605 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

OfTheDark, on 02 February 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Of course...Much better is the I.S. way...

"Want to go on a date with me?"

"No"

"Okay" *Launches nukes at her house* "How about now?"

That is more of the Word of Blake's M.O. lol

In lore, it is my understanding that much of the hatred directed toward the Clans during and after the Clan invasion is directed against the "Crusader" Clans. It is interesting, in this case, to note a difference in perspective between Inner Sphere mentality, and Clan mentality.

Inner Sphere saw the Clan invasion (and subsequent occupation of the many worlds the Clans did capture) as oppression, and the Crusader Clans saw it as liberation; essentially the mentality that the Clans were saving the I.S. from themselves by forcefully occupying worlds.

The massive irony of the whole invasion, is that the Clan occupations is not what united the Inner Sphere, but the invasion itself did. The I.S. united against a nearly overwhelming threat that no one house could deal with on their own.

To the Clans credit, most of the Khans saw this, and realized that Kerensky's vision of a united Inner Sphere had inadvertantly come to pass, thus leading the clans toward the Great Refusal, and leading to the creation of the short-lived, second SLDF.

From a gameplay standpoint, a lot of hatred goes toward the Clans because a lot of "purist" I.S. players were angry at the fact that a lot of Clan tech made most I.S. tech obsolete.

To me, this isn't a bad thing. I see Clan tech as a natural evolution to the technology that was previously available prior to the Clan invasion, despite being an ardent I.S. player myself. Where other I.S. players see the use of Clan technology as some sort of insult, I see it as an aspect of assymetrical warfare: When fighting a superior force, you either adapt, or die.

TL;DR -- From a lore standpoint, hatred against the crusader Clans is justifiable, but hatred against the Clans from a gameplay standpoint doesn't really make sense. : /

Edited by ReXspec, 27 January 2014 - 04:41 PM.

[Featherwood]

Odanan, on 27 January 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

I personally dislike the whole "might makes right" Clan philosophy.

I mean, they have a dictatorial society and pretty fascists ideas.

They might be more "honest" than the "treacherous" IS barbarians, but even Capellan Confederation is a heaven of freedom if you compare with the Clans...

You are wrong about Clans' society ideology. It is called Social Darwinism, and its paradigm is based not on 'might makes right' but on 'survival of the fittest'. Feel the difference.

Edited by Featherwood, 27 January 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[DAYLEET]

CoffiNail, on 26 January 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

Which is more honorable:
Total war, where cities, bridges, spaceports, etc are fair game, to limit the enemy's ability to make war. Even if it is a military target, it often has civilians in some form, plus warriors who have no chance to defend themselves.
or
Zellbrigen Dueling, where the duel takes place in a field, forest, mountain, etc. Away from any civilian population, or any infrastructure. Where each warrior gets to fight against a single opponent, most of the time on equal tonnage. Where the Clan with more skilled warriors win. No one interferes with a duel, the two warriors get to prove their abilities.

None have honour at all, none. All are driven by needs(finantial, survival, political, greed, hatred etc) and and it's their/your right to do so, just don't blind yourself with words. I don't know if you are roleplaying as it might be the case(im not very familiar with how things are done here yet) but i was being serious.

[Alexander Steel]

Quote

TL;DR -- From a lore standpoint, hatred against the crusader Clans is justifiable, but hatred against the Clans from a gameplay standpoint doesn't really make sense. : /

Many of the people I game with didn't like the sudden leap in tech. It would be like playing in a basketball league and suddenly coming in one day and being informed that there were now 2 balls in play at all times and one of the balls was smaller and you didn't have to dribble it and if you made a basket with it, you got 4 points. Also one team could field 7 players and the other team could only field 6 on the court at the same time, but the 7 player team was suggested they couldn't double team on defense but they mostly did anyway.

It's just not the same game as it was before.

[Odanan]

Featherwood, on 27 January 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

You are wrong about Clans' society ideology. It is called Social Darwinism, and its paradigm is based not on 'might makes right' but on 'survival of the fittest'. Feel the difference.

No, trials are based on who is more capable in the battlefield. Not in justice, not in intelligence, not in virtue, but in fighting power.

So it's not survival of the fittest, it's rule of the strongest.

