Life within the Factions - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Life within the Factions

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Life within the Factions

Fenris posted 11-02-98 05:19 PM ET
Before the forums went down there were some scintillating discussions of life within the factions. Much debate revolved around whether the Hive or Morgan's would be the more repressive factions with tempers flaring within the Morgan debate.
Without starting the brushfires up again, I was wondering if we might be able to get some usefull discussions going about life within the factions? Were all original members of a faction voluntary or did some of the colonists just jump aboard the nearest shuttle? How would this effect the formation of the early factions?
I can't imagine that someone said, "oh, I'm forming a repressive police-state. Anyone want to come along?"
What do you think?
Uncle Mikey posted 11-02-98 05:51 PM ET
I'm not sure I agree that it would be completely out of the question for a leader to say, "I'm starting a repressive police state? Who's in?". That is, after all, essentially what both Hitler and Mussolini did, and they got more followers than anyone really wants to think about these days.
Mikey
Calculus posted 11-02-98 06:09 PM ET
I think the factions were already formed when they arrived on board, but none of them are based on whether they are a "police state" or "repressive". They have a philosophy, an ultimate goal, an ideology. That's what made them in the first place.
Silent Bob posted 11-02-98 06:13 PM ET
And just take a look at Tawny and his World Domination Cult...er Faction. It's almost tempting enough to join. The only thing is that it would be a hassle to get all of my money together. (Does he take a check?)
Arnelos posted 11-02-98 06:32 PM ET
I like the name, Silent Bob. :-)
(saw all of those movies this past week)
Anyway, concerning Fascism, it was not promoted on the basis of it being a police state. The promotion technique was two-fold:
Nationalist and ANTI-MARXIST. Industrialists would sign up for fear of the socialists, nationalists would sign up for their personal affliction of "the measles of mankind" (Albert Einstein quote) and the masses were supportive because it seemed like this guy was actually GOING somewhere other than the rut they were in. The main way the NAZIs in particular sold their movement and the ability to recruit non-Germans into military service later in the war was a heavy emphasis on anti-marxism and portraying NAZIsm as natural enemy of marxism and the defender of human dignity. Many were willing to accept the repressive fascist police state for the protection against marxism and the feeling of belonging in the empire.
Conversely, the rest of the "West" was free market and devoted to democratic and republican ideals. The end of the war then opposed this conception with the the one NAZIsm flousished by opposing, Bolshevism.
Fenris posted 11-02-98 07:05 PM ET
Arnelos; that's more the way I'd expect the factions to convert followers. Spartans would support survivalist philosophies, the Hive would promote a unified front, etc.
I was wondering, however, how the constituents would react once thier lifepod landed on Planet. Obviously, there would be little outspoken critism within Santiago's Faction, but within some of the more moderate factions dissenters could do a lot of damage when establishing a colony. Would you be able to contact these potential revolutionaries in rival factions?
Also, I'd think that the last lifepods to leave would have the least homogenous constituency; there'd be a large number of people who just jumped aboard the last shuttle regardless of which faction 'owned' it.
jsorense posted 11-02-98 07:42 PM ET
And that "Last Landing Pod" would be made up of the remaining crew loyal to the U.N mission in memory of late Capt. Garland and held together by Commissioner Lal.
IMHO
Robert Casteline posted 11-02-98 08:01 PM ET
Well, the basic needs of survival would have to be met first. This would probably not create a whole lot of debate. Food, water, shelter. And of course, atmosphere.
After that though, "party lines" would be drawn. I am going to speak here about Miriam's people, since I understand them the best.
In a religious society (and I am going to assume that it is a Christian society, since in her bio. they use the "Baptism of Fire" and other Christian leading ideals), first would come prayer and pledging fealty to God for His grace and love, which was the reason anyone survived in the first place.
After that, responsibilties would be divided "to each according to their kinds." In other words, the strongest and swiftest would be sent out to hunt. The God-gifted intellectuals would start setting a structure for the society. Miriam, of course, would be the Pastor for the group, leading them in all ways spiritual, but she would also recognize that she is not the "alpha and the omega." Thusly, she would appoint others to be the "bishops" of the sub-groups.
