Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
If you prefer that, your call. I just think that it's a rather unrealistic and biased view on the setting. I like to feel the world as being "alive" and having an existence of its own rather than just rotating around the big damn heroes™ all the time, with tricks like obscuring the TIE pilots' faces with a full helmet just like in WW2 movies, where all Axis pilots were wearing air masks to dehumanise them, whereas the Allies didn't. Meh.
I for one find it far more interesting to play a character blinded by propaganda like most Imperials, and/or walking the morally grey line with stuff like "evil deeds in the name of the greater good" a la Scarlet Crusade.
"The officer in command is the worst sort of Imperial - the one who actually believes that they're doing the right thing." -- from a Republic mission briefing in TOR
I can do actual villains too (had a lot of fun playing a drow once), and certainly the Empire offers ample opportunity for this as well. But at the end of the day, normal human beings can be "evil" enough just by being humans and thus prone to emotions such as pride, arrogance, disgust, jealousy, vengeance, ... There's really no need to demonise them "just because", without even a motif and turning them into cliché bad dudes who kick little puppies and steal a baby's lolly to stress that they are oh-so-evil.
To me, playing an Imperial doesn't mean going around terrorising people because it's fun. It means enforcing the Emperor's vision of galactic peace with a blaster.
The difference is subtle, but important.
Oh, and of course you can also play a sadist who actually enjoys terrorising people. Just like you can play the noble who thinks about maybe defecting because his conscience bothers him. That's the whole idea - giving characters more of a persona rather than just "rawr I'm a bad dude!". At the end of the day, an Imperial officer is a human being with hobbies, fears, dreams, pastimes, and possibly a family. Doesn't necessarily make them better people, but it makes them people, not just clichés.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/29 22:09:26
Who do you envision as the agent of demonization here? Are you really saying that the Empire being evil is a matter of my preference or perspective? The Empire is an organization of pallid, backstabbing bureaucrats and cowardly thugs. Vader and Palaptine aside, it embodies the banal sort of evil Hannah Arendt talked about in reaction to Adolf Eichmann's trial -- no faceless thieves of babies' candy but, in contrast to the mookish Stormtrooper, clean-shaven white men with the ordinary faces of middle-class sobriety. Lucas's vision of the Empire is explicitly connected to Third Reich-style everyday evil. I find the desire to rehabilitate these obviously bad men, just like talk about the Wehrmacht in contrast to the SS or one SS division in contrast to another, to be morally repugnant. You yourself brought up how many rebels defected from the Empire -- can't you see the point of that story-wise? Good people, even if they are rather naive, simply cannot tolerate being part of the Empire.
I've also played Imperial characters, back in WEG's d6 game. In fact, my group in those days ONLY played Imperial characters. It could be fun when we were agents of evil operating on the periphery of the monolithic bureaucracy. And in those instances we played villains -- at the best of times, villains who were tortured and full of doubt, yes, but villains nonetheless. But when we tried playing the "Good Nazi" Imperial officers ... well, it just ends up being a "the Nazis would've been okay without Hitler" sort of thing. So I think you could have fun playing low-level Imperials in a in media res combat situation but it would be hard to see any characters who were truly good not going over to the Alliance. For the sake of not roleplaying endless filings of operations reports and jackboot shining, I'd hope that the bad characters were Force-sensitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah, the Relentless -- that is the absolute epitome of what I am talking about when it comes to "Thrawn Syndrome" (outside of Grand Admiral Perfect himself).
Is all that *chzzp* You are go, roger. *chzzrp* military procedural stuff really fun for you in RPGs? To me, it would about as interesting as roleplaying an interaction with my microwave.
A: How'd your game session go last night? B: It went late, we deployed to a planet where the Rebels were hiding out. A: Awesome, did you guys kill those Rebel scum? B: I said we deployed. We might get to fighting next week. A: Wow, that's long winded. B: I know, but then the week after is when we finally get to draft our mission debriefings! A: Er ...
Having Optimus Prime narrate was a brilliant propagandist touch that Goebbels himself could be proud of.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/29 22:35:53
Manchu wrote:Are you really saying that the Empire being evil is a matter of my preference or perspective?
No, but every single Imperial supposedly being evil obviously is.
Manchu wrote:You yourself brought up how many rebels defected from the Empire -- can't you see the point of that story-wise? Good people, even if they are rather naive, simply cannot tolerate being part of the Empire.
Can't you see the point of that? This means that "good people" can get caught up in the Empire's military machinery, and just like not even the Nazis were all about killing innocent people 24/7 everywhere, the Empire too can actually maintain the facade of being a harsh but benevolent government (a direction it actually develops towards after less corrupt people take over leadership), simply by not exposing all its people to the full scale of atrocities committed in its name. This is the power of propaganda, and the answer to how so many people can blindly follow a vision like that - both for the Star Wars setting as well as in our real world.
The way you sound like it's as if people are putting on the uniform and immediately realise what they signed up for, instantly being forced to decide between their conscience or their oaths. This is not how reality works.
Manchu wrote:I find the desire to rehabilitate these obviously bad men, just like talk about the Wehrmacht in contrast to the SS or one SS division in contrast to another, to be morally repugnant.
It is equally repugnant to judge people not by their actions (or lack of action) but by their nationality. When you say "obviously bad men" and apply it to every single person in the Imperial military, or the German Wehrmacht, you are going the easy way and throw people into premade categories without actually looking at them as persons.
