What do you dislike about Rifts Version 2.0.

[Sureshot]

So here is another attempt at the thread with the kind permission of the mod. Once again please keep please keep it civil and stick to the topic at hand. I rather it not get locked like the first one.

So what I dislike:

I really dislike is how too many of the good organizations seem too suspicious and untrusting of each other despite their alignments. While the evil organizations who should distrust each other because of their alignments seem to get along fine.

The damage and weapons of robots and vehicles. It just feels kind of wonky and requires too much suspension of disbelief. No way should a hand weapon out class a robot or vehicle weapon imo.

Count me in as another who dislikes the redundant OCC. Besides a few different skill choices a CS Grunt and an infantryman just seem to alike imo. I find the saves against magic/psionics too easy. The magic system while very versatile just feels week compared to weapons and psinocs and still no good anti-tech spell. While I understand that PB may not be able to have full color books they do need to upgrade their production values. Otherwise your product barely gets looked at imo. I also dislike some of the sameness of some of the weapons. It is pointless say to take any other type of railgun besides the TX-500. Most of the rail gun models do the same damage for the most part and more expensive. I would like to see the heavier types knock someone off their feet. And for some odd reson tanks while outclassed by some power armor and robots are looked down upon and generally underpowered imo.

Some of the hand held ranges on the weapons are strange to say the least The TX-11 Sniping Rifle somehow has less ranger than the Wilks 447. When imo a sniping rifle should have better range.

[jaymz]

So here is another attempt at the thread with the kind permission of the mod. Once again please keep please keep it civil and stick to the topic at hand. I rather it not get locked like the first one.

So what I dislike:

I really dislike is how too many of the good organizations seem too suspicious and untrusting of each other despite their alignments. While the evil organizations who should distrust each other because of their alignments seem to get along fine.

Can't really argue with you here. While I understand how the CS got to teh point they have, why hasn't the NGR teamed up with the New Navy yet? Or why hasn;t the New Navy made overtures to the Hman powers in Japan or South America or even Australia?

The damage and weapons of robots and vehicles. It just feels kind of wonky and requires too much suspension of disbelief. No way should a hand weapon out class a robot or vehicle weapon imo.

Definitely one of the firstthings I fixed in my games *nods*

Count me in as another who dislikes the redundant OCC. Besides a few different skill choices a CS Grunt and an infantryman just seem to alike imo. I find the saves against magic/psionics too easy. The magic system while very versatile just feels week compared to weapons and psinocs and still no good anti-tech spell. While I understand that PB may not be able to have full color books they do need to upgrade their production values. Otherwise your product barely gets looked at imo. I also dislike some of the sameness of some of the weapons. It is pointless say to take any other type of railgun besides the TX-500. Most of the rail gun models do the same damage for the most part and more expensive. I would like to see the heavier types knock someone off their feet. And for some odd reson tanks while outclassed by some power armor and robots are looked down upon and generally underpowered imo.

Some of the hand held ranges on the weapons are strange to say the least The TX-11 Sniping Rifle somehow has less ranger than the Wilks 447. When imo a sniping rifle should have better range.

Yeah, I personally fixed magic by using elements of the PPE channeling, Magic Foci from Rifter 30 and upping how much PPE a mage gets every level. but thats me. i tink it works others thinks its munchkin *shrugs*

As for the Railguns you mention, it could be a matter of availabiltiy. Triax items aren;t exactley commonplace so it may be easier to obtain one of the others even thought h TX-500 is the same but cheaper or lighter etc.

The ranges were another thing I basically took and handwaved to what IO thought they were.

OCC's while a lesser issue to me, I can see why others have na issue. All infantry OCCs can essentially be summed up by the Merc in RUE and just have some country/nation/area specific mods for it.

To me the game falls donw in the combat system. It is cludgy the more players you add to it. With only 4 it isnt too bad an on par with most other games out there typically but once you start adding more players it falls apart very quickly.

[Sureshot]

I also think the magic and psioncs while very versatile are a little weak. Magic still does not have a decent Anti-tech spell. The saves are too easy for both.

[jaymz]

I also think the magic and psioncs while very versatile are a little weak. Magic still does not have a decent Anti-tech spell. The saves are too easy for both.

Well needing 15 is pretty hard to save against for most human characters if they aren;t psionic in nature themselves. I take more issue with every d-bee and the extended family getting dumass bonuses to save

I agree magic saves are too low though. shoudl be the same as Psi at 15 i think. and make ritual magic even higher. Or have ritual magic imose penalties to save instead. Unfortuantely again every dbee and their extended family end up havgin bonuses out the wazoo more often than not to save versus magic for whatever reason. Thats a bigger issue tehn the save taretitself I think.

Magic power is dealt with partly if you use thigns like the Foci from Rifter 30 but I agree that it is weak incomparison to the tech that is in the RMB let alone any other books out of the box. Also agre that there is no anti-tech magic really but there are spells that will help against tech even though they aren;t anti tech specifically.... just not enough of them is all.

