| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Apr 2010 : 08:00:38
|
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. |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
 |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 03:59:42
|
In a Total War against an enemy, I don't think there is a line to draw in magic...short of dooming both sides to oblivion. I would be the wrong man to sit in the chair if it came down to pushing the Big Red Button I guess. But this only applies in D&D terms in relation to the battle-field.
I would think not attacking civilian targets to be an essential no-no for even the most jaded conquest minded individual. It just takes away from what you will have as resources when your conquests are complete.
With the use of magic, you can be much more selective in your attacks as well. A series of strikes against an armor and weapons foundry could be easily carried out with well placed magic that would even prevent the death of the workers...anyone ever thought of summoning a pack of rust monsters and cutting them loose in an enemies armory?
The simple spells can go a long way to wrecking havoc on an enemy...and spells that could be carried in plenty by even low level apprentices armed with a scroll case full of goodies. Back in 1st Edition AD&D I had a habit of sending new apprentices against targets armed with a half-dozen scrolls to Spy (Comprehend Languages, Spider Climb, Feather Fall, Sleep, Charm Person and a final scroll with a Symbol of Death on it that they were only to open to instantly be teleported to my presence if they failed in their mission...such as right before they were caught ...a failure isn't a good apprentice) and whatever spells they could prepare. Even as evil as Dalor Darden was though, he didn't make a habit of attacking civilians needlessly; though he had no compunction against killing the loved ones of an enemy he couldn't attack directly. Such is the fate of those close to powerful individuals.
Once a civilian becomes a soldier though, most bets are off as far as Dalor Darden was concerned. He never liked using Undead too much; they have a nasty habit of not only stinking, but of giving a wizard a foul reputation that produces unwarranted attacks by do-gooders. He would, and often did, use other-planar creatures; but not opening of gates to allow massive numbers in. Summoning and binding single powerful individuals usually paid greater dividends; especially if they were used in a distracting manner that couldn't be connected with his primary goals in warfare.
For example, Yeenoghu (Dalor's favorite whipping boy) could be bound, then instructed to simply found a strong cult following in a enemy's territory. Dalor would secretly supply Yeenoghu's efforts, and then when the time was right, he would instruct Yeenoghu to attack (I did this on two occassions as I recall...perhaps more). When such a foe was unleashed on an enemy, the enemy would no doubt respond with its most valuable assets in an attempt to neutralize the threat. The first time I did this, it was to distract; and while the demon and its minions assaulted my target, I simply waited for the powerful wizard to finish his battle against Yeenoghu and his minions. I knew my enemy would win; but I also knew his greatest powers would have been used against my demon. When their battle was at a near end, I made my own attack on the Wizard's Tower. I slipped into his innermost chambers using the most discreet magic at my disposal and simply waited. Having bypassed his spells and not simply negated them, he was more than surprised to see me for the brief few moments of the rest of his life. He simply couldn't stand against me and my apprentices as he had exhausted most of his arsenal in battle, and his apprentices were either dead, absent, or exhausted as well. I sacked his tower, sent his treasures to my own holdings, then destroyed the entire tower...making it look as though demons had overcome his tower and destroyed it.
The next week, my armies rolled across the border against the King my enemy had supported and I was little opposed.
The gist of this is Special Ops are just as important to a wizard as simply going out and blowing a few craters into the ranks of the enemy army.
Wizards are more able in espionage than even a rogue...hands down. In a one on one combat, a rogue is excellent, but for gathering information; casters simply have the upper hand...not even having to leave their home to find the same information a rogue could. I never found out something with Dalor in the field that I couldn't find out sitting inside his warded spell chamber.
Most importantly to Dalor Darden's long life however was one simple spell: Simulacrum. This spell allowed him to essentially never be exposed; it was the perfect body-double. Abundant uses of Doppleganger agents also made him nearly unknown as an individual. I am not ashamed to claim Manshoon as one of the foremost inspirations for Dalor's tendancy to keep himself at a distance until an absolutely critical moment.
I used one Simulacrum to such an extent that he became an alter-ego who ingratiated himself into the service of a minor noble of Cormyr. The use of a Ring of Mind-Shielding and Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location allowed the 7th level Illusionist/10th level Wizard to avoid detection; while his magical abilities were far more than able to enable me to gain the family as my spies in Cormyr without ever knowing they were doing it. That Simulacrum, who was known as Haeldreth, actually came to be a favorite henchman of mine.