I find the Clans interesting as fiction but to see this kids in this forum "impersonating" the Clan way and defending it as a valid ideology in the real world is disgusting.

CoffiNail, on 26 January 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

Which is more honorable:
Total war, where cities, bridges, spaceports, etc are fair game, to limit the enemy's ability to make war. Even if it is a military target, it often has civilians in some form, plus warriors who have no chance to defend themselves.
or
Zellbrigen Dueling, where the duel takes place in a field, forest, mountain, etc. Away from any civilian population, or any infrastructure. Where each warrior gets to fight against a single opponent, most of the time on equal tonnage. Where the Clan with more skilled warriors win. No one interferes with a duel, the two warriors get to prove their abilities.

Honor has nothing to do with war.

[Odanan]

pbiggz, on 25 January 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Fascism is a hyper-right wing form of government, where the tenets of capitalism are taken to their most extreme logical conclusion (wealth is focused only on those who can take it for themselves, and anyone without money is essentially reduced to peasant status), while communism is hyper-left wing form of government where the tenets of socialism are taken to their most extreme logical conclusion (wealth is distributed among the populace actions are taken to strengthen the state on a macro-scale, and emphasis is taken away from the individual.)

Both concepts are critically flawed, for a myriad of reasons which some people dedicate their entire lives to studying, but do not confuse the two, they are fundamentally different forms of oppression.

If we analyze the clans, we will note that due to nicholas' policies, there is a certain emphasis, at least on the internal scale within each clan, on spreading supplies equally within the clan based on who needs those supplies. This is justified by the clan homeworlds being considered marginally habitable compared to the relatively pleasant worlds of the inner sphere. We also can note that riches and financial gain are not generally considered acceptable motives in clan culture. (Conquest and glory in combat aren't quite the same, and the clans are not generally known to "pillage" during the invasion). Most clansmen seek to gain personal "honour" by conducting themselves in a manner that will help their clan as a whole.

These aspects combined with what essentially amounts to a state-run militarized eugenics program means the clans are better described as a militant neo-socialist (left wing) caste-based meritocracy and NOT a fascist regime.

Extreme left wing and extreme right wing are connected.


Or this:

[Featherwood]

Odanan, on 27 January 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

No, trials are based on who is more capable in the battlefield. Not in justice, not in intelligence, not in virtue, but in fighting power.

So it's not survival of the fittest, it's rule of the strongest.

I find the Clans interesting as fiction but to see this kids in this forum "impersonating" the Clan way and defending it as a valid ideology in the real world is disgusting.

Trials are based on ability to win - to find optimal way to utilize all available resources in provided circumstances, keep in mind that might is only one of those conditions and not most important one, intelligence, on the other hand, steps forward, but justice instead is absolutely not relevant. (Have you served in army, my 'old' friend? Where have seen any order based on justice in army?). Clans society is historically based on survival (according to the badly written storyline), so you objection looks ignorant at least.
You so poorly draw conclusions and judge people that I find it primitive and disgusting. No wonder you dislike Clans - you do not understand the ideas used behind that fiction {Scrap}. No wonder you do not understand those ideas - you can not distinguish forum talks about fictional universe from reality, the pictures you provided just prove that so well (do you really try to find any logic in BT? Or you are just using internet law - 'post pictures to prove that you are right'?) BT universe attempted to describe futuristic society by mixing badly those scraps of knowledge BT authors had and all of them proved to be total ignoramus. There are so many flows in in (universe), that any kind of serious discussion is impossible.

[Alexander Steel]

Quote

Trials are based on ability to win - to find optimal way to utilize all available resources in provided circumstances

The problem with this idea is that the only type of contest in the clans happens to do with fighting. Which isn't survival of the fittest, but survival of the strongest might makes right.

If a Tech and a Mech warrior disagree about the state of readiness of a fusion reactor the mech warrior beats the hell out of the tech and wins. It doesn't matter if after getting into the mech it blows up and the warrior dies. Might made right. Survival plays no part.

[Zyllos]

Iron Harlequin, on 24 January 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Where did you find this picture?

[Featherwood]

Alexander Steel, on 27 January 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

The problem with this idea is that the only type of contest in the clans happens to do with fighting. Which isn't survival of the fittest, but survival of the strongest might makes right.

