Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Would this historical guerilla be a viable SR?
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 15 2007, 11:57 PM
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=291
I just read this article about a bloodthirsty Confederate guerilla.
| QUOTE |
Bloody Bill was one of William Clarke Quantrill’s Raiders in the American Civil War. Born in Missouri he was a normal kid for the day, going to school, helping to support the family, being both a brother and a father to his sisters while their true father was out in California panning for gold. Then the War got going, Pro-Unionists killed his father. So Bill became a Confederate guerrilla under Quantrill. Union soldiers were responsible for the death of his sister “Josephine� and his other sister was maimed for life. Bill became a killing machine. He wore a silk rope where he would tie a knot for every Yankee he killed. He also wore scalps around his neck and on his horse bridle. His weapon of choice was the Colt Navy revolver; he wouldn’t get caught with less than 4 on him. He was a walking arsenal. He would become so enraged in battle that he would cry and froth at the mouth! His dead sister’s name “Josephine� was his battle cry, as well as “No Quarter!� |
| QUOTE |
As the train approached the burning depot, Peters disserted his man and tried to escape by jumping from the train and rolling under a platform. Bloody Bill saw him do this and ordered his men to "Pull that bastard out of there!" Peters tried to make a run for it and Bill shot him in the back six times. He had the remaining 26 soldiers lined up. “With the feeling that they were certainly going to be slaughtered, most dropped to their knees sobbing and begging for mercy – a sight that Anderson reveled in. Armed with four Navy Colt pistols in his waistband, a sabre, a hatchet, four rifles and a bag of pistols on his horse, Anderson proceeded to psychologically terrorize his victims by strutting up and down in front of them. Ignoring their pleas for their lives to be spared Anderson stopped, lighted a cigar and then, in a somewhat subdued manner, asked –"Boys, do you have a Sergeant in your ranks?" Met with no response, Anderson repeatedly asked the same question with the inference that co–operation would mean that their lives would be spared. Eventually, Thomas M. Goodman took a pace forward and announced his rank. "Fine, we'll use you to exchange for one of my men that them damned Yankees have caught". The fearsome lunatic Anderson then withdrew two of his pistols and walked down the line of troopers firing until the chambers of both guns were empty then, he repeated this act twice more until he had murdered all the Union men in cold blood single–handed. .� |
So, this guy historically and in reality, was successfully acting in a way which you would expect someone playing a homicidal Fallout game to act, or like Bob from Knights of the Dinner Table to play one of his characters.
It's interesting to me because usually such characters are looked down upon by RPGers as being unrealistic, uninteresting, a stupid concept, and so forth. But how stupid or immature can a character concept like that be if it has a legitimate basis in historical reality?
In Shadowrun, especially, we like to beat our chests and talk about "professionalism." I remember how the first SR GM I had (the killer GM) one got pissed off at my in-character posturing during negotiations with the Johnson and started complaining to me about how my character was acting unprofessional and how nobody would want to hire a loose cannon. There's a lot of discussion on these boards where at least some people claim that you're better off if you use gel rounds instead of slaughtering everyone. I feel like there's something of an unspoken understanding that player characters generally shouldn't line up a column of surrendering security guards and execute them while smoking a cigar using four vintage navy revolvers. If somebody described a character who did that I'll bet everyone would cry munchkin or 12-year-old.
Thing is, though, seeing as this kind of berzerker could be an actual successful guerilla historically, could it be possible that this kind of guy could also be a successful shadowrunner? Would a combination of total ruthlessness and bloodthirstyness necessarily doom a runner to failure?
If somebody made a SR version of "Bloody Bill" Anderson and played him in your game how would you as the GM react to such a character?
Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 16 2007, 12:21 AM
The history would work well for a shadowrunner. Hell, he would obviously be a from the Confederated American States, and his family was attacked in the Aztlan Conflicts. He could have also came up after the expansion of Tir Tairngire into CalFree, and grew up with with conflict in the buffer zone.
As a Shadowrunner, he could certainly work out in game statistics, either as a ruthless marksman adept or as a honor code removed sort of Sammie. He'd probably be ridiculously skilled with pistols (i'm thinking Warhawks), tough as nails and a fair few points into intimidation/interrogation.
The place where it comes down to for me is how "professional" he'd act in a team. And by professional I don't mean whether he loads his warhawks with gel rounds. If he gets into big gunfights when there's a more expedient option, or there's more to lose getting into a big fight, or if the other characters are not combat specced and he draws them into unnecessary conflicts, rather than using their strengths as well.
Basically, it's all how the player decides to play him. A good shadowrunner should be at least slightly versatile, work for the needs of the group (and GM). Also, while I understand the gel rounds argument is silly, both ruthlesness and restraint are useful for a shadowrunner.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 16 2007, 12:35 AM
He got shot twice in the head in an ambush set up by Union Colonel named Samuel P. Cox, who had orders to kill him.
And that is the problem with such a character. It isn't that he was brutal it is that he attracted attention and was quite public about his acts. He even wrote to a newspaper.
It was inevitable that they would send someone after him.
A Shadowrunner doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much. Sending people after him once the run is finished would be pointless and simply cost more money, in most cases. But, if the public outcry is loud enough it will be done. Thus, such a Shadowrunner shouldn't be blatant and shouldn't brag about his exploits to news reporters.
Posted by: Lindt Jan 16 2007, 12:41 AM
I think the term professionalism gets thrown around a lot because Shadowrunning is a business. Perhaps even a profession, and it needs a level of decorum to continue.
Now frankly I miss the old days of the rocker archtype, skintight leather pants and giant pink mohawks, but the 1990s happened and that kinda cleaned it up a bit, made the move from power chords and hair spray to power suits and professional 'resource adjusters'.
Now back to the question at hand. Yes, infact I'm SURE he would make a good shadowrunner, though somewhere on his 'corp. file' it would make a bigass note that he would be a total nutter.
Posted by: SL James Jan 16 2007, 01:59 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jan 15 2007, 05:57 PM) | ||
| http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=291 I just read this article about a bloodthirsty Confederate guerilla.
|
I guess Machiavelli was wrong. Then again, the exception hardly proves the rule.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| It's interesting to me because usually such characters are looked down upon by RPGers as being unrealistic, uninteresting, a stupid concept, and so forth. But how stupid or immature can a character concept like that be if it has a legitimate basis in historical reality? |
Because shadowrunners are professional criminals hired, ostensibly, for their discretion. They are not fighting a fucking war.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| A Shadowrunner doesn't have to worry about this nearly as much. Sending people after him once the run is finished would be pointless and simply cost more money, in most cases. But, if the public outcry is loud enough it will be done. Thus, such a Shadowrunner shouldn't be blatant and shouldn't brag about his exploits to news reporters. |
One name: Kane.
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 16 2007, 02:23 AM
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| The history would work well for a shadowrunner. |
Agreed.
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| As a Shadowrunner, he could certainly work out in game statistics, either as a ruthless marksman adept or as a honor code removed sort of Sammie. He'd probably be ridiculously skilled with pistols (i'm thinking Warhawks), tough as nails and a fair few points into intimidation/interrogation. |
Shooting unarmed men who are pleading for their lives doesn't require a particularly high gun skill.
Overall, I think Bill Anderson works better as a model for a gang leader, which is what he was.
As a runner he has major problems. Mr. Johnson typically doesn't like runners with personal agendas. His writing to the newspapers is not good for long term survival. And it's hard to bring the other hundred guys along on the run without drawing a bit too much attention.
Posted by: Glyph Jan 16 2007, 03:43 AM
Plus, if someone wanted to play a loser like that, I would still think "munchkin or twelve-year old, at least mentally." So there was an actual raving nutcase in history. Big deal. Jeffrey Dahmer was a "historical figure", and I would look down on anyone wanting to play him.
Yeah, I think "professionalism" is over-emphasized, and that it should only be the rule for the upper echelon of established runners, but raving nutters tend to be pursued with more than usual vindictiveness from their targets, if their teammates don't cack the looney first.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2007, 03:52 AM
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| Jeffrey Dahmer was a "historical figure", and I would look down on anyone wanting to play him. |
Really? I mean, it's a sufficiently complex character that it's probably not appropriate for a team-based game just because of the amount of time it'd take, but there's a lot of interesting material in someone who committed their first murder because they "[…] didn't want him to leave".
~J
Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 16 2007, 03:57 AM
So shall we take it literally and would this runner be fightin' fo' his god-given RIGHT to have trogs pickin' de cotton?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2007, 04:02 AM
Add some tension. Make it a Trog fighting for his right to pick de cotton and for his right to make all other Trogs help him pick it.
(Civil war not about slavery, so on and soforth.)
