Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 181 to 199 of 199
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusion View Post
    I feel no sense of moral superiority. Sometimes I feel intellectual superiority to people, but rarely do I feel morally superior. To truly be that way I'd need to be confident that given the same set of circumstances of their lives that I would choose a more moral choice than they did - not just what they say they would do, but the actual choice they made. It is easy to say you wouldn't steal if you were hungry. It is a lot harder not to do it. So until I am as hungry as that person who stole, I won't declare myself as morally superior to them.



    No, it wasn't obvious. Painfully or not. Just because you wrote (and then put in bold) that you feel like you have the right to directly to the attacker whatever you want does not specifically say how you would feel about doing actions to other people, whether you think you're specific about it or not. It is entire absent on the subject. Perhaps you wrote about it in an earlier post and I missed it, I'll admit I didn't read every word you've written on the subject. But just because you specified "to you" does not logically imply how you feel about other situations.



    Okay, so, fine. That's all I was getting at. So you are willing to put a principle above your own life. There is a line that corresponds to actions, and some actions you normally consider immoral you are willing to do to save your life and others you aren't. I expect pretty much everyone to be the same, it is just what our sense of "good" and "evil" is depends on where you are on that line. The soldier that shields the child behind him is "good" and the one who uses the child as a shield is "evil" as our society and D&D defines those terms.

    I am anticipating you agree with me up to this point.

    So the next part is the rest of the equation - does the chances of your immoral act saving your life matter? So sure, you're willing to steal a dollar if you know it saves your life. What if there is only a chance of saving your life?

    Would you hurt a friend if it gave you a 1% chance to improve your battle? .1%?

    Because in the end, that's the moral argument here that other's made which I did not see addressed. Roy's choice of taunts could hurt and negatively impact his friendship with Andi and others aside from the giant, with a low change that it will actually help anything. Given an obvious better choice of asking for help from those friends (coordinating assistance, yelling for Elan, getting a healing potion, etc.), it is a questionably moral act to taunt her in such a manner as been proposed.

    So, that's exactly why I was asking.
    Look, your moral arguments fail to take into account that individual societies have different metrics of mortality. In some societies the death of a child is considered less sad than the death of an adult, or vice-versa. And morals do tend to change.

    And I think that it's weird how this has gone from "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak spot to save your own life wrong?" to "Is it wrong to rape and kill someone to save your own life?" as if there aren't quite a few steps in between the two. Reductio ad Absurdum at it's most ridiculous.
    A little RAW is a dangerous thing...
    drink deep, or taste not of the optimisation spring.
    There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain...
    and drinking deeply sobers us again.

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    And I think that it's weird how this has gone from "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak spot to save your own life wrong?" to "Is it wrong to rape and kill someone to save your own life?" as if there aren't quite a few steps in between the two. Reductio ad Absurdum at it's most ridiculous.
    I was leaning toward a combination of red herring and non sequitur, with a combination of "hey, look over there, Shiny!" but your assessment works.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak point to save your own life wrong?" is a strawman. Try, "Is immediately using sexist insults a logical and/or morally sound response for Roy to the situation he's currently in?"
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mordar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak point to save your own life wrong?" is a strawman. Try, "Is immediately using sexist insults a logical and/or morally sound response for Roy to the situation he's currently in?"
    I find it noteworthy that you include "immediately" in your posed question. I think you have used it more than once in the thread. So,

    Given:
    • I don't believe Roy would think help is immediately forthcoming
    • Roy is acutely aware of the prowess of the Giant
    • I believe Roy believes his life and the lives of the crew are in danger



    How many tactics (and/or which tactics) would it take to be attempted (and presumably fail, because you stop at the first one that works...) to transition the question from the second above to the first?

    Additionally, I think the logic of the utility of insults is, at the very best, flawed. Since the giant has started expressing her opinion on the topic Roy has been getting his clock cleaned. There is a very reasonable expectation that even if she could be made more angry by the topic that would result not in foolish actions but in more forceful clock cleaning. She isn't using a combat methodology that relies on careful calculation or even keeled (hey, a ship term!) assessment of options. It is already "forcefully insert weapon into opponent, repeat as necessary".

    So I think the discussion lives at the moral level, for me.

    - M
    No matter where you go...there you are!

