Summer Updates - 008

[Spot]

It seems that Parson is dealing with the consequences of a NG person being thrust into a LE side after years of pretending to be true N.

Your analogy doesn't go far enough, I think. It isn't the side that is LE, it's the entire world.


Stanley, while not the brightest bulb, he was absolutely correct when he said that he and his troops weren't the bad guys. They haven't acted (pre-Parson) any differently or worse than any other side in Erfworld.

It's the very rules of Erfworld itself that are LE. That's why the Hippiemancers brought Parson here... to break the world and undo those rules.

As to Parson's alignment, I don't think that he has one. He's not a game piece, he's a person.

He is very much Ender in this story. He showed up, immediately began out thinking strategists who had been functioning in the system for hundreds of turns then in a final battle against overwhelming odds he still managed to pull off the ultimate victory.

This is very much a real-world phenomena, and it shows up in stories a lot because it also shows up in real-life a lot. Like Charles Martel, Vladimir I (of Kiev), Alexander the Great, Zheng He, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, etc. etc.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

More on Archons. That was a real argument back a while ago. Didn't expect that. Rob really is trying to explain.

I must be missing something, then, because to me, this seems to be the first summer update that doesn't give us any facts, just asks the questions we've been asking.

[Goshen]

He is very much Ender in this story. He showed up, immediately began out thinking strategists who had been functioning in the system for hundreds of turns then in a final battle against overwhelming odds he still managed to pull off the ultimate victory.

This is very much a real-world phenomena, and it shows up in stories a lot because it also shows up in real-life a lot. Like Charles Martel, Vladimir I (of Kiev), Alexander the Great, Zheng He, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, etc. etc.

Yes. As I understand it, the be the ultimate strategist you have to truly understand the enemy, and to do that requires true empathy which you apply to the enemy. So, it hurts like hell when you then have to kill your opponent(s). A neat little trap. I think we had a long conversation about this in the GK hosted Erf forum.

[LordDarksea]

More on Archons. That was a real argument back a while ago. Didn't expect that. Rob really is trying to explain.

I must be missing something, then, because to me, this seems to be the first summer update that doesn't give us any facts, just asks the questions we've been asking.

Do these summer updates have to give facts? (I realise I've taken you out of context by not quoting who you were quoting as well, but hey its a couple of posts up). Aren't they also illustrating characters, moments, events, possibilities, bits of narrative and so forth? Which is to say storytelling rather than popping straight, de-contextualised information.

For me I've got to say that I'm really enjoying them. I only have one comment, and that is highly tongue in cheek... at the rate they're expanding in size, are we going to be reading War and Peace length pieces by August???

To Rob and Jamie: Once again fantastic work!


p.s. on reflection, I'd love the Tolstoyesque length pieces

[Doctari]

Your analogy doesn't go far enough, I think. It isn't the side that is LE, it's the entire world.

I would disagree that Stanley and his minions are not evil. They have used torture to get information, they have openly admitted to having life goals of being as evil as someone else and they raise the dead to serve as their minions (an inherently evil act, though in point of fact I would be remiss if I didn't state that it is more a personal opinion then fact: i.e. I'm not sure what how its defined in the world rule set) Stanley slew the rightful ruler of his side to gain power, Wanda betrayed her entire side to gain power.

Claiming that their is no good or evil is pretty much text book evil villain 101.

As to Parson's alignment, I don't think that he has one. He's not a game piece, he's a person.

Everyone has an alignment. Thats the thing about them. They are used to provide a moral compass for quick choices without having to ask yourself "what would my character do" everytime something comes up. We, as humans, just do it automatically. For example: Have you ever said to yourself that so and so will react to x in y way? If you have based that statement on his/her previous responses over a significant enough example set and you are right more often then not, then you pretty much have your friend (or enemy, up to you) pegged as far as "alignment". Aberrations exist in how people react to stuff (just like alignments, its only a guideline) but when I gave parson a NG alignment it is simply that his actions have been for the most part neutral and good.

This is very much a real-world phenomena, and it shows up in stories a lot because it also shows up in real-life a lot. Like Charles Martel, Vladimir I (of Kiev), Alexander the Great, Zheng He, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, etc. etc.