~J
Posted by: Fortune Jan 16 2007, 04:04 AM
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho) |
| So shall we take it literally and would this runner be fightin' fo' his god-given RIGHT to have trogs pickin' de cotton? |
The Civil War was over a lot more than just slavery. In fact, quite a large number of people on either side of the conflict couldn't care less about that issue.
Posted by: WhiskeyMac Jan 16 2007, 04:11 AM
The main problem I see with that character type is that his actions were tolerated because it was wartime. If he was hanging out on the Yucatan Penninsula then I wouldn't have a problem with him in my games. However, if it was a normal city based campaign he would get ritually tracked or hunted down because brutally murdering (which is what he did) defenseless security guards would not endear him to many people. Killing a lot of security guards and corp personnel makes it very hard to not have the corps track you down and crucify you for your crimes.
Kane is around simply because he's a Prime Runner and probably a developer's character or idea. Notice how most people on Jackpoint and Shadowland try not to associate themselves with him because of his behavior. Yeah, he kills people and you're character may be based off a historical person but it still doesn't make it a good concept.
I would applaud you for the historical aspect and such but I would still find you immature and borderline psycho if you decided to bring a character based off of Bloody Billy to my table. Just my personal opinion though.
Posted by: Thane36425 Jan 16 2007, 04:13 AM
A character like this would fit in well in the Yucatan Wars, the Phillipines or any of the other war zones mentioned in Fields of Fire and its sequel. There are some brutal wars going on and there would be sure to be things that would push a man over the edge into madness. Being a warzone rather than just the standard urban jungle, they'd have much more opportunity to do things like that and essentially get away with it.
There were brutal people on both sides of the Civil War and especially in the preceding nastiness in West over free and slave states.
During the 1920's Prohibition Era, there were plenty of ruthless gunmen. Al Capone, Hiemi Weiss and all the others would make fine urban examples too, for gang bosses.
Posted by: Kasheu Jan 16 2007, 04:22 AM
personally i think it would be a neat idea. so what if you want to make a character like that at least you put more thought into it than say someone just playing it for the hell of it. and any GM can find ways to adapt a game around that concept. sure most shadowrunners arent fighting "wars" but say you have a vendetta towards a faction/corp/etc. its not too hard to find a johnson with wetwork missions against that.
also another thing to look at is the whole writing to the newspaper thing you could easily put that in with a flaw and even get the enemy flaw for having written to the newspaper and such.
most importantly though is no matter what you play or how you play it as long as you enjoy it and the gm can work with it without popping a vein then by all means go for it. a good gm can work with damn near anything.
Posted by: SL James Jan 16 2007, 04:38 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| but there's a lot of interesting material in someone who committed their first murder because they "[…] didn't want him to leave". |
Really? Domestic abusers are really not quite that complex or interesting. You're going to have to get a lot more specific than that.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Add some tension. Make it a Trog fighting for his right to pick de cotton and for his right to make all other Trogs help him pick it. |
bwaahahaha
| QUOTE (WhiskeyMac) |
| Kane is around simply because he's a Prime Runner and probably a developer's character or idea. Notice how most people on Jackpoint and Shadowland try not to associate themselves with him because of his behavior. Yeah, he kills people and you're character may be based off a historical person but it still doesn't make it a good concept. |
Kane is around because Chris and Jennifer made him cool in spite of the piss-poor editing to Cyberpirates. But then again, I don't think that too much thought was given to a runner who went out of his way to criticize pirates in that book only to be listed as one in the core shadowtalker list.
| QUOTE (Kasheu) |
| also another thing to look at is the whole writing to the newspaper thing you could easily put that in with a flaw and even get the enemy flaw for having written to the newspaper and such. |
Christ. If you're going to do that, at least have the decency to rip off Pancho Villa.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2007, 04:52 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| Really? Domestic abusers are really not quite that complex or interesting. You're going to have to get a lot more specific than that. |
There's more to Mr. Dahmer, of course, but I'd claim you're wrong even here. There's generally a lot going into how people act, even if it's not obvious.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 16 2007, 05:16 AM
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) |
| Overall, I think Bill Anderson works better as a model for a gang leader, which is what he was. |
Referring to Bill Anderson as a gang leader is like referring to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. It is true in the broadest sense, but terribly inaccurate.
Both were resistance leaders and are best considered to be such.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 16 2007, 05:57 AM
Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 16 2007, 07:04 AM
I'm not sure I'd agree with playing a char as Bloody Bill to be 'immature'. I mean what is it that supposedly makes such a person 'immature'? The fact that he doesnt sit down and civiliy talk things out?
Because, you know, dispite what some people say. Violence has solved a great many more issues in life than simple negociation. Look at divorce cases for example. They drag on for years, they can lead to the financial ruin of an entire family. And there are cases where eventually some one snaps and goes on a murder/suicide binge.
Where as if one partner had simply shot the other and been able to steal all their posessions along with any protesters it would have settled matters. Not at all in an 'acceptable' or 'civil' manner. But it damn well would have settled it. And in no more than an hour if no one protested, to perhaps.. say 2 years if there was vengance sought against the person for their actions.
I knew one divorce case a friend of my parents was in for over 10 years. And it was a pretty typical one too. Granted it didnt result in anyone's death, but you can hardly have called the proceedings even remotely 'mature'. Especially when you had people claiming to be 'emotionally attached' to crap like the kitchen stove, pots and pans and so forth.
If your speaking about it being immature from the point of view of vindictiveness? Well... that might well be true. But that has no real relation to the maturity level of a player. Some times you just want to play something different. And a modern day barbarian is certainly that. It also doenst mean they didnt actually at one point or another consider the implications of their actions.
Afterall the line of thought might well have gone a little something like this. (And even happen in a few seconds)
Ok so I need money, and really bad too.
I need food, I need enough cash for rent for about a month.
I've got no SIN so I can just get a decent job, and I wouldnt know how to do a 'real' job if it bit me on the ass anyway.
Hrmm. I do have a gun, and I know how to use it however.
And here we got Mr. Rich, flouting his certified credsticks... hmmm doesnt look like he's got a gun, or guards either...
BB: Excuse me sir?
Mr.Rich: Ew... get away from me!
BB: Dont suppose you could spare some cred?
Mr.Rich: Egads! Yet another bum from the filth of the street! Absolutely not! Get a job!
BB: Ah well, I tried. *Pulls out a gun*
Mr.Rich: Oh dear.
BB: Gimmie your money or else!
Mr.Rich: Surely we can talk about this! *tries to stall for time as he hits a panic button*
BB: I think not! *BLAM*
BB loots the corpse of Mr.Rich and runs before the Star can show up.
Now, in a scenario like that, maybe eh could have negociated a few yen out of the guy. But by murdering him in cold blood BB gets not only all the cash in cert cred Mr.Rich was carrying on him, but everything else he cared to steal while he was at it too.
He might well have to hide from the cops for a while, and might wind up with some one going after him in vengance. But in the end, especially in a world like SR he's actually quite likely to just be more or less forgotten about in time. So now, instead of having wandered aimlessly begging for jobs/money etc for days, weeks or even months. He instead simply murdered one guy, and wound up with enough money to hold him over for a month or two, possibly more. Meaning he can now actually surive, and afford to shower, shave and mabye get some decent clothes and land a decent job.
While I'd totally agree it's a psychopathic way of going about it. I'd hardly call such a line of thought 'immature'. The situation, and actions were to an extent calculated, and the risk was simply taken. In this istance the risk paid off in a big way. It all depends on the when and where.
If you murder a bunch of sec guards in a secure facility. But there's no recordings and no real evidence to catch you. And we'll assume for now that theres say.. sound proofing so the gunshots arnt heard and such. It's hardly immature to kill them all. Afterall a living guard can point you out down the road. A dead man tells no tales however. If your good enough at hiding, you could probably act like that your whole life, and never really feel any reprocussions what so ever. Your certainly more likely to have people hunting you and out for your blood. And while your also alot more likely to wind up in jail or dead than the guy hitting hte guards with gels, your also in a way, alot less likely to get killed by those same sec guards.
Afterall while in some facilities the guards themselves load gels. How many of them in your games are shooting bakc at you with live rounds? Better them than me I allway say. If the GM is actually having NPCs shooting gels at me on a regular basis i might well return the favour. But I"m not going to let that stop me if I'm feeling abit of a pinch. Afterall other than forcing knockdown tests gels.. just dont cut it against body armor like EX-EX or APDS.
Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 16 2007, 09:30 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
The Civil War was over a lot more than just slavery. In fact, quite a large number of people on either side of the conflict couldn't care less about that issue. |
I'll take your word for it. All I know about the Civil war is pretty limited, as there is a MUCH bigger focus of our own history of racial oppression in Australia, and we only get face value information in some highschool history classes, and some cringeworthy civil war movies.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 16 2007, 10:25 AM
| QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Jan 16 2007, 08:30 PM) |
| ... there is a MUCH bigger focus of our own history of racial oppression in Australia ... |
Too much!
