Book 2 – Page 47

[Selexor]

The problem is that every single person in the world can think suicide bombing is abhorrent, and it won't matter in the slightest if the guy wearing the vest made of C-4 disagrees. He's really the only one whose opinion matters at the time, because he's the only one with the power to change his mind. Yes, many suicide bombers were "tricked" into it, or strongarmed into it, but someone still gave them that bundle of explosives and sent them out to kill.
That's the point I'm making. Not that I believe suicide bombing to be honourable, but that someone out there does. And, as long as they believe it to be a perfectly valid way to fight a war, it's going to happen. It does not matter in the slightest if I disapprove, or if you disapprove, or if that guy over there disapproves. It only matters if your enemy does. As long as he believes that this tactic is valid and acceptable, he's going to do it. That's the fundamental problem with standards of honour: there is absolutely no reason to believe your enemy will share those standards.

Again, while there are notable exceptions, there are still people who voluntarily use this tactic. They don't percieve their actions to be dishonourable or cowardly, they think exactly the opposite. Are they wrong? Misguided? I'd say yes. But what I say is completely and utterly irrelevant, because this person still has ten kilograms of explosives and a desire to blow me up, and they are most certainly not going to stop and listen to my opinion on the subject. It doesn't matter if I don't believe a certain tactic is honourable. What matters is that the guy holding the weapon does believe it. I can cry about honourable tactics, but honestly, it won't make a lick of difference because he thinks what he's doing is perfectly reasonable and I just have to deal with that fact.

All that you can do in warfare is compare what you're willing to do in order to win, and what your enemy is willing to do in order to win. Those two standards, throughout history, have almost never matched up. Sometimes the difference is greater. But as people have said... everyone has standards. Everyone has honour and what they consider to be acceptable. My point is that you can't afford to be, well, stupid enough to think that just because you won't do something, the enemy won't too. It's dangerously naive, and in a situation like that, it will get you killed.

[wckz]

Has anyone thought that the crap is for a LOT of crap golems? I mean, they have a dirtamancer and we know he makes crap golems.

EDIT: Derp, I finished reading and there have been some people who thought of that.

[valce]

Yes, but we also usually remember when they were through as dishonorable by their fellow generals (be it of their country or others), so your point is moot, it's not a question of if in this case parson is doing is absolutely evil or morally doubtful[edit]for us[/edit], it's a question of whatever he is doing is seen as such by others in and out of his side in the war or if the reaction is a little baffled argument on how he shouldn't/couldn't do that but without any other response. Same thing if we consider our world history as an example, someone who break war convention and commit what we today call "crimes against humanity" is considered guilty only if the others are willing to see it that way, it's not "Might make Right" it's "Indifference make Might Right"

I only picked out one sensible thing in that blob, and I disagree. Both of the questions you bring up are pointless. With regards to the rules of war, Selexor is right -- we can spend all day making up rules of war or somesuch, but the ultimate point of war is to win, not to play by the rules. There's no consolation prize in combat (unless you count horrific injuries and lifelong trauma). As Terry Pratchett says: "Blow the Marquis of Fantailler*"

Honour and Mercy are just tools in a good tactician's belt, just beside Cruelty and Savagery.

Also, seriously, Parson is fighting for the lives of those under his command. I would personally call him a dishonourable son-of-a-dog if he let his subordinates die just so he could follow a few silly rules set up by his enemy's side.

Finally, please take this as constructive criticism memnoch, with no insult intended: please re-read what you post before you post, it's hard to follow when you make that many errors. It would be easier to follow your train of thought if you break it into smaller sentences and paragraphs, instead of cramming everything into two run-on sentences.

*http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Marquis_of_Fantailler

[Oberon]

BLAND- Oberon did not say 'North Korea is good'. He said 'the rest of the world, ostensibly filled with Good (and Good = Right) nations, has failed to demonstrate in any meaningful way that North Korea is BAD. Because obviously a BAD nation would suffer consequence from its behavior. They're still going, so Being Good doesn't matter, so Might Makes Right because Good does not demonstrably make Right.'

