PDA

View Full Version : Empire vs. Rebellion



FlipDog 2000
13 June 2005, 03:35 PM
Now that we know the "whole story*" Who will you stick with. Are you a loyal servant to the Empire, or jumping to the terrorist faction of the Rebel Alliance. Or are you a mercenary...playing for the highest bidder?

Riddle me this...riddle me that...


*OKay, okay...so we prolly don't know everything, but lets keep it in the guise of Episode III "answering all the questions."

pilnick1944
14 June 2005, 04:21 AM
Actually, I support the thesis that both the trilogies were HoloNet propaganda flics that were shot by the New Republic (or actually - the Rebels) and that it's all a pack of foma.

The Empire never collapsed!
Strength through unity and concentrated effort!
Watch only the official licensed Imperial information channels!

Slave_1
14 June 2005, 02:11 PM
If a were a citezen of the Empire at the time of the end of EPIII, and Palpatine declared himself Emporer, I would support such an effort. Look how the 'Senate' failed the Naboo. The fact is, most people cannot invision a better society than the ones they currently have an example for. These terrorists who call themselves rebels, are just more criminals that do nothing but prolong an unecessary war. If they would just surrender to the legal authority, there would be peace. If some governments feel they are being treated unfairly, then they need to realize that we are at war, and there system obviuosly supplies the empire with something in a greater quantity than it's it's neibors, and therefor must be protected with more securly. I am sure that all citezens of the Empire agree that some messures must be taken to root out this insurgent action. Indeed, most of these so-called rebels, are not even from the system they are trying to insight riots on. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made, and we do sometimes round up inocent bystanders, but if these terrorists would stop possing as civilians, then we could halt operations against civilians. These 'mistakes', wich are actually very rare, are the dirrect result of these cowards who refuse to identify themselves on the field of battle.

But I digress. Long live the Empire!

PsychoInfiltrator
14 June 2005, 02:46 PM
But I digress. Long live the Empire!

And his pocketbook!

I voted for the credits.

But between the Imps and the Rebels I'd choose a captured Chir'daki and backup TIE Defender anyday over a T-65 and a Jedi nimrod to fly it.

EntilZha
14 June 2005, 03:37 PM
Rebellion/New Republic forever!

REMEMBER ALDERAAN!!

Vanger Chevane
14 June 2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by PsychoInfiltrator


And his pocketbook!

I voted for the credits.

But between the Imps and the Rebels I'd choose a captured Chir'daki and backup TIE Defender anyday over a T-65 and a Jedi nimrod to fly it.
I've already got my snubbie mod (http://www.rt-ma.org/SWchar/VC/TZ.htm) done (klik on the pic), and am working a rebuilt T-65 for someone else.

Have an interest in trying Chir'Daki & the Gand Bomber, but haven't the time of late... B)

FlipDog 2000
15 June 2005, 06:14 PM
Ug...I can't believe how many people are so loyal to the Rebellion.

What about context? If you grew up during the Empire in a wealthy system, would you still join the Rebels?

Sasche
15 June 2005, 06:21 PM
I think that, knowing what I know from the movies, I would most likely wanted to be "left out of everything". I imagine that the Empire became somewhat overbearing on most systems. Especially the non-human systems. Even the ones who were wealthy.
But, I woudl also be a little reluctant to place my neck on the line for the Rebels.

Unless I was directly affected somehow, I would probably just wanted to be left alone.

EntilZha
15 June 2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
Ug...I can't believe how many people are so loyal to the Rebellion.

What about context? If you grew up during the Empire in a wealthy system, would you still join the Rebels?

Depends on how much social consciousness I had. If I were jaded, I'd probably be supporting the Empire. If I had a strong sense of what was right and wrong I could feel outrage at the actions of the Empire. Don't forget there were many affluent Senators who were shocked at the changes occurring in the Galactic government and where they were leading (e.g. Bail Organa, Mon Mothma).

Slave_1
15 June 2005, 08:41 PM
Please remember your history. Durring the American Rev. less the 1/3 of the populas was very loyal to England, and less than 1/3 took up arms against England, while little less than than half would just sit and wait. I feel this is accuratly depicted in the movies. Most people just wanted to 'be left alone'. Unless the changes directly affected their ability to put food on the table, they just wanted to go to work everyday, and try and survive as best they could. As long as they could resonably feed themselves and thier families, why rock the boat? Why should they take the chance of lossing what little they have for some grand idea that many would believe would lead to no real change as far as thier ability to place another plate on the table would be concerned.

Having said that,

LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE! :D

Aldaron
16 June 2005, 02:21 AM
Hey, I'm a Rebel. Give me an X-Wing...and a lightsabre. I definitely want a lightsabre! :D

Starlighter
16 June 2005, 03:22 AM
Actually the Empire isn't as evil as they are shown in the clasic movies. The only real evil ones are Palpy and Tarkin. I even found some simpathy for Vader. (although is is still a well evil dude ;) )
So basically only the leaders are evil. The stormies and 'lower ranking' officers are just doing their job.

Captain Piet is a good guy in my opinion. I think you can have fun with him in a bar. He's just good at his job! Same for Genral Veers.

I THINK when I would actually live in the SW universe I would stand on the side of the Empire. Not because I like it or dislike the Rebellion but more because the Empire would feel more secure.
The Galaxy isn't sure wether the Rebelion will win the war or not. They ARE hopelesly outnumbered.
Plus, I will get a pay-check for sure, with the Empire. ;)

On the Other hand...the Rebels ARE the good guys. So here, in the real world I'll support the rebels. :)

pilnick1944
16 June 2005, 11:27 AM
Starlighter, I second that.

Plus, think about who the Rebellion leaders were and what was their goal. They were Senators (I imagine filthy rich ones) and their goal was to restore the Republic - now look at the decrepit political organism it was.
So, you could assume, they were looking forward to restoring the rule of the oligarchy, with themselves seated as high as possible.

If you don't know what it's about - it's CREDITS, I say!
These idealists that were the Rebellion (well, not all of them - the leaders were probably your average cynical politicians) were decieved fools that brought unrest to a Galaxy that could have otherwise been a peaceful one.
Alderaan was their fault - they started the problems.

[Don't take all of that too seriously. Genocide I am not for]

Rostek
16 June 2005, 11:58 AM
Vanger, I've done up stats for the Chir'daki-- here (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?postid=214462#post214462).

Anyhoo- I'm nominally with the Rebels (or Privateering/Piracy- that's how I roll ;)). Frankly- without espousing my politics too much (:P)- I'm probably radical enough to go Rebel against a government that is as brutal and repressive (some would say "efficient"), and bigoted as the Empire.
And, if family history is any indication (and I suspect it is fairly representitive of my predilictions towards rebellion), I'd probably go for it all the way (ancestors/distant reletives fought against Cromwell and in subsequent Irish rebellions, and a few took part in the New York Draft Riots during the Civil War. More recently, an Aunt and Uncle were part of Swords to Plowshares (not that I happen to necessarily share any of these beliefs, mind- but the independant streak is strong in this one ;)).
It's all hypothetical, of course, but I like to think I'd fight for my principles.

