is just plain demagogy.
Mother Mayhem is evil. I've seen it myself.
Michael White is evil. I've seen it myself.
Justin Sinclair is evil. I've seen it myself.
Praetoria is evil. I've seen it myself.
Marcus Cole? Probably, but I'm not sure yet.
Quote:
democracies are tyrannical . That's why the USA is a republic lol is the the point? If not sorry it is early in the am .
|
Originally Posted by Zemblanity
You didn't get my point.
Here's an example of democracy at its worst: "The crops have been terrible ever since that old woman moved into town. She's obviously a witch, and I say we burn her! Who's with me?" Now, if the town's sheriff stops the villagers from burning the woman alive, he'd be opposing the majority and protecting a minority. That, my friend, is the basis of a modern free society, not blindly following a popular show of hands. You have the right not to be burned at the stake even if you're an old woman with a crooked nose and everyone else in town wants you gone. Cole was (apparently) elected by popular vote and given free reign to do whatever he deemed necessary to ensure the survival of the human race in Praetoria. Unfortunately, no one bothered to put restraints on what he could do, and we see his lieutenants abusing their power every day (not Cole himself, though). Opposing Emperor Cole's regime because it allows psychic women into bondage, that's laudable. Saying Cole's martial law should have been abolished by now is debatable (because we know the devouring earth are still a threat). But accusing Cole of being evil simply because he hasn't scheduled a new round of elections is just plain demagogy. Mother Mayhem is evil. I've seen it myself. Michael White is evil. I've seen it myself. Justin Sinclair is evil. I've seen it myself. Praetoria is evil. I've seen it myself. Marcus Cole? Probably, but I'm not sure yet. |
Quote:
Good morning, then |
Originally Posted by Thany144
democracies are tyrannical . That's why the USA is a republic lol is the the point? If not sorry it is early in the am .
|
My point is that if you don't balance a popular vote with some sort of legal restraint (inviolable rights that every citizen is allowed regardless of the elected ruler's wishes) then democracies can be as evil as tyrannies.
Elections with a Constitution = Free Democracy (USA prior to the patriot act)
Elections without a Constitution = Mob justice (KKK)
No Elections with a Constitution = Benevolent dictatorship (British royal family)
No Elections and no Constitution = Tyranny (Starwars empire)
Quote:
Incorrect, with the advent of GR, blueside became populated with both Rogues and Vigilantes. The days of blueside being hero specific are done.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
It's good vs evil - the blue side of the game is always the heroic, morally correct one - Heroes only ever fight people who are doing something wrong.
|
Incorrect, it's not good vs evil when good is allied with evil (both Primal and Praetorian) to combat a different evil.
Incorrect, heroes do indeed clash with each other; its one of the merchandising staples of comic books and it was represented in CoX long before GR. (As in the RWZ storyline)
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Quote:
No, my point was that systems are fairly neutral... the human element is what can tip them towards a given point.|
Originally Posted by Thany144
democracies are tyrannical . That's why the USA is a republic lol is the the point? If not sorry it is early in the am .
|
Thany... I'm not sure I agree with the Constitution perspective; primarily because its been altered multiples times, people are always looking to alter it further and its open to (mis)interpretation - just like any other law.
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
Quote:
what?!|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
It's good vs evil - the blue side of the game is always the heroic, morally correct one - Heroes only ever fight people who are doing something wrong.
|
Have you played any of the hero tips?
I'm just glad my hero was there to stop the Longbow from murdering some misguided villain and then convince her to consider becoming a heroine.
Or the time my character heroicly put down the Arachnos incursion... that was in independence port to protect innocent civilians from a dire threat.
In RWZ
How about when Longbow decides to usurp vanguard authority, has a secret listening post and you know goes after my character for trying to save lives and capture rogue elements.
The one thing a hero DOES is try to do the right thing. There are so many instances blueside where they don't eitehr on purpose or on accident. It would take a huge amount of time to list them all.
