| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Riverwind |
Posted - 19 Apr 2010 : 08:30:26
So here's a spin off from the Waterdeep's Army thread. So let's say an orc horde comes out from the Spine of the World and threatens the northern communities. The Lords Alliance gets together and decides to deal with the threat. The orcs have very limited magical defences (if any.) So some mages from Waterdeep go up there and wipe out the horde with say some meteor showers. Is that OK?
Or, how about this: Luskan attacks Neverwinter, and the Lords Alliance reacts. So far, Luskan has kept the war "conventional," and has not used any magic. Would it be OK for mages from the Alliance to use mass casualty spells on the forces of Luskan? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| idilippy |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 08:12:53
Heh, pretty selective ethics if any magic is ok against the attackers, in war it gets pretty murky and hard to tell who is the attacker or "at fault". |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 07:45:59
I could care less about attackers ilk, they can die as you see fit. No mercy to attackers, they summoned it to themselves. What I say is, you should use magic that will not make the land you live in a parody on hell, which could be worse than after attack of the orcs. Maybe that sounds druidish of me, but be good with nature. Please? |
| idilippy |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 07:40:03
I have to side with Icelander on this, not being willing to use the magic you have on hand to end the hostilities as quickly as possible is an insult to the soldiers dying on both sides. This is especially true in a world where the most destructive of spells attainable by men are not world shattering in scope. A 6th-9th level spell isn't going to have enough of an impact on the world to justify not using it if the option is there. As an example, say your kingdom is being overrun by an orc horde. The horde has 30,000 troops to your 1,000-2,000 active troops and 5,000 militia, but is also home to an archmage with the ability to cast Meteor Swarm or Incendiary Cloud. Is he supposed to restrict himself to fireballs and lightning bolts out of some misguided form of mercy(and are these spells any better to cast than high level ones)? If so, why?
What appreciable difference is there between his use of Meteor Swarm and Incendiary Cloud and a Fireball or Cloudkill spell? What about Summoning an Elemental or Casting Dominate Monster and converting a dragon to your cause? Is casting sleep and slitting the throats of those who fall amoral, if so what makes this better than attacking from ambush or using the terrain to your advantage. In short, magic is just a tool and its use in war, just like the use of any other tactic, technological device, or weapon, should be utilized as effectively as possible to bring the fighting to a close. Not using the most effective magic available against the orc horde in my example would be like dismantling your armored cavalry because the orcs only use infantry, or refusing to attack from ambush or slay their leader through stealth to break up the horde. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 07:14:34
Still, that s not good decision about using armageddon spells to dispatch the enemy forces or something. And I am not that idealistic to think that all will be in peace, but mass usage of the high lv magic in war is unacceptable. You need at least wisdom 18 before casting the 5th or higher lv spells to prevent someone's idiocy from destroying the world you wanna to save. Accidental destruction of legendary powerful magical artifact for example. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 06:56:40
In a war, something bad is always happening. People are dying, land is lying fallow, women are being raped, commerce is interrupted, etc.
There is no end to the misery that warfare causes. So if you possibly can, avoid it.
Yes, catastrophe is not only a possible result of all-out magic use by both sides in a war, it is likely. Does that mean you shouldn't use the strongest magic you can to end a war faster? No, it doesn't. The only thing worse than the terrible cost of winning a war is the cost of losing one.
What it does mean is that the decision to resort to violence to pursue political objectives should be weighted extremely carefully. In a world of magic that can summon massive tsumanis which sink nations and create killing storms that despoil lands forever*, the horrors of war are even greater than in our world.
Ideally, the risk of these spells being used against their lands and population will make sane leaders abhor war as anything other than the last resort. In a perfect world, perhaps someone could then arrange to have sane leaders become the norm.
*Yes, those things are usually done by elves. Elves have traditionally not valued the life of other species particularly highly and thought little of killing thousands and millions if it served their purposes. Come to think of it, they don't seem to value elven life too higly either, as long as it is not someone they know. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 13 Sep 2010 : 05:48:28
I do not agree with you Icelander. If you mean to win fast before something bad will happen, its okay. BUT, if you mean to win at all cost with every kind magic thrown on the field...I read Avatars and I am completely against it. Throwing magic without thinking about consequences is the worst case scenario. What will happen if you try to smash the ultimate attacking spell with ultimate defensive spell? They both crush as in the legend about the sword and shield, but with BIG, not good aftereffects. Magic is not an all around instrument.
Desolate dessert, Wild magic or wild cataclysm zones where only elemental fury can survive. Any other examples? Maybe rift to the primordials plane? Gate to the Abyss? |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 18:46:33
Alright I got it now! Silly I didn't get it the 1st time. Thanx ppl!