FlipDog 2000
16 June 2005, 12:46 PM
I third those thoughts Starlighter. They're doing their jobs and their good at it.

Vanger Chevane
16 June 2005, 01:29 PM
Starlighter, therein lies the problem. Evil leaders without a system of checks & balances to limit how far they can go makes for an inherently Evil system/government/society. Unfortunately you have to wade through a lot of decent people's corpses to get at them.


Rostek, Stats are great, but I was talking about modeling the ships in 3D. Would be an interesting project. Opinions & comments on my mod-job are welcome & appreciated. I used TPTCBN, and help from Terras & Coldskier for the numbers.

Terras was also my Igor on the modeling project, offering great suggestions, feedback, & the bump map for the engine body.

I haven't quite finished adding bits for the T-65 mod, but it's largely done & the "owner" is quite pleased. :D

Rostek
16 June 2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Vanger Chevane
Rostek, Stats are great, but I was talking about modeling the ships in 3D. Would be an interesting project. Opinions & comments on my mod-job are welcome & appreciated. I used TPTCBN, and help from Terras & Coldskier for the numbers.

Terras was also my Igor on the modeling project, offering great suggestions, feedback, & the bump map for the engine body.

I haven't quite finished adding bits for the T-65 mod, but it's largely done & the "owner" is quite pleased. :D [/B]

Oops- forgot the pics that inspired the stats request isn't on that topic :rolleyes: (though you've already visited the thread :)) That stuff's
here\ (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?postid=147418#post147418)

Vanger Chevane
16 June 2005, 03:52 PM
Great pics, love the copper color & would love to know how to reproduce it.

Maybe after The Time of Con is over I can tinker with a few more Uglies or mods.


Somehow doubt Chevane Custom Engineering will become anything more than a Small Shop tho. :P

Kobayashi_Maru
16 June 2005, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by EntilZha
Rebellion/New Republic forever!

REMEMBER ALDERAAN!!

Yea!!

REMEMBER ALDERAAN!!

:sabersml:

EntilZha
16 June 2005, 05:46 PM
In the GURPS: Space handbook there's an excellent treastise called Why People Support Rotten Empires. I highly recommend it.

wolverine
16 June 2005, 06:39 PM
I am not really sure which i would be.

Yes the empuire is ruled by despotic buttheads, but it also has a stability to it. Yes freedoms are quashed, but then again places too 'free' imo dwindle into crime and lawlessness.

Then the rebels represent freedom and goodness, or do they?

FlipDog 2000
16 June 2005, 10:42 PM
REMEMBER ALDERAAN!!

I remember it...I remember blowing it into little bitty pieces! Lousy terrorists attack the government for no reason...retaliation.

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 05:31 AM
I'm definitely for the Empire.

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 05:34 AM
I've always been at the side of the Empire. I even have the imperial uniform.

Ronen Tal-Ravis
17 June 2005, 08:51 AM
My Allegiance is to the Republic, to Democracy! ;)

BTW Flick, fi you are Empire, why are you using rebel rank badges? :D

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 09:23 AM
Because my twin sister is for Rebellion.

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 09:24 AM
But I'll change it. That would make her crazy :)

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 10:37 AM
By the way Ronen Tal-Ravis, there is no such thing as a democracy. Democracy is very similar to tiranny, or as I like to say: same , different asshole.

Kobayashi_Maru
17 June 2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Flick_Steele
By the way Ronen Tal-Ravis, there is no such thing as a democracy. Democracy is very similar to tiranny, or as I like to say: same , different asshole.

That begs the question.

And democracy exists if only in understanding.

pilnick1944
17 June 2005, 12:49 PM
Democracy, in our world, was something ephemeral, it existed over two millenia ago in ancient Greece.
Then came the Empire. The Roman Empire, that is.
Then came the Monarchies.
Then came the Revolutions and with them - the Republics.
Then came the Totalitarities (be it of a red hue or a feldgrau one).
Then came the Capitalism. ;)

In terms of government types, the Old Republic is nothing like that. It's an oligarchy. It represents the rule of the rich, with various Guilds and noble families influencing the passing of laws and their execution according to their agenda.
The Emperor had a vision of putting an end to this political inefficiency. Too bad he became obsessed with his own power. Also, too bad he had no one to fight against for nearly 20 years after the Clone Wars. That's what made the Empire go down - the Empires always go down when the external threat is extinguished and the internal struggle begins (here: the rivalries between overambitious Imperials were eventually manifested with the birth of the Rebellion and the childish approach everyone in the Empire seemed to take to it). If only the Empire knew about the Vong, it would probably never collapse - people would need the strength a united Empire offered them. Really, too bad this external threat hasn't been revealed earlier.
The Empire was good in the respect that it gave the people the feeling of belonging to something powerful.
The Empire was bad because it turned against its own citizens to easily.

But, to travest a known saying, the Empire is the worst possible system, but it's the best there was :D

Kobayashi_Maru
17 June 2005, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by pilnick1944
Democracy, in our world, was something ephemeral, it existed over two millenia ago in ancient Greece.

That's relative.


Originally posted by pilnick1944
Then came the Empire. The Roman Empire, that is.
Then came the Monarchies.
Then came the Revolutions and with them - the Republics.
Then came the Totalitarities (be it of a red hue or a feldgrau one).
Then came the Capitalism.

You forgot the Etruscans, where the word Tyrannt comes from.
You forgot the democracy of Ancient India. (Democracy is not only a Western idea.)
You forgot the Roman Republic. (Just to name a few off the top of my head.)

Capitalism is an economic system not a political one. No matter how some in our current world may use it.

FlipDog 2000
17 June 2005, 04:38 PM
And then cam Communism...

Flick_Steele
17 June 2005, 11:51 PM
There were 4 periods of Roman history and they had real democracy in the first period. That was the period of seven great kings, although the last three were dictators.
In the period of republic was also established democracy because the Romans swore that they won't ever again let one man to rule (because of the last three kings) so they created two groups of people who will rule:
1) group with the supreme power (it was called imperium)
2) group with smaller power (it was called potestas)
In third period Rome rulled one man called princeps and in fourth period Rome rulled dominus.
That's very short version of Roman history.
So if any of you wants to speak about Rome and his democracy you should know this.

Slave_1
18 June 2005, 09:53 PM
So goverment is an everchanging everevolving mechanizm with wich to mantian stability and control. Knowing this, Is a democracy (the new/old republic) really the best choice for maintaining such control and stability for a galaxy as large and varried as the SW galaxy?

Flick_Steele
18 June 2005, 11:19 PM
I think not, Slave_1!

PsychoInfiltrator
19 June 2005, 06:26 AM
IMHO the NJO Imperial Remnant is a great way to run things-the bureaucrats want their people to like them so they don't secede, the bureaucrats are powerful, and the smart guy with a fleet and a focus still runs the military aspect with ALAP bureaucratic influence. And bureaucratic problems he stomps on.