[Incriptus]

I don't care for the rules . . . just the principles that the game uses [or fails to use]. I think a strong rule system needs to accept three major premises. 1) Opposed Rolls 2) Degree's of Success 3) Easy Scaleability.

1. Opposed Rules: A game needs to accept that there are times where you are going to attempt to do something and someone else is going to try and stop you.

Rifts only does this minimally. You try to strike someone, they attempt to parry/dodge, I can appreciate this. When someone tries to cast a spell or use a psionic ability, success is completely dependant on the defender. Spell Power shows up from time to time, but resisting one mind melter's bio-manip is just the same as resisting any other mind melter, making it sometimes too one sided. Then things go into complete meltdown with skills. None of the skills have opposed rules. "I'm going to try and hack the computer"; "I'm going to try and stop him"; They both roll Computer Hacking they both succeed, now what?

I think out of 5 Stars Rifts only gets 2 Stars.

2. Degree's of Success. Things aren't as simple as pass/fail. You can do a complete failure, a poor job, a decent job, a good job or a great job.

I don't think the concept even exists in rifts. When you roll to strike you simple do or you do not. Saving throws are yes/no. Skills are also win/lose [in regards to skills i've unoffically adopted the idea that the difference between your percentage and your dice roll is the level of success, but they are not official rules]

Rifts gets 1 Star out of 5

3. Scalability. The ability for your game rules to compare a variance of capabilities. This one isn't quite as important as the others . . . unless you claim to be a universal system.

For as much flack that Rifts gets for Mega Damage, it does go along way to solving this problem. When a person throws a punch he can roll one dice and get his results, and then when he reaches for the launch button for the nuke he can roll one dice and still get his results. In some systems a person would roll 1d6 for his punch, and then the game mechanics would want him to roll 100,000d6 for his nuclear weapons damage. While highly chaotic, they did make it easy for you to go from a fist fight to a space battle and use the same system. 2d6 x 10 is a lot nicer to roll than 20d6 [not an uncommon event for high powered characters in other systems]. But They create their numbers off the top of their head. That chaos is just too much at times [see everyone's comments on so called heavy vehicular weapons]

Rifts gets 3 out of 5 due to the sometimes sloppy nature, but it makes the attempt better than several others.

[random_username]

good organizations seem too suspicious and untrusting of each other despite their alignments.

One unqualified/disgruntled/bad inductee and their who organization could be compromised/sold out/wiped out.

While the evil organizations who should distrust each other because of their alignments seem to get along fine.

- Knowing who their potential rivals are and keeping an eye on them makes them more secure rather than less secure.
- They are more likely to copy knowledge from each other rather than steal and kill.
- They are primarily united by: the fact that they are busy hunting/messing with the other 99% of the population. Hence they will never, ever run out of easy vulnerable targets.

The damage and weapons of robots and vehicles. It just feels kind of wonky and requires too much suspension of disbelief. No way should a hand weapon out class a robot or vehicle weapon imo.

Count me in as another who dislikes the redundant OCC. Besides a few different skill choices a CS Grunt and an infantryman just seem to alike imo.

Some of the hand held ranges on the weapons are strange to say the least The TX-11 Sniping Rifle somehow has less ranger than the Wilks 447. When imo a sniping rifle should have better range.

Answers to all three questions:
- Hazards of trying to include a variety of everything each with their own style.
- More books, more sales, company able to continue to exist, make even more books, and keep everyone mostly happy.

I find the saves against magic/psionics too easy.

Magic: Many either do not have saves, have dodge vs #, have built-in penalties to save, or only reduced durations for successful saves.

Magic/Psionics: If GM in a medium to high powered game where everyone has +8 or better vs magic/psionics just add spell strength bonuses to opponents. Could be a universal game-play modifier or a special training/enhancement thing for the main campaign villains who are a guild/group of magic OCCs/Psionic OCCs.

The magic system while very versatile just feels week compared to weapons and psinocs and still no good anti-tech spell.

Each of technology, psionics, and magic are intended to be radically different in their range of uses. If they didn't there wouldn't be any point in including them in the system.

It is pointless say to take any other type of railgun besides the TX-500.

I'm presuming this is referring to Triax's version of the Glitter Boy. If so that technology is basically the upper cap of what human technology in Rifts can achieve with a power armor scale rail gun. Even then Triax has effectively improved it as much as they could over the antiquated Glitter Boy design. This may change when Triax 2 is released.

I would like to see the heavier types knock someone off their feet.

Ranged knock down weapons are usually shotguns.

And for some odd reson tanks while outclassed by some power armor and robots are looked down upon and generally underpowered imo.

Rifts ground combat is primarily based on body armor/power armor/robot vehicles. As such tanks tend to be underdeveloped both due to in-game story concepts and book write-ups.

When the occasional high powered tank is added its is often controversial: Naruni Juggernaught, etc.

---------------------

When all else fails house rules anything you dislike.