    Togashi Ishi - Betrayal at the White Temple
    Da Monsters of Da Midden - GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Season VI

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Mordar View Post
    It is already "forcefully insert weapon into opponent, repeat as necessary".
    At this point in the corruption of the tactics thread, I am not sure if this is a sexual reference or not. Betting on the "not" but there's been so much baggage ported over from the 1068 thread that I'm losing track.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2017-03-21 at 03:38 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Mido's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruck View Post
    You gather correctly. Here's the full image:

    https://imgur.com/Ti9O63g
    Gaddamit, that's awesome! I actually watched true detective and never pieced that together. Gotta dust off my copy since I couldn't even remember their names until now.

    Fukken Saved!

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Mido View Post
    So, it's all down to what tactical options are available, and stooping down to non-essential tactics that you take umbrage on, is what I gathered. If so, it's definitely understandable. From my assessment though (it's not absolute, just a different assessment):

    1.) coordinating assistance - questionable given the state of the crew post-Andi debacle... granted Roy may not be aware of that yet but I think it would be a factor.
    2.) Yelling for Elan - Still grabbing on for dear life while trying to mend the ship due to some unforeseen turbulence. I'd say it's remotely viable but not really expedient.
    3.) Getting a healing potion - acceptable, but we're not that aware of healing potion locations (on Roy's person, with the crew [though like the first one, they may be pre-occupied], somewhere on the ship maybe, more so using it may give openings to AoO so might be a moot point [getting attacked while chugging the potion down].
    4.) Assistance from the Mechane Crew - barring the Andi-inspired confusion within the ranks, it would be a bit irresponsible to bring them to the forefront of the fight since it's already been shown that they are mostly not enough of a high level to withstand attacks from the opposition.
    Nothing we've seen indicates Roy is aware of anything going on with Andi or that they even turned out of the "lane." He doesn't realize they've gotten away from V/Haley/Belkar, based on the comments we've seen so far.

    I was trying to answer if I had no player knowledge, so just from Roy's perspective. Yelling for Elan is a good idea for Roy, but frankly Elan might not even be on the ship anymore... he could have fallen for all we know. (I don't think he did, just that it is possible.) That said, I think strategically they could stand behind Roy and throw things at the giant, as long as Roy stands between them...

    Coordinating assistance and getting a healing potion can be the same thing. We know they're on board. We know the crew has them, so you'd think somebody could at least *try* to toss Roy one since he's the biggest thing standing between them and certain death at the moment (given Elan's been largely useless in the crew's eyes, anyway.)

    But none of them need to be perfect solutions. They're just alternative solutions that Roy could do instead of using sexist comments in an attempt to taunt her and just die quicker.

    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Look, your moral arguments fail to take into account that individual societies have different metrics of mortality. In some societies the death of a child is considered less sad than the death of an adult, or vice-versa. And morals do tend to change.

    And I think that it's weird how this has gone from "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak spot to save your own life wrong?" to "Is it wrong to rape and kill someone to save your own life?" as if there aren't quite a few steps in between the two. Reductio ad Absurdum at it's most ridiculous.
    I failed to take it into account because I'm accepting mainstream cultures and, more importantly, the ethical basis of the D&D alignment system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak point to save your own life wrong?" is a strawman. Try, "Is immediately using sexist insults a logical and/or morally sound response for Roy to the situation he's currently in?"
    You know, it still feels weird to be on the same side as Kish. But I guess less so that it did at first.

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Mido View Post
    Gaddamit, that's awesome! I actually watched true detective and never pieced that together. Gotta dust off my copy since I couldn't even remember their names until now.

    Fukken Saved!
    Is it not a Rick and Morty reference? Never seen either show.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2017-03-22 at 05:34 AM.
    Cuthalion makes great avatars. Like my Silver Dragon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Murk View Post
    Making a Jurassic Park quote relevant in a discussion about toast is quite the achievement.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    "Is taunting someone with a psychological weak point to save your own life wrong?" is a strawman. Try, "Is immediately using sexist insults a logical and/or morally sound response for Roy to the situation he's currently in?"
    The bolded question is actually two questions because of the "logical and/or morally sound" part in the middle. It can be broken down into two questions:
    -- "Is using sexist taunts a logical response (more likely to save his life) to the situation?"
    -- "If Roy concludes that using sexist taunts is a logical response (more likely to save his life), is it morally sound for him to use them?"

