Proof that the CS is Evil

[Nightmartree]

Range 1: Evil but not necessarily nasty about it
1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone.
2. Lie and cheat anyone; good or evil.
3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind).
4. Use or harm an innocent.
5. Use torture for extracting information and pleasure.
6. May kill for sheer pleasure.
7. Feels no compulsion to help without some sort of tangible reward.
8. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goal.
9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor.
10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if he must.
11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs.

i'm really close to this, I won't intentionally harm an innocent, though I guess I could use them if I had too...then again I have a very very small list of people who are on the even maybe possibly might be innocent. I don't approve of killing for pleasure though if your gonna do it and you enjoy it that's acceptable. and I don't feel that betraying a friend is acceptable.

so doesn't kill for pleasure, won't harm though may use an innocent (and innocent is a very small portion of people, or those unrelated that people go out of their way to draw into the conflict, i'd get rather upset if people who weren't involved at all were harmed for "no reason") and won't betray a friend. but the rest is okay

[eliakon]

Range 1: Evil but not necessarily nasty about it
1. Not necessarily keep his word to anyone.
2. Lie and cheat anyone; good or evil.
3. Most definitely attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind).
4. Use or harm an innocent.
5. Use torture for extracting information and pleasure.
6. May kill for sheer pleasure.
7. Feels no compulsion to help without some sort of tangible reward.
8. Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goal.
9. Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor.
10. Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if he must.
11. Will betray a friend if it serves his needs.

i'm really close to this, I won't intentionally harm an innocent, though I guess I could use them if I had too...then again I have a very very small list of people who are on the even maybe possibly might be innocent. I don't approve of killing for pleasure though if your gonna do it and you enjoy it that's acceptable. and I don't feel that betraying a friend is acceptable.

so doesn't kill for pleasure, won't harm though may use an innocent (and innocent is a very small portion of people, or those unrelated that people go out of their way to draw into the conflict, i'd get rather upset if people who weren't involved at all were harmed for "no reason") and won't betray a friend. but the rest is okay

But your cherry picking.
Which is the point we have been making.
There are 11 points to the alignment not just four or five. And they ALL matter.
And they are set up in ways that set conditions. Conditions that are more and more restrictive as you "go up" the tree. Thus you must fulfill ALL the conditions of the higher alignment to claim that alignment. You can't just fulfil some of them and then say that you are still that alignment even though you violate other parts of it.
(Though, if you want to claim that you self define as miscreant evil that is your business.)
The point though is that someone can't just come through and whitewash things and say "Well, yeah sure bob does X and Y bad stuff. But he is loyal to his friends, so he isn't evil."
That isn't how it works.
If you do something that is forbidden on the alignment system you have to find an alignment that allows it.
Thus if someone is willing to torture for pleasure, then they are, by definition, you must be either Anarchist or Evil. Period

if you are willing to kill an innocent, then you are flat out either Miscreant evil or Diabolic evil. (Depending on how litteral you are it can require you to be Diabolic since Miscreant will only 'Use or harm an innocent' but I will concede the point here)
Period. Dot. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect 200$. Do not quibble about any other redeeming features.
Flat out there are exactly two alignments that are allowed to deliberately kill an innocent.
Thus we have a simple, easy one question test for any person to determine if they are evil.
"Is this person willing to kill an innocent"
If the answer is yes, then they are evil.

How is this relevant to the thread?
Because the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.
That sort of tells us that there are exactly two sorts of people in the CS military.
Evil people, and criminals... since it is a capitol crime to NOT kill innocents.
That sort of settles the question of "what alignment is the norm for CS soldiers."

[Nightmartree]

But your cherry picking.
Which is the point we have been making.
There are 11 points to the alignment not just four or five. And they ALL matter.

and yet, here I was saying despite failing three of the criteria for the alignment that it was close enough that i'd accept it as my own. And then you come along and turn it into a rant condemning an entire nation to evil. I wasn't saying a thing about the coalition merely that according to this chart i'd be closest to that alignment. Since I FUFILL ALL BUT THREE REQUIRMENTS for being evil, I can't just as you say "Jump up" the alignment tree so I wasn't cherry picking anything, I stated i'm closest to this barring these three things, that doesn't make me good, that means I have 3 things I don't approve of or would rather not do. Your trying to pick a fight over the coalition being evil great, its already been stated in this thread that the definition of innocent varies, especially from the point of view of alignment. If the person pulling the trigger doesn't view the thing, person, or even child it is killing as an innocent would his alignment change? My opinion is no though his perceived one may. Its why in many stories the "Good Guys" are actually far more terrible and monsterous than the villians, because the villians merely want X, while the good guys may do nearly anything to stop them, after all As long as you

1. Keep your word to good people
2. Lie only to non good
3. Don't kill or attack an unarmed foe (I actually want some to tell me how this works if the evil mastermind who rules the world through manipulation and fear never actually picks up a weapon, do you let him just walk away?nope)
4. Never harm an innocent (theyre on the side of evil, obviously not innocent)
5. Never torture FOR PLEASURE
6. Never kill FOR PLEASURE (though it does note will attempt to always bring them in alive...you ever get the feeling that maybe this wasn't written for a wartorn world were gods and super evils roam? "Please mr.alien intelligence, step away from your doomsday device with your tentacles in the air")
7. Always help others
8. Attempt to work within the law (Whos law?)
9. May bend and break law if necessary
10. Distrust authority (Where did this come from?)
11. Work with groups but dislikes redtape
12. Never betrays a friend

so...in other words a scrupulous character can torture and murder (As long as theyre armed!), bend or break laws, lie and cheat those they perceive as "not good" and so on as long as they help everybody, attempt to work within the law and never harm someone they think is innocent, which why would they harm them anyway? which means, if you think that your enemy isn't an innocent you can do just about everything the cs is doing, and killing the children? its a horrible thing but it has to be done, for the innocents you shield back home soldier, we can't let this alien infestation breed and grow or one day it'll be us on the other end of the rifle, and you know these alien monsters son, would they hesitate?

but you know looking at these alignments you'd almost think...dare I say it? why yes I do, that they don't really apply that well outside a general guideline since most people in this world are NOT super heroes in a comic book, especially not in a war torn apocalyptic world. would a good character maybe feel a bit uneasy about what he "had" to do? yes, maybe he would, that's why they're not anarchist, diabolic or miscreant. That said how many coalition soldiers do you think really get their rocks off emptying clips into aliens versus how many are doing the best they can to ensure the survival and dominance of humanity?

your saying i'm cherry picking?your trying to demonize an entire culture and people in a world you've never lived in and suffered through because you feel they are the villians and can't/won't see their side. From the point of view of the "Good Guys" as long as your "Evil" its fine to do all sorts of bad things to people (Disregarding principled, of course if he though it was the best option for the group and the only way to ensure its survival...he may not like it, but I bet one would still put a bullet in you for the greater good). So in other words, your scrupulous good guys could just as happily gun down the "Evil" coalition as they could the "Evil" alien invaders...so tell me this, when they run into those groups of alien larvae growing in their hive what do you normally see happen? I greatly doubt they find them a foster home in the nearest village. Are they any less innocent than the humans eaten by rifted beings or the D-Bees gunned down by the coalition? is that mountain cat whos territory your roaming through diabolic evil cause it likes to play with its food? are you running the risk of doing wrong and trespassing when you sleep in a bears cave? Why not?

[Killer Cyborg]

Rifts Sourcebook pg17

The Coalition
Good or Evil?
Time line: P.A. 102
The following data and clarifications are meant to supplement
the information presented in the Rifts role-playing game. There seems to be some confusion about how there can be such a thing as a villain that is not a simple, maniacal, evil monster.
Like the real world, situations are seldom black and white; yes or no. The Coalition falls into a void of moral and philosophic grey tones.
In any society you have a collection of people. Within that collection there are good, selfish, and evil individuals. In addition there are the misguided and manipulated. There are the righteous and the humble, the well meaning and the miscreant. You have the caring family man and the thief and murderer living in the same environment. All this is true of the Coalition States.

Yup.

No idea why people STILL argue about this.

[Killer Cyborg]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

[Nightmartree]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

[Killer Cyborg]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

lol

Yeah, probably a bit too involved in this topic.

[eliakon]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.
That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

[Nightmartree]

.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence.

And so the answer your looking for is no, i dont follow the distinction that from the CS point of view they, yes even children, are not innocent. And since none of them are innocent they wouldnt say regardless of guilt or innocence theyd just say kill them

And no one ever answers about all those poor bugs and alien monsters they kill, what about that supernatural predator thats just trying to get his meal? Is he evil? Is it his fault he was born to a race that eats your fear? How about that hive of alien larvae, im sure ive asked about it several times and no one seems to have an answer for me.

Its only evil if you can empathize with the thing dying, otherwise its just an extermination folks, remember that cause that applies to real life too

[eliakon]

.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence.

