Leaders and nations alienment.

[Blue_Lion]

Another thread got me thinking how does a leader affect whether a nation is good or evil?

The people of a nation are rarely if ever all one aliment typically they run the full spread. How ever the leadership of a nation does have an alignment. As the leaders set the polices and goals the nation fallows.

To me it seams if the leaders actions goals are polar opposite of the nation they lead they should not stay in power.
Such as a good guy trying to lead an evil nation, he would likely get over thrown if he is pulling his nation from its views. Just as would a bad guy leading a good nation.

So if the nation is complacent with the leadership either through propaganda or apathy how does the actions the nation fallow under the leaders command affect weather or not a nation is good or evil.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Another thread got me thinking how does a leader affect whether a nation is good or evil?

The people of a nation are rarely if ever all one aliment typically they run the full spread. How ever the leadership of a nation does have an alignment. As the leaders set the polices and goals the nation fallows.

To me it seams if the leaders actions goals are polar opposite of the nation they lead they should not stay in power.
Such as a good guy trying to lead an evil nation, he would likely get over thrown if he is pulling his nation from its views. Just as would a bad guy leading a good nation.

So if the nation is complacent with the leadership either through propaganda or apathy how does the actions the nation fallow under the leaders command affect weather or not a nation is good or evil.

I would say leaders have a good deal of influence but are not the deciding factor. You can have a good Leader trapped in an evil nation, having to partition out what reforms he can because if he changes too much too fast the people would reject him (or the evils in goverment assassinate him). Likewise, an Evil guy can con himself into leadership of a good nation, and he will have to hide his evil lest the people throw him out.

Over time, assuming they stay in power, leaders can sway the general "Alignment" of the nation to align more twords their own, but it takes years, usually decades. Nations have a tremendous amount of instiutional inertia and a lot of people invested in keeping the status quo. even a Dictator has limits on how far he can go in a short amount of time.

[Alrik Vas]

It takes a lot for a good people to overthrow a bad leader. Sometimes it takes generations. Sometimes it's because the bad guy's boot heel is big and scary. Sometimes it's because the leadership has you convinced they're right, as their policies don't seem to hurt you.

[eliakon]

First we need to define what we are talking about when we say the country is good or evil.
As pointed out in the other thread what is the threshold for discussion of a collective entity?

[Blue_Lion]

First we need to define what we are talking about when we say the country is good or evil.
As pointed out in the other thread what is the threshold for discussion of a collective entity?

Talking about the nation as a whole not the aliment of its people. Weather the nation is considered a force of good or evil and how the leader affects that.

Nations have values that represent them they may not be values of the people but they do have values.

[cosmicfish]

Another part of this is that leaders rarely exist in an unfriendly political atmosphere, at least not for very long. In the (shudder) Star Wars prequels, Palpatine is able to use deception to insert himself into an otherwise "good" political body, but by the time of the real movies* he has replaced much of the political leadership and all of the military leadership with those who are conspirators or puppets. So I think you need to consider the entire dominant faction of the leadership as one unit in this discussion, and not just the person at the top of the org chart.

*: You know it's true.

[Q99]

I would say leaders have a good deal of influence but are not the deciding factor. You can have a good Leader trapped in an evil nation, having to partition out what reforms he can because if he changes too much too fast the people would reject him (or the evils in goverment assassinate him). Likewise, an Evil guy can con himself into leadership of a good nation, and he will have to hide his evil lest the people throw him out.

Over time, assuming they stay in power, leaders can sway the general "Alignment" of the nation to align more twords their own, but it takes years, usually decades. Nations have a tremendous amount of instiutional inertia and a lot of people invested in keeping the status quo. even a Dictator has limits on how far he can go in a short amount of time.

So I think you need to consider the entire dominant faction of the leadership as one unit in this discussion, and not just the person at the top of the org chart.

Right.

Sometimes the nation's alignment can even be a matter of practicality, too, and a person or people may not produce a country of the same alignment, for a variety of reasons.

A good person may produce an Aberrant nation in a war for survival. A selfish person may realize it's better for them if the country's a nicer place and less likely to produce power-grabs.


The Kreeghor have a Diabolic Alien Intelligence as a power behind the throne, who in turn puppets immortal leaders, and has a ruling class who strongly tend towards evil, yet even with that, the Kreeghor government, while definitely evil, is a fair sight nicer than the Splugorth ones. Where a Splugorth nation is effectively massively Diabolic, the Kreeghor come across to me as Miscreant, with some tinges of Aberrant, I'd say. They're imperialistically militaristic and expansionist with a fairly oppressive state, but they keep to treaties, plenty of people there live normal happy lives, and anyone can work their way up by proving their loyalty to the Kreeghor Empire, even though humans are lower-class to start they can get respect and status in the military.