This point is that any and all avenues of increasing a caster's reach and knowledge should be explored...and exploited if viable.
Even a Good caster should use anything within the bounds of their alignment to become more powerful. Summoning of Devas and such should never be frowned on by a Good caster...and in fact one of the strongest enemies I ever had was one who wasn't afraid to indenture himself to the service of a Solar he could call on in dire emergency. I NEVER did defeat that cleric, though I did spend many years of real life trying to figure out how my wizard could defeat that Solar if he showed up. I never had to fight that particular Solar; but just knowing my enemy could summon him in dire circumstances served as a HUGE stumbling block in my plans. It actually forced me in the direction of trying to figure out how to bind ever more powerful fiends...but that is another story all together.
An Arms Race is another way to look at magic. The Kingdom with the greatest arsenal of magic can often dictate terms to others without ever even using its magic. Binding demons, subduing dragons to your service, making pacts with the forces of good as well...all these should be looked at as seriously as, if not more seriously than, hoarding wands of lightning bolts, staves of various sorts and lockers full of magical potions to distribute to your forces.
In fact, I always considered the basis of my wizard's true success on the fact that he believed in a concept of Medieval Fantasy Combined Arms.
I used Army (traditional non-magical foot soldiers and cavalry of various sorts), Marines (Shock Troops such as magical constructs: golems, gargoyles and etc), Air Force (Air Ships, Dragons and other flying creatures), Navy (Ships mostly, but also under water forces like Sahuagin), Special Forces (hired adventuring bands, including unwitting Good groups), Special Ops (usually directed by me personally, but also including various thieves guild cells, a group of assassins, a family of dopplegangers and etc), Chaplains Services (evil clerics mostly) and even a Research Group composed of my apprentices and others like professional alchemists and such.
I remember battles where my flying ship (supported by Gargoyles) would drop Iron Golems into the back ranks of an enemy army, while my human and orc troops hit the front ranks...all the while a band of heroes/villains would be targetting the enemy wizard while my catapults were lobbing alchemical solutions into the middle of the enemy. All this only happened after their reserve arrow stores had been ruined by an unwitting druid the day before, their general had been assassinated (by assassins of course, but aided by me), their food stores had been poisoned by an evil cleric posing as a healing camp follower, their closest village had been consumed by dragon fire in the middle of the night right before the battle had started to distract a group of their own heroes (that same dragon now leading the heroes farther and farther from the battle), and on and on and on.
And they thought they were only going up against a petty warlord who had been raiding their caravans with his human cavalry and orc mercenaries!
End of story: be ruthless in war...even if you are a good guy you can find a way to be ruthless (not evil mind you) to your enemy. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 04:28:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
In a Total War against an enemy, I don't think there is a line to draw in magic...short of dooming both sides to oblivion. I would be the wrong man to sit in the chair if it came down to pushing the Big Red Button I guess. But this only applies in D&D terms in relation to the battle-field.
I would think not attacking civilian targets to be an essential no-no for even the most jaded conquest minded individual. It just takes away from what you will have as resources when your conquests are complete.
<snip>
Not sure who your DM was concerning what I snipped.
As for what I quoted, Total War requires attack on all military resources. That includes food production, mining, banners and clothing. There is no way that civilians would not be forage, raided, burned out and/or killed.
The crops will grow next year.
The mines can be reopened.
Those of the craft replaced in number within a few years. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 04:47:45
|
My DM was a good solid DM...your suggestion is perhaps he sucked to let me get away with stuff?
What, you don't think someone can do what I outlined in YOUR game I suppose eh? My question would be why not if sufficient planning and detail were used? Our campaign lasted well over ten years...closer to fifteen.
I'll still disagree with you on attacking civilians. Grain can be ruined, mines collapsed and textiles burned...all without the need for destroying those who work those trades. Especially with magic.
You need farmers to grow that crop next year...and your army can feed off the one now there.
The mines can be reopened, and the same workers go back to work in them.
The craftsmen can immediately go back to work for you...only their wares having need be destroyed.