I too am very critical of the current trend to just differentiate the Wehrmacht from the SS, because the Wehrmacht has been engaged in numerous atrocities as well. That still doesn't mean every single soldier did, though. It taints the faction as an entity, but you can still have good people working for an evil regime, just like you can have evil people work for a good regime. How do you think the US military is currently portrayed in various Arab countries, especially after certain incidents like murder, rape and torture? Does that mean any US soldier is like the guys who committed these acts? Real life simply isn't as easy as that. You can perfectly have an RPG where things just are that easy, but they don't have to be. Numerous novels, comics and even computer games about "moderate" Imperials are proof that you can tell a good story that fits into the setting without any cliché bad dudes just so that the players can feel "more good". I guess that for some it may be important that their characters are the good guys rather than just pursueing a different agenda - like in, y'know, the majority of modern day conflicts. Human history is rarely as easy as "good vs evil", and even the WW2 Allies committed their share of atrocities, or gave immunity to those who did.
Manchu wrote:Having Optimus Prime narrate was a brilliant propagandist touch that Goebbels himself could be proud of.
Dude. Really now...?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/29 22:41:04
H.B.M.C. wrote:None of you ever played TIE Fighter?
That's exactly what I was thinking of as I typed "computer games" in that list about products with moderate Imperials. One of the first PC games I purchased! It was the huge box version with 7(?) disks ... and a big manual that came with a fluffy short story about Maarek Stele, how he volunteered to join the Imperial Navy after it forcefully ended the civil war in his home system (something the Republic failed to do), and how he became a fighter pilot after only serving as a deck technician first. Good stuff.
And I still want a sequel to that game so badly ...
Manchu wrote:Are you really saying that the Empire being evil is a matter of my preference or perspective?
No, but every single Imperial supposedly being evil obviously is.
I don't think you're talking to my point. My point is the Empire is an evil thing. Cooperating with it is evil. There is no good way to be an Imperial, except maybe as a saboteur. Yes, people get sucked into the Imperial machine because it is so monolithic rather than joining because they themselves start out bad. But the good ones can't stay in. Staying in would, over time, make them evil.
Lynata wrote:the Empire too can actually maintain the facade of being a harsh but benevolent government
The Empire clearly does not exist to govern the galaxy. It takes little interest in governance aside from the exercise of power for its own sake, including the massive and inefficient exploitation of galactic resources it takes to fund that exercise of power. The Empire does nothing good for the galaxy.
Lynata wrote:The way you sound like it's as if people are putting on the uniform and immediately realise what they signed up for, instantly being forced to decide between their conscience or their oaths. This is not how reality works.
First, no one is talking about reality. We're talking about a world in which people fight with laser guns and laser swords. That's not how reality, works, either. But it's not important; the point is that we're using something that isn't real to talk about things that are real. In real life, there is no Rebel Alliance for good people to join. In Star Wars, there is -- and people who don't join it, people who go along with the Empire instead, fall into several categories: prisoners who can't leave, cowards who know they should leave but don't, petty ones who don't care as long as they're safe, and the murderous ones who love the Empire because it affords them the opportunity to bully, steal, rape, and murder. Real life is tough. "Maybe we should have stood up to the Nazis, even if they did kill us." In Star Wars, the choices are more clear. "The Empire must fall."
Lynata wrote:I too am very critical of the current trend to just differentiate the Wehrmacht from the SS, because the Wehrmacht has been engaged in numerous atrocities as well. That still doesn't mean every single soldier did, though.
Talking about the Wehrmacht, I'm not talking about every individual -- I'm talking about the Wehrmacht. You can't rehabilitate it. You can say that not every man committed atrocities but the atrocities were too frequent, too wide in scale, too readily accomplished to analyze the Wehrmacht by looking at individual soldiers. The repugnant thing is this argument that some soldiers didn't commit atrocities, therefore the Wehrmacht is good and noble but just with a few diabolical men. No -- the institution is beyond pardon, regardless of which individual participants did what. That is how the Wehrmacht is similar to the Empire. White-uniformed Thrawn cannot make the Empire a good thing. But the Wehrmacht is also different in the sense that it was a real thing and not the antogonist element of a fictional story about the struggle of good to overcome evil. The Empire is that antagonist. It is objectively evil in a way that we can never say about even the Wehrmacht. And the fictional people who go along with this fictional institution cannot help but become evil or in some other way morally debilitated themselves over time. And that is why the good guys are REBELS.
In a time where evil reigns, good must rebel.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 14:35:58
I think playing Imperials who end up being confronted by the evil of the Empire and have to decide what to do, whether to join the Rebels, or become pirates, or foment mutiny would make for a fine story, myself.
Again, it isn't what I care for, personally, in Star Wars. I want my laser sword, but I can see the appeal.
Manchu wrote:Yes, people get sucked into the Imperial machine because it is so monolithic rather than joining because they themselves start out bad. But the good ones can't stay in. Staying in would, over time, make them evil.
I'd dispute that. It really depends on what the individual gets to know and see. Hell, even if he is a witness (or even a semi-willing participant) to an atrocity, he could still believe that it's not the Empire's fault but that of a corrupt superior, or even believe that this is still better than the alternative of anarchy. There are rebels who blow up hospitals, how do you think their underlings would feel?
Manchu wrote:The Empire clearly does not exist to govern the galaxy. It takes little interest in governance aside from the exercise of power for its own sake, including the massive and inefficient exploitation of galactic resources it takes to fund that exercise of power. The Empire does nothing good for the galaxy.
But that's a question of propaganda, innit?
