457 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

No. I am saying it is wrong to judge another culture's aspects as right or wrong. Right and wrong are concepts we are brainwashed by our respective societies into believing. We tend to view things that go against what our society considers right as wrong, but the perception breaks down when it comes to other societies where the sane considerations of what is right or good differs. From their standpoint what you consider right may be the definition of evil, and within their society they are right.

Now while you may have a personal opinion as clouded by your upbringing on another culture's views, you do not have the right to judge if it is right or wrong in theirs. In other words, you might not like what another culture does, but you have no right to say that it is wrong in the context if their society.

[qultar]

Tank Boy Ken, on 27 January 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Well the complete cultural desctruction is something your forgetting. Art and Culture are not on par with the levels avaible in the inner sphere.

not true at all you really need to read the clans warriors of kerensky
art is all over the clans the more you post it shows how little you know

as to my post let me clear things up

in the clans you can move to ANY cast basted on testing
but do to breading it is not common and as for the love bit
in the clans you can sleep with who ever you wish
they see it as no big deal as long as there are no kids from it

what widowmaker did shows you cant treat the other cast poorly
they lost the right to rule for treating there merchants badly
and the IS is not "good" and can be harsh on there people
most of them are poor and on low tech worlds not middle class

[Void Angel]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 January 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

No. I am saying it is wrong to judge another culture's aspects as right or wrong. Right and wrong are concepts we are brainwashed by our respective societies into believing. We tend to view things that go against what our society considers right as wrong, but the perception breaks down when it comes to other societies where the sane considerations of what is right or good differs. From their standpoint what you consider right may be the definition of evil, and within their society they are right.

Now while you may have a personal opinion as clouded by your upbringing on another culture's views, you do not have the right to judge if it is right or wrong in theirs. In other words, you might not like what another culture does, but you have no right to say that it is wrong in the context if their society.

So, again, you're telling people that they're wrong to judge another person's values as wrong - assuming that person is from another culture. Put another way, you're telling me that since moral values vary among cultures, no one can call any moral value wrong. But if no moral value can be condemned, you can't tell people that they can't judge another culture - because their moral values say they can, and you can't judge them for that just because of cultural values you were brainwashed to accept.

It's quite reasonable to maintain an awareness that we are fallible when we consider the moral actions of others, but making the moral statement that "no one can judge another culture's (or person's) morality" requires that this moral statement be true. But if it's true that we can't judge other's morality; that morality is a purely subjective construct and thus no morality we hold is binding on another - then we cannot hold other people to the same moral notion we are espousing. Thus you can say that you cannot judge another culture, but you cannot prohibit others from doing so.

In essence, the idea violates the second of the classical laws of thought - the law of noncontradiction. In order for your statement to be true, it would have to include and contradict itself.

We are both totally off-topic here, but this is very dangerous ground. If you use a societal-consensus view of morality, you quickly find yourself unable to logically condemn a lot of atrocities.

Edited by Void Angel, 27 January 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Gammanoob]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 January 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

This is true. However, if invasion is to happen regardless, is it not better to be occupied by the kinder force? Plus, it is not like the Great Houses do not regularly invade one another. At least in this regard, the clan desire to limit collateral damage would be considered a good thing, no?

Sure, but it's still at best a choice between the greater and lesser evil. For example, given the choice of having my country invaded by National Socialist Germany or the USSR I would have a hard time deciding for either.

Though I will be the first to admit that IS is little better, however, which is why I am not aligned with any House.

In theory the Clans do of course decrease collateral damage but in practice like most codes of honor Zellbringen is discarded when it suits it's adherents. Granted said departure from "honorable" combat will be explained or defended but in general when it comes down to I am too much of a cynic to trust in the honor of my foes.

Edited by Gammanoob, 27 January 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[Monsoon]

To ask why the Clanners, is much like asking; Why the Draconis Combine? Where the self is forced to conform to what the Dragon demands of it. Or, Why the Capellan Confederation? Where you need to 'prove' how you contribute to society, but where the individual is not really valued at all and can be sacrificed at the whims of its mad rulers. (Maximilian, Romano Liao.)

The best answer usually seems to be for Role-Play purposes, though, power is another popular reason.

Just like from a Role-Play position, I like to harass these people.

Edited by Monsoon, 27 January 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Ken Fury]

Well the Jade Falcon Triology nicely shows what the Falcons do to the civil population and that it doesn't end nicely.