And so the answer your looking for is no, i dont follow the distinction that from the CS point of view they, yes even children, are not innocent. And since none of them are innocent they wouldnt say regardless of guilt or innocence theyd just say kill them

2 problems there
the first is that the book uses the term. It clearly states that it is illegal to help even "obviously innocent" people

the second is that by claiming moral relativisim you are making the claim that there is no evil.
No. Seriously.
If nothing is evil unless the person thinks that it is evil, then you just hand waved away the entire alignment system.
The book has the term "Innocent person"
Now sure, you can still defend the CS...
...but you have to ignore the actual book text to do so.

And no one ever answers about all those poor bugs and alien monsters they kill, what about that supernatural predator thats just trying to get his meal? Is he evil? Is it his fault he was born to a race that eats your fear? How about that hive of alien larvae, im sure ive asked about it several times and no one seems to have an answer for me.

Because it doesn't matter.
No really it doesn't.
Self defense is not a problem.
And frankly... that monster is either an animal and thus has no alignment, or is evil since it is willing to eat innocents.

Its only evil if you can empathize with the thing dying, otherwise its just an extermination folks, remember that cause that applies to real life too

No.
Just flat no.
Sorry this is not "moral relativisim 101"
This is not "It is only evil if I say I am evil" (mustache twirling optional)
Now sure... you can do away with good and evil in your game and make it more like the real world and explore those philosophical questions.
But this is a game, not the real world.
In THIS world, there IS good and evil.
It doesn't MATTER if you empathize. In point of fact many things are evil in the books because they CAN'T empathize.
In THIS world, killing the innocent is evil.
Even if you don't like their race, or skin color, or sex, or they wont sleep with you... it is STILL EVIL.

[dreicunan]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.
That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

Since being a non-human or a practitioner of magic in Coalition territory means that they define you as an invader or a criminal, neither would be an "innocent" according to Coalition law. As Killer Cyborg noted, if "innocent" is based on point of view then a loyal Coalition soldier following orders to the letter is not killing any innocents.

So, can you find proof that the word "innocent" is defined as a term in Rifts that makes a point of view interpretation impossible? Because if not we are back in the weeds, as what is "obviously innocent" to one person may be "obviously guilty" to another.

(note that this argument is not attempting to justify the Coalition stance on anything, but thay is the example being bandied about and hence I have continued to use it)

[eliakon]

Spoiler:

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.
That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

Since being a non-human or a practitioner of magic in Coalition territory means that they define you as an invader or a criminal, neither would be an "innocent" according to Coalition law. As Killer Cyborg noted, if "innocent" is based on point of view then a loyal Coalition soldier following orders to the letter is not killing any innocents.

So, can you find proof that the word "innocent" is defined as a term in Rifts that makes a point of view interpretation impossible? Because if not we are back in the weeds, as what is "obviously innocent" to one person may be "obviously guilty" to another.

(note that this argument is not attempting to justify the Coalition stance on anything, but thay is the example being bandied about and hence I have continued to use it)

Because it goes back to the circular "there is no evil because what I say is right and just and you should die because I am good and say so"? And no I do not buy the argument that the CS get define good and evil. We know this because otherwise Carl Prosek (and everyone else in the Megaverse) would be good because no one thinks THEY are the bad guy.

Because the law does not say "if found in CS territory" but anywhere at anytime.

Because I reject the apologist argument that "innocence must be proved, but guilt is presumed and thus because I say your guilty you are guilty."

Because the alignment system clearly establishes that innocence exists, so claims that it does not are inherently in error.

Those work?

[Nightmartree]

.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence.

And so the answer your looking for is no, i dont follow the distinction that from the CS point of view they, yes even children, are not innocent. And since none of them are innocent they wouldnt say regardless of guilt or innocence theyd just say kill them

2 problems there
the first is that the book uses the term. It clearly states that it is illegal to help even "obviously innocent" people

the second is that by claiming moral relativisim you are making the claim that there is no evil.
No. Seriously.
If nothing is evil unless the person thinks that it is evil, then you just hand waved away the entire alignment system.
The book has the term "Innocent person"
Now sure, you can still defend the CS...
...but you have to ignore the actual book text to do so.

And no one ever answers about all those poor bugs and alien monsters they kill, what about that supernatural predator thats just trying to get his meal? Is he evil? Is it his fault he was born to a race that eats your fear? How about that hive of alien larvae, im sure ive asked about it several times and no one seems to have an answer for me.

Because it doesn't matter.
No really it doesn't.
Self defense is not a problem.
And frankly... that monster is either an animal and thus has no alignment, or is evil since it is willing to eat innocents.

Its only evil if you can empathize with the thing dying, otherwise its just an extermination folks, remember that cause that applies to real life too

No.
Just flat no.
Sorry this is not "moral relativisim 101"
This is not "It is only evil if I say I am evil" (mustache twirling optional)
Now sure... you can do away with good and evil in your game and make it more like the real world and explore those philosophical questions.
But this is a game, not the real world.
In THIS world, there IS good and evil.
It doesn't MATTER if you empathize. In point of fact many things are evil in the books because they CAN'T empathize.
In THIS world, killing the innocent is evil.
Even if you don't like their race, or skin color, or sex, or they wont sleep with you... it is STILL EVIL.

The problem is the writers of the books have directly said both that the CS is evil, by including them in the list of evil empires in phase world, while at the same time saying they exist in the greys of the world and are not really evil. which is another quote somewhere in this thread. So we have both a national alignment and then we have the personal ones, which you say "THEYRE EVIL THEYRE EVIL THEYRE EVIL" and we say "THEYRE TRYING TO LIVE, ITS THE ENEMY, THEY HAVE REASONS". And your wrong about my views negating the alignment system, if nothing was evil unless we think it is evil then we simple label the people in our campaigns as good or evil as we choose, which would do absolutely nothing to change the actions of the CS vs D-Bees since alignment has no impact on the CS's war with D-Bees besides the actions taken by the individual soldiers/commanders, the evil will torture and kill and go out of their way to make it as horrible as possible, the good will just kill them and move on. They even say it in the rifts book supernatural predators generator tables "effectively evil since they eat people" (paraphrasing) so from the point of view of the writer and us as humans they're evil, because we are their food. That's the reason given to why they're evil...which means from the point of view of most life on earth we as humans are some of the evilest things around, congrats. If it doesn't matter if we empathize with the thing that died then every pest control officer, animal control, pet owner and more are guilty of genocide, imprisonment and slavery. And don't give me some speech about how they're just bugs and animals, they're life, they have emotion (okay, not sure about bugs, but they have something). In fact we are guilty of those things, we cause genocides to the populations of ants and termites who invade our home, we imprison and "deport" wild animals that enter our land, and enslave domesticate and raise them to serve and entertain us, but when is the last time you saw someone stand up for bug rights? why doesn't anyone care? because we don't empathize with them, its just a bug after all

and your response to a hive of alien larvae being executed is

And no one ever answers about all those poor bugs and alien monsters they kill, what about that supernatural predator thats just trying to get his meal? Is he evil? Is it his fault he was born to a race that eats your fear? How about that hive of alien larvae, im sure ive asked about it several times and no one seems to have an answer for me.

Because it doesn't matter.
No really it doesn't.
Self defense is not a problem.
And frankly... that monster is either an animal and thus has no alignment, or is evil since it is willing to eat innocents.

which means your saying its fine to slaughter the children of an alien race since its self defense? that's exactly what you say makes the coalition evil.

[Nightmartree]

Because it goes back to the circular "there is no evil because what I say is right and just and you should die because I am good and say so"? And no I do not buy the argument that the CS get define good and evil. We know this because otherwise Carl Prosek (and everyone else in the Megaverse) would be good because no one thinks THEY are the bad guy.

Because the law does not say "if found in CS territory" but anywhere at anytime.

Because I reject the apologist argument that "innocence must be proved, but guilt is presumed and thus because I say your guilty you are guilty."

Because the alignment system clearly establishes that innocence exists, so claims that it does not are inherently in error.

Those work?

And its not just "I say so" its "you monsters invaded out world and kill our people and threaten our lives" and the CS doesn't get to define good and evil but we do? the alignment is based on actions and perception, since Carl Prosek is..diabolic I think was said? then we know he will enjoy killing just because and even if he thinks someone is innocent will kill them just as fast, a scrupulous grunt will still kill you but he doesn't think your innocent, if he did he wouldn't kill you and so is in line with his alignment, the point we are making is that both will kill you either way, Carl may do so because he enjoys it or your the enemy, the grunt will do so because your the enemy. And why should they not kill the enemy anywhere at anytime? If you were a soldier sent beyond your borders into enemy territory are you suddenly gonna go shake their hand and have a party? And yes innocence exists, but whether the gun on the other side of that laser rifle thinks your innocent and will therefor take a hit to his alignment if he kills you is a totally different deal.

say you meet a guy in blood drenched armor dripping with blood as he runs screaming down the road at you his eyes flashing with madness, you blow him away because he seems like a threat...now your suddenly evil because that man has never harmed another person a day in his life, in fact he is a mutant who lives on ambient PPE and has just watched his family eaten by a terrible monster he is now fleeing in fear covered in there blood.

that's the alignment system your arguing for

[Blue_Lion]

Because it goes back to the circular "there is no evil because what I say is right and just and you should die because I am good and say so"? And no I do not buy the argument that the CS get define good and evil. We know this because otherwise Carl Prosek (and everyone else in the Megaverse) would be good because no one thinks THEY are the bad guy.