"We are an Empire ruled by the majority! An Empire ruled by a new Constitution! An Empire of laws, not of politicians! An Empire devoted to the preservation of a just society. Of a safe and secure society! We are an Empire that will stand for ten thousand years!" -- Declaration of a New Order
I don't know what you think of the Imperial forces, but the military didn't spend every hour of the day cracking down on innocent civilians. Just like its Old Republic Judicial Fleet predecessor, it was engaged more in fighting pirates and smugglers and securing spacelanes for commercial traffic than actually fighting rebel forces (at least until Endor), simply because there were a lot more criminals in the galaxy than rebels. And even then, Imperial propaganda took great care to paint rebel "terrorist" activities in the worst possible light whilst glorifying (or omitting) Imperial efforts. Imperial Intelligence even conducted "false flag" operations to affect public opinion.
And yes, the Empire had lots of interest in governance, actually. Don't you remember ANH with Tarkin's line about how regional governors now take direct control as the Senate is disbanded? That's half the deal of the entire change from Republic to Empire - Palpatine's efforts to eliminate political infighting and securing his direct control by replacing the various elected or hereditary representatives with his military Moffs, making the Empire function a lot more efficient than the corrupt Old Republic whose response to various crisis situations was often slow or non-existent due to the Senate being unable to agree on anything. The Naboo blockade is a perfect example for how ineffective the Republic has become in its final days.
Manchu wrote:First, no one is talking about reality. We're talking about a world in which people fight with laser guns and laser swords. That's not how reality, works, either.
Doesn't mean your RPG cannot be played as if the setting was a living world rather than the backdrop for a fairytale. As I said, if you prefer the latter because it makes the heroes shine more, that'd be your personal preference. But as I said, there's lots of stories from the Imperial perspective, too, and some of them (like "To the Last Man", which is basically a Star Wars version of the movie "Zulu") are pretty good.
Manchu wrote:Talking about the Wehrmacht, I'm not talking about every individual -- I'm talking about the Wehrmacht.
And I'm talking about characters in an RPG. Because (usually) you don't play an entire faction but individual people in it.
Manchu wrote:The Empire is that antagonist. It is objectively evil in a way that we can never say about even the Wehrmacht. And the fictional people who go along with this fictional institution cannot help but become evil or in some other way morally debilitated themselves over time. And that is why the good guys are REBELS.
If you want it to be a simple "good vs evil" thing in your campaign - as I said, that'd be your choice. I like it a little more complicated and morally ambiguous, not in the least because I'm fed with all the simplified "all <Communists/Americans/Atheists/Christians/Democrats/Republicans/etc> are evil!" BS that gets spouted these days by propaganda machines tending to people who all have a number of skeletons in their own closet. I always had a weak spot for morally ambiguous characters, though, be it Imperial career officers in Star Wars or Templars in Dragon Age or the Scarlet Crusade in Warcraft, or the Sisters of Battle in 40k. I can play full-on good (Chessentan Lathander paladin) or full-on evil (Drow) as well, but it's just not as fun for me. Anyways, arguably, the Expanded Universe and its detailed background have sufficient potential for a less one-sided approach than the movies, and I can only recommend you at least try and pick up one of those books or comics or games that show things "from the other side". It's less of a space opera fairytale, but you might still like it!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 16:49:14
The point of the Republic was not to "rule" the galaxy but to provide a forum for high-level, voluntary cooperation. You find Leia talking about this a lot in the New Republic era but you have to think a little bit about it. The question people like Leia had to ask was: Why did the Old Republic fall? The typical answer is "corruption" but it makes more sense to consider the absurdity of one authority governing an entire galaxy. The Republic could not resolve local trade disputes like Naboo because it was never the function of the Republic to do so and it never had that function because it is unreasonable to expect that a central authority could efficiently solve every little local problem.
Of course, many people did expect that in the era preceding the Clone Wars. Palpatine fomented these fantasies and became Supreme Chancellor as a direct result. Later, he engineered the Senate granting him extraordinary powers and then emperorship (and thereby their own demise) via the same method. Although senators like Padme opposed overt centralization in the form of the Military Creation Act, even they believed at a basic level that the Republic itself rather than its constituent cultures would solve the problems of galactic politics. As a political phenomenon, the Empire was an attempt to realize those beliefs in an absolute way by imposing rule directly from the center. As you point out, this is why Palpatine used the moffs to bypass local governments. The result, however, was not more efficient governance.
Politics is about give and take. The center and periphery have to support one another in order that the system can serve the interests of both. For this to work, each party needs to be both independent as well as cooperative. Even in the dwindling days of the Old Republic, this is how the system worked -- as can be seen in the Separatist movement. It is no coincidence that Palpatine employed that very movement to establish his New Order, which consisted in shattering the autonomy of the periphery in total favor of the center. The center would no longer in any sense serve the needs of the periphery and the periphery would be shackled to the increasingly callous demands of the center. That is what the dissolution of the Senate really meant.
This is a bad system in more than the moral sense. The center only cares about the periphery to the extent that the periphery contains resources demanded by the center. This is why even at the highest levels the Empire was comfortable working with organized crime as long as it could maintain its dominant position in that relationship (see Prince Xizor). In effect, the Empire had no interest in the galaxy beyond the Empire's own self-preservation. This is not a matter of propaganda but of the franchise itself. Consider the Death Star: how many planetary economies' worth of credits do you think it took to build that? And what for? To scare everyone else into line. They destroyed an entire planet just to make a point to the rest. That is not a rational calculation of resource management. That is an act premised upon the desire to exercise power purely as its own end.
