Very true. But in all warfare, there will be times when the only options are 'Lose' or 'Do Something Questionable for the Greater Good' - and if it came down to the Rebels having to sacrifice a community so that a planet, or even the Rebellion as a whole, isn't lost, then what do you think Mothma would do?

I think Mon Mothma would be more inclined to look for a middle solution - "save some of the people, and lose a little but not completely." I think she wouldn't be comfortable flat-out sacrificing a community unless a whole lot was at stake. But that being said, Mon Mothma isn't effectively in charge of all Rebel cells. I prefer to see the Rebellion as a patchwork of several groups, with the official leadership considering themselves something of a Republic government-in-exile. To me, that's more realistic.

I hate to make the parallel that risks more threadcrapping, but the "mainstream" Rebels are more like the Free Syrian Army (admittedly not a perfect analogy, because the mainstream Rebels are nicer than them or any IRL freedom-fighter group, including the American Revolutionaries), but there are definitely also some extremist violent cells operating under the umbrella of "Rebellion" as well. With good reason, I might add. Lots of people and species have reasons to personally hate and target the Empire in general, even if Mon Mothma, Leia, etc are trying to abide by the laws of war.

I think Mon Mothma would be more inclined to look for a middle solution - "save some of the people, and lose a little but not completely." I think she wouldn't be comfortable flat-out sacrificing a community unless a whole lot was at stake. But that being said, Mon Mothma isn't effectively in charge of all Rebel cells. I prefer to see the Rebellion as a patchwork of several groups, with the official leadership considering themselves something of a Republic government-in-exile. To me, that's more realistic.

Do you know what? I agree with you. Good point, well made!

I think Mon Mothma would be more inclined to look for a middle solution - "save some of the people, and lose a little but not completely." I think she wouldn't be comfortable flat-out sacrificing a community unless a whole lot was at stake. But that being said, Mon Mothma isn't effectively in charge of all Rebel cells. I prefer to see the Rebellion as a patchwork of several groups, with the official leadership considering themselves something of a Republic government-in-exile. To me, that's more realistic.

I hate to make the parallel that risks more threadcrapping, but the "mainstream" Rebels are more like the Free Syrian Army (admittedly not a perfect analogy, because the mainstream Rebels are nicer than them or any IRL freedom-fighter group, including the American Revolutionaries), but there are definitely also some extremist violent cells operating under the umbrella of "Rebellion" as well. With good reason, I might add. Lots of people and species have reasons to personally hate and target the Empire in general, even if Mon Mothma, Leia, etc are trying to abide by the laws of war.

However, the likes of Garm Bel Iblis would not be so unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good, and he and his forces were also part of the Rebellion.

I completely agree with you, Millandson.

However, the likes of Garm Bel Iblis would not be so unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good, and he and his forces were also part of the Rebellion.

Up until after Alderaan and apparently as late as after-Yavin -- though EU attributes his split more to disagreement with Mothma over strategy, suspicion of her own ambition(s), and frankly Bail Organa no longer being around to intercede between the two.

Mor spoilers ahead.

Hi I was reading the topic and wondering something. Why do people seem to think that Garm bel Ilblis would be willing to use weapons and tactics he knows will harm civilians? He's my favorite EU charater, and I briefly rped him in a campagin. AFAIK I've read every story with him in it, and seen little to support this. The only evidence I can recall to support this is his ordering the fleet to fire through the refugee ship screen in Star by Star. There's a huge difference IMO between enangering a group of civilians who if not stopped eill die and endanger far greater numbers of civilians and being willing to use a superweapon with horrific side effects. I'm not saying anyone who feels he would is wrong just trying to understand the belief and why people seem to be casting him in the hawk role.