Because the law does not say "if found in CS territory" but anywhere at anytime.

Because I reject the apologist argument that "innocence must be proved, but guilt is presumed and thus because I say your guilty you are guilty."

Because the alignment system clearly establishes that innocence exists, so claims that it does not are inherently in error.

Those work?

And its not just "I say so" its "you monsters invaded out world and kill our people and threaten our lives" and the CS doesn't get to define good and evil but we do? the alignment is based on actions and perception, since Carl Prosek is..diabolic I think was said? then we know he will enjoy killing just because and even if he thinks someone is innocent will kill them just as fast, a scrupulous grunt will still kill you but he doesn't think your innocent, if he did he wouldn't kill you and so is in line with his alignment, the point we are making is that both will kill you either way, Carl may do so because he enjoys it or your the enemy, the grunt will do so because your the enemy. And why should they not kill the enemy anywhere at anytime? If you were a soldier sent beyond your borders into enemy territory are you suddenly gonna go shake their hand and have a party? And yes innocence exists, but whether the gun on the other side of that laser rifle thinks your innocent and will therefor take a hit to his alignment if he kills you is a totally different deal.

say you meet a guy in blood drenched armor dripping with blood as he runs screaming down the road at you his eyes flashing with madness, you blow him away because he seems like a threat...now your suddenly evil because that man has never harmed another person a day in his life, in fact he is a mutant who lives on ambient PPE and has just watched his family eaten by a terrible monster he is now fleeing in fear covered in there blood.

that's the alignment system your arguing for

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat. (I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)
The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

[Nightmartree]

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat. (I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)
The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

Thats a valid interpretation, i just feel like it makes more sense to have them maintain there alignment until they get a eureka! Moment or gradually change their views of d-bees, you do get examples of this, thats why coalition soldiers who go deep into the wilderness sometimes stay and go rogue.

But i also figure that such moments or realizations are the exception not the norm, or in some cases may actually lead to an alignment shift as they go from "wont harm an innocent" to will, just because theyre a d-bee and its orders/pressured by society

[Axelmania]

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.

You have things mixed up AGAIN.

Letting someone go is NOT the same as."helping" them.

Unlocking handcuffs or cell door, sure, THAT might be help. Even then not a guarantee. Not help if you need the cuffs or cell for another prisoner.

Choosing not to give chase or to shoot them if they are fleeing? NOT HELP. That would be a lesser charge. Derilection and so forth, but not a death offense.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.

There are no such orders and no such penalty. You manufactured this by conflating two entirely separate things. Helping an escape and not impeding an escape are not the same thing.

That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

Cool fanfic bro.

[Killer Cyborg]

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?

That the CS considers mages, D-Bees, and so forth to be "The Enemy."
This is not the same as (and is generally contradictory to) the CS considering them to be "innocents."

That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.

No.
The CS does not consider them to be innocent--hence the orders.
Individual CS Soliders might believe individuals to be innocent, and their belief might contradict the believe of The CS, but that does not change the view of the CS overall.

The Coalition still considers D-Bees, Mages, et al, to not be innocents.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence.

There may be direct orders that state that all mages and D-Bees without exception are to be killed.
This is not the same as there being a direct order that they are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence.
The difference is that the first order can (and most likely would) include a presumption of a lack of innocence. The second order would specifically include consideration for the possibility of innocence, and a specific declaration that they should be killed anyway.
Such specified consideration and declaration goes against not only what we have seen of the CS's mentality (their propaganda constantly paints non-humans and mages as being Evil Monsters, and therefore NOT innocent), it goes against the nature of military orders as we know them today.

No military on the planet that I'm aware of, for example, has ever issued orders to the effect of "Kill all enemy soldiers on sight, regardless of guilt or innocence."
Even the Nazis most likely didn't ever give orders to the effect of "Round up all the Jews, even if they're innocent," [u]because their very premise of operation was that being a Jew was itself a crime/aberration, and was contradictory to the state of being an innocent[/i].

[Killer Cyborg]

I do not buy the argument that the CS get define good and evil. We know this because otherwise Carl Prosek (and everyone else in the Megaverse) would be good because no one thinks THEY are the bad guy.

Actually, some people/creatures DO think that they're the bad-guy, and they do strive to be Evil.
BUT I agree that the Proseks are a decent example of people who most likely do not consider themselves to be Evil, but who are still listed as being Evil in alignment.

Which begs the question, "From which perspective is an alignment assigned, if not from the perspective of the person holding that alignment?"

Because the alignment system clearly establishes that innocence exists, so claims that it does not are inherently in error.

The alignment system does not define "innocent" as being any specific thing. It definitely doesn't define it as a universal trait that exists independent of the people taking action.

Consider a few scenarios that could happen in the real world:
1. A man is operating an artillery piece during a war. He is given orders to fire at specific coordinates. He is not told why, nor what he is firing at.
The rounds that he fires kill innocent people
Is this man Evil?
Why or why not?

2. A man is operating an artillery piece during a war. He is given orders to fire as specific coordinates. He is told that there are enemy soldiers there.
The rounds that he fires kill innocent civilians, as well as the soldiers.
Is this man Evil?
Why or why not?

3. A man is operating an artillery piece during a war. He is given orders to fire at specific coordinates. He is told that there are enemy civilians there who have been aiding enemy soldiers, and who are therefore also considered to be enemy soldiers.
The man fires his artillery, and kills the civilians.
Is this man Evil?
Why or why not?

4. A man is operating an artillery piece during a war. He is given orders to fire as specific coordinates. He is told that there are enemy soldiers there.
The rounds that he fires kill innocent civilians. There were no enemy soldiers present.
Is this man Evil?
Why or why not?

[Killer Cyborg]

say you meet a guy in blood drenched armor dripping with blood as he runs screaming down the road at you his eyes flashing with madness, you blow him away because he seems like a threat...now your suddenly evil because that man has never harmed another person a day in his life, in fact he is a mutant who lives on ambient PPE and has just watched his family eaten by a terrible monster he is now fleeing in fear covered in there blood.

that's the alignment system your arguing for

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

AFAIK, there are no official rules for changing alignment.
The strictest interpretation of the alignments on the books wouldn't include alignments being changed, but would instead force every character to abide by the alignment code. And not just the character, but also perhaps physics.
RAW, Principled characters will Never harm an innocent.

So in the case where a Principled character was deceived into believing that an innocent person was a guilty and active immediate threat to the Principled character's life, that Principled character could not according to RAW harm that person (assuming that we go with a strict universal standard of "innocent").
This would result in...
-the GM hijacking the PC's character, telling him, "Nope. You have no reason NOT to shoot... but you just don't shoot anyway
or
-The GM hijacking physics, telling the PC "You shot at him, and yes, you rolled a natural 20, but you miss anyway" or "You shoot him, you hit him, but your attack does not harm him."

Likewise, envision a scenario where a Principled soldier throws a grenade into a room full of enemy soldiers... and one innocent civilian that the Principled character doesn't know is there.
According to the rules, that innocent person would never be harmed by the Principled character.
In order to play the rule as written, either the Principled character would have to somehow know not to throw that grenade, or that grenade would have to miraculously not harm the innocent.

The rules of Rifts, run strictly, do not result in a reasonably playable game.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat.

Attacking or killing them might conflict with the alignment, but capturing them and turning them over to the authorities (i.e., the CS) would not.

(I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)

Was Ripley committing an Evil act in Aliens, when she slaughtered all the unhatched xenomorph eggs?

The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

Here is one of the places where the phrase "the CS" is misleading.
Members of the CS have killed an entire town (going with your claim here).
The CS as a whole has not killed an entire town.

The same is true of most modern nations: groups of their soldiers may have (in accordance with or in violation of specific orders) committed any number of heinous acts, including destroying an entire town or village.
But does that in the real-world mean that the entire nation--or the nation in general--is Evil, based on the actions of their soldiers?

(FYI, last time I brought this subject up, I was smacked down by the mods for bringing real-world politics into things, so let's avoid any specific examples of real-world cases)

[Mack]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.
That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

There's a problem with applying the quoted passages to the entire CS: it takes them out of context. The overall section they come from addresses the CS forces at the Tolkeen front, not the CS military as whole and certainly not the entire CS society. They are applicable to a time and place, but they are not universal.

