Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:14 am**

but since the whole point of your proposal that they just move to a new planet is that their current environment is hostile, it wouldn't really make a lot of sense to move to a planet that is barely habitable.

i mean, they already live on a planet with a hostile environment. that must have been the shortest search ever.

"hey guys, go find a planet, doesn't have to be nice at all, just a place that won't instantly kill us."
"uhh... we're already on a planet that matches that description."
"wow, you guys really work fast! great work, let's build us a city!"

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:21 am**

Shark_Force wrote:but since the whole point of your proposal that they just move to a new planet is that their current environment is hostile, it wouldn't really make a lot of sense to move to a planet that is barely habitable.

i mean, they already live on a planet with a hostile environment. that must have been the shortest search ever.

"hey guys, go find a planet, doesn't have to be nice at all, just a place that won't instantly kill us."
"uhh... we're already on a planet that matches that description."
"wow, you guys really work fast! great work, let's build us a city!"

This. So much this.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:56 am**

How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:03 pm**

Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

They thought they could take the CS, so maybe they didn't really have a good idea of how dangerous the CS was. Having bad information about your enemy is hardly an uncommon situation.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:51 pm**

flatline wrote:
Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

They thought they could take the CS, so maybe they didn't really have a good idea of how dangerous the CS was. Having bad information about your enemy is hardly an uncommon situation.

And lets not forget that when Tolkeen was founded there wasn't a threat from the CS. Yes I know that they have divination magic but I think its a bit extreme to expect people to make decisions about threats that will not occur for decades (and then only if a specific series of decisions by hundreds nay thousands of people occurs).....

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:01 pm**

Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Tolkeen had to weigh the potential danger of the CS (probability of invasion, probability of success, cost of success AND failure, etc) vs the potential danger of evacuation (loss of property and wealth, cost of finding new location, potential danger of new home, etc). Even if you look at this as a merely practical consideration (ignoring the legal or moral questions) it is not unrealistic that they would take the chance on standing their ground.

And I still don't see why this is an issue anyway. History (and the modern world) is full of peoples and nations who resisted the control of or eviction by some militarily superior force. The fact that said force believed that they had a moral or legal right to do so did not mean that they were justified and that the weaker party was wrong for trying to stand their ground. Remember, "might does not make right" - running may be prudent but has nothing to do with who is "the bad guy".

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:18 pm**

I'm not so much blaming Tolkeen for establishing their city, but rather, for ending negotiations with the CS and attacking anyone from the CS military in Minnesota, and then sticking around to get wiped out when they got their just desserts.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:59 pm**

Tor wrote:I'm not so much blaming Tolkeen for establishing their city, but rather, for ending negotiations with the CS and attacking anyone from the CS military in Minnesota, and then sticking around to get wiped out when they got their just desserts.

When was there ever 'negotiations' between the two to break off?

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:06 pm**

The whole leave or die speech by the cs. That was the negotiation.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:26 pm**

Tor wrote:for ending negotiations with the CS and attacking anyone from the CS military in Minnesota

References for these statements?

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:45 pm**

Brought up earlier in the thread, Sedition page 101 right column 3rd paragraph, describing the events of 71 PA.

Tolkeen tried to make diplomatic connections with the CS, got their Ambassador back in a body back, somehow 'know the time for talking is gone forever' and from then on met any Coalition military personnel in 'its territory' (being what, all of Minnesota? including human towns who want to join the CS?) with LETHAL force.

No context given as to the ambassador's death, what caused it, whether the CS was even to blame, nothing about them doing an inquiry, etc. For all I know, he offed himself because his wife divorced him, or maybe it was a dragon and it started eating people.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:04 pm**

cosmicfish wrote:
Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Tolkeen had to weigh the potential danger of the CS (probability of invasion, probability of success, cost of success AND failure, etc) vs the potential danger of evacuation (loss of property and wealth, cost of finding new location, potential danger of new home, etc). Even if you look at this as a merely practical consideration (ignoring the legal or moral questions) it is not unrealistic that they would take the chance on standing their ground.