I live in Australia too, by the way.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 16 2007, 11:03 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
Too much! I live in Australia too, by the way. |
Yeah but that can be said of any country.
The US is very biased towards it's own history. Particulairly Civil War. And there's the ever goign debate over who won the war of 1812. Never mind that the US permanently lost territory and never got it back. And far as I know didnt actually gain anything from that one it' soften chalked up as a 'win' by alot of Americans.
On the Canadian side of the border we sorta cover some US history. But most of the focus is on Canadian culture and development.
Go to Germany? Same sorta deal there. Lot of stuff on old German history, some focus on developments elsewhere in Europe.... and just about damn near nothing on other countries.
Norway? Same deal again. Mostly their own country from what I've seen.
Cuba? Probably the same thing. Though I was only 6 going on 7 at the time. So I cant really say. God knows I hardly remember that trip. And most of what I remember of it is the beaches, sandcrabs. And that god damn sea urchin that stabbed me in the foot and hurt like all hell. Yay for poisoned quills.
Go to Africa I'm sure you'll see the same thing. I'd have to ask my parents about that one. But then again... alot of the places they worked in in the 70's still was... well.. I suppose saying it was still half way in the middle ages would sum it up rather well depending on where you are specifically. (Afterall it goes from quite Modern to.. well. Litterally mud and grass huts and hunting spears to this day)
Mmm speaking of Africa that totally reminds me. For you guys I should ask a friend of mine for the link to this one thread in the Operation Flashpoint forums. Basically it's making fun of some of these guys. All sorts of crazy pictures. Like this one guy running full tilt down a street firing an AK-47. The thing is.. he's not just firing it. He's doing so while holding it overhead and sideways.
And there's another picture of this guy running across the street firing an MG full out while another guy is running along side him feeding the belt. Their doing the craziest crap I've ever seen. And none of it makes any sense when it comes to accuracy. Really makes you wonder how those particular people ever manage to kill ANYONE. (Course maybe.. they never did dispite their best efforts)
Posted by: nezumi Jan 16 2007, 02:34 PM
The guy had a vendetta against a particular group, Unionists. Fair enough. If I had a character who said orks killed his parents and now he is extremely, extremely biased against orks, I'd say that's quite fine. He can shoot orks execution style and eat their babies on the basis that orks hurt him. As long as he has a character BEYOND that particular flaw, he'd still be roleplaying.
Posted by: Pendaric Jan 16 2007, 07:53 PM
Sociopaths and psychopaths are a challenge to play. To force your perspective to such radical extremes can be fulfilling. By this I do not mean "bang your dead cos am so bad."
Rather, understanding and playing an abnormal human/metahuman personality through its many layers.
(AT this point may I caution against doing this lightly! Doing this right means looking into the darkest part of the human mind. It can be positive but doing so without everyone consenting to it can just be harsh and not much fun.)
Such people are often not 'professional' for example Mr. Blonde from reservoir Dogs is not professional but still interesting as a character.
Most runners are not going to be shy of violence to some degree but complete nut jobs are going to cause trouble. Most sane runners would worry about running with hannibal lecter because insanity is scary.
Though it may be a realistic character the other PC's might just walk away or even murder them for the good of humanity due to their behaviour.
At the end of the day the style of game the character is in determines its validity.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2007, 07:56 PM
I disagree with your assessment of Mr. Blonde's "unprofessionalism". He was the only one who gave a thought to the future consequences of his actions, and not just their short-term results.
~J
Posted by: Pendaric Jan 16 2007, 08:10 PM
Ok find someone you deem unprofessional and substitute, apply a suitable level of insanity.
Posted by: mfb Jan 16 2007, 08:33 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
the thing is, a lot of the people who play a Bloody Bill character won't be doing it because it's an interesting character with a complex set of psychological balances that they want to explore. they'll be playing it because they're using SR as a substitute for Doom. they just want to run around killing whoever they want, not examine the personality that would do those things. it's not what they're playing, it why--and therefore how--they're playing it.
Posted by: Butterblume Jan 16 2007, 09:43 PM
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| And there's another picture of this guy running across the street firing an MG full out while another guy is running along side him feeding the belt. Their doing the craziest crap I've ever seen. And none of it makes any sense when it comes to accuracy. Really makes you wonder how those particular people ever manage to kill ANYONE. (Course maybe.. they never did dispite their best efforts) |
African ehrm, I'll just call them militia instead of crazed sociopaths, aren't exactly renown for their accurate shooting capability. They like to chop their victims to pieces to kill them.
The description of this historical guerilla isn't the worst one I've read. On Topic, in a gang or merc campaign he might be very viable (like someone mentioned before
).
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 16 2007, 10:04 PM
They are almost certainly not sociopaths, considering how many there are.
~J
Posted by: SL James Jan 17 2007, 01:59 AM
| QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 16 2007, 02:33 PM) | ||
the thing is, a lot of the people who play a Bloody Bill character won't be doing it because it's an interesting character with a complex set of psychological balances that they want to explore. they'll be playing it because they're using SR as a substitute for Doom. they just want to run around killing whoever they want, not examine the personality that would do those things. it's not what they're playing, it why--and therefore how--they're playing it. |
QFT.
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
Proving once again that just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
There's more to Mr. Dahmer, of course, but I'd claim you're wrong even here. There's generally a lot going into how people act, even if it's not obvious. |
I'm... No. There isn't. There are multiple ways in how they became abusers, but the abuse is far from complex. That's what made it so sickening to be around them.
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| Because, you know, dispite what some people say. Violence has solved a great many more issues in life than simple negociation. Look at divorce cases for example. They drag on for years, they can lead to the financial ruin of an entire family. And there are cases where eventually some one snaps and goes on a murder/suicide binge. Where as if one partner had simply shot the other and been able to steal all their posessions along with any protesters it would have settled matters. |
I have a new winner for the "Most idiotic/factually incorrect thing I've ever read on Dumpshock." I swear to fucking God.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 17 2007, 02:53 AM
Well, James, I'm glad that you're here to instruct us in REAL role-playing. Why don't you give us a list of acceptable character types for future reference?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 03:02 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| I'm... No. There isn't. There are multiple ways in how they became abusers |
"It's not, but it is". I think either you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, or I'm expressing myself badly.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 17 2007, 03:39 AM
| QUOTE (SL James @ Jan 16 2007, 08:59 PM) | ||
I have a new winner for the "Most idiotic/factually incorrect thing I've ever read on Dumpshock." I swear to fucking God. |
While poorly worded, it is quite accurate.
While the tit for tat strategy, cooperation enforced by mutual retaliation, is optimal in most cases and forgiveness becomes optimal in cases of retaliation spiral, in which retaliation continues to escalate despite the best intentions of all parties, when faced with someone who acts in a consistently selfish manner despite offers to cooperate the only choice is to endure the abuse at its current levels or initiate an unending retaliation spiral unless one can simply remove the other from play altogether. Assuming that one can do so without inviting even greater retaliation, deadly violence is the best way to deal with an unrepentant enemy.
Posted by: Glyph Jan 17 2007, 04:18 AM
In practice, though, it's usually the unrepentant one who is the first to initiate violence. And then write a book entitled "How I Would Have Done It".
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 04:20 AM
The other party is always the unrepentant one.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 17 2007, 05:00 AM
Quite, which is why retaliation spirals start in the first place. However, we must assume that we ourselves are rational actors and thus must always act in the most rational way.
Thus, the proper sequence is
You:Cooperate
Other: Betray
You: Retaliate
Other: Retaliate
You: Forgive
Other:Reject
You:Destroy
So long as the other continues to cooperate, everything is fine. If the other is cowed by the initial retaliation and becomes cooperative, everything is fine. If the other accepts the forgiveness and cooperates, everything is fine. The issue only comes up if the other chooses to reject attempts at reconciliation.
This, of course, assumes a situation in which each party can destroy the other but the other party chooses not to destroy you because he can gain more by exploiting you.
When power is unequal such that one party can employ far more devastating retaliation than the other can, the stronger party should continue to escalate gradually and the weaker party should capitulate to avoid destruction if capitulation will avoid destruction (it will if the other is a reasonable actor.)
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 05:14 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| the other party chooses not to destroy you because he can gain more by exploiting you. |
Or she
(Reminds me, I owe Mr. Trollman a clarification of the Prisoner's Dilemma over in another thread. I should get to that soon.)