Except I think you would be hard pressed to show that GK had any empathy for the people he conquered or felt remorse for his actions (the same could go for most of your examples but I'm not acquainted with all them so I can't say "all"). And none of the people that I recognize was in Parson's situation (or Ender's): which is to say they were conquering for themselves, expanding a kingdom/empire/etc that THEY controlled. Both Ender and Parson are working for someone else. Just killing to win. I think that is where the majority of their empathy for the fallen comes in.

[Ragn Charran]

I would disagree that Stanley and his minions are not evil. They have used torture to get information, they have openly admitted to having life goals of being as evil as someone else and they raise the dead to serve as their minions (an inherently evil act, though in point of fact I would be remiss if I didn't state that it is more a personal opinion then fact: i.e. I'm not sure what how its defined in the world rule set) Stanley slew the rightful ruler of his side to gain power, Wanda betrayed her entire side to gain power.

Claiming that their is no good or evil is pretty much text book evil villain 101.

I don't think the argument was that Stanley is not evil by our standards, it is that the very nature of the world means everyone is just as evil. Not to disclaim your philosophy that that doesn't make Stanley any better by our standards, I just don't think that was the initial claim. Every side we have seen, except for maybe the Magic Kingdom (if Janis is not a lone rebel), is out to slaughter someone else for personal gain. Stanley may be evil, but the whole world is evil bastards (or to use Parson's words, deluded boopholes) killing each other, whether for profit (Charlie, Transylvito), racist/religious beliefs (Ansom, Stanley), power (Wanda), petty vengeance (Jillian), jealousy (Jillian again), sex (Wanda again), or simple fun (Jillian yet again). Yes, there's nobility to be found - Sizemore's pacifism, Bogroll's devotion, Janis' free love, Vinnie's loyalty, Misty's helpfulness - but the society as a whole, Stanley included, is completely and utterly booped up.

[Doctari]

I don't think the argument was that Stanley is not evil by our standards, it is that the very nature of the world means everyone is just as evil. Not to disclaim your philosophy that that doesn't make Stanley any better by our standards, I just don't think that was the initial claim. Every side we have seen, except for maybe the Magic Kingdom (if Janis is not a lone rebel), is out to slaughter someone else for personal gain. Stanley may be evil, but the whole world is evil bastards (or to use Parson's words, deluded boopholes) killing each other, whether for profit (Charlie, Transylvito), racist/religious beliefs (Ansom, Stanley), power (Wanda), petty vengeance (Jillian), jealousy (Jillian again), sex (Wanda again), or simple fun (Jillian yet again). Yes, there's nobility to be found - Sizemore's pacifism, Bogroll's devotion, Janis' free love, Vinnie's loyalty, Misty's helpfulness - but the society as a whole, Stanley included, is completely and utterly booped up.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here: In the world that we have seen there is clear cut morality. There is a side opposing a clearly defined evil side that is attempting to take over the rest of the world. I would argue that by definition that makes that side the "good" side.

Now, to be fair and give your argument merit, Charlescom is obviously GE (greedy evil) and has shown a willingness to switch sides at a moments notice. Translvitto.. still in the air. They certainly have the air of a small but powerful neutral agents about them. Giving into them (or more to the point working with them) stinks of doing "whatever is necessary" in order to get a goal accomplished.

BUT, I still feel that in general Ansom was following a righteous course.

I think most people are falling into the trap of applying modern thought process and definition to the setting (i.e. War is unquestiongly bad, fighting people who are doing bad things makes you just as bad as they are, the only reason to do something is the altruistic one etc etc etc). In this world the Gods are very much real (titans) and have taken at least a passive interest in the affairs of mortals (ATs) so doing something because God told you to isn't really "religious fanaticism" (well it could be but I think you get my somewhat poorly worded point) as much as it is following a higher beings directives. I don't think I've seen an example of racism. There's been some classism floating about (commoner, royal) but for the most part I've not seen any human on elf hate crimes happening.

In closing: Just because Parson views them as deluded boopholes killing each other, it doesn't make that fact. For him it could simply be a coping mechanism, his way of justifying that he is working for the evil side. Or maybe I'm twisted and looking at it in too much of a black and white sense and the viewpoint is my way of dealing with being in the wrong!

I like words.

P.S. I don't find a whole lot of nobility in Sizemore's pacifism. He still goes through with whatever he is told to do. He is regretful for it, but it didn't keep him from Goatseing a huge chunk of the alliance forces.

