Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.Primate said:Arguably, Kilrah could be seen as killing very discriminately
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.
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.
The opposite of that of that, actually.
And I was also point out that Blair do have a history of disobeying orders.
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?
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.
Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.
Originally Posted by Lt.Death100
Kilrah wasn't purely military, there were plenty of civilians. The T-bomb killed all of them.
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.
Primate said:If it was the right thing to do then how could doing it make someone immoral?
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.
If it was the right thing to do then how could doing it make someone immoral?
Bandit LOAF said: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.
Primate said: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.
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.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "their civilization". The Kilrathi or the Humans?Speradon said: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?
Primate said: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.
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
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.
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.
Does he, though?
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. 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.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.
What about the greater good? Is it moral to allow millions of people to die?LeHah said: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.
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.
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.
Per her message on the locker, that's all the player knows until the middle of the game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Nephilim did have a special interest on the destruction of Kilrah, per the Prophecy of the game.
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.
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.
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.
Primate said:What about the greater good? Is it moral to allow millions of people to die?
Primate said:What's the difference if he's 8 or 50?
I agree with you on that point. That's why when you originally asked the question I wrote:LeHah said: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.
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.Just to be clear, this is VERY theoretical. It's not a practical question because you can never know what someone will become.
Bandit LOAF said:No, it didn't. Not having enough evidence convict someone and clearing them are two very different things.
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.
What are you talking about? Blair clearly knows she's on a covert operation (you *just* cited this fact, for the love of...).
Well, no, it isn't -- there's not a situation where he refuses to follow orders, he just becomes a traitor after a point.
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.
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.
The Nephilim had a special interest in Christopher Blair.
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.
The entire thing is academic, however, since a Commodore cannot replace a Vice Admiral.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Primate said: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.
Blair never becomes a traitor. Unless he were to lose the senate debate, what doesn't happen.