Talk:Brotherhood of Nod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Literal meaning of Kane's "al-Quayym" alias
2 Kane's speech
3 Brotherhood of Nod's ideology according to the game creators
4 'Questionable and vague statements'
5 Amounts of tiberium
6 Say wha'?
7 Nomads of Destruction?

[edit] Literal meaning of Kane's "al-Quayym" alias

In Arabic, Amir means prince and al-Quayym is a corruption of al-Qiyama. al-Qiyama is a synonym for Yasmut Deen, which means Judgement Day. The writer learned this personally from a certain professor with the given name of Fahti, who at the time was working for a summer program run by the Newton, Massachusetts Community Education program. The lessons took place at Hosmer Elementary School.

[edit] Kane's speech

Who wrote the Kane speech? I've never seen it in any C&C literature and I suspect that it may have been invented by an author of this article.84.69.25.238 12:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech was in the opening of the official stategy guide by Brady Games.

I removed the speech, its way to long winded to be published in its entirety here. There is also an issue of copyright status for the speach. TomStar81 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood of Nod's ideology according to the game creators

I find myself repeatedly having to re-add various sections of the Brotherhood of Nod's ideology section. For the sake of clarity I will give a direct quotation from the original 1995 manual of Command & Conquer, which I still have in my possession:

Taken literally from page 2, 'The Brotherhood of Nod':

Ideology: To unite third-world nations under a pseudo-religious political platform with imperialist tendencies. In actuality it is an aggressive and popular neo-fascist, anti-West movement vying for total domination of the world's peoples and resources. Operates under the popular mantra, "Brotherhood, unity, peace". 81.240.51.39 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I guess the bias goes deep on this one : ). Regardless, the "Nod is anything but peaceful" phrase stays out, unless it is also official. --Chodorkovskiy 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I can not quite imagine why you are so bend on making these biased statements yourself, to be honest. Regardless of the nature of your personal views on any groups and individuals who arguably resemble the Brotherhood of Nod in actions, words and perspectives on life in the real world, the storyline of this game is intellectual property and thus needs to be quoted correctly, and it is also an article on a video-game and not at all on a real-life movement or organization. Frankly I do not see any problem here besides the one you appear to be creating. :-)

Because of this, I would like to hear why the 'Nod is anything but peaceful' part should be removed from the article, as this is an objective observation that any person who has played this game and who has thus seen the actions of this fictional group within the game's storyline would reach. Describing the real-life national-socialist party of past Germany as 'racist' isn't something I would call 'biased' any more than I would consider describing the fictional Brotherhood of Nod as a highly violent and aggressive militant movement in these games as being biased. Indeed, as their mantra itself states: 'Peace Through Power'. You would consider such a peaceful or a non-violent movement?

Either way, until this explanation is given, I will re-add this line as well. I'm quite looking forward to hear your views on this. 81.240.51.39 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not compare Nod to any real-life organization. The situation, however, is quite real: I consider myself a (rather) reasonable and good-natured person, but "Peace Trough Power" is one of my life mottos. Indeed, "if a country does not feed its army, it will feed a foreign one". I understand completely that we may disagree on this and I may be wrong, but that's the point: we disagree. Therefore, while it may be true that Nod does not really strive to peace, or does so immorally (in fact - it is true), I personally find saying so more of an analysis than statement of fact. As policy dictates, Wikipedia is not a place for original research: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." --Chodorkovskiy 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, this seems to be something we disagree upon. I also understand that I do not live in a country where the threat of terrorism or of terrorist acts is rather high however, so I will not judge you over this as we simply have too different backgrounds - had I seen what you have seen or experienced what you have experienced I might well see things your way, then again I still might not. Basically, there's no way to know. But more on the topic at hand, the parts I've had to re-add (not only from your edits but from others as well for that matter) are part of the official canon of these games their storylines. No original research is involved in this at all, instead they are a direct quotation from the original manual of the game which I happen to still own even after all these years so they have every reason to remain fully intact in the article. Command & Conquer's creators also have, by their own admittion, always intended to have these games be a somewhat classic 'good guys vs bad guys' type of story, and thus they designed the two factions of Nod and GDI accordingly both in gameplay and storyline. In a sense, that too is official canon though less pronounced, which is why I reacted with scepticism when you stated that you consider the remark about 'anything but peaceful' to be deeply biased. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. 81.240.51.39 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the creators pf the game did probably mean "Brotherhood, unity, peace" as irony. So no, it's not original research and not bias. Alright then. And don't worry about me messing the article up: I'll discuss any other changes on the talk page before making them. --Chodorkovskiy 06:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: why not describe Nod passively using the manual as a source? It's hard to describe what I mean so I'll just use an example of where I've done a similar thing: the first part of the storyline section in the Tiberian series article. -- Run! 10:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the manual is copyrighted. However, I agree that describing the Nod passively is the best way to go. --Chodorkovskiy 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In the words o one revewer "Nod the bad guy Communist/Nazi/Terrerists delete at your preference. Jamhaw 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

[edit] 'Questionable and vague statements'

To user Chodorkovskiy: The 'questionable' and 'vague' statement that you removed in line 53 is, rather obviously, a reference to the typical tactics used by a player who chose the Brotherhood of Nod as his faction in a multiplayer match of Command & Conquer, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and its expansion pack Firestorm. This is simply due to the fact that in all three of these games the units and technology tree of the Brotherhood of Nod are designed for more guerrillia style tactics there where the units and technology tree of the Global Defense Initiative are more designed towards conventional and open forms of warfare. (Please see: Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative, Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative, Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative, Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod and Structures of the Global Defense Initiative and Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod for details.)

Since you were not able to deduce this yourself however and since you also described the statement as being 'vague' and 'questionable' against such a background, I feel I should ask you this question; Have you ever played any of these three games?

This removed line in itself isn't any big deal obviously, yet it would be rather undesirable in my opinion if this article was being vigorously edited by someone who has little to no first hand experience with neither the storyline, nor the gameplay of these videogames. Though on a positive note - I fully agree with your removal of the 'lethal sting' part from the article's intro. Please understand that I only have the quality of the article in mind in this. 81.240.51.39 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, I have played Tiberian Sun. Yes, Nod units are rather weak head-on. Yes, mass-titans-and-wreck-the-enemy-base doesn't work with them. I agree that something of the sort has to be mentioned in the article. My problem is with the line itself, not with what it stands for. See for yourself:

"For example, they would sooner locate a weak area of a base's perimeter, tear through it and invade from there, rather than attempt a direct assault which runs the risk of incurring heavy losses at the hands of fortified defences."

Is that not true of any army in any RTS? Yeah, GDI doesn't have to resort to it, but a skilled player will always try to avoid heavy defenses on his way to the target base (don't tell me that's not true either, I may be a noob at the Tiberian series, but I'm not new to RTS). I just think that a better example of what a Nod player would do is in order. And here is where you come in: it has been several years since I last saw anything Tiberian outside Renegade, and I am in no condition to comment on multiplayer (which is where the real combat takes place). You, on the other hand, seem to have sufficient insight into the matter to comment professionally. Perhaps an underground engineer rush? I don't know, what are the tactics the Nod resorts to? Just not "Nod avoids heavy losses".

Please understand, I am also driven by the desire to make the article better, and the last thing I want is to drive you away from contributing to it. Also, I would suggest you get a user name yourself - it makes the job tonns easier. --Chodorkovskiy 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning online play, I used to play Tiberian Sun a fair bit, and I can say that pretty much every "sneak" tactic employed by Nod can be thwarted very easily. The best way to play with Nod is to build a shit-load of tanks/planes and win through brute force. Unless, of course, the opponent happens to let slip when defending against certain sneak tactics. Then it can be a good idea to exploit the 'security hole'. -- Run! 19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amounts of tiberium

I believe it was amount of land held by both sides Jamhaw 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Odd, the video seems to clearly state world supply. CABAL 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say wha'?

Where does it say that Nod's got bioweapons in any of the games?

In Tiberian Dawn, Nod players had access to a high-tech infantry unit called the "Chem Warrior" in multiplayer games. In Tiberian Sun, Nod manufactured chemical missiles which produced Tiberium vapor clouds harmful to structures and vehicles alike, and which could instantly kill infantry units -- often turning them into Visceroids as well. These Tiberium-based missiles also played a major role in the ending sequence of Tiberian Sun's Nod campaign. Tiberium Wars seems set to continue this tradition, with the Black Hand shock troops being able to be upgraded from flamethrowers to chemical weaponry according to the community leaders that got a first preview of the game in December of 2006. DieOfGoodLuck 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)