[Spot]

Your analogy doesn't go far enough, I think. It isn't the side that is LE, it's the entire world.

I would disagree that Stanley and his minions are not evil. They have used torture to get information, they have openly admitted to having life goals of being as evil as someone else and they raise the dead to serve as their minions (an inherently evil act, though in point of fact I would be remiss if I didn't state that it is more a personal opinion then fact: i.e. I'm not sure what how its defined in the world rule set) Stanley slew the rightful ruler of his side to gain power, Wanda betrayed her entire side to gain power.

Claiming that their is no good or evil is pretty much text book evil villain 101.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I made no judgment on whether or not Stanley, Wanda, etc. were evil if judged on some sort of Earth-centric evilness scale... I simply said that they were most definitely not the evil side in Erfworld.

Wanda's abuse of her odd psycho-sexual relationship with the Princess in order to get information and manipulate her for gain, is not any more evil than the TransylVitoans first threatening her with death, and then using Vinnie to play "good Vampire/bad Vampire" in order to seize FAQ's former cities.

Stanley's egotism bordering on megalomania, is no more inherently evil than Ansom's (former) egotistical belief that he was endowed by the Titans with superiority because he was a Royal.

And as far as necromancy goes... the loyalty spells binding uncroaked to obey Wanda, is pretty much the same as the loyalty spells binding every single game piece to follow the dictates of their various Overlords.

So... you might try to make the case that everyone in Erfworld is LE, but you can't logically single out Stanley's side in particular as being any more LE than everyone else. Stanley was right.

As to Parson's alignment, I don't think that he has one. He's not a game piece, he's a person.

Everyone has an alignment. Thats the thing about them. They are used to provide a moral compass for quick choices without having to ask yourself "what would my character do" everytime something comes up. We, as humans, just do it automatically. For example: Have you ever said to yourself that so and so will react to x in y way? If you have based that statement on his/her previous responses over a significant enough example set and you are right more often then not, then you pretty much have your friend (or enemy, up to you) pegged as far as "alignment". Aberrations exist in how people react to stuff (just like alignments, its only a guideline) but when I gave parson a NG alignment it is simply that his actions have been for the most part neutral and good.

Hmmm. Interesting point. I guess we each see the world differently.

I see alignments in games as a quick and easy way of reducing the vast panorama of ethical, moral, and philosophical arguments down to a simplistic 3x3 grid, so that folks could roll some dice and move some lead figures around.

To me, to try and superimpose that system on real-life folks would be an exercise in torturing innocent analogies.

... And none of the people that I recognize was in Parson's situation (or Ender's): which is to say they were conquering for themselves, expanding a kingdom/empire/etc that THEY controlled. Both Ender and Parson are working for someone else. Just killing to win. I think that is where the majority of their empathy for the fallen comes in.

Personally, I don't think the Ender comparison fits. To me, it's like trying to compare tomatoes to pineapples. Sure, technically they are both fruits, but someone'd have to be blind to confuse a pineapple for a tomato... and heck, some people would even argue if a tomato was really even a fruit to begin with.

As a reader, I don't imagine that Parson was meant to be a mirror to Orson Scott Card's science fiction child-soldier character. It seems to me that Parson is supposed to be everyman, or at least someone that everyman is familiar with by acquaintance. He's your typical overweight, sarcastic, geeky, misfit... with a huge intellect, but zero focus or ambition beyond games and make-believe... from a world where being able to figure out strategies and battle-plans on the fly makes him the nerdiest employee on the day shift at Kinkos, and nothing more.

It's only been a week since his arrival in a place where suddenly he's elevated to a position of importance and power, and able to use his former make-believe skills to affect real people... and, he begins to grasp the truth of his life that existed long before he ever arrived in Erfworld: He's a cog in a large machine, and has simply been clanking along without thinking his whole life... it's just that now, his decisions don't just affect the quality of toner in copier #12, they affect real people's lives.

[Bobby Archer]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here: In the world that we have seen there is clear cut morality. There is a side opposing a clearly defined evil side that is attempting to take over the rest of the world. I would argue that by definition that makes that side the "good" side.