[runebeo]

The games is 20 years old and still in great shape by my opinion. 5 years ago it got a some refreshing upgrade with RUE, maybe soon it will change again but not everyone will be happy like the last time. I love the rule changes but still could use a few more but I'm happy as it is.

[keir451]

The layout, I dislike having to hunt thru the book to find rules and character creation. I would like to see character creation (the MOST important part of the game) put back near the front of the book where it belongs.
Divide the sections up into clearly delineated chapters so they are more recognizable.

[Zer0 Kay]

What I don't like... I don't like that they took the burst rules away and replaced them with individual weapon burst values. I don't like that the types of missiles used in Rifts ended up influencing Robotech. For example in RT a veritech could carry 6 long range missiles on hard points and the Alpha was primarily shortrange missiles and the mini-missiles were specifically developed for the cyclones and were a little smaller than a soda can (I figure about the radius of a red bull but 50% longer/taller). But then came Rifts where the missiles were all larger for some reason and the LRM nearly the size of an ICBM from a Russian mobile launch vehicle. So then RT(v.2) comes out and now the Alphas have mini-missiles. So I don't like that Rifts was a conglomeration of the Megaverse + new material and is now essentially the foundation.

[jaymz]

As much as I LOVE Rifts on its own, I agree, it has TOO much influence on everything else now. Primarily Robotech. Thus i make my own Robotech stats....

[Vrykolas2k]

Large combat robots and vehicles need more MDC, and they need to do more damge, according to scale.

[popscythe]

Untill I get to the POH, I won't get to play!

Exactly. I HATE that it's not possible to play Rifts 24/7.

On the flipside of another post I made, I think Rifts impressive name recognition is something that gets it a lot of undue scorn from players that have not heavily reviewed the rules set, or that have only been exposed to the rules via hearsay. Like anything else that's popular, there's a lot of room to criticize Rifts, from where it sits, up in it's tower of excellence. The fact that I hear a lot of disinformation about Rifts is something that I do not care for that is related to the game.

I was going to say that I dislike "E-clips" because they're clearly "E-Mags", but I'll just assume there's a little lever/dial/etc on the side of every E-Clip that shoves the power inside into the weapon (as part of the reloading process), and then you can throw the clip away if you'd like. E-Clip.

[Sureshot]

One unqualified/disgruntled/bad inductee and their who organization could be compromised/sold out/wiped out.

You have a point yet it seems that every good organization distrusts each other. Even with secret reasons how do you expect any of the good organizations to save Rifts Earth if neither is willing to work with each other.

- Knowing who their potential rivals are and keeping an eye on them makes them more secure rather than less secure.
- They are more likely to copy knowledge from each other rather than steal and kill.
- They are primarily united by: the fact that they are busy hunting/messing with the other 99% of the population. Hence they will never, ever run out of easy vulnerable targets.

Another good point yet according to their alignments they trust each other and work too well with each other even with each other. The level of cooperation vs the distrust between good organizations ensures that only the CS and posiibly Traix will save Rifts Earth

Answers to all three questions:
- Hazards of trying to include a variety of everything each with their own style.
- More books, more sales, company able to continue to exist, make even more books, and keep everyone mostly happy.

I have to disagree. To me it was lawys to insure that characters survive. Too much so imo. Even though the game is promted as being dangerous and deadly.

Magic: Many either do not have saves, have dodge vs #, have built-in penalties to save, or only reduced durations for successful saves.

Magic/Psionics: If GM in a medium to high powered game where everyone has +8 or better vs magic/psionics just add spell strength bonuses to opponents. Could be a universal game-play modifier or a special training/enhancement thing for the main campaign villains who are a guild/group of magic OCCs/Psionic OCCs.

Another good point yet it is still too easy to save. Magic espcially on Rifts Earth is portrayed as something to be feared and to some extent it is yet the way it is written just seesm to make it not as deadly as they show it. I do like your possiblr solution to the problem though.

Each of technology, psionics, and magic are intended to be radically different in their range of uses. If they didn't there wouldn't be any point in including them in the system.

I would agree if both psionics and magic did not have any form of anti-tech. Psioncs has Telemechanical Paralysis and Possession. Magic has Negate Mechanics which is a joke compared to the psionic power. I cannot belive that even after the siege on Tolkeen there i still no anti-tech spell.

I'm presuming this is referring to Triax's version of the Glitter Boy. If so that technology is basically the upper cap of what human technology in Rifts can achieve with a power armor scale rail gun. Even then Triax has effectively improved it as much as they could over the antiquated Glitter Boy design. This may change when Triax 2 is released.

That would make sense if their was a cap on energy/ion/particle beam technology. there is not imo. Why would their be one for rail guns. Cosnidering how many opponents are invunerable to energy wepaons or at least highly resistant to them I figure more reaesrch would be done on them as opposed to anything else. Espcially b the CS.

Ranged knock down weapons are usually shotguns.

True yet not that many shotguns in Rifts. At least MDC types. Then again considering how close range an enemy need to be to inflict maximum damage do you really want an mdc creature that close to you in the first place.