    The second question is pretty close to the question you labelled a strawman. It is not a strawman at all, it is just one of the two elements in the question the way you phrased it.

    For it to be a strawman it would have to misrepresent the opinion of a person arguing the opposite perspective. But there are several people in this thread who have argued that taunting someone to save your own life is wrong. See for example:
    -- Post 104 Kantaki says "And someone who truly believes in their principles would stick to them even then. Admirable if potentially unhealthy." Roy should stick to his morals (not taunt) even then (even if taunting may save his life)
    -- Post 119, in answer to my question about whether a person should stick to their morals in a life and death situation Porthos says "Absolutely"

    So it's not a strawman at all, it just that it only captures that part of the debate that you are less interested in.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2017-03-22 at 02:55 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusion View Post
    Sometimes I feel intellectual superiority to people
    Ah, perhaps that's what I was mistakenly reading as a tone of moral superiority in some of my posts. I apologize for the error.

    Just because you wrote (and then put in bold) that you feel like you have the right to directly to the attacker whatever you want does not specifically say how you would feel about doing actions to other people, whether you think you're specific about it or not. It is entire absent on the subject.
    (emphasis mine)

    Which is one reason I didn't appreciate being asked a question in a manner in which you seemed to believe you already knew my answer.

    Perhaps you wrote about it in an earlier post and I missed it, I'll admit I didn't read every word you've written on the subject.
    Well, considering that most if not all of my posts in this thread (including the one you responded to) have been follow-ups to my initial criticism of Greywolf's post assertion of the moral equivalency of "fighting dirty" against an attacker, and a country making a deliberate effort to kill substantial numbers of innocent people in an effort to kill a potential effort, I was assuming

    But just because you specified "to you" does not logically imply how you feel about other situations.
    In terms of machine logic, that might be true. In terms of human conversation--including many forms of debate that follow formalized rules--when someone makes an obvious effort to emphasize something (for example by raising or stressing their voice, or applying italics or bold), then there is a strong implication that the emphasized detail is important somehow. For example, if somebody states "I never shoplifted anything [raises voice] FROM WALMART," then strictly speaking, he is not admitting to shoplifting. However, most people (well, most speakers of English) would understand that he is denying that he stole from Walmart while--for whatever reason--very conspicuously pointing out that he does not deny shoplifting from other places.

    By specifying to you, I am stressing that my "anything is justified" stance applies specifically to the attacker, while making it clear I would not feel the same about people other than the attacker.

    You make one legitimate point in that it doesn't convey what my specific stance regarding doing things to innocent people is. That said, you immediately asked me whether I would rape and kill an innocent person. While I am sure you--with your intellectual superiority--could conceive of numerous moral systems in which there is some sunshine between "it's okay to rape and kill an innocent person to save your own life" and "it's okay to do absolutely anything you want to an innocent person to save your own life," I think most reasonable people would rate rape and murder high on the list of immoral things, so asking someone if he would rape and murder an innocent is pretty much the same thing as asking if pretty much anything goes to save your own life. And since the one thing I had said in the quoted text on the subject was that I absolutely did not feel that way (that anything action against innocent people is justified), it did raise some questions about your motivation for begging the question.

    So the next part is the rest of the equation - does the chances of your immoral act saving your life matter? So sure, you're willing to steal a dollar if you know it saves your life. What if there is only a chance of saving your life?
    There is only a chance that it saves my life. Very few things are 100%, and generally anyone who looks at a situation and thinks he can make such determinations with 100% accuracy has an highly unjustified sense of his own intellectual superiority.

    The best I can do is weigh the necessity against the harm I cause, while also considering such factors as whether I can adequately redress that harm.

    Would you hurt a friend if it gave you a 1% chance to improve your battle? .1%?
    It depends on what you mean by hurt. If calling a black friend the n-word would increase my chances of winning a battle by 1%, the cost of losing that battle is that the world dies, and choosing to go the racial slur route doesn't foreclose other options that might also help? Yes, I would go full KKK on my friend, and hope he accepts my apology later (which I imagine he would--most of my friends are much better at reading context than present company and would hopefully be minimally offended in the first place because they would realize that my offensive remarks did not reflect my true feelings towards them or their race.)

    Because in the end, that's the moral argument here that other's made which I did not see addressed.
    That's incorrect. People have adequately supported the position that making a sexist remark is at most a minor moral harm that may be justified by the necessity of winning the battle, even if the utility of that sexist remark is uncertain.

