Altarians: The most aggressive race in the game! » Forum Post by hardcore

Just think of them as the SJW's of the Galactic Civilizations Universe; prepared to take offense and be outraged at a moment's notice, and prepared to destroy that which has offended and/or outraged them in heartbeat.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

Why is it that 90% of the wars I have seen happen so far involve that Altarians? This is what the GalCiv wiki has to say about them:

"The Altarian Republic is a kind, albeit rather self-righteous civilization whose denizens look remarkably like humans. In fact, genetic tests have proven that they are the same species. (see also Altarian Prophecy.) The Altarians were the first race discovered by the Arcean Empire (The Yor were the second). They were the second race discovered by the Terran Alliance.

The Altarians are extremely religious, the gods they worship each represent a branch of good. Their worship has also led them to want to subdue any evil they encounter. Their levels of worship have also reduced crime on their worlds. Altarians also use face paint around the eyes or tattoos to show their levels in society and in religion. This tradition is also used to show rank in military."

Just RATHER self-righteous? More like utterly fanatical religious theocrats who foam at the mouth at the very sight of somebody whom isn't 100% like they are. Seriously, I don't think I have EVER seen them get along with anybody who is in any way different from them. Most of the time when a war starts, it appears to involve them, and more often than not was also started by them as well. It's getting almost comical, because the game wants me to believe that they are the game's most noble good guy race, and instead they strike me more as some kind of a crazy theocracy bent on world domination.

Are the Altarians actually SUPPOSE to be like this? Are they wad?

Of course! One of their personality traits is Xenophobic, as in they literally hate everyone that isn't them. Have you looked at their tech tree? I think I lost count of how many techs have "look at how superior we are" and "look at how inferior everyone else is" in them. They're even assholes to the Terrans in flavor text!

"They say you look like us. I sincerely hope they jest."

"Oh good. The upstarts."

They even try to kid themselves about the purpose of their Military every time they upgrade their weapons. They are snooty, self-righteous, sanctimonious knobs. Don't mistake what's going on for the GAME wanting to pull the wool over your eyes. THEY want to believe that they are the most noble good guy race, but their flavor text and tech tree shows that they're actually ginormous hypocrites. Even their racial description lampshades this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Space Cadet Stimpy,

reply 1

Just think of them as the SJW's of the Galactic Civilizations Universe; prepared to take offense and be outraged at a moment's notice, and prepared to destroy that which has offended and/or outraged them in heartbeat.

As a self described progressive I take immediate offense. Prepare to be destroyed as soon as I figure out how to make text either lethal or subatomic.

I really love the character and behavior of the Altarians. It is classic don't-trust-the good-guys stuff. And in my liberal circles, I have met them or folk like them far too often. I consider it one of the best jokes of GalCiv, and a little bit scary, too. It is how some folk I have known would behave if they weren't devout pacifists.

Successfully updated karma reason!

gandhi all over again!

Successfully updated karma reason!

MottiKhan

Join Date 04/2007

+152

Yeah, they're pretty easily provoked. I like that about them, since I know it's a short matter of time before they declare war on me. It leaves the guesswork out. They're usually fairly powerful for some reason too. When I played as them, I thought their tech tree was kinda weak.

The Krynn have pretty much the same social skills, although I've seen them smiling before. (A few turns before they started their standard scowl.) In fact, I've seen a goofy smile on all of the majors except the Altarians.

The two most religious races would probably be the Altarians and Krynn. You can count on both to declare war without reason. Kinda reflects our own societies.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting adamb1011,

reply 4

gandhi all over again!

India in the civ games (well 5 anyway) isn't actually that aggressive and in fact is very peaceful. They just like to build lots and lots of nukes in case somebody messes with them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just think of them as hippocritical members of the Spanish inquisition with a touch of the Monty Python version thrown in.As while we (me as Terrans) were fighting the Drengin they were building up a massive capital ship stacks in my territory and once the Drengin surrendered to them All the Altarian fleets beelined it to my space and weve gone from friendly to warm within a couple of turns and because their militarily No 1 and I'm No 2 they wont accept any treaties and are being class 1 A holes so guess whose gonnabe their next target? yup me! unfortunately for them I've unlocked huge hulls.

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://kotaku.com/why-gandhi-is-such-an-asshole-in-civilization-1653818245

tldr: in civ1 there was a bug that made gandhi go from being ultra pacifist to psycho nuking warmonger after researching democracy (due to an integer overflow issue).

Successfully updated karma reason!

and as homage to that initial awesome bug, later civ developers tend to make gandhi the most nuke-happy of all the leaders (although only in defense)

Successfully updated karma reason!

To be honest, he DID support India's nuclear program. I don't think the man was actually as pacifist as he is claimed to be.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is interesting is that the Altarians attack the most technologically and militarily advanced AI without significantly damaging the advanced AI's military. Once the Altarians somehow manage to capture all of the advanced AI's planets, all of that AI's ships become pirates. These super powerful pirates roam around and cause grief for all of the surrounding civilizations.