This is the culture of the Empire from Palpatine to the lowliest Stormtrooper. It permeates every aspect of the institution because it was designed by Palpatine to do exactly that. The "ineffective" and "corrupt" Old Republic didn't fall to a pure and efficient New Order. Rather, the Empire is comprised of the worst characteristics of the ancient system in their most concentrated forms. At the festering heart of the dying Republic was Palpatine, killing it from within. A system with him in charge is supposed to be better? It is most certainly not and every shot of the Original Trilogy involving the Empire is a testament to that.
Star Wars is about the struggle of good against evil both deep within the human heart and writ large across the galaxy. Because it is a story about struggle there will certainly be a gray area. That's what struggle is, the space where black and white bleed into each other. Consider the central question of the Orignal Trilogy: can there be redemption for an evil man? The question cannot be answered by dismissing the evil that this man has done. Similarly, we can't pretend that the Empire is good or that good people can tolerate its evil. Perhaps you do not think good and evil are relevant categories in the real world. But there is no question that they truly, objectively exist in the world of Star Wars.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 17:21:49
Manchu wrote:The point of the Republic was not to "rule" the galaxy but to provide a forum for high-level, voluntary cooperation. [...] The Republic could not resolve local trade disputes like Naboo because it was never the function of the Republic to do so and it never had that function because it is unreasonable to expect that a central authority could efficiently solve every little local problem.
An entire world being held hostage isn't exactly what I would classify as "a little local problem", even though to the Senators of all those other worlds it may appear as such. Membership in the Republic should have guaranteed assistance, if necessary in military form, to member worlds in need. This is what the Republic was meant for, and why Amidala trusted in democracy to solve the issue in the first place.
Ported over into the real world, it would be like a drug cartel-manipulated South-American country invading Texas and overpowering its police and National Guard, and the U.S. Army fails to respond because the Republicans block deployment via Congress (I'm not sure this is how it works, but you get the idea).
And this is by far not the only example. Since the TIE-Fighter game was already mentioned, the situation of the civil war of Kuan versus Bordal was not dissimilar. The truth is that even in the Old Republic, power was already centralised in the Core and shared by the few most wealthy worlds and their minions - it's not how things were supposed to run as per the founders and the idealists (like Amidala), but galactic economy and politics just made it so and the majority of people just gave a gundark's ass about what happened in the Outer Rim. Or on Naboo.
Conversely, the Emperor could at least guarantee that your world won't be forgotten. It would only be occupied.
Manchu wrote:As you point out, this is why Palpatine used the moffs to bypass local governments. The result, however, was not more efficient governance.
How was it not more efficient? You may argue that some governors may have administrated to the worlds in a worse way than their democratically elected predecessors, but in the end they would implement any policy that the central authority would wish them to implement. Unlike the Republic, where member worlds had far more free reign.
Even in the New Republic, this degree of freedom continued to cause issues as various worlds pulled the ships they volunteered to the Republic's defence back to protect their own worlds, leaving poorer planets - most notably the Rim worlds - completely defenseless and the military unable to act because they couldn't put a fleet together. "Divide and conquer." This is a military issue, but it is a valid example of the potential drawbacks of such liberties.
Manchu wrote:Politics is about give and take. The center and periphery have to support one another in order that the system can serve the interests of both. For this to work, each party needs to be both independent as well as cooperative. Even in the dwindling days of the Old Republic, this is how the system worked -- as can be seen in the Separatist movement.
How is the birth of a separatist movement whose sole origin is its members being fed up with Coruscant a shining example of "give and take" having worked nicely for the Old Republic? That's like, the total opposite!
Manchu wrote:This is why even at the highest levels the Empire was comfortable working with organized crime as long as it could maintain its dominant position in that relationship (see Prince Xizor).
Actually, I'd point out that it is (with various corrupt exceptions) solely the (equally corrupt) highest levels that are comfortable working with organized crime. The military was just as proud and full of principles as it was in the days of the Old Republic.
"Bounty hunters... We don't need their scum." -- Admiral Piett
Manchu wrote:In effect, the Empire had no interest in the galaxy beyond the Empire's own self-preservation. This is not a matter of propaganda but of the franchise itself. Consider the Death Star: how many planetary economies' worth of credits do you think it took to build that? And what for? To scare everyone else into line. They destroyed an entire planet just to make a point to the rest. That is not a rational calculation of resource management. That is an act premised upon the desire to exercise power purely as its own end.
Well, duh. This is not what the average Imperial citizen or soldier learns and thinks, though. Palpatine's thoughts are his own, and what you are referring to is unfiltered meta-knowledge that is surely presented in a much different light in propaganda.
And as a character in an RPG, I'd always determine his or her actions by what they know, not what I as the player know. The ability to take a step back and differentiate between IC/OOC is one of the most critical things in roleplaying games.
Manchu wrote:Star Wars is about the struggle of good against evil both deep within the human heart and writ large across the galaxy.
It is to you. For me, the franchise Star Wars is an amazing setting that offers lots of opportunities away from the cliché good guys. If I feel in the right mood for a "good vs evil" campaign like we saw it in the movies, then I'll play that. But I will not limit myself to this when the universe can offer me so much more.
Currently it looks like my next character is going to be a Sector Ranger in the Legacy era, though, and we're going to take much inspiration from this old gem.
Well, unless "Edge of the Empire" releases really soon. It might "force" us to change plans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 21:01:12
Lynata wrote: Membership in the Republic should have guaranteed assistance, if necessary in military form, to member worlds in need. This is what the Republic was meant for, and why Amidala trusted in democracy to solve the issue in the first place.