I wouldn't say that opposing an "evil" side is all that is necessary to be a "good" side. Especially since Jetstone, the principal side int he RCC, seemed to be pursuing the war less because Stanley needed to be defeated for the good of the world, but because Stanley was powerful and non-royal. Ansom tries to argue the righteousness of their cause here, but I think Vinnie's got his number.

As for the point you make later about the Titanic Mandate:

In this world the Gods are very much real (titans) and have taken at least a passive interest in the affairs of mortals (ATs) so doing something because God told you to isn't really "religious fanaticism" (well it could be but I think you get my somewhat poorly worded point) as much as it is following a higher beings directives.

I'd take the same stance that Parson took when he was trying to shake Ansom. The Titans, or Fate, or Erfworld itself chose Stanley to attune to the Arkenhammer. This gives Stanley at least an equivalent standing to Ansom in terms of the righteousness of their cause. Perhaps more so, if the Titans agreed with Ansom's quest to wipe out Stanley, allowing him to attune to the Arkenpliers would have made the RCC unstoppable even with Parson thrown into the mix.

In the end, all of this really results in everyone being fairly neutral at least as far as Erfworld's concerned. From our perspective, though, I'd have to agree that the world as a whole seems more "evil" than our own, just due to the apparent necessity of combat to the worlds functioning and the attendant pointlessness of many of the deaths. But that's my opinion.

[kreszantas]

In a game world where survival is the only goal; alignments, moral compasses and other obligitory concepts such as those get tossed out the perverbial window. Is there "really" an alignment? Again when the attempt to "translate" something that really is not so cut and dry, molded nice an neat into a cookie cutter ideaology into something it is not will never work. Even with the cookie cutter example what about the excess dough that get hacked off to make the shape of the cookie you want. Do you just toss the rest of the dough when you can make more cookies? Or do you reuse the scraps kneed it back into a larger dough ball to make another cookie. The complexity of morality even itself is one of humanities greatest paradigms.

Parson is suffering from that sense of okay now what... well he is about to find out.

[Ragn Charran]

P.S. I don't find a whole lot of nobility in Sizemore's pacifism. He still goes through with whatever he is told to do. He is regretful for it, but it didn't keep him from Goatseing a huge chunk of the alliance forces.

Why do you give Ansom a pass on his actions because he's following the law of God, and happy about it, but not Sizemore when he's doing what he is, by the natural laws of the world, forced to do, and miserable about it? My understanding of Obedience as explained makes it an irresistible compulsion, refusing to follow orders in Erfworld is like us, in our world, pulling a Looney Tunes and not falling after we run off the cliff and there's nothing but air under our feet. If we fall, it doesn't mean we want to, we simply can't help it. We can't ignore the natural laws of gravity, Sizemore can't ignore the natural laws of Obedience.

[Ancient History]

Y'know, I wonder if the Decrypt Archons can do that dance-fighting trick for Gobwins, Hobgobwins, Twolls, and the general Uncroaked/Decrypt. If so, it could be yet another bonus in their side's favor.

[Cmdr I. Heartly Noah]

More on Archons. That was a real argument back a while ago. Didn't expect that. Rob really is trying to explain.

I must be missing something, then, because to me, this seems to be the first summer update that doesn't give us any facts, just asks the questions we've been asking.

Do these summer updates have to give facts?

Certainly not; but my impression of his comment was that he'd come to some conclusion or settled some debate based on the update. Having not seen any new facts in the update, I found this an unlikely event and was questioning whether he noticed something I missed or was making some kind of assumption.

Plus I've been appreciating all the new info we've been getting.

[Doctari]

As a reader, I don't imagine that Parson was meant to be a mirror to Orson Scott Card's science fiction child-soldier character. It seems to me that Parson is supposed to be everyman, or at least someone that everyman is familiar with by acquaintance. He's your typical overweight, sarcastic, geeky, misfit... with a huge intellect, but zero focus or ambition beyond games and make-believe... from a world where being able to figure out strategies and battle-plans on the fly makes him the nerdiest employee on the day shift at Kinkos, and nothing more.

It's only been a week since his arrival in a place where suddenly he's elevated to a position of importance and power, and able to use his former make-believe skills to affect real people... and, he begins to grasp the truth of his life that existed long before he ever arrived in Erfworld: He's a cog in a large machine, and has simply been clanking along without thinking his whole life... it's just that now, his decisions don't just affect the quality of toner in copier #12, they affect real people's lives.