~J
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 17 2007, 05:44 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||||
While poorly worded, it is quite accurate. While the tit for tat strategy, cooperation enforced by mutual retaliation, is optimal in most cases and forgiveness becomes optimal in cases of retaliation spiral, in which retaliation continues to escalate despite the best intentions of all parties, when faced with someone who acts in a consistently selfish manner despite offers to cooperate the only choice is to endure the abuse at its current levels or initiate an unending retaliation spiral unless one can simply remove the other from play altogether. Assuming that one can do so without inviting even greater retaliation, deadly violence is the best way to deal with an unrepentant enemy. |
I'd hardly say what I said was iddiotic, nor factually incorrect. History proves otherwise. Though what I said may well be as hyzmarca said, poorly written as to what I mean.
Violence isnt allways the -best- solution. But there are times when it'll settle matters, faster and potentially with actually -less- bloodshed than negociation. Wars tend to break out over a failure in negociation. Assuming there even was any negociation. Voilence, ultimately is one of the few things that has consistantly ended a war.
Negociation has on occasion yes. But FAR more often. Violence starts it, and violence ends it. Negociation does nothing but drag it out. I mean just look at WW2, which is a galring example.
Nazi Germany invades Poland. Europe effecitvely 'diplomatically chastises' Germany. Germany claims it was only 'defending' itself, and even rigged up events to try to make it look that way.
Hitler wanted, ultimately. More power, and more territory. People were not about to just give it to him, not matter how much he tried to negociate. So he took, really the only viable course availble to him. Violence.
Dont want to give me your land? Fine I'll take it from you by force.
Thats exactly what he did. Other nations of course finally opened their eyes to the reality that he wasnt about to stop and WW2 was officially declared really... a good deal later than it should have because of attempts at diplomacy. Hitler, while actually intelligent, was also in my oppinion quite mad. And you really cant negociate with a guy like that. Especially when he had a proven track record of 'negociating' and then simply turning around and attacking you again anyway.
Violence isnt pretty, it isnt nice. But no matter -what- you think of it. It has and will continue to solve problems for people. If it didnt people wouldnt use it so damn much. Because really thats what war is all about. Taking from others, and doing to others what they will not ever willingly give up or subject themselves to. Their reasons for such, right (most of the time) or wrong, hardly matters at all. What matters is what you want, and the lengths your willing to go to, to get what you want.
Honestly, the only iddiotic belife, is one that violence has never solved anything. There's far too much proof even in this day and age to the contrary. I never said it didnt have reprocussions. But then any action allways has some sort of reprocussion. Good or bad. Negociation simply accepts that you cant allways get what you want. The method of Violence is generally taken by those who will not take no for an answer and to hell with the concequences. And often enough? There unfortunately arnt any direct negative concequences of a violent action. There is more often further down the road, but often not for years. Some times there isnt ever any concequences.
Not good enough for you? Look at all the unsolved murders around the world. Thats all instances where some one took something by violent means. And got away with it. Many of those cases scott free with no reprocusions. That, I'm sorry to say trumps your claims of such things being 'iddiotic' or 'factually incorrect'.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 06:05 AM
| QUOTE |
| Hitler, while actually intelligent, was also in my oppinion quite mad. |
A steady treatment of cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine will do that to you. Hitler had poor judgement in medical advice.
~J
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 17 2007, 06:09 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
A steady treatment of cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine will do that to you. Hitler had poor judgement in medical advice. ~J |
I think it was more than just what meds he was on. They may have unhinged him more than he allready was. But he wasnt exactly 'stable' to begin with. Though.. this is actually the first I've ever heard of him using cocaine and such.
Whats your source on that btw? Anything on the net?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 06:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15825245
That should be a starting point.
~J
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 17 2007, 06:25 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Morell http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15825245 That should be a starting point. ~J |
Ahhh.. trust a crazy man to hire a nutter for his doctor.
Sounds really just more of the same old Hitler. Just him making stuff worse for himself in the end is all. I still cant ever seem to understand what the hell really motivated that guy. It's all so peculiar.
Combine it with the fact that he was intelligent enough and charismatic enough to work himself into the position he did and hold onto it for so long? Course I'm not realy sure I ever want to 'properly understand' some one like him in the first place. He's certainly surrounded with enough... oddities as it is.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 01:39 PM
I'm certainly not going to argue that he was mentally healthy, but I'm not sure we really have evidence for him being, in the '30s (before that vitamin-and-stimulant regimen I mentioned above), much crazier than the average person.
Either way, I suggest you try to dispel your fear of understanding. There are some horrifying realizations in the process of understanding the behaviour of others, especially if one is a strong believer in highly free will, but in general it's unlikely to do anything but make the world a little better if more people are willing to examine why people do what they do, and not dismiss it as being simply "the sort of person they were".
I'm still half-asleep, so that may not have been coherent.
~J
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 18 2007, 12:40 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| (Civil war not about slavery, so on and soforth.) ~J |
Perhaps you should take the issue up with the writers of the Confederate Constitution.
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 18 2007, 12:45 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
Referring to Bill Anderson as a gang leader is like referring to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. It is true in the broadest sense, but terribly inaccurate. Both were resistance leaders and are best considered to be such. |
It's just one of them shot and scalped unarmed civilians and prisoners and the other didn't.
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 18 2007, 12:49 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Just to summarize the tally thus far, out of 17 posts 2 have said that playing the role of Bloody Bill is immature and inherently bad. |
Which doesn't mean the other 15 posters think that playing Bloody Bill is automatically mature or inherently good.
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 18 2007, 12:57 AM
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| If you murder a bunch of sec guards in a secure facility. But there's no recordings and no real evidence to catch you. And we'll assume for now that theres say.. sound proofing so the gunshots arnt heard and such. It's hardly immature to kill them all. Afterall a living guard can point you out down the road. A dead man tells no tales however. |
Most secure facilities are familiar with the concept of cameras.
Posted by: Ed Simons Jan 18 2007, 01:03 AM
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| The guy had a vendetta against a particular group, Unionists. Fair enough. If I had a character who said orks killed his parents and now he is extremely, extremely biased against orks, I'd say that's quite fine. He can shoot orks execution style and eat their babies on the basis that orks hurt him. As long as he has a character BEYOND that particular flaw, he'd still be roleplaying. |
Nicely put.
Though obviously this character won't work in a lot of games
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 18 2007, 02:00 AM
| QUOTE (Ed Simons) |
| Most secure facilities are familiar with the concept of cameras. |
As are most Shadowrunners. If you're identifiably on camera you're fucked anyway, you might as well off the guards to save yourself some immediate trouble.
~J
Posted by: SL James Jan 18 2007, 02:48 AM
| QUOTE (Kesslan @ Jan 16 2007, 11:44 PM) |
| I'd hardly say what I said was iddiotic, nor factually incorrect. History proves otherwise. Though what I said may well be as hyzmarca said, poorly written as to what I mean. |
Personal knowledge of instances such as your dumbass example proves otherwise. So, yeah... That was by far the most stupid goddamn thing I've ever read on DS. It's the same reason as I disagree with Kage, and also why I will never work under those circumstances again. I hate people enough as it is.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 18 2007, 03:09 AM
| QUOTE (SL James @ Jan 17 2007, 09:48 PM) | ||
Personal knowledge of instances such as your dumbass example proves otherwise. So, yeah... That was by far the most stupid goddamn thing I've ever read on DS. It's the same reason as I disagree with Kage, and also why I will never work under those circumstances again. I hate people enough as it is. |
How exactly do they prove him incorrect?
Remember the stipulations of his example.
There are two and only to players.
Both players have a pool of finite resources.
Those resources can be captured and they can be expended but they cannot be replenished once expended.
Both you are your enemy have to power to destroy each other without a significant expenditure of resources.
Cooperation is unlikely or impossible.
There will be no retaliation from higher powers no matter what actions are taken.
In such a situation you have two options, attack the enemy's resources and hope to expended them before your own resources are expended, or attack your enemy directly. Attacking the enemy directly is by far the most efficient choice since greatly reduced the resource loss on both sides. In fact, it so much more reliable than attacking enemy resources that one must assume that the enemy will destroy you at the first given opportunity. In this case, assuming both are rational actors, the person who acts first should always destroy the other. If the person who acts first chooses not to destroy the other then it is exceedingly likely that the person who acts second will destroy the person who acted first.
However, these situations are few and far between. They pretty much never happen in the real world, only in isolated games and thought experiments. In fact, they can only happen in isolation when there are only two individuals involved. When there are three players the person who attacks first always loses because the third player will act in his own best interest and destroy the first. Similar outcomes can be expected for all numbers of players greater than two, but are not guaranteed. (Incidentally, this means that 3 is the ideal number of people for a stable Mexican Standoff as no rational actor will ever attack in three-person Mexican standoff.)
