Tolwyns mistake?

[Primate]

Arguably, Kilrah could be seen as killing very discriminately.

 

[Lt.Death100]

Arguably, Kilrah could be seen as killing very discriminately

Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I agree, but in WC2 it seems that Blair has much more reason to hate Tolwyn than the other way around. Even tough the court cleared him, Tolwyn went out of his way to consider Blair a traitor. Considering they knew each other from earlier, that’s a very bad thing. Everyone else that survived the Claw and shows up on WC2, with the obvious exception of Jazz, vouches for Blair’s loyalty to Confed.

On the other hand, Blair has to face the fact that other people have every reason to trust and admire Tolwyn, what makes him even more isolated inside the Concordia. That part worked great.

You're wrong on two counts here. First, Wing Commander 2 makes a point that Blair's friends *don't* side with him. When pressed, Angel is unwilling to support his stories about stealth fighters.

Second, the court did not *clear* Blair -- it *convicted* him. The court's decision was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did so out of malice but that the destruction of the Tiger's Claw was still his fault.

What makes considering Blair a traitor all the more damaging.

A lot of it was circumstantial, too. Tolwyn effectively sends Angel to her death and treats Blair coldly when he asks for information. Of course the situation explains that, but it’s not the kind of stuff that helps build up a healthy relationship. Paladin does that, too, but at least acts up on it later on.

While Angel may have been under Admiral Tolwyn at some point she seems very clearly to have died working on General Taggart's competing project.

Still, I've always felt it fairly ridiculous that Blair thought it was acceptable to ask Tolwyn about it. Not only is it entirely personal information that the man effectively running the war shouldn't have anything to do with, it's completely farcical from a military standpoint: you don't give your combat pilots details of your covert operations. They've always made a special point of this throughout history -- remember Chuck Yeager not being able to fly after he was shot down over France for fear that he would be shot down again and reveal information about the resistance when captured?

The opposite of that of that, actually.

And I was also point out that Blair do have a history of disobeying orders.

Does he, though? He likes to disobey orders in Wing Commander 2 (as part of his feud with Tolwyn), he generally doesn't elsewhere. Look at his various problems in Academy, which usually involve a decision to follow orders above all else -- reporting on Tolwyn to Bergstrom, killing Bhok, etc. Blair has a tendency to follow orders *beyond* where it's reasonable and that's what I've been saying all along. Look at Prophecy... he's desperate to fly, but when told he can't he... doesn't.

Amoral people have no morals.

I’m not pushing anything. I’m merely analyzing what is available in the fiction. I don’t think everything Blair does is perfect.

Now, do you think Kilrah was wrong? What do you think Blair should’ve done? Just let the whole thing go and go fight in Proxima?

I don't think Kilrah was wrong in the larger picture, but I don't think the men responsible for ordering it or the man who ultimately pulled the trigger can ever be considered moral individuals.

1. Well, let me put it in another way. The Black Lance was a legitimate part of Confed on the Admiral ending. Is there any evidence it was so on Prophecy?
2. The quote is “They are fascinated by Us… Our ability to kill without remorse…”. When did Blair ever kill indiscriminately? And besides, he doesn’t seem evil and twisted on WCP as he was on that ending.
3. There’s no indication he has Tolwyn’s job, either. If he had become a power-driven individual, like Tolwyn, why not take Wilford’s command, like Tolwyn did on WC3?
4. And still, if they wanted him to follow the admiral ending, why change it?
5. Actually you make a good point. But perhaps, if that was the case, Hawk could be Admiral Blair’s aide. Blair also brought Maniac, which was available at the present at the instructor ending.

1. That's an arument fallacy - not seeing something is never proof that it doesn't exist (especially when the thing in question is a secret group). It's also not necessarily a correct assumption in the first place - we have no evidence that 'Admiral Blair' is using Tolwyn's fighters legitimately.
2. Kilrah. The Nephilim are especially interested in what they refer in taunts to as the "planet killer".
3. Your point makes no sense. Wilford is an officer put in place by Blair, not someone who happened to be in the way (Thorn and Eisen). He's much more akin to *Paulson* in that respect.
4. I don't think you understand. Blair is an Admiral in Wing Commander Prophecy. They followed Wing Commander 4 with a game where Blair is specifically an Admiral, jumping through hoops to switch the military service he was part of to make this so. Why?
5. I'm fairly sure the moral choices in Wing Commander IV were between Hawk and Panther, not Hawk and Maniac.

Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.

Civilians, certainly... but even from a racist standpoint we're talking about a fully integrated slave society that also centrally maintains its prisoner of war camps -- in all likelyhood millions or billions of non-Kils died at Kilrah.

 

[Primate]

Originally Posted by Lt.Death100
Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.

The war at the time was going badly and billions upon billions of humans had been killed by the Kilrathi. They were clearly the aggressors and we saw how well diplomacy worked with them in Fleet Action. While it may be very reasonable to argue that many Kilrathi were against the war (although not many for "moral" purposes), especially in the light of Gorah Kar and various defectors, destroying a planet to save a civilization seems like a very moral thing to do.