    From where I'm standing, the crux of your position is that they shouldn't even be debating the morality of the taunt because you've come up with an obviously better solution, and thus their entire debate is moot. I am predicting you'll agree with me there.

    Roy's choice of taunts could hurt and negatively impact his friendship with Andi and others aside from the giant, with a low change that it will actually help anything. Given an obvious better choice of asking for help from those friends (coordinating assistance, yelling for Elan, getting a healing potion, etc.), it is a questionably moral act to taunt her in such a manner as been proposed.
    And so you agree. And you are right about one thing--once we know that Roy knows that an obviously better choice, then if Roy chooses to make a sexist taunt instead of a less offensive AND tactically superior option, then he's pretty much choosing to make a sexist taunt for its own sake. However, that is assuming that in the heat of battle, Roy has called up all of those options. Many of the people who disagree with you don't share your assumption--I believe a few days ago I read someone explicitly questioning that assumption, but I could be mistaken.

    Just to go back to your hypothetical, if you're a sociopathic jerk trying to kill me, and the only way that I can see to save myself is to break into a shop, I can justify that. If, however, I can also see a safe place to hide in the park, and I somehow have perfect knowledge that both are equally effective hiding places, then I really can't justify picking the option that harms an innocent person over the option that doesn't.

    You're ignoring several important things when you keep trying to force people to reframe the debate on your terms.

    1) Not everyone agrees that Roy sees the park. He's a high int guy with good tactical sense, so there's a good chance he can see the park--however, he's also under a time constraint, and in the past he's proven that he can be distracted when his opponent is loudly hoping he doesn't try to hide in the empty store.

    2) Not everyone necessarily agrees that the park exists. You have repeatedly raised the fact that you came up with an obviously better solution as per the rules. As far as I can tell nobody has continued that line of discussion at all, so they might have concluded that you're clearly right and no legitimate refutation exists, or they just don't care.

    3) People are apparently enjoying their debate. It's fun to argue the morality of it all, fun to make suppositions about context and how that context affects the morality of Roy's potential decisions, and to challenge those suppositions. It's probably even fun to propose that Roy has Gusion's tactical genius, and debate how that option changes the moral balance of things.


    If it makes you feel any better, I think your obviously better solution is a pretty good one, and I would agree that if Roy can see that solution and if he decides to go with a taunt instead, his choice would be both morally and tactically questionable. I can't say Roy would necessarily see the solution, however. Roy's smart and knowledgeable, but he can also be a bit arrogant, a bit caught up in his own preconceptions, and a bit temperamental. If you're trying to kill Roy, he might not see the park or the store to hide in because, as soon as he saw the "stab you in the face" solution, he stopped looking that hard for other options because he's angry at you for trying to kill him while he's busy saving the world and quite happy to go with stabbing.
    Last edited by Xyril; 2017-03-22 at 03:23 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    Just to go back to your hypothetical, if you're a sociopathic jerk trying to kill me, and the only way that I can see to save myself is to break into a shop, I can justify that. If, however, I can also see a safe place to hide in the park, and I somehow have perfect knowledge that both are equally effective hiding places, then I really can't justify picking the option that harms an innocent person over the option that doesn't.

    You're ignoring several important things when you keep trying to force people to reframe the debate on your terms.

    1) Not everyone agrees that Roy sees the park. He's a high int guy with good tactical sense, so there's a good chance he can see the park--however, he's also under a time constraint, and in the past he's proven that he can be distracted when his opponent is loudly hoping he doesn't try to hide in the empty store.

    2) Not everyone necessarily agrees that the park exists. You have repeatedly raised the fact that you came up with an obviously better solution as per the rules. As far as I can tell nobody has continued that line of discussion at all, so they might have concluded that you're clearly right and no legitimate refutation exists, or they just don't care.
    Thing is, you're ignoring that multiple people have pointed out (using your analogy) "the store? That's a dead end and the killer's looking right at it. Why would anyone try to 'hide' there, by preference to practically any other tactic, including 'don't do anything yet while not running into a dead end and hope another option shows up in time'?" and not gotten any answer at all as far as I can tell.