Total War doesn't mean total destruction. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 19:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
What, you don't think someone can do what I outlined in YOUR game I suppose eh? My question would be why not if sufficient planning and detail were used? Our campaign lasted well over ten years...closer to fifteen.
From what I trimmed makes it appear that your force was unstoppable. That the world was for your taking, the alliances struck me as unlikely as well. From what you described it sounds like the game you played was one that allowed PCs to become powerful but not many NPCs giving the PCs an automatic advantage. Now you might has just listed your successes and no defeats.
I do not want to go paragraph though paragraph to reply to what I snipped. I just posted my reaction about the series of successes you reported. For me this is a side issue and really do not want to get into an extended discussion concerning how well your character did.
quote:
I'll still disagree with you on attacking civilians. Grain can be ruined, mines collapsed and textiles burned...all without the need for destroying those who work those trades. Especially with magic.
You need farmers to grow that crop next year...and your army can feed off the one now there.
The mines can be reopened, and the same workers go back to work in them.
The craftsmen can immediately go back to work for you...only their wares having need be destroyed.
Total War doesn't mean total destruction.
It really depends on why a war is fought.
It also depends on the nature of a country defeated. Often a resistance movement can occur among the civilians - thing Robin Hood vs. the Sheriff. In D&D Realms the defeated could be orcs, goblens, kobolds, Drow or many other races.
If one goes for total war, there will not be a need for a defeated people to be fed. The resources can be reopened when people a ruler has more reason to trust move into the region. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 22:10:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
From what I trimmed makes it appear that your force was unstoppable. That the world was for your taking, the alliances struck me as unlikely as well. From what you described it sounds like the game you played was one that allowed PCs to become powerful but not many NPCs giving the PCs an automatic advantage. Now you might has just listed your successes and no defeats.
I do not want to go paragraph though paragraph to reply to what I snipped. I just posted my reaction about the series of successes you reported. For me this is a side issue and really do not want to get into an extended discussion concerning how well your character did.
Paraphrasing Machiavelli, you can start a conflict any time you like; but it isn't always up to you when it will end. I have no need for nasty words between us, because you are indeed entitled to your uninformed opinion.
I was of course commenting on the highlights of the character's exploits...I don't get a great deal of joy out of talking about his failures. But if it makes you feel better:
I was tricked into becoming a Shade by the DM, and then under the control of Shar because of it.
The love of his life was cruelly killed because of a mistaken calculation he had made.
He was killed at least twice that I can recall.
Despite all the power I amassed, Zalathorm of Halruaa essentially bested me in my ambitions and we settled into an uneasy "friendship" which was more like him being my boss.
The Drow of Tlindhet (not sure on the spelling of that one) were such a pain in my arse that I became so completely frustrated by them that I stopped going into the Underdark unless absolutely needed.
Etc. ad nausea...
Who likes to talk about the bad things? I was commenting primarily on what indeed worked for Dalor.
And those things were subtle manipulation, patience and then surprise.
As for unlikely alliances, it isn't unlikely for any alliance to be fruitful. Even Khelben and Fzoul had an "alliance" or accord if you would rather that word.
It isn't hard to trick a band of adventurers of Good alignment into working for you; so long as you don't ever double cross them. How hard is it to convince a band of adventurers to go kill someone that is evil "for the greater good" if something good does actually come of it? Not hard at all...it is one of the major plot hooks used by DMs...so it worked for me too. Just because the evil they killed benefited me doesn't mean it can't happen.
As for the Druid, Druids are Neutral in Alignment. Well placed lies convincing a Druid that an army moving into an area is bad for nature wouldn't be hard.
Perhaps I'll stop there. Simply put, I am a very patient and thinking player...as are a very many others who enjoy playing Role Playing games.
Simply put, your comment was rude and out of place...as if I were some ignorant "uncool" person simply boasting and making myself look "bad ass" or what have you. I rarely boast, but it is FUN (mind you that is what this particular game is about) to remember the great accomplishments that our characters managed.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
It really depends on why a war is fought.
It also depends on the nature of a country defeated. Often a resistance movement can occur among the civilians - thing Robin Hood vs. the Sheriff. In D&D Realms the defeated could be orcs, goblens, kobolds, Drow or many other races.
If one goes for total war, there will not be a need for a defeated people to be fed. The resources can be reopened when people a ruler has more reason to trust move into the region.