Slave_1
19 June 2005, 11:28 AM
Exactly PsychoInfiltrator.

boccelounge
19 June 2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Slave_1
So goverment is an everchanging everevolving mechanizm with wich to mantian stability and control. Knowing this, Is a democracy (the new/old republic) really the best choice for maintaining such control and stability for a galaxy as large and varried as the SW galaxy?

Well, if you want to try to apply real-world political terms to a fantasy universe (I'm not sure we should), it should at least be noted that "democracy" is a broad political concept, not really a practical form of government.

In the purest sense, a "democracy" is a system where every single citizen has a voice in political decisions. As a practical matter, this isn't an effective way to govern a group larger than, say, a few dozen people. To govern large, multinational states, a representative form is needed. No one really expects to see a country run by "democracy," and the fantasy movies of the Star Wars saga are realistic enough to acknowledge this.

More specifically, then, the Galactic Republic might be described as a "Unicameral Parliamentary Republic," a system of government based on a relatively weak executive power, an enduring professional bureaucracy, and relatively autonomous member states.

Most matters of "government" are handled locally, and individual planetary systems are generally free to govern themselves as they see fit ("You want to base your government on electing teenage girls 'queen???' Well, OK, it's your show... ").

Matters of "galactic" importance-- such as peace and security, and inter-system trade-- are decided by the (term-limited) Senators, who (in theory) represent the best interests of their constituents, but most day-to-day work is handled by the professional bureaucracy, a body that is largely immune to the vagaries of the "democractic" masses.

And since we're indulging in real-world comparisons, our own history shows that republics of this nature are quite effective at maintaining a balance between "effective" government and respect for individual rights, and in managing large, diverse populations in times of peace.

(Coincidentally, this explains why Palpatine saw that to change the form of government (from parliamentary republic to Empire), he'd first have to deal with the pesky problem of "peace.")

Rostek
19 June 2005, 12:54 PM
Succinctly put, boccelounge, and well explained.

PsychoInfiltrator
19 June 2005, 01:17 PM
Well put, Boccelounge.

Slave_1
19 June 2005, 05:22 PM
boccelounge , very well said.

boccelounge
19 June 2005, 10:09 PM
Aw, shucks...

And here I thought the Poli-Sci and English degrees were being wasted by a database analyst...

But seriously, I love the small bits of "political intrigue" in the Prequel Trilogy. Fun stuff. I'm mildly disappointed that the "political" scenes were cut from Episode III, but that movie is so full of coolness and clips along so well, that it's hard to complain about cut scenes...

That's why it's so great to have the HoloNet Forums, I suppose-- getting into all these deeper, more profound, more geeky areas of Star Wars. Also good: DVDs.

Fingon
20 June 2005, 06:48 PM
Hmmm... Interesting thread...

I would not call the Empire 'evil'... its leaders were evil, but not the govenment per say... there were good people and bad people, corrupt sectors and benovelent sectors in the Empire. The Rebellion was 'good,' I would say, becuase Lucas says so and the leaders of the Empire were 'evil.' They would be good, without the quotes, if they just wanted change in the Empire, not bringing back a corrupt republic (which is what happened). When the Empire was defeated, any kind of solid galactic unification was shattered, and "greedy, squabbling delegates'" returned to the senate floor, or sphere as it may be. If there had been a change in leadership, with uncorrupt leaders, and a system of checks and balances put into place, the Empire would have lasted for a very, very long time. With a good goverment and 25,000 1.6 KM long ships, what wouldn't? And giant walking, shooting transports. :atat:

Empire all the way.

boccelounge
20 June 2005, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Fingon
I would not call the Empire 'evil'... its leaders were evil, but not the govenment per say...

Well, hey, your opinion is your opinion, but the very point of the Star Wars "fable" is that power corrupts-- and that a system of government that places ultimate power in the hands of one man will inevitably and unavoidably become itself "an evil."

And this point is very powerfully proven in the films-- conclusively proven, in my opinion. Lucas uses a very potent one-two punch of historical parallels (Rome, Nazi Germany, etc.) and mythic symbolism (the Dark Lords of the Sith).

There's just no way (IMO ;) ) around this conclusion...

Bram Corolev
22 June 2005, 09:02 PM
If Thrawn had survived and reforged the Empire...now THAT is something I would have liked to have been a part of...

Slave_1
23 June 2005, 11:09 AM
Well, hey, your opinion is your opinion, but the very point of the Star Wars "fable" is that power corrupts--

And yet you seem to support a paroniod power hungry indivudual that calls herself a 'Rebel'? If it wasn't for the efforts of such people as Garm, Luke, Lea, Han, and the rest ... Mon Mothma would have been just another Palpatine, only she would be wearing white ...

boccelounge
23 June 2005, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Slave_1
And yet you seem to support a paroniod power hungry indivudual that calls herself a 'Rebel'? If it wasn't for the efforts of such people as Garm, Luke, Lea, Han, and the rest ... Mon Mothma would have been just another Palpatine, only she would be wearing white ...

LOL... nah, I just think Genevieve O'Reilly is REALLY cute:

http://www.starwars.com/meta/rd/expand/expand.html?world=databank&img=/databank/character/monmothma/img/movie2_bg.jpg&width=undefined&height=undefined&import=undefined&caption=
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/production/news20030619.html


There's something about strawberry-blonde Irish girls...


Oh, but, no... Mon Mothma is an entirely admirable, virtuous character. In the "post-Endor" fiction, she serves her term as New Republic Chief Of State, then steps down peacefully, as democratic leaders do. She's no more "paroniod" [sic] or "power-hungry" than, say, George Washington.

Come on, I've said it before and I'll say it again: these movies are all about Very Good vs. Very Evil. We all know who's who and what's what.


(P.S. - No offense, Caroline Blakiston)

Slave_1
23 June 2005, 06:35 PM
Of course we do ... thats what makes this topic so fun ;)

Terras Jadeonar & Raven
23 June 2005, 07:04 PM
I may use the pirates badge, but i'm all rebel at heart. More Privateering than Pirateering, but to Imperials its one and the same. Must oppress the government that deems non-humans as unequals ;)

Fighting for the underdog is usually a worthy cause.

Rostek
23 June 2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Terras Jadeonar & Raven
I may use the pirates badge, but i'm all rebel at heart. More Privateering than Pirateering, but to Imperials its one and the same. Must oppress the government that deems non-humans as unequals ;)

Fighting for the underdog is usually a worthy cause.

...That, and you want to flaunt your Twi'lek conquests in public :D

FlipDog 2000
23 June 2005, 09:25 PM
Whoo! Twi'lek conquests!