And I still don't see why this is an issue anyway. History (and the modern world) is full of peoples and nations who resisted the control of or eviction by some militarily superior force. The fact that said force believed that they had a moral or legal right to do so did not mean that they were justified and that the weaker party was wrong for trying to stand their ground. Remember, "might does not make right" - running may be prudent but has nothing to do with who is "the bad guy".

It's an issue because it's used as a way to try and say it was Tolkeen's fault for what happened to them and twist things to try and make it out that the CS was justified in killing every man, woman, and child they could find in and around Tolkeen. Standard fare for those trying to spin things so that the CS isn't the evil it actually is, just like those in RL who try and spin the Nazis as being really the good guys and their victims the Jews and other 'undesirables' deserved what happened to them.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:54 pm**

Shark_Force wrote:but since the whole point of your proposal that they just move to a new planet is that their current environment is hostile, it wouldn't really make a lot of sense to move to a planet that is barely habitable.

Not sure who you're talking to here, but the point of MY proposal was simply that it'd make a lot of sense for the population of Tolkeen (and/or similar cities where magic is common) to have a lot of segments of their population in other dimensions.
My specific example was people living off in another dimension, and commuting to work in Tolkeen, but I think it'd also make sense to put a lot of industry off in some environment where the pollution won't hurt the city, and I'd bet that there's a lot of mining and other resource-gathering that'd be easier in other places.

i mean, they already live on a planet with a hostile environment. that must have been the shortest search ever.

There's "hostile" in the sense of "untold numbers of possible enemies wanting to kill you," and there's "hostile" in the sense of "unpleasant environmentally, but there actively wants to kill you."
The first sense is one that can end (just for instance) with your city being reduced to a smoldering ruin.
The second sense is one that can be pretty much fixed with some environmental sealing, air filters, and a good heating/AC system.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:06 pm**

cosmicfish wrote:
Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Tolkeen had to weigh the potential danger of the CS (probability of invasion, probability of success, cost of success AND failure, etc) vs the potential danger of evacuation (loss of property and wealth, cost of finding new location, potential danger of new home, etc). Even if you look at this as a merely practical consideration (ignoring the legal or moral questions) it is not unrealistic that they would take the chance on standing their ground.

Forget about the CS.
How about the Edict of Planetary Distress?
How is THAT not a motivation for a lot of the population to maybe have at least part of one foot out the proverbial door...?

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:08 pm**

Nightmask wrote:It's an issue because it's used as a way to try and say it was Tolkeen's fault for what happened to them and twist things to try and make it out that the CS was justified in killing every man, woman, and child they could find in and around Tolkeen. Standard fare for those trying to spin things so that the CS isn't the evil it actually is, just like those in RL who try and spin the Nazis as being really the good guys and their victims the Jews and other 'undesirables' deserved what happened to them.

In all fairness here: the CS have more of a reason to do this, the Nazis were not fighting enemies littered with shape-shifting dragons, auto-Gs, changelings, metamorphed mages, illusion spells, etc.

The people in the path had years to get out of the way. It was Tolkeen's use of target-confusion tactics which made them casualties. Like terrorists hiding in a school.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:09 pm**

Tor wrote:Brought up earlier in the thread, Sedition page 101 right column 3rd paragraph, describing the events of 71 PA.

Tolkeen tried to make diplomatic connections with the CS, got their Ambassador back in a body back, somehow 'know the time for talking is gone forever' and from then on met any Coalition military personnel in 'its territory' (being what, all of Minnesota? including human towns who want to join the CS?) with LETHAL force.

No context given as to the ambassador's death, what caused it, whether the CS was even to blame, nothing about them doing an inquiry, etc. For all I know, he offed himself because his wife divorced him, or maybe it was a dragon and it started eating people.

So lets see.....they try to establish diplomatic discussions to defuse the situation. The CS then murders the ambassador, as an official act of policy and continues to send military forces into Tolkeen territory to murder Tolkeen citizens.....and responding with lethal force is some how TOLKEENS fault?
Um no.... The C.S. committed an act of war, and was engaged in acts that amount to open war (declared or undeclared). It would have required patience and compassion on a level usually reserved for Saints to not fight back at that point.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:21 pm**

the amount of morality painting going on though word choice in this thread is approaching circus levels...we might need a ringmaster soon.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:26 pm**

Alrik Vas wrote:the amount of morality painting going on though word choice in this thread is approaching circus levels...we might need a ringmaster soon.