[Pariah Devalis]

Tank Boy Ken, on 27 January 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Well the Jade Falcon Triology nicely shows what the Falcons do to the civil population and that it doesn't end nicely.

The Falcons example was used by the other clans as an example of how not to police the inner sphere. Clan Wolf took the more adoptive approach, and it resulted in far fewer revolts and an easier transition of power. From then on out, most of the clans followed Clan Wolf's lead on personal relations with their conquests' populous.

At Void:

I never stated individuals, per say, but more along the lines of one society vs another. Though it can extend to individuals of one vs individuals of another, I was trying to focus on the overall. That said, while it does create a sort of catch-22 and in practice can make the actions that are considered good in one culture and absolutely reprehensible in another virtually immune to meaningful criticism by outside eyes, no matter how bad they may be to the observers, I do think it is accurate.

I mean, since the subject of morality has no absolutes, it is not something that either is or is not good or bad. The actions of one culture needs to be taken at face value within the function that is that society. Otherwise it just will not add up in another. Like plugging in half of a balanced equation into the other half of an entirely different balanced equation, it will not equal out.

Criticism of moral values within a culture are perfectly fair game. If everyone exists in the same culture with the same societal pressures to indicate right and wrong, then the moral filters are the same and fair judgment is possible. However, this is even further wandering away from the topic. Do like the conversation, however.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 27 January 2013 - 02:13 PM.

[Void Angel]

Jaroth Winson, on 27 January 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Please provide an example of what you are talking about.

One of my old sourcebooks mentions that the Clans viewed MASH units and other combat service support as legitimate targets for warfare since they were assisting the combat effort; I apologise for not being able to find the reference for you; however, I did find this from the Mercenary's Handbook 3055: "The clans also seem unconcerned about collateral damage caused by their attacks. Because they can rebuild whatever they destroy, they believe they have the right to attack any target they choose." The Clans are not by any means hell-bent on massacring civilian populations, but while their warfare is ritualistically limited, their rules of engagement are in some ways much less limited than those of the Inner Sphere.

Edited by Void Angel, 27 January 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[BrotherSurplice]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 26 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I love that short story so much. You can apply this story to real conflict and warmongers as well.

Yeah it's a great story. Depressing ending, but who says good stories have to have happy endings?

Jaroth Winson, on 27 January 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Barbarians

War is barbaric. Deal with it. Stop trying to wrap it up in a pretty little box, Clanner.

Edited by BrotherSurplice, 27 February 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Void Angel]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 January 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

At Void: I never stated individuals, per say, but more along the lines of one society vs another. Though it can extend to individuals of one vs individuals of another, I was trying to focus on the overall. That said, while it does create a sort of catch-22 and in practice can make the actions that are considered good in one culture and absolutely reprehensible in another virtually immune to meaningful criticism by outside eyes, no matter how bad they may be to the observers, I do think it is accurate. I mean, since the subject of morality has no absolutes, it is not something that either is or is not good or bad. The actions of one culture needs to be taken at face value within the function that is that society. Otherwise it just will not add up in another. Like plugging in half of a balanced equation into the other half of an entirely different balanced equation, it will not equal out. Criticism of moral values within a culture are perfectly fair game. If everyone exists in the same culture with the same societal pressures to indicate right and wrong, then the moral filters are the same and fair judgment is possible. However, this is even further wandering away from the topic. Do like the conversation, however.

The problem is the same at the societal level, though. If the social consensus is the arbiter of right and wrong, then whatever the group views as right is right - you have a situation where is implies ought. There's no individual basis for morality, so there's no standard for individuals to challenge the status quo. In order to challenge slavery, promote women's rights, or (to provide an example purely as a clear-case) oppose the rounding up of certain ethnicities into camps from which they never return - in order to offer any criticism of a society's moral values, you have to have an absolute standard. Otherwise, you end up having to agree with the ****'s defense at Nuremburg: the actions they took were legal and moral within their society at the time.

If morality is determined by society's consensus, then you can only offer moral criticism if someone is deviating from social norms - but what if you disagree with those norms? On what basis do you attack or defend a relative moral value? The only way out of this quagmire is to return to first principles of logic, namely the law of noncontradiction: if you say that you cannot make any absolute statements about moral values, then you've just made an absolute statement about moral values - the claim contradicts itself and cannot possibly be true.