Rostek
24 June 2005, 08:49 PM
I've been holding off on posting this, because frankly the publication that published this piece is very, VERY conservative (or neo-conservative if you prefer), but there is a piece here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp) that covers much of the same ground Empire apologists here have covered.
An interesting read to be sure- though I must wonder about this guy's particular set of morals and what that represents (naturally, since it's the Weekly Standard, I've got a low opinion of him anyway- but I'm aware that isn't so for many people ;)).
Enjoy :)

boccelounge
24 June 2005, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Rostek
I've been holding off on posting this, because frankly the publication that published this piece is very, VERY conservative (or neo-conservative if you prefer), but there is a piece here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp) that covers much of the same ground Empire apologists here have covered.
An interesting read to be sure- though I must wonder about this guy's particular set of morals and what that represents (naturally, since it's the Weekly Standard, I've got a low opinion of him anyway- but I'm aware that isn't so for many people ;)).
Enjoy :)

Ah, yes... I remember this article. While his Star Wars "points" are easy to brush aside (with, you know, that ol' pesky "reason"), I enjoy the piece precisely because it's rare that "neocons" make it so easy to call them "evil"-- in this case, by expressly admitting it. When this guy writes "Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet" he actually means it. Brilliant.

Slave_1
25 June 2005, 04:14 AM
While I don't agree with Mr. Last, he does have some validity in what he says.

1) It is true the Jedi are so full of themselves they can't see past there nose's. Which is why they get (nearly) whiped out. (And why I never play them in gamess)

2) While alderan had no physical weapons, a planet full of spy's can be just as dangerous.

3) Yes, the emperor was evil, very evil, and he made sure he put people in power that were just as evil, and he did start the sepratist movment to bring himself to power. On this point, I disagree wirh Mr.Last. Comparing Palpi with Pinochet is totaly off base.

4) When you think about it, who (on the rebels side) didn't have a personal grudge agaist the Empire? Was it really 'to free the galaxy of a tyrant"? Or a score to settle?

5) In the end they sey up "The New Republic", why? the old one was *&^%$, why go back to that? I think they could have found a better solution to the problem.

6) In the article, Mr. Last says "victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.". This is indeed what happens, but I dont feel the New Republic would have been able to win these systems as quickly as the books show, so I am currently running an Infinities campain that stretches this well past the life times of the main hero's. It's like, ok palpi's dead, now we have unlimited resources, and as many ship as and people as we need to mop up over the next 5-10 years... wrong! The death of palpi was defintly a good thing, but it would not have stopped an entire system of government and military to suddly cease to exist, or just crumble from the inside out. And yet it did. Why? because the script said too.

Sorry, didn't meen to rant. :D

Rostek
25 June 2005, 05:02 PM
The fact that the guy refers to Pinochet as "benign" is kind of frightening- spend a couple of years under his reign, then tell me how "benign" he is.
And the thought of destroying a planet simply because there are probably subversive elements of the population... that's also very scary-It's like arguing you should nuke Damascus because there is a number of terrorist organizers and terrorists living there- Insane.

boccelounge
26 June 2005, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Rostek
It's like arguing you should nuke Damascus because there is a number of terrorist organizers and terrorists living there- Insane.

SSSHHHH!!!

Don't give them ideas!

FlipDog 2000
28 June 2005, 12:24 PM
Well the problem with Palpy dying is that everyone thinks they deserve to take over his legacy. So now you have a bunch of high-ranking warlords, each with their own alliances and vendettas. Not only do you have the inner strife of the remnants of the Empire, but you have to deal with the NR trying to take over and create unity.

That's one thing I don't get about the Special Special Edition. Showing the planets celebrate the fall the Emperor doesn't make sense. I highly doubt that the remnant of the Empire would allow that information out on the HoloNet for everyone to see. Not too mention that everyone wouldn't be happy about the fall. It also didn't seem like there was a very strong Imperial presence on Tatooine. Why do you think Coruscant was so hard to take over those years?

Then you have bounties to deal with, imposters. I don't know if I like the immedate fall or not..seems to create more problems.

And it's still my belief (movie biases aside) that the Rebellion was still nothing better than an idealist terrorist faction. They took every opportunity to attack, sabotage, create fear and then run away and hide. (Not denying that it's smart) Then they find that Palpy is on the station...lets send in every ship and try to kill him.

Slave_1
28 June 2005, 04:25 PM
I agree with Flipdog 2000. It's almost as if the movies are propaganda films produced by the Rebels/NR. The Empire is shown in the worst possable light, while rebels are shown in the best possable light.


Then they find that Palpy is on the station...lets send in every ship and try to kill him.

The Empire is HUGE! If they sent every ship they had to Endor to kill Palpi and blow up the death star, how could they win the ENTIRE galaxy with so few ships and people? They couldn't, and in my campains at least, they didn't.

Vanger Chevane
28 June 2005, 04:34 PM
To paraphrase FULONGAMER, "The Script was with them." If the Good Guys don't win, the story is usually pretty weak and uninteresting. The Empire is The Good Guys from your Certain Point of View. ;)


It's also commonly-accepted strategy. When vastly outnumbered focus on Critical Strikes. A quick, hard strike that will hamper/cripple the enemy forces works very well for small forces.

Bram Corolev
28 June 2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
That's one thing I don't get about the Special Special Edition. Showing the planets celebrate the fall the Emperor doesn't make sense. I highly doubt that the remnant of the Empire would allow that information out on the HoloNet for everyone to see. Not too mention that everyone wouldn't be happy about the fall. It also didn't seem like there was a very strong Imperial presence on Tatooine. Why do you think Coruscant was so hard to take over those years?

I never saw this as happening immediately, more like what eventually happened throughout the galaxy as some planets learned of Palpy's death and others were liberated.


The Empire is HUGE! If they sent every ship they had to Endor to kill Palpi and blow up the death star, how could they win the ENTIRE galaxy with so few ships and people? They couldn't, and in my campains at least, they didn't. Where does it say the entire Rebel fleet attacked Endor?

Rostek
28 June 2005, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
And it's still my belief (movie biases aside) that the Rebellion was still nothing better than an idealist terrorist faction. They took every opportunity to attack, sabotage, create fear and then run away and hide. (Not denying that it's smart) Then they find that Palpy is on the station...lets send in every ship and try to kill him.

Without getting too politicized- Terrorism is merely a tactic in war.
The US has used it in conjuntion with it's conventional forces over the decades- firebombing Dresden and Tokyo, the use of nuclear weapons, various CIA operations in Vietnam, etc., etc. All terrorism.
That's not even getting into the "terrorist v. freedom fighter" debate over the Contras, the mujahadeen, the Irish Republican Army, the French (and Czech, Yugoslavian, etc.) Resistance during WWII. All of this could be argued "from a certain point of view".
We only have what we see on the screen- we don't know if thet Rebels were blowing up resturants to get to an Imperial officer, though I suspect they weren't in that habit.
What we did see was the Empire blow up a planet which had no defense force, and while it undoubtedly contained many Rebels, it also had MILLIONS of innocent people living on it.
Both sides, in fact, would qualify as "terrorists".

FlipDog 2000
29 June 2005, 12:07 AM
That;s a good point. Seems like a lot of parallels to our own reality. I guess war remains the same thoughout all universe's.

But even with Earth parallel...the Rebellion sure sounds like terrorists here on our little planet.

Vanger Chevane
29 June 2005, 02:03 PM
LOL "Terror" is a cornerstone of not only ISB, but general Imperial Doctrine.