Quote:
If you think that's the first example of people recognizing that Praetoria has always been a choice between the lesser of two evils, your exposing a gap in your understanding of the discussion. Only a few people are claiming the resistance is "good" just because Cole is "evil." However, in Praetoria you get to make that choice between being on the resistance or serving Cole. In Primal Earth your choice is between opposing Cole or not. Whether you choose to serve the resistance or not is a completely separate question, and it has nothing to do with whether you judge Cole's actions morally justified.|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Finally, somebody understands the whole idea of "the lesser of two evils" and "moral gray" and Praetoria actually being a choice between two factions instead of right and wrong.
Good post. |
If I was a superpowered citizen of Primal Earth, the choice is simple. I would kick Cole's *** first, and philosophize with him while he was behind bars. That's a trivial decision for me, because tyranny, mind control, and violent suppression without any accountability are not consistent with my sense of right and wrong.
You can continue to question whether or not that decision has a basis in some Aristotelian cave shadow, but it still comes down to the fact that, within the fictional game world, if you choose to support Cole, you'd be the bad guy to me and I would act accordingly. All human beings must make that same choice under imperfect conditions and there is no practical benefit from arguing that in a greater sense we cannot know what good and evil are, and what right and wrong are. People must still make their choice.
I hope you drop a PvPIO.
Side track: in the Earth-X series Banner makes what I consider to be an incredibly clever observation to Scott Summers. In questioning whether Xavier was really in the right, he asks Scott to consider why Magneto called his brotherhood "the brotherhood of EVIL mutants." It seems like such a strange thing to call yourself. But according to Banner, the reason was obvious: Magneto knew a war was coming, and knew mutants had to be rallied to the cause. By calling himself "evil" he basically *forced* Xavier to be "good" and manipulated Xavier into acting like the moral guardians of all mutant kind. In doing so, he guaranteed that some would rally to Xavier, and others who opposed Xavier's moral inflexibility would rally to Magneto. Magneto didn't create an army of mutants, he created two. And by forcing Xavier to consider himself the "good" one, Magneto would always have an advantage over Xavier.
(Within the Earth-X storyline) it seems to have never occurred to Scott that the only reason the X-Men considered themselves the good guys was because they were fighting Magneto, the bad guy. It never occurred to them to look at the greater picture of whether they were actually always doing the right thing for mutant kind and humanity in general.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Actually, the whole argument started with people saying:|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
If you think that's the first example of people recognizing that Praetoria has always been a choice between the lesser of two evils, your exposing a gap in your understanding of the discussion. Only a few people are claiming the resistance is "good" just because Cole is "evil." However, in Praetoria you get to make that choice between being on the resistance or serving Cole. In Primal Earth your choice is between opposing Cole or not. Whether you choose to serve the resistance or not is a completely separate question, and it has nothing to do with whether you judge Cole's actions morally justified.
|
"The Resistance are heroes and Loyalists are villains."
Just look for the earlier Golden Girl posts for one example.
I'm not the one who started the argument with a flawed "absolutist view", and I am not the one who is mistaken in what the argument was about.
No offense intended.
Quote:
Actually, your memory is playing tricks on you. The "is Cole evil" discussion basically starts with this post (I've tried to quote in a way that will allow you to link back to the posts):|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Actually, the whole argument started with people saying:
"The Resistance are heroes and Loyalists are villains." Just look for the earlier Golden Girl posts for one example. I'm not the one who started the argument with a flawed "absolutist view", and I am not the one who is mistaken in what the argument was about. No offense intended. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaphan
Cole's character has always been an interesting one. He's a "good man", but because he made a few different decisions, and also because his world is a lot worse off than Primal is, threat wise (mostly due to the Devouring Earth there), he ended up as an Emperor and a Tyrant.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
One of the storyline motif's established in Going Rogue is that the Praetorian Faction leaders are not one-dimensional, mirror-dimension, polar-opposites of the Primal Earth Signature Heroes and Villains; but rather have deeper motivations coupled with genuine likable characteristics.