One of my problems with the post-modern approach to morality is that it's taken the reasonable principle that we can be mistaken and magnified it to an unreasonable degree. We should always approach any complex judgements (moral or otherwise) with a degree of humility - we could very well be wrong. But the possibility of wrong does not preclude the presence of truth - quite the opposite in fact. Any proposition can only be wrong relative to the truth.

[Pariah Devalis]

The only flaw I can see there is that in order for there to be a truth to hold things in comparison to, something needs to be defined as true. Who decides that? Outside of tangible realities and facts, it ends up falling back into a subjective trap unless everyone (or, at least, enough people - whatever "enough" is, which could probably be its own rant) decides one way or another on a given item to call true. And when it comes to people, good luck with that, since everyone seems to see the world in their own way - with overlap of course.

As an aside, I like morality or ethics as a discussion topic for the same reason I like calm, reasonable discussions about religion. Even if there seems to be no solid end point to arrive at, respectable discussion of it still makes one think, one way or another.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 27 January 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Sounds like a group of freeborns, Inner Sphere, and reformed Clanners (the Clan..hah. I just got that) keeping alive the true Spirit of Kerensky(who actually seemed like an optimistic uberEisenhower type to me), needs to come along and torpedo their nefarious mecha-Superman plans.

That's why I always liked Clan Wolf, and more specifically their really progressive sleeper agents in the field. It's like they realized the Clanners were psycho and decided to do something about it. His son could be considered the space-fascist I guess, since the Clans started with him, and the bloodline stuff started after that.


We always respected Kerensky, and I never liked the Clans myself, but I love their tech. Can't wait to pry it from their cold dead hands.

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 27 January 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[Westonard]

I love how people are saying the Clans are terrible,by comparing them and their life style to current standards, but completely ignore any point people bring up how the Inner Sphere is just as bad, if not worse.

4th Succession War, DCMS murdered an entire settlement simply to try to get a rise out of the Kell Hounds mercenary unit that had angered their leader. The Capellan Confederation is the most extreme examples of chineese dictatorship possible under Maximillion, Romano, and even later Sun Tzu once he gives into the genetic insanity that plagues the Liao line. Katherine Steiner murderd her mother, and plunged half of the Inner Sphere into war for her own power. The entirety of the 4th succession war was because Liao tried to replace Hanse Davion with a clone and he found that offensive, as well as what was done to the person who became Hanse's clone. Not much is known about Marik other than they are constantly crippled by civil wars, and bureaucratic red tape in pretty much everything they do.

And that is just the actions of the house leaders. As others have said, in the Inner sphere, unless you are a noble, or own a mech, you are worthless. You have no way to advance, and have no hope of really being in any position of authority. Yes, even planetary governers, magistrates and what not all have noble ties to each other, and then to the noble who is responsible for their section of space. Do you want to know the main difference between how the Inner Sphere and the Clans treat their non warriors? The clans are Caste bound, you can't, or rarely rise above your caste to a different one. But you can become very well respected in that caste, and get recognition and acclaim from the clans, and with few exceptions, they try not to involve non combatants in their conflicts, as well as depending on the clan and their outlook to the inner sphere, try to minimize what combat takes places around civilian cities. The Inner sphere? Any of ht enoble houses, Com Star, and bandits or mercenary companies? They have no qualms about collatoral damage.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Oh no, she killed her own mother!! (And then found that her particular brand of spunkiness served her well in Clan warrior culture?) I don't think anyone is claiming that the people leading the Inner Sphere are good. In fact this was the original problem. The problem is that the cure is worse than the disease, when it comes to the Clans. They went off to purify themselves of all the infighting and powermongering of the bloodthirsty IS Houses and their stupid King of the Hill wars. Kerensky even took the military and left. But the Clans came back a purer form of the worst traits of the IS. Even more pageantry, almost ritualized, social stratification X10, even more self righteous and sure of their own superiority. That's what happens to every movement when their visionary dies. They left to save the IS, and return to topple it, and then raise it in their image.

No one *really* wants to Save the houses.(Except the Houses maybe.) But no one wants to let the Clans take over the Inner Sphere either.