I dunno. I don't think that there is much to quibble about in my post. Deliberate killing of sentient beings that do not pose a personal clear and present danger to the killer is sort of the definition of the word 'Murder'......

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:30 pm**

Tor wrote:Tolkeen tried to make diplomatic connections with the CS, got their Ambassador back in a body back, somehow 'know the time for talking is gone forever' and from then on met any Coalition military personnel in 'its territory' (being what, all of Minnesota? including human towns who want to join the CS?) with LETHAL force.

Well, the previous year had seen the CS rain devastation on Minnesota in retribution for their presumed role in Joseph I's assassination (for which even the CS only ever finds the loosest of connections), and had dispatched their ambassador when the CS moved "new permanent and mobile outposts" into Tolkeen territory. You bemoan their decision to use lethal force on CS troops when they had already seen massive civilian casualties at the hands of those same troops, and even then made said decision only AFTER attempting a diplomatic solution.

What else were they supposed to do?

Tor wrote:No context given as to the ambassador's death, what caused it, whether the CS was even to blame, nothing about them doing an inquiry, etc. For all I know, he offed himself because his wife divorced him, or maybe it was a dragon and it started eating people.

Sure, that makes sense from the context. I mean, you send an ambassador in an attempt to avert war from someone who in the previous year had "obliterated" six of your villages, you "get him back in a body bag", but I'm sure he just ate bad shellfish or something.

It is interesting how you consistently take a particular angle on anything that is not explicitly, painstakingly spelled out otherwise.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:36 pm**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Tolkeen had to weigh the potential danger of the CS (probability of invasion, probability of success, cost of success AND failure, etc) vs the potential danger of evacuation (loss of property and wealth, cost of finding new location, potential danger of new home, etc). Even if you look at this as a merely practical consideration (ignoring the legal or moral questions) it is not unrealistic that they would take the chance on standing their ground.

Forget about the CS.
How about the Edict of Planetary Distress?
How is THAT not a motivation for a lot of the population to maybe have at least part of one foot out the proverbial door...?

The Edict was a call to arms, not an "abandon ship". From the end of the second paragraph:

"All agree that the people of Earth shall suffer greatly, unless we are prepared and crush the invaders before they can gain a foothold in our world."

Saying Tolkeen should have fled the Earth implies that anything other than cowardice is unreasonable.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:42 pm**

Tor wrote:Brought up earlier in the thread, Sedition page 101 right column 3rd paragraph, describing the events of 71 PA.

Tolkeen tried to make diplomatic connections with the CS, got their Ambassador back in a body back, somehow 'know the time for talking is gone forever' and from then on met any Coalition military personnel in 'its territory' (being what, all of Minnesota? including human towns who want to join the CS?) with LETHAL force.

No context given as to the ambassador's death, what caused it, whether the CS was even to blame, nothing about them doing an inquiry, etc. For all I know, he offed himself because his wife divorced him, or maybe it was a dragon and it started eating people.

Yea them killing your diplomat does kind of say that all talking is over. Without any context other than it was the ambassador to the CS makes it sound like the CS was at fault, or at least the tolkeen would think so.

When an ambassador is in your nation you are kind of held to blame for what happens to them. So if a Russian amasador to the US was killed walking into a 7-11 by some one robing the place. The US Russian diplomatic state would get worse even though the US government was not involved.

If two nations are not getting along very well and ones nations diplomat/ambassador dies that does often spell end diplomacy options.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:44 pm**

Tor wrote:In all fairness here: the CS have more of a reason to do this, the Nazis were not fighting enemies littered with shape-shifting dragons, auto-Gs, changelings, metamorphed mages, illusion spells, etc.

The people in the path had years to get out of the way. It was Tolkeen's use of target-confusion tactics which made them casualties. Like terrorists hiding in a school.

