Jump to content

Rather Quaint

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rather Quaint

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

497 profile views
  1. There's a shop in Sunbury, PA looking to host Game of Throne and Netrunner LCG events. Are there any players in or near that area? Facebook Location
  2. There's a shop in Sunbury, PA looking to host Game of Throne and Netrunner LCG events. Are there any players in or near that area? Facebook Location
  3. That's fair. I suppose if, after Order 66 and a little light housekeeping, Palpatine decided to discard what had been his public persona up until then and borrow the Night Haunter's thereby making himself an object of public hatred and fear while spreading paranoia and servile obedience to his seemingly unassailable rule, then yeah, I could absolutely see the Jedi, as the organization that last tried to topple him from power, getting trotted out by the inevitable Rebellion as a mascot. I'm not sure that's the world of movies, shows, and what-have-you, but given the context you propose it makes sense.
  4. Well, the thing I don't find terribly plausible is that Palpatine decides to abandon a lifetime spent cultivating public trust, sympathy, and recreate his public persona as an evil tyrant. How does that advantage him in any way? How does that help him gain and maintain power? Sure, the Sith, whose beliefs are not explained terribly well in canon, appear to be or at least end up as fairly unpleasant people who do fairly unpleasant things. But, that being said, if one of them decides at some point to go on a murder-torture spree, spreading pain and suffering just for the sake of it, then they shouldn't expect people, even the ones ostensibly loyal to them, to trust them afterwards. It seems that Palpatine, for all his strange and inconsistent behavior, is supposed to be portrayed as an intelligent, patient, schemer. It seems unlikely to me that he would decide to turn most of the galaxy against himself by actively promoting the idea that he's an evil tyrant. Ming the Merciless he is not. So, in brief, the thing I find a bit unbelievable is that Palpatine, having effectively achieved the goals of the Sith by becoming ruler of the galaxy, would abandon all pretense of reason and civility, thereby sabotaging his own ability to rule. Does that make sense?
  5. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by Palpatine going public as an evil despot. He was elected to his position and voted all of the powers he had by the Senate. Yes, he did some extralegal things to get those powers, certainly, but that's not the point. Even as Emperor, Palpatine was the legally instated head of the galactic government, an autocrat certainly, but one who ruled with the public mandate. Remember how democracy dies? "With thunderous applause." So his policies, or at the very least, the way he depicted them to the rest of the government were still popular enough to keep him in power. (At least until the Death Star was completed. I'd absolutely accept an argument for Palpatine losing the public mandate after he dissolved the Senate which he only did once he had the Death Star.) In other words, there was no practical way to oust him from power legally. Otherwise the Rebellion wouldn't have been necessary at all. In light of my response to the paragraph that preceded the one I just quoted, I wonder if you maintain this opinion, or was it entirely based on the idea that Palpatine, as soon as he assumed absolute control of the Republic and reformed it into the Empire, started twirling a well-waxed moustache and wringing his hands menacingly while cackling in delight to the tune of snapping kitten necks?
  6. Ah, I see, thank you for clarifying. I don't think that my point about the clones being unable to resign from the GAR on its own is enough to support the perspective that the clone troopers were slaves. However, I didn't use it that way. Prior to making a statement to that effect I observed that the clones were grown in a lab, force-fed a military education, and pressed into service for a government they have no say in. This, taken with the fact that they were unable to resign from the GAR builds, at least in my opinion, a pretty strong case for them being slaves. Incidentally, one might wonder why, if this were the case, the Jedi wouldn't object to creating a clone army given it's fairly unethical nature. I suppose a decent case could be made for an organization comprised of children taken from their families at a young age and raised by militant cultists to be militant cultists wouldn't think that manufacturing people to be soldiers would be at all unethical. That being said, what mental gymnastics do you suppose the more libertarian (by which I mean generally valuing individual autonomy and freedom of choice, before someone with an eye for American politics tries to jump down my throat) cultures in the Republic had to do in order to go along with the legitimization of the GAR?