"Fear will keep the local governors in line, fear of this Battle Station."

Fear, intimidation, even torture are shown to be staples of Imperial Operations in the movies & novels. Only rarely are these employed by the Rebelion/NR.


Gubmint Approval does not exempt one from responsibility for committing War Crimes. Nor does the label "Defender of" absolve one for Terrorism, individual or institutionalized. ;)

Rostek
29 June 2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Vanger Chevane
LOL "Terror" is a cornerstone of not only ISB, but general Imperial Doctrine.

"Fear will keep the local governors in line, fear of this Battle Station."

Fear, intimidation, even torture are shown to be staples of Imperial Operations in the movies & novels. Only rarely are these employed by the Rebelion/NR.


Gubmint Approval does not exempt one from responsibility for committing War Crimes. Nor does the label "Defender of" absolve one for Terrorism, individual or institutionalized. ;)

Well said ;)

boccelounge
29 June 2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Vanger Chevane
Gubmint Approval does not exempt one from responsibility for committing War Crimes. Nor does the label "Defender of" absolve one for Terrorism, individual or institutionalized. ;)


Originally posted by Rostek
Well said ;)

Yeah, and let's add that we shouldn't confuse "guerrilla tactics" with "terrorist tactics."

Slave_1
30 June 2005, 12:33 PM
boccelounge can you please define the difference?

Rostek
30 June 2005, 12:57 PM
One is the use of hit and run, targeted strikes and skirmishing in lieu of conventional back and forth shooting. Think about the French Resistance and Viet Cong.
Terrorist tactics are usually guerilla tactics (though sometimes conventional tactics) which are specifically designed to inspire, well, terror among their enemies. They are just that, tactics- used at various times by pretty much everyone (what is "Shock and Awe" except another way to say "Fear and Terror")- which is why politicians calling any expansive group "the Terrorists" is absurd.
Certainly there are groups that utilize terrorist tactics as their standard operating procedure- and could be appropriately refered to as "terrorist groups" though "insurgents" and "guerillas" are probably more accurate terms. However, calling an entire block "the Terrorists" is an inaccurate description and implies some sort of collusion where none exists (unlike, say, the Rebels- who could, in fairness, be referred to by the Empire as "the Terrorists" if, in fact, terrorism is something that is a common tactic on their part), while at the same time (as Vanger pointed out) implying that those doing the naming are free of responsibility for using such tactics.

Slave_1
30 June 2005, 01:07 PM
Very well said :D

boccelounge
30 June 2005, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Slave_1
boccelounge can you please define the difference?

Seriously? A guerrilla or "small war" military uses hit and run tactics, irregular troops, flexible doctrines, and decentralized logistics to fight against a conventional military force (typically, a larger and more powerful conventional force). This is a solid, accepted definition. Classic examples of guerrilla tactics include the American Revolution against Great Britain and the Vietnamese insurgency against French/American forces.

"Terrorism" has a little more "subjective" definition, but generally speaking, it denotes the use of fear and intimidation to achieve political/social goals-- usually through seemingly random, shocking attacks against civilian populaces.

There is, to be sure, often some overlap-- historically, many insurgents have combined guerrilla tactics (against another military force) and terror tactics (against civilians), but they are still independent, exclusive terms.

And, in this case, it's simply inaccurate to describe the Rebel Alliance as "terrorists." They are certainly guerrillas, at least up until some period before the Battle of Endor-- it seems that their suppport had grown enough by that time (Mon Cal, Sullust, etc.) that they could use more "conventional" military tactics (but this is just guess on my part). But not terrorists. And this is no "partisan" opinion, it's just definition: the Rebels don't bomb civilians.


EDIT: I just noticed that Rostek posted in the time I was typing this... funny.

Slave_1
30 June 2005, 01:49 PM
the Rebels don't bomb civilians

Thats what i was waiting for ;)

The destict difference between the two is the choice of targets. It is this target discrimination that defines the perception of terrorist vs. freedom fighter. Many people even supported the IRA until they bombed a store on christman and killed a bunch of kids. This one act turned them freedom fighters to terrorist almost overnight, even in the eyes of many of there fellow countrymen, and compatriots.

While in game, and on here I support the Empire, mainly to be obstanent, I believe this is the important deviding line between the two. I once ran a campain that lasted over a month just based on this premis. I had the PC's questioning themselves for so long they nearly quit! On the other hand, by the end of it, before they blew up anything ar made a hit and fade attack of any kind, they checked school scedules, times of most civilian activity in the area, local event schedules, etc... :D

FlipDog 2000
5 July 2005, 09:36 AM
Gee...bombing and killing civilians...sounds a bit like Vietnam. However...we don't know 100% that the Rebels didn't kill any civilians, unless you're that devoted to the perfection of the Rebel Alliance. It's never covered because the Rebellion has this almost perfectly tactical messianic spin put on them and the oh so evil Galactic Empire kills anyone who stands in their way. It's just how the story is written. Although, I'm sure that at one point or another (just like every conflict) somewhere during the war...the Rebel's hit and run tactic killed non-military officials.

Yeah, the Empire uses fear and brutal tactics (destruction of Alderaan), etc. But the Rebels use the same principles at times.

BTW Slave...that sounds cool...involves moral dillemas in a game situation.

Rostek
5 July 2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
Gee...bombing and killing civilians...sounds a bit like Vietnam. However...we don't know 100% that the Rebels didn't kill any civilians, unless you're that devoted to the perfection of the Rebel Alliance. It's never covered because the Rebellion has this almost perfectly tactical messianic spin put on them and the oh so evil Galactic Empire kills anyone who stands in their way. It's just how the story is written. Although, I'm sure that at one point or another (just like every conflict) somewhere during the war...the Rebel's hit and run tactic killed non-military officials.

Yeah, the Empire uses fear and brutal tactics (destruction of Alderaan), etc. But the Rebels use the same principles at times.

BTW Slave...that sounds cool...involves moral dillemas in a game situation.

There's a hell of a differance between accidentally killing civillians and intentionally targeting them.
We cannot assume that the films are "Rebel propoganda" and that the truth is much differant- while you are free to make that so in your campaign, it is not the canon view.
Occationally using fear tactics is not the same as making them standard policy- i.e. the Tarkin Doctrine.
Lucas liked using historical equivilents in his films- in Star Wars, the Empire is the Nazis, and the Rebels were the Allies. While the Allies occationally used terrorist tactics, I think we all can agree that the Nazis were a hell of a lot worse- and needed some serious defeating.
That said, to citizens living within the Empire or Germany would see "the trains run on time" and would live in a comparably safe environment (assuming, of course, you were considered a person by the state), and would thus be uninclined to fight against their own best interest.

Slave_1
5 July 2005, 08:08 PM
BTW Slave...that sounds cool...involves moral dillemas in a game situation.