[eliakon]

the CS military has standing orders to kill innocents.

Quote the CS orders that use the words "kill innocents" in it

I'm betting you can't, because the CS doesn't actually order its soldiers to kill innocent.
It orders its soldiers to kill beings that you or I might consider to be innocent, but that the CS does not.
Do you understand the distinction?

you have no idea how much this post relieved me to read, really you dont

Which is almost a 100% guarentee im too involved in this topic and i came this close to giving you a hug and bawling in plantlike joy

Okay *sigh*

"Not all Coalition soldiers are combat-numbed zombies or mad dog-killers bent on genocide. Some (At least 25-30%), refraining from torture and even letting obviously innocent people go (particularly women and children). Such kindness is often done in secret."

This kindness, such as letting innocent people go is done in secret because.

"Getting caught treating a nonhuman or practitioner of magic with kindness is a serious offense."

and

Any soldier found "willfully" helping the enemy escape (even) a child is subject to court-martial. If found guilty he is branded a traitor (something that will disgrace and haunt the individuals family for generations), be stripped of his rank, and either face life in prison or, more likely, public execution as a "traitor to the Coalition states and all of humankind!"

So what does this tell us?
That there are DIRECT ORDERS that NO Dee-bee is to be shown any kindness or allowed to let go.
That letting even obviously innocent people go is a criminal offense that is punishable by death.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that means that YES there are direct orders that clearly state that all magic users and all Dee-bees, including children are to be killed regardless of guilt or innocence. Since... you know... the book tells us what the penalty for breaking said orders are.
That 70-75% of the military has no problem following said orders
Now last time I checked 70-75% of something was "the majority" I could be wrong here... but even 30% of something is not "most of" or "The majority of" or anything.

TL:DR
The majority of the CS military is willing to follow their orders to kill innocents and will not only do so but will cheerfully turn on the minority who do not and kill them for that crime.
And thus, the majority of the CS military (as of SoT 2) has either Miscreant or Diabolic Evil as their alignment.

There's a problem with applying the quoted passages to the entire CS: it takes them out of context. The overall section they come from addresses the CS forces at the Tolkeen front, not the CS military as whole and certainly not the entire CS society. They are applicable to a time and place, but they are not universal.

Not really they are not
1) I am NOT applying them to the CS society. I am applying them to the CS military
2) the passages are EXPLICITLY talking about the standing orders of the CS.
Unless someone has a citation that says that they changed the entire legal system and completely overhauled it then yes, looking at their orders is a valid way of... looking at their orders.
3) The section is NOT "just about the front". They had not a single notation that all of this applied to only some lesser subset of the soldiers

So yes, it IS fair to say "Look here is the CS standing orders. This is how the orders are carried out. This is what happens if you break those orders."
Otherwise we get back into the imaginary world of "Well the CS is all fluffy kittens, because the people who defend the CS say so, and anything bad about them doesn't really count, because it doesn't count."
When all we have to go on is what is written, then that is sort of what we have to go on.
If someone has a DIFFERENT source that they would like to share that says that this is not actually accurate... then they are welcome to do so.
But simply saying "I don't want to accept this because it makes the CS look bad" is not a valid rebuttal. Especially when people like to cite these same books for the passages that are most often quoted in the defense of the CS...
...can't have it both ways.
Either anything that is old doesn't count, or it all counts.

[Mack]

There's a problem with applying the quoted passages to the entire CS: it takes them out of context. The overall section they come from addresses the CS forces at the Tolkeen front, not the CS military as whole and certainly not the entire CS society. They are applicable to a time and place, but they are not universal.

Not really they are not
1) I am NOT applying them to the CS society. I am applying them to the CS military
2) the passages are EXPLICITLY talking about the standing orders of the CS.
Unless someone has a citation that says that they changed the entire legal system and completely overhauled it then yes, looking at their orders is a valid way of... looking at their orders.
3) The section is NOT "just about the front". They had not a single notation that all of this applied to only some lesser subset of the soldiers

For starters, the book title is Siege on Tolkeen. It inherently addresses that corner of the world.

And if we back up to page 13, we see that the following passages are expressly about the CS forces facing Tolkeen and not the entire CS military. The context is clear.

Now, the entire CS military may have similar policies, but citations other than SoT2 p13-15 are needed to confirm it.

[Note 1: I'm neither pro- or anti-CS. I'm just pointing out that this citation doesn't clarify the larger discussion.
Note 2: Also, I'm not saying that your view of the CS (or anyone else's) is right or wrong.]

[Blue_Lion]

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat. (I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)
The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

Thats a valid interpretation, i just feel like it makes more sense to have them maintain there alignment until they get a eureka! Moment or gradually change their views of d-bees, you do get examples of this, thats why coalition soldiers who go deep into the wilderness sometimes stay and go rogue.

But i also figure that such moments or realizations are the exception not the norm, or in some cases may actually lead to an alignment shift as they go from "wont harm an innocent" to will, just because theyre a d-bee and its orders/pressured by society

It is hard to tell who is innocent in the field and they are conditioned to believe they are all evil they may not give it a second thaght. That is why I think it is will not kill an unarmed foe, good will attempt to confirm the foe is armed, evil will just make an excuse that the foe could be armed to justify their actions. The CS has dog boys to detect magic and supernatural for a reason.

Remember war is where evil is easiest to spot. It is hard to see the evil of killing an entire village if you are not killing an entire village. How you act in war can go a long way to determine how you are wiling to act. A soldier unwilling to kill a child in war is clearly showing good charter, an officer that orders the death of every child would be evil. I was just fallowing orders does not clear you of an act, the evil of your enemy does not wipe away any evil you do. War is the ultimate test of charter, so while how you act in a war when you have the chance to be evil may not be the same as how you act over all it can serve for a moral guide post to judge you.

[Axelmania]

Killer Cyborg is there some text I am missing where it says CS policy is all dbees and mages are guilty?

[Killer Cyborg]

Killer Cyborg is there some text I am missing where it says CS policy is all dbees and mages are guilty?

Yes, repeatedly.

For example:

RUE 231
The soldier has been indoctrinated to believe that all non-human creatures are invaders and a threat to human life.

and

The official Coalition line on the matter is: Do not give pause in your beliefs. Unnatural invaders have the power, both psychic and magical, to cloud your mind. To listen to their words is to open oneself to evil. Stay clean, stay pure. Kill them without hesitation or remorse, knowing that your actions save the human race.

and

All soldiers are taught that magic is dangerous and evil. That it is an unpredictable and alien energy source responsible for the destruction of human civilization and many of today's problems. Since the clash with Tolkeen, a kingdom of magic, and the thousands of stories about magic and monsters coming out of the war zone, most Coalition soldiers are more convinced of magic's evil than ever before.

and

The official line is: Magic is a thing from the Rifts. Its energies are alien and corrupting. Those who are foolish enough to use it are placing all life in danger, for the energies are unstable and unpredictable. Magic attracts the supernatural. Magic is our doom. Do no trust in it or those who use it, lest you are ready to betray all you believe in.

[Axelmania]

Anything clearly absurd like "all non-human creatures" (dairy cattle! House cats! Hound dogs!) is clearly a grammatical error and should be ignored.

"Unnatural invaders" is clearly an alternative for "supernatural beings". Too many of the population are minor psychics with sense magic / sense psionics for the idea that all dbees have magic or psi to fly. I do not read this as "all dbees". Nor would it refer to all mages since human mages are treacherous natives, not invaders.

Re your last two paragraphs: Magic being perceived as an evil force does not mean you think mages as evil. "Sin not the sinner" for example.

"Foolish enough" means they are perceived as fools as an alternative to evil. So there are options.

[Killer Cyborg]

Anything clearly absurd like "all non-human creatures" (dairy cattle! House cats! Hound dogs!) is clearly a grammatical error and should be ignored.

Right.
OR maybe it just isn't meant quite as literally as you take it, and is instead to be taken in the context of "Regarding nonhuman invaders," which is the subheading that the quote falls under, and in the overall context of a world where there are non-human, non-animal creatures walking around,
and in the context of a human-supremacist nation that dislikes D-Bees, Demons, and so forth.
This isn't rocket science, and it's not computer programming.
Context.

"Unnatural invaders" is clearly an alternative for "supernatural beings".

Nope. There is a difference between "unnatural" and "supernatural."
Not sure why you're fighting so hard to keep D-Bees out of the mix.

Re your last two paragraphs: Magic being perceived as an evil force does not mean you think mages as evil. "Sin not the sinner" for example.

But it does mean that you think that mages are guilty of using this evil force.

[Nightmartree]

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat. (I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)
The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

Thats a valid interpretation, i just feel like it makes more sense to have them maintain there alignment until they get a eureka! Moment or gradually change their views of d-bees, you do get examples of this, thats why coalition soldiers who go deep into the wilderness sometimes stay and go rogue.