Also the break between Garm and Mon Mothma came because he feared she was another Palpatine. The last straw came when a few months after Yavin Mothma wanted to launch an attack on an Imperial garrision because Bail Organa had felt it's destruction would destablize Imperial control in the area. Garm had intel indicating the garrision was actually cover for an Imperial Intellegence station that the Alliance wasn't ready to attack. She ignored his warning, he refused to send troops under his command on the attack, and she launched the attack anyway, which was a diaster for the Alliance,

I think it just stems from early interpretations of him as " someone who broke off from the Alliance ", maybe even incorporating his suspicions about Mothma, before the context of the story where " the break " you describe in that last paragraph was revealed.

I guess that could be it though I still don't understand why people would think that him suspecting that Mon Mothma was out to declare herself Emperess meant he had a looser defintion of military target, and a greater tolerence for collatral damage then the other leaders of the Alliance. I don't think there's much detail of his independent force's war with the Empire given but what little I recall doesn't show that attitude.

Pretty much why I agree that there's little substance for such an interpretation of Bel Iblis, and the story of " the break " lends another angle of legitimacy to his break, her being tactically/strategically making a bad call with negative consequences for the Alliance.

Disclaimer: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE MESSAGE THIS CONVEYS!

I watched a movie once that went something like this:

A treasonous politician leaks classified military schematics to a non-state organization whose declared goal is the overthrow of the existing government. She and her supporters violently resist arrest, leading to the deaths of several loyalist military personnel. She intentionally provides misleading information as to the location of her collaborators, leaving loyalist field commanders the choice of whether to open fire on a known center of said organization concealed amongst noncombatants.

Later, criminal elements conspire to break her out of prison, although government agents do eliminate an extremely dangerous traitor who has been on the run for two decades. The criminals are unable to cover their tracks, however and nearby forces arrive to eliminate the guerrilla fighters before they can flee their hidden camp. The aforementioned military schematics give their enemies detailed knowledge of loyalist military capabilities, and a handful of individuals (including several known military defectors) destroy the largest artificial construct in the galaxy, with massive loss of life as a result.

All of these events happen in A New Hope , even if there are perfectly good reasons for them (or a lack thereof). The very nature of the Rebel Alliance introduces some degree of moral uncertainty into the equation.

Again, disclaimer: I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE MESSAGE THIS CONVEYS!

Ok that message utterly ignores the fact that there was no legitimate need to use the Death Star against Alderaan when a conventional invasion could have taken the world with vastly fewer non-combatant casualties. Its write also conveniently ignored the fact that when the Death Star was fired at Alderaan its commander believed that Leia had given him the location of the present Rebel HQ and he chose to blast Alderaan despite that because he felt hitting the Rebel base wouldn't inspire sufficient fear. The attack on Alderaan was an act of state sponsored terrorism, Nothing more and nothing less. Carried out by a state that Alderaan belonged too no less.

Why do you think Joker Two wrote that disclaimer?

Ok that message utterly ignores the fact that there was no legitimate need to use the Death Star against Alderaan when a conventional invasion could have taken the world with vastly fewer non-combatant casualties. Its write also conveniently ignored the fact that when the Death Star was fired at Alderaan its commander believed that Leia had given him the location of the present Rebel HQ and he chose to blast Alderaan despite that because he felt hitting the Rebel base wouldn't inspire sufficient fear. The attack on Alderaan was an act of state sponsored terrorism, Nothing more and nothing less. Carried out by a state that Alderaan belonged too no less.

Fun thing is that almost everything that you voiced here is basically why Maelora's campaign is the way that it is, and is the fatal flaw of what I'll call " the dominant Imperial military-political faction " in Star Wars canon -- in Maelora's campaign, I'd say that it's why they're not the dominant faction, hahaha...

Fun thing is that almost everything that you voiced here is basically why Maelora's campaign is the way that it is, and is the fatal flaw of what I'll call " the dominant Imperial military-political faction " in Star Wars canon -- in Maelora's campaign, I'd say that it's why they're not the dominant faction, hahaha...

Haha, yeah. Our Empire is vastly superior on paper, but crippled by a four-way civil war without Palpatine to hold it together. The Alliance (they don't think of themselves as 'rebels') is starting to rack up more wins than losses. Of course, the Death Star is still around, if temporarily inoperable, and the Alliance know they must win soon. If the Empire gets it's act together, it's Game Over...