I think.

Thank you.

[cheeseaholic]

I see a whole lot of posts equating honorable with good and dishonorable with evil. Perhaps instead of using a codified system for determining if actions are respected or allowed or not actually comparing costs and benefits would be a good idea. Honor is nice, but good is better.

Parson is doing this to assuage his conscience. This has been pointed out a variety of times. This is inconsequential with the number of lives at stake. What Parson is doing is likely to annoy the MK. Again, inconsequential. Parson's being in the battle zone will do at least two things - give his troops a slight bonus and allow him to give orders much more effectively and efficiently. It may also allow him to assassinate the enemy leader, and thus lower the enemy bonus and make the enemy likely to surrender.

His added bonus and superior reaction speed to giving orders will allow his troops to kill the enemy troops faster. This will, assuming he would be victorious anyway, make for less casualties overall. Killing or capturing the enemy leader may lead to many less casualties. These are the ends. The means is...breaking a convention. I see no long-term moral dilemmas here, only some possible tactical ones. It's not like he's killing civilians; everyone is a soldier and this is a war of extermination (unless he can make it otherwise).

[Smoker]

omg.

War is bad.
If you find yourself in a war anyway, there are things you can do to make it less bad.
If both sides agree to these things, noone gains an advantage, but it is still less bad. This is right.
If one or both sides dont do these things, war is more bad. This is wrong.

If you do the wrong thing, but dont get punished for it, it does not make it right.

[Sieggy]

North Korea is a bad example to use. Because of the unique circumstances of their geography, NK is holding the capital of SK and its population hostage. They can do pretty much whatever they want and if the world takes any action - the Kims have no compunctions whatsoever about killing millions as a deterrent, or to further their aims. NK and the Kims aren't so much a state as a family run criminal organization with a gun to the heads of their deadliest enemy. They know that if anyone pulls a trigger, hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed. The Kims have as much honor and restraint as a mexican drug gang. They don't wage war, they run a gang.

If Seoul were out of artillery range, things would be quite different. And if the Chinese weren't backing them, same thing. Though I suspect if the Kims met the same fate as the Coucescus or the Hoxhas, they would publicly bluster a great deal and privately heave a sigh of relief.

Personally, if I were running things, I'd amass an absolute crapload of IR seeker heads attached to dumb bombs. Wait until immediately after an exceptionally severe winter storm, then put up everything capable of carrying a load and drop 500 pounders on every heat source above a campfire. The only heated buildings in NK during the winter contain military brass and party officials, and the heat signals would make a decapitation strike fairly simple.

I've been in Korea during the winter, and let me tell you, NOBODY is going to be conducting ground operations after one of their blizzards. Especially if ever time you crank up an engine (or even better, a BUNCH of engines) and get them warm enough to move out, you get a bomb through the roof. And that's assuming you can even GET an engine started . . .

There would be a very nasty, bloody 24 hour period, but with the party leadership out of the way, the inherent inertia and total lack of initiative among the lower ranks would prevent any coherent response. And the world would be a MUCH safer place . . .

[ftl]

If both sides agree to these things, noone gains an advantage,

Nope. The part where "no-one gains an advantage" ISN'T actually true, in many cases. The advantage is gained by the side that wouldn't have needed/wanted to resort to such tactics even without the agreement, because they're limiting the enemy's options much more than they're limiting their own.

[Smoker]

If both sides agree to these things, noone gains an advantage,

Nope. The part where "no-one gains an advantage" ISN'T actually true, in many cases. The advantage is gained by the side that wouldn't have needed/wanted to resort to such tactics even without the agreement, because they're limiting the enemy's options much more than they're limiting their own.

It depends on what you're talking about - the fundamentals are honouring cease fires and taking prisoners and not killing/torturing them. These are the best examples for the point.

But yeah, "in many cases" this wont work, it all depends on what you can agree on. The flamethrower example, the use of landmines, suicide bombers and et cetera.. you can only try. If its not appropriate or possible, well thats very very unfortunate, but thats war. It doesn't discredit the other ways in which to reduce the badness of war.