Edit: Kinda funny its two ppl w/the Thayvian Red Wizard Edwin Odessiron's avatar writing the two last posts! LOL! |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 10:29:53
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the
sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 06:28:34
He is saying that when war comes...win it any way you can and quickly. The second part is to reinforce it actually: failing to shorten a war is wrong...any way you look at it.
I don't see a conflict at all. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 06:07:15
Icelander, I've re-read what you've wrote here, and I think I'm confused on a point you're trying to make.
In the 1st paragraph, you wrote: "When faced with a situation where you are forced to resort to violence, the ethical course of action is to respond with such extreme violence that the war is as short as possible."
Then you wrote: "Failing to take advantage of an opportunity to shorten the war and end the suffering it causes is not evidence of superior ethics, it is simple moral cowardice."
It looks a bit contradictory to me, but perhaps I'm missing the point you're trying to illustrate here.
|
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 18:06:33
I think Icelander's just done a good summation of the elven philosophy of war. One of my favorite Realms quotes of all time comes from one of those chapter headers in an Ed book (which I can't find right now... very frustrating). It's an elven general talking to his underlings, and it ends with "War to slay, not to fight long and gloriously." |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 06:41:48
While I would not go as far as Icelander on Ethics define war as Evil, in general I go agree that if a war is to be fought it should be fought to win. I would add that to win a war should take maximum effort to win quicker rather then later. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 01:39:52
Ethically speaking, war is an evil.
Nevertheless, it can be the lesser evil in many cases. When faced with a situation where you are forced to resort to violence, the ethical course of action is to respond with such extreme violence that the war is as short as possible. Otherwise, men are kept from their families, their crops and their work so that untold suffering is inflicted upon their land as it descends into lawlessness and famine. War unleashes the savage in men, so that any number of crimes are committed under its guise. War, no matter how courteously dressed up in chivalric finery, is about killing people and breaking things. It causes death, heartbreak and sorrow. None of that is in any way avoidable.
Anything that legitimately has the effect of defeating* the enemy is valid. Failing to take advantage of an opportunity to shorten the war and end the suffering it causes is not evidence of superior ethics, it is simple moral cowardice. Placing one's own opinion of oneself above the welfare of others can never be justified ethically.
As any system of morality that a priori excludes certain actions as 'evil' effectively prioritises the self-image of the person over making a rational choice that minimises harm to others, I can't see any of the so-called 'Good' alignments in D&D as anything but lack of moral courage. It's naive and unrealistic to expect that 'good' and 'evil' can be defined by certain actions and not by weighting likely outcomes and choosing the one that does least harm.
Short version, avoid wars if you can. But if you can't avoid them, win, for the love of all that's holy. Win any way you can, with any magic you can hurl.
*This does not necessarily have to mean just killing him. Striking at his ability to make war or his will to do so may be equally or more effective. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 21:31:42
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
It depends on who the foe is. Scorched earth works, but it's desperately hard to recover from, in addition to inflicting great amounts of suffering on your own people. Thus, you would only want to use it when there weren't any other options. Conversely, if you're confident you can throw the invaders out relatively quickly, or the invaders are a small enough force that they can't spread throughout your entire land, then the last thing you want to do is go scorched earth, because it will hurt you much more than them.
Very true, in the example I gave it was necessary because the Crusaders weren't going to stop until they conquered Jerusalem, an outcome that the defenders wished to avoid at all cost. As you said, an attack by a disorganized force or a force you can reasonably defeat would make scorched earth an unnecessary strategy, though I could see evil nations like Thay throwing around destructive magic with no thought for the peasants and slaves which may be ruined by their actions, especially with how little their major leaders seem to collaborate. Also, if you aren't being pushed back and haven't suffered any devastating defeats there's no reason to consider scorched earth or using incredibly destructive magics. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 21:17:05
It depends on who the foe is. Scorched earth works, but it's desperately hard to recover from, in addition to inflicting great amounts of suffering on your own people. Thus, you would only want to use it when there weren't any other options. Conversely, if you're confident you can throw the invaders out relatively quickly, or the invaders are a small enough force that they can't spread throughout your entire land, then the last thing you want to do is go scorched earth, because it will hurt you much more than them. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 10 Sep 2010 : 20:54:02
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
I think it depends on the cause/purpose/location of the war in question. Obviously, if it's beng fought on your own land, you do NOT want to use spells that will harm/destroy your own people or resourses. Mines destroyed can't alway be reopened, simply because there may be nothing left afterward. Crops may not grow again on land ravaged by devestating magic, and if the local populace is decimated by poisoning or disease, they may not return for a very long time, if at all. Thus in attempting to defeat one's enemy, it is possible to doom one's own people and lands to a slow demise after the war is over.