[Sureshot]

As much as I LOVE Rifts on its own, I agree, it has TOO much influence on everything else now. Primarily Robotech. Thus i make my own Robotech stats....

The Rifting of Robotech if that is the right word would not be so bad if they had also increased the damage values of the wepaons along with the MDC values of the mecha. Instead the damage values are not that high and it just takes longer than it did before to take out enemies. An Invid Socut has 150 MDC. You have to use missles if you want to destroy it in one shot imo.

[grandmaster z0b]

I think the disparity between different weapons is a big thing. Especially the fact that an energy rifle does about the same damage as a canon on a giant robot. For example the NG-P7 Northern Gun Particle Beam Rifle does the same damage as the Titan Combat Robot's Rail Gun (1d4x10).

[Rimmer]

I dislike the fact that Stats have very little effect on skills, Example, the scientist with a high IQ and low PP, is going to be better at gymnastics than the thief with the reverse stats.

Weapon scale damages is a major problem, as is ranges.

The numerous Strength levels, the less said about them the better.

Man I could go on for a while here, but this is enough of a start.

[Kalidor]

Stats are a gripe of mine too. I remember the 'stats are useless' thread not that long ago and some people were like "But stats are great because if you're guy has an IQ of 8 then you KNOW he's retarded!"

What I'd like to see is a better range of bonus and penalty modifiers so that 8-15 is the same dice roll.

I'd also like, as you say, for skills to be grouped by their stat synergy. So IQ gives you bonuses to technical skills but PP or PS gives you bonuses to physical skills.

[Rimmer]

One of the more common house rules that I have seen, is doing away with the percentages for skills and giving them a direct bonus instead, which is then tied to whatever skill is most appropriate. EG: Prowl at %55 would become a straight +5 bonus tied to PP or whatever. The stat that was used would vary depending on the situation.

[Rallan]

I'm gonna be lazy and copypasta from the last thread.

- Character classes that do the same thing. There aren't just a lot of "military guy who pilots robot" classes for example, there are multiple classes specialising in piloting variants of the same unit. How many SAMAS pilot OCCs do we need? How many Glitter Boy pilot OCCs do we need? Do we really need a seperate OCC for ninja juicer and ninja crazies? Do we really need two Gambler OCCs? Do we really need seperate Rogue Scholar and Rogue Scientists OCCs? Do we really need a new Grunt/Infantryman OCC every time a new country is introduced?

- Completely uncinematic combat. Even if we ignore the horror of the -10 dodge rule, Palladium's combat system does not reward ingenuity or style. You use your most damaging attack, and unless it's a melee attack (which you can parry) or unless you have autododge you follow it up by using your most damaging attack again and again until the other guy drops, because every action you waste trying to dodge is a free chance for him to take down more of your MDC.

- Attributes that do nothing except take up room on your sheet. This already has a thread of its own floating around somewhere, so I won't go into it in depth here.

- The same schtick being repeated again and again across the setting. The NGR is a struggling tech-based human nation that's under siege from an empire of monsters. So is... well, pretty much every other major human power in the setting that's introduced after that

- The absolutely broken application of the Mega-Damage scaling mechanic. This was originally cooked up as a way of emulating genre conventions in Robotech, to reinforce the massive difference in scale between people-level combat and mecha-level combat. And while it wasn't perfect in Robotech it still managed to sort of work, because it was applied consistently and there aren't many things in the setting that blur the line between epic and people-scale.

In Rifts though, it's all over the shop. Body armor gives a guy as much protection as a small 20th century warship, and cheap laser rifles give better damage than the cannon on a 20th century main battle tank. Some large non-supernatural animals (elephants for example) are still SDC critters, while others the same size (dinosaurs) are minor MDC critters. Minor demons, and even critters that aren't supernatural at all, get large amounts of MDC because they're "tough" (a quality which apparently comes down entirely to the material properties of their hide since it certainly has nothing to do with their supernatural badassery). 20th century battleships are SDC structures that can take less of a pounding than a post-Rifts MDC truck that isn't even built for combat. Giant robots can take as much damage as their own weight in cardboard boxes. Giant spaceships average less SDC by surface area than their own weight in wet cardboard boxes.

- The complete lack of balance. I don't mind a game that caters to different campaign style, but Rifts is a game that just throws any old power level and leaves it to GMs to learn the hard way how to balance a party. Guidelines? Advice? Suggestions? Pfft, let him learn by himself that rogue scholars can't compete with mega-juicers. And heaven forbid aspiring GMs get any advice on what sort of baddies are an appropriate threat to what sort of party.

- The Alignment system. Not only is it almost entirely irrelevant to actual gameplay (which means you're paying good money for a couple of pages of reprinted text that could've been devoted to something else), it's also completely useless for anything except 4-color supers or swashbuckling sword-and-sorcery games. The alignments are a set of action story archetypes, and virtually useless if you want to take Palladium at face value whenever they describe Rifts as "gritty".