Totally incorrect. Remember how there was no military to enforce the Senate's rulings? Padme trusted in the Senate because she believed in the power of moral suasion over coercive force. She was right: the Senate was only supposed to exercise moral suasion. But she was also wrong: coercive force is still necessary. The people of Naboo forgot that and so they suffered under a boycott. The Senate had no real capacity to enforce its conclusion one way or the other about the Trade Federation blockade. The most they could do is send a Jedi -- which they already did without even voting on the issue. So that's the important lesson of Naboo: not that the Republic didn't work; but that even people like Padme no longer understood the Republic.
Lynata wrote:How was it not more efficient? You may argue that some governors may have administrated to the worlds in a worse way than their democratically elected predecessors, but in the end they would implement any policy that the central authority would wish them to implement. Unlike the Republic, where member worlds had far more free reign.
Efficiency is the opposite of freedom and capacity to act at "lower" levels (i.e., subsidiarity)? I think not. I think you should watch the OT and prequels more carefully. In A New Hope Leia assesses the "efficiency" of Imperial rule: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Lynata wrote:How is the birth of a separatist movement whose sole origin is its members being fed up with Coruscant a shining example of "give and take" having worked nicely for the Old Republic? That's like, the total opposite!
The fact that a Separatist movement could develop at that scale and, in the formal sense, with that rapidity proves that the culture of the galaxy during even the twilight of the Republic was far less centralized than members of the Galactic Senate seemed to think. They broke away because they were convinced the center was all take and no give. It turned out to be a tremendously ironic mistake!
Lynata wrote:Actually, I'd point out that it is (with various corrupt exceptions) solely the (equally corrupt) highest levels that are comfortable working with organized crime.
You have a bizarre way of talking about corruption. How is the Emperor "corrupt" in the context of the Empire. The entire Empire was set up for his direct benefit. He's only corrupt relative to a political system not explicitly designed to further his personal goals. Once again, the problem is that you want to envision the Empire as something separate from its inherent malignancy when it simply is not.
Lynata wrote:This is not what the average Imperial citizen or soldier learns and thinks, though. Palpatine's thoughts are his own, and what you are referring to is unfiltered meta-knowledge that is surely presented in a much different light in propaganda.
Only someone with no experience with the Empire would buy into any aspect of Imperial propaganda -- except the part about giving you the chance to bully and murder. Even teenaged farmboys in the Outer Rim know the Empire is bad, regardless of whether they feel they can do anything to stop it.
Lynata wrote:
Manchu wrote:Star Wars is about the struggle of good against evil both deep within the human heart and writ large across the galaxy.
It is to you. For me, the franchise Star Wars is an amazing setting that offers lots of opportunities away from the cliché good guys.
For you, Star Wars could be about unicorns jumping on rainbow trampolines. Who the hell cares? The ability to have a thought doesn't make it relevant. While I agree that Star Wars is not all about cliche good guys (like Grand Admiral Thrawn), it's still about good and evil. Once you leave aside this key aspect, you've left the shared experience of the franchise behind and gone into your own little world of opinions. I'm not saying you can't do that, I'm just saying it's not relevant to Star Wars.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 22:41:38
Manchu wrote:Totally incorrect. Remember how there was no military to enforce the Senate's rulings? Padme trusted in the Senate because she believed in the power of moral suasion over coercive force. She was right: the Senate was only supposed to exercise moral suasion. But she was also wrong: coercive force is still necessary. The people of Naboo forgot that and so they suffered under a boycott. The Senate had no real capacity to enforce its conclusion one way or the other about the Trade Federation blockade. The most they could do is send a Jedi -- which they already did without even voting on the issue.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Judicial_Forces
What, did you really think that any thug with a dozen star cruisers hold the entire Galactic Republic hostage?
Manchu wrote:Efficiency is the opposite of freedom and capacity to act at "lower" levels (i.e., subsidiarity)? I think not. I think you should watch the OT and prequels more carefully. In A New Hope Leia assesses the "efficiency" of Imperial rule: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Efficiency is all parts of the machine working towards a common goal instead of every planet going its own way.
And arguably, Tarkin's way allowed less planets to slip through his fingers than the Old Republic's. At least until the rebels got their hands on a friggin' Jedi and a ton of luck.
Manchu wrote:They broke away because they were convinced the center was all take and no give.
So it's not "a shining example". Glad we cleared that up.
I'd also like to point out that the Separatist worlds themselves weren't actually a bunch of democracies.
Manchu wrote:You have a bizarre way of talking about corruption. How is the Emperor "corrupt" in the context of the Empire. The entire Empire was set up for his direct benefit. He's only corrupt relative to a political system not explicitly designed to further his personal goals. Once again, the problem is that you want to envision the Empire as something separate from its inherent malignancy when it simply is not.
No, the problem is your inability to separate official Imperial Ideology from your meta-knowledge. There's a reason why a lot of people believed in the concept of the New Order and how it'd save the galaxy, and this was not embracing the fact that Palpatine is a sadistic tyrant. And fact is that Palpatine preached differently to the masses than what he actually wanted. He didn't want peace and prosperity - but that's what he told his people. And no amount of you trying to twist it all into the Emperor turning everyone into a mindless demonic minion is going to change this.
Also, if we fast forward a hundred years, Palpatine being dead yet those idealists surviving actually does result in a more benevolent Galactic Empire - one that is still a centralised dictatorship, but without the xenophobia, sexism and merciless exploitation that had tainted its origins.
Manchu wrote:Only someone with no experience with the Empire would buy into any aspect of Imperial propaganda -- except the part about giving you the chance to bully and murder. Even teenaged farmboys in the Outer Rim know the Empire is bad, regardless of whether they feel they can do anything to stop it.