Quote From: hardcore_gamer, Reply #10

To be honest, he DID support India's nuclear program. I don't think the man was actually as pacifist as he is claimed to be.

Gandhi was not a pacifist; he believed in the right of those being attacked to strike back and regarded inaction as a result of cowardice to be a greater sin than even the most ill-considered aggression. Gandhi’s calls for the sacrifice of lives in order to shame the oppressor into concessions can easily seem chilling and ruthless. But, Gandhi's peaceful resistance was probably a less costly option, in human life anyway, of driving out the British. Once armed foreign forces entered Libya in “support” of the popular revolt, the number of deaths skyrocketed. While Gandhi's version of revolt might have been bloody, an armed uprising would have been much more so.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting FieldMarshallRommel,

reply 11

What is interesting is that the Altarians attack the most technologically and militarily advanced AI without significantly damaging the advanced AI's military. Once the Altarians somehow manage to capture all of the advanced AI's planets, all of that AI's ships become pirates. These super powerful pirates roam around and cause grief for all of the surrounding civilizations.

Quote From: hardcore_gamer, Reply #10

To be honest, he DID support India's nuclear program. I don't think the man was actually as pacifist as he is claimed to be.

Gandhi was not a pacifist; he believed in the right of those being attacked to strike back and regarded inaction as a result of cowardice to be a greater sin than even the most ill-considered aggression. Gandhi’s calls for the sacrifice of lives in order to shame the oppressor into concessions can easily seem chilling and ruthless. But, Gandhi's peaceful resistance was probably a less costly option, in human life anyway, of driving out the British. Once armed foreign forces entered Libya in “support” of the popular revolt, the number of deaths skyrocketed. While Gandhi's version of revolt might have been bloody, an armed uprising would have been much more so.

Ahimsa was Gandhi's Belief in non-violent protest and he was against war. Of course a Pacifist would be in favor if there had to be violence in the least costly violence but Gandhi wasn't an advocate of violence at all, Indian self-determination, Independence and self rule. He also wrote a letter to Hitler before WW2 broke out hoping for a peaceful solution. Ruthless and chilling leaders don't do that. Learn your history because when you say stuff like "Was probably" uhhh "sacrifice of lives" lol He called for living a sacrificial life which is not the same thing as sacrificing lives in order to shame an aggressor. The British were not aggressors either they were occupiers.

Read a book or two before talking about stuff you no almost nothing factual.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think he was also racist towards blacks and slept with underage girls.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ahhh the internet where aggressiveness overflow bugs are the default state of affairs...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting KD7BCH,

reply 12

Ahimsa was Gandhi's Belief in non-violent protest and he was against war. Of course a Pacifist would be in favor if there had to be violence in the least costly violence but Gandhi wasn't an advocate of violence at all, Indian self-determination, Independence and self rule. He also wrote a letter to Hitler before WW2 broke out hoping for a peaceful solution. Ruthless and chilling leaders don't do that. Learn your history because when you say stuff like "Was probably" uhhh "sacrifice of lives" lol He called for living a sacrificial life which is not the same thing as sacrificing lives in order to shame an aggressor. The British were not aggressors either they were occupiers.

Read a book or two before talking about stuff you no almost nothing factual.

Did I ever say the British where the aggressors? While many Indians living in that time might have regarded the British as oppressors or aggressors, they where only there for economic gain. When you criticize me about using the phrase, "was probably," how can you be absolutely sure about how the events would have played out if an armed rebellion was immediately enacted? Just because there is a precedent of something does not make it a fact. And you can still seek a peaceful solution and not be a pacifist. You accuse me of stating nothing factual, but in your response you do not support your opinion of someone else's personality. If you can actual give me quotes or reliable references, there would be a chance to convince me of your point of view, not just insulting me.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Altarians are easily offended but the Krynn, imo, are far more aggressive than any of the normal races. They declare on everyone, regardless of power.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This thread really derailed

Successfully updated karma reason!

Damn right!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting SomeRandomInterneter,

reply 16

The Altarians are easily offended but the Krynn, imo, are far more aggressive than any of the normal races. They declare on everyone, regardless of power.

I actually dow'd the Krynn first in my current game. Why is it that they are so aggressive though when the game's lore claims they aren't very good at war?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting FieldMarshallRommel,

reply 15

Quoting KD7BCH,

reply 12

Ahimsa was Gandhi's Belief in non-violent protest and he was against war. Of course a Pacifist would be in favor if there had to be violence in the least costly violence but Gandhi wasn't an advocate of violence at all, Indian self-determination, Independence and self rule. He also wrote a letter to Hitler before WW2 broke out hoping for a peaceful solution. Ruthless and chilling leaders don't do that. Learn your history because when you say stuff like "Was probably" uhhh "sacrifice of lives" lol He called for living a sacrificial life which is not the same thing as sacrificing lives in order to shame an aggressor. The British were not aggressors either they were occupiers.

