StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thanas wrote:That was pretty much commonplace among every army in the west until the advent of professional militaries. This, btw, was one of the reasons why armies of the 17th and 18th centuries seem so small to us today - they were professionals who had to be paid highly and regulated highly. The Prussian drill served as much to protect the populace from soldiers as it did to form the line of battle, as an example. As a result, such incidenced declined steadily until the Napoleonic wars, when mass armies and conscription reversed that process. The armies of Napoleon and the British quickly gained a reputation, the Prussians less so because they still preferred professionals over mass conscriptions (those pesky citizens should not have guns).

Didn't the British also recruit heavily from the "dregs" of society? I seem to recall a quote by Wellington describing the common British troops as the "scum of the earth." The officers were mostly from the better-off parts of society (since they could afford to be commissioned) but as I understand it most of the troops were either from the poor (the only people desperate enough to want to join) or criminals (given the option of joining the army or going to prison or hanging). You take a bunch of criminals, put them in a highly stressfull situation, give them weapons and minimal supervision then set them loose on the population and you can pretty much expect unpleasant things to happen.

Really, a lot of warfare is idealized and sanitarized in modern depictions. If you actually read the source documents it gets much harder. For example, I reard a letter from a mercenary applying for work in the 15th century. His list of deeds of which he freely boasted in a letter consisted of among other things raping peasant girls, killing a noblewoman who resisted and then defiling the dead body in the same way. Brutality was not considered a vice, but a virtue.

And when it's not santized, it's only the "bad guys" whose soldiers commit atrocities. The "good guys" would, of course, never condone such behavior. I've only run across a few fiction authors that actually depict the militaries associated with the protagonists plundering, raping, and burning. Of course, weren't those activities generally encouraged or at least deemed inevitable for most of history?

Jaevric wrote:Didn't the British also recruit heavily from the "dregs" of society? I seem to recall a quote by Wellington describing the common British troops as the "scum of the earth." The officers were mostly from the better-off parts of society (since they could afford to be commissioned) but as I understand it most of the troops were either from the poor (the only people desperate enough to want to join) or criminals (given the option of joining the army or going to prison or hanging). You take a bunch of criminals, put them in a highly stressfull situation, give them weapons and minimal supervision then set them loose on the population and you can pretty much expect unpleasant things to happen.

Yes, which is why I said the British gained a reputation.

And when it's not santized, it's only the "bad guys" whose soldiers commit atrocities. The "good guys" would, of course, never condone such behavior. I've only run across a few fiction authors that actually depict the militaries associated with the protagonists plundering, raping, and burning. Of course, weren't those activities generally encouraged or at least deemed inevitable for most of history?

Not encouraged per se, at least not since the end of the Middle ages. And I would also disagree with that they were deemed inevitable - I would describe them as "happening despite policies trying to prevent them".

Jaevric wrote:

Thanas wrote:Really, a lot of warfare is idealized and sanitarized in modern depictions. If you actually read the source documents it gets much harder. For example, I reard a letter from a mercenary applying for work in the 15th century. His list of deeds of which he freely boasted in a letter consisted of among other things raping peasant girls, killing a noblewoman who resisted and then defiling the dead body in the same way. Brutality was not considered a vice, but a virtue.

And when it's not santized, it's only the "bad guys" whose soldiers commit atrocities. The "good guys" would, of course, never condone such behavior. I've only run across a few fiction authors that actually depict the militaries associated with the protagonists plundering, raping, and burning. Of course, weren't those activities generally encouraged or at least deemed inevitable for most of history?

The newest Ring of Fire book mentions it, when the American general actually creates a unit to be both shock troops and act as the executioners of anybody that goes overboard (IIRC, he's mostly OK with plundering, but the raping and burning is where he draws the line). I'm pretty sure Glen Cook had it in The Black Company as well, but that whole series is Gray vs. Grey morality anyway.

loomer wrote:Didn't Jackson also end up turning into something of a sciencebadass as well? All linguistics genius one minute, busting caps the next?