Originally Posted by LOAF
I don't think Kilrah was wrong in the larger picture, but I don't think the men responsible for ordering it or the man who ultimately pulled the trigger can ever be considered moral individuals.

If it was the right thing to do then how could doing it make someone immoral?

 

[LeHah]

If it was the right thing to do then how could doing it make someone immoral?

If you had the chance to kill Hitler when he was an 8 year old boy, would you? You could be saving millions of lives but you'd also be murdering a boy who didn't do anything.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The war at the time was going badly and billions upon billions of humans had been killed by the Kilrathi. They were clearly the aggressors and we saw how well diplomacy worked with them in Fleet Action. While it may be very reasonable to argue that many Kilrathi were against the war (although not many for "moral" purposes), especially in the light of Gorah Kar and various defectors, destroying a planet to save a civilization seems like a very moral thing to do.

Rather, destroying a civilization to save a civilization. Paladin's explanation for the T-Bomb: "Their entire culture is based on a strict, centralized hierarchy: 'All roads lead to Kilrah.' Every Kilrathi lives... and dies for the Emperor. Destroy that hierarchy... and you destroy them."

The "billions upon billions of humans had been killed by the Kilrathi" rings somewhat hollow in retrospect in terms of establishing the aggressor... since we know that in the final analysis more than three times as many Kilrathi as humans died in the war.

If it was the right thing to do then how could doing it make someone immoral?

Well, look at the quote above. The T-Bomb-as-planned is an absolutely immoral weapon... it's a bomb designed specifically for its effect on civilians. It's great that the Grand Fleet happened to be in orbit when the bomb was ready and that destroying Kilrah could (theoretically) save Earth... but coincidence isn't absolution.

 

[Primate]

Rather, destroying a civilization to save a civilization. Paladin's explanation for the T-Bomb: "Their entire culture is based on a strict, centralized hierarchy: 'All roads lead to Kilrah.' Every Kilrathi lives... and dies for the Emperor. Destroy that hierarchy... and you destroy them."

The "billions upon billions of humans had been killed by the Kilrathi" rings somewhat hollow in retrospect in terms of establishing the aggressor... since we know that in the final analysis more than three times as many Kilrathi as humans died in the war.



Well, look at the quote above. The T-Bomb-as-planned is an absolutely immoral weapon... it's a bomb designed specifically for its effect on civilians. It's great that the Grand Fleet happened to be in orbit when the bomb was ready and that destroying Kilrah could (theoretically) save Earth... but coincidence isn't absolution.

Perhaps civilization is a poor choice of words. I was trying to refer to the whole of humanity who would have ultimately (if the Kilrathi had won) been killed in battle, planetary bombardment, Sivar-eshrad etc. or enslaved. I did not mean the loss of culture. I also wasn't using casualty statistics as a means of establishing the Kilrathi as aggressors. That seems to be pretty well accepted from the games and books, and I don't just mean from the human point of view. Just look at the other races they had fought. In this context, the fact that 3 times as many Kilrathi died does not really change anything. The somewhat childish "he started it" takes on a valid connotation here. The end does not always justify the means, but that depends on what the end is and if there were any alternatives to the means.

As far as LeHah's comparison, I realize that this is a very deep question but I would have to say unequivocally, without getting into time travel issues, that yes, I hope I would be able to kill that 8 year old Hitler. Just to be clear, this is VERY theoretical. It's not a practical question because you can never know what someone will become.

 

[Speradon]

The war at the time was going badly and billions upon billions of humans had been killed by the Kilrathi. They were clearly the aggressors and we saw how well diplomacy worked with them in Fleet Action. While it may be very reasonable to argue that many Kilrathi were against the war (although not many for "moral" purposes), especially in the light of Gorah Kar and various defectors, destroying a planet to save a civilization seems like a very moral thing to do.

Small question regarding this. If the Kilrathi had destroyed Earth, killing the bulk of humanity so that their civilization would continue to thrive and expand, would you make the same argument?

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Perhaps civilization is a poor choice of words. I was trying to refer to the whole of humanity who would have ultimately (if the Kilrathi had won) been killed in battle, planetary bombardment, Sivar-eshrad etc. or enslaved. I did not mean the loss of culture. I also wasn't using casualty statistics as a means of establishing the Kilrathi as aggressors. That seems to be pretty well accepted from the games and books, and I don't just mean from the human point of view. Just look at the other races they had fought. In this context, the fact that 3 times as many Kilrathi died does not really change anything. The somewhat childish "he started it" takes on a valid connotation here. The end does not always justify the means, but that depends on what the end is and if there were any alternatives to the means.

Well, we were just discussing this in another thread. The Kilrathi seem to see things differently. Their explanation for the origins of the war, from Voices of War: "Encounters with the unknown race continue as exploration ships cross normal Kilrathi patrol routes. Vessels are noted to have external firing wepaons and are attacked on sight to prevent further penetration into Kilrathi territory."