But i also figure that such moments or realizations are the exception not the norm, or in some cases may actually lead to an alignment shift as they go from "wont harm an innocent" to will, just because theyre a d-bee and its orders/pressured by society

It is hard to tell who is innocent in the field and they are conditioned to believe they are all evil they may not give it a second thaght. That is why I think it is will not kill an unarmed foe, good will attempt to confirm the foe is armed, evil will just make an excuse that the foe could be armed to justify their actions. The CS has dog boys to detect magic and supernatural for a reason.

Remember war is where evil is easiest to spot. It is hard to see the evil of killing an entire village if you are not killing an entire village. How you act in war can go a long way to determine how you are wiling to act. A soldier unwilling to kill a child in war is clearly showing good charter, an officer that orders the death of every child would be evil. I was just fallowing orders does not clear you of an act, the evil of your enemy does not wipe away any evil you do. War is the ultimate test of charter, so while how you act in a war when you have the chance to be evil may not be the same as how you act over all it can serve for a moral guide post to judge you.

but what do you do when a child has the power the tear apart a tank? with their mind?

[Freemage]

That is the alignment system on the books, if you do not allow for flexibility. Most GMs would in my expiernce not force you to change alignment if you attack a person you have reason to believe is guilty.

-The thing that would cause a CS grunt to take to change alignment would be unarmed foe. Burning a village full of women and children would be attacking an unarmed foe as would any time a person does not pose an obvious threat. (I do not buy the idea that every one is potential threat and fair target. A person through actions, or presence of a weapon present a threat to be considered an armed foe. So any one participating in razing/killing a village or ordering one would have to be miscreant or diabolic. (I might let a charter without world experience could be acting out of ignorance believing propaganda get a pass the first time but after the first time you would know they are not a threat.)
The fact that the CS has by the books killed every one in a town means the CS has taken actions that are miscreant or diabolic. (and why even if he believes what he says ordering the death of unarmed civilians would make the CS emperor miscreant or diabolic.

Thats a valid interpretation, i just feel like it makes more sense to have them maintain there alignment until they get a eureka! Moment or gradually change their views of d-bees, you do get examples of this, thats why coalition soldiers who go deep into the wilderness sometimes stay and go rogue.

But i also figure that such moments or realizations are the exception not the norm, or in some cases may actually lead to an alignment shift as they go from "wont harm an innocent" to will, just because theyre a d-bee and its orders/pressured by society

It is hard to tell who is innocent in the field and they are conditioned to believe they are all evil they may not give it a second thaght. That is why I think it is will not kill an unarmed foe, good will attempt to confirm the foe is armed, evil will just make an excuse that the foe could be armed to justify their actions. The CS has dog boys to detect magic and supernatural for a reason.

Remember war is where evil is easiest to spot. It is hard to see the evil of killing an entire village if you are not killing an entire village. How you act in war can go a long way to determine how you are wiling to act. A soldier unwilling to kill a child in war is clearly showing good charter, an officer that orders the death of every child would be evil. I was just fallowing orders does not clear you of an act, the evil of your enemy does not wipe away any evil you do. War is the ultimate test of charter, so while how you act in a war when you have the chance to be evil may not be the same as how you act over all it can serve for a moral guide post to judge you.

but what do you do when a child has the power the tear apart a tank? with their mind?

By this reasoning, since any child, anywhere (including, say, Karl's extended family) could have this power without anyone knowing it until it manifests, clearly the only safe option is to kill all humans.

Or you can apply reason and wisdom and effort and make the attempt to discern if a given child has such abilities before deciding to shoot them.

[Killer Cyborg]

FreeMage, you operate under the assumption that human and D-Bee life are equal.
The CS operates under the opposite assumption.
If there is a suspicious human baby, the risk of killings it is that they could be killing a precious human life.
If there's a D-Bee baby? The risk is that they unnecessarily kill a filthy invader who doesn't deserve to be on Earth in the first place.

Not all CS soldiers will see things that way, but it would be the common view of things.

[Shark_Force]

Free age, you operate under the assumption that human and D-Bee life are equal.
The CS operates under the opposite assumption.
If there is a suspicious human baby, the risk of killings it is that they could be killing a precious human life.
If there's a D-Bee baby? The risk is that they unnecessarily kill a filthy invader who doesn't deserve to be on Earth in the first place.

Not all CS soldiers will see things that way, but it would be the common view of things.

yeah, we get that.

that's what makes them evil. the fact that they're comfortable with commit murder, as long as it's someone they didn't like too much. the fact that they don't consider it to be murder doesn't make it any more good or any less evil than any other hate crime.

it isn't incomprehensible. it is very human. it isn't uncommon for people to have that sort of attitude throughout history. but it is still evil. just because lots of other people have been equally evil doesn't make it good.

[Killer Cyborg]

Free age, you operate under the assumption that human and D-Bee life are equal.
The CS operates under the opposite assumption.
If there is a suspicious human baby, the risk of killings it is that they could be killing a precious human life.
If there's a D-Bee baby? The risk is that they unnecessarily kill a filthy invader who doesn't deserve to be on Earth in the first place.

Not all CS soldiers will see things that way, but it would be the common view of things.

yeah, we get that.

that's what makes them evil. the fact that they're comfortable with commit murder, as long as it's someone they didn't like too much. the fact that they don't consider it to be murder doesn't make it any more good or any less evil than any other hate crime.

it isn't incomprehensible. it is very human. it isn't uncommon for people to have that sort of attitude throughout history. but it is still evil. just because lots of other people have been equally evil doesn't make it good.

It's not that they're comfortable committing murder--it's that they don't see it as murder.
They see it as necessary extermination of sub-human invaders.

Yes, humans in the real world behave this way toward other humans, and it is certainly horrific, but if the person committing such deeds truly believes that they are doing Good, are they still evil?
Are they as evil as a person who understands exactly what they're doing, but who chooses to do it anyway?
It quickly gets into philosophy.
Which is one reason this kind of argument comes up so often--philosophical differences.

Another reason is rule interpretation:
Imagine for a moment a CS true-believer who always behaves in strictest accordance with the guidelines for a Principled character when dealing with humans, but treats D-Bees as invading animals that need to be exterminated.
Which Palladium alignment would best fit that character, and why?

[Freemage]

Killer Cyborg: If the term 'evil' is to have any meaning in the world at all, I'd say that yes, they are committing evil acts. Sloth is one of the Seven Deadlies for a reason, and being unwilling to examine your beliefs and actually compare them to evidence available is very much a case of moral, ethical and intellectual sloth.

There was a time in history (and it still exists in many parts of the world today) that taught that women weren't real people--they were property, to be used by their owner (their father, first, then their husband) as the owner sees fit, and crimes against women were only seen as wrong if they involved some other man's property. Those views? Utterly evil, and those who committed rape and murder under those rules were committing evil deeds.

[Killer Cyborg]

Killer Cyborg: If the term 'evil' is to have any meaning in the world at all, I'd say that yes, they are committing evil acts. Sloth is one of the Seven Deadlies for a reason, and being unwilling to examine your beliefs and actually compare them to evidence available is very much a case of moral, ethical and intellectual sloth.

This is very much my own philosophy in the real-world; people should constantly examine and re-examine their motives, their actions, and the consequences for their actions.
What I'm not so sure about is where to draw the line between "one who commits evil acts," and "one who IS evil."
In the game setting of Rifts Earth, I'd give a pass to quite a few members of the Coalition, simply because they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated, and in such a way that their beliefs are going to be reinforced by much of what they see outside of the Coalition cities.

There was a time in history (and it still exists in many parts of the world today) that taught that women weren't real people--they were property, to be used by their owner (their father, first, then their husband) as the owner sees fit, and crimes against women were only seen as wrong if they involved some other man's property. Those views? Utterly evil, and those who committed rape and murder under those rules were committing evil deeds.

Agreed.
But if by that standard everybody who held those beliefs were of Evil alignment, then that means that many or most cultures through the majority of Earth's history were Evil.

[Shark_Force]

Free age, you operate under the assumption that human and D-Bee life are equal.
The CS operates under the opposite assumption.
If there is a suspicious human baby, the risk of killings it is that they could be killing a precious human life.
If there's a D-Bee baby? The risk is that they unnecessarily kill a filthy invader who doesn't deserve to be on Earth in the first place.

Not all CS soldiers will see things that way, but it would be the common view of things.

yeah, we get that.

that's what makes them evil. the fact that they're comfortable with commit murder, as long as it's someone they didn't like too much. the fact that they don't consider it to be murder doesn't make it any more good or any less evil than any other hate crime.

it isn't incomprehensible. it is very human. it isn't uncommon for people to have that sort of attitude throughout history. but it is still evil. just because lots of other people have been equally evil doesn't make it good.