Placing unending variables into a conversation simply drags out the conversation.
For the sake of argument, I concede your point that there are lots of things that may change the situation; however:
The primary purpose of non-genocidal war or wars of displacement of peoples is to acquire territory that contains resources that make the aggressor stronger; whether those resources are non-living, living or whatever else.
If we are talking about Hitler's Germany, then genocide is a reason for acquiring material wealth, living space or what have you.
If we are talking about Gulf II, then simple securing of resources (and not truly territory) might be what we are talking about.
If we are talking about the Death of the Dragon, then general vendetta and chaotic destruction are the things being had.
If we are talking about Shade Enclave re-founding Netheril, then inflated Ego and a sense of entitlement are what we are talking about.
On and on we go...yes, there are innumerable variables in the reasons for war.
As for finally getting back on topic, I stand adamantly beside my statements of good strong examples of how to use magic beyond the common "blast 'em" theory. Acquiring magical strength doesn't just mean carrying more bags of holding with wands of fireballs stuffed to the brim. Acquisition of magical power has as many variables as the kinds of war that the magic can be used in...and a good Caster should make sure they have as many avenues of defense and aggression available to them as is possible to comprehend and have contingency for.
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 22:28:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
As for finally getting back on topic, I stand adamantly beside my statements of good strong examples of how to use magic beyond the common "blast 'em" theory. Acquiring magical strength doesn't just mean carrying more bags of holding with wands of fireballs stuffed to the brim. Acquisition of magical power has as many variables as the kinds of war that the magic can be used in...and a good Caster should make sure they have as many avenues of defense and aggression available to them as is possible to comprehend and have contingency for.
That was not quite the topic except if it was Ethical to use magic in war against foes. The side trek was indeed about using force (magic or mundane) against civilians. Killing them clearly an option, however charm, sleep, turn to stone clearly examples of non lethal magic use on the civilians. Okay, turn to stone can be lethal is the target is broken into pieces before returned to flesh. Enslavement a possible mundane option.
quote:
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.
What it appears to come down to is the difference in how you define total war and I would define total war.
At this point I suggest we agree to disagree. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2010 : 22:47:40
|
I play a wizard myself, and have on many occasions doomed thousands of troops with area spells. Is this wrong?
If it is wrong, it is wrong to suit up in armor, if you enemy doesn't have armor. Then it is wrong to use bows, if you enemy only have melee weapons.
In war, the only thing one should limit was the casualties of innocent civilians and your own ranks. Besides that I would strive to use magic a potent as possible, meaning that if I had a spell called “The Hydrogen Bomb” then I would use it!!!
|
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31772 Posts |
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.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
bitter thorn
Learned Scribe
USA
184 Posts |
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. |
"Nobody listens to the Ranger!"
Our groups are all sticking with 3.X classic Realms. |
|
|
|
bitter thorn
Learned Scribe
USA
184 Posts |
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. |
"Nobody listens to the Ranger!"
Our groups are all sticking with 3.X classic Realms. |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
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!"
|
Edited by - Nicolai Withander on 27 Apr 2010 12:20:59 |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
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? |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
Edited by - Sill Alias on 27 Apr 2010 14:30:40 |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
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!!! |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
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? |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
Edited by - Hoondatha on 27 Apr 2010 22:06:04 |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
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? |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
|
|
|
GMWestermeyer
Learned Scribe
USA
215 Posts |
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
|
"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true."
Homer Simpson, _The Simspons_ |
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
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?
|
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
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.
|
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
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! |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
|
|
|
Nicolai Withander
Master of Realmslore
Denmark
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2010 : 16:13:16
|
| ohh...sorry that was not my intentions... But I hope you still read it correctely!!! |
|
|
|
Sill Alias
Senior Scribe
Kazakhstan
588 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2010 : 02:23:43
|
If I will know your connection with Thay...
Just kidding! |
You can hear many tales from many mouths. The most difficult is to know which of them are not lies. - Sill Alias
"May your harp be unstrung, your dreams die and all your songs be unsung." - curse of the harper, The Code of the Harpers 2 ed.
|
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
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. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
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. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 11 Sep 2010 01:42:33 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
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. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2449 Posts |
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." |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
bladeinAmn
Learned Scribe
199 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
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. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The Ethics of Magic in War