I liked the idea of a the vast Imperium being hampered by its sheer size, and the less-centralized Alliance taking advantage of that...

I liked the idea of a the vast Imperium being hampered by its sheer size, and the less-centralized Alliance taking advantage of that...

Which requires none of the massive mods you do to the setting.

It's already big enough and inept enough in canon for that - just as the Republic was. And that's before the EU adding BoSS and ComPNOR to muck up the works by being competing and "must be appeased" factions that hamper the military.

Mind you, depending on where exactly you look in the EU, one may develop a sense that the Galactic Empire was by design never meant to survive Palpatine, especially not when his own fealty to the Rule of Two was questionable...

Mind you, depending on where exactly you look in the EU, one may develop a sense that the Galactic Empire was by design never meant to survive Palpatine, especially not when his own fealty to the Rule of Two was questionable...

I...had never thought of it in that light before...but it answers a great many questions I never really thought to ask...and raises almost as many more.

Not only does Sidious manipulate events to destroy the Jedi and take over the Republic, but he then turns the Empire into a giant dead man's switch, so that his death will trigger even more suffering without giving anyone else a chance to assume the throne. It's so incredibly convoluted and subtle, but it makes total sense, if you're a Sith.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up there.

Yah I find the idea some people present that Palpatine was trying to build up the galaxy's capability to fight the Vong a pathetic joke. If that was his real goal he would have set up the Empire with a clear line of succession, and many of the actions the Empire took and laws it set which angered people enough to give the Alliance the strength it needed to do as much damage as it did would also hinder such efforts. The big ones being the various laws aimed at keeping non-humans and near humans from positions of authority. Those did more to build the rebellion IMO then ay others and served no beneficial purpose to the Empire.

Mind you, depending on where exactly you look in the EU, one may develop a sense that the Galactic Empire was by design never meant to survive Palpatine, especially not when his own fealty to the Rule of Two was questionable...

I always figured that was a given, though Dark Empire did largely set the EU notion of "the Empire only lasts while Palpatine's around" in place, though it could be said that had Vader not turned out to be such a lackluster apprentice, Sidious may have intended to hand things over to Anakin once he'd proven worthy (namely by taking down Sidious as per Sith tradition set by Bane's Rule of Two). Plus he was cocky enough at that point, having succeeded at the great granddaddy of Xanatos Gambits to eliminate the Jedi Order and put himself in charge of galactic civilization, that he figured he'd be around for a very long time, likely having learned various "unnatural" means to extend his life well past what would be expected for the average Human until he did find a suitable apprentice to replace Vader. Palps pretty much knew (and so did the Alliance High Command) that the Rebel Alliance really didn't have a good shot at winning a protracted war; Palps simply wanted to crush the Alliance (which by that point had already served his purpose by allowing him to institute full-blown marital law and get rid of the Senate) in one dramatic gesture, and thus the elaborate ruse he put in motion to accomplish that.

But perhaps Sidious did intend for Vader to be his successor... the problem was Vader died not long after the Emperor did, so the guy in charge and his Number Two Guy were both out of the picture before anybody could really form a coherent plan for what to do in such an unlikely event. After all, how many folks really figured that the Empire's premiere manipulative chessmaster and it's biggest badass would be taken out within hours of each other? That would have been about as unthinkable as a the ruling liege and all their possible heirs being wiped out in minutes during medieval times. Given the Empire was an unabashed dictatorship, it's not like they'd have a pre-established chain of succession like the U.S. does should we suddenly lose the President and Vice-President

I thought that the Emperor had a transfer-into-clone-contingency set up so that he could rule indefinitely. He only needed Vader to hold things together for however long it took to get the new body up to speed. And he'd have gotten away with it if not for those meddling kids and their droids!

I thought that the Emperor had a transfer-into-clone-contingency set up so that he could rule indefinitely. He only needed Vader to hold things together for however long it took to get the new body up to speed. And he'd have gotten away with it if not for those meddling kids and their droids!

