Eugenics Wars II: The Full Write-Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

No support? What about Khan and his crew's utter disdain for Kirk and crew? What about "Only my superior intellect..."? What about the fears of genetic resequencing in DS9 (where they specifically cite Khan as an example of what they're afraid of)?

Also, wouldn't an insatiable desire to conquer be a reasonable explanation (and give a game mechanic) for Intolerance? This would simulate their "difficulty relating to those not under their rule"? :)

---

I have to disagree. Intolerant is just wrong here. While Khan was certainly sadistic and obsessive, there is no evidence that he was truly "intolerant" of any specific group. Khan married a "normal" woman, Lieutenant Marla McGivers, after all. The game rules for intolerant indicate that the flaw represents racial prejudice. Someone who was truly "intolerant" would not marry a member of the targeted group (and if they did, it would probably represent a breakthrough in overcoming that prejudice.)

Examples of intolerance in Star Trek would be Jim Kirk in STVI saying, of the Klingons, "They're animals. Let them die," or Chekov's "Guess who's coming to dinner." Khan hated Kirk because Kirk had (in Khan's mind,) visited many insults and injuries upon him. The emotions you saw in Khan (and, to a lesser extent, his people,) was the glee of a people who thought themselves oppressed, getting back at their oppressor.

The comments about superior intellect were classic arrogance, nothing more. Khan certainly believed himself mentally and physically superior to other Humans, but since this was, in fact, true, so it's hard to say that's intolerant!

Now, what might be a better flaw would be: Species Enmity ("normal" Humans,) since, evidentally, most of Humanity, having grown up reading history books about the horrors of the Eugenics Wars and thinks of Khan in the same breath as Hitler, would view the genetically-engineered supermen with fear and hatred. Species Enmity (maybe it should be renamed "group enmity",) but I think it fits the "supermen" better than "intolerant".

That's definitely one way of looking at it, but maybe my view of intolerant is different than others'. I see Intolerant depending on the degree of distate as well as the size of the group.

Besides, there are always exceptions. Sure, Kahn married a "normal", but she had "proved herself" in his eyes to be superior to her contemporaries.

Another example would be someone who is quite bigotted about a specific group as a whole, but more forgiving of individuals from that group that they have been exposed to and learned about. (My family comes from the south, so I've seen this sort of thing first-hand before...)

Just a thought... :)

Greetings,

My name is Frank Frey and I'm new to this forum. Several weeks ago I closed out my Buffy/Angel "Dark Streets" series for the season. I wanted to do some science fiction for a change. A friend of mine loaned his entire ST:RPG collection and now I'm preparing "Star Trek: Vanguard" which will debut in January.
Anyway, the Big Bad for this one are a pair of Augments: Lord Draxxor Karth and his daughter Sigrynne.
The wirite-ups are a great deal of help. BTW, Vanguard is set in 2376; the year following the end of the Dominion War. Again, thanks very much for the write up.

Frank Frey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Burke

That's definitely one way of looking at it, but maybe my view of intolerant is different than others'. I see Intolerant depending on the degree of distate as well as the size of the group.

Besides, there are always exceptions. Sure, Kahn married a "normal", but she had "proved herself" in his eyes to be superior to her contemporaries.

Another example would be someone who is quite bigotted about a specific group as a whole, but more forgiving of individuals from that group that they have been exposed to and learned about. (My family comes from the south, so I've seen this sort of thing first-hand before...)

Just a thought... :)

---

Well, I come to bury Khan, not defend him....but..... :)

I just think that Khan, while on board the Enterprise, considering he was a man who had just woken up after 200 years of cryogenic sleep, and was trying to avoid detection, behaved in a manner consistent with arrogance, not intolerance, when on board the Enterprise. The moral lesson of "Space Seed" did not speak to intolerance or racism, but rather was a variation on the old saying that absolute power corrupts, absolutely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Well, I come to bury Khan, not defend him....but..... :)

I just think that Khan, while on board the Enterprise, considering he was a man who had just woken up after 200 years of cryogenic sleep, and was trying to avoid detection, behaved in a manner consistent with arrogance, not intolerance, when on board the Enterprise. The moral lesson of "Space Seed" did not speak to intolerance or racism, but rather was a variation on the old saying that absolute power corrupts, absolutely!

---

Well, that's why Arrogant is also included as a species flaw...

To explain my position, the flaw Intolerant currently reads that the larger the group, the more instances of Intolerant you have. If that was the case, "normals" would be a really big group, so it would be the equivalent of Intolerant 3. However, by only giving one instance of intolerant and pointing it to a larger group, this would imply a slightly less intense intolerance. Or, to put it more simply, your basic bigotry.

And if you think about it, Marla McGivers overcame the Intolarant flaw by appealing to Kahn's Arrogant flaw...


Some more food for thought. Remember also the effect of the trait is just as important as the name. Actually more important ("Sherpa" anyone?). When Patrick was working on this writeup, I suggested that the character of Kahn would have both the Friendly and Likeable Edges. Not because he was friendly and likeable, but because he had such a forceful personality that the best way to simulate his charisma in-game would be by using those traits. Don't let the names of traits be shackles. Think of the effects and go with that.