[blablabla84]

Four pages of boop-talking about ethics, honor and moral applied to a webcomix... my thoughts:
GOD ! I dont even read ! LOL

Now, returning to the topic:

Everybody agrees about the falling/decrypt /healomancy combo... allright
Everybody also agrees that Parson may not even go, if this thing works

But can someone explain to me, where is said that the tower can attack across zones all the way to the courtyard through the airspace?? Because i never read that anywhere... I thought that if the dwagons fell, they could not be attacked by the archers on the top of the tower. Tram would need to reassemble the archers... what would give time to wanda and jack control/decrypt the situation in the courtyard.

I don't think the dragons can fire back - it's not they're turn, so their attacks won't cross the boundary

And yes, the dwagons/Ossomer/any GK units need to be in courtyard (or other garisson part) to attack off-turn, so ... no-way Ossomer breaking the truce parley over the parapet (again).

another thing you are just forgetting... the tunnel in MK... it can be use to go to spacerock AND to make some casters come back.

and just to express my feelings...

that means the dwagon armada can enter into the the building, but STILL be in Airspace

thinking about moving a heavy flyer throught the "airspace" of the inside rooms of tower ?! just because the "ground" is the borderline ?!

If Wanda can decrypt units that have been burned by lava, can she decrypt the organic components of dragon poop?

decrypting crap ?!

Is this the first time we've seen mention of the Jetstone garrison having a roof?

plz read the intermission/klogs/wall-of-text pages...

What are those winged creatures in the background between tramenis and slately's head?

damn how someone doesn't know what an unipegataur is ?! it is a mount flying unit ! Slately could fly from there anytime if needed... and since three shown in the background... bring along Tram, and any other guy...

I think the minute Parson promoted himself, Ossomer's bonus was lost

and ultimately...GOD ! promoting a garisson unit to field unit wouldn't lower the bonus of no warlord! anyone that understand the minimun of rpg/turn based strategy would know this !

but what bugs me is that everyone should have known the answer to this...

Please, please tell me there won't be any sort of slowdown due to the holidays! I cannot wait for this to go down.

[joosy]

For those posting questions about attacking across zones.

There are sets of rules: Those for the attackers and those for the defenders. (Allied units follow the rules for attackers)

Basically city hexes are broken up into four zones: Airspace, (outer) Walls, Tunnels, Garrison. Attackers (and allied units) expend move to cross those zones. Defending units of the side controlling the city do not. (Note: Jetstone has no tunnel zone but they do have a dungeon)

The Garrison is broken up into three parts: Tower, Courtyard and Dungeon. No one expends move to go between these areas.

So the GK units in the Airspace technically can only attack the Tower. BUT they appear to be using the 'fall' exploit to go into the Courtyard. If GK gains control of the Courtyard, they can then attack units in the Tower. Parson can move from the portal room (presumably in the dungeon or tower) to join them in the Courtyard.

The Jetstone archers are set to attack the Airspace directly in front of the Tower. It was alluded that if the GK forces moved to different parts of the Airspace, Jetstone would have to redeploy their archers. Therefore, if GK 'moves' to the Courtyard, the archers will have to redeploy. That may give them GK the time it needs to decrypt and attack the Tower.

It has also been alluded that tower Shockmancy spells are only effective in the airspace not on ground attacking units. If GK makes it to the Courtyard then they will not be subject to those defenses.