  7. Sorry, it's a little point, but they're unquestionably slaves. The Clone Wars are called the Clone Wars because they were fought by clones. Everyone knows their clones, so everyone knows that they're people grown in a lab, force-fed a military education, and pressed into service for a government they have no say in. When did you ever see in canon a clone soldier retiring before the reformation of the Republic into the Empire? There was one episode in the Clone Wars show "The Deserter" that depicted a clone that had left the army and he did it illegally. If you can point out any other examples I'd be grateful. Otherwise, to my knowledge, every other clone served until death. Even the injured ones were repurposed into non-combat roles. Well that's exactly what happens in wartime: you can't leave legally the army while you are still fit to fight, how many healthy people were discharged from service during both world wars? I guess very few if any at all (excluding criminals sentenced to jail) The only way to be discharged was on medical reasons i guess, and even then if the soldiers could serve in non combat roles they would probably be reroled. In the Star wars galaxy with so much better capabilites for healing injuries, an health discharge would be even more difficult. Btw where is it said the public knows the details of the clones breeding and training? And even if they do would they even care or find it odd? It's a different kind of training, but still training. I guess that if flash military training could be done easily on recruits, everybody would be doing it routinely. It's a bit unclear to me from your post. Are you making an argument against the clone troopers being slaves or just pointing out that it would be unusual for a soldier to be permitted to leave the military once they had inducted?
  8. I think the extra assumption that's needed to make sense of it all is the assumption that soon after forming the Empire, Palpatine stops trying to propagandize the people and no longer hides the fact that he is evil. Fear will keep the local systems in line. From what I can tell, it's even consistent with canon that Palpatine's status as a Sith Lord becomes public knowledge after the Empire is formed. Certainly Vader is known to be a Dark Lord of the Sith, and it doesn't take a genius to infer that his master is also Sith. So the people who originally thought "Palpatine is a good guy, the Jedi tried to topple him and he's only abolishing the Republic for the public good" realize, after Palpatine consolidates his power, that he is an evil Dark Lord and has been one all along. This would probably make them re-think their views of the Jedi as anti-democratic plotters. I don't think Palpatine ever publicly outed himself as a Sith, though it's entirely possible that I missed it. If you could cite a source that would be helpful. If not, what reason would he have to out himself? Here's a discussion on Quora about who knew what and here's an article on many of the same points from Wookieepedia, though much of what's mentioned is probably no longer canon. I would like to draw particular attention to Grand Moff's comment to Vader in A New Hope, "The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion." Wouldn't he say you and the emperor if it was public knowledge that they were Sith?
  9. Yeah, that's probably fair. It just seems odd to me when the books, movies, shows, etc make the Jedi out to be these heroic figures admired, though usually secretly, by seemingly every non-Imperial everywhere in the galaxy. How often do you see characters denouncing the Jedi for there part in the rise of Empire? Even on worlds that held Jedi sympathies before the Clone Wars, it seems that they would be held, at least as an organization if not as individuals, in fairly low regard after the attempted coup. Okay, fair enough. To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any canonical mentions of casualty reports from the war, so the best we can really do is speculate. From a reddit discussion found here. "If a "unit" were to be referring to one of the battalions of 576 troopers (seen on Coruscant), then 200,000 of these would render 115,200,000 clones and the 1,000,000 others spoken of as 576,000,000. This grand total of 691,200,000 would be far more suitable for the core of a galactic army." While it's certainly not from an official source, the reasoning seems sound. Please also refer to the "Command structure of regular forces" section of the Grand Army of the Republic entry on Wookieepedia here, though the source used to arrive at that number is now non-cannon, so I'm not sure how much stock should be put in it. So that should give us a decent idea of the number of Republic clone troopers, to say nothing of the number of non-clone elements incorporated into the army. It also doesn't address the number of support personnel needed to maintain the GAR. We can guess at this number by using a modern tooth to tail ratio of 1:2.5 (see Quora discussion here), but there's no way to know if that's representative of armies in the Star Wars galaxy. So either way we're left guessing, but let's make some conservative guesses with what we do know. Let's really low-ball it say that for every 10 clone troopers there is one living non-clone soldier. So with around 700,000,000 clones forming the core the army (please see above) that means there are 70,000,000 non-clone soldiers for around 770,000,000 soldier. Let's also assume that the support infrastructure used to supply the GAR is extraordinarily efficient (it is a sci-fi setting after all), so 10 soldiers can be supported by one living person. That's 77,000,000 support personnel. So the total size of the GAR weighs in at around 847,000,000 personnel. That does seem to be the case based on what we see in the movies, books, etc so let's roll with it. How many battle droids do you suppose