Exactly ... I always try to involve this aspect in the game. Lets take a rebel commando team for an example (who of course are the players). They are ordered to blow up a munitions plant on whatever backwater world, the problem is they can't use an air strike becase accross the street to the north is a school, and to the south, the Empierials ordered the move of the local hospital to that location. They have to stop production of (whatever they make) permantly. All of the workers are civilians, but security is very tight. This plant is also the ONLY major employer in the city, and the paychecks are the life blood of about 1/3 of the local popuplation, with out this income, the rest of the ecomony will collaps. On the other hand, if it isn't shut down, it will continue to feed the Emperial war machine, and many more thousands will die.

If the players succede, will the locals support the rebels? Well .. thats another thread. The point of this story is, to get back on topic, is that movies, books, etc... are like a history channel special, where most of all of the collateral effects of such a conflict are not even mentioned, save for how it affects the few main characters.

wolverine
5 July 2005, 11:03 PM
Yup. One of the sessions i had a while ago, had the imperial facility underneith a regular civilian institution. Made great moral dilemmas for the pcs, as to whether they would attack the civs to get into the place or not...

Darklighter
9 July 2005, 08:10 AM
Not to disturb the flow of conversation too much, but on the poll, I'm definitely lining up with the Rebels and hopping into that X-wing. I mean, look at my user name! :D

OK. Move along. Move along... :)

FlipDog 2000
9 July 2005, 03:01 PM
Sorry, I'm dropping back to 'Nam for a sec. Anyone ever see Platoon? It sure seems like we were targeting them at times.

But still, I know its just a movie...just a story...but the end of RotJ still doesn't make sense. The Galactic Empire would not fall that quickly. Nor would people everywhere be happy about it. Heck, no one really knew the Emperor would be on the second DS. That's what I like about the EU...it takes five years to capture Corscant from the remnant. But it's those shots of Tatooine (no real Imperial presence), Corscant (tons of supporters), Naboo (possibly more supporters because it's Palpy's home planet), Cloud City (mostly abandoned after ESB). I just can't see it. Not to mention the Galactic HoloNet wouldn't leak that the Emperor was killed.

Rostek
9 July 2005, 05:52 PM
True: the Imperial controlled HoloNet would not leak the info.
That's why, in Iron Fist, it is explained that several outlaw slicer cells on Coruscant (who are presumably monitoring military bands) find and broadcast the whole shebang on pirated public monitors.
It also goes on to describe the Imperial crackdown on the rioters: the Stormtroopers fire into the crowd, blasters set to kill, with no warning. The crowd disperses and flees (or dies).
Remember- while Palpy may well have had support on Coruscant, it is important to note that there are portions of the population (possibly very large parts of the population) that would have reviled Palpatine- aliens, persons who supported alien rights, supporters of the Republican system, etc.
And on Naboo- if Padme's any indication, the Naboo liked their democracy quite a bit, and thus the "hometown boy" thing would be slightly less important.

boccelounge
9 July 2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
I know its just a movie...just a story...but the end of RotJ still doesn't make sense. The Galactic Empire would not fall that quickly. Nor would people everywhere be happy about it.

But this is the old "elapsed time" fallacy-- how "quickly" did it take for people to find out and begin celebrating the fall of the Emperor? Minutes after the destruction of the Death Star? Hours? Weeks? We don't know.

It's a 2-1/2 hour movie, and there's no need to show elapsed time when nothing important to the film happens. Lucas is simply showing us that "at some point" after the Battle of Endor, "some people" celebrated.

You're not seeing things happen in real-time. It's said the main action in RotJ takes place in about a week; personally, I'd love to see a 168-hour Star Wars movie, but I imagine it would be somewhat difficult to distribute... ;)

wolverine
10 July 2005, 12:17 AM
Very true. Plus remember, even some of the military might not have lliked paltitines policies but were too scared to do anything about it while he was alive. Now he is dead, they have a chance to do something.

FlipDog 2000
10 July 2005, 06:25 AM
Now this is an issue of continuity with the story and film style. You wouldn't show what probably happened a few years later in a 12-second montage with the commonality of the fireworks on Endor. It's just bad filmmaking technique...it confuses the audience.

I inferred, when I saw the original version that it was only the beginning of the end. Now that the Emperor is dead, they try to start restoring peace to the galaxy. The when I saw SE, I wondered why it would happen immediately after DSII was destroyed.

And Iron Fist...is...well...not my favorite book.

CaamasiJedi49
10 July 2005, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
Now this is an issue of continuity with the story and film style. You wouldn't show what probably happened a few years later in a 12-second montage with the commonality of the fireworks on Endor. It's just bad filmmaking technique...it confuses the audience.

I inferred, when I saw the original version that it was only the beginning of the end. Now that the Emperor is dead, they try to start restoring peace to the galaxy. The when I saw SE, I wondered why it would happen immediately after DSII was destroyed.

And Iron Fist...is...well...not my favorite book.

Now, I can understand why you might be confused by the montage, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's bad filmmaking. When I saw the SE, I wasn't the least bit confused. In my mind, I assumed some time had passed between the battle and when the montage happens, possible a day, no more.And also, just because they celebrated the end of Palpatine doesn't mean they threw off the shackles of the Empire. The Empire, as other have said before, is a vast and powerful machine that couldn't be overthrown just by people power.

Caamasi Jedi49

FlipDog 2000
10 July 2005, 06:46 AM
But how exactly did you infer that?

And to be honest...most of SW is "bad filmmaking technique." Yes, we love the story, there are some great parts and shots...but in all honesty, it's not a well shot movie series. And most fans will agree.

boccelounge
10 July 2005, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
And to be honest...most of SW is "bad filmmaking technique." Yes, we love the story, there are some great parts and shots...but in all honesty, it's not a well shot movie series. And most fans will agree.

You can claim that, but I've never been confused. I doubt it's true that "most fans" feel that way, but even it were, who cares? The popularity of an idea doesn't make it true. The storytelling approach to Star Wars is deliberately "vague" and unrealistic in some places, and is the result of a very careful, conscious effort to make them thay way. Put simply, it echoes "mythic storytelling," and one of the key techniques is not telling the audience everything, but leaving us to "fill in the blanks."

Let's not make the "celebration scene" more complicated than it need be. The point, in terms of storytelling, is simply to pull back from the intense action of the heroes, and show that the rest of the Galaxy has a stake in what's going on. In a small but effective way, it gives the protagonists' struggles a larger meaning. And it suggests that many "average citizens" saw that Palpatine was a mean guy.

And that's it.

We don't have know to when or how or by whom the celebrations came about. If it helps your understanding of the story to think that this happened months later, there's nothing in the movie to contradict you. In fact, I'd rather agree with you there.

But it's shortsighted to say it's "bad film-making." Rather, I'd say you can't approach the story-telling aspects of these films too "literally," especially in regards to time and sequencing.

That's not a trivial observation: the use of non-literal, non sequential images and scenes is an important part of Star Wars' mythical and fantastical style. Lucas really does know what he's doing; he's deliberately contrasting his approach to the "photo-realism" approach that informs most films we see. It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't care for this approach, but it's simply inaccurate to say it's "bad" filmmaking.