Do you really believe that justifies anything? "They knew we were coming to kill them, and some among them were disguised threats, so wholesale slaughter was totally appropriate!" How many of those "terrorists hiding in a school" were "terrorists" before they were attacked in the school?

And doesn't this make CS civilians fair game as well? After all, once they take off their armor, can you really tell a Dead Boy from Joe the Plumber? How many people working in CS schools are current or former members of the military or intelligence services who have (and possibly will in the future) put on armor and take up weapons to kill unarmed civilians? You don't really need to answer, this isn't explicitly discussed in the books so I can guess your reply.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:52 pm**

cosmicfish wrote:
Tor wrote:In all fairness here: the CS have more of a reason to do this, the Nazis were not fighting enemies littered with shape-shifting dragons, auto-Gs, changelings, metamorphed mages, illusion spells, etc.

The people in the path had years to get out of the way. It was Tolkeen's use of target-confusion tactics which made them casualties. Like terrorists hiding in a school.

Do you really believe that justifies anything? "They knew we were coming to kill them, and some among them were disguised threats, so wholesale slaughter was totally appropriate!" How many of those "terrorists hiding in a school" were "terrorists" before they were attacked in the school?

And doesn't this make CS civilians fair game as well? After all, once they take off their armor, can you really tell a Dead Boy from Joe the Plumber? How many people working in CS schools are current or former members of the military or intelligence services who have (and possibly will in the future) put on armor and take up weapons to kill unarmed civilians? You don't really need to answer, this isn't explicitly discussed in the books so I can guess your reply.

I would like to point out the CS also sent infiltration teams into Tolkeen to attack while disguised as civilians. That is how they brought down the Tolkeen defense net for the final siege. So the CS used a similar tactic.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:52 pm**

eliakon wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:the amount of morality painting going on though word choice in this thread is approaching circus levels...we might need a ringmaster soon.

I dunno. I don't think that there is much to quibble about in my post. Deliberate killing of sentient beings that do not pose a personal clear and present danger to the killer is sort of the definition of the word 'Murder'......

A lot on both sides of the argument has been painted to be justified, it isn't any one post in particular.

Tolkeen has, by you're definition done a lot of murdering as well.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:00 pm**

Alrik Vas wrote:
eliakon wrote:
Alrik Vas wrote:the amount of morality painting going on though word choice in this thread is approaching circus levels...we might need a ringmaster soon.

I dunno. I don't think that there is much to quibble about in my post. Deliberate killing of sentient beings that do not pose a personal clear and present danger to the killer is sort of the definition of the word 'Murder'......

A lot on both sides of the argument has been painted to be justified, it isn't any one post in particular.

Tolkeen has, by you're definition done a lot of murdering as well.

I never understood they are using evil so it is ok for us to use evil stance. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I never claim that Tolkeen was a good nation.
I never claimed that there are not part of the CS that are good.
I claimed that the CS nations actions and stance falls in the bad guy territory.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:12 pm**

eliakon wrote:The CS then murders the ambassador

Source?

eliakon wrote:as an official act of policy

Source?

eliakon wrote:continues to send military forces into Tolkeen territory to murder Tolkeen citizens

Source?

All we are told is that the diplomat was returned in a body bag. You seem to be assuming the worst in regards to why. Much like how Tolkeen may have done, with tensions high.

Who is to say that Tolkeen's "territory" was justly boundaried?

What if the CS was creating outposts to guard human towns who wanted to become CS citizens, and who did not want to be counted as part of Tolkeen's territory?

What if the military forces that Tolkeen initially began assaulting were diplomats?

I could see the CS giving military training to diplomats and including them within military infrastructure.

cosmicfish wrote:the previous year had seen the CS rain devastation on Minnesota in retribution for their presumed role in Joseph I's assassination (for which even the CS only ever finds the loosest of connections)

Which happened before Karl was elected chairman. Do you know if this was even an officially designated military maneuver, or the wild actions of deviant Drogue/Chalk type troops as more reasonable men like Lybok attempted to do a less destructive interrogation?

cosmicfish wrote:had dispatched their ambassador when the CS moved "new permanent and mobile outposts" into Tolkeen territory.