Even in the EU, that's a matter of speculation. I believe it's been put forth that most folks figure it was an insane clone of the Emperor that thought he was the real thing, with Dark Empire II and Empire's End being quietly ignored for the most part by other authors, and even a decent chunk of the fanbase, as those two follow-up series really weren't that good, even by the standards of the 90's (aka what many refer to as the "Dork Age of Comics")

>>>Which requires none of the massive mods you do to the setting.

Of course.

The extensive mods were made because I wanted to make them - this was only a side-effect.

I had particular design goals in mind, and dislike much of the EU and all of the prequels.

I've never said anything otherwise there.

I had to dig up my SW: The essential Guide to Warfare to find the name of the leader of the Pentastar Alignment: Ardus Kaine. He was smart enough to consolidate his power and build a working goverment. No love for aliens and old civilizations, instead building an Empire within the Empire. And it did last the longest.

And of course there are officers like Gilad Pellaeon, stern man of duty, who ignore the crimes of the Empire because they believe in the order it has brought after the weak Republic and the Clone Wars.

Defining your playstyle the group might run into an Imperial Governor at the edges of Fringe Space who is busy installing order and repelling pirates. He has few ships and men but does his best to help his citizens. If the players wanted they could kill him, but that would allow the criminal elements to continue.

Or how about the Neutral Systems? Both the Empire and the Rebells want to influence an important system into siding with them. Would your group carry out acts of terrorism (with civilian casualties) that can be blamed on the Empire?

Edit: The only reason why the rebells won was because they were the heroes and had to. just by flipping through my EU-books i run across several occassions where they should have died but did not because they were the main characters.

I...had never thought of it in that light before...but it answers a great many questions I never really thought to ask...and raises almost as many more.

Not only does Sidious manipulate events to destroy the Jedi and take over the Republic, but he then turns the Empire into a giant dead man's switch, so that his death will trigger even more suffering without giving anyone else a chance to assume the throne. It's so incredibly convoluted and subtle, but it makes total sense, if you're a Sith.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up there.

Ehhh, it's more of "I can see everything about the statement that you quoted other than " leaving loyalist field commanders the choice of whether to open fire on a known center of said organization concealed amongst noncombatants ," since as RogueCorona alluded to, Episode IV itself clearly belies that... not least since there's a clear difference in scale between " orbital bombardment with or without an accompanying invasion " (that is, whether invading the planet or 'just' pounding it with turbolasers) and what Tarkin ordered instead.

But yeah, what I was describing by Palpatine's own " questionable " fealty to the Rule of Two was that, bluntly speaking, in the end he may not have intended to be succeeded by anyone , much less to acknowledge intent-to-be-succeeded-by-someone-else in any official form that might legitimize another " center of power " besides himself... even if this meant violating the Rule of Two, replacing " rule by the strongest of two " with " rule by Palpatine ad infinitum."

In canon the idea behind the " transfer-into-clone contingency " that HappyDaze described was that the clones would be " blank " and unconscious, and therefore provide no resistance to a disembodied Palpatine inhabiting them -- whereas Darth Bane's seemingly final end was when he destroyed his own body in a failed attempt to possess Darth Zannah's body -- but that fell apart when it was revealed that all of Palpatine's remaining clones and their genetic source samples (of Palpatine's original body) had been irrevocably contaminated by 11 ABY.

Heck, at last check it's apparently EU canon that Palpatine (or one of his clones who believed himself to be the original)* actually sabotaged the Thrawn campaign , at minimum by not seconding forces in support of Thrawn's but instead consolidating his own loyalists in the Deep Core.

* This bit is echoed by Tionne Solusar, who in Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force (published 40 ABY) wrote down her own belief that Palpatine's clones had only possessed Palpatine's memories and Force potential and that they mistakenly believed themselves to be the original Palpatine's consciousness, as well as her view that, irrespective of when -- or by who -- it was acquired, the Sidious recordings/annotations-to-other-Sith-Lords'-recordings on the Telos Holocron were done by one of these clones.