Sometime between season 3-5 he started taking military training. By season 8+, Jackson might as well be multi-classing as a solider.

Xon wrote:

loomer wrote:Didn't Jackson also end up turning into something of a sciencebadass as well? All linguistics genius one minute, busting caps the next?

Sometime between season 3-5 he started taking military training. By season 8+, Jackson might as well be multi-classing as a solider.

Yeah, when he's P-90 in one hand and pistol in the other and single-handedly holding down a section of pyramid ship, then he's probably passed into bad-assery.

Jaevric wrote:And when it's not santized, it's only the "bad guys" whose soldiers commit atrocities. The "good guys" would, of course, never condone such behavior. I've only run across a few fiction authors that actually depict the militaries associated with the protagonists plundering, raping, and burning.

Hmmm. In the Belisarius alternate history series rape happened a time or two, but since Belisarius had a habit of executing rapists and (for example) having their corpses dragged in front of the marching army it wasn't a common offense. He also normally disapproved of plundering and burning, both for moral reasons and because they were a military handicap (you can't sleep in the town you just burned). His Persian allies were less restrained though.

In Sheepfarmer's Daughter the mercenary company that the protagonist is part of loots a conquered city. Still, they are a lot more civilized in other ways than real-life preindustrial mercenary armies tended to be.

Bakustra wrote:I do expect the universe to follow a simple rule, though. The problem is that there is no clear distinction between gods and other beings- it appears to be a matter of degree rather than of order. So there is no readily apparent reason why (and in fiction, we want reasons for things happening) only gods are affected by belief power. More importantly, if it's speculated at least somewhat widely to be Excalibur, (since it was held by the original Merlin and all) it should pick up some of that belief from people taking stances one way or the other. But it doesn't, and there's still the problem of how a secret artifact can be empowered by belief.

I think this is the problem.

Our universe doesn't follow a simple rule. The Dresdenverse is not written from an omniscient narrator's point of view and does not explicitly lay out the rules for Gods and Demigods 3rd Edition. The reader has absolutely no way of knowing what is empowering Supernatural Entity 12 and what makes them more powerful than Supernatural Entity 7.

This is not necessarily bad writing - there can be more going on than meets the eye, and your idea of an inconsistent cosmology by itself could just be the visible manifestation of a complex cosmology.

Garlak wrote:"Balance of Good and Evil."

There is cause and there is effect. Action and consequence.

The idea of giant, metaphysical scales that tally up every "point" of good and evil and make sure to balance it out is... it's a disturbing concept. It pisses me off.

But this could be a quite interesting premise and great drama. Imagine the consequences of a world that was actually fucked up like that. How would people react? Would they stop trying to improve things, on the logic that there's no point? Would they selectively do good for people they deem worthy? Would they try to work out some system to distribute the good and bad in some way that minimizes suffering as much as their maltheist shit cosmos allows? Would some altruistic souls try to live in as much suffering as possible on the logic that this will free up good fortune for others? Would people try to inflict as much suffering on slaves or enemies as possible, to free up good fortune for themselves? Would they try to fix the universe itself? I could imagine different groups doing all of those things, and then think of how they might interact with each other.

It's only infuriating if it's taken with a classic is/ought fallacy - the universe is this way, therefore it should be. But if you think of it instead in terms of a fundamentally hostile cosmos it's got a lot of potential.

Usually, in my experience "Balance of Good and Evil" just means that you can't kill the top Bad Guys because they are an inherent part of the system. Or if you do smoke 'em, something else replaces them--and not in the usual "vacuum of power" way but more like a spontaneous outbreak of malevolence.

It may be an interesting bit of philosophy and/or social commentary if done the way Junghalli suggests... once. But this literary convention is more widespread then it ought to be. To me, finding out there's a supposed "Balance" of good and evil, just makes the struggles and accomplishments in that world seem so... bleak and hopeless. In a "haha, nothing you did--nor anything you can EVER do--will ever have an effect! Nyaah!" kind of way.