Who could blame them? This former-Federation magic outpost was suspected in both the Old Chicago terrorism plot AND the asasssination plot. Not to mention the Xiticix were also coming into Minnesota, and Karl was as worried about them as he was Tolkeen.

cosmicfish wrote:You bemoan their decision to use lethal force on CS troops when they had already seen massive civilian casualties at the hands of those same troops

Yes, because that was like a decade ago and the CS had been peaceful since then.

cosmicfish wrote:made said decision only AFTER attempting a diplomatic solution. What else were they supposed to do?

Continue to talk with the CS and make an inquiry as to the diplomat's cause of death and what led up to it, like any civilized person would. Not just assume the CS had killed them in an act of spurn.

cosmicfish wrote:you send an ambassador in an attempt to avert war from someone who in the previous year had "obliterated" six of your villages, you "get him back in a body bag", but I'm sure he just ate bad shellfish or something.

It's possible, yes.

cosmicfish wrote:It is interesting how you consistently take a particular angle on anything that is not explicitly, painstakingly spelled out otherwise.

I'm not taking an angle at all.

It's certainly possible that Karl was all "Diplomacy? NO I WILL BE EMPEROR!" and cut out the dipomat's throat with a vibro-blade.

A wide range of things could've happened. I'm simply pointing out that since we don't know cause-of-death for the diplomat that it is wrong to jump to assumptions about it being a CS act of hostility.

Blue_Lion wrote:them killing your diplomat does kind of say that all talking is over.

Wrong. Ignoring firstly that we don't actually know if anyone killed the diplomat (or if so, whom), the CS slaying a diplomat would not necessarily mean they are not open to talking.

We do not know who the diplomat was, or how they conducted themself.

If it was a dragon and it ate a servant girl, I think it would be fair to shoot it dead in response.

Blue_Lion wrote:Without any context other than it was the ambassador to the CS makes it sound like the CS was at fault, or at least the tolkeen would think so.

I am open to thinking that most Tolkeenites did honestly think the CS was at fault in some way. These were the more moderate pre-Creed people after all, with the nice-happy king.

Them thinking that doesn't mean they're right though. It could've been a big misunderstanding. One I think Dunscon would've been happy to foster.

Being more familiar with that complexity of magic, Tolkeen owed this a thorough investigation, and there is no evidence of them having attempted that.

Blue_Lion wrote:When an ambassador is in your nation you are kind of held to blame for what happens to them. So if a Russian amasador to the US was killed walking into a 7-11 by some one robing the place. The US Russian diplomatic state would get worse even though the US government was not involved.

Right, but it doesn't mean that Russia would suddenly start killing any US diplomats who attempted to enter their land and discuss the situation with them.

Blue_Lion wrote:If two nations are not getting along very well and ones nations diplomat/ambassador dies that does often spell end diplomacy options.

Only if they are uncivilized. Reasonable people have complex imaginations and can understand that it might be a faultless death.

cosmicfish wrote:Do you really believe that justifies anything? "They knew we were coming to kill them, and some among them were disguised threats, so wholesale slaughter was totally appropriate!" How many of those "terrorists hiding in a school" were "terrorists" before they were attacked in the school?

I don't have clear answers for your questions. The issue at hand is 'collateral damage' and how much is acceptable, which I believe depends on the level of threat present and how many options you have.

cosmicfish wrote:doesn't this make CS civilians fair game as well? After all, once they take off their armor, can you really tell a Dead Boy from Joe the Plumber? How many people working in CS schools are current or former members of the military or intelligence services who have (and possibly will in the future) put on armor and take up weapons to kill unarmed civilians? You don't really need to answer, this isn't explicitly discussed in the books so I can guess your reply.

I do not believe that the CS regularly engages in these 'strike from the populace' tactics on the level that Tolkeenites did, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter, since they are on the defensive and not the aggressors. Tolkeen started it by assaulting CS military in Minnesota.