And now, despite evidence to the contrary, you write a rebuttal to "defend" your position:


;)

Slave_1
10 July 2005, 11:17 AM
While I won't comment on wheather or not GL used "bad film making", I DO agree that there is no way the Empire could have fallen forcibly in five years. Think about it. The Empire was made up of thousands of goverments, many of which had more than one system, and who knows how many planets. The number of "Sepratist" in comparison (based on the impersions from EP3) would give term minority a new definition.

Even if by the end of EP6 there numbers had quintupled, they would be a minority, and from I get out of the books, this is true. The fact is too many people had too much power, and made too much money to just give it all up in the name of "doing what's right". The fact is most poeple are cattle, and as long they have food on the table and clean clothes, and some kind of retirement to look forward too, they will follow the status quo. All you have to do look to places like Afagnastan (durring Taliban), Iraq(durring Sadam), Old Soviet Union, and a lot of other places right here on earth for proof of that.

Do they want something more? Do they hate there goverment? In many cases, yes. Did they risk the lives of there family to force change? Nope. Ok, maybe a few individuals did, but not nearly enough to do it on there own. These governments were brought down with overwellming force (overwelliming economic force in the case of USSR).

It is my opinion, that to effect "forcefull" change on a scale the size of the SW Galaxy, would take closer to 50-500 years, not 5.

The reason why the Empire formed so quickly is beacsue the leaders of the Old Republic wanted it to change, and willing made it happen, with little to no resistance. "forcefull change" takes a bit longer.

boccelounge
10 July 2005, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Slave_1
It is my opinion, that to effect "forcefull" change on a scale the size of the SW Galaxy, would take closer to 50-500 years, not 5.

The reason why the Empire formed so quickly is beacsue the leaders of the Old Republic wanted it to change, and willing made it happen, with little to no resistance. "forcefull change" takes a bit longer.

500 years??! I'm not so sure how you're defining and differentiating "forceful change," but Palpatine was in power for what, 35 years, tops? Compared to the (by some sources) countless tens-of-thousands of years of the Old Republic, Palpatine was, in the final analysis, a shockingly tiny blip on the historical radar. Going back to being a "Republic" after 25 years of Empire shouldn't be that big a deal. Republic is, after all, the "status quo."

Now I don't mean to downplay the threat and power of Palpatine, though, as that downplays the heroism and grandeur of the whole epic story. And I generally agree with you that the struggle to topple the Empire would last long after the Emperor's death. I think the post-Endor fiction depicts this pretty well.

But 50 years? That's patently ludicrous. Palpatine was, after all, the glue that held his "New Order" together-- he was by all accounts an unequaled leader, powerful and forceful beyond all comparison. Once he's gone, the "remnants" certainly fight on, but the battle has already been lost. I five years sounds about right.

CaamasiJedi49
10 July 2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by boccelounge


500 years??! I'm not so sure how you're defining and differentiating "forceful change," but Palpatine was in power for what, 35 years, tops? Compared to the (by some sources) countless tens-of-thousands of years of the Old Republic, Palpatine was, in the final analysis, a shockingly tiny blip on the historical radar. Going back to being a "Republic" after 25 years of Empire shouldn't be that big a deal. Republic is, after all, the "status quo."

Now I don't mean to downplay the threat and power of Palpatine, though, as that downplays the heroism and grandeur of the whole epic story. And I generally agree with you that the struggle to topple the Empire would last long after the Emperor's death. I think the post-Endor fiction depicts this pretty well.

But 50 years? That's patently ludicrous. Palpatine was, after all, the glue that held his "New Order" together-- he was by all accounts an unequaled leader, powerful and forceful beyond all comparison. Once he's gone, the "remnants" certainly fight on, but the battle has already been lost. I five years sounds about right.

I agree. Palpatine had a system where greed was rewarded. Those greedy people were then kept at arms length by Vader or Palpatine. When they died, it was a free for all for the Empire. Everyone wanted to be an Emperor of their Empire. It makes sense that by 5 years, they would have fallen. They lost a lot of resources from the warlords or the NR and fought on too many fronts.

Caamasi Jedi49

wolverine
11 July 2005, 02:25 AM
Yup...

That plus all those who were problem children, but not enought to get the vader treatment, would now use this as an excuse to rise up and claim what was theirs (like the drall and selonians did in corellia).

FlipDog 2000
11 July 2005, 10:41 AM
Well, see now we're into film-making and techniques of cinematography. I guess "Bad-film-making" can be a general term. But the simple fact is that despite our love for the story, the techniques used to make the movies are a little lax.

Here's a list: For instance, the continuity errors in ESB. An example is when Luke cuts himself out of the ice and runs out of the cave. There is a sound effect that is the lightsaber shutting down, but its still on. ANH had over 200 continuity errors. ESB had over 150. The acting wasn't great and the only actor who really went on to continue in motion pictures is Harrison Ford. The pacing is wierd. Four words: George Lucas can't direct!

However, I like the dirty, gritty portions of the film. It makes them real. They looked real.

5 years is feasable. But the immediate celebration doesn't fit with the rest of the movie.

More later...(if you want it)

Zeb
20 July 2005, 01:13 AM
I can't seem to vote for some reson. But, I'll say rebaliion. Vaders cool so ios the Starnm trooper armor and the Tie fights, but the B wing Rocks. And the reblion seems to me just better. Fior a cause and gorila solders. And lots of other modfied weapons etc. And a good cause. I like the At-Ats. But, I just like the reblion better. Yes I know it's all made up and a movie. Just thinking what was cooler from my opion. Thanx for your time.

Jonas Malcume
20 July 2005, 02:11 AM
I'd have to go with the Rebellion. They have a cause worth fighting for(it kinda helps that I abhor Palpi and all he stands for), plus they are some of the best guerilla fighters in the galaxy. In my opinion their starfighters outclass TIEs(I'll take an X-Wing over a TIE fighter any day!!).

djas_puhr
21 July 2005, 07:41 AM
After reading all of the comments and thoughts about this topic I have finally casted my vote.

Rebel Alliance / New Republic

Each side brings valid arguments. Solely based on my moral principles and my views of life; I have to stand by the Rebel Alliance / New Republic.

If you wish for a better explination than this, allow me time to write out my moral, ethical and spirtual view on why I chose the Rebels.

Zeb
25 July 2005, 11:09 AM
Yep theres that and when it was all said and done the rebalon won. ;) :D

chiefcaptin
26 July 2005, 01:17 PM
If you think of it from the citizen point of veiw then empire. Think of it this way. Bin Ladden is a rebel and terrist just like the Rebels. The empire is the U.S. the ruling body. Would you support Bin Ladden? The Rebels were terrorizing and destroying buildings and ships that belonged to the gov. Just like Bin Laden. In the citezens view palpy was a old man who loved the republic and peace. he enforced peace and if i was human i would love the Empire.

Vanger Chevane
26 July 2005, 01:37 PM
Chief, your logic is off. WTC & other Al Queda targets (like the Madrid Train Bombing) have been civilian ones, not Government Offices. They have specifically targeted large groups of civilians who have little-to-no direct relationship with the Government they seek to topple.