In the real world, murder invites retaliation from authorities who are far more powerful than any individual and there are always others concerned individuals to worry about even if one believes that it is possible to avoid the authorities.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 08:36 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||
Personal knowledge of instances such as your dumbass example proves otherwise. So, yeah... That was by far the most stupid goddamn thing I've ever read on DS. It's the same reason as I disagree with Kage, and also why I will never work under those circumstances again. I hate people enough as it is. |
Really? Funny that. Because my own 'personal experience' has proven what I've said to also be true. And as I've said so has the history of the human race. Not in every case. As I've said repeatedly. And there often are, as hyzmarca said third party influences which can seriously change everything.
But what if it's just as in his example you and one other person? Even with a group working togeather certain things can.... shall we say spiral out of control. Let me give you one real world example I had. No one was actually killed at the time over this but actual phsyical violence WAS a part of it.
A number of years ago I was living on the street. It's not exactly a high point in my life. And I made friends with the type of people... I normally wouldnt. But you either made some friends in the situation I found myself in or well... other less happy things happened.
Now there was one guy we all got to know who went around calling himself 'Romeo'. Seemed think he was all 'suave with the ladies' kinda thing. Flat out crook. He robbed, he stole, had a pretty good head on his shoulders and unlike some of my other 'associates' he didnt desend into a binge of drug use. He however did screw us all over. He litterally over a period of two weeks started stealing money from alot of people. $20 here, $200 there, another $35 over here..
Now consider the fact that were on the street. We have no jobs. No one will GIVE us jobs. Now and then you were able to get something under the table perhaps. But it was allways shit pay less than minmum wage and there was no such thing as enforced safety rules. But it was do it or starve really.
Needless to say he pissed off alot of people. Now through some of the guys I actually was friends with there were 'associates' with which I had friendly relations. Now the problem is, when your on the street and some one steals from you. The cops dont give a shit. Even if you can point out who did it you cant really prove it, and around where I was at the time. They sure as hell wernet even goign to stop and give you the time of the day. The usual resonse was pretty much 'go fuck yourself'.
At the same time he just about bragged to anyone about how he was 'in' with the cops and telling them things etc. Now... some of the folk on the street, particularily those that were regularily stealing things to feed their drug habbits dont like it when people rat them out. Then add insult to injury in the fact that he stole money from a good many of us at the same time.
Now we wanted our money back. Romeo being a scheming, lying weasle wasnt about to give us a cent back if he could avoid it. At the same time he made the very dumb ass mistake of thinking no one would touch him. So what happened? Romeo found himself one day being beaten up by a group of 12 folk who were very pissed off with him. I wasnt personally involved in beating him. As much as I very much wanted to. He is, I think at the time, -extremely- lucky that he wasnt flat otu beaten to death. It happeend in an abandoned, boarded up house, in a pretty much dead zone of town. Cops dont usually go through there, nor do many people walk through the area. THe house to this day is abandoned. So even if he had been killed if his body had been say.. dumped in the rotting basement. He might still not have been found to this day.
End result he wound up with some severe bruises which were convinently explained away by him as having 'tripped down some stairs'. He paid back some money to a number of the more... violent individuals he'd stolenf rom and promptly vanished. Last I'd heard of him some members of the Hell's Angles were after him. Though I dont know if thats true or not. And I sure as hell do not want to know. I'm not the type of person to kill people. But they are. And they have.
Was this the best solution? Ehh.. even now I really dont know. 'Negociating' sure as hell didnt go anywhere. Even after he admitted openly to stealing money. And I still dont know if I'd give him a good solid punch in the face if I ever saw him again. I'm still.... quite angry with him. But again I'm not the type of person to beat people up shy of actual self defence. And especially now the ammount of money invovled is really.. jsut a pittance. I've got a good job these days, and while life for me isnt the best, it's sure a HELL of alot better than living on the street. Meanwhile my 'friend' Romeo probably still is on the street assuming he's still alive somewhere.
For the more 'violent individuals' however they DID get some of their money back. Money they would NOT have seen otherwise. Afterall I never phsycialy threatneed him and.. I never got a cent back out of him. Nor will I ever. Those that took the more violent path.. did however. Of course alot of them have since wound up in jail for assorted crimes. And I've long since lost contact with all of them, mostly because as I've said before it's more 'association' out of need for survival than actually having been friends with too many of em.
Not only that but what direct reprocussions did they suffer from attacking him? None. No one was ever charged, no one was ever arrested. Hell pretty much no one ever will in person openly admit it ever happened. And there were absolutely no witnesses.
Life, alas. Is a brutal place James. The good guys dont allways win like they do in the movies. Some times the brutal guys who kill people and take their stuff do. Not too often, since that third party often steps in to help in some way. And then look at the various stabbings there have been around here over the years. There's still a few case where some one was robbed and stabbed to death. And the people who did it are still out there somewhere. They were never identified, never caught. THey might well have been for -something else-. But not for that particular incident.
So you cannot, I fear, ever convince me that violence wont ever solve a 'problem'. I totally agree that it's not the option one should use. But you cannot ever convince me that in the right circumstances it cannot be wholely and completely effective.
Besides if it wasnt again.. we would have no wars. We would have no troops in the middle east. America would not now have soldiers shooting peole and being shot in Iraq, Canada would not have the same in Afghanistan.
I dont, nor did I ever support the reasons for invading either country. And in the case of Afghansitan, since by violent means we as a country helped distabilize the region even further. I DO stand behind our current continued involvement. We caused the problems through acts of violence. We will continue doing so. But hopefully with the proper application of continued force we can actulaly minimize the potential damage and eventually actualy return the place to some degree of stability for a time.
In either case our (as a country) violent reaction, caused problems. It is then I feel up to us to help solve the problems it caused as a side effect.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 10:00 AM
ANd hell why stop there? Why not give another 'presonal experience' bit? Hell it even does involve real life murder. I can dig up news articles with abit of work to prove it too.
Back when I was still in Highschool. This would have been about.. 96 or so. Grade 9. Woodroffe Highschool. When I frist went there it had a horrible reputation as a 'bad' and 'rough' school. Enough so that people out of province, and hell even folks as far south as New York and further were commenting on 'how bad it was'. Thought hat was purely based uppon what they had heard, rather than the reality. The rumors were inflated, but they were still based on fact.
Crime was, for that school, at an all time high. It was a pretty common sight that year to see students hauled off in handcuffs. Fights were common, the SWAT team was called in 4-5 times that year. With dogs. To break up what basically ammounted to all out gang warfare between both the Somalian and the Chinese gangs. No guns, but plenty of chains, knives, pipes, baseball bats. Right in the school hallways.
Lot of broken windows that year too.
The principle? Pretty much lost it and quit teaching. The replacement was from a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Some bimbo who, while nice, was used to dealing with kids no older than 10. I dont know why the hell she ever thougth she could use the same ideas to handle 14-19 year olds. Much less ones who for a good part had a bad attitude to boot.
Roll round to 97. Stuff is goign downhill even more. The Schoolboard decides enough is enough. In comes their troubleshooter for problematic schools. Mr. Dajenais. Nice guy. Real tough on dicipline. In less than 5 months he turned a flat out violent school (and one that had been such for several years and only getting worse) into one of the best schools I've ever been in. And I've been in quite a few. Infact, when it was finally annouced that he'd be moving on. The school... in sort of typical fassion had a protest. Protests at my school were a common thing. And.. like the school they were violent.
But not this one.
This one was the ONLY protest, that that school had EVER seen in it's entire history since the day it opened back in the 1970's or 60's. I dont quite remember how far back it actually goes but a ways. Totally peaceful. Some folk used it to skip classes. But not a fight, and not an ounce of distruction was shown. And this from a school with the worst (And well earned) rep in the city as a 'bad' school far as dicipline and problems went.
Didnt work of course. There were now other schools at the top of the list, and so off he went to other assignments. And our replacement was a pretty good lady too. She wasnt as tough or strict, but she didnt have to be really. We'd allready as a whole been 'put into line' as it were.
Fast forward to recent times. I"m somewhat ashamed to say I dont even quite remember if it was this summer or last. Mr. Dajenais and his wife, who was a teacher. Had retired. They were at their summer cottage, when two people (20 something old guy and a 17 year old) broke in guns in hand.
They were gunned down in cold blood at point blank range with a shotgun.
These guys were into the life of crime. They'd been robbing places to get money, food etc. This was apparently the first time they'd actually come across anyone durring a breakin. They decided to shoot them to 'see what it was like' supposedly. Thing was ultimately they were faced with a problem. They were breaking in. They were goign to get caught, and I belive it was Ms. Dajenais was allready on the phone to the cops but hadnt had time to get an operator yet.