If a Tech and a Mech warrior disagree about the state of readiness of a fusion reactor the mech warrior beats the hell out of the tech and wins. It doesn't matter if after getting into the mech it blows up and the warrior dies. Might made right. Survival plays no part.

You contradict yourself and draw most odd conclusion from that mess of example. First of all, it was not a trial in your example, tech could not challenge warrior, warrior should not beat tech dead for warning about engines' condition. Second, warrior died in result of his stupidity, he lost chances to add his genes into Clan's future, he did not survive both literally and metaphorically.

[Odanan]

Featherwood, on 27 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

Trials are based on ability to win - to find optimal way to utilize all available resources in provided circumstances, keep in mind that might is only one of those conditions and not most important one, intelligence, on the other hand, steps forward, but justice instead is absolutely not relevant. (Have you served in army, my 'old' friend? Where have seen any order based on justice in army?). Clans society is historically based on survival (according to the badly written storyline), so you objection looks ignorant at least.
You so poorly draw conclusions and judge people that I find it primitive and disgusting. No wonder you dislike Clans - you do not understand the ideas used behind that fiction {Scrap}. No wonder you do not understand those ideas - you can not distinguish forum talks about fictional universe from reality, the pictures you provided just prove that so well (do you really try to find any logic in BT? Or you are just using internet law - 'post pictures to prove that you are right'?) BT universe attempted to describe futuristic society by mixing badly those scraps of knowledge BT authors had and all of them proved to be total ignoramus. There are so many flows in in (universe), that any kind of serious discussion is impossible.

So you do defend the Clan way as a valid ideology in the real world? - just curious about that.

I actually served my country's brief obligatory army draft. I did enjoyed as I could, but even with my secret love for guns and military history, the army is not for me.

And I posted those images to show that radical left-wing and radical right-wing are not in the far extremes of the political spectrum as some might think.

[Alexander Steel]

Quote

he did not survive both literally and metaphorically.

That's the point, the clan way isn't about survival of the fittest, it's about might makes right. Very often clans lose in survival because the best ideas and the best people to advance them and improve the society are not often the strongest. Imagine who would run the US govt if instead of elections we just said whoever was the best cage fighter ran everything.

Edited by Alexander Steel, 27 January 2014 - 12:22 PM.

[Featherwood]

Odanan, on 27 January 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

So you do defend the Clan way as a valid ideology in the real world? - just curious about that.

I actually served my country's brief obligatory army draft. I did enjoyed as I could, but even with my secret love for guns and military history, the army is not for me.

And I posted those images to show that radical left-wing and radical right-wing are not in the far extremes of the political spectrum as some might think.

You did mistake and I have corrected it. You've wrongly attributed main motif of Clans ideology into real world's philosophies. Let me also ask you a question. You should be able to see the difference between real world and fiction and shouldn't mix them, do you?
Clans' ideology has very ragged description: BT books are awful read mostly, Field Manuals and rest rulebooks are even worse, plus they often contradict each other on many issues and when don't, they do not follow common sense usually, it is too easy to find contradicting arguments in the sources. So it is hard to get clear understanding what really is general Clans ideology, speaking not about defending it in serious conversation. BT universe has many huge white spots and stands no criticism, but it gave birth to favorite games (MW2: 31st Century Combat, Ghost Bear Legacy and Mercenaries) of my youth and I will continue love it for that.
I should mention, that I could defend Clans ideology against IS ideologies in some kind of RP talks, drawing inspiration from Social Darwinism theory, but I absolutely hate when RP is taken seriously and mixed with RL, like you did when inserted not relevant political views chart picture, who cares about what someone think about RL political spectrum when we were talking about ideologies in fiction universe, weren't we?

Alexander Steel, on 27 January 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

That's the point, the clan way isn't about survival of the fittest, it's about might makes right. Very often clans lose in survival because the best ideas and the best people to advance them and improve the society are not often the strongest. Imagine who would run the US govt if instead of elections we just said whoever was the best cage fighter ran everything.

Gees, man. Are you too stubborn or too alternatively gifted? Use binary logic in your statements or don't waste anyone's time, please. Another option: you have shown such knowledge of everything that it makes you perfect BT author, you could hardly make worse script than Stackpole.