It's not that they're comfortable committing murder--it's that they don't see it as murder.
They see it as necessary extermination of sub-human invaders.

Yes, humans in the real world behave this way toward other humans, and it is certainly horrific, but if the person committing such deeds truly believes that they are doing Good, are they still evil?
Are they as evil as a person who understands exactly what they're doing, but who chooses to do it anyway?
It quickly gets into philosophy.
Which is one reason this kind of argument comes up so often--philosophical differences.

Another reason is rule interpretation:
Imagine for a moment a CS true-believer who always behaves in strictest accordance with the guidelines for a Principled character when dealing with humans, but treats D-Bees as invading animals that need to be exterminated.
Which Palladium alignment would best fit that character, and why?

i honestly don't care if they see it as murder or not. it's still murder, and it's still wrong. the fact that someone refuses to acknowledge that they are doing evil things does not excuse them from doing evil things. if you or i or anyone else around us (or anyone not around us) perceive african americans, or women, or homosexuals, or muslims, or irish people, or buddhists, or tibetans, or chinese, or communists, or anarchists, or whoever else to be subhumans in need of extermination, it is still evil for you or me or anyone else to desire to exterminate those people. even if we've lied to ourselves and accepted obviously false evidence to be true in pursuit of those lies, it is still evil.

and yes, that does mean that many cultures in RL history were pretty evil. like i said, the CS is a *very* believable sort of evil. i don't have to look far to see that kind of culture. i don't even have to look backwards in time. there are plenty of hate crimes committed today, in the real world, and those are evil too. the CS has been compared to the nazis, but the sad truth is that we don't really need to look back to world war II to find people who you could compare the CS to right now.

[Killer Cyborg]

Free age, you operate under the assumption that human and D-Bee life are equal.
The CS operates under the opposite assumption.
If there is a suspicious human baby, the risk of killings it is that they could be killing a precious human life.
If there's a D-Bee baby? The risk is that they unnecessarily kill a filthy invader who doesn't deserve to be on Earth in the first place.

Not all CS soldiers will see things that way, but it would be the common view of things.

yeah, we get that.

that's what makes them evil. the fact that they're comfortable with commit murder, as long as it's someone they didn't like too much. the fact that they don't consider it to be murder doesn't make it any more good or any less evil than any other hate crime.

it isn't incomprehensible. it is very human. it isn't uncommon for people to have that sort of attitude throughout history. but it is still evil. just because lots of other people have been equally evil doesn't make it good.

It's not that they're comfortable committing murder--it's that they don't see it as murder.
They see it as necessary extermination of sub-human invaders.

Yes, humans in the real world behave this way toward other humans, and it is certainly horrific, but if the person committing such deeds truly believes that they are doing Good, are they still evil?
Are they as evil as a person who understands exactly what they're doing, but who chooses to do it anyway?
It quickly gets into philosophy.
Which is one reason this kind of argument comes up so often--philosophical differences.

Another reason is rule interpretation:
Imagine for a moment a CS true-believer who always behaves in strictest accordance with the guidelines for a Principled character when dealing with humans, but treats D-Bees as invading animals that need to be exterminated.
Which Palladium alignment would best fit that character, and why?

i honestly don't care if they see it as murder or not. it's still murder, and it's still wrong.

the fact that someone refuses to acknowledge that they are doing evil things does not excuse them from doing evil things. if you or i or anyone else around us (or anyone not around us) perceive african americans, or women, or homosexuals, or muslims, or irish people, or buddhists, or tibetans, or chinese, or communists, or anarchists, or whoever else to be subhumans in need of extermination, it is still evil for you or me or anyone else to desire to exterminate those people. even if we've lied to ourselves and accepted obviously false evidence to be true in pursuit of those lies, it is still evil.

Notice the qualifiers you have there.
What about without them?
What about people who are honest with themselves, and have accepted evidence that might be false, but that isn't obviously false?

and yes, that does mean that many cultures in RL history were pretty evil.

Not just many--most.
It wasn't until after the founding of America, for example, that the world as a whole decided that human slavery was wrong.

like i said, the CS is a *very* believable sort of evil. i don't have to look far to see that kind of culture. i don't even have to look backwards in time. there are plenty of hate crimes committed today, in the real world, and those are evil too. the CS has been compared to the nazis, but the sad truth is that we don't really need to look back to world war II to find people who you could compare the CS to right now.

Agreed.
The main difference is that the CS is actually regularly dealing with actual child-eating monsters who really do want to destroy them and rule the world.
In my book, that can muddy the waters when it comes to them legitimately buying into CS propaganda.
But we should probably keep any discussions that include comparisons to real-world, modern nations/cultures/etc. to PMs, in order to avoid Mod Wrath.

[Mack]

"Mod Wrath" -- ought to be the name of a band.

[Axelmania]

OR maybe it just isn't meant quite as literally as you take it, and is instead to be taken in the context of "Regarding nonhuman invaders," which is the subheading that the quote falls under, and in the overall context of a world where there are non-human, non-animal creatures walking around,

Cool fan theory, but we can speculate to infinity about what the author meant. If we cannot take it literally it is useless. Source on which dbees are not animals? Most are not living plants.

Nope. There is a difference between "unnatural" and "supernatural."
Not sure why you're fighting so hard to keep D-Bees out of the mix.

Show me an example of where unnatural / supernatural are clearly used to mean different things in Palladium. They are synonyms to me.

Why are you fighting so hard to imply the CS cannot discern between Balrog and Orcs?

But it does mean that you think that mages are guilty of using this evil force.

Nope, could be the force using them.

You are veering away from official policy into personal feels.

[Shark_Force]

we deal with criminals that want to steal stuff on a regular basis. is it rational to assume that everyone is such a person on sight, and subject every person we meet to the full punishment as if they were guilty of the crime of theft?

and yes, the evidence is obviously fake. enough of them interact with d-bees that are not trying to murder them or take over the world, and there are d-bees available to interact with in the 'burbs, to prove that not every d-bee is a child-eating monster bent on world domination. when you gun down a village full of d-bees and find that most of them are unarmed civilians, you have obvious counter-evidence to the claim that all d-bees are child-eating monsters bent on world domination. there are an abundance of minor and major psychics, all clearly marked, in the CS, for anyone who cares enough to interact with them to determine if they're all dangerous. if you examine most of the claims the CS makes, it's pretty easy to find evidence that the truth is not the same as their claims. i mean, i suppose they don't have easy access to magic users to check if they're all corrupted by their study of magic. but when the CS is making blatantly false claims that are easily verifiable, to the point where most people probably have verifiable evidence of their falsehood just as a result of living their daily lives for the past X years if they bothered to ask themselves any questions based on their life experience... i'm gonna have to say that people are, indeed, accepting obviously false evidence when they accept what the CS claims at face value, because at best, you're looking at a source which you can pretty easily prove to be inaccurate on many of its claims, and that should immediately put all of their other claims in question as well because they are not a reliable source at that point.

now, not everyone does that in real life by a long shot, so again... totally believable that the CS is the way it is. i'll never argue that a nation mostly full of prejudiced hateful people is unrealistic. but asking me to accept that such a nation is even remotely good on the whole? yeah, that ain't happening.

[Killer Cyborg]

OR maybe it just isn't meant quite as literally as you take it, and is instead to be taken in the context of "Regarding nonhuman invaders," which is the subheading that the quote falls under, and in the overall context of a world where there are non-human, non-animal creatures walking around,

Cool fan theory, but we can speculate to infinity about what the author meant. If we cannot take it literally it is useless.

So when you say "cool fan theory," you mean "low-temperature apparatus with rotating blades that creates a current of air for cooling or ventilation theory."
Sorry... even taken literally, that's still a useless comment.

Nope. There is a difference between "unnatural" and "supernatural."
Not sure why you're fighting so hard to keep D-Bees out of the mix.

Show me an example of where unnatural / supernatural are clearly used to mean different things in Palladium. They are synonyms to me.

Show me a source that you are Palladium.

Why are you fighting so hard to imply the CS cannot discern between Balrog and Orcs?

Pick a claim that I've made, and I'll defend it.
Make up stuff on your own, and I'm not going to bother.

But it does mean that you think that mages are guilty of using this evil force.

Nope, could be the force using them.

I've already provided you the quote that shoots down that notion as a CS default.
Reread the quotes.

[Killer Cyborg]

we deal with criminals that want to steal stuff on a regular basis. is it rational to assume that everyone is such a person on sight, and subject every person we meet to the full punishment as if they were guilty of the crime of theft?

Nope.
But if you're under attack by monsters and mages, time and again, it's kinda understandable if they all blur together.
Especially if you've been raised in a nation that constantly tells you that they are in fact all the same.

and yes, the evidence is obviously fake.

Nope.

enough of them interact with d-bees that are not trying to murder them or take over the world,

Enough of them for what...?
For them to try to spread the word to their fellow soldiers that some D-Bees are good guys?
Sure. What could go wrong?