- The skill system. It just doesn't plug into the rest of the game at all (as shown by the fact that the combat-based skills don't even try to use the same percentage rules as other skills). The only time most skills ever plug directly into any other game mechanic is if you're one of the tiny handful of PCs who got a high enough IQ score to get a skill bonus, and even then the only interaction skills have with the rest of the game will be that one moment in chargen where you add your IQ bonus (and I say "interaction" in the loosest sense, since IQ is a skill that lives in a bubble and affects nothing but your base skill percentages). There's nothing but the vaguest of guidance on when to roll against a skill. Or what sort of bonuses or penalties to apply based on difficulty, availability of the right tools, etc etc. Or how to handle it when two characters are both using their skills to try and oppose what the other is doing. Or whether failing or succeeding by 1 point is different from failing or succeeding by 50.

- The Siembieda op/eds at the start of some books. I'm paying for a gamebook, not a rambling editorial full of redundant exclamation marks because Kevin Siembieda felt strongly about some completely unrelated issue a couple of years ago. Hopefully they're a bit rarer now that he's getting used to the concept of venting online.

- The art. Not all of it, or even most of it. But over the years there've been a few artists who ended up as regulars for reasons that I just can't fathom. And not just ones that personally grate my cheese (I doubt I'll get much support if I say I started getting sick of Vince Martin after a while for example), but ones that were widely panned by the fans.

And now on with some stuff that ain't cut and pasted.

- The layout. As someone in the other thread mentioned, Palladium's books are laid out as if they'd been put together in Word and printed straight off. It makes for unsexy books, and that's just unforgivable in an age where even amateurs running their companies as a hobby from their basement can put together slick, professional-looking product on a shoestring budget.

- The magic system. Well whoop de doo, it's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons with mana points. Right down to a bunch of spells with suspiciously similar effects. And the Palladium system's origins as a dungeon-crawling ruleset are glaringly obvious here, because virtually all the spells in all the books are tailormade for combat and adventuring.

- And while we're on the magic system (although this is a book content thing as much as a rule thing), I do love it how every time a new magic-user or psychic OCC comes out, it comes complete with page after page of spells/psionics that no other character class in the game will ever use. I dunno how much of that to blame on lazy work by the writers and how much to blame on editorial decisions to make sure books have more "toys" and less fluff though.

- Wormwood and Manhunter. Whoever wrote the stats for absolutely everything in both books completely lost the plot, especially whoever it was who decided to make the Mega-Damage rule gloriously triumph over itself by declaring that everything in Wormwood is naturally MDC. Absolutely wonderful settings, both brimming with more than enough style to make up for the fact that you can see where they filed the serial marks off all the ideas they stole. Both saddled with utterly unworkable stats.

[jaymz]

Rallan - Just to clarify, Wormwood was in house, Manhunter was not Gripe about wormwood but the manhunter thng can easily be explained by the licensee not having a grasp of the rules as they were at the time BUT thatmay have gotten better if we had seen more manhunter books and PB not nullified thier agreement. I have my own personal opinions on PBs various business dealings outside or RPGs that I will not discuss here in regards to minis, ccgs et al.

[Zer0 Kay]

Rallan - Just to clarify, Wormwood was in house, Manhunter was not Gripe about wormwood but the manhunter thng can easily be explained by the licensee not having a grasp of the rules as they were at the time BUT thatmay have gotten better if we had seen more manhunter books and PB not nullified thier agreement. I have my own personal opinions on PBs various business dealings outside or RPGs that I will not discuss here in regards to minis, ccgs et al.

Oh get real the CCG company going under was NOT PBs fault.

[jaymz]

Rallan - Just to clarify, Wormwood was in house, Manhunter was not Gripe about wormwood but the manhunter thng can easily be explained by the licensee not having a grasp of the rules as they were at the time BUT thatmay have gotten better if we had seen more manhunter books and PB not nullified thier agreement. I have my own personal opinions on PBs various business dealings outside or RPGs that I will not discuss here in regards to minis, ccgs et al.

Oh get real the CCG company going under was NOT PBs fault.

Zero - I dont recall BLAMING PB for anything. CCGs is one example of things beyond RPGs I have issues with as to how PB does things. Don't put words in my mouth since I never stated what those issues were nor will I state what those issues are on these boards.

[runebeo]

It would be nice if other giant robots with higher cost than a GB could do similar damage as a glitter boy, even 2D6X10 would make me happy. Hard to talk a player into using some giant robots when most of their weapons only deal one third or less damage than a boom-gun, only saving grace is that most can fire volleys of rockets.

[johnkretzer]

I really dislike is how too many of the good organizations seem too suspicious and untrusting of each other despite their alignments. While the evil organizations who should distrust each other because of their alignments seem to get along fine.

Um...if all the good organizations trusted and worked in tendum(which doesn't happen in RL so why should it in Rifts?) and all the evil organizations were at each others throats like vicious dogs(again doesn't work that way in RL why should it in Rifts?) I have one question..

What would be left for the PCs to do?
You know part of Rifts adventuring could be to get these good groups to work togesther...that atleast how I look at it. I find this to be a strength not a weakness.