While doing a little reading in history I have to say I disagree with you a little here. When in your own lands, from a logistical point of view, you want to destroy your mines and farmland, poison your wells, and otherwise ruin the land for your enemy. This is due to the fact that your enemy is, by virtue of being in your territory, either living off of the land or else forced to maintain a long line of supply to support his own troops. When Richard the Lionhearted managed to defeat Saladin in battle and besiege Jerusalem(partly due to his well planned logistics) Saladin promptly burned the fields outside the city and poisoned the wells, forcing Richard to end his siege with a truce rather than by conquering the city. On the other hand, when attempting to take land from an enemy I would think you'd want to be more careful since the land does you no good if you ruin it. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 08 May 2010 : 02:23:43
If I will know your connection with Thay...
Just kidding! |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 07 May 2010 : 16:13:16
ohh...sorry that was not my intentions... But I hope you still read it correctely!!! |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 07 May 2010 : 06:44:02
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
quote:
Originally posted by Sill Alias
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
If I were to lay siege to The Thay's Citadel, I would still use magic up front. I would hurl the most destructive spell I had at them. I would not as a Chaotic Good character use undead or poison.
Even thou I have said earlier in the post that I would use every means possible, I would still not use "evil" ways!
Bring what ever you have to to battlefield, bur bring it up front! That my philosophy!!!
If he chooses to attack you with a sword because he thinks your a warrior then its "not fair" to blast him. But well knowing what he faces it is not.
It is his choice to attack, well then its your job to defend your self. It realy comes down to the episode it self. One can not generalize this i feel!
"Evil" ways?
Is blasting the man who cannot protect himself in smithereens not evil? Just because you use the spells from the distance you do not know the true terrible consequences of your action. Fighters feel the disappearance of enemy life with their hands, while wizards can blast everything around them without any mercy. Now tell me, what is not evil?
No fair! You change my quotes for your interests! The harper pox upon you! |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 07 May 2010 : 04:59:38
I think it depends on the cause/purpose/location of the war in question. Obviously, if it's beng fought on your own land, you do NOT want to use spells that will harm/destroy your own people or resourses. Mines destroyed can't alway be reopened, simply because there may be nothing left afterward. Crops may not grow again on land ravaged by devestating magic, and if the local populace is decimated by poisoning or disease, they may not return for a very long time, if at all. Thus in attempting to defeat one's enemy, it is possible to doom one's own people and lands to a slow demise after the war is over.
It's like using the Atom bomb on Hiroshima. (Yeah, an extreme example, I know, but work with me here.) If one uses TOO much magical firepower, even the less obvious kind, it can wreak havok on the future of an area that may not be readily apparent. Poison the well, and it is no longer fit to drink, even for your own troops if they need it. Burn the crops, and your own amy may starve in an extended siege. Diseases, likewise, do not discriminate, and all it takes is a few of one's own soldiers coming into contact with diseased enemies to cause an epidemic to spread uncontrolled on BOTH sides. I admit the rust monster idea is novel, but why destroy resources and tools that can be taken by conventional means and then used? Domination might be the lesser evil in a war, but even that has drawbacks. If those enemies realize what was done to them, then they have even more reason to seek retribution. I guess it boils down to- does one have the means to reverse any damage done? If not, then you're better off not using such magic or tactics in the first place. Either that, or you'd better be prepared to face an angry mob of your own people afterward when there is nothing left for hem to live on.... And if it's an enemy land, the same applies, but you'd better be able to handle a LOT of very unhappy refugees.... Which could start a rebellion all by itself. Either way, it just might not be worth the headaches.
|
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 06 May 2010 : 22:09:55
quote:
Originally posted by Sill Alias
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
If I were to lay siege to The Thay's Citadel, I would still use magic up front. I would hurl the most destructive spell I had at them. I would not as a Chaotic Good character use undead or poison.
Even thou I have said earlier in the post that I would use every means possible, I would still not use "evil" ways!
Bring what ever you have to to battlefield, bur bring it up front! That my philosophy!!!
If he chooses to attack you with a sword because he thinks your a warrior then its "not fair" to blast him. But well knowing what he faces it is not.
It is his choice to attack, well then its your job to defend your self. It realy comes down to the episode it self. One can not generalize this i feel!
"Evil" ways?
Is blasting the man who cannot protect himself in smithereens not evil? Just because you use the spells from the distance you do not know the true terrible consequences of your action. Fighters feel the disappearance of enemy life with their hands, while wizards can blast everything around them without any mercy. Now tell me, what is not evil?
|
| GMWestermeyer |
Posted - 29 Apr 2010 : 00:32:55
I love this quote...
quote:
"Can a magician kill a man by magic?" Lord Wellington asked Strange.
Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. "I suppose a magician might," he admitted, "but a gentleman never could."
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke
|
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 28 Apr 2010 : 12:34:07
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
If I were to lay siege to The Thay's Citadel, I would still use magic up front. I would hurl the most destructive spell I had at them. I would not as a Chaotic Good character use undead or poison.
Even thou I have said earlier in the post that I would use every means possible, I would still not use "evil" ways!
Bring what ever you have to to battlefield, bur bring it up front! That my philosophy!!!
"Evil" ways?
Is blasting the man who cannot protect himself in smithereens not evil? Just because you use the spells from the distance you do not know the true terrible consequences of your action. Fighters feel the disappearance of enemy life with their hands, while wizards can blast everything around them without any mercy. Now tell me, what is not evil? |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 22:05:43
It depends partly on what kind of war we're talking about. There are nearly as many causes and kinds of war as there are people to fight them, and different kinds of war would have different kinds of magic use.
For instance, some city-states (ie: in the Vilhon Reach, and the Blade Kingdoms) fight wars entirely on maneuver. There's no fighting at all, just march and counter-march until you maneuver your foe into an untenable position. Here, magic would likely only be used to misdirect, to make your opponent think your army is here, when it's actually there.
On the other extreme is total, genocidal war, like elves vs. orcs, or anybody vs. anybody else in the Underdark. There, any use of magic at all would not just be permitted but embraced. I always thought the fight that erupted between Obould and the other horde that led to the dwarves reclaiming the Felbarr had the mark of magical manipulation. Have a mage slip into the Obould's thoughts, manipulate him into turning on the other orcs, and suddenly you bring the entire southern orcish presence to its knees without risking a single life of "your" race (whichever race actually did the manipulating). What could be more moral?
Somewhere in the middle will be the majority of wars, and it's there that things get a bit murkier. My own view is that Sherman was right: war is a horrible thing, and the more horrible it is, the sooner it is over. If you can dominate gate guards to open the gate, set the city ablaze, knock half the enemy soldiers out with disease, you'll end the war sooner than otherwise and save the lives of many of your own soldiers. And, if you think about it, magic isn't giving us any new options, really. Poisoning wells, sickening populations, bribing guards, setting cities afire with catapults, it was all done in the middle ages. Magic just gives us new ways of doing things.
The real question is: do you have to live with these people afterward? If not, if you're aiming to kill them entirely, then anything goes. If you're fighting a more limited war, then you had either better restrain yourself, or have a really good PR campaign afterward. Or just not get caught. Who's to say that guard was actually dominated, especially if you give him a purse of gold afterward anyway? |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 20:01:19
If I were to lay siege to The Thay's Citadel, I would still use magic up front. I would hurl the most destructive spell I had at them. I would not as a Chaotic Good character use undead or poison.
Even thou I have said earlier in the post that I would use every means possible, I would still not use "evil" ways!
Bring what ever you have to to battlefield, bur bring it up front! That my philosophy!!! |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 14:28:36
Talking again about ethic. Yes, it is cool to siege the city, using the fireballs, meteors etc. But there are more devious uses of magic, which can be effective, yet morally monstrous. You can dominate minds of the citizens to defeat the rulers and armies, also you can poison the water sources with horrible magic disease, use the undead assassins whose look is exact copy of their lovers or siblings. I believe about such magic we should talk about. What do you say, ladies and gentlemen? |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 12:02:38
To say it as Conan the Barbarian said, when asked: "what is best in life?"
Said with an austrian accent: " Crush your enemies, see then driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!"
|
| bitter thorn |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 06:13:59
I have found this discussion enjoyable and well reasoned.
While it is a clumsy analogy, I would just add that I find technology to be fairly analogous to magic in terms of ethics. With obvious fantasy exceptions a spell is not ethically different from a sword. The users intent and so forth determines the ethics. |
| bitter thorn |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 05:53:49
quote:
Originally posted by Sill Alias
It is possible. There are pure essences of the dead magic, that radiate the dispelling zone. Actually, squad equipped with these stones are completely protected from the arcane magic. So you can create Wizardbane Squad.
I find things like this and dead magic metal to be intriguing concepts, but they don't seem to translate well mechanically. In other words they are cool plot devices, but they tend to be unbalancing in play. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Apr 2010 : 01:11:45
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
As a "lesser" poster; perhaps that should be the end of what I have to say as to not offend any of the "Greats" here.
Err I am only "Great" because I have had spent some time here and made enough posts.
Wooly and The Sage still watch me.
Ultimately, those titles and identifiers serve little real purpose. You've both demonstrated a degree of dedication and exploration with many of the topics of Realmslore discussed here at Candlekeep.
You're already "Greats" in my opinion. |
|
|
