Roleplayer’s Off Topic Thread #14

[The Good Doctor]

4 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

If It were a she that might be kinda hot lol

Like Maven Black-Briar  

Or the Marvel Hella. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

27 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Or the Marvel Hella. 

My boi, Hel yes....

Without her helmet. 60 or not they made that old cooter look guuud

[Witchking of Angmar]

28 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

A parent has to be strict once in a while but that doesn’t make them an abusive parent. The same is true for a leader.

Being strict, even cruel when needed doesn’t make them cruel leaders, and doesn’t show cruelty is more effective than kindness.

And anyway you can put in kind in place of cruelty in your post and the truth is unchanged.

And I do not believe love without fear makes an army fall apart. You can be strict without leading with fear. Love doesn’t mean babying your troops either.

Being strict requires a degree of cruelty. And being strict is also about being feared. If no one feared repercussions of not following an order, what is to stop them from deciding to do so as soon as they feel they shouldn't? Impopular orders are sometimes necessary for the long term benefit of everyone. But without fear there'd be a lot fewer following such orders. 

21 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said:

I'm mean it's simple would you follow a dude who whips you, berates you, and threatens to hurt your and your brothers, or a person who asks you for your name, spends time with you and the other boys, and cares a great deal about your survival? 

King Foltest from the Witcher is another good example. I knew why his men followed him.

That's unnecessary and pointless cruelty. At the end of the day most people follow whoever they think benefits them. A lot of people would follow a mostly cruel leader if they thought it was the best bet to either or both increase their odds of survival and improve their status in life over a nice one they thought would get them killed for something stupid. 

23 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Tywin knew. Which means Tywin was willing to risk jumping into an almost unwinnable war with very low funds to wage it. 

No they weren’t. The Starks wanted to hold Tyrion hostage because they’re not stupid. Lysa turned out to be nuts but even she gave him a trial. Tywin’s desperate action accomplished nothing and was all for posture to show that Lannisters cannot be threatened without consequences. But it ended up being a leading cause of a war that could’ve been a lot worse for him, if not a straight up slaughter had Robert decided to take a side.

I'm pretty sure he was banking on Cersei's marriage to at least get Robert to stay out of it, as alliances through marriages tends to mean something in Westeros. But that's also where his main flaw also appears, he has very little care for the well being and state of his children. 

26 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Tytos Lannister was a buffoon. He ruled like Robert with a bigger heart. We barely even saw Robb rule, just lead a campaign.

And I never said that all good people succeed. They obviously don’t. But Robb didn’t die because of his goodness. He died for a lot of reasons, but most of all because he broke his oaths for marriage with an important ally.

Name one character who hasn’t paid dearly for being cruel. Books or show. This isn’t real life. It is a story with themes and one of GRRM‘s clearest ones is that cruelty and ruthlessness aren’t good traits in a ruler just because they can make his life easier. Even most of the good characters who die get vindicated post-death. The Northmen love the Starks because of Ned. Some of them even refuse to accept any king but a King in the North because of Robb. Nobody loved Tywin or would fight to keep his house alive now that he’s gone. 

Danny for crucifying the masters whether guilty or not, Tormund for slaughtering innocents and Euron for being Euron. Though I'd say Euron is simply too new to have it bite him in the ass yet. 

[The Good Doctor]

6 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I'm pretty sure he was banking on Cersei's marriage to at least get Robert to stay out of it, as alliances through marriages tends to mean something in Westeros.

They do, but a marriage doesn’t mean you can get away with anything. And Tywin was certainly pushing the boundaries of “anything”. And again, Ned’s involvement is a huge extra element pushing Robert against Cersie.

7 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

Danny for crucifying the masters whether guilty or not, Tormund for slaughtering innocents and Euron for being Euron. Though I'd say Euron is simply too new to have it bite him in the ass yet. 

Dany did kill the slavers cruelly, but it can be argued as justice. You’re right though, that she never paid dearly for it. Although it did kick off an entire arc of her learning how not to rule that way. The message remained that it was not the best way to handle the situation.