Blue_Lion wrote:I would like to point out the CS also sent infiltration teams into Tolkeen to attack while disguised as civilians. That is how they brought down the Tolkeen defense net for the final siege. So the CS used a similar tactic.

Kind of irrelevant at that point since Tolkeen had already initiated aggression. CS wouldn't have to do this kind of stuff if Tolkeen played fair and didn't use hell-spawned magic to avoid personal risks.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:15 pm**

Or if they just left and didn't get thousands of people ghosted.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:32 pm**

Wait the CS is on the book sending patrols into other nations territory, and invade Tolkeen but Tolkeen started the aggression? And it is a magic nations fault for using magic to stop an attack from killing its people. But hey if you have a source says all magic including defensive magic is hell spawned please post it.

With the context of the ambassador without anything saying the CS was not responsible the default is that the CS would get blamed. This is further highlighted by it resulting in the stop of all negations showed that Tolkeen blamed the CS. (Think of it this way if a the Bloods sent an ambassador to the Crypts and got him back in a body bag would you not expect a gang war?)

A soldier entering another nations territory without permission is no no, and can be seen as a act of war. From a nations stand point shooting invading soldiers may seam extreme but in a hostile environment like rifts with a nation that has no diplomatic relations with you may be part of national defense. May not be what a good nation would do, but every CS patrol entering Tolkeen after the death of the ambassador can be called a act of war.

So while Tolkeen may have a bit of extreme stance, and not be good guys saying Tolkeen started the hostilities seam a bit of stretch.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:42 pm**

Yeah, basically. Foreign troops show up uninvited, it's time to capture them, interrogate them, then send them back...unless you've something to gain from detaining them.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:51 pm**

cosmicfish wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
cosmicfish wrote:
Tor wrote:How about the standard of being dangerous, but not as dangerous as the CS?

Tolkeen had to weigh the potential danger of the CS (probability of invasion, probability of success, cost of success AND failure, etc) vs the potential danger of evacuation (loss of property and wealth, cost of finding new location, potential danger of new home, etc). Even if you look at this as a merely practical consideration (ignoring the legal or moral questions) it is not unrealistic that they would take the chance on standing their ground.

Forget about the CS.
How about the Edict of Planetary Distress?
How is THAT not a motivation for a lot of the population to maybe have at least part of one foot out the proverbial door...?

The Edict was a call to arms, not an "abandon ship". From the end of the second paragraph:

"All agree that the people of Earth shall suffer greatly, unless we are prepared and crush the invaders before they can gain a foothold in our world."

Saying Tolkeen should have fled the Earth implies that anything other than cowardice is unreasonable.

Good thing I never said that.

Try again.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:55 pm**

Blue_Lion wrote:I never claim that Tolkeen was a good nation.
I never claimed that there are not part of the CS that are good.
I claimed that the CS nations actions and stance falls in the bad guy territory.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:59 pm**

Well, unreasonable isn't a deterrent. I mean...if you were a WW2 fascist leader and knew that this former French emperor was defeated, not by Russians, but by winter...you'd think that fighting Russia during winter would be totally unreasonable.

But people are really stupid, overconfident and think hubris is some kind of ancient Greek health food.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:01 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:There's "hostile" in the sense of "untold numbers of possible enemies wanting to kill you," and there's "hostile" in the sense of "unpleasant environmentally, but there actively wants to kill you."
The first sense is one that can end (just for instance) with your city being reduced to a smoldering ruin.
The second sense is one that can be pretty much fixed with some environmental sealing, air filters, and a good heating/AC system.

sure, until the domes that you're not allowed to leave get a puncture and now you get to breathe mustard gas instead of air. then it's actually quite a bit like what happens when there's a hostile army waiting to kill you.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 3:38 pm**

Some observations I think worth is pointing out, about the 6 villages in Minnesota that were obliterated.

1) these villages were not necessarily part of Tolkeen territory, unless we assume for some reason that they own all of Minnesota

2) Tolkeen's warning was not necessarily about these villages, the 'hostilities' could've been in regard to others in which people were merely interrogated.