 

[Primate]

Point taken. But I would think that regardless of Kilrathi and Human perceptions, the way the war seems to have been fought, the Humans were fighting for survival and the Kilrathi were fighting for extermination. I just think that from the point of view of Blair or any human, there may have been wrong in being TOO objective.
What was the other thread called?

 

[Primate]

Small question regarding this. If the Kilrathi had destroyed Earth, killing the bulk of humanity so that their civilization would continue to thrive and expand, would you make the same argument?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "their civilization". The Kilrathi or the Humans?
Also, in case you were emphasizing the "civilization" aspect of my comment, I changed that to differentiate between culture and lives. I didn't mean to equate the two.

 

[LeHah]

As far as LeHah's comparison, I realize that this is a very deep question but I would have to say unequivocally, without getting into time travel issues, that yes, I hope I would be able to kill that 8 year old Hitler.

Then you're not genuinely a moral person.

People believe the best of themselves, but most do not bother to test that idea. Assumption is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Delance]

You're wrong on two counts here. First, Wing Commander 2 makes a point that Blair's friends *don't* side with him. When pressed, Angel is unwilling to support his stories about stealth fighter

You misunderstand me. I was not talking about the Stealth Fighters, but his loyalty to Confed. Tolwyn claims Blair is a traitor, while his friends support him on this, including Paladin, who does make this quite clear to Tolwyn. Jazz simply knows Blair is not a traitor, but he's not Blair's friend.

Second, the court did not *clear* Blair -- it *convicted* him. The court's decision was that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did so out of malice but that the destruction of the Tiger's Claw was still his fault.

The court cleared Blair on the charges of treason. Lack of evidence is normally make courts not convict people. Tolwyn did go an extra mile and said he personally considered Blair a traitor.

While Angel may have been under Admiral Tolwyn at some point she seems very clearly to have died working on General Taggart's competing project.

Per her message on the locker, that's all the player knows until the middle of the game.

Still, I've always felt it fairly ridiculous that Blair thought it was acceptable to ask Tolwyn about it.

At that time there was little information to be compromised. Besides, its a personal thing. Blair is not a robot. It gave WC3 a dramatic, human touch. I think it was reasonable, given the circumstances.

Does he, though?

Doesn't he take the Excal for a ride on WC3? Or was that ruled out by the novel or something?

WCIV is about Blair not following orders. Einsen could not order him to defect after he had defected himself.

And he did get to fly on WCP.

I don't think Kilrah was wrong in the larger picture, but I don't think the men responsible for ordering it or the man who ultimately pulled the trigger can ever be considered moral individuals.

It was either right or wrong. If it was right, it was moral. It it's immoral, it's wrong. You can't have an immoral action that is right, and vice-versa. Morality is not a completely abstract construct, it must be have roots on the available possibility.

The alternative to the Kilrah mission is the destruction and enslavement of mankind. Not as a far-fetched conspiracy theory about space aliens, but a very tangible massive space fleet Confed had no hope of stopping.

So the moral choices were to either destroy Kilrah or have Earth be destroyed. And that is what justifies the Kilrah mission which, otherwise, would be a whole new discussion.

1. That's an arument fallacy - not seeing something is never proof that it doesn't exist (especially when the thing in question is a secret group). It's also not necessarily a correct assumption in the first place - we have no evidence that 'Admiral Blair' is using Tolwyn's fighters legitimately.

It's not a fallacy, because I'm not trying to prove it doesn't exist by saying it doesn't show up. I'm simply saying there's no evidence it still exists, period. It might exist, or not, but we can't know for with certainty.

2. Kilrah. The Nephilim are especially interested in what they refer in taunts to as the "planet killer".

The Nephilim did have a special interest on the destruction of Kilrah, per the Prophecy of the game.

3. Your point makes no sense. Wilford is an officer put in place by Blair, not someone who happened to be in the way (Thorn and Eisen). He's much more akin to *Paulson* in that respect.

Tolwyn did choose the Victory for a purpose, and still took over when he was there.

Anyway, why didn't Blair, a commodore, sent anyone else to do that final job on the shield tower? Who go by himself, all alone? Why not send Maniac and Maestro? BTW, why were they not fighting the major battle of the campaign? Send Wilford, Patricia, the Comm guy, the janitor, but, seriously, what was that about a Flag Officer going Marine on the aliens? Hero complex? Was the Midway devoid of any other people who could go on his place? He certainly was not acting like Tolwyn.

4. I don't think you understand. Blair is an Admiral in Wing Commander Prophecy.

Of course he was. That was not what I was talking about. I only asked why, if they wanted to make it clear that they were following the "Admiral ending" on WCIV, would they change the way they address him?

I'm not debating if Commodore is the same as admiral, I was wondering why the title change if they wanted to follow the other ending.