You really need to stop making things up.
Manchu wrote:For you, Star Wars could be about unicorns jumping on rainbow trampolines. Who the hell cares? The ability to have a thought doesn't make it relevant. While I agree that Star Wars is not all about cliche good guys (like Grand Admiral Thrawn), it's still about good and evil. Once you leave aside this key aspect, you've left the shared experience of the franchise behind and gone into your own little world of opinions. I'm not saying you can't do that, I'm just saying it's not relevant to Star Wars.
It's not relevant for your Star Wars. If you're going at me like that, why should *I* care?
It's obvious that you are completely disregarding the Expanded Universe and apparently prefer limiting your perspective to the movies with its cliché Evil Imperials who are nothing but faceless targets you can shoot at without feeling bad that you just killed a human being. As I said: Your choice. But it thus seems we have no common ground to continue the discussion.
Okay. They had cops. I'm not sure what your point is.
Lynata wrote:And arguably, Tarkin's way allowed less planets to slip through his fingers than the Old Republic's.
Another non-sequitur. The Empire, which survived as the Emperor envisioned it for a bare couple of decades compared to 10,000 years of the Republic, was under existential attack even before Palpatine dissolved the Senate
Lynata wrote:So it's not "a shining example". Glad we cleared that up. I'd also like to point out that the Separatist worlds themselves weren't actually a bunch of democracies.
Third strike. I have no idea what you mean by "shining example" and whether or not the break-away systems were themselves democracies has nothing to do with anything I said. What I actually said was the Separatist movement shows that local power was still preeminent even at the eve of the Empire's inception.
Lynata wrote:No, the problem is your inability to separate official Imperial Ideology from your meta-knowledge.
Meta-knowledge has nothing to do with the issue. The Empire is bad on its face at every single level of operation. "It's not that I like the Empire; I hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it right now." -- some ignorant farmboy.
Lynata wrote:
Manchu wrote:Even teenaged farmboys in the Outer Rim know the Empire is bad, regardless of whether they feel they can do anything to stop it.
You really need to stop making things up.
See above. And please go watch the Star Wars movies sometime.
Lynata wrote:It's obvious that you are completely disregarding the Expanded Universe and apparently prefer limiting your perspective to the movies with its cliché Evil Imperials who are nothing but faceless targets you can shoot at without feeling bad that you just killed a human being. As I said: Your choice. But it thus seems we have no common ground to continue the discussion.
The idea that I am limiting my view to the movies is totally false. But they are the source of every other scrap of Star Wars merchandising so pretending novels, comics, etc, are just as important is absurd. You can't even say "it's all canon" because it's really not. When something in the EU got in the way of what he wanted in his movies, Lucas totally disregarded the EU. You keep characterizing my view as narrow, telling me that I'm not considering the sources and that in contrast to me you prefer a more sophisticated and nuanced Star Wars. But your view does not strike me as sophisticated. It strikes me as out-of-touch with the themes of the franchise. You seem to see Star Wars as Battlestar Galactica (new version) with Star Destroyers but that ain't it.
I have some suspicion that we're just fighting on rhetorical terms because you're not really debating with me on the points I'm making. Maybe the dialog needs to open in a fresh way to clarify where we can agree. For example, do you acknowledge that there is a Dark Side of the Force and that the dominance of that aspect of the Force in the galaxy (the "imbalance" the Jedi talked about in the prequels) was manifest in the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire?
Manchu wrote:Okay. They had cops. I'm not sure what your point is.
Sector Rangers are cops.
The Judicial Forces are more like the National Guard in that they can actually fight battles like, for example, this one. Not to mention that the Senate could also rule to create makeshift fleets of the defence forces of its various members.
Manchu wrote:Another non-sequitur. The Empire, which survived as the Emperor envisioned it for a bare couple of decades compared to 10,000 years of the Republic, was under existential attack even before Palpatine dissolved the Senate
"Existential" sounds a bit delusional.
Manchu wrote:Third strike. I have no idea what you mean by "shining example" and whether or not the break-away systems were themselves democracies has nothing to do with anything I said. What I actually said was the Separatist movement shows that local power was still preeminent even at the eve of the Empire's inception.
And what I actually said was that this is a perfect example of the Republic's inefficiency and inability to keep its gak together.
Manchu wrote:Meta-knowledge has nothing to do with the issue. The Empire is bad on its face at every single level of operation.
Yeah, sure. It's not like the Empire actually bothered much with propaganda or black ops, right?
Also, Hitler actually had hooves and all Wehrmacht soldiers had red eyes and smelled of sulphur.
Manchu wrote:See above. And please go watch the Star Wars movies sometime.
Please expand your horizon beyond the few movies that clearly focus on a black vs white fairytale without portraying the Empire in any other light than as the cliché villain.
Manchu wrote:The idea that I am limiting my view to the movies is totally false. But they are the source of every other scrap of Star Wars merchandising so pretending novels, comics, etc, are just as important is absurd. You can't even say "it's all canon" because it's really not.
Unlike 40k, the Star Wars canon actually does work like this. You can either limit your perception to the movies, or you expand it to the EU which is wrapped around the movies. Both settings are internally consistent, but depending on what you choose you'll end up with a vastly different image in each - one is an idealised fairytale, the other is a realistic world with living, breathing people on both sides of the conflict.
Manchu wrote:You keep characterizing my view as narrow, telling me that I'm not considering the sources and that in contrast to me you prefer a more sophisticated and nuanced Star Wars. But your view does not strike me as sophisticated. It strikes me as out-of-touch with the themes of the franchise. You seem to see Star Wars as Battlestar Galactica (new version) with Star Destroyers but that ain't it.