The belief that God intended for this to happen and that it all part of His great plan would be the strength of this group. Lal's group I can imagine having somewhat of the same ideas. When you believe that God does not turn his back on his chosen people, you gain something that even Satiago's drive and the Conglomerate's money cannot attain by their "focal" areas: peace of mind.
This is not to say that there would not be those who would cry out "Lord, why have you allowed this to happen? What have we done?", but they would be counceled that by faith they will survive because "all things are possible with God."
And the debate possibilties are good. In a religious society such as this one, open debate would be encouraged. I mean, that is "free will," which is the corner stone of all faiths. All opinions would be heard and then weighed against the Word of God to decide upon the correct action whereever possible. Does the Bible mention "singularity weapons"? No, of coourse not. But it does deal with the harnessing of strength and ability of the weak to overcome powerful nations and inhospitable terrain.
I guess that is a little long, but maybe it helps for one aspect of the society.
Fenris posted 11-02-98 08:22 PM ET
Robert:
I wouldn't think that there'd be much open debate allowed in Miriam's. If anything, I'd think it would be one of the groups least likely to have any sort of OPEN dissention/discussion. Freewill is fine in theory, but most religions/churches I've ever had experience with tend to restrict one to the PARTY line. Opposition is not looked upon kindly.
Actually, I think that Miriam's group might be rife with the possibility of infiltration. I'm sure that there would be a number of people who'd grow tired of the 'Hellfire and Brimstone' act.
Ben Music posted 11-02-98 08:26 PM ET
Interesting. Would Miriam exhert the type of control the Pope has, or wishes to have, over the "bishops", or would the basically be left to make their own call. My belief is that Miriam would like very tight control over what her "bishops" do. As for "free will" being the cornerstone of Christianity, I suppose it is but in a bad sense. Like the loss of Paradise over knowledge. Christianity has been know to be very oppressive.
Ben
Ben Music posted 11-02-98 08:37 PM ET
Damn Fenris, you beat me to the free will punch! I do agree with you though. I imagine Miriam's group if based along Christian lines may be oppressive. Hopefully, some of the other world religions inject some tolerance.
Robert Casteline posted 11-02-98 09:30 PM ET
I am going to make this as short as possible. Of course, that was the idea behind my last diatribe.:-) Anyway, of this goes beyond two or three posts, I will personally e-mail people because talking religion can be very tricky and sensitive.
Fenris, yes, there is a certain theology that everyone must adhere to to be a part of Miriam's group, a la your "fire and brimstone." However, that is the same for all the groups. How would a "tree-hugger" fair with the Survivalists or a Communist work with-in the obviously laissez-faire world of the Morgan Conglomerate? The open communication comes when the members of the Lord's Followers (I think that is what they were called)work together. All are of equal worth. And this is the tie that will bind. A true Christian is looking to do right by God in his or her mind and body, then by his brothers and sisters in the Family of God.
Opposition is not tolerated by any group that is in control and wishes to stay there. But Martin Luther was a protestor. He was protesting what were corrupt practices of the time. He did a great service to Christianity by pointing out where it was going wrong. And the people listened and changed their ways. A leader leading in a truly Christian way would "be above reproach, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money." (Obviously, Morgan and Miriam are going to have a difference of opinion.:-))
Your statement about "fire and brimstone" reminded me of a joke I read a little while ago:
Q: What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist?
A: You can negotiate with a terrorist.:-)
I believe that part of what you were thinking about was the theological aspect of the group. But you are forgetting that while all Christian's do all for the glory of God, they still do "every-day" things, also. In these areas, there is room for debate: No argument about who is the ruler of the universe, much debate about whether to upgrade the pulse cannons on the land rovers or to find a cure for mind-worm dysentary. All of these questions would follow an established heirarchy of evaluation.
Ben, certainly Christianity has been oppressive. And horrible things have been done in the name of God. I mean, the CHILDREN'S CRUSADE! C'mon! But that is the fault of "religion" not Christianity. Religion is man's attempt to understand and reach God. Well, you can't do it. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. And all of those oppressive actions are against the will of God. You cannot force someone to come to God! Or do oppressive things in the name of God and believe yourself to be righteous. That is not what God wants. The coming to God has be of "free will." Those who want to leave Miriam will be allowed to go and will have blessings following them. The individual must be allowed to choose for themselves or "faith" is a meaningless concept.