    (Changing back from the analogy, for the sake of clarity: That "frost giant is angry" has thus far been bad for Roy, and there is no reason to think "frost giant is angrier" would suddenly become good for Roy--unless, e.g., Roy was able to persuade her she should be angry at Thrym or at her sexist elders rather than him, which would be antithetical to the "make me a sammich!" taunting proposed. "Even if the utility of that remark is uncertain" seems to hinge on "there is some reason to believe the remark would have positive utility, moreso than suddenly singing about how he represents the Lollipop Guild." That's a case that needs to be made, not just assumed.)
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    Ah, perhaps that's what I was mistakenly reading as a tone of moral superiority in some of my posts.
    Or perhaps you're projecting. Either way, let's both try to avoid the ad hominems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    Which is one reason I didn't appreciate being asked a question in a manner in which you seemed to believe you already knew my answer.
    I'm not entirely sure how to deconstruct that. I seemed to believe something by the manner I asked a question and you didn't appreciate that... so... I'll just apologize? I can tell you it was a genuine moral question that is a variation of the argument on the topic of causing harm in self defense dating back thousands of years. Some people will say yes, they would do that because their moral obligation to their own lives comes first. These people tend to be fans of Nietzsche, but I digress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    I was assuming...

    By specifying to you, I am stressing that my "anything is justified" stance applies specifically to the attacker, while making it clear I would not feel the same about people other than the attacker.
    I don't understand why you're attacking me so much not understanding your assumption and then agree it is legitimate point, but let's just move on since arguing the point is more interesting than arguing about assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    You make one legitimate point in that it doesn't convey what my specific stance regarding doing things to innocent people is. [snip] And since the one thing I had said in the quoted text on the subject was that I absolutely did not feel that way (that anything action against innocent people is justified), it did raise some questions about your motivation for begging the question.
    I haven't the faintest idea how you're using the term "begging the question" in this context. What conclusion did I assume as part of my premise?

    That aside, it appears you felt like you had already answered the question I was asking because of the above assumptions you were making... whereas I was not making those assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    There is only a chance that it saves my life. Very few things are 100%, and generally anyone who looks at a situation and thinks he can make such determinations with 100% accuracy has an highly unjustified sense of his own intellectual superiority.
    Your attempted insult notwithstanding, when dealing with moral questions it is often useful to start with 100% situations to reduce variables. An example would be, "is stealing wrong even if you're 100% sure you will never be caught?" - that's a very common moral question that is used to help discuss moral issues. It isn't meant to be a real life determination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    It depends on what you mean by hurt.
    Yes, it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    If calling a black friend the n-word would increase my chances of winning a battle by 1%, the cost of losing that battle is that the world dies, and choosing to go the racial slur route doesn't foreclose other options that might also help?
    Ah, well, so that introduces another variable - a cost beyond your own life. Which is a matter of perception, of course, as neither Roy nor the readers could know about another set of heroes that could potentially be involved in the plot... that Roy does does and they save the day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    People have adequately supported the position that making a sexist remark is at most a minor moral harm that may be justified by the necessity of winning the battle, even if the utility of that sexist remark is uncertain.
    "adequately" is a judgment call that I'll defer to each individual. But yes, I think everyone understands you feel that way.

    The reality of the situation (That Giant is writing a comic strip that will be read by x number of people, etc.) is more complex than in Roy's situation "in-strip", because the harm equation is more difficult to figure out. But the discussion of the morality for "in strip" has largely focused on the harm to the giant (the attacker) and not to those around them (the crew) who might also be offended... which is why I brought up the entire subject about innocent people...

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    And you are right about one thing--once we know that Roy knows that an obviously better choice, then if Roy chooses to make a sexist taunt instead of a less offensive AND tactically superior option, then he's pretty much choosing to make a sexist taunt for its own sake. However, that is assuming that in the heat of battle, Roy has called up all of those options.
    Well, good, I'm glad we agree. And yes, I am making the argument that Roy has the intelligence and wisdom to think about Elan at least. My prediction for the next strip is that Elan will cast Hold Monster on the giant. Then they will disarm her and tie her up... and in exchange for information on a "hidden way" to their destination, they agree to let her go. All of which will be easier to do if Roy isn't a jerk to her.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyril View Post
    1) Not everyone agrees that Roy sees the park.

    2) Not everyone necessarily agrees that the park exists.

    3) People are apparently enjoying their debate. It's fun to argue the morality of it all, fun to make suppositions about context and how that context affects the morality of Roy's potential decisions, and to challenge