Here's how I see it. In the admiral ending, Blair was an unhappy, twisted evil admiral who likes to send people to do his dirty work. Something like what Tolwyn had become (from the POV of WCIV). On the Instructor ending, he's a guy who can have it all, but instead of power, is more interested on flying arund in fighters.

On WCP, he lacks any desire to boss people around (he outranked everyone and admirals, by definiton, do no usurp), and is overly interested in flying around in fighters for a flag officer. Insteaed of sending whatever people was available to the very, very dungerous mission inside an alien gate, he goes by himself, alone. Not very much like an the WCIV admiral. But hey, that's me.

5. I'm fairly sure the moral choices in Wing Commander IV were between Hawk and Panther, not Hawk and Maniac.

Of course, but the presence of Hawk is not a serious indicator Blair agrees with Hawk's worldview, since, by all accounts, Hawk was nuts. Maybe Blair was nuts, too, but on a very different way.

It’s not like they are specially connected, best buddies, and the only time they are mentioned together dates back to somewhere between WC1 and WC2.

And that is an interesting point. Perhaps if Blair was indeed aligned with Hawk on his decision-making, he would be less prone to allow the Midway to cooperate with Kilrathi raiders. Maybe not.


Well, this has been an interesting exercise.

 

[Primate]

Then you're not genuinely a moral person.

People believe the best of themselves, but most do not bother to test that idea. Assumption is a very dangerous thing.

What about the greater good? Is it moral to allow millions of people to die?
Killing is generally a bad thing but there are times when it is necessary.
What's the difference if he's 8 or 50? I'm not saying punish him. I'm saying stop him from what he's going to do.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

You misunderstand me. I was not talking about the Stealth Fighters, but his loyalty to Confed. Tolwyn claims Blair is a traitor, while his friends support him on this, including Paladin, who does make this quite clear to Tolwyn. Jazz simply knows Blair is not a traitor, but he's not Blair's friend.

Not *including* Paladin -- *only* Paladin. Angel, Spirit, Doomsday and Jazz all say nothing and when pressed either say they're neutral on the subject (Doomsday) or side with Tolwyn (Angel).

The court cleared Blair on the charges of treason. Lack of evidence is normally make courts not convict people. Tolwyn did go an extra mile and said he personally considered Blair a traitor.

No, it didn't. Not having enough evidence convict someone and clearing them are two very different things.

It's also very clear that this isn't some plithy crusade Tolwyn personally decided upon -- for God's sakes, the best selling book in 2657 is Blair being a traitor.

Per her message on the locker, that's all the player knows until the middle of the game.

That doesn't have anything to do with an extrnal critique of Tolwyn. By the same token, Tolwyn has no idea what might be in Blair's e-mail.

At that time there was little information to be compromised. Besides, its a personal thing. Blair is not a robot. It gave WC3 a dramatic, human touch. I think it was reasonable, given the circumstances.

What are you talking about? Blair clearly knows she's on a covert operation (you *just* cited this fact, for the love of...).

Doesn't he take the Excal for a ride on WC3? Or was that ruled out by the novel or something?

That's not disobeying an order, it's just something that makes Flash angry. Blair is perfectly within his rights as Wing Commander to take the Excalibur.

WCIV is about Blair not following orders. Einsen could not order him to defect after he had defected himself.

Well, no, it isn't -- there's not a situation where he refuses to follow orders, he just becomes a traitor after a point.

And he did get to fly on WCP.

... after waiting around to be allowed to do so, which was my point in the first place.

It was either right or wrong. If it was right, it was moral. It it's immoral, it's wrong. You can't have an immoral action that is right, and vice-versa. Morality is not a completely abstract construct, it must be have roots on the available possibility.

I think the atomic bomb ended World War II and that ending World War II was right, I don't think it was moral for the men who dropped the bomb to have done so... and you can't get any closer to the end of Wing Commander III than that. "Right" defined as good for our side isn't the same thing as moral at all.

The alternative to the Kilrah mission is the destruction and enslavement of mankind. Not as a far-fetched conspiracy theory about space aliens, but a very tangible massive space fleet Confed had no hope of stopping.

So the moral choices were to either destroy Kilrah or have Earth be destroyed. And that is what justifies the Kilrah mission which, otherwise, would be a whole new discussion.

... which, of course, is exactly what the games end up showing -- exactly the same claim you've made here to support your immoral bombing. Prophecy eventually does reveal that yes there is an evil alien race out there and that yes, it does have a hostile fleet that we have no hope of winning a war against.

It's not a fallacy, because I'm not trying to prove it doesn't exist by saying it doesn't show up. I'm simply saying there's no evidence it still exists, period. It might exist, or not, but we can't know for with certainty.

We do know with certainty that it still exists, though, we just don't know who's commanding it.

The Nephilim did have a special interest on the destruction of Kilrah, per the Prophecy of the game.

The Nephilim had a special interest in Christopher Blair.

"Blair: What do you want?
Nephilim Warlord: YOU!"

Tolwyn did choose the Victory for a purpose, and still took over when he was there.

