CaptC wrote:Alright, breaking my own rule.
Why are you telling us this?
CaptC wrote:Look, I'm all for nobility, and sacrifice, and all that. But Cubbins did something completely nonsensical. There is no logical, moral or philosophical reason he shouldn't have gotten on the unipegataur.
Sure there is. It can be demonstrated mathematically as 2 > 1.
CaptC wrote:More importantly, it's a game losing proposition.
Only if your metaethical system values the game above all, and maybe not even then. We genuinely do not know if there is anything Cubbins could have done in this battle that would equal or exceed what two archers could, with or without Ossomer's leadership bonus.
The tile that fell might not have signified Ossomer after all. It might have been Cubbins. If so, the result was again something unlikely: an arrow denied and a decrypted turned by something one we'd hardly have predicted.
But if your metaethical system values life more highly than the game, then we're back to 2 > 1.
CaptC wrote:Apparently, Cubbins sacrificed himself for no game-like reason. And that's simply not acceptable in a game-like world.
"That's just the way it is," isn't much of an argument when a world is undergoing changes such as this one is.
zuche wrote:What if Cubbins was a real person, as he is to Ace? What would you do then?
Disband him as unreliable, and pop something new, of course.
I asked you what you'd do if Cubbins was a real person, and this was your answer? This is how you'd treat people?
Even if I found it acceptable to see people treated thus, it doesn't make much sense to disband someone that's about to die anyway, since you can't actually pop a replacement for him on the spot. That sounds spiteful, not intelligent.
CaptC wrote:If you're going to break orders, you need to do something intelligent.
No order was broken, even if Ace interpreted the intent of the one given correctly. On the subject of intelligence, math still tells the story.
CaptC wrote:(BTW, this is true in real life as well as a game.)
In real life, someone that acts in a manner that promotes their values above your own may still be acting intelligently. When we recognize that, we're more likely to make intelligent decisions ourselves.
CaptC wrote:Cubbins dies saving a throw-away archer. Really?
No, not really. He died saving a second person. Take another look at the art. Those are not throwaway units behind Cubbins. Those are people, with feelings and friendships and lives they're about to lose. You may see their value only in terms of the martial role they were popped to fill, that isn't the only legitimate value anyone (those about to die, Cubbins, another reader, or the creative team) may assign to them.
As you noted in your next post, you don't care if Cubbins thought he was justified. Let's turn this around: Why should Cubbins care what you think? Who are you, that your values are more important than his when it comes to choosing what he does with his life?
So what if you're the guy playing the game? We've seen people act that way with real lives as playing pieces before. It may be necessary to do so in some circumstances, and there are times when mere practicality might
justify such sacrifice, but a person's life is still much more than a commodity their commanders can spend as they see fit.
Optimal and suboptimal is all well and good as a value system for an actual game, but this is no longer a game. There are real lives at stake, as well as the right to self-determination. Such things are damned inconvenient to people who only value winning, which may explain the contempt many people have for the sort of hard-core gamer that seems to understand nothing else.
Parson chose to face the same risks as those he's directing now face. Cubbins chose to die so that others might live. This might displease both of their rulers, and it's possible that both were bad tactical choices. In real life, however, there are often things we value more highly than tactical superiority. This is not an illegitimate view so long as we recognize what's at stake, as both Parson and Cubbins did.