I have but to disagree with you on this to some extent. Again OOC all the way much like my previous post.
While the non-player factions may not represent the players, the players do, however, represent the faction. (if not intentionally, much because of the vacuum of actual content about that faction)
Sure; I have no problem with "representing" a faction. I don't think it can be argued, however, that the players
are the faction. It's an important distinction.
As a communist, I obviously want all the actions I take in-game to reflect certain central tenets, such as the fundamental belief that people can't be owned, either legally through debt-slavery, or illegally through the use of force - both are immoral. Communist factions still occasionally offer slaving missions. I just choose not to do those missions. I could petition the devs to change the mission generation routines to exclude slave missions from communist minor factions, but that would, in my opinion, be a step too far. As I alluded to in an earlier post, this game is predicated on the notion that people are, for want of a better word, ugly creatures, living in a universe where morally repugnant acts are commonplace.
Much like the will of the players was felt in early CGs that helped shape Imperial and Federation Politics the players should have the ability to influence the outcome of a faction. There are lot of Alliance pilots who have grabbed the early idea that the Alliance was an anti-federation organization, united against the way massive coorporations were taking over. And the lack of official narrative does not help, in not shaping the alliance to be SOMETHING, Frontier allowed it to be Anything. And so we try to mold it to our intentions, by action.
Again, I agree,
up to a point. The role-play aspects of the game would be pretty boring if the factions were changed to suit the whims of the players attached to them. There would be no dissonance for the players to attempt to resolve through their role-play.
I'd also pick up on the conception of the Alliance as you describe above - to my knowledge, it's overly-charitable
at best, and simply incorrect at worst. The Alliance was founded due to the actions of
both superpowers in their incessant bickering. It's not just "Federation bad;" it's "Federation and Empire bad." I'd also point to Mahon's Powerplay strengths and weaknesses. He actively
hates communists and
loves corporations. I know of at least three systems that I worked in (two of which I flipped) prior to Powerplay having a corporate government installed. The anti-corporate stance of the Alliance is a fabrication, to put it mildly.
With that said, if the aggregated "general will" of the players (a concept that isn't without its problems) is to be expressed for the Alliance, I would suggest the same mechanism that was used for the Feds and Imps - CGs. Persuasive forum posts leading to
fiat changes in the game universe would hardly be consistent with the other political decisions.
If this game is supposed to reflect its players that should somehow impact the narrative, instead of the narrative overriding anything we do in game. Its not about jumping the boat, but changing the way the boat goes. OFC FDev may do whatever they want, but they must understand they will alienate people with something so out of line with anything relating to alliance "lore".
But this precludes the possibility that you were
wrong about the Alliance.
I remember back just before 1.3, when CI were working within Alliance territory (LHS 2925 Labour Union), and I had taken a short break from that area of space to work for my pet faction down in the heart of Federation territory. I had a mission pending for the 2925 Labour Union, and at the time wrinkles and NPCs offering branches were really common. The flavour text for the wrinkle was really interesting - "you don't know who they (referring to the LHS 2925 Labour Union) are working for; they're a monster."
The point is, of course, that the factions in the game are ugly creatures.
With this I'm not saying we're good or bad.. I don't believe that things fall that neatly into boxes. I say, we're different, like the original alliance lore said we were, and we follow those ideals. Should the narrative do the same?
Honestly I hope this thing about the PM will lead to at least some interesting narrative where he will have some conflict to resolve with the rest of the Alliance, allowing other characters to surface. It would be nice to see something about the Alliance being discussed.
I agree. One of the great things about this game, though, is the potential for narratives at multiple scales.