... which has nothing to do with either of our points. I can use it to emphasize mine, I suppose: Tolwyn chose the carrier, he chose the executive officer, he chose the Wing Commander and he chose the fighter wing... the one element of the operation that he did *not* choose was Captain Eisen, who had been on the ship since Tolwyn was a newly minted Second Lieutenant. It is not hard to see why Tolwyn would replace Eisen.

Blair, however, selected the Midway's commander, CAG, Wing Commanders and senior pilots personally. If he replaces them he's only second guessing *himself*.

The entire thing is academic, however, since a Commodore cannot replace a Vice Admiral.

Anyway, why didn't Blair, a commodore, sent anyone else to do that final job on the shield tower? Who go by himself, all alone? Why not send Maniac and Maestro? BTW, why were they not fighting the major battle of the campaign? Send Wilford, Patricia, the Comm guy, the janitor, but, seriously, what was that about a Flag Officer going Marine on the aliens? Hero complex? Was the Midway devoid of any other people who could go on his place? He certainly was not acting like Tolwyn.

... the Tolwyn who personally took command of the Victory when it went to Kilrah? The man who put himself in a Scimitar when the Tiger's Claw was under attack? The Tolwyn who had surgery without painkillers because he wanted to get back to combat the same day at McAuliffe, despite having no advanced flight training in the first place? The Tolwyn who relieved Captain Thorn to ram the 'Claw down a superior Kilrathi force's throat? The Tolwyn who despite being a fleet commander took personal command ships heading to K'Tithrak Mang *twice*? The man who took the Concordia fully unsupported deep into Kilrathi space to rescue the Tarawa? The man who personally fought the Karga to slag to cripple a dreadnought with no honest hope of escape? "Ride to the Sound of the Guns" Tolwyn?

Here's the roof of the matter: you don't like Tolwyn so you've decided he's all things bad... but he is decidedly *not* a coward -- and if anything he is, just like Blair, a glory hound.

Of course he was. That was not what I was talking about. I only asked why, if they wanted to make it clear that they were following the "Admiral ending" on WCIV, would they change the way they address him?

I'm not debating if Commodore is the same as admiral, I was wondering why the title change if they wanted to follow the other ending.

You're really slipping on this one - this is the craziest argument I've ever heard. Your proof that he specifically isn't an Admiral is that they chose to make him... an Admiral. Wing Commander has been very clear - Commodore means Admiral. The fact that this might somehow confuse *you* didn't enter into anyones thoughts ever.

Here's how I see it. In the admiral ending, Blair was an unhappy, twisted evil admiral who likes to send people to do his dirty work. Something like what Tolwyn had become (from the POV of WCIV). On the Instructor ending, he's a guy who can have it all, but instead of power, is more interested on flying arund in fighters.

But that's a magic scenario you've invented for yourself that has little bearing on reality. We didn't capture Tolwyn at Peleus because he was sending people to do his dirty work... the Vesuvius didn't turn around to "kick" us because Tolwyn was sending people to do his dirty work.

The idea that because a *commander* is ordering subordinates to do something that he's somehow a coward or a lesser man is absolutely absurd in the first place. News flash: at the same time Blair is flying any mission in WC3 he's also sending 38 other people to do 'his' dirty work.

Now, focus on your last sentence, which is correct because it's based on a line of dialogue instead of some irrational hatred of Admiral Tolwyn and/or how the military functions. Consider: Blair is *not* an instructor in Wing Commander Prophecy. Following the scene you're trying to attach, Paladin says Blair is "Not a general, or a senator. And you could have had everything." Well, guess what -- he's a general officer.

On WCP, he lacks any desire to boss people around (he outranked everyone and admirals, by definiton, do no usurp), and is overly interested in flying around in fighters for a flag officer. Insteaed of sending whatever people was available to the very, very dungerous mission inside an alien gate, he goes by himself, alone. Not very much like an the WCIV admiral. But hey, that's me.

The first point, of course, is that he doesn't outrank everyone... but even aside from that, he's not in the chain of command. Even an Admiral can't go around inserting himself in someone elses command. Even if Wilford were an actual Captain (O-6), Blair can't reassign him without being the Admiral above him... and we know he's not (again, not that he would want to or have any reason to reassign Wilford, since Blair is the person who reccomended Wilford for the job in the first place.)

Of course, but the presence of Hawk is not a serious indicator Blair agrees with Hawk's worldview, since, by all accounts, Hawk was nuts. Maybe Blair was nuts, too, but on a very different way.

It’s not like they are specially connected, best buddies, and the only time they are mentioned together dates back to somewhere between WC1 and WC2.

And that is an interesting point. Perhaps if Blair was indeed aligned with Hawk on his decision-making, he would be less prone to allow the Midway to cooperate with Kilrathi raiders. Maybe not.

They are specially connected, Blair put together the Midway's command staff. If Hawks is nuts (which is an absurd thing to simply declare in the first place) then you're simply pointing out that Blair saw reason to have him put there in the first place.