I totally agree that he probably wasn't MEANT to be the Ender prototype but everytime I look for another comparison I find myself drawn back to that one (possibly because Parson himself mentioned it in a Klog). I'll also admit I find it a very appealing thought to be in Parson's place (which obviously I'm supposed to) and like in most gamer-gets-transported-to-game-world stories the main character is having trouble adapting for the very reasons you mention.

[Doctari]

P.S. I don't find a whole lot of nobility in Sizemore's pacifism. He still goes through with whatever he is told to do. He is regretful for it, but it didn't keep him from Goatseing a huge chunk of the alliance forces.

Why do you give Ansom a pass on his actions because he's following the law of God, and happy about it, but not Sizemore when he's doing what he is, by the natural laws of the world, forced to do, and miserable about it? My understanding of Obedience as explained makes it an irresistible compulsion, refusing to follow orders in Erfworld is like us, in our world, pulling a Looney Tunes and not falling after we run off the cliff and there's nothing but air under our feet. If we fall, it doesn't mean we want to, we simply can't help it. We can't ignore the natural laws of gravity, Sizemore can't ignore the natural laws of Obedience.

Not giving him a pass, as I stated he had fallen into the "victory at any cost" mind frame. However his ultimate goal is noble (if you accept Stanley as an evil force and a danger to the vast majority of the world). Of course since we've not really seen any non-com units I wonder if there are civilians in this world.

As I understand loyalty (as described in the Klog and expanded on in Parson's question about ruthlessness) I assumed it was a flavor of thinkamancy. Which is to say you are given an order and then have a choice whether or not to accept based on what they are pre-disposed to do. Am I totally off base on this one? I.E. can someone absolutely not do something if they ordered not to? If that is the case then I'll have to reaccess my views on evil. A whole side would only be as evil or as good as the one person giving orders.

[Doctari]

:ugeek: In a game world where survival is the only goal; alignments, moral compasses and other obligitory concepts such as those get tossed out the perverbial window. Is there "really" an alignment? Again when the attempt to "translate" something that really is not so cut and dry, molded nice an neat into a cookie cutter ideaology into something it is not will never work. Even with the cookie cutter example what about the excess dough that get hacked off to make the shape of the cookie you want. Do you just toss the rest of the dough when you can make more cookies? Or do you reuse the scraps kneed it back into a larger dough ball to make another cookie. The complexity of morality even itself is one of humanities greatest paradigms.

Parson is suffering from that sense of okay now what... well he is about to find out.

I don't know if there is or if there isn't a true alignment but I do know that I tend to react to the same type of situation in the same type of way. Is that alignment? Is how I feel about certain social issues (war, the big A word, religion, freedom of expression etc) a direct correlation to my "alignment"? I argue against it being inherent in any way simply based on the fact that I have switched my views on BIG issues over the years. Is this all that much different from alignment shifts in a game world?

I'll grant you that it is a GROSS over simplification but it has always been the way I've viewed alignment (or whatever it is called in the various systems) in games. At the end of the day we are talking about characters from a game world, so all of them (with the exception of Parson of course) will have some type of alignment (at least on the good/evil access since Parson was playing the 'evil' side in the game before he translated).

I guess to use another cookie metaphor: I buy mine in the 24 packs that are break-n-bake. So no excess dough

[Doctari]

I wouldn't say that opposing an "evil" side is all that is necessary to be a "good" side. Especially since Jetstone, the principal side int he RCC, seemed to be pursuing the war less because Stanley needed to be defeated for the good of the world, but because Stanley was powerful and non-royal. Ansom tries to argue the righteousness of their cause here, but I think Vinnie's got his number.

A incredibly great point, I would point out though that an additional reason (in this case: Wow, we didn't see that coming. Probably a good time to express our displeasure at that form of elevation and that it is frowned upon. Especially since we don't particularly feel like being croaked and having our power usurped) does not invalidate that the underlying cause of the alliance is to erase the evil of Stanley.

I'd agree with you on the whole Erf is more "evil" then our world. I mean there are probably good titans and mean ones and that alone would count for a lot :/.