How am *I* out of touch with the setting when it's you who keeps ignoring facts of the EU such as the existence of the Judicial Forces (which by the way later became the Imperial Navy), the Empire's many propaganda efforts, or how well it hides its atrocities from the galactic populace and its own people? I've posted the proof, you simply chose to disregard it as it doesn't fit in with your simplified movie vision.
Manchu wrote:I have some suspicion that we're just fighting on rhetorical terms because you're not really debating with me on the points I'm making. Maybe the dialog needs to open in a fresh way to clarify where we can agree. For example, do you acknowledge that there is a Dark Side of the Force and that the dominance of that aspect of the Force in the galaxy (the "imbalance" the Jedi talked about in the prequels) was manifest in the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire?
Also, I believe I am debating on the points you make. The problem is that we both seem to go by different sources (movies vs EU), hence we lack a common ground to agree upon or even have a chance at convincing the other.
kronk wrote: Adding anything else means you're thinking too hard.
If people didn't take it at least somewhat seriously the series wouldn't still be as popular as it is. If poeple didn't take it at least somewhat seriously we wouldn't be gearing up for three new core rulebooks from a third iteration of Star Wars RPG's: West End Games, OGL, and now FFG.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I privilege the themes and tone of the movies because they are privileged. No novel or comic book can override them but they can obviously override novels and comics books. It's a simple and self-evident proposition that no rational person should have trouble understanding and accepting.
The "black versus white" line you keep taking is a strawman argument and even if it wasn't, it's not compelling. Good and evil are absolutely, unquestionably present in the Star Wars universe. (And if some comic book misses that point then something is wrong with that comic book.) It doesn't mean the conflict between them is simple. I alluded to it before but I guess I'll explain it a bit more: in the OT, Obi-Wan and Yoda are presented as good and wise yet they tell Luke the only way to defeat evil is to kill Vader. Their viewpoint is the "black and white" thing you're talking about but it is NOT the viewpoint of the Star Wars story. Luke rejects their idea and believes there is good in his father. The prequels show us that the rigidity of the Jedi mindset is what allowed Palpatine to hunt them to extinction and establish the Empire. Star Wars explicitly criticizes a simple "black and white" moral universe -- but that doesn't mean good and evil are not present as definitive elements.
Saying the Empire and everything about it is wrong is not a overly simplistic "black and white" appraisal. It's an accurate statement that does not at all limit the sophistication of moral conflict in the story. The ambiguity of moral responsibility is the original dynamic of Luke's character development -- he knows the Empire is bad but feels unable to do anything about it. And then the world of the Rebellion and his own Jedi legacy open up to him. Goodness does exist in the universe. People can do something about the evil of the Empire, if they're willing to take huge risks. Those who don't are bad people. They're not necessarily moustache-twirling villains but they are morally lazy at the very least.
In real life, morally lazy people can appeal to their own ignorance and the presumptive badness of the world itself as excuses. In Star Wars, it's just self-delusion. In Star Wars, good has a chance of triumphing over evil -- and I'm talking about the struggle inside an individual's heart as well as a conflict that stretches across the galaxy because in Star Wars those two "scales" are one and the same. That chance of triumph means there is also a responsibility, a duty to struggle on the side of good. People who work for the Empire and don't realize the Empire is bad are lying to themselves and in that lie they are fighting on the side of evil.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2012/08/31 17:14:10
I have read much of the EU, and still, to me Star Wars is entirely about Good vs Evil, and more specifically, Good Dudes with Lightsabers vs Evil Dudes with Lightsabers.
This is why Edge of the Empire misses the mark to me. Its not about Good Dudes with Lightsabers.
Not to say enjoying what is there is Badwrongfun or anything, but I don't get it =P
kronk wrote: Adding anything else means you're thinking too hard.
If people didn't take it at least somewhat seriously the series wouldn't still be as popular as it is. If poeple didn't take it at least somewhat seriously we wouldn't be gearing up for three new core rulebooks from a third iteration of Star Wars RPG's: West End Games, OGL, and now FFG.
100% disagreement.
My group enjoys the Star Wars universe. We've been to Star Wars celebration, played the hell out of Star Wars Galaxies, played SW:CCG until it died. We only stopped playing the OGL version because the rules were "wonky' to say the least. We don't take it seriously beyond Han Shot First.
We're just fans. But if your enjoyment is to take it seriously, then don't let me stop you.
@Poison: Like I said, the aesthetic touchstone of the franchise is that the dramas of the heart are writ large across the stars. Where does this epic begin?
"If there's a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet that it's farthest from."
The seedy underbelly of this marvelous and fantastical world is one of its key aspect. The Mos Eisley Cantina is just as intriguing as the Death Star. The plight of a golden-hearted smuggler is as fraught with nobility as that of a Jedi Knight.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/31 17:09:04
I only agree with you if the Mos Eisley Cantina is leading you to the Death Star.
If its leading you to raid air processing units for spare parts (as one of the games described on FFG's beta forums) I am out.
Han Solo was clearly a smuggler and ne'er do well, at least until Greedo shot first, and fits this core, but in the movies he shoots down Vader in the very first movie, it isn't like he spent 25 sessions trying to scrape up enough cash to even get off planet.
I'm following its development with an eyebrow raised but at least some interest, but I wouldn't have any actual interest in a game of it unless the GM had an extremely interesting premise.
kronk wrote: Adding anything else means you're thinking too hard.