How to stop her from talkign to the cops? Ask? Hardly goign to happen. Ask them for their stuff? They might not comply. Their answer? Shoot them both death right then and there.
Theres alot of theory about 'what happened' 'what may have happened'. But the end result is the same. They got away with it too. For a time. The main reason they were caught? Becuase they kept at it. They kept breaking into places untill finally enough people had seen them that they were positively identified and hauled in by police. Had they instead gone to ground, they wouldnt have bene found for years. They infact, might not ever have been found. Fortunately that wasnt the case this time. Though I'd hardly say justice has been done. Especially since the older guy was allready at the time a known convicted violent criminal.
I dont consider it the least bit 'morrally right'. But the simple, brutal truth is. Violence does solve problems. Not everyone in such scenarios is brought to justice. There are plenty of deaths out there every year that go 'unaccounted for' or 'unavenged'. And in every case it's some one wanting something. And their solution to getting it is to KILL YOU. And you know what? Sadly since this is real life, life, where you can only die once... it's a brutally valid choice. And done the right way, at the right time. You -can- get away with it scott free and still get what you wanted in the first place.
Holding onto something stationary such as land is abit trickier. But look at Somalia right now and then tell me truthfully people are not killing other people to take some one elses land. To take food and supplies. And you know what? You cant. Because they are. Thats whats happening. They may not hold onto it forever. But they do for a time. If they had enough force, enough influence. They could hold onto it till the day they die. Land and riches bought not with work and negociation. But flat out murder of other people.
You may want to keep calling it a 'dumbass' example. But the sad and all to real fact is. IF it was so dumb. Thousands of peopl wouldnt die to violent acts every year because some one wanted to take something from them by any means necessary. It is a solution. It is not the 'best' solution 99.99 percent of the time. But it still remains one.
Got a bumb on the street harassing folk for money? Kill him. End of problem. He's not bugging people for money. And wont ever again.
But it's not ethicial. It's not 'right'. And it's not the 'ideal' solution. The ideal solution is to give him the help he needs. THe education he needs and the chance to prove he can hold a proper job. So he can make his own money and not have to allways bug folk for pocket change. That way you've now, hopefully, made him into a productive member of society. THAT is the better solution. But think about how much work that involves? Think about how many resources that takes.
For some, in less... 'enlightened' ares of the world. The simpler solution is to just kil him and be done with it. And no one of note will give a damn. Or those that might just wont ever hear about it.
Life is not all fluffy pillows and roses. And it never will be.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 10:04 AM
Also incase folk are getting the wrong impression. While I was never perssonaly 'friends' with Mr. Dajenais. I did know him. Hell I even got in trouble for some stupid crap. Mostly fights in school I was the kid everyone picked on. And had a much worse temper and alot less self control than I do now. That and well.. school policy was no fighting. Didnt matter if it was in self defence or not. Eevn though thats what it almost allways was in my case. Though.. yeah ok I threw a few punches first out of a desire for revenge. I'm not perfect and I'll readily admit it.
I never however, till the day I heard about it really realized however. Not only how much of an impact uppon my life he had. But how much I actually cared.. still do care about him.
I also know myself well enough to say that given the chance. I dont honeslty know if I'd go so far as to kill his killers in revenge. I might.. I might not.. I..
Dont realy know. But it fucking hurts emotionally god damit.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 18 2007, 10:46 PM
| QUOTE (Ed Simons @ Jan 18 2007, 11:45 AM) | ||
It's just one of them shot and scalped unarmed civilians and prisoners and the other didn't. |
True ... I don't recall any stories of Mandela doing any scalping. Otherwise though, don't kid yourself.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 18 2007, 11:08 PM
Whoa-ho! Kesslan wins this thread by knockout in thie third round!
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 18 2007, 11:18 PM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||||
True ... I don't recall any stories of Mandela doing any scalping. Otherwise though, don't kid yourself. |
Umkhonto we Sizwe, the
He was a great man who was fighting the good fight, but don't forget that the good fight often involves reducing young children to bite-sized chunks.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 19 2007, 02:20 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| He was a great man who was fighting the good fight, but don't forget that the good fight often involves reducing young children to bite-sized chunks. |
The 'Good Fight' is typically defined by the winner.
Posted by: cristomeyers Jan 19 2007, 02:37 AM
To pseudo-quote Robert Heinlein:
What about Carthage? Troy? Hell, Hitler? I'd say violence solved those problems rather nicely.
Efficient? Not always. Effective? Often brutally so. That's what war is, controlled application of force to solve an issue. Which ever side of the issue turns out the victor is inevitably the side that is "right"
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 19 2007, 02:39 AM
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
The 'Good Fight' is typically defined by the winner. |
True, but there are some cases that are pretty much objectively definable. South Africa under apartheid was pretty much a caricature of a Lawful-Evil D&D regime. Except for the whole holocaust thing, they made the Third Reich look good by comparison.
Posted by: Fortune Jan 19 2007, 03:22 AM
Fair enough statement, but just because there is Evil™ on one side does not automatically make the opposing side Good™.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 03:34 AM
matter of fact, it often makes the opposing side worse. if one side fights dirty, the other side often has to fight dirtier to win.
Posted by: SL James Jan 19 2007, 04:42 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||||||
Umkhonto we Sizwe, the He was a great man who was fighting the good fight, but don't forget that the good fight often involves reducing young children to bite-sized chunks. |
I imagine many people in Iraq say the same thing about Moqtada al-Sadr.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 19 2007, 04:53 AM
Well, given the choice between being scalped and being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing, I'd rather be scalped.
| QUOTE |
| I imagine many people in Iraq say the same thing about Moqtada al-Sadr. |
And they are correct.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 05:59 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
Well, given the choice between being scalped and being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing, I'd rather be scalped.
And they are correct. |
I wouldnt consider either choice to be a good way to go.
And on the issue of 'resistance' fighters. The thing is ultimately? Almost all of them can be defined as 'terrorists'. The only real difference some times is what the actual goals are. Because both 'resistance' fighters and 'terrorists' will kill even innocent people 'for the greater good'. But Terrorists use terror as their main weapon, or at least try to. They want to inflict fear, because if people fear you that is control. Violence is power, killing is negociation.
'Resistance fighters' are... well a mixed bag. It sounds soooo much nicer to call yourself a 'resistance fighter' than 'terrorist'. Which is why so many actual terrorists call themselves resistance fighters. But not all resistance fighters are inherently bad. They fight for what they belive is right, and I can respect that. That some times some one has to be killed for the 'greater good'. Well.. that really sucks.. and situation to situation I may agree or disagree based uppon what I know of circumstances.
But ultimately to me, 'True Resistance Fighter' doesnt specifically aim at civilian populace. They instead aim at 'the powers that be'. Since obviously in this case 'the powers that be' are the ones that they consider to be corrupt or what ever. In many cases this is true. It doenst mean in the least that the resistance movement is actually any better, or will put in a better system. 'True' resistnace fighters to me, -would- be open to chances of negociation. Though most of the cases it woudl be 'you invaded our country, WE want you to leave'. And they wont accept anythign else as an answer. That is still to me a valid enough reason in a way.
Afterall if the 'offending party' does leave. And the 'resistance' does nothing at that point to agrivate anyone else. Then really that particular matter is settled isnt it?
The problem you have with places like Iraq is that really alot of the Middle East, along with alot of Africa is really still in a barbaric tribal age. They attack to kill 'traitors'. 'traitors' being loosely defined as anyone who in anyway peacefully associates with americans etc. They hate americans, and they will kill you just because you are an American. Or British, or in some cases ultimatley, just becuase your not from Iraq, or the middle east or your nto of their particular religious sect.
For many theres no real other motivation at all. Or their motivations have become twisted and deluded over time. They obviously belive themselves to be right in doing what they do in some way however or they wouldnt be doing it in the first place.
And at least for the Middle East religion is still really the big problem there, or certainly.. one of them. This horribly twisted version of the Koran thats spouted. It's the same thing you have with Christianity, or many other religions though. There's this one book I read about a guy who walked through most of Afghanistan a few years before the war. It's a very interesting book, and I supose I really should tryt o remember ot dig it up and give folk the title of it so they can read for themselves.
But here's one example. Durring his travels he came across this one relatively poor village. In this village was a man who could recite the Koran, word for word flawlessly. Anything he said or did and claimed was justified by the Koran was assumed to be true. He claimed intimate knowledge of the Koran and could arguably prove it because he COULD recite it word for word flawlessly. But when the author dug deeper and asked him. Did he even know what he was saying? The shocking thing is the answer was no.