[CyclonerM]

Alexander Steel, on 27 January 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

That's the point, the clan way isn't about survival of the fittest, it's about might makes right. Very often clans lose in survival because the best ideas and the best people to advance them and improve the society are not often the strongest. Imagine who would run the US govt if instead of elections we just said whoever was the best cage fighter ran everything.

Well actually Khans and Loremaster are not decided with Trials but with an election by the Clan Council - And do you really want to tell me that, after all, Clan politics are that different from real life and Inner Sphere?

In such cases, who wins is who can convince the others that he is right. Ulric Kerensky did a good job with it.

Featherwood, on 27 January 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

So it is hard to get clear understanding what really is general Clans ideology, speaking not about defending it in serious conversation. BT universe has many huge white spots

This is what permits us to have these discussions. If somewhere in a sourcebook it was written "The Wardens (or Crusaders) are right, the others are wrong" then where would be the fun?

I even recall someone trying to guess with me what could have been the numbers of people who fled in exile with General Kerensky, digging into the sourcebooks and doing maths.

Edited by CyclonerM, 27 January 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Odanan]

Featherwood, on 27 January 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

You did mistake and I have corrected it. You've wrongly attributed main motif of Clans ideology into real world's philosophies. Let me also ask you a question. You should be able to see the difference between real world and fiction and shouldn't mix them, do you?
Clans' ideology has very ragged description: BT books are awful read mostly, Field Manuals and rest rulebooks are even worse, plus they often contradict each other on many issues and when don't, they do not follow common sense usually, it is too easy to find contradicting arguments in the sources. So it is hard to get clear understanding what really is general Clans ideology, speaking not about defending it in serious conversation. BT universe has many huge white spots and stands no criticism, but it gave birth to favorite games (MW2: 31st Century Combat, Ghost Bear Legacy and Mercenaries) of my youth and I will continue love it for that.
I should mention, that I could defend Clans ideology against IS ideologies in some kind of RP talks, drawing inspiration from Social Darwinism theory, but I absolutely hate when RP is taken seriously and mixed with RL, like you did when inserted not relevant political views chart picture, who cares about what someone think about RL political spectrum when we were talking about ideologies in fiction universe, weren't we?

I still don't know what do you want to prove.

[Featherwood]

Odanan, on 27 January 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

I still don't know what do you want to prove.

I am not surprised. Post more irrelevant pictures then.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Alexander Steel, on 27 January 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

The problem with this idea is that the only type of contest in the clans happens to do with fighting. Which isn't survival of the fittest, but survival of the strongest might makes right.

If a Tech and a Mech warrior disagree about the state of readiness of a fusion reactor the mech warrior beats the hell out of the tech and wins. It doesn't matter if after getting into the mech it blows up and the warrior dies. Might made right. Survival plays no part.

How about you do some actual reading before you type nonsense? Trials are NOT only fighting. They can be a foot race, a game of darts, pool, chess, a coin toss (ask the Nova Cats), a football (American) game ask us Ghost Bears , a round of golf, ( I saw it but I cannot remember the book ATM) or anything else that can be deemed as competitive. If two scientists have a disagreement they have their own Trial, e.g. both are given an equation to solve, each caste has their own way of doing things.

A warrior would NEVER Trial with a lower caste so your example is nonsensical. If the warrior does not listen to the tech it is his loss (ask Ravill Pryde)

Edited by Jaroth Corbett, 27 January 2014 - 01:03 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Drinking contest, too.  Clan Nova Cat lost a planet because a drinking contest was the method to which the planet wanted to defend it.



The Clansman was an aerospace pilot.


That, and most Clan alcoholic beverages cannot induce drunkenness by design, so so much for a tolerance. XD

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 27 January 2014 - 01:48 PM.

[Deathz Jester]

Zyllos, on 27 January 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Where did you find this picture?

google

[Will9761]

Pariah Devalis, on 27 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Drinking contest, too. Clan Nova Cat lost a planet because a drinking contest was the method to which the planet wanted to defend it.


The Clansman was an aerospace pilot.

Sometimes, it doesn't always have to be combat.

One example was the Ghost Bears, who actually decided the fate of a planet based on a football match.