Tormund was a just a member of Mance’s army, and (show) Mance got burned alive for what they did while Tormund was imprisoned as tens of thousands of his kin got slaughtered. All of the Free Folk got theirs.

We can talk about Euron after the next book or season. But I’m gonna go ahead and throw my lot in the “things won’t end well for him” camp.

[Witchking of Angmar]

7 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

Tormund was a just a member of Mance’s army, and (show) Mance got burned alive for what they did while Tormund was imprisoned as tens of thousands of his kin got slaughtered. All of the Free Folk got theirs.

I'd still say Tormund got away with that action though as no one went ahead and punished him for that specifically. The only thing he was really punished for was being born on the wrong side of the wall and trying to flee from ice zombies. 

Mance payed with his life not for being cruel but for the same reason Jon payed with his life: trying to be good and save the Free Folk from imminent doom. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Witchking of Angmar

[ColonelKillaBee]

I think you’re exaggerating how much fear goes into being strict, it’s certainly not enough to say fear is more effective than love to rule. Hate to agree with Balrog about something Rome related but love is indeed how Caesar got so far and almost wrestled control from the Senate entirely. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

I think you’re confusing fear with respect personally. You think if Baldur made a decision that was unpopular he’d have to strike fear in the hearts of his men to get them to do it?

No, he’d lead the charge and inspire his men to do so. 

Ulfric wouldn’t even have to do that, they love him so much his men would simply follow his orders without question.

[Witchking of Angmar]

3 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

I think you’re exaggerating how much fear goes into being strict, it’s certainly not enough to say fear is more effective than love to rule. Hate to agree with Balrog about something Rome related but love is indeed how Caesar got so far and almost wrestled control from the Senate entirely. 

I think you're exaggerating what I mean by fear. I'm talking of the basic emotion of fear that people have for a lot things. It could be the fear of being scolded by a parent for stealing a cookie or the fear of execution for desertion. Even if minute, fear is fear. 

3 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

I think you’re confusing fear with respect personally. You think if Baldur made a decision that was unpopular he’d have to strike fear in the hearts of his men to get them to do it?

No, he’d lead the charge and inspire his men to do so. 

Ulfric wouldn’t even have to do that, they love him so much his men would simply follow his orders without question.

And if someone were to disobey because they very much didn't like the order? Inspiration only goes so far, especially when it's about something someone disagrees with. Sure, we may want to believe being a good guy and leading by example will always work, but it wont. It works under certain circumstances, and under others it doesn't.

[The Good Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I'd still say Tormund got away with that action though as no one went ahead and punished him for that specifically.

Jon did. He imprisoned him.

13 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

 Mance payed with his life not for being cruel but for the same reason Jon payed with his life: trying to be good and save the Free Folk from imminent doom. 

You don’t think that attacking the Wall has anything to do with his execution? The Free Folk as a whole were despised by the Northmen because of their culture of raiding, which Mance did nothing to curb whole planning to bring them south of the Wall. I agree that he’s not at all cruel, though.

Jon’s death in the show was pretty dumb if you ask me. Thorne opened the gate for crying out loud! In the books Jon was only killed after he rallied the Free Folk to march on Winterfell while still the Lord Commander of the Nights Watch. Because he thought the Boltons has Arya.

[The Good Doctor]

I agree that fear is necessary on a very base level. Fear of punishment, for instance, keeps people with shitty morals from committing crimes in situations where love or loyalty might not. But even good leaders like Ned emit that kind of fear too (literally his first scene is him executing a terrified deserter). They just manifest it through justice instead of cruelty.

And I disagree with the idea that being strict requires a degree of cruelty. There are tons of people who can be strict, but don’t have a cruel bone in their bodies. Again, Ned is a good example of this.

[ColonelKillaBee]

14 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

I think you're exaggerating what I mean by fear. I'm talking of the basic emotion of fear that people have for a lot things. It could be the fear of being scolded by a parent for stealing a cookie or the fear of execution for desertion. Even if minute, fear is fear. 

And if someone were to disobey because they very much didn't like the order? Inspiration only goes so far, especially when it's about something someone disagrees with. Sure, we may want to believe being a good guy and leading by example will always work, but it wont. It works under certain circumstances, and under others it doesn't.