It's generaly considered an unforgiveable sin for some (to me strange) reason or other to translate the Koran. These people didnt speak Arabic or what ever language it is that is the Koran's mother language. They ddnt even understand a word of it or at most maybe only a few words here and there. So they didnt even -really- know what was being said. They were just told that this ment this.
So you wind up with a situation where lets take the BIble for example. Since i"m sure more of the readers here are familar with that than the Koran. Certainly I am and I'm hardly a religious person. But thats mostly because it's native language is english.
So lets assume for a moment that I could recite anythign and everything word for word out of the bible to you. But you dont understand english. You speak... lets say Italian. So can I in this scenario. So I tell you the bible says its ok to kill people who engage in something called 'idoletry'. I'll even spout a few choice words out of the bible to 'prove' it. But you dont speak english so you just assume i know what i"m talking about. Afterall I can recite it word for word!
But is that what the bible -really- says? ANd then look at all the times the bible has been modified. Completely changed. Even Christain historians studying the bible have agreed that various parts were significantly changed especially around the 13th-17th centuries. I dont think anyone really knows what the very first bible even said. The one taht could be argued to be the 'one true bible'. Afterall as I understand it the true native language of the bible was Aramaic. Well I sure as hell dont speak or read Aramaic. So if some one told me that such and such an Aramaic word ment say.. apple. I've no reason to doubt them. I dont know for myself via experience that yes.. infact that word DOES mean apple.
Posted by: tisoz Jan 19 2007, 07:22 AM
| QUOTE (Kesslan @ Jan 18 2007, 11:59 PM) |
| So you wind up with a situation where lets take the BIble for example. Since i"m sure more of the readers here are familar with that than the Koran. Certainly I am and I'm hardly a religious person. But thats mostly because it's native language is english. So lets assume for a moment that I could recite anythign and everything word for word out of the bible to you. But you dont understand english. You speak... lets say Italian. |
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the bible was originally in Latin. Most English translations can be traced to the King James version/translation. At least I am going to assume the native language was latin as that is the language used to say mass until recent history.
The bible is also one of those documents that it is hard to take as fact. It was passed on orally for 300 years before anyone started to write it down. It is also documents several POV, and omits others, which is why you have The Gospel according to Mathew or according to John or whomever.
[edit] It does not really ruin your point though, because who knows what bias or mistake the original translators had or made. If the king wanted to further the divine right of kings to rule, you can be sure a translation he commissioned is going to have that bias. [/edit]
[further edit] just noticed you posted that the original language was other than English. Sorry.
[/further edit]
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:32 AM
| QUOTE (tisoz) | ||
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the bible was originally in Latin. Most English translations can be traced to the King James version/translation. At least I am going to assume the native language was latin as that is the language used to say mass until recent history. The bible is also one of those documents that it is hard to take as fact. It was passed on orally for 300 years before anyone started to write it down. It is also documents several POV, and omits others, which is why you have The Gospel according to Mathew or according to John or whomever. [edit] It does not really ruin your point though, because who knows what bias or mistake the original translators had or made. If the king wanted to further the divine right of kings to rule, you can be sure a translation he commissioned is going to have that bias. [/edit] [further edit] just noticed you posted that the original language was other than English. Sorry. [/further edit] |
Aye, no worries. The openining wasnt really properly worded. I suppose what i should have said is the language the bible is most commonly found in.
Course that too could be wrong. But I dont -think- it is. English being one of the most widely spread lanaguages of the modern world afterall. You go to Germany people speak english there. Quite well infact. Not everyone can but enough that you can get by just fine without knowing a word of german.
I think Chinese is actually it's main competitor when you look at the ratio of how many people know English and how many people know Chinese. But again.. I could be wrong. I've never actually looked at the hard numbers. All I know is English has some how become, largely through the antics of those crazy English expansionists of ye old yonder days, one of the most pervasive languages about.
French is also pretty common in some areas of the world. Like Africa. Hell infact, in some areas french totaly replaced what ever native language was ever there to begin with.
But yeah. Thats really the thing. Unless you actually know the real true orrigional language of a document in question. ANd can not only speak it but more importantly -read- it. Since we are talking about writtten material in this case. You dont -really- know what some one says do you? I mean look at a translation scenario.
Native: Tell the filthy barbarian that he must appologize immediately or I will cut his head off and kill his filthy whore of a wife.
Translator to 'Visitor': Your words have angered him. He demands immedate appology or he will have you executed along with your wife.
The 'jist' of what is said is still carried over. But it hardly conveyed the true meaning an implication of what was said. And you could allways have the following scenario come up:
Native: Tell him he has made me angry. And that if he does not appologize he will be executed.
Translator: He says your wife is a whore, and that if you do not appologize and give us both one hundred pieces of gold he will have you raped by a donkey untill you are dead.
Posted by: mfb Jan 19 2007, 08:38 AM
Kesslan, man, you've got a rare talent for running spectacularly off-topic.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:52 AM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| Kesslan, man, you've got a rare talent for running spectacularly off-topic. |
Sorry
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 19 2007, 08:57 AM
Well, I think that it goes back to the fact that such a character can be successful in the right circumstances and Nelson Mandela really proves that. Certainly, he never necklaced anyone as he was in prison around the time and I have no evidence that he ordered any necklacings or even endorsed necklacings in general despite the fact that he was in communication with his terrorist followers while in prison; but, it is clear that he planned, ordered, and endorsed acts of brutal violence against civilian targets. He did serve a very long prison sentence for this, but ended up being elected president due to changing political winds. Had Bloody Bill survived and had the Confederacy won, he may very well have become a CSA President at some point.
However, it works best in unstable urban war zones where no one is going to care who butchered whom in the long run. It will attract retribution if people who might care have a chance to sit back and get outraged.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 09:10 AM
Again it really comes down to the 'reasons' some one is playing such a character. But really.. if they want to play that unhinged of a character. Their goign to do it anyway. Their going to blow away that stuffershack boy because they damn well feel like it.
Some one who actually botheres to come up for a real motivation beyond "I felt like it" which.. techncialy -is- a motive is more likely to at least try to RP out certain aspects of the character. If you dont want this sort of behavioru in your games as a GM. Do something about it. Anyone who just randomly starts popping off shots into people will eventually do it one too many times. If it's a one time only thing that makes you go "WTF Why did you DO that man?" and tehir like "Im.. not really sure." well they did it. And they probably wont get caught. But if their doign it all the damn time yo ucan bet that not only would their description, picture etc get around but they'll have a whole lot o fpeople out hunting for them. Corp Sec, SWAT, Police, Angry Mobs with pitchforks etc.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 19 2007, 12:02 PM
| QUOTE (tisoz @ Jan 19 2007, 02:22 AM) |
| Sorry to burst your bubble, but the bible was originally in Latin. |
I think you mean Hebrew and probably Greek (some possibility of Aramaic or Hebrew again). I'm not aware of any portion of the bible that was probably originally Latin.
~J
Posted by: Glyph Jan 20 2007, 03:49 AM
The accuracy of the Bible is not really debated much, especially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is a document that has remained remarkably unchanged over time. The problems with Bible quoters is not that they are lying but that they are prooftexting - taking words out of their original context, and then misinterpreting them. The Bible is probably one of the most misquoted books out there.
The other problem (someone not speaking the language of the Bible, and therefore being at the mercy of anyone claiming something is in the Bible) is not that much of an issue any longer, considering that the Bible has been translated into so many languages. But that wasn't always the case - the Catholic church used to burn people alive as heretics for translating the Bible from Latin, because they didn't want people to be able to read the Bible for themselves.
As far as the original language of the Bible, I think the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the original gospels of what would become the New Testament were written in Greek. Christianity became a world religion under the Roman Empire, though, which is where it became written in Latin.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 20 2007, 04:13 AM
The old testament, as it were, was indeed in Hebrew. As I said, the current leading theory is that the new testament, again as it were, was in Greek. That said, there are theories that at least some parts may have been in Aramaic or Hebrew.
~J
Posted by: tisoz Jan 20 2007, 05:17 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jan 19 2007, 06:02 AM) | ||
I think you mean Hebrew and probably Greek (some possibility of Aramaic or Hebrew again). I'm not aware of any portion of the bible that was probably originally Latin. ~J |
No, I meant Latin. I just happened to be incorrect.
I answered based on Mass being said in Latin for centuries, and figuring Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. I was also only addressing the New Testament.