I think that is enough of that. Any thoughts? (See, I'm listening to outside opinions...:-))
Silent Bob posted 11-02-98 09:32 PM ET
Many religions are born out of the need for free will, but tend to become opressive as they grow stronger and older. Catholicism is a prime example of this. It's followers were once cast out as pagans and fed to lions or tied to crosses.
The puritans and Amish are other examples. They came to the new world to avoid religious scrutiny. Now, the puritans are known for their witch hunts and stake burnings while the Amish still refuse to let anyone drive a car......or use a lamp...or a toilet that flushes...etc.

I think that there is one thing that everyone is overlooking when pointing out the cause for any oppresive society. The ability to use hatred as a unifying factor. Hitler used the Jews this way...North Vietman hung all of the wealthy and public officials...the list continues....
Roland posted 11-03-98 07:28 AM ET
Robert: "But that is the fault of "religion" not Christianity."
Agreed, but as christianity is religion, it - by definition - tends to oppress dissenters. I'd see Miriam more as a kind of pope, ie as well as an "administrative" as a spiritual leader.
And I don't think Luther is a good example. He and his followers have been pretty intolerant as well.
Tapiolan poika posted 11-03-98 08:10 AM ET
Robert Casteline/Roland: I agree with Roland, but I think maybe Robert wanted to say "religious _organizations_". At least, that's where I tend to think the problems crop up. As soon as you get a hierarchy, people who like power are bound to shoulder the (according to them) heavy burden of responsibility, and misrule their flocks.
I think we should start searching for models of organization which avoid this problem (compulsory participation by everyone in the running of organizations, with appointments as bishops, or whatever you wish to call them, rotated every year, or the like).
Otherwise, we need to yank the human race up at least one step of the evolutionary ladder, since we don't seem able to do too well, as things stand.
Robert Casteline posted 11-03-98 01:00 PM ET
Tapiolan poika, I agree with you and I think that is what the whole "Transcendence" or "Ascention" Principle is in this game. Do you move beyond the flesh to something more spiritual?
All of the factions represented here are really just the basic characteristics of the human condition broken down and amplified. So the next step is to form an alliance beyond "pressed wood pulp" and focus on the inner-self.
This is what makes the game so interesting in theory. We are moving beyond the physical "Can I land on Alpha Centauri before anyone else?" and more into the metaphysical realm of "Can I find a way to truly become one with my human Brothers and Sisters and this planet?" I think the "one with planet" idea is a great one. But this is another string in itself. Let's return to the original questions: Were all original members of a faction voluntary or did some of the colonists just jump aboard the nearest shuttle? How would this effect the formation of the early factions?
LordAsmo posted 11-03-98 01:48 PM ET
I think since that these people are following these factions that they would start out happy.
Fenris posted 11-03-98 03:53 PM ET
The ship is going down...there are seven lifeboats leaving the ship...would you really truck halfway across the ship just because the lifeboat that is nearest to you is filled with people you don't really like? I don't think so...
Thus each of the factions are going to start with a certain percentage of discenters. A Christian Theocracy like Miriam's might have Buddists, Moslems, Jews, Athiests, Pagans, etc. aboard the lifepod. These people would not look kindly upon Miriam establishing herself as the 'mouth-piece of God'. However, normally peace-loving scientists trapped aboard Santiago's shuttle might not have any problems working for the Spartans as long as he/she was left along and allowed to work in peace.
The groups that I think would have the most trouble with assimilating 'jumpers' would be:
1-Miriam's
2-The Hive
3-?
How would the Jumpers effect the beginning of the game? Factions within the factions? Constant power struggles? Leaks to the other factions?
Roland posted 11-04-98 05:02 AM ET
Interesting idea. This would mean that the peacekeepers would have the fewest dissenters, as they continue the original mission.
What about spartans ? From the story they must have a serious shortage of people (just one spartan to guard the weapon's bay, one for Yang), how will they fill their ranks ?
Tom posted 11-05-98 11:01 PM ET
I wonder how the Morgan faction would be made up, a union of rival corporations that actually compete for a free market, or just one giant monopoly.