There are some CS soldiers who interact with D-Bees on that level.
Some of those CS soldiers become sympathetic with the D-Bees.
Some of those who interact with D-Bees do not, whether out of caution or out of actually being corrupt and evil.

But CS soldiers are frequently killed by non-humans and mages.
I don't think that "some of them aren't actively trying to kill us" would necessarily outweigh "I've lost a lot of good friends to inhuman attacks."
Look at it like an old Western: sure, there are some trackers and woodsmen who can tell the Indian tribes apart, and who know enough of their customs and such to know which are dangerous, and when... but that's a minority.
Only crank that up a bunch of notches, because instead of dealing with other humans, the CS is dealing with a roughly USA-sized Mos Eisley.

and there are d-bees available to interact with in the 'burbs, to prove that not every d-bee is a child-eating monster bent on world domination.

Are there?
It's hard to disprove the idea that you're secretly an evil monster.
Again, sure... some CS soldiers & citizens will learn this. But they're going to be a small minority.
For most, trusting a D-Bee means that you're probably under mind control, and need to kill it.

when you gun down a village full of d-bees and find that most of them are unarmed civilians

"Arms" in Rifts include unseen powers.
Unless you can dissect the corpses (or what's left of them), and cut open the brain to make sure that they didn't have any psychic powers, and find some way to make sure that they didn't have any magic powers, you can't know that they were unarmed.
And you've been told all your life that they are in fact armed.

there are an abundance of minor and major psychics, all clearly marked, in the CS, for anyone who cares enough to interact with them to determine if they're all dangerous.

The CS doesn't exterminate psychics the way they do mages and non-humans.

now, not everyone does that in real life by a long shot, so again... totally believable that the CS is the way it is. i'll never argue that a nation mostly full of prejudiced hateful people is unrealistic. but asking me to accept that such a nation is even remotely good on the whole? yeah, that ain't happening.

Care to answer my previous question about the hypothetical CS soldier's alignment?

[dreicunan]

"Arms" in Rifts include unseen powers.
Unless you can dissect the corpses (or what's left of them), and cut open the brain to make sure that they didn't have any psychic powers, and find some way to make sure that they didn't have any magic powers, you can't know that they were unarmed.
And you've been told all your life that they are in fact armed.

That is a rather good point. It is similar to the difficulty of determining who is "unarmed" in a world filled with superheroes.

[Shark_Force]

again, i'm not disputing that it will be common for CS soldiers to not choose to make the effort to find out the truth for themselves, or to even consider the questions.

i'm simply disputing this moronic notion that "common" somehow must mean "not evil". that because something is done by many people, it must somehow stop being evil and become good, as if good and evil were somehow the same thing as socially acceptable and not socially acceptable.

it was no less evil for a person to treat another person as a piece of property before the constitution was ammended following the civil war in the united states than after. the fact that it was socially acceptable to do so before that time is not relevant to the question of it being morally correct (and frankly, for many people only the legality changed, not the socially acceptable nature of it, after the slaves were declared free; changing the law didn't really accomplish much in making people change their opinions).

the question of whether or not something is common is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is evil. it is, in fact, a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. if you want to prove that the CS is not evil, you're going to need to find an argument with an actual solid basis, not some moronic nonsense about how many people believe something.

and i'd say the hypothetical CS soldier's alignment is the lower of the two. principled is quite clear: you cannot attack or kill unarmed foes and be principled. note that this is dictating how you treat your enemies, not just people you like. principled requires that you never harm an innocent. there is no disclaimer of "unless you just can't be bothered to think for yourself" anywhere there. most people like that will most likely fall somewhat closest to aberrant, in that their personal code forbids them from doing certain things to humans, for example. now, you might make a mistake once, but, and this is crucial, if you just shrug it off and don't care? well, you just accepted killing an innocent unarmed foe as something you would do, and are now no longer principled.

on to other things: the notion that the CS is under constant siege in any remotely meaningful way by monsters and mages is hysterically absurd. they arguably experienced that when they decided to go get their murder on and slaughter every living being in tolkeen, but only the ones who were actually in tolkeen trying to actively murder people experienced that, and it's asinine to accuse anyone of attacking when they're trying to defend themselves. furthermore, the siege on tolkeen made extremely clear what "constant siege by monsters and mages" would look like, and it sure as hell isn't anything like the CS experienced *anywhere* else, the books are quite clear on that. just another easily proven lie if anyone cares enough to actually ask the questions and examine the evidence.

there are enough d-bees in CS territory (primarily in the 'burbs) for any soldier to find out the truth for themselves about d-bees. no need for involving other soldiers. if they care enough to ask, they have the resources to get answers. that they choose not to use those resources, or don't care enough to ask the questions, does not exempt them from being morally responsible for their decisions.

"arms" in rifts still includes the ability to fight. if they just died without being able to fight back, and you think they were just trying to fool you into thinking you brutally murdered them instead of the vastly more plausible interpretation that you *actually* just brutally murdered them, then you either must have some kind of mental disability, or you're lying to yourself instead of trying to take any moral responsibility for your actions, which pretty much removes any chance that you're going to be a good person. you don't become good by just assuming that doing whatever you want is morally correct. before you slaughtered them? you might have not been sure? afterwards? well, people complain about treating the CS like they're a bunch of evil robots, maybe that's because any defense of them on a moral level pretty much requires them to be evil robots. if they're thinking human beings, then they're evil, because they make evil decisions and don't care.

and yes, i know the CS doesn't eliminate psychics. they do persecute them and are heavily prejudiced though, and it is a simple thing to find a psychic and get to know them. frankly, given the rate of psionic powers, it is highly probable that you know dozens of psychics from when you were growing up. you don't even have to go out of your way to get to know them. again, this is the kind of thing where you can trivially find out for yourself whether someone deserves your hatred and contempt, IF YOU CARE ENOUGH TO DO SO. if you don't care enough to do so, and you're comfortable with committing hate crimes to a point where you never even honestly ask yourself if what you're doing is the right thing, then you are evil.

[Axelmania]

KC to reframe this, please support your theory that "unnatural" is used by the CS to refer to all D-Bees. I think the term makes more sense referring to CoM/supernaturals.

You are not Palladium either so nobody has grounds to interpret "all non-humans" stuff unless there is a clear context like discussing "humanoids" or "sentients" or "people".

[dreicunan]

i'm simply disputing this moronic notion that "common" somehow must mean "not evil". that because something is done by many people, it must somehow stop being evil and become good, as if good and evil were somehow the same thing as socially acceptable and not socially acceptable.

Well, "moronic" if you ignore the etymology of the word "moral," given that the Latin root "mos" did express what was common in an age, and if you ignore major currents in the history of philosophical thought about just what "good" and "evil" are. (Keep in mind I do think that "good" and "evil" are defined in far more absolute terms than that, but I'm not going to claim that it is "moronic" to believe otherwise; I'd actually say that to do so would be a rather evil act.) In Rifts and most (if not all) other Palladium games, of course, the alignments would provide the definition of morality.

on to other things: the notion that the CS is under constant siege in any remotely meaningful way by monsters and mages is hysterically absurd. they arguably experienced that when they decided to go get their murder on and slaughter every living being in tolkeen, but only the ones who were actually in tolkeen trying to actively murder people experienced that, and it's asinine to accuse anyone of attacking when they're trying to defend themselves. furthermore, the siege on tolkeen made extremely clear what "constant siege by monsters and mages" would look like, and it sure as hell isn't anything like the CS experienced *anywhere* else, the books are quite clear on that. just another easily proven lie if anyone cares enough to actually ask the questions and examine the evidence.

Then I guess Kevin S was lying when he wrote that "the vast majority of Coalition citizens have experienced the painful scorch of magic first-hand" (Sedition, page 13, paragraph 1, which is describing the state of things prior to the Siege of Tolkeen). Examining the evidence in that section of Sedition leads to the inescapable conclusion that the CS has been under constant attack (not a siege, perhaps, but then you likely weren't using the word literally since Tolkeen never actually besieged the CS in a strict sense either) by monsters and mages for a very long time. Since Kevin S is the one who gets to decide what is canonical for Rifts, evidence indicates that the hysterically absurd position would be to claim that the CS has NOT experienced attacks with a sufficient frequency to result in "the vast majority of Coalition citizens" having experienced "the painful scorch of magic first-hand."

"arms" in rifts still includes the ability to fight. if they just died without being able to fight back, and you think they were just trying to fool you into thinking you brutally murdered them instead of the vastly more plausible interpretation that you *actually* just brutally murdered them, then you either must have some kind of mental disability, or you're lying to yourself instead of trying to take any moral responsibility for your actions, which pretty much removes any chance that you're going to be a good person. you don't become good by just assuming that doing whatever you want is morally correct. before you slaughtered them? you might have not been sure? afterwards? well, people complain about treating the CS like they're a bunch of evil robots, maybe that's because any defense of them on a moral level pretty much requires them to be evil robots. if they're thinking human beings, then they're evil, because they make evil decisions and don't care.