3) I know anti-CS people want to assume the 6 villages were full of innocent Principled pre-teen orphans studying to be farmer-veterinarians, but we don't really know anything about them, so they could've been full of Diabolic Soul Harvesters and Xombies for all we know.

Blue_Lion wrote:the CS is on the book sending patrols into other nations territory, and invade Tolkeen but Tolkeen started the aggression?

It actually being their territory is questionable. Sedition 101 KS writes this (70 PA):

the "Kingdom of Tolkeen" issues a warning to chi-Town to suspend its hostilities in "their territory" or face retaliation

The way KS puts both the City of Tolkeen's status as a "Kingdom" and it being their territory both in quotation marks conveys that these are merely claims, statements which the City (occupying the ruins of Minneapolis) has made about having rights to other areas in Minnesota, however that doesn't mean they truly had any.

Blue_Lion wrote:using magic to stop an attack from killing its people

What is the earliest instance you can find of the CS killing a Tolkeen citizen?

Blue_Lion wrote:With the context of the ambassador without anything saying the CS was not responsible the default is that the CS would get blamed.

I am not disputing that factions within tolkeen BLAMED the CS.

I'm just saying there's nothing in the book to indicate they actually were responsible for the killing, or if they were, if they were at fault for any wrong in doing so.

For all I know, Tolkeen sent an Ogre as a diplomat and the Ogre tried to rape a female CS diplomat and she defended herself with a vibro-blade and that's how we got here.

Blue_Lion wrote:This is further highlighted by it resulting in the stop of all negations showed that Tolkeen blamed the CS. (Think of it this way if a the Bloods sent an ambassador to the Crypts and got him back in a body bag would you not expect a gang war?)

The Bloods and Crips are gangs, are we holding a supposed nation to these standards?

Again: it is very clear that Tolkeen ("they") blamed the CS. The issue is whether that blame was reasonably affixed, and I see no indication in the book this was the case.

Blue_Lion wrote:A soldier entering another nations territory without permission is no no, and can be seen as a act of war.

Considering how the its territory in the right column of 101 was preceded in the left column a year earlier by the aforementioned in "their territory" I believe this is reason to call into question whether Tolkeen had rights over the territory in question or whether it was, like immediately previously to this, declaring themselves fiat rulers of all towns in Minnesota.

How do you think the CS returned the Tolkeen Ambassador in a body bag? A neutral party? Odds are, they probably provided a military escort with a CS diplomat along to explain what happened.

Tolkeen, however, was not interested in hearing any explanations, and assaults any CS military personnel, so they would have attacked any such escort before the CS had a chance to explain what happened, even reasonable military escorts for diplomats.

Blue_Lion wrote:From a nations stand point shooting invading soldiers may seam extreme but in a hostile environment like rifts with a nation that has no diplomatic relations with you may be part of national defense.

Except that Tolkeen and the CS do have diplomatic relations. General Cabot pulled troops out of Minnesota in 70 PA and as a result, got appointed intermediate Chairman of the Coalition States for 16 months. The head of the CS for a good while was someone who was walking the opposite direction of war with them.

Tolkeen was in the middle of diplomatic negotiations, they started the process by sending a diplomat, and then did not honor that overture by receiving CS diplomats in return.

Blue_Lion wrote:May not be what a good nation would do, but every CS patrol entering Tolkeen after the death of the ambassador can be called a act of war.

Wrong, returning the corpse of a diplomat or sending your own diplomat would not be an act of war. Both a corpse and a diplomat would require military escorts to traverse the dangerous wilderness existing between Chi-Town and Minneapolis.

Blue_Lion wrote:saying Tolkeen started the hostilities seam a bit of stretch.

They began meeting Coalition military personnel with lethal force, that's starting hostilities to me.

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, basically. Foreign troops show up uninvited, it's time to capture them, interrogate them, then send them back...unless you've something to gain from detaining them.