PAX
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Life within the Factions
Fenris	posted 11-02-98 05:19 PM ET Before the forums went down there were some scintillating discussions of life within the factions. Much debate revolved around whether the Hive or Morgan's would be the more repressive factions with tempers flaring within the Morgan debate. Without starting the brushfires up again, I was wondering if we might be able to get some usefull discussions going about life within the factions? Were all original members of a faction voluntary or did some of the colonists just jump aboard the nearest shuttle? How would this effect the formation of the early factions? I can't imagine that someone said, "oh, I'm forming a repressive police-state. Anyone want to come along?" What do you think?
Uncle Mikey	posted 11-02-98 05:51 PM ET I'm not sure I agree that it would be completely out of the question for a leader to say, "I'm starting a repressive police state? Who's in?". That is, after all, essentially what both Hitler and Mussolini did, and they got more followers than anyone really wants to think about these days. Mikey
Calculus	posted 11-02-98 06:09 PM ET I think the factions were already formed when they arrived on board, but none of them are based on whether they are a "police state" or "repressive". They have a philosophy, an ultimate goal, an ideology. That's what made them in the first place.
Silent Bob	posted 11-02-98 06:13 PM ET And just take a look at Tawny and his World Domination Cult...er Faction. It's almost tempting enough to join. The only thing is that it would be a hassle to get all of my money together. (Does he take a check?)
Arnelos	posted 11-02-98 06:32 PM ET I like the name, Silent Bob. :-) (saw all of those movies this past week) Anyway, concerning Fascism, it was not promoted on the basis of it being a police state. The promotion technique was two-fold: Nationalist and ANTI-MARXIST. Industrialists would sign up for fear of the socialists, nationalists would sign up for their personal affliction of "the measles of mankind" (Albert Einstein quote) and the masses were supportive because it seemed like this guy was actually GOING somewhere other than the rut they were in. The main way the NAZIs in particular sold their movement and the ability to recruit non-Germans into military service later in the war was a heavy emphasis on anti-marxism and portraying NAZIsm as natural enemy of marxism and the defender of human dignity. Many were willing to accept the repressive fascist police state for the protection against marxism and the feeling of belonging in the empire. Conversely, the rest of the "West" was free market and devoted to democratic and republican ideals. The end of the war then opposed this conception with the the one NAZIsm flousished by opposing, Bolshevism.
Fenris	posted 11-02-98 07:05 PM ET Arnelos; that's more the way I'd expect the factions to convert followers. Spartans would support survivalist philosophies, the Hive would promote a unified front, etc. I was wondering, however, how the constituents would react once thier lifepod landed on Planet. Obviously, there would be little outspoken critism within Santiago's Faction, but within some of the more moderate factions dissenters could do a lot of damage when establishing a colony. Would you be able to contact these potential revolutionaries in rival factions? Also, I'd think that the last lifepods to leave would have the least homogenous constituency; there'd be a large number of people who just jumped aboard the last shuttle regardless of which faction 'owned' it.
jsorense	posted 11-02-98 07:42 PM ET And that "Last Landing Pod" would be made up of the remaining crew loyal to the U.N mission in memory of late Capt. Garland and held together by Commissioner Lal. IMHO
Robert Casteline	posted 11-02-98 08:01 PM ET Well, the basic needs of survival would have to be met first. This would probably not create a whole lot of debate. Food, water, shelter. And of course, atmosphere. After that though, "party lines" would be drawn. I am going to speak here about Miriam's people, since I understand them the best. In a religious society (and I am going to assume that it is a Christian society, since in her bio. they use the "Baptism of Fire" and other Christian leading ideals), first would come prayer and pledging fealty to God for His grace and love, which was the reason anyone survived in the first place. After that, responsibilties would be divided "to each according to their kinds." In other words, the strongest and swiftest would be sent out to hunt. The God-gifted intellectuals would start setting a structure for the society. Miriam, of course, would be the Pastor for the group, leading them in all ways spiritual, but she would also recognize that she is not the "alpha and the omega." Thusly, she would appoint others to be the "bishops" of the sub-groups. The belief that God intended for this to happen and that it all part of His great plan would be the strength of this group. Lal's group I can imagine having somewhat of the same ideas. When you believe that God does not turn his back on his chosen people, you gain something that even Satiago's drive and the Conglomerate's money cannot attain by their "focal" areas: peace of mind. This is not to say that there would not be those who would cry out "Lord, why have you allowed this to happen? What have we done?", but they would be counceled that by faith they will survive because "all things are possible with God." And the debate possibilties are good. In a religious society such as this one, open debate would be encouraged. I mean, that is "free will," which is the corner stone of all faiths. All opinions would be heard and then weighed against the Word of God to decide upon the correct action whereever possible. Does the Bible mention "singularity weapons"? No, of coourse not. But it does deal with the harnessing of strength and ability of the weak to overcome powerful nations and inhospitable terrain. I guess that is a little long, but maybe it helps for one aspect of the society.