Reid's Rangers are basically a small government, and much of their leadership is or started out evil, and certainly in it for themselves, but due to the actions that get them praise and power often aligning to good, and often having to keep things up when working with principled heroes, almost all of them are shifting upwards.

Heck, the Shermarrian Nation, while a somewhat unique example, is effectively an unprincipled nation (kinda act like jerks, but spend most of their time fighting slavers, plus hassle the racist powers) made by some less-than-good bosses.

[Blue_Lion]

Another part of this is that leaders rarely exist in an unfriendly political atmosphere, at least not for very long. In the (shudder) Star Wars prequels, Palpatine is able to use deception to insert himself into an otherwise "good" political body, but by the time of the real movies* he has replaced much of the political leadership and all of the military leadership with those who are conspirators or puppets. So I think you need to consider the entire dominant faction of the leadership as one unit in this discussion, and not just the person at the top of the org chart.

*: You know it's true.

So if a good leader manage to get a good faction in charge of an evil nation at that time the national alignment would change to match?

That is kind of a interesting way to look at it the dominate political faction determines the national alignment.

[Zer0 Kay]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

[eliakon]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? {/quote]
Going to go out on a limb and guess that a discussion on the Forums (and not in Sound Off) will be about the game, and thus be using the game rules like alignment.

In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

Two problems there
1) at least for PB we do have moral absolutes
and
2) when an argument is 'in the beginning people thought'.....it suggests that the object in question was not actually what those people thought and/or that it changed over time.....

[Blue_Lion]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

Why do people keep trying to make the issue more complex. This is not about what is good or evil but how leadership affects it.
But then this is a PB forum about a game where there are moral absolutes. So your whole post is irrelevant, misdirection.

[Alrik Vas]

The alignment system seems to be suiting people pretty well, since it eliminates difficult questions about good and evil.

[eliakon]

The alignment system seems to be suiting people pretty well, since it eliminates difficult questions about good and evil.

Probably because this is supposed to be a game and not a 800 level philosophy seminar?
In my own personal games I have dispensed with alignments and make those questions part of the game, but that does require me to rewrite chunks of the game to fit that.
As written though the game (and its attendant universe) is designed around the idea that there is universal morality, that there are moral lines that there are no good reasons to cross. That there are Good Guys and Bad Guys. That's just how the universe was written. You can play it differently of course (I do), but that's not how it was written.

[Q99]

Does anyone here read the IDW Transformers comics?

Starscream rules Cybertron right now, and it's almost a mantra that 'Starscream cares about no-one and nothing but himself.' Which means, a number of other parties try and get their agendas done by making it in his best interest.

So if a good leader manage to get a good faction in charge of an evil nation at that time the national alignment would change to match?

That is kind of a interesting way to look at it the dominate political faction determines the national alignment.

Often, yea.

[Zer0 Kay]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? {/quote]
Going to go out on a limb and guess that a discussion on the Forums (and not in Sound Off) will be about the game, and thus be using the game rules like alignment.

In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

Two problems there
1) at least for PB we do have moral absolutes
and
2) when an argument is 'in the beginning people thought'.....it suggests that the object in question was not actually what those people thought and/or that it changed over time.....

I think by and large as Germans found out their opinions did change.

Okay so were talking in PB not RL.

[Zer0 Kay]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

Why do people keep trying to make the issue more complex. This is not about what is good or evil but how leadership affects it.
But then this is a PB forum about a game where there are moral absolutes. So your whole post is irrelevant, misdirection.

Alignments are NOT moral absolutes, they are guidelines. If you break them you don't suddenly shift. A Principled person will usually not kick his dog but if on an especially stressful day the dog wont get out of the way it will probably get the boot.

You don't want good and evil brought into this? Then why did you use them so much in the OP? As for IRL or RP... We've been using RL examples so where in the OP does it specify RP? Sure we could assume it is RP but we've been using RL examples.