 

[LeHah]

What about the greater good? Is it moral to allow millions of people to die?

There is no greater good if there has yet to be a crime. You might as well jail every man on earth for being a potential rapist or murderer and every woman for being a hooker or drug whore.

What's the difference if he's 8 or 50?

He hadn't done anything terrible at the age of 8. Who are you to decide the fate of someone? Hind sight is 20/20.

 

[Primate]

There is no greater good if there has yet to be a crime. You might as well jail every man on earth for being a potential rapist or murderer and every woman for being a hooker or drug whore.



He hadn't done anything terrible at the age of 8. Who are you to decide the fate of someone? Hind sight is 20/20.

I agree with you on that point. That's why when you originally asked the question I wrote:

Just to be clear, this is VERY theoretical. It's not a practical question because you can never know what someone will become.

In theory if I somehow "knew" what this 8 year old will grow up to be, then it would be moral to kill him. Otherwise I would agree that murder based on an assumption is probably wrong.

Kilrah was different because there was no conjecture involved. There was a war going on and Confed knew what was in store for them if they lost. Many other worlds had already been wiped out.

 

[Delance]

No, it didn't. Not having enough evidence convict someone and clearing them are two very different things.

The result is the individual being found not guilty of treason. It’s almost impossible to prove you are NOT a traitor.

No one but Tolwyn claims Blair is a traitor on WC2. Even Stingray says he's a coward. Angel doesn't believe the Stealth Fighters. Blair is known by the Coward, of the Traitor. Those are self-excluding things, and agree with the courts ruling that he chickened out.

And, frankly, not even Tolwyn acts as if he really think Blais is really working for the Kilrathi. He just doesn't like him and finds him unreliable. In his right mind, he would not allow someone who he thinks is a Kilrathi spy to be flying around with armed fighters.

That doesn't have anything to do with an extrnal critique of Tolwyn. By the same token, Tolwyn has no idea what might be in Blair's e-mail.

That was not a critique of Tolwyn.

What are you talking about? Blair clearly knows she's on a covert operation (you *just* cited this fact, for the love of...).

What this has to do with anything? I know she was. What I said is that it was understandable that Blair wanted some information if Angel was alive or not, even if that was not adequate.

Well, no, it isn't -- there's not a situation where he refuses to follow orders, he just becomes a traitor after a point.

Blair never becomes a traitor. Unless he were to lose the senate debate, what doesn't happen.

But, seriously, it's not like he is interested on BW nationalism, he just wants to investigate and defeat the traitors inside Confed, what he can only do from outside.

I think the atomic bomb ended World War II and that ending World War II was right, I don't think it was moral for the men who dropped the bomb to have done so... and you can't get any closer to the end of Wing Commander III than that. "Right" defined as good for our side isn't the same thing as moral at all.

Well, you don't think it was moral to end WWII like that?

And, more importantly, did Confed use an immoral mean to win the Kilrathi War?

Individual morality and culpability are much more complicated. Would you act differently? Was the alternative of allowing the Kilrathi to conquer Earth moral? For myself, I wouldn’t blame them. The best analogy is self-defense. Killing is wrong, but self defense makes an exception for that rule. Destroying a planet is wrong, but that was done to save not just Earth, but mankind.

which, of course, is exactly what the games end up showing -- exactly the same claim you've made here to support your immoral bombing. Prophecy eventually does reveal that yes there is an evil alien race out there and that yes, it does have a hostile fleet that we have no hope of winning a war against.

There’s no cause-effect relation between the GE device being used on civilians and defeating the space bugs. Tolwyn doesn’t speak of a threat he knows, but of a potential enemy that might appear some day.

I’m not sure what your point is. Is Blair is as bad as Tolwyn? The bombing of Kilrah is morally equivalent to the use of Bio-weapons? Most certainly not. Even if both are immoral, they are not the same. And the use of the GE weapon was simply wrong and served no purpose. At leas destroying Kilrah saved Confed.

The Nephilim had a special interest in Christopher Blair.

So did the Kilrathi. So much for an avarege joe, a bland character. The 'savior of the confederation' for Mankind, the 'heart of the kilrathi' for the cats and the 'planet killer' for space bugs.

which has nothing to do with either of our points.

Well, I like to think of this as a friendly conversation about WC, not so much a debate. I don't care about making remarks that don't necessarily support my point.

I can use it to emphasize mine, I suppose: Tolwyn chose the carrier, he chose the executive officer, he chose the Wing Commander and he chose the fighter wing... the one element of the operation that he did *not* choose was Captain Eisen, who had been on the ship since Tolwyn was a newly minted Second Lieutenant. It is not hard to see why Tolwyn would replace Eisen.

When Tolwyn selected the Victory, in a way he also selected Einsein, since the Captain and the Ship have been together for so long. While its understandable why Tolwyn took charge, but he didn’t replace Eisein, he just took control for an specific moment.