I never said it always works, all I said is that just because people tend to use cruelty more than love doesn’t mean it’s more effective.

Punishing those that disobey is just standard for leading, but the degree of the punishment is where “cruelty” comes in, and if your men love you, you’ll have to punish them far less often vs fear which pretty much relies on your men disobeying you enough to demonstrate what happens if they do.

If I’m exaggerating what you meant by fear it’s only because of your original comment on cruelty over love.

[ColonelKillaBee]

Kinda viking’d

[Witchking of Angmar]

32 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said:

I agree that fear is necessary on a very base level. Fear of punishment, for instance, keeps people with shitty morals from committing crimes in situations where love or loyalty might not. But even good leaders like Ned emit that kind of fear too (literally his first scene is him executing a terrified deserter). They just manifest it through justice instead of cruelty.

And I disagree with the idea that being strict requires a degree of cruelty. There are tons of people who can be strict, but don’t have a cruel bone in their bodies. Again, Ned is a good example of this.

Though executing someone is in essence a cruelty. It could be argued that it is necessary, but it is still a cruelty. A lot people who are at the receiving end of a punishment think they're suffering a cruelty, most people who delivers it think what they're doing is necessary. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Witchking of Angmar

[ColonelKillaBee]

Cutting off a head for treason is only cruel to liberals lol. Could it be argued, sure. 

But to me, cruelty is putting them on a spike vlad style and their whole family as well for bringing said traitor into the world.

Now that’s cruel. The first one is just justice.

[ColonelKillaBee]

Unless of course the “traitor” isn’t really a traitor

[Witchking of Angmar]

4 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Unless of course the “traitor” isn’t really a traitor

And that's kinda where the moral and philosophical problems arise. People who may be viewed as traitors by one side can be viewed as fighters for freedom or justice by another. You're technically living in a country founded by traitors to the British crown. 

[TheCzarsHussar]

21 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

Cutting off a head for treason is only cruel to liberals lol. Could it be argued, sure. 

But to me, cruelty is putting them on a spike vlad style and their whole family as well for bringing said traitor into the world.

Now that’s cruel. The first one is just justice.

When the stake is just right.

[ColonelKillaBee]

5 minutes ago, Witchking of Angmar said:

And that's kinda where the moral and philosophical problems arise. People who may be viewed as traitors by one side can be viewed as fighters for freedom or justice by another. You're technically living in a country founded by traitors to the British crown. 

It’s not that complicated, George Washington’s army consisted of rebels. They’re not gonna have a philosophical debate if he executes a Benedict Arnold.

[Witchking of Angmar]

4 minutes ago, ColonelKillaBee said:

It’s not that complicated, George Washington’s army consisted of rebels. They’re not gonna have a philosophical debate if he executes a Benedict Arnold.

I doubt the British would either for executing rebels. At which point it becomes less of an argument what is cruel but more on who is right. And just about everyone wants to view themselves as the good hero. 

[ColonelKillaBee]

I think we’re moving past the point of the conversation at this point tbh.

[Witchking of Angmar]

So let's talk about something more fun: SCIENCE and Fallout. Or at least Fallout. 

 

[TheCzarsHussar]

@BigBossBalrog Went and bought Rise of the Republic from steam, when it comes out do you want to have a Co-Op or head to head campaign?

@Witchking of Angmar Whenever you're ready we can continue our own campaign now that my pc didn't poop out on me.

[BigBossBalrog]

1 minute ago, TheCzarsHussar said:

@BigBossBalrog Went and bought Rise of the Republic from steam, when it comes out do you want to have a Co-Op or head to head campaign?

@Witchking of Angmar Whenever you're ready we can continue our own campaign now that my pc didn't poop out on me.

I'm waiting for reviews before I grab it. And sure if I do. I'm getting a new Graphics card, so i'll be addicted to Warhammer 2 and coding for awhile though we can play for a couple hours though 

[Witchking of Angmar]

@BigBossBalrog And if you find some spare time 

 

[The Good Doctor]