While the Pentagon can be seen as a Legitimate Military target, using an airliner full of civilians as their weapon of choice against it is Evil.

PsychoInfiltrator
27 July 2005, 05:34 AM
I wonder if the Imperial option had been phrased lesss submissive and more like the Rebel one (I think there was a bias, but anyways) if the Imperial one said...oh...'Pass the TIE Defender" there would be more votes for it. I voted who's paying more, but would have voted Imperial if I hadn't hat to bow.

boccelounge
27 July 2005, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by PsychoInfiltrator
I wonder if the Imperial option had been phrased lesss submissive and more like the Rebel one (I think there was a bias, but anyways) if the Imperial one said...oh...'Pass the TIE Defender" there would be more votes for it. I voted who's paying more, but would have voted Imperial if I hadn't hat to bow.

No, I'm pretty sure you have to bow. You bow, or you Choke.

;)

Skywalker
7 August 2005, 08:44 PM
Really, the Rebels arent helping anyone. The Empire really didnt put people under opression, or makes slaves. The Empire actually did bring order to the galaxy. Besides, what did the Empire do to make Rebels?
It basically goes like this:
A guy is born with no father. A few Jedi raise the boy as a Jedi and boy becomes a great warrior. Boy has an affectionet love story going on. Boy secretly gets married which is against the Jedi order. Boy sees a vision taht his wife will die at birth. Boy gets lust for power to save his wife(i mean, who wouldn't?). Boy meets Sith Lord who promises him control of life and death.Essentially, guy lies. Guy makes boy kill all other Jedi, but 2 survive. 2 Jedi go into hiding.Boy faces off with old master.Boy loses. Boy catches on fire and is put in a life suit. Wife dies.18 years go by. Some people decide to rebel on an Empire that did nothing but build a super battle station.
But i side with the rebels cause Vader creeps me out and Palpatine is ugly as heck.So some idiots wage war against a non-opressive Empire just for the hecl of it.

FlipDog 2000
16 August 2005, 07:44 PM
Well, the Empire did enslave a certain number of alien species to build said battle station.

However, thank you for reitterating my point.

Sigma 008
18 August 2005, 09:25 PM
I agree with the Empire crumbling in 5 years. If you look at the Soviet Union and it's official collapse in '89 then shift to a democratic gov't in what '91/92'? I could see that being feasible.

swaddict
1 September 2005, 11:05 PM
Ready to serve the republic anytime!
Well, not to die for it anyway....

PsychoInfiltrator
2 September 2005, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by boccelounge


No, I'm pretty sure you have to bow. You bow, or you Choke.

;)

Bowing I could actually live with, but only once or twice every time I encountered them. Let's put this in reverse, however, if you don't like "Pass the TIE Defender".

"Already bowing before Mon Mothma and Borsk Fey'lya"

Now isn't that an ugly thought.

And realistic, too. Borsk-is self-explanatory, Mothma-reread the Thrawn Trilogy and pay attention to Bel Iblis. If you still don't get it, read the Thrawn Duology and pay attention to the defense of Coruscant.

Donovan Morningfire
2 September 2005, 07:30 AM
Personally and in-character, I would have to say give my an X-Wing, a full-load of proton torpedos, and a list of military targets to aim at.

Maybe I'm showing a bit too much of my liberal colors, but I'm a believer in the government existing to serve the needs of the people, not just the select few, and not the people existing to serve the needs of the government. It's been pretty well established in the EU that the Empire existed to serve the needs/wants of a select few, namely the upper class Humans, and particularly Palpatine, who can rightly be viewed as a fantasy equivalent to Adolf Hitler, one of the most reviled men in modern times. There's also the Tarkin Doctorine, or the "Rule by Fear." Was there a subversive element on Alderaan? Perhaps, but that doesn't justify annihilating billions of people just to make a point. And that's Tarkin ultimately did; he blew up Alderaan to make a point. As for the common person, they had their "freedoms"... as long as they did exactly what the Imperial bureacracy wanted them to do. Shades of communism anyone?

Also, Palpatine didn't ask the people of the Old Republic, "hey, what do you guys think of me turning this whole thing into an Empire?" He went ahead and did it, using the political climate that was a result of the Clone Wars to do so, all in the names of "security and peace."

I'm not saying the Rebels are all saints, but each and every member was fighting for something they believed in. There may have been civilian casualties as a result of their attacks on military targets (i.e. the Death Star debate from the movie "Clerks"), but more than likely they did what they could to limit civilian casualties. Their fight can also be seen as one to establish a legal government, one for the people and by the people, instead of a dictatorship. After all, Palpatine manipulated not only the Republic bureacracy to stay in office long after his term had passed, but the galaxy itself by creating a war that would ensure his continued reign, using various aliens as scapegoats (much like Hitler used the Jewish population as scapegoats for Germany's woes). Was it really any coincidence that the majority leadership in the Confederacy was composed of alien species?

Granted, the Star Wars films are nothing more than an elaborate fairy tale with a backdrop of starships, laser weapons, and Jedi Masters instead of dragons, mounted knights, and fairy godmothers. Meaning ultimately that any parallels drawn between the events depicted in those movies and events in history and contempary events is the purview of the viewer. But given the allegories, I'd have to side 100% with the Rebel Alliance. And while the New Republic may not be perfect, it's a whole lot better than any form of dictatorship.

*gets off the soapbox and goes back to work*

Darth Mathieu
2 September 2005, 07:57 AM
"You Don't Know the Power of the Darkside."

Glory to the Empire and may it crush the Rebellion.

FlipDog 2000
15 September 2005, 01:21 PM
w00t!

gmjabreson
25 September 2005, 04:56 PM
simply put, Ghorman massacre.

A ship captain, hey what do you know it was Tarkin, landed his craft in the middle of a peaceful demonstration, killing several law abiding citizens.
Yet people say that the Empire was good? That it was just a few people that were bad? Simple fact that some got right is that power corrupts. And look at what happened to almost the entire Empire, Warlordism after the Emperor's death.

Why? Everyone wanted the power for themselves. The rebels were volunteers, and could leave when they wished. In the empire you left the service early, good luck finding a legitimate job.

Slave_1
26 September 2005, 09:23 PM
Man I cant belive this has gone on this long ...

But as Donovan Morningfire said:

Also, Palpatine didn't ask the people of the Old Republic, "hey, what do you guys think of me turning this whole thing into an Empire?" He went ahead and did it, using the political climate that was a result of the Clone Wars to do so, all in the names of "security and peace."

Does the secret service ask the american population what they think of them reading and scanning every e-mail that is sent or recieved in the U.S.? No (I watched a special about it on the dicovery channel) they do it in the name of "security and peace".

Have you ever noticed that Empire is always shown in worst possable light with the "Great Rebel Alliance" is always show in the best possable? But then again, history has always been written by the victor. If Hittler had won the war, would we be reading the same thing about him today?

FlipDog 2000
27 September 2005, 01:22 PM
I know I won't ask anyone's permission when I declare myself Emperor. And all of you will have a place in the world...or my dungeon...whichever.:P