Edited by ArchMage Sparrowhawk, 27 January 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Westonard]

I actually believe that the FRR welcomed the Ghost Bears with open arms, once it became known that they were looking to stay. And it isn't because the Clan culture is so terrible. The FRR life stye was terrible, and not secure, especially with the Black Dragons and DCMS. And actually, most people do not care who controls the planet. It's just another flag to them, if the clans take an integrate with the natives approach, such as the Ghost Bears, and Wolves while warden heavy did. Yes, I am using the Ghost Bears as an exception, but they didn't decide to just take over the planets and move there. The Ghost Bears wouldn't have found the Inner Sphere more appealing than clan culture if they were trying to force them to that way of view. And setting aside warriors and that pedestal, there is actually absolutely nothing that says that the Clans forced people to adopt the clan way of life.

Sure, they took away the weapons that the people might have, sot here couldn't be an uprising, in theory. But for the most part, the more progressive IE Warden clans found it much simpler to let the planets they conquered keep functioning just how they were before. Like wise, I am almost 95% most of the conquered planets that the Ghost Bears and Wolves took found that life in the Clans was much -much- better than life in the Inner Sphere. The authors of the battle tech books tell things from the clan warrior point of view so that is where your opinion as to how they must surely treat everyone else comes from. The Rashalague Dominion, when the Ghost Bear Dominion merges with what's left of the FRR by all accounts functions perfectly. And their council that makes decisions is 1/3 Trueborn warriors, 1/3rd Freeborn warriors, and 1/3rd non warrior caste.

Additionally, you are looking at this as an outsider looking at their culture, which is why they aren't understood. They actively engage in ****** between trueborns, because trueborns are inherently sterile, though it can be gotten around. (Diana Pryde) But most people probably still find the idea repugnant because of the different values and beliefs. So, you are free to dislike them for being war mongering, but when people try comparing their culture to modern day equivilent there is going to be a disconnect because there simply is one.

By the way, Sparrowhawk, if the clans brought the worst things about war with them, they would have brought nukes, they wouldn't have hesitated to keep bombarding planets after Edo, they wouldn't try to integrate with civilians, and would instead just massacre anyone who stood up to them. And Clan Wolverine, the Not Named Clan was wiped out, I believe as a whole because they nuked a genetic repository. And before you say how that is over kill, the clans use the same genetic material again and again, with additions as better warriors come up. So nuking a repository is wiping out countless untold generations because that prevents new life for the clan culture.

Edit: Oh, And Katherine Steiner never became a member of the warrior culture. It is never quiet said what happened to her after Vlad took her, but given that she was not a warrior before, and unless Vlad seriously ordered people to lose to her, and that would have gone over with the Clans about as well as you might think, she likely either remained a bondswoman, or became a member of the Merchant caste.

Edited by Westonard, 27 January 2013 - 05:27 PM.

[Wolfways]

Clan mechs look better than IS crap.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Void Angel, on 27 January 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

One of my old sourcebooks mentions that the Clans viewed MASH units and other combat service support as legitimate targets for warfare since they were assisting the combat effort; I apologise for not being able to find the reference for you; however, I did find this from the Mercenary's Handbook 3055: "The clans also seem unconcerned about collateral damage caused by their attacks. Because they can rebuild whatever they destroy, they believe they have the right to attack any target they choose." The Clans are not by any means hell-bent on massacring civilian populations, but while their warfare is ritualistically limited, their rules of engagement are in some ways much less limited than those of the Inner Sphere.

Page please? I should be able to log into my home PC from here & read the whole section you quoted from.

BrotherSurplice, on 27 January 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

War is barbaric. Deal with it. Stop trying to wrap it up in pretty little box, Clanner.

Oh really?

Watch from 7:20 onward. A duel is called to prevent all out war that would ravage both sides. No civilians or infrastructure would be damaged. Two warriors fight in a designated area until one emerges victorious. A Trial of Possession.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 27 January 2013 - 06:28 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Westonard, on 27 January 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I love how people are saying the Clans are terrible,by comparing them and their life style to current standards, but completely ignore any point people bring up how the Inner Sphere is just as bad, if not worse.

4th Succession War, DCMS murdered an entire settlement simply to try to get a rise out of the Kell Hounds mercenary unit that had angered their leader. The Capellan Confederation is the most extreme examples of chineese dictatorship possible under Maximillion, Romano, and even later Sun Tzu once he gives into the genetic insanity that plagues the Liao line. Katherine Steiner murderd her mother, and plunged half of the Inner Sphere into war for her own power. The entirety of the 4th succession war was because Liao tried to replace Hanse Davion with a clone and he found that offensive, as well as what was done to the person who became Hanse's clone. Not much is known about Marik other than they are constantly crippled by civil wars, and bureaucratic red tape in pretty much everything they do.