The post is relevant if were talking RL then it is too many shades of gray. If it is PB RP then it is less gray, but flexible. Humans in the CS like RL WWII Germany have still been convinced that the CS's actions are good. So as long as there is no moral absolute and there are good propaganda spinners to moralize the "evil" actions as good... Then a leaders alignment affects the country greatly. If the leader is poor in the PR department then he'll likely be deposed if his policies are far from the general alignment of the people EVEN if the leader was declared by Devine appointment as the religious leaders will find something to declare his appointment illegitimate.

[eliakon]

Good by who's standards? The PB alignment system? In the beginning many of the good Germans thought Hitler's policies were good. The scapegoats were bad and a threat to Germany. In the case of ISIS some think they are good because "all they're trying to do is make good on Sir T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Sykes–Picot Agreement took away." To those people anyone who tries to keep that promise broken are evil. Good and Evil in a world without moral absolutes is like beauty to the eye of the beholder.

Why do people keep trying to make the issue more complex. This is not about what is good or evil but how leadership affects it.
But then this is a PB forum about a game where there are moral absolutes. So your whole post is irrelevant, misdirection.

Alignments are NOT moral absolutes, they are guidelines. If you break them you don't suddenly shift. A Principled person will usually not kick his dog but if on an especially stressful day the dog wont get out of the way it will probably get the boot.

Except that there are multiple examples of 'if you break this you suddenly shift alignment' instances in canon.
The best most glaring example in the entire game is in the Isle of the Cyclops adventure. Anyone that takes anything from the tombs, for any reason whatsoever regardless of justification instantly shifts to anarchist alignment. Some of the Demon Magic spells and other dark magic's in the game offer temptations that if given in to instantly shift your alignment. So yes, we do see 'if you break this you shift alignment'
In fact I would say that on the first violation of a 'never' portion of the code you shift alignment. Period. Because you just proved that you will do it, thus you are no longer a 'never' kind of person.

[Tor]

Agree with eliakon here. Although my opinions on 'never' do not extend to 'always'.

If 'always helps others' were taken literally then a good-aligned person would be unable to sleep because they would not be helping others while asleep.

[eliakon]

Agree with eliakon here. Although my opinions on 'never' do not extend to 'always'.

If 'always helps others' were taken literally then a good-aligned person would be unable to sleep because they would not be helping others while asleep.

I would agree. I would personally say that 'always' simply means 'when given the choice of option'

[Tor]

But... you have the option of not sleeping or eating and working yourself to death helping others even if this interferes with your long-term ability to help others.

[Nox Equites]

This is a great summation of why the CS may be half or mostly good/selfish people, but these people support a crooked imperialist regime. Sorry to cite something from a competing company.

"Why People Support Rotten Empires"
It's nice to think that a government that Goes Too Far will eventually cause the citizens to rise in righteous wrath and throw the rascals out. It's also convenient when all the defenders of the Evil Empire wear uniforms (except for the Secret Police spy). Unfortunately we know from centuries of experience that it doesn't really work this way. The worst tyrannies imaginable have been enthusiastically supported by people no worse than your or me.

Without going deeply into psychology here are some of the reasons why citizens support tyrannies. You can use these to make your fictional Evil Empire and its people something more than laser fodder.

Citizens fear the unknown will be worse than the known: a foreign philosophy, a strange religion, society breaking down to anarchy. They may fear and hate an enemy population, especially if they are a different religion or race. Let alone species. Do you hate the Bug soldiers because they are cruel and ruthless, or because bugs are icky? Many people fear that a new government would cost them their jobs or personal power; in a corrupt regime, they may have good reason to be afraid of justice. A clever regime's propaganda will play on all these fears, constantly portraying the foe as inhuman, the rebels as terrorist killers.

People who are used to obeying the law often have a hard time changing their habits when the law becomes oppressive. They still believe that "the police only arrest criminals; honest people have nothing to fear." When the rebels break into an armory to get guns, these people see only that a robbery was committed. Enough of this and patriotic citizens may volunteer for the army to fight these wicked rebels. Obviously rebellions find more support on worlds that were free until the empire conquered them. But even there, some citizens may hate the occupier but doubt the rebels would be any better. You can fight for "freedom" – but once you win, you have to set up the government.

And people may be loyal to the idea, or even to the ideals, of a nation or empire, even when the reality is tarnished. "My country, right or wrong…"

It is not evil, or cowardly, to be afraid of starvation, torture and death. Any successful rebellion must overcome these fears … to convince the people that anything is better than slavery. Meanwhile, the government is telling them anything is better than anarchy. Which is why rebellions have a hard time of it.

From John M Ford, GURPS Space, third edition, 1999