As general disclaimer, i don't claim to have researched the examples i
give here in depth, i might have gotten wrong impressions, from what i
read somewhere in the media.
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Onno Meyer wrote:
Johannes replied to me:
I tend to use more vector based morals. How did the character change the
world he is in (and what changes did he intend). A system lord, who
changes his realm to the better, as much as it is within his abilities,
would still reign over a horrible place, but i would call him good.
Perhaps better than the rest, but that isn't good. A bit like "a
better human rights record like North Korea" ...
A North Korean ruler, who tries to make North Korea more like China would
be morally good in my book. A Western ruler who tries to make his country
more like China would be a villian.
For a complete picture you'd also need to know, which steps the rulers do
on their own accord and what intentions they have with them, and which are
forced onto them, something that is usually better known about fictional
characters.
Does it make a moral difference if a Goa'uld takes a cute little
orphan as the next host or a hardened criminal? What would he do
the moment there is no criminal available? Die on the moral high
ground or live in infamy?
If he does not just accidently pick a criminal, but goes through
considerable research and inconvenience, and uses a body of lower quality
because of it, then i think that is a moral difference.
And if social mechanics in the setting are similiar, to what i believe
they are in RL, then even absolute rulers can't create paradises on their
own, but need to keep various groups happy, that support them. And
revolutionary changes often fail. Simply removing the old order from one
day to the next, telling everyone raised and conditioned to live under a
system lort they are free, likely leeds to anarchy first and conquest by
an other system lord next. So it would likely make things worse.
Iraq. But accepting the tyrant leads to a Saudi situation -- they
fund terror and fundamentalism worldwide, under the protection of
the United States.
Saudi Arabia is far from the best in the region, nor do i get the
impression that it is the interest of the goverment to move things into a
better direction.
[...]
Such a system lord can bring interesting ethical and strategic decisions
for a SG center party, that do not have obvious and fully satisfactory
answers.
Deal with Stalin to fight Hitler. That doesn't make Stalin good.
Just an ally of convenience.
Stalin was not changing things from bad to still bad but not as bad as it
had been before, so he is not a good example here.
But take the current rulers of Jordan, Morocco, Myanmar, Iran, or Khatami
in Iran or Khrushchev in the Soviet Union.
Their reign seems to aim to change things for the better, even if their
realms to different degree lack things to be called really good places.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