|
The first mention of the Resistance in any real form is:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
In the 1-20 GR content, players can run itno Maelstrom who's on a personal misison from Tyrant himself to plant beacons to summon the Devouring Earth to kill the magistrates who sympathize with the Resistance, removing them and giving Tyrant the chance to swoop in and save the day again from the Devouring Earth - and he's been pulling that trick since the Hamidon Wars
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Teldon
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chyll
Quote:
( I for one am looking forward to the iTrial where we storm their base of operations.) |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
I also don't like the lawful obedient vs. chaotic obedient morality of Praetoria. I also dislike how incredibly contrived a lot of the "moral choices" are.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
The Praetorian Calvin Scott is not meant to be a Hero or a role model. In some aspects I think his own fall from grace is supposed to mimic that of Emperor Cole, but it's not quite the same. Calvin Scott still wants what is best for Praetoria, and I think that on some level he understands that what he is doing is wrong. I'm not convinced that Tyrant has considered the possibility that the steps he has taken could have been wrong.
|
These are all *in a row* (in terms of resistance mentions). There aren't any mentions of the "good guy resistance" before or in between these. Since the discussion has been focused on Cole himself, that's not surprising. What's surprising to me is that you seem to remember a lot of people expressing the notion that the Resistance is good when few posters have mentioned the Resistance *at all*. Quite a few players have expressed the notion that the Resistance has just as much blood on their hands as the Loyalists do, and are just as questionable as Cole is, and I believe you're trivializing their positions when you imply this point of view hasn't been expressed in the thread, when its been expressed repeatedly and by multiple posters.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
No, I believe the one that kicked up the hornet's nest of "Loyalists are evil, that is what the devs said and so they are" was moderated probably for trolling.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, your memory is playing tricks on you. The "is Cole evil" discussion basically starts with this post (I've tried to quote in a way that will allow you to link back to the posts):
|
Golden Girl did get moderated at least once with one of her posts saying that, somewhere.
Anyway, I certainly did not go off on the tangent until it was said that "Cole is just making himself look good after brainwashing Duray into claiming the idea as his own" and the eventual "the Resistance are the heroes and Loyalists are evil, that is how they are supposed to be"(despite the story in game making both sides both evil and good, depending on sub-faction choice).
(Edit: After all, the theory that Cole implanted the idea into Duray's brain is not stated in this story. It's just a wild conspiracy theory by the "Cole is pure evil, and so are the Loyalists" "cult" on the forums here.)
The argument that I was talking about was "Loyalists are evil"-"not all of them or even most of them" and "Resistance are good"-"not all of them or even most of them".
I can see why the confusion with a lot of emphasis on "Cole IS the Loyalists, all Loyalists support him as a man, not the people or the ideal of the system" kept coming up and I kept saying "Cole is not the system, it can exist without him".(Edit: Also, Cole isn't without redeeming actions, such as this very story if taken at face value.)
Quote:
But none of that is relevant to the quote I objected to:|
Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
No, I believe the one that kicked up the hornet's nest of "Loyalists are evil, that is what the devs said and so they are" was moderated probably for trolling.
Golden Girl did get moderated at least once with one of her posts saying that, somewhere. Anyway, I certainly did not go off on the tangent until it was said that "Cole is just making himself look good after brainwashing Duray into claiming the idea as his own" and the eventual "the Resistance are the heroes and Loyalists are evil, that is how they are supposed to be"(despite the story in game making both sides both evil and good, depending on sub-faction choice). (Edit: After all, the theory that Cole implanted the idea into Duray's brain is not stated in this story. It's just a wild conspiracy theory by the "Cole is pure evil, and so are the Loyalists" "cult" on the forums here.) The argument that I was talking about was "Loyalists are evil"-"not all of them or even most of them" and "Resistance are good"-"not all of them or even most of them". I can see why the confusion with a lot of emphasis on "Cole IS the Loyalists, all Loyalists support him as a man, not the people or the ideal of the system" kept coming up and I kept saying "Cole is not the system, it can exist without him".(Edit: Also, Cole isn't without redeeming actions, such as this very story if taken at face value.) |
Quote:
|
Finally, somebody understands the whole idea of "the lesser of two evils" and "moral gray" and Praetoria actually being a choice between two factions instead of right and wrong. Good post. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Something that might be partially relevant to the discussion over "Are or Are They Not Evil"
In the invasion event today, we fought the DE and the loyalists at the same time - Duray said that while they were on Primal Earth to stop the DE, they might as well try and expand their control over it - so it looks like Tyrant forgot to erase all of those memories properly 
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Most of the posts in this thread were exactly: "Cole is evil and the Loyalists are evil and villains and the Resistance are the heroes".|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But none of that is relevant to the quote I objected to:
There is no way to parse this in English that implies anything other you are asserting this is the *first* time you are reading that sentiment, when its actually been a common sentiment. |
The idea that "no side is fully right or wrong in Praetoria" was not common in this thread, unless you mistook my multiple posts as multiple posters instead of just me.