Fenris	posted 11-02-98 08:22 PM ET Robert: I wouldn't think that there'd be much open debate allowed in Miriam's. If anything, I'd think it would be one of the groups least likely to have any sort of OPEN dissention/discussion. Freewill is fine in theory, but most religions/churches I've ever had experience with tend to restrict one to the PARTY line. Opposition is not looked upon kindly. Actually, I think that Miriam's group might be rife with the possibility of infiltration. I'm sure that there would be a number of people who'd grow tired of the 'Hellfire and Brimstone' act.
Ben Music	posted 11-02-98 08:26 PM ET Interesting. Would Miriam exhert the type of control the Pope has, or wishes to have, over the "bishops", or would the basically be left to make their own call. My belief is that Miriam would like very tight control over what her "bishops" do. As for "free will" being the cornerstone of Christianity, I suppose it is but in a bad sense. Like the loss of Paradise over knowledge. Christianity has been know to be very oppressive. Ben
Ben Music	posted 11-02-98 08:37 PM ET Damn Fenris, you beat me to the free will punch! I do agree with you though. I imagine Miriam's group if based along Christian lines may be oppressive. Hopefully, some of the other world religions inject some tolerance.
Robert Casteline	posted 11-02-98 09:30 PM ET I am going to make this as short as possible. Of course, that was the idea behind my last diatribe.:-) Anyway, of this goes beyond two or three posts, I will personally e-mail people because talking religion can be very tricky and sensitive. Fenris, yes, there is a certain theology that everyone must adhere to to be a part of Miriam's group, a la your "fire and brimstone." However, that is the same for all the groups. How would a "tree-hugger" fair with the Survivalists or a Communist work with-in the obviously laissez-faire world of the Morgan Conglomerate? The open communication comes when the members of the Lord's Followers (I think that is what they were called)work together. All are of equal worth. And this is the tie that will bind. A true Christian is looking to do right by God in his or her mind and body, then by his brothers and sisters in the Family of God. Opposition is not tolerated by any group that is in control and wishes to stay there. But Martin Luther was a protestor. He was protesting what were corrupt practices of the time. He did a great service to Christianity by pointing out where it was going wrong. And the people listened and changed their ways. A leader leading in a truly Christian way would "be above reproach, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money." (Obviously, Morgan and Miriam are going to have a difference of opinion.:-)) Your statement about "fire and brimstone" reminded me of a joke I read a little while ago: Q: What is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? A: You can negotiate with a terrorist.:-) I believe that part of what you were thinking about was the theological aspect of the group. But you are forgetting that while all Christian's do all for the glory of God, they still do "every-day" things, also. In these areas, there is room for debate: No argument about who is the ruler of the universe, much debate about whether to upgrade the pulse cannons on the land rovers or to find a cure for mind-worm dysentary. All of these questions would follow an established heirarchy of evaluation. Ben, certainly Christianity has been oppressive. And horrible things have been done in the name of God. I mean, the CHILDREN'S CRUSADE! C'mon! But that is the fault of "religion" not Christianity. Religion is man's attempt to understand and reach God. Well, you can't do it. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. And all of those oppressive actions are against the will of God. You cannot force someone to come to God! Or do oppressive things in the name of God and believe yourself to be righteous. That is not what God wants. The coming to God has be of "free will." Those who want to leave Miriam will be allowed to go and will have blessings following them. The individual must be allowed to choose for themselves or "faith" is a meaningless concept. I think that is enough of that. Any thoughts? (See, I'm listening to outside opinions...:-))
Silent Bob	posted 11-02-98 09:32 PM ET Many religions are born out of the need for free will, but tend to become opressive as they grow stronger and older. Catholicism is a prime example of this. It's followers were once cast out as pagans and fed to lions or tied to crosses. The puritans and Amish are other examples. They came to the new world to avoid religious scrutiny. Now, the puritans are known for their witch hunts and stake burnings while the Amish still refuse to let anyone drive a car......or use a lamp...or a toilet that flushes...etc. I think that there is one thing that everyone is overlooking when pointing out the cause for any oppresive society. The ability to use hatred as a unifying factor. Hitler used the Jews this way...North Vietman hung all of the wealthy and public officials...the list continues....