The entire thing is academic, however, since a Commodore cannot replace a Vice Admiral.

Wilford is a Vice Admiral? I thought he was a captain in Confed. Well, scratch that, then.

Here's the roof of the matter: you don't like Tolwyn so you've decided he's all things bad... but he is decidedly *not* a coward -- and if anything he is, just like Blair, a glory hound.

That was a nice speech, but you got me wrong. The hero Tolwyn from the Kilrathi war was not the same man as the Tolwyn from WCIV. He would not have ordered the assassination of innocent civilians. He would not have ordered people to shot down Confed fighters, Confed civilian transports or the bombing of a Confed station. The Tolwyn from the Kilrathi war would have faced the firing squad. That's cleary not the same person.

And what this have to do with my previous point? Well, the ‘admiral’ ending of WCIV gives the impression that Blair have gone down the same road as Tolwyn. WCP does not follow this, even if Blair has some dark moments after he returns from the bug torture.

The scene where he returns, is, btw, the best one in Prophecy.

EDIT: You got my opinion wrong. I don't dislike Tolwyn. I like him, he's good and complex fictional character. His presence make the history of WC a lot more interesting. I also like Darth Vader. That doesn't mean I have to like the evil stuff he does. And Tolwyn have a lot more reason to go dark than Anakin. I mean, that guy sold out the Jedi order quite easily.

Tolwyn became evil, even if, and perhaps because of, the fact that he did never seemed to perceive it.

Was that understandable? Yes. Was it justifiable? No.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The result is the individual being found not guilty of treason. It’s almost impossible to prove you are NOT a traitor.

Of course it is -- it's the entire point of Wing Commander 2, that Blair must eventually prove he was *not* the traitor.

No one but Tolwyn claims Blair is a traitor on WC2. Even Stingray says he's a coward. Angel doesn't believe the Stealth Fighters. Blair is known by the Coward, of the Traitor. Those are self-excluding things, and agree with the courts ruling that he chickened out.

You are incorrect, the 'Coward of K'Tithrak Mang' title refers to the belief that he destroyed the Tiger's Claw. Quoth Stingray: "Maybe that’s the problem... she’s a friend of Maverick. The Coward of K’Tithrak Mang, the guy who nuked the Tiger’s Claw!"

And, frankly, not even Tolwyn acts as if he really think Blais is really working for the Kilrathi. He just doesn't like him and finds him unreliable. In his right mind, he would not allow someone who he thinks is a Kilrathi spy to be flying around with armed fighters.

Just the opposite, I think - the storyline with Tolwyn in Wing Commander 2 is all about how he *does* find Blair reliable but isn't willing to lose face and admit it. As Sparks says: "Well, the Admiral’s had plenty of chances to send you back. He hasn’t done it yet. You’re a good pilot, Captain, even if the Admiral won’t admit it." The key word here is *admit*.

What this has to do with anything? I know she was. What I said is that it was understandable that Blair wanted some information if Angel was alive or not, even if that was not adequate.

Another important point would be that Blair gets his v-mail from Angel *after* he arrives on the Victory... so the claim that he has some right to demand information from Tolwyn because all he knows is that she's "about to set off for a covert operation for Admiral Tolwyn" loses some credibility.

Blair never becomes a traitor. Unless he were to lose the senate debate, what doesn't happen.

But, seriously, it's not like he is interested on BW nationalism, he just wants to investigate and defeat the traitors inside Confed, what he can only do from outside.

Of course he became a traitor, he abandoned his post and took up arms against his government. That's an open and shut case. The fact that it was politically impossible to punish him for having done so doesn't mean it never happened. You're far too caught up with attaching exceptionally absolute meanings to labels in cases like this - Blair being a traitor doesn't make him evil, Tolwyn being evil doesn't make him a coward and so on.

Well, you don't think it was moral to end WWII like that?

And, more importantly, did Confed use an immoral mean to win the Kilrathi War?

Individual morality and culpability are much more complicated. Would you act differently? Was the alternative of allowing the Kilrathi to conquer Earth moral? For myself, I wouldn’t blame them. The best analogy is self-defense. Killing is wrong, but self defense makes an exception for that rule. Destroying a planet is wrong, but that was done to save not just Earth, but mankind.

I think the Confederation did use an immoral means to win the Kilrathi War, and I focus on this fact because I believe that that is exactly what historians in the Wing Commander universe will debate themselves some generations after the end of the war.

I think, also, that the heady claims that mankind itself was in danger are somewhat overstated. The Kilrathi had absolutely no desire to wipe out human life up until the very end of the war, and even then had no practical intention of doing so. The Empire of Kilrah is a slave society - it needed mankind intact in the end else its sons had died for no real accomplishment. The Terran Confederation as a political organization was doomed (perhaps - I would further argue that we had been told the same thing before), human life, mankind, was not.

There’s no cause-effect relation between the GE device being used on civilians and defeating the space bugs. Tolwyn doesn’t speak of a threat he knows, but of a potential enemy that might appear some day.