So, let me rephrase the quote you objected to:
"Somebody finally admits to Praetoria being morally gray instead of Loyalists being villains no matter what".
Or....
"Finally, the Resistance are just as much villains as the Loyalists."
I'm done with this topic now. It's tiresome.
Quote:
Yeah, like Ms. Liberty was any help, standing around looking pretty while we were getting thrashed by Warwalkers and a thousand DE seeds. She didn't even turn around and look when Hami made an appearance...|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
In the invasion event today, we fought the DE and the loyalists at the same time - Duray said that while they were on Primal Earth to stop the DE, they might as well try and expand their control over it - so it looks like Tyrant forgot to erase all of those memories properly
|
BTW, the end part was weird. I was in Exalted - Atlas 4, and Hami only went away about 5 minutes after we defeated all of the seeds. I suspect we need to clear all Atlas maps to advance in the zone event, not just the map we're currently occupying. Good news is that the new server is completely lag-free, unlike the invasion a few months ago
Quote:
Had tons of lag in Mercy 2 on that same server. |
Originally Posted by Zemblanity
Yeah, like Ms. Liberty was any help, standing around looking pretty while we were getting thrashed by Warwalkers and a thousand DE seeds. She didn't even turn around and look when Hami made an appearance...
BTW, the end part was weird. I was in Exalted - Atlas 4, and Hami only went away about 5 minutes after we defeated all of the seeds. I suspect we need to clear all Atlas maps to advance in the zone event, not just the map we're currently occupying. Good news is that the new server is completely lag-free, unlike the invasion a few months ago |
Apparently, I play "City of Shakespeare"
*Arc #95278-Gathering the Four Winds -3 step arc; challenging - 5 Ratings/3 Stars (still working out the kinks)
*Arc #177826-Lights, Camera, Scream! - 3 step arc, camp horror; try out in 1st person POV - 35 Ratings/4 Stars
I would think this whole "Loyalist vs. Resistance" would be, at least on a fundamental level, about how much freedom one should have. In a sense, I kinda think of (bear with me) demolition man. In the future, the world is ruled with absolute authority and morality. Their resistance wanted the freedom to do whatever the hell they wanted.
It seems like more of the same on that note. The very idea of "the Tyrant" burns the sensibilities of most of us, as it has seen so many parallels in the real world (India vs. Great Britain, The American Colonies vs. Great Britain) and in fiction (V for Vendetta, Demolition Man, Running Man, Nineteen Eighty-Four). If you find that many of the players villify "The Tyrant," remember where they are coming from. A couple of quotes from history: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom - go from us in peace. We ask no your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Benjamin Franklin
I saw Neuron as evil, Anti-matter as impatient, Dominatrix as crazy evil and Mother Mayhem as crazy evil and Emperor Cole as "a leader" and vigilante.
Honestly, everyone around Cole is a lot more evil than he ever appears.
Sure, you can blame him for that, but the game makes it look like he doesn't know everything that goes on, thus plausible deniability.
Yes, it looks like he arranged for a conspiracy to let him plausibly deny things, but I have no proof. Therefore, I'm not jumping on the "assumption train headed for conclusion cliff".