First off: if you send a diplomat somewhere, you are effectively inviting the hosts on a return trip to escort your diplomat back to you, whether they're dead or alive. Secondly: Tolkeen isn't described as capturing/interrogating/detaining CS troops, they're described as meeting them with lethal force, sounds like shooting to kill.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:21 pm**

Shark_Force wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:There's "hostile" in the sense of "untold numbers of possible enemies wanting to kill you," and there's "hostile" in the sense of "unpleasant environmentally, but there actively wants to kill you."
The first sense is one that can end (just for instance) with your city being reduced to a smoldering ruin.
The second sense is one that can be pretty much fixed with some environmental sealing, air filters, and a good heating/AC system.

sure, until the domes that you're not allowed to leave get a puncture and now you get to breathe mustard gas instead of air. then it's actually quite a bit like what happens when there's a hostile army waiting to kill you.

Guess you're right.
That's probably why nobody on Earth ever uses submarines, and why the International Space Station has such a high death toll.

Also, it's a shame there aren any spells that might let a person breathe without air or conjur environmentally sealed armor or anything.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:28 pm**

Tor wrote:I'm just saying there's nothing in the book to indicate they actually were responsible for the killing, or if they were, if they were at fault for any wrong in doing so.

When an author says the ambassador was sent to the CS and "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation, the implication is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that he was killed by the CS as a message to Tolkeen that there would be no negotiation.

I know you're going to quote this in one of your omnibus posts and say that I can't know that for sure, but, Dude, you're just wrong. People don't write things like "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation unless they specifically want you to jump the the conclusion they have in mind.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 4:47 pm**

flatline wrote:
Tor wrote:I'm just saying there's nothing in the book to indicate they actually were responsible for the killing, or if they were, if they were at fault for any wrong in doing so.

When an author says the ambassador was sent to the CS and "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation, the implication is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that he was killed by the CS as a message to Tolkeen that there would be no negotiation.

I know you're going to quote this in one of your omnibus posts and say that I can't know that for sure, but, Dude, you're just wrong. People don't write things like "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation unless they specifically want you to jump the the conclusion they have in mind.

Agreed.
It's not 100%, but it's close enough to assume as clear fact.
It's what the writers wanted us to think.

Posted: **Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm**

flatline wrote:When an author says the ambassador was sent to the CS and "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation, the implication is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that he was killed by the CS as a message to Tolkeen that there would be no negotiation.

No, the implication is clear that Tolkeen jumps to assuming the worst about the CS, just like you seem to be. Until we're told in some later book the details of the diplomat's death, we have no reason to assume anything.

flatline wrote:People don't write things like "came back in a body bag" with no further explanation unless they specifically want you to jump the the conclusion they have in mind.

Even if KS suspected and wanted us to jump to conclusions, that doesn't mean that he isn't enjoying sending you on a red herring so that he can later embarass you with the facts

I mean heck, if you read Anvil Galaxy, you're all led to believe that the Omegan Order is about to discover the Cosmic Forge and get their cosmic powers back without alignment restrictions. But then Dimensional Outbreak came back.

Authors dropping vague rumors and knowing we'll jump to option A and then it being option B happens all the time.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:40 am**

So wait now you are saying that the terrioty tolkeen claims is not its own but all CS claims are 100% legit?

But based on how you so clearly misconsue what is a clear statement that CS was responcible for the Tolkeens abasadors death, all your statements are in questionable if the book is saying what you say it does.

Tor you provided no evidence that the CS actions where justified, but seam more doing misdirection.

What I find mindboggling is the fact that a nation did not turn tail and run from the CS is used to vilify Tolkeen, then use the fact that they fought back with the tools at there disposal justifies indiscriminate killing of civilians. To me it looks like viewing the setting with rose colored glasses that not giving the CS what they wants makes you automatically wrong and justifies any wrong doing by the CS. That is pure misdirection and blatant bias.

Unless you can provided something that provides that CS wiping out villages was a good act, or that attacking a near by nation to claim its lands based on discrimination is good, this is pointless because you are not proving your point just attacking other peoples point and I am through.

Posted: **Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:17 am**

We're well past the point of arguing to prove a point here. Time to let this one die .

Forums of the Megaverse®

The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy

Re: The Coalition States are not the bad guy