Also, other stuff I agree with. Or would that be "tropes I disagree with" instead, heh?

Technology=Evil, Return to Nature!
Karma Houdinis
Deus Angst/Diabolus Machina
Bakustra on confusing, melting-pot cosmologies. Along with "...but the Christian god just HAPPENS to be the right one" stuff.

weemadando wrote: Yeah, when he's P-90 in one hand and pistol in the other and single-handedly holding down a section of pyramid ship, then he's probably passed into bad-assery.

At least it is better than several(most?) seasons of Dana Scully bleating like an abused sheep about whatever was in her face this encounter of the week was "impossible". It took a case of alien abduction, cancer from alien abduction and a miracle cure or two before she stopped doing the broken record impersonation. Even then there where relapses.

I'm sure it appeals to a market segment for a hot woman to be completely damn wrong all the time, but the plot-induced stupid was just anoying.

adam_grif wrote:The idea that there is even an organized "good" and "evil" is kind of ridiculous to begin with. Especially when you get into the ridiculous notions that there is like a deity backing both sides, and all evil is the result of their corruption, and all good is the result of following the righteous part of the other guy. This kind of cosmic dualism is infantile in it's simplification of the world.

Yeah, I was watching Santa Clause vs Satan on MST3k last night

You mistake what I mean. The good gods and the bad gods aren't responsible for all the good and evil. Their churches are merely organisations where people with similar world views will gravitate to. For example some left leaning and conservatives will tend to vote for a certain party. What I can't stand is that there must be a balance between good and evil, instead of both sides trying to gain the upperhand. This is like if the ALP trashed the liberal party at the election and then decided to give some seats to the Liberal so that both parties end up with the same number of seats, because of the.... balance.

Its never explained why this balance is important. In Dragonlance the Kingpriest suspected Paladine advocated balance because then he was weak, but that good appeared to be in ascendency he could screw with that. The gods including Paladine rewarded him by dropping a mountain on his city, all because of balance. The same shit gets thrown up in Forgotten Realms in the Avatar trilogy.

Hmm. could be fun to write some high fantasy in a balance-enforced cosmology, with the protagonists (or antagonists, either works) fighting to destroy the mechanism/organization/deity that enforces that balance.

Xon wrote:

weemadando wrote: Yeah, when he's P-90 in one hand and pistol in the other and single-handedly holding down a section of pyramid ship, then he's probably passed into bad-assery.

At least it is better than several(most?) seasons of Dana Scully bleating like an abused sheep about whatever was in her face this encounter of the week was "impossible". It took a case of alien abduction, cancer from alien abduction and a miracle cure or two before she stopped doing the broken record impersonation. Even then there where relapses.

You're forgetting about the telekinetic baby that she had too.

I was trying to forget that. That just makes the relapses into a broken record impersonation even more of a plot-induced idiot ball.

White Haven wrote:Hmm. could be fun to write some high fantasy in a balance-enforced cosmology, with the protagonists (or antagonists, either works) fighting to destroy the mechanism/organization/deity that enforces that balance.

I'ld love to read/watch something like that. Does something like that already exist?

Xon wrote:

White Haven wrote:Hmm. could be fun to write some high fantasy in a balance-enforced cosmology, with the protagonists (or antagonists, either works) fighting to destroy the mechanism/organization/deity that enforces that balance.

I'ld love to read/watch something like that. Does something like that already exist?

The Dragonlance Chronicles is the only trilogy I know of that does this to any extent..

Junghalli wrote:

Garlak wrote:"Balance of Good and Evil."

There is cause and there is effect. Action and consequence.

The idea of giant, metaphysical scales that tally up every "point" of good and evil and make sure to balance it out is... it's a disturbing concept. It pisses me off.