That would be situation dependent. If you get the drop on someone you believe to be an "armed" enemy and slay them before they have a chance to fight back, are you evil? Principled alignment says that they won't engage in "unprovoked assaults," but says nothing about never ambushing an opponent, and Scrupulous doesn't even forbid an unprovoked assault. (Although in theory Scrupulous characters have to always attempt to bring the villain in alive (Principled characters, however, do not), I think most would agree that this would not apply in a military situation; if it did, Scrupulous characters would basically be unable to serve in a military setting.) If your commanding officer orders you to torch a village and slay all inhabitants before the magic users can unleash some ritual, and you torch the village and slay all inhabitants before that happens, are you good or evil if intelligence reports claimed that they could, and were right? If they claimed that they could and were wrong? If your commanding officer made an assumption based on personal knowledge of the area? As Kevin S asks on page 13 of Sedition, "Is that really a farmer in the distance or a mage who commands the forces of nature or the ability to raise an army of animated dead? Could that child picking flowers really be a metamorphed dragon? Does one wait until an individual reveals himself as a sorcerer, or does a soldier shoot first and ask questions later?"

One could add, "Is that child a human who just happens to already be a ley line walker?" Given that Alistair Dunscon was 4th level by the age of 12, he was lower levels at an even younger age. At 13 he managed to take Cincinnati, Ohio and hold the site for a while before being driven off. Given the writing on page 28 of Federation of Magic , it would not be unreasonable to conclude that this was by Joseph Prosek's forces during the Bloody Campaign. Even if it wasn't, it would seem extremely unlikely that the state of Chi-town was somehow unaware of Alistair's magical prowess at such a young age. How many of other examples of young prowess with magic (or the use of magic to make someone appear to be a child) before CS training would include warnings about that?

All of that means that the issue of shooting a child automatically meaning that you have slain an innocent gets much muddier in Rifts than it would be in other settings. I suspect this is exactly what Kevin S wanted to be the case.

[Freemage]

The problem there is that if one is to take the simultaneous tacks that:

1: Supernatural powers are too dangerous to be permitted;

2: Supernatural powers can be in anyone, since dragons can metamorph and children can become wizards and mind-melters;

You are once again left with the inescapable conclusion that the only way to 'save the planet from magic' is to destroy everyone on it, including all the humans.

If the farmer in the field can be a wizard, and the child picking flowers a transformed dragon, then Joseph II's first-born could be a mind-melter, and Jo-Anna could have become a Ley Line Walker (or been substituted by a metamorphic monster) during her captivity.

[Axelmania]

"Can be" is not "are", so they don't need to cleanse the planet. Having to snipe the child is clearly a warzone thing done when they have killed off any dog boys / psi stalkers (both are assassinated preferentially by Tolkeen) to tell you otherwise.

Ie it is actually Tolkeen's fault. They want to have their terrorists hiding amongst children. If you saved stalkers/hounds til last enough would be around to tell the CS who lacks powers and can be let go.

> Scrupulous characters have to always attempt to bring the villain in alive (Principled characters, however, do not),

I didn't notice that, neat.

[Killer Cyborg]

KC to reframe this, please support your theory that "unnatural" is used by the CS to refer to all D-Bees.

Already have.
If you want more, read the books.

You are not Palladium either

But I am taking the passage in context, and I already quoted the context to you:
Regarding nonhuman invaders. The soldier has been indoctrinated to believe that all non-human creatures are invaders and a threat to human life. Even the most open-minded character will find it difficult to trust D-Bees or those who oppose the CS...

You can pretend that "all non-human creatures" means "all animals."
You can pretend that the following passage that refers to "unnatural invaders" refers only to supernatural creatures instead of the D-Bees already mentioned, and the larger context of "all non-human creatures," but it'll just be pretend--make believe.
It won't be anything real, just a bizarre fancy that you've invented.
It's not how the English language actually works.

[Killer Cyborg]

again, i'm not disputing that it will be common for CS soldiers to not choose to make the effort to find out the truth for themselves, or to even consider the questions.

Understood. The disagreement is about how much effort it would take to discover the truth, and how much actual choice is involved.
From the CS point of view, the whole "D-Bees are actually pretty cool" is going to look like a treasonous version of Flat Earth theory, and most people aren't going to waste much time on it because it'll seem like nonsense.

i'm simply disputing this moronic notion that "common" somehow must mean "not evil".

Good thing I haven't made that argument, then.

it was no less evil for a person to treat another person as a piece of property before the constitution was ammended following the civil war in the united states than after.

I'm not talking about laws; I'm talking about global social understandings.
Slavery predates Columbus; he just boosted the scale.
Slavery is something that existed to varying extents for pretty much as long as humanity has. Longer, really, if ants predate humans.
I personally find any standard that puts categorizes the majority of humans for the majority of human history as "Evil" as being a bit too severe for me to agree with. I feel that it waters down the word to near meaningless, because for all we know, it applies to everybody today as well--we just don't understand what great Evil act we're committing that's perfectly socially acceptable today.

and i'd say the hypothetical CS soldier's alignment is the lower of the two. principled is quite clear: you cannot attack or kill unarmed foes and be principled. note that this is dictating how you treat your enemies, not just people you like.

Okay, so what alignment would you assign to such a character?

principled requires that you never harm an innocent. there is no disclaimer of "unless you just can't be bothered to think for yourself" anywhere there. most people like that will most likely fall somewhat closest to aberrant, in that their personal code forbids them from doing certain things to humans, for example. now, you might make a mistake once, but, and this is crucial, if you just shrug it off and don't care? well, you just accepted killing an innocent unarmed foe as something you would do, and are now no longer principled.

There is no disclaimer of "you can make a mistake once."
There is no disclaimer, period.
Yet the ways which a character might "harm an innocent" are incredibly numerous, even for people with the best of intentions.

on to other things: the notion that the CS is under constant siege in any remotely meaningful way by monsters and mages is hysterically absurd.

RUE 230
They die in droves to save human lives and won't hesitate to risk their own lives to save an innocent farmer or child from the clutches of an evil monster or wicked D-Bee.

The CS territory is vast, and they defend the borders as well as the interior. They patrol Old Chicago and other places where monsters pop out. They send patrols across the globe, and they clash with any number of factions.
They breed and recruit faster than they die, but that doesn't mean that they don't die.

there are enough d-bees in CS territory (primarily in the 'burbs) for any soldier to find out the truth for themselves about d-bees. no need for involving other soldiers. if they care enough to ask, they have the resources to get answers. that they choose not to use those resources, or don't care enough to ask the questions, does not exempt them from being morally responsible for their decisions.

Oh, sure.
Like people who grow up immersed in countless horror stories of demons will reasonably think it's a good idea to hang out with one and get to know one.
Like for people who think that The Exorcist is a documentary, the average rational person would want to get out a Ouija board and have a little chat, just to get the other side of the story.
What could go wrong?

You're talking about a world in which demons are real, where there actually are evil shapeshifting races that want to eat human flesh or souls, where mind control is an actual and not too uncommon thing, and you expect people to stop and chat with the people they've been indoctrinated to believe are the enemy.
Sure, why NOT look into the vampire's eyes.
What could go wrong?

"arms" in rifts still includes the ability to fight. if they just died without being able to fight back,

I'm not sure what made-up scenario you're envisioning here, so I can't really address it all that much.
But I can point out that "they died without being able to fight back" and "you overwhelmed them with superior firepower and the element of surprise before they could effectively retaliate" can be the same thing, or at least can look like the same thing.

well, people complain about treating the CS like they're a bunch of evil robots, maybe that's because any defense of them on a moral level pretty much requires them to be evil robots. if they're thinking human beings, then they're evil, because they make evil decisions and don't care.

Again, that depends on how you define "Evil."
By Kantian standards, where the person's will is more important than their results, many CS soldiers don't make evil decisions.

More importantly, "CS Soldiers could easily break out of their lifetime of indoctrination if they were thinking human beings" is the main issue of debate at this point, so repeating arguments that hinge on that claim being true don't really advance the discussion.

and yes, i know the CS doesn't eliminate psychics. they do persecute them and are heavily prejudiced though, and it is a simple thing to find a psychic and get to know them.

Call me prejudiced, but in the real world I wouldn't hang out with anybody who could mind-control me on a whim.
Probably wouldn't hang out with telepaths either.
Not all psychics can do that, so IF I knew exactly what powers a psychic did or did not have, then sure... I might.
But I'm not sure what you'd expect me to find out by talking to a psychic.

frankly, given the rate of psionic powers, it is highly probable that you know dozens of psychics from when you were growing up.

I don't know about "dozens," but yeah, some.