[Kalidor]

There's no such thing as a good or evil organization any more than there is in today's world. It's 100% subjective. I'm sure the ACLU and Focus on Family both consider themselves 'good' but you'd be hard pressed to get them to agree to that, much less ever work together.

[popscythe]

Exactly. I would never expect "good" organizations to work together in the extremely hostile environment of Rifts Earth unless in a dire situation (Tolkeen vs CS got some "good guys" together). The evil guys can always assume "Whatever, if they screw around we'll carpet bomb them" but the good guys are generally weaker, more outnumbered and of such varying opinion that only the gravest threat would warrant the risk of betrayal. Nobody in that world is going "COMON! OUR LEADER IS PRINCIPLED, IT WILL BE FINE!" to potential allies, but it's really easy to look at them at go "Okay, these guys are mostly of the same alignment and opinion, what's stopping them!" as a role player in a cushy RL far far away.

[johnkretzer]

I would really like to see Horror Factor redone, so if you fail a save your either in-compassionated or flee the area till you successfully save in the following rounds. Fear kills but in Rifts its just a minor inconvenience overcome in a few seconds.

You meant incapaciated I am guessing?

The HF rules are fine. I mean if you are either running away or not moving every combat...the game gets a little pointless.

[popscythe]

The HF rules are fine. I mean if you are either running away or not moving every combat...the game gets a little pointless.

I agree, and would like to include that these are all people who have grown up on Rifts Earth. They're easily more psychologically hardy (when it comes to seeing horrible things) than say, I would be.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Dropped my toast on my dirty kitchen floor! HF39!

[Dog_O_War]

There's no such thing as a good or evil organization any more than there is in today's world. It's 100% subjective. I'm sure the ACLU and Focus on Family both consider themselves 'good' but you'd be hard pressed to get them to agree to that, much less ever work together.

Actually, no. There is such a thing as an organization that is good or evil.

An organization dedicated to a sin (for example) is evil. Greed being the best example, an organization that will do anything for profit (legal ofcourse) is different than an organization whose' goal is profit.

One will under-cut and drive out any and every potential competators. They will seek to strip anyone and everyone of their credits using any method, including under-handed ones without caring for the results. They will employ slave-labor in countries that allow slavery, because it is cheap. Slavery being the exact opposite of good (as it removes free-will) is evil, regardless of the subject.

That is, while someone might view slaves as advantageous for themselves, it is an oxymoron to state that they view it as a "good" thing.

The other organization however will not employ slave-labor because it is fundementally wrong. No one wishes to be a slave, and if they do there is another name for it; "servant". Noting the difference between servant and slave, If the person using slaves would dislike being a slave himself, then slavery is wrong, or "evil" as it has been defined subjectively as universally undesireable.

Anyone who uses slaves then is evil. Even if this company were selling good-hearted wishes and all the "pollution" they produced was good for the environment their factories were located, their goal and their organization is evil because of the methods they employ to acheive these means.

[Kalidor]

That's still subjective. By your definition Wal-Mart is 'evil' but really it's only in the common vernacular sense. PETA believes they are doing good and organizations based on religion who murder abortion doctors are believed by many to be doing good. But just as many people will find the methods and practices of both organizations evil.

[popscythe]

That's still subjective. By your definition Wal-Mart is 'evil' but really it's only in the common vernacular sense. PETA believes they are doing good and organizations based on religion who murder abortion doctors are believed by many to be doing good. But just as many people will find the methods and practices of both organizations evil.

Exactly. Just like the CS and Tolkeen both think they are the good guys, but the cyber-knights think that both sides have behaved evilly during the war, and certain cyber knights think that the CS is so much the greater evil that they'd fight alongside Tolkeen despite the atrocities Tolkeen has committed during the war itself. It's all subjective.

The alignment system, however is not subjective. It's just an easy way to look past the eye of the beholder effect to categorize people from a neutral, metagame, outside perspective.

[Dog_O_War]

That's still subjective. By your definition Wal-Mart is 'evil' but really it's only in the common vernacular sense. PETA believes they are doing good and organizations based on religion who murder abortion doctors are believed by many to be doing good. But just as many people will find the methods and practices of both organizations evil.

I just showed you how it wasn't subjective.

The company uses slaves in a country where slavery is legal, simply because it's cheap and cost-effective. Being a slave is something no-one wants to become.
Some people are willful servants, and are distinctive in that their free-will has not been denied.

That said; slavery is always evil, and any organization that utilizes slaves is evil.

Also, Wal-Mart does not use slaves; they use child-labor. There is a difference.

Also, there is a direct logic-flaw in your arguement; a person may believe anything they want. It's their actions that determine what they are. That is, evil has a direct definition - evil - which is non-subjective as it is the standard by which we use the word.

If someone or something falls under the definition, then it is evil despite the subjective nature of perception.

When the word "evil" no-longer is defined as such, then you will have a point. But at that time we will have nothing to talk about because you'll be using your own definitions for anything and everything, which is where communication will break down.