But this could be a quite interesting premise and great drama. Imagine the consequences of a world that was actually fucked up like that. How would people react? Would they stop trying to improve things, on the logic that there's no point? Would they selectively do good for people they deem worthy? Would they try to work out some system to distribute the good and bad in some way that minimizes suffering as much as their maltheist shit cosmos allows? Would some altruistic souls try to live in as much suffering as possible on the logic that this will free up good fortune for others? Would people try to inflict as much suffering on slaves or enemies as possible, to free up good fortune for themselves? Would they try to fix the universe itself? I could imagine different groups doing all of those things, and then think of how they might interact with each other.

It's only infuriating if it's taken with a classic is/ought fallacy - the universe is this way, therefore it should be. But if you think of it instead in terms of a fundamentally hostile cosmos it's got a lot of potential.

There is a series of books by the Russian writer Nick Perumov which are pretty much like that, complete with a metaphysical scale (although it does not measure Good and Evil perse, but rather their effects on the world. Save a city from destruction, and another one will die to a plague, that sort of thing). The first book has the protagonists, a pair of Dark Lords overthrowing the oppressive Generic Light Beigns and jeopardizing the foundations of the multiverse in the process, then fighting a desperate struggle to keep it from falling apart, even as their every action turns against them and brings them closer to their inevitable doom (which will come in the last book of the series, which is currently on hold. Damnation!). It's a good idea, although suffering from series decay and the fact that the writer had to turn out 2 or 3 long books a year just to keep food on the table (and at one point, emigrated to the US because he couldn't support his family in Russia).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Gaidin wrote:

Xon wrote:

White Haven wrote:Hmm. could be fun to write some high fantasy in a balance-enforced cosmology, with the protagonists (or antagonists, either works) fighting to destroy the mechanism/organization/deity that enforces that balance.

I'ld love to read/watch something like that. Does something like that already exist?

The Dragonlance Chronicles is the only trilogy I know of that does this to any extent..

I take you haven't read any Michael Moorcock? Although of course with Moorcock, the protagonists rarely have their way either. The ending of the Swords Trilogy is just sweet, though. Talking about unintended consequences...

Kingmaker wrote: As for things that bother me, genetic magic. I don't get nearly as annoyed at settings where genetics merely influences talent, but the idea that it is wholly genetic just strikes me as absurd. It'd be like if the ability to ambulate was genetic (if less fundamental than that). I vastly prefer settings where the ability to use magic is fundamentally an intellectual achievement. Of course, then we couldn't have our plucky illiterate peasant hero.

This is one of the biggest failings of the Star Wars prequels, in my opinion. The OT made it seem like anyone could learn to use the Force, but it was very difficult for anyone who wasn't naturally disposed toward Force usage to master it. I'm not really sure if there was any EU material that backed up that interpretation of the Force, but I do know that the prequels (and to a lesser extent Kevin J. Anderson) just turned it into the X-gene, killing a lot of the metaphysical mystery of the SW universe for me.

Yeah, I always thought that sucked.

When Vader is about to blow Luke's X-wing apart in ANH, he simply observes "The Force is strong in this one" and squeezes the trigger. As if it's uncommon but not amazingly so.

He doesn't go "OH SHIT ITS A JEDI I MUST HAVE MISSED ONE WHEN I WAS EXTERMINATING THEM ALL".

GuppyShark wrote:Yeah, I always thought that sucked.

When Vader is about to blow Luke's X-wing apart in ANH, he simply observes "The Force is strong in this one" and squeezes the trigger. As if it's uncommon but not amazingly so.

He doesn't go "OH SHIT ITS A JEDI I MUST HAVE MISSED ONE WHEN I WAS EXTERMINATING THEM ALL".