[Ragn Charran]

As I understand loyalty (as described in the Klog and expanded on in Parson's question about ruthlessness) I assumed it was a flavor of thinkamancy. Which is to say you are given an order and then have a choice whether or not to accept based on what they are pre-disposed to do.

I'm talking about Obedience, not Loyalty, two different stats and mechanics.

Wanda's speech on page 19 suggests that Parson will be destroyed for not following orders. It could be the spell, but coupled with the information presented in Klog #10 confirms that obedience of orders is a powerful compulsion, the ignoring of which causes disbanding.

[Darkside007]

I don't think the argument was that Stanley is not evil by our standards, it is that the very nature of the world means everyone is just as evil. Not to disclaim your philosophy that that doesn't make Stanley any better by our standards, I just don't think that was the initial claim. Every side we have seen, except for maybe the Magic Kingdom (if Janis is not a lone rebel), is out to slaughter someone else for personal gain. Stanley may be evil, but the whole world is evil bastards (or to use Parson's words, deluded boopholes) killing each other, whether for profit (Charlie, Transylvito), racist/religious beliefs (Ansom, Stanley), power (Wanda), petty vengeance (Jillian), jealousy (Jillian again), sex (Wanda again), or simple fun (Jillian yet again). Yes, there's nobility to be found - Sizemore's pacifism, Bogroll's devotion, Janis' free love, Vinnie's loyalty, Misty's helpfulness - but the society as a whole, Stanley included, is completely and utterly booped up.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here: In the world that we have seen there is clear cut morality. There is a side opposing a clearly defined evil side that is attempting to take over the rest of the world. I would argue that by definition that makes that side the "good" side.

But what if the sides currently in control of Erfworld all subscribe to an evil ideaology? Than wouldn't the side overthrowing them be good?

[osmium]

We've actually rambled into a very interesting philosophical topic. A simple quote y'all are likely familiar with is "do the ends justify the means?". However this also doesn't totally encompass the idea. I think it can be summed up something like can something good come of an inherently evil act. Or furthermore is any act in an of itself evil? These are complicated issues, that I think, oftentimes the typical religion inspired morality does a very poor job of addressing.

The sorts of questions that accompany this sort of discussion are:

would you sacrifice one life to save 100? 20? 2? the rest of the human race?
The standard morality says you cannot weigh one life vs another, but clearly there is a tipping point for most people at which point they would sacrifice the one for the many.

If horrible torture was used to attain a piece of scientific information, perhaps a bit of knowledge that could not be attained any other way, is using that knowledge for the good of all evil? Does any good come from throwing the knowledge away just because horrible acts *were* committed to gain it?

A sort of gaming example is why is raising the dead inherently evil? Isn't it only really evil to kills someone in order to raise them? (pending the system requiring some sort of pact with a devil or something to raise the dead).

This also brings up another interesting point, what is moral and good and what is immoral and evil? Is it merely what most people believe? Is it some arbitrary definition collectively decided upon based on whether people believe some divine entity told them it should be so, or because some group of collectively intelligent philosophers and lawmakers decided it would be so?

Are you evil if you seek to conquer the world when it is inhabited by self serving dictators who have little to no regard for the lives of people they crush in pursuit of their ambitions?
The obvious slippery slope here is that time is infinite, so how can any act to stabilize society, regardless of how bloody (assuming said stabilization would or could be permanent), ever be evil? Clearly in the hearts of most there is a strong counterpoint in Stalin, as even though he sought stability in the end even if he were to have achieved it I doubt many would believe the price worth it.


I think things are generally a lot more gray, almost any individual action, depending on the situation can be good or evil... and those actions can even be good or evil for different parties involved. For instance, a captor saying something like do this horrible thing to this person or I kill them. If you as the second captive do not do it and the first captive dies, was that a good act? Is it better to not do something less evil if it prevents a greater evil? However in a different context would that same action could have no justification and be evil? (obviously in this example assuming perfectly truthful people simplifies things, and makes the example more clear as a result) Is it evil to kill in self defense, by *complete* accident (say something out of your control and fault of another party caused your car to roll down a hill and hit someone)? On a more real note, how much damage is "necessary" in a given physical altercation to remain safe? (don't want to get into the intricacies here, but current US law has a large number of factors that build into this assessment that , to me, seem to place potentially extreme limitations on self-defense)

-O