That is, if you were to define the word "person" as any and every inanimate, lifeless object, and the word "grocerybag" as every living mammal, then we can never understand each-other.

So I would suggest that you stay away from what some people might define a word as, and stick with what we humans in the land of reality have defined the word as.

[Kalidor]

Slavery was pretty well condoned in the Christian Bible. There's even instructions on how to treat your slaves.

[Dog_O_War]

Slavery was pretty well condoned in the Christian Bible. There's even instructions on how to treat your slaves.

The Bible is not a dictionary, just as no religious text is. The dictionary is a neutral book which humanity has defined what things are.

So while a religious doctrine may define how you live your life, the dictionary puts definition and meaning to the words we use, like; "so" "while" "a" "religious" "doctrine" "may" "define" "how" "you" "live" "your" "life" "," "the" "dictionary" "puts" "definition" "and" "meaning" "to" "the" "words" "we" "use" "," "like".

Do you understand now?

[jaymz]

1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.



Wouldn't this be subjective to what a person defines as immoral or wicked or any of the other things those definitions say?

IE if I as a person, do not view slavery as evil then I would not see someone who has/uses slaves as evil?

Just keeping with the slave example I dont condone nor would I ever condone slavery.

[Vrykolas2k]

That's still subjective. By your definition Wal-Mart is 'evil' but really it's only in the common vernacular sense. PETA believes they are doing good and organizations based on religion who murder abortion doctors are believed by many to be doing good. But just as many people will find the methods and practices of both organizations evil.

I just showed you how it wasn't subjective.

The company uses slaves in a country where slavery is legal, simply because it's cheap and cost-effective. Being a slave is something no-one wants to become.
Some people are willful servants, and are distinctive in that their free-will has not been denied.

That said; slavery is always evil, and any organization that utilizes slaves is evil.

Also, Wal-Mart does not use slaves; they use child-labor. There is a difference.

Also, there is a direct logic-flaw in your arguement; a person may believe anything they want. It's their actions that determine what they are. That is, evil has a direct definition - evil - which is non-subjective as it is the standard by which we use the word.

If someone or something falls under the definition, then it is evil despite the subjective nature of perception.

When the word "evil" no-longer is defined as such, then you will have a point. But at that time we will have nothing to talk about because you'll be using your own definitions for anything and everything, which is where communication will break down.


That is, if you were to define the word "person" as any and every inanimate, lifeless object, and the word "grocerybag" as every living mammal, then we can never understand each-other.

So I would suggest that you stay away from what some people might define a word as, and stick with what we humans in the land of reality have defined the word as.

Can you prove that slavery is evil?
Or are you simply using a modern morality to define it?

[Dog_O_War]

1.morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.



Wouldn't this be subjective to what a person defines as immoral or wicked or any of the other things those definitions say?

Well, taking a look at the word moral, it leaves the definition of right and wrong as subjective.

But as I stated earlier, no sentient being will find it a good thing to become a slave. It may be more preferable than death, but they will never find it to be a self-beneficial prospect.
Those that are willing slaves, are not slaves but servants, because slave is dominated against their will.
So if you're doing something against anothers' will, then it cannot be good in their view. And when someone does something against your will, it is defined as "bad" because you want the opposite to occur.

So regardless of perspective, being a slave is bad. Owning one might be thought of as a "good" thing, but being one is bad.

Which brings us back to the point I was making before; using slaves is evil because it is defined as something that no-one wishes to become.

The problem you're bringing up is that of the perception of owning slaves. Yes, owning something is seen as "good" (pretty much universally), but that is of itself a whole different matter.

Slave is the "evil" notion here, defined universally.

[popscythe]

Armchair philosophers never agree on anything.

[Kalidor]

I think you posted the wrong link. In the definition you provided I didn't see the word "evil" in there. Or for that matter "against their will"

[Dog_O_War]

Can you prove that slavery is evil?

Yes.
Find me a man who views slavery as a good thing, and then enslave him.

Or are you simply using a modern morality to define it?

No.
Morality is certainly a subjective notion, but as I pointed out above, seeing slavery as a good thing is merely pulling the wool over your own eyes. It might be seen as advantageous or profitable to those that have slaves, and thus it being a "good thing" is associated via these other two concepts, but that is an illusion of the positive aspect.

[Dog_O_War]

I think you posted the wrong link. In the definition you provided I didn't see the word "evil" in there. Or for that matter "against their will"

It is by association. A slave cannot choose not to be a slave.
That is because he has lost his free will.
Lose (a form of lost) is defined as to suffer the deprevation of.
Suffer is defined as a kind of penalty.
Penalty is defined as a violation.
Violation is defined as a desecration.
Desecration is synonymous with defile.
Defile is defined as to taint.
Taint is defined as something bad.
And bad is defined as "not good in any manner or degree".
Or "evil" if you prefer.

[Kalidor]

Kevin Bacon.

[Dog_O_War]

Kevin Bacon.

Unfortunately the reference is lost on me.