Well, doesn't that actually PROVE the midichlorian thing, rather than disprove it? I mean, anyone can be born with weird cells, but if it actually takes training to have a strong force presence, then he's less likely to comment on it so casually.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Bakustra wrote:[
For example, belief is supposed to be what powers the three swords, but one of them is supposed to be Excalibur. But it isn't any more powerful than the other two, despite being the most widely-known weapon of folklore, besides maybe thunderbolts. Not to mention the problems of having a faith-powered object that is nevertheless a secret from the world at large... But there's the question of why only certain objects and certain people are empowered by faith- and that is what I mean by inconsistent. Rules fail to be universal, or even sensible.

I've only read the first four Dresden books thus far, (and they are awesome fun) but wasn't Micheal the Paladin and his sword supposed to be powered by his own faith. Not the faith of everyone at large. Which handily explains why Excalibur isn't anymore powerful than the other ones. But also, does anyone really believe in Excalibur anyway? Knowing about arthurian myth isn't the same as actual belief.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Bakustra wrote:[
For example, belief is supposed to be what powers the three swords, but one of them is supposed to be Excalibur. But it isn't any more powerful than the other two, despite being the most widely-known weapon of folklore, besides maybe thunderbolts. Not to mention the problems of having a faith-powered object that is nevertheless a secret from the world at large... But there's the question of why only certain objects and certain people are empowered by faith- and that is what I mean by inconsistent. Rules fail to be universal, or even sensible.

I've only read the first four Dresden books thus far, (and they are awesome fun) but wasn't Micheal the Paladin and his sword supposed to be powered by his own faith. Not the faith of everyone at large. Which handily explains why Excalibur isn't anymore powerful than the other ones. But also, does anyone really believe in Excalibur anyway? Knowing about arthurian myth isn't the same as actual belief.

The problem (and this is a very minor spoiler for the next book) is that the other two swordbearers are not of the same level of faith as him, to put it mildly. But they are only differentiated from him by their relative levels of experience, and their weapons are of the same caliber. It would be better and more consistent if they simply were blessed weapons rather than the implications associated with faith power.

People still look for the "real" King Arthur and "historical" Camelot. In addition, the angels that make their presence known are among the classic four archangels. How many people really believe in the archangel Uriel? But he still enters the scene later on. There's also the matter of fairies continuing to exist despite being folkloric in most of the world, but that's another matter entirely.

There's also the Night Watch series by Sergei Lukyanenko, which has the Light and the Dark, and they basically have an agreement to maintain a Balance, but this isn't because the Balance is inherently desirable, but because they're both basically forced into it by mutually assured destruction. Both the Light and the Dark would love nothing more but to erase the other from existence, but unless you can get truly overwhelming odds in your favor, the other side can strike back and you both end up being screwed.

So basically magical intervention to alter the Balance is of the "you have done this and this, and that now gives the other side the right to cast a miracle of an equivalent magical power". And you have an impartial Inquisition ready to stomp on you if you break the rules.

Bakustra wrote: The problem (and this is a very minor spoiler for the next book) is that the other two swordbearers are not of the same level of faith as him, to put it mildly. But they are only differentiated from him by their relative levels of experience, and their weapons are of the same caliber. It would be better and more consistent if they simply were blessed weapons rather than the implications associated with faith power.

That's what they are. Artifacts have power in Dresden's world. They don't even have to be blessed, persay(see the Noose). It's not even the swords themselves that are the power, given two of them have been reworked, possibly multiple times. It's the crucifix nails worked into the hilts.

Gaidin wrote:

Bakustra wrote: The problem (and this is a very minor spoiler for the next book) is that the other two swordbearers are not of the same level of faith as him, to put it mildly. But they are only differentiated from him by their relative levels of experience, and their weapons are of the same caliber. It would be better and more consistent if they simply were blessed weapons rather than the implications associated with faith power.

That's what they are. Artifacts have power in Dresden's world. They don't even have to be blessed, persay(see the Noose). It's not even the swords themselves that are the power, given two of them have been reworked, possibly multiple times. It's the crucifix nails worked into the hilts.

That's what would be preferable, except for the indications that it's because of belief that are consistently brought up by Harry, and Harry is never really shown as wrong in this.