Balerion wrote:onlyme wrote:We were told they are willing to not only risk their life but actually willing to end it once the day is there. Because that it what it means to prefer that the whole plan (creating Jilian, mercenary work, find a new site, resettle unter princsess there) would
not have been chosen.
Where were we told that? A plan was described where they removed themselves from any possibility of danger and left everyone to die, then reappeared in another secluded location and continued life as normal. Nowhere do I see them agreeing to end their own lives.
We were told they were against this plan (as we are told they were against the most essential step of that plan,
namely having a warlord heir).
Balerion wrote:onlyme wrote:That is not part of any discussion here. Faq (the city) will fall and Banhammer will fall. People will die. That is predicted, nothing can change that. Jilian plans means being sure that it will not be Haffaton that will cause the end and to get lots of funds. That will risk lives, not safe any in the long run.
Sure it is. Fate says the side will fall; but how that manifests is completely up in the air. You could lose just Banhammer and five men there wasn't room for on the gwiffons, or you could lose hundreds because you don't try to evacuate. Or you could take a gamble and potentially lose hardly anyone and be much safer. That gamble requires killing instead of just letting people die, and it could still end in disaster. But that is not the argument presented against it: the argument is simply "I will not take part in killing", without any conditions on what the cost-benefit situation is.
You complain the casters are against the plan of attacking Haffaton. Attacking Haffaton is the opposite of evacuation. The "I will not take part of killing" is uttered against a plan to start a giant war, erradicating
first Haffaton's captial and then many of it's cities. You might have had a point if it was a long philisophical
tractum. But it is a quick emotional statement against a specific plans. Demanding stating to which general
conditions this statement can be generatlized and to which not is atainst all realities of human communication.
Balerion wrote:Think about it this way: Orwell is saying that the lives of all units are precious; because of this opinion, he refuses to end life.
He refuses to end lives for a plan that only extends the treasury. That's where he is objecting. He might mean it more generally. But claiming that it is so for sure is just slander.
Balerion wrote:However, he is quite fine with abandoning the units on his side to death (Jillian thought of a better evac plan in 5 minutes than what was proposed; they didn't try).
Do we know it is a better plan? We never heared anyone else' opinion on that. We know it has a problem of
transporting the treasury and thus a very short range to look for a new city. This increases the likely costs
of the acquisition and has much larger chances of causing conflicts, starting wars that are likely to last
for some time. As the King's plan also does not include the death of all people (Jillian cannot take a city
alone, she willl likely take a small army with her, which will all live in the new city). So we do not know
if Jillian's first plan (which she herself did not give more than a minute thought for the details) will cost
less or more lives. (And in the King's plan it might be a long peacefull life in the captical with an aprupt
end someday, while in Jilian's plan it might be a much shorter live expectency and that consisting of
fighting all the time.).