Roland	posted 11-03-98 07:28 AM ET Robert: "But that is the fault of "religion" not Christianity." Agreed, but as christianity is religion, it - by definition - tends to oppress dissenters. I'd see Miriam more as a kind of pope, ie as well as an "administrative" as a spiritual leader. And I don't think Luther is a good example. He and his followers have been pretty intolerant as well.
Tapiolan poika	posted 11-03-98 08:10 AM ET Robert Casteline/Roland: I agree with Roland, but I think maybe Robert wanted to say "religious _organizations_". At least, that's where I tend to think the problems crop up. As soon as you get a hierarchy, people who like power are bound to shoulder the (according to them) heavy burden of responsibility, and misrule their flocks. I think we should start searching for models of organization which avoid this problem (compulsory participation by everyone in the running of organizations, with appointments as bishops, or whatever you wish to call them, rotated every year, or the like). Otherwise, we need to yank the human race up at least one step of the evolutionary ladder, since we don't seem able to do too well, as things stand.
Robert Casteline	posted 11-03-98 01:00 PM ET Tapiolan poika, I agree with you and I think that is what the whole "Transcendence" or "Ascention" Principle is in this game. Do you move beyond the flesh to something more spiritual? All of the factions represented here are really just the basic characteristics of the human condition broken down and amplified. So the next step is to form an alliance beyond "pressed wood pulp" and focus on the inner-self. This is what makes the game so interesting in theory. We are moving beyond the physical "Can I land on Alpha Centauri before anyone else?" and more into the metaphysical realm of "Can I find a way to truly become one with my human Brothers and Sisters and this planet?" I think the "one with planet" idea is a great one. But this is another string in itself. Let's return to the original questions: Were all original members of a faction voluntary or did some of the colonists just jump aboard the nearest shuttle? How would this effect the formation of the early factions?
LordAsmo	posted 11-03-98 01:48 PM ET I think since that these people are following these factions that they would start out happy.
Fenris	posted 11-03-98 03:53 PM ET The ship is going down...there are seven lifeboats leaving the ship...would you really truck halfway across the ship just because the lifeboat that is nearest to you is filled with people you don't really like? I don't think so... Thus each of the factions are going to start with a certain percentage of discenters. A Christian Theocracy like Miriam's might have Buddists, Moslems, Jews, Athiests, Pagans, etc. aboard the lifepod. These people would not look kindly upon Miriam establishing herself as the 'mouth-piece of God'. However, normally peace-loving scientists trapped aboard Santiago's shuttle might not have any problems working for the Spartans as long as he/she was left along and allowed to work in peace. The groups that I think would have the most trouble with assimilating 'jumpers' would be: 1-Miriam's 2-The Hive 3-? How would the Jumpers effect the beginning of the game? Factions within the factions? Constant power struggles? Leaks to the other factions?
Roland	posted 11-04-98 05:02 AM ET Interesting idea. This would mean that the peacekeepers would have the fewest dissenters, as they continue the original mission. What about spartans ? From the story they must have a serious shortage of people (just one spartan to guard the weapon's bay, one for Yang), how will they fill their ranks ?
Tom	posted 11-05-98 11:01 PM ET I wonder how the Morgan faction would be made up, a union of rival corporations that actually compete for a free market, or just one giant monopoly. PAX