[Sureshot]

Exactly. I would never expect "good" organizations to work together in the extremely hostile environment of Rifts Earth unless in a dire situation (Tolkeen vs CS got some "good guys" together). The evil guys can always assume "Whatever, if they screw around we'll carpet bomb them" but the good guys are generally weaker, more outnumbered and of such varying opinion that only the gravest threat would warrant the risk of betrayal. Nobody in that world is going "COMON! OUR LEADER IS PRINCIPLED, IT WILL BE FINE!" to potential allies, but it's really easy to look at them at go "Okay, these guys are mostly of the same alignment and opinion, what's stopping them!" as a role player in a cushy RL far far away.

See I would not consider it a flaw if at least sone of the good organizations would work togther. Insrwead it seems that none trust each other let alone want to work with each other. How exactly are the good organizations that are outnumbered going to really do anything significant angainst the evil ones that are pretty much united. Beyond the CS and Triax none of the other good organizations imo have the resources on their own to free Rifts Earth

On a more gneral note this is a thread about waht you dislike about Rifts. If you want to talk about whether slavery is good or evil I ask that you please start a new thread. I rather not see this thread sidetracked.

[Rallan]

Rallan - Just to clarify, Wormwood was in house, Manhunter was not Gripe about wormwood but the manhunter thng can easily be explained by the licensee not having a grasp of the rules as they were at the time BUT thatmay have gotten better if we had seen more manhunter books and PB not nullified thier agreement. I have my own personal opinions on PBs various business dealings outside or RPGs that I will not discuss here in regards to minis, ccgs et al.

Oh get real the CCG company going under was NOT PBs fault.

No, but the timing was. Palladium spent a lot of the 1990s loudly and proudly telling anyone who'd listen that they weren't going to jump on the CCG bandwagon because it's just a passing fad and mark their words almost everyone involved will get burnt. Then (several years after everyone else had already realised that CCGs are an established hobby that's here to stay) they suddenly changed their tune and got into a market that was thoroughly saturated with a glut of CCGs thanks to all the people who'd decided to get in earlier. It's not Palladium's fault that Precedence went under, but Palladium's not going to win any business awards for its really poor judgment about the state of the CCG market.

[Rallan]

That's still subjective. By your definition Wal-Mart is 'evil' but really it's only in the common vernacular sense. PETA believes they are doing good and organizations based on religion who murder abortion doctors are believed by many to be doing good. But just as many people will find the methods and practices of both organizations evil.

Exactly. Just like the CS and Tolkeen both think they are the good guys, but the cyber-knights think that both sides have behaved evilly during the war, and certain cyber knights think that the CS is so much the greater evil that they'd fight alongside Tolkeen despite the atrocities Tolkeen has committed during the war itself. It's all subjective.

The alignment system, however is not subjective. It's just an easy way to look past the eye of the beholder effect to categorize people from a neutral, metagame, outside perspective.

Hey in all honesty Tolkeen was the good guy until it came time to write the Siege On Tolkeen books and Palladium ended up producing one of the most hamfisted attempts at "grey and grey" morality ever seen by demonising the hell out of Tolkeen (and giving it a bunch of fearsome badass powers that were never hinted at in earlier books to justify the siege lasting more then half an hour) and torpoedoing a lot of Bill Coffin's attempts to portray the CS as being exactly as bad as the main book said they are.

[Vrykolas2k]

Can you prove that slavery is evil?

Yes.
Find me a man who views slavery as a good thing, and then enslave him.

Or are you simply using a modern morality to define it?

No.
Morality is certainly a subjective notion, but as I pointed out above, seeing slavery as a good thing is merely pulling the wool over your own eyes. It might be seen as advantageous or profitable to those that have slaves, and thus it being a "good thing" is associated via these other two concepts, but that is an illusion of the positive aspect.

Slavery IS a good thing, and... I'm married.


I define "good" as that which pleases me, and evil as that which displeases me.
Though one of my best friends has said that evil **** pleases me...

[Rallan]

Can you prove that slavery is evil?

Yes.
Find me a man who views slavery as a good thing, and then enslave him.

Take me to the right nightclub and I'll find a dozen

[Kalidor]

"Oh my!"

[johnkretzer]

See I would not consider it a flaw if at least sone of the good organizations would work togther. Insrwead it seems that none trust each other let alone want to work with each other. How exactly are the good organizations that are outnumbered going to really do anything significant angainst the evil ones that are pretty much united. Beyond the CS and Triax none of the other good organizations imo have the resources on their own to free Rifts Earth

1) The CS is Not a good organization. They are evil by most common definations.

2)Triax is not a good organization. They are not as evil as the CS...but there are not the good guys.

3) Evil organizations don't neccessary get along...like the CS and Dunscan's Fed of Magic. Or the 'Merlin" and Alantis...there are actualy many examples of evil not getting along...and some of good organizations do...like the Cyber Knights and the Lazlo.

So what exactly is that you don't like? Which groups do you think should work together? And what cannon souce do you have that they should?