And that is just the actions of the house leaders. As others have said, in the Inner sphere, unless you are a noble, or own a mech, you are worthless. You have no way to advance, and have no hope of really being in any position of authority. Yes, even planetary governers, magistrates and what not all have noble ties to each other, and then to the noble who is responsible for their section of space. Do you want to know the main difference between how the Inner Sphere and the Clans treat their non warriors? The clans are Caste bound, you can't, or rarely rise above your caste to a different one. But you can become very well respected in that caste, and get recognition and acclaim from the clans, and with few exceptions, they try not to involve non combatants in their conflicts, as well as depending on the clan and their outlook to the inner sphere, try to minimize what combat takes places around civilian cities. The Inner sphere? Any of ht enoble houses, Com Star, and bandits or mercenary companies? They have no qualms about collatoral damage.

I love how they always dodge this. Well said sir. As far as Marik goes, remember they killed Joshua Wolf & some Dragoons civilians. BTW did you mention the Kentares Massacre?

[Westonard]

I hate to keep multi posting, especially almost back to back, but I just thought of another point. The clans have a clear technological advantage over the Inner Sphere when they arrive. This is because up until the second succession war, nuclear devices were used with abandon, and atrocities were committed The Kentares massacre that was mentioned was 52 million civilians. The second succession war was kicked off by Com Star because they believed their goal was: gasp! The exact same as the Clan belief. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT? Coincidentally that is the exact same reason that the Jihad starts at the tail end of what is worth while for Battletech and mechwarrior in general. Dark Ages and the events leading upto it are crap.

Com Star attempts to destroy the Inner Sphere by manipulating the Houses in the second succession war. This is done again, to a slightly lesser extent in the fourth succession war. During the clan invasion, Com Star attempted to cripple everyone in an attempt to cause chaos and let the clans and houses destroy each other. When the New Star League fell apart because all of the nobles in the Inner Sphere are corrupt as hell, some with more redeeming factors than others, the Word of Blake, and I am assuming with heavy support from House Marik, since that is where they were mostly located in by that point, attack everyone with nukes on capitals, nuking planets into radioactive balls that held people who might resist, nuking or releasing biological weapons at peace summits, and general *** hattery to murder everyone so they can lead humanity into the golden age.

Anyway, my point is the constant warring, and attacking anything and everything when the Inner Sphere fought over planets left them with absolutely no way to build anything new, up until 3020ish, with the discovery of a Helm Memory Core, which Com Star tried to destroy twice, coincidentally. Up until that point, mechs were falling apart, they had terrible aim because the lasers were old and so on. The clans almost wiped each other out with similar in fighting at the start. But it was Nicholas Kerensky who realized "Holy ****, this kind of war fare is absolutely ********." and came up with the clans, and the beliefs they have, to limit the impact that war has on non warriors.

[Vanguard319]

Pariah Devalis, on 25 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Stravag! Contractions!

It is very rare that a clan's populous is homogeneous in the sense of Warden or Crusader. Look at how Clan Wolf went from Warden to Crusader, or how Nova Cat went Crusader to Warden. This only happens when there is a pretty decent split in the population's stance. Notable exceptions are Clans Jade Falcon and Smoke Jaguar, who, if not homogeneous, are/were so totally skewed in their ideological stance towards one direction or the other that they are safely considered, for all intents and purposes, pure Crusader.

I do wonder, though. Aside from Clan Wolf in Exile, are there any "pure" Warden Clans?

However, aff. I consider myself a Warden, even though the Nova Cats as a whole identify as a Crusader Clan at the start of the invasion. Better us take control than them, basically. If a Clan will rule the inner sphere, you bet your barbarian butts you would rather be under the auspices of a Warden than a Crusader. There is some leeway in the Clans for personal motivation, as long as it does not interfere with orders (or, if it does, so long as it provides significant results).

I do not know, after reading 'Falcon Guard' I had a feeling that Aidan Pryde had some Warden leanings, (namely his feelings that the crusade may not be as noble as believed) Then again, he also had a secret library of books, an unorthodox path to being a warrior, and was thought of as a pariah until the aftermath of Tukayyid, and even if he was a warden, he was still a minority in a heavily crusader clan.

That is like saying all democrats are pinko commies, or all republicans are bible-thumping gun nuts, while ignoring the fact that both parties have individuals who may disagree with the status quo.