If people didn't take it at least somewhat seriously the series wouldn't still be as popular as it is. If poeple didn't take it at least somewhat seriously we wouldn't be gearing up for three new core rulebooks from a third iteration of Star Wars RPG's: West End Games, OGL, and now FFG.
100% disagreement.
My group enjoys the Star Wars universe. We've been to Star Wars celebration, played the hell out of Star Wars Galaxies, played SW:CCG until it died. We only stopped playing the OGL version because the rules were "wonky' to say the least. We don't take it seriously beyond Han Shot First.
We're just fans. But if your enjoyment is to take it seriously, then don't let me stop you.
You do understand that taking something seriously doesn't mean being humorless and dour right? If you treated it so lightly or didn't care at all you wouldn't spend time playing characters in the setting. In this sense taking it seriously refers to recognizing value in it and spending time reading on it or creating things involving it; to not dismiss it as just a silly childrens movie, but something with a little more substance. The guys who build their own Stormtrooper armor do it for fun as well, but that doesn't mean it is done on a lark.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/31 18:08:06
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
@Poison: Star Wars has room for the stories of villains and not just villains who once were or become heroes. The thing I object to is pretending the villains are heroes. Yeah, you can do that with EotE and I would agree that those campaigns won't resonate with Star Wars even if the people involved enjoy them. But EotE itself isn't set up to be a counter-setting. It's doing its best to capture a world in which not everyone is an Imperial or a Rebel. I mean, do you think Boba Fett is not authentically Star Wars?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: The guys who build their own Stormtrooper armor do it for fun as well, but that doesn't mean it is done on a lark.
The 501st is a really good example of this as those guys obviously take their fun seriously. Not just being prop-accurate, either, but doing charity work and such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/31 19:21:38
The races in the book are Bothan, Droid, Gand, Human, Trandoshan, Wookie, Twi'lek, and Rodian. It works more like old school D&D than newer games. The emphasis is not really on abilities and the few that are there (like Wookies doing +1 damage when they are at low hit points, or something like that) are made more for the sake of flavor than to be balanced off the special abilities of other races. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions about the published races. I'll say this, they're simple enough that you can easily make your own. So, for example, I wrote up this one:
Bad Batchers
From the earliest days of the Empire, powerful figures opposed using clone troopers. The Emperor himself distrusted the clones and the demands of the New Order for cheaper military materiel bred hostility down the bureaucratic ranks. The loss of the original genetic template combined with the pressures of increasing demands and declining investment resulted in higher defect rates, which in turn bolstered the arguments against using clones. In order to maintain revenues, the Kaminoans turned to clandestine trade in these "Bad Batchers" to rich warlords and gangsters beyond the Outer Rim. Some of the Bad Batchers escaped this life of slavery to make their own way as fugitives in the wider galaxy.
Although some suffer physical deformity, most Bad Batchers look exactly like their prototype Jango Fett. The longing for individuality, however, means that many Bad Batchers have turned to unique hair-styling, tattoos, piercings, and other cosmetic scarfication to "be themselves." These physical idiosyncrasies, although sometimes quite distinctive, also serve as a disguise. The Empire has no interest in the freedom of clones, defective or otherwise.
Species Abilities
Wound Threshold: 10 + Brawn
Strain Threshold: 10 + Willpower
Starting Experience: 80 XP
Special Abilities
Bad Batchers begin play with an additional rank in any three of their starting skills. They still may not train any of these three skills above rank 2 during character creation.
Kamino Conditioning: Bad Batchers begin the game with the Hired Gun career by default. They also begin with either the Bodyguard or Mercenary Soldier specialization. Either specialization counts against the three-specialization limit. Bad Batchers must choose all starting skills from this career and one of these specializations.
Flawed Copy: Bad Batchers must choose one of their starting skills and always add a disadvantage die to rolls with that skill.
Gand do they start as a Findsman or just a Gand, My only experience of them is the Gand from Rogue Squadron series Ooryl Qrygg. I know their society is based heavily
on importance of a individual's achievements and have completely different biology to most other species in Star wars, how did they translate it in the game?
Twi'lek, do have a language for their Lekku (head tails) I know from past material they have let them be used like kinda sign language between Twi'leks.
Droids, what kind of droids, Assassin droids like IG-88, battle droids or iconic droids like the astromech droids.
Cheers
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/31 20:06:38
Manchu wrote: @Poison: Star Wars has room for the stories of villains and not just villains who once were or become heroes. The thing I object to is pretending the villains are heroes. Yeah, you can do that with EotE and I would agree that those campaigns won't resonate with Star Wars even if the people involved enjoy them. But EotE itself isn't set up to be a counter-setting. It's doing its best to capture a world in which not everyone is an Imperial or a Rebel. I mean, do you think Boba Fett is not authentically Star Wars?.
I am not saying its not "A true story that could authentically happen in the Star Wars universe"
I mean, you could be playing Anakin's mom, right, she really existed, she was a slave on Tattooine, owned by a store owner, acted as some sort of shopkeep, and eventually married a moisture farmer.
I am not saying it shouldn't exist in Star Wars, or even that it shouldn't have a game with rules to represent playing it, just that its not why I'd turn to Star Wars.
I say this with the full knowledge that I am a hypocrite, as my last SAGA character was a Mandalorian Soldier. (But, the party was 3 Jedi, my bounty hunter, and a twi'lek scoundrel who were up against the Emperor in the Old Republic) so it is mostly my objection to the focus of the game, not necessarily constituent parts.
I want the ability to play a Scoundrel or a Bounty Hunter in any Star Wars game, I just don't like them BEING the game.