Upon further research, it looks like the Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew and Greek, and the New Testament in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 20 2007, 06:09 AM
| QUOTE (Glyph) |
| The accuracy of the Bible is not really debated much, especially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is a document that has remained remarkably unchanged over time. The problems with Bible quoters is not that they are lying but that they are prooftexting - taking words out of their original context, and then misinterpreting them. The Bible is probably one of the most misquoted books out there. The other problem (someone not speaking the language of the Bible, and therefore being at the mercy of anyone claiming something is in the Bible) is not that much of an issue any longer, considering that the Bible has been translated into so many languages. But that wasn't always the case - the Catholic church used to burn people alive as heretics for translating the Bible from Latin, because they didn't want people to be able to read the Bible for themselves. As far as the original language of the Bible, I think the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the original gospels of what would become the New Testament were written in Greek. Christianity became a world religion under the Roman Empire, though, which is where it became written in Latin. |
Last I heard the Vatican refused to acknowledge the contents of the Dead Sea scrolls. Also at least from what I've heard, alot of what it -really- says is at odds with quite a few things out of the bibble.
Alot of these books were also written a good while after Christ died from what I understand ontop of that. I've never seriously dug into it myself but there's been a fair bit of old running conterversy over various things thats popped up again and again in recent years.
Utlimately though I was just using the Bible as an example. Since most folk in the Middle East are as I understand it Muslims. In this case it's not the Bible but the Koran that's being 'misquoted'. Just as the bible has, and continues to be in other parts of the world.
I dont know enough about either to come up wtih specific examples, but I do know enough to know that it happens fairly often and has happend often in the past. And again that whole translation thing comes up. Do you actually really know for a fact that say.. that 800 year old bible says the same thing as this latest edition printed in english? That the meanings and connotations are also the same? I sure a hell dont. I cant read latin, and I'd have a hell of a time reading an english bible writting say.. durring the crusades. English was a language back then sure, but it changed a great deal over time.
Just look at the use of the word gay. These days it's almost allways taken to mean homosexual. The irrigional meaning was much like happy. John was gayly (sp?) hoping through the meadow. These days it's written as John was happily hoping through the meadow. Same thign with the term faggot. Now a derogertary term for Homosexuals again. Orrigionally it was a term for a bundle of sticks bound togeather, a form of stichery, a ciggarette, or even a welding term.
Thats 5 different definitions for one english word alone. Now you tell me some one who isnt a native english speaker isnt goign to be abit confused by some statment you make when using that word depending on what interpretation they've been given.
I mean if you use enoguh old english the average english speaker cant even understand what the hell your even saying.
Posted by: Glyph Jan 20 2007, 06:58 AM
Parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Old Testament stories which demonstrate that later versions had remarkably little change. The rest are Jewish religious writings that are of more concern to Jewish scholars - but nothing contradicting the Bible that I know of.
The Gospels ranged from eyewitness testimony to books written not too much later. Their is a pretty solid consensus on that, with the only "controversy" being manufactured by a few crackpots.
I see what you're trying to say about meanings being lost in translation sometimes, but in the case of religious texts, I stand by my belief that it's deliberate deception that's more often to blame. And too often, a religion will get blamed for things done in its name by people who are only using religious demagoguery to hide their true motives.
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 20 2007, 07:24 AM
Well, there were plenty of equally valid gospels that weren't included in the New Testament.
The real problem with translations of religious texts is not literal meaning, but abstract meanings, double-meanings, and wordplay which only works in the native language.
Accurate transliteration is far more important than accurate translation, but some things, such as puns, are pretty much impossible to transliterate.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 20 2007, 07:33 AM
Well and both what Glyph and Hyzmarca say is really true. And on top of it. The whole mess can be combined into one. It can be deliberate manipulation stacked with accidental incorrect translation/transliteration and flat out impossible scenarios.
It's like French and English. There's jsut some stuff that... really doesnt translate at all. There are words and phrases that litterally have no comparable meaning in either language. Also the phrase structure is significantly different. Its why you get these crazy Japanese to English translations that turn into crazes like that 'They set us up the bomb!' and 'All your base are belong to us!' craze that was going around for a while. I think in cases that was becuase they used a very flat out litteral word for word translation. You get that between french and english too, where the order of the words makes no sense when litterally translated word for word in the exact same order.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 20 2007, 04:28 PM
FWIW, neither example you list is an example of what you're talking about. My Japanese isn't that great, but with the help of a translation let me see what I can do here…
Original (credit Wikipedia): kimitachi no kichi wa, subete CATS ga itadaita.
kimitachi no kichi wa: Regarding your base, on the subject of your base
(Word for word: you-plural modified to your-plural by "no", base, topic marker)
subete CATS ga itadaita: The one who has taken it entirely is CATS.
(Word for word: entirely by CATS has been taken)
Which is a little weird word-for-word, but not that dramatically so. No, the issue is not so much the difference in structure, which can be extremely different but sometimes is just difficult to represent in the active voice. It seems to me to be just a simple unfamiliarity with the way English should sound—assuming "base" is a collective noun, "all your base are belong to us" isn't an incorrect thing to say, it's just really weird. Even if you leave the ordering as-is and sub in some situationally-synonymous words like "your entire base belongs to us" or "your entire base has been taken by us", you can get some correct sentences.
I've probably drifted way away from anything important. I blame reduced consciousness levels.
~J
Posted by: Hocus Pocus Jan 22 2007, 05:26 AM
FEH!
i was born and raised in lawrence kansas. The place where quantrils' raiders (SPITS) sacked. Can still paruse the areas and see monuments to that tragic event. But we were on the side of good, and they evil, and so we prevailed. That guy is the bad guy, if you want a good guy that fought gueilla style then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29 is yer man
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 22 2007, 10:11 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| FWIW, neither example you list is an example of what you're talking about. My Japanese isn't that great, but with the help of a translation let me see what I can do here… Original (credit Wikipedia): kimitachi no kichi wa, subete CATS ga itadaita. kimitachi no kichi wa: Regarding your base, on the subject of your base (Word for word: you-plural modified to your-plural by "no", base, topic marker) subete CATS ga itadaita: The one who has taken it entirely is CATS. (Word for word: entirely by CATS has been taken) Which is a little weird word-for-word, but not that dramatically so. No, the issue is not so much the difference in structure, which can be extremely different but sometimes is just difficult to represent in the active voice. It seems to me to be just a simple unfamiliarity with the way English should sound—assuming "base" is a collective noun, "all your base are belong to us" isn't an incorrect thing to say, it's just really weird. Even if you leave the ordering as-is and sub in some situationally-synonymous words like "your entire base belongs to us" or "your entire base has been taken by us", you can get some correct sentences. I've probably drifted way away from anything important. I blame reduced consciousness levels. ~J |
That's pretty cool. What entry was all that under?
Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 22 2007, 03:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Wing_%28translations%29
~J
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 23 2007, 12:09 AM
Thanks! Now, you have no chance to survive make your time! 
Posted by: mfb Jan 23 2007, 01:13 AM
| QUOTE (Hocus Pocus) |
| FEH! i was born and raised in lawrence kansas. The place where quantrils' raiders (SPITS) sacked. Can still paruse the areas and see monuments to that tragic event. But we were on the side of good, and they evil, and so we prevailed. That guy is the bad guy, if you want a good guy that fought gueilla style then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29 is yer man |
so the only thing that separates terrorists from freedom fighters is whether or not they fight on the side of the "good guys"?
Posted by: Ravor Jan 23 2007, 01:19 AM
Yes, and remember that the 'winners' of any conflict are also the ones that get to decide who the good-guys were.
Posted by: mfb Jan 23 2007, 01:26 AM
sure, that's how it works in real life. i'm just wary of anyone whose actual moral judgement works that way.
also, i normally don't criticize spelling online, but... is that pronounced "gay-illa" or what?
Posted by: hyzmarca Jan 23 2007, 01:30 AM
| QUOTE (Ravor @ Jan 22 2007, 08:19 PM) |
| Yes, and remember that the 'winners' of any conflict are also the ones that get to decide who the good-guys were. |
Members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging aren't exactly winners but I'm pretty sure that they see themselves as the good guys in their struggle. The "Good Guys" are whomever you support. Unless, of course, you're an lawful-evil aligned D&D character, in which case you really should be plotting how to best harvest human souls to use in the creation of evil magical items.
Posted by: Kesslan Jan 23 2007, 05:04 AM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Unless, of course, you're an lawful-evil aligned D&D character, in which case you really should be plotting how to best harvest human souls to use in the creation of evil magical items. |
Now now... none of that....
You have to take baby steps you know. First it's figguring out how to exploit your team mates... and offload that uptight Paladin. That or figgure out how to get that surgically implanted stick out of their ass. Turn them into something abit more... usful to the cause.
After that you just convinently sacrifice the odd person 'by accient' of course into making some nifty little items to use. That or you know, if it's one of these things that has to be done 'willingly'. One need only... arrange the proper circumstances where some one woud willingly give up their lives.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)