Reference these links for Parson's Klogs regarding city hex zones:

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098a.jpg

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F116a.jpg

[memnoch]

Yes, but we also usually remember when they were through as dishonorable by their fellow generals (be it of their country or others), so your point is moot, it's not a question of if in this case parson is doing is absolutely evil or morally doubtful[edit]for us[/edit], it's a question of whatever he is doing is seen as such by others in and out of his side in the war or if the reaction is a little baffled argument on how he shouldn't/couldn't do that but without any other response. Same thing if we consider our world history as an example, someone who break war convention and commit what we today call "crimes against humanity" is considered guilty only if the others are willing to see it that way, it's not "Might make Right" it's "Indifference make Might Right"

I only picked out one sensible thing in that blob, and I disagree. Both of the questions you bring up are pointless. With regards to the rules of war, Selexor is right -- we can spend all day making up rules of war or somesuch, but the ultimate point of war is to win, not to play by the rules. There's no consolation prize in combat (unless you count horrific injuries and lifelong trauma). As Terry Pratchett says: "Blow the Marquis of Fantailler*"

Honour and Mercy are just tools in a good tactician's belt, just beside Cruelty and Savagery.

I'm not saying that wars aren't played to win. I'm saying that generals and tacticians respond to a power higher than themselves, they have to have to respond to the political power. If their State say they should use some rules so that they have less problems internationally and within the territory they conquest (it's easier to control a territory if people don't revolt on you for your abuse in war, same thing if you don't have enough men at the end of the war you don't have enough farmers, artisan, ...) the military follow, it's as simple as that. It's not a question of morality of the military it's a question of if the politicians of that State think they have more advantage to uphold some "moral" rules or if they think they don't need to.

Also, seriously, Parson is fighting for the lives of those under his command. I would personally call him a dishonourable son-of-a-dog if he let his subordinates die just so he could follow a few silly rules set up by his enemy's side.

Never said he was dishonorable, I was only wandering if the MK and the rest of the elfworld would consider him as such and act against him or if they'll let it pass without problem. If you do something that risk to wound another deeply in the long term don't be surprised if the other retaliate on you no matter what are your reason to do it.

Thinking of the crazy idea that I posted some post before:

I don't think there would be much consequence either but for the sake of argument with parson actions we could see most if not all the barbarian wizards of the Magic Kingdom sell their services as mercenaries for free or at their unkeep level to the sides who oppose Gobwin Knob and the non-barbarians one pushing their Rulers to to strike Gobwin Knob with the royal coalition even if they were previously neutral to that war [edit]or didn't even know there was a Gobwin Knob (in theory since the magic kingdom is connected to all the kingdom they could contact even sides that are so geographically distant that neither even suspected the existence of the other)[\edit], so parson in the worst case scenario will find himself seriously at dis-vantage in the magic department (since mages are rare in elfworld even a few magician can make a great difference in a fight) and fighting a coalition more vast that the one he have any hope of survive.

I got to think in a more tin-fold theory.
What if that's the idea Janis have of a world without war? I mean what if what she really want is Parson as an enemy who threaten the MK way of live so she could use him to raise the MK as a nation (you know people who unite under a threat tend to remain that way for protection), make herself the leader and use MK rule breaker ability as a way to stop wars (for example by saying "if you start a war we will sell our services to the one you are attacking and utterly destroy you").
It's obviously a tin-fold theory since for one it wouldn't work that way (someone sooner or later would abuse of the MK power since there would be no balance in power) and it's less interesting story to tell, but it was a nice idea.

Finally, please take this as constructive criticism memnoch, with no insult intended: please re-read what you post before you post, it's hard to follow when you make that many errors. It would be easier to follow your train of thought if you break it into smaller sentences and paragraphs, instead of cramming everything into two run-on sentences.

No offense taken, also if you could point what are the error i made it would help me greatly. I'm not from an English speaking country so I'm not used to write in english. ah! if is as i think a question of punctuation could you tell me if it was better in this post?

[robak]

Wait a second! Are we sure this is dwagon cwap falling down there? It could just as well be the riders jumping down. I think I saw a dookie come from a red dragon and that wouldn't make much sense. Or am I completely mistaken there?

[multilis]

"North Korea is a bad example to use"

If you look at the two places where conflict has sprung up on map they are *much* closer to NK than the south. North Korea *never* in any way agreed to them being on south koreas side. Those locations act as listenning posts to spy on North Korea.

Americans in own way are sensitve about "spying", etc, eg when internet traffic got routed through china for 10 minutes, despite fact everyone knows what the NSA government agency does.