Read a book or two before talking about stuff you no almost nothing factual.

Did I ever say the British where the aggressors? While many Indians living in that time might have regarded the British as oppressors or aggressors, they where only there for economic gain. When you criticize me about using the phrase, "was probably," how can you be absolutely sure about how the events would have played out if an armed rebellion was immediately enacted? Just because there is a precedent of something does not make it a fact. And you can still seek a peaceful solution and not be a pacifist. You accuse me of stating nothing factual, but in your response you do not support your opinion of someone else's personality. If you can actual give me quotes or reliable references, there would be a chance to convince me of your point of view, not just insulting me.

Ghandi was in conflict with the British as they occupied his land. Pacifism is non-violent resistance against anyone who would be an aggressor. I don't think you were talking about anybody but the British. A=B B=C therefore A=C.

You want reliable references try google or go to your library. I have a hard time seeing Ghandi as a aggressive warlord who wasn't a pacifist.

Do you the difference between Libya and India? One was a Hindu and Muslim country occupied during the end of colonialism by the British, which is/was a Constitutional Monarchy which ruled from the UK. Libya was an independent country after 1947 whos government was overthrown by Muammar Gaddafi a brutal dictator Not Mohandas Gandhi a pacific movement leader advocating India self rule. Gandhi preached sacrificial living, engaging in several hunger strikes and starvation protests for causes even after the British gave up India.

Gaddafi's Red Line of Death was defended by Mig-22s from the Libyan airforce which attempted to attack the United States Navy in International Waters. Gaddafi was also responsible for political arrests, slave trading etc. Is there really a comparison here or just your ignorance of history and unwillingness to learn about it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting hardcore_gamer,

reply 19

Quoting SomeRandomInterneter,

reply 16

The Altarians are easily offended but the Krynn, imo, are far more aggressive than any of the normal races. They declare on everyone, regardless of power.

I actually dow'd the Krynn first in my current game. Why is it that they are so aggressive though when the game's lore claims they aren't very good at war?

Because they have the remnants of the Korx in their society which brought in the criminal and spying element as well as the combativeness.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting KD7BCH,

reply 20

Quoting FieldMarshallRommel,

reply 15

Quoting KD7BCH,

reply 12

Ahimsa was Gandhi's Belief in non-violent protest and he was against war. Of course a Pacifist would be in favor if there had to be violence in the least costly violence but Gandhi wasn't an advocate of violence at all, Indian self-determination, Independence and self rule. He also wrote a letter to Hitler before WW2 broke out hoping for a peaceful solution. Ruthless and chilling leaders don't do that. Learn your history because when you say stuff like "Was probably" uhhh "sacrifice of lives" lol He called for living a sacrificial life which is not the same thing as sacrificing lives in order to shame an aggressor. The British were not aggressors either they were occupiers.

Read a book or two before talking about stuff you no almost nothing factual.

Did I ever say the British where the aggressors? While many Indians living in that time might have regarded the British as oppressors or aggressors, they where only there for economic gain. When you criticize me about using the phrase, "was probably," how can you be absolutely sure about how the events would have played out if an armed rebellion was immediately enacted? Just because there is a precedent of something does not make it a fact. And you can still seek a peaceful solution and not be a pacifist. You accuse me of stating nothing factual, but in your response you do not support your opinion of someone else's personality. If you can actual give me quotes or reliable references, there would be a chance to convince me of your point of view, not just insulting me.

Ghandi was in conflict with the British as they occupied his land. Pacifism is non-violent resistance against anyone who would be an aggressor. I don't think you were talking about anybody but the British. A=B B=C therefore A=C.

You want reliable references try google or go to your library. I have a hard time seeing Ghandi as a aggressive warlord who wasn't a pacifist.

Do you the difference between Libya and India? One was a Hindu and Muslim country occupied during the end of colonialism by the British, which is/was a Constitutional Monarchy which ruled from the UK. Libya was an independent country after 1947 whos government was overthrown by Muammar Gaddafi a brutal dictator Not Mohandas Gandhi a pacific movement leader advocating India self rule. Gandhi preached sacrificial living, engaging in several hunger strikes and starvation protests for causes even after the British gave up India.

Gaddafi's Red Line of Death was defended by Mig-22s from the Libyan airforce which attempted to attack the United States Navy in International Waters. Gaddafi was also responsible for political arrests, slave trading etc. Is there really a comparison here or just your ignorance of history and unwillingness to learn about it?

I mentioned Libya because I needed an example about how a rebellion can turn extremely violent. I was not trying to compare the two countries. And I find it extremely ironic that you accuse me of refusing to learn history. I am often accused of the exact opposite. I quite enjoy history and learning about it. That is the only reason I am still arguing with you. I relish the opportunity to hear someone else's point of view on historical subjects.

I do agree this thread has gotten a bit off topic.

Successfully updated karma reason!