the CIS had to field in order to make the war last the three years it did? Maybe 2 for every 1 Republic soldier? Maybe 10? I dunno, let's make another conservative estimate and say it's a 2:1 ratio. That would mean there with around 1,694,000,000 battle droids fielded by the CIS during the Clone Wars. So for the sake of discussion I'll grant that most of the Clone Wars were fought away from civilian populations and the casualties inflicted on the CIS forces would be overwhelming non-living anyway and don't count. We could probably argue for a number of exceptions, but let's keep things simple and in favor of your position. The casualty rate in armed conflicts has fluctuated considerably over the course of recorded history and there are a number of factors at play in a sci-fi setting that we can't really account for. However, let's at least make an attempt at finding a number using modern conflicts as a model (see Quora article here). If we take the casualty rate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq at about 2% and assume that half of those casualties are non-fatal, that leaves us with only a 1% casualty rate. Mind you, we're comparing a conflict that lasted about 21 days to one that lasted 3 years, but modern conflicts after 1945 have been fairly brief and we don't have space ships or laser swords so please bear with me. At 847,000,000 personnel strong, with a 1% fatality rate, the GAR would have had about 8,470,000 dead soldiers. That's just the GAR. If we could take into account the CIS personnel and civilians killed in battles and the people on each side who died as a result of destroyed infrastructure and/or disrupted supply lines, I image we'd have a significantly higher number. Even without counting them we've got several million dead as a direct result of the Clone Wars. So all that being said, do you suppose that the minimum 8.47 million corpses laying at the Jedi's feet would shift public opinion against them in the years following the conflict they appear to have started? If you accept the premise that the actions of the Jedi directly lead to the reformation of a previously democratic (though arguably pretty ineffectual) government into a totalitarian regime, does using them as a rallying point really make a whole lot of sense? Remember, no one living in the Star Wars galaxy has seen a Star Wars movie. No one knows anything about the Sith, Palpatine's ties to them, their various machinations, etc. They just know what they experience in their lives and what they see on the (later Empire controlled) news. So if you're founding an organization in response to a shift in the government, why would you use the people who were responsible for that shift as your mascots? It strikes me as a bit odd.
  10. So the general sense of what I'm getting from these responses, particularly from downlobot and SFC Snuffy, is that players should essentially ask permission to do things that the GM may not have planned for. Also, the GM should make an effort not to be committed to a particular outcome and remain flexible. At least in cases where it seems that the GM has a particular approach and/or outcome in mind. Is that about right? I've had roleplaying games described to me as collaborative storytelling, but in execution that rarely seems like the case. That's largely where my original question comes from. How do people compromise the player's desire to creatively affect a story with the GM's desire to creatively affect the story? Also, how are the practical necessities of having most of the group determine the actions of a single character and one group member determine the entire rest of the universe handled? I'm sure there isn't one hard and fast rule, but I am interested in learning how other people and their groups handle that question.
  11. I'm actually at a complete loss as to what you're taking issue with JalekZem. I'm not disagreeing with your assertions about the funding, it's fine speculation, though Northman's explanation in canon does render it largely moot. My original post, and my question that still stands largely unaddressed is: Why would anyone in the Galaxy who was born during or after the Clone Wars have a positive opinion of the Jedi? Wouldn't the exact opposite more often be the case? It doesn't really matter if the clones were secretly funded by the Republic or by Dooku (as seems to be the canonical explanation) but rather what the public knows and what they likely think as a result.
  12. Thank you Northman. That's actually very helpful in explaining how the clone army was funded. It's at least a good lead since I'm not sure how the timeline matches up with Dooku's retirement and his assumption of his noble title and fortune. Actually, it also begs the question of whether or not he funded the project on his own. Regardless though, unless the Jedi made the information revealed in their investigation into Cifo's death public knowledge, I don't see how it could have impacted public perception of them during or after the Clone Wars. Everything would still appear as I described in my original post. Unless I'm missing something. Please correct me if I have.
  13. So I take it that you're agreeing with me then? At least in part? If so, which of my three points or which part of my conclusion do you disagree with? I'm curious because it seems that you spent a few posts trying to defend the Jedi by claiming their lack of prior knowledge concerning the clone army would be enough to deflect suspicion or blame in the public eye. You also seemed to be making a case for the Republic, or some elements of it secretly being aware of the clone army and funding its creation, but that, while an interesting theory, doesn't appear to have much bearing on the way the Jedi would be perceived in light of the events surrounding the Clone Wars, which was the thesis of my original post.
×
×
  • Create New...