If France and others upgrade their nukes, nuke submarines, etc and say "we are never going to give them up", is it that suprising that NK does the same?

Americans were willing to risk world war 3 over "close" in cuban missile crisis when they were the ones who first put nuclear missiles in Turkey which is right on border of former USSR.

With the suicide bombers, the other side (eg Isreal) also has targetted civilians, Lehi (see wikipedia) did kill british rulers, conduct terrorist attacks of fear on civilians over right to move into country, and lehi afterwards were considered "war heros" by Isreal. If american government or any other location were to trap a few million black people in tiny villages for months under gunpoint so that 50% unemployment because they couldn't go to work, in punishment for a few of the blacks rioting/being terrorists, etc... blacks might suicide attack as well in america as only way to fight the "white man's" superior weapons.

Its not a simple world, yes the other side are often horrible jerks when it comes to freedom/human rights, looking after citizens, etc. But they see their "other side" as not perfect and they can excuse own faults just as we can.

In our world of freedom, the governments currently go in debt to please short term wishes of the people to point where entire ecconomy may eventually collapse as it did in previous situations, and the people go on strike in some places if they can't retire at 60 and have generous government help, who cares if everything will collapse as result... from french revolution to pre-nazi germany, having endless/out of control debt has way of sometimes lots of very ugly collapse, facism/dictatorships, etc.

...

If you lose abillity to see your opponents point in such a situation there will be hostillity, war, etc. And in some situations it is very risky to try to stop the conflict as you risk your advantages.

Parson sees no negotiation option with Jetstone, in some ways that is tragic part of current situation... they came very close to having a chance to talk and perhaps see eye to eye. Sort of like start of world war 1, where the leaders of germany and russia were in some ways friendly and tried to talk at last minutes before total war, but it once the army started moving it was not easy to stop it without crippling your side.

[deliberatus]

Dookie?!? They are launching a CA-CA bomb?!?

Oh wow; she's going to reanimate digested matter. EVERY ITEM with be a unique horror, never before seen- and loyal and obedient to her. The psychological weapon aspects alone should result in a riot. And rendering an army into a mob destroys the battle plan, and let's you pick people off with relative impunity. And then, to rub injury into insult, HE shows up from within, a 1 man 5th column, laying waste and working carnage like a scythe through wheat.

DIS one I GOTTA stay tuned for.

-Deliberatus

[build6]

If you find yourself in a war anyway, there are things you can do to make it less bad.
If both sides agree to these things, noone gains an advantage, but it is still less bad.

wasn't there a Star Trek (original series) episode about this? I'm going to take the stance that if Star Trek (original series) has covered it, then we already have the solution and there's Not Much More To Be Discussed About It.

and now, back to our scheduled programming:

Wait a second! Are we sure this is dwagon cwap falling down there? It could just as well be the riders jumping down. I think I saw a dookie come from a red dragon and that wouldn't make much sense. Or am I completely mistaken there?

I think the use of "dookie" pretty much means it's crap (or should I say "cwap"?), and not riders.

(just curious, where are you from?)

[robak]

Wait a second! Are we sure this is dwagon cwap falling down there? It could just as well be the riders jumping down. I think I saw a dookie come from a red dragon and that wouldn't make much sense. Or am I completely mistaken there?

I think the use of "dookie" pretty much means it's crap (or should I say "cwap"?), and not riders.

(just curious, where are you from?)

Hm, I agree that the sound effect would suggest that. And you got it right, I'm not a native English speaker, I'm German, so there.

[falldowngoboom]

Can you guys that are arguing the back and forth of morality in a real world situation start a new thread so those of us that aren't interested can stay on topic without having to find other on topic posts between your walls of text?

Back on topic. It would be nice if Sizemore could create crap golems out of all that crap, but he is still in GK and is not intending to go over to Spacerock. So unless there is an "Oh Boop" moment, I don't see the animating of the crap happening. I think the crap is just being used to destroy the roof to get at the meaty bits inside... You know... The way polar bears break open Igloos.