I’m not sure what your point is. Is Blair is as bad as Tolwyn? The bombing of Kilrah is morally equivalent to the use of Bio-weapons? Most certainly not. Even if both are immoral, they are not the same. And the use of the GE weapon was simply wrong and served no purpose. At leas destroying Kilrah saved Confed.

I certainly think Blair killed a lot more people.

So did the Kilrathi. So much for an avarege joe, a bland character. The 'savior of the confederation' for Mankind, the 'heart of the kilrathi' for the cats and the 'planet killer' for space bugs.

Well, who really knows about the Kilrathi? The hero name (Heart of the *Tiger*, by the way), I think, will be forever wrapped up in mystery with the Ralgha treason plot.

When Tolwyn selected the Victory, in a way he also selected Einsein, since the Captain and the Ship have been together for so long. While its understandable why Tolwyn took charge, but he didn’t replace Eisein, he just took control for an specific moment.

What an odd claim to make. Do you have similar feelings for the fighter wing Tolwyn transferred away to make room for the 36th, or the executive officer replaced by Hobbes? The Wing Commander Colonel Blair took over for? I don't see why Tolwyn's clearly universally accepted (in fact, it is the essence of his very job) ability to make personell changes becomes offensive to you on this single sticking point.

That was a nice speech, but you got me wrong. The hero Tolwyn from the Kilrathi war was not the same man as the Tolwyn from WCIV. He would not have ordered the assassination of innocent civilians. He would not have ordered people to shot down Confed fighters, Confed civilian transports or the bombing of a Confed station. The Tolwyn from the Kilrathi war would have faced the firing squad. That's cleary not the same person.

Oh, really?

* The Assasination of Innocent Civilians: "In sum, she is ordered to surrender her vessel -- otherwise every Pilgrim system and enclave within Confederation territory will be destroyed..." - 2654
* The Bombing of a Confed Station: "Maverick, I need you to escort two Clydesdale tankers to the jump point. Afterwards, you’ll continue to the Rigel Depot. Destroy it and return to the Concordia." - 2667

Tolwyn didn't have the option of facing the firing squad - his sentance was eventually made life in prison with no chance for parole.

And what this have to do with my previous point? Well, the ‘admiral’ ending of WCIV gives the impression that Blair have gone down the same road as Tolwyn. WCP does not follow this, even if Blair has some dark moments after he returns from the bug torture.

Really? It seems to me that Blair is not a happy go lucky instructor without a care in the universe in Prophecy... instead he is an Admiral (!) who has made it his personal crusade to prepare the Confederation for the next war -- spearheading new weapons technology exactly as Tolwyn did with his Project.

EDIT: You got my opinion wrong. I don't dislike Tolwyn. I like him, he's good and complex fictional character. His presence make the history of WC a lot more interesting. I also like Darth Vader. That doesn't mean I have to like the evil stuff he does. And Tolwyn have a lot more reason to go dark than Anakin. I mean, that guy sold out the Jedi order quite easily.

Tolwyn became evil, even if, and perhaps because of, the fact that he did never seemed to perceive it.

Was that understandable? Yes. Was it justifiable? No.

I don't think you're very good at dividing the character, though. The fact that he is evil doesn't suddenly make him a coward -- we have two very clear example of Tolwyn continuing to "ride to the sound of the guns" in Wing Commander IV. His ideology being wrong doesn't mean that every single aspect of the man is suddenly low.

 

[Speradon]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "their civilization". The Kilrathi or the Humans?
Also, in case you were emphasizing the "civilization" aspect of my comment, I changed that to differentiate between culture and lives. I didn't mean to equate the two.

By "their civilization" I meant the Kilrathi. I wasn't meaning to single out the word; "culture" works just as well if it makes more sense that way.

Two other things I've just thought of, which may or may not be relevant:

I haven't seen it in a long long time, but in the "Hawk" ending of WC-IV where Blair becomes the Admiral, isn't he wearing the Black Lance uniform (which differs from the standard Confederation uniform)? If he is wearing a Black Lance uniform, does that matter at all in regard to whether that ending is `true' when it comes time to consider Blair's status in Prophecy (since, in Prophecy, he's back in a Confed uniform)?

Blair never becomes a traitor. Unless he were to lose the senate debate, what doesn't happen.

I would argue that he does, in a sense, betray the Confederation. In WC-IV, he has to make a decision on whether to follow Eisen and Maniac to the Intrepid, or to stick with Confed. In the path that allows the game to continue on (though I think if you stick with Confed. you get a few more missions), Blair sides with the Border Worlds. Now, when all's said and done, he did protect/defend the Confederation which, I imagine, is why he wasn't drummed up on charges. In the moment, however, despite all he'd done for Confed. in the past and all the laurels they'd bestowed upon him, he chose his friends and the `other side' over Confed. Traitor in the strictest sense of the term? No. But he did side with the enemy, even if the enemy ultimately were the `good guys' in the context of the game at that point.