[zilfallon]

Don't remember if anyone mentioned this, but i think i sense a need for retconjuration:

"He violated a truce for parley!" said Tram. Shouldn't it be "a parley for truce" instead? Former means like...Parson violated a truce to be able to parley. The other means that a parley about truce was going on and he violated it.

Thoughts? I'm not trying to be a smartass, i just want to understand it fully.

[justamessenger]

I would like to chime in on my view of warfare and how it colors my opinion of Parson and his tactics.

First, history teaches us that war is inevitable when two nations/beliefs/etc. have differing and conflicting positions, and which positions they are unwilling to compromise or relinquish. Sometimes war is fought in the name of god, sometimes in the name of good/democracy/etc., and sometimes for resources considered vital to that group's interests and security.

Second, history also teaches us that war is a terrible thing that can take on a life of its own. As evidenced in innumerable instances, the 'Laws of War,' Geneva Convention, and other practices intended to restrain combatants are often thrown by the wayside. The combatants' intent is to find and destroy the enemy. When one has brothers-in-arms, dear friends, killed or maimed by those they are fighting...well, let's just say that the notions of propriety and civility are much less attractive in comparison to avenging those perceived wrongs. This is what happened to a great extent in the Second World War, Korea and other smaller, less well known conflicts (such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam and the war between the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese).

Third, the concept of Total War, which was first implemented by Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman in the U.S. Civil War, and which was, in turn adopted by all belligerents in both World Wars, expanded the scope of military objectives to include civilian populations, infrastructure and production facilities. Obviously the new tactics, combined with more potent weapons, led to civilian deaths on a massive scale. The final objective of Total Warfare is to break the enemy's will to fight, as well as its ability to conduct further combat operations due to a lower capacity to feed the war machine. Again, history teaches us that this concept works.

The notion of preventing collateral damage is noble and should be striven for as an ideal. It does not, however, further prosecution of a war, and, ultimately, a definitive conclusion with a clear victor or victors emerging. In some cases the equations were quite simple: is it less costly for us to wage Total War against our enemy than to fight a conventional war of attrition? For example, when the Allies firebombed population centers in Europe and Japan it was with the specific intent of inflicting as many casualties as possible, with the concomitant goal of destroying any production capacity and infrastructure within those population centers. This tactic did not work to break the governments' will to fight, despite the fear induced in the civilian populations. However, when the United States used atomic weapons against Japan, it brought the war to a conclusive end. The Japanese were faced with unconditional surrender or annihilation. In retrospect, despite opinion to the contrary, the use of the atomic bombs prevented significantly greater loss of life should the Allies have invaded the Home Islands. The Allies were prepared to use chemical weapons, as were the Japanese forces. Casualties suffered by the military forces involved would have been staggering; the death toll among the civilian population in Japan would have been catastrophic to the point of making the Soviet Union's losses pale in comparison. In other words, inflicting massive casualties in two population centers prevented even more massive casualties distributed among most, if not all, of Japan's cities.

Parson is intending to pursue Total Warfare to the best of his ability within the confines of Erf's rules. When one can demoralize the enemy, disrupt the enemy's strategies, and substantially diminish the enemy's ability to make war, it leads to an overall lower loss of life. Had Sherman not marched to the sea and deprived the South of Atlanta's industrial capacity, deprived the South of Georgia's agricultural capacity, and deprived the South of its ability to move supplies and troops vial rail without restriction, the war would have lasted longer, leading to more loss of life.

War is innately vicious, terrible and cruel. No amount of conventional wisdom, political correctness or other attempts to ameliorate those characteristics will change the nature of war. Murphy's First Rule of Warfare: No plan survives contact with the enemy. Similarly, no attempts to restrain the scope of warfare will survive contact with the enemy, at least not on a tactical level. The higher the intensity of the conflict, the higher the stakes, the more likely it is that the belligerents themselves will cast aside the notions of limited warfare in favor of prosecuting the war to the fullest extent possible.

History teaches us that, and, like warfare, human behavior is not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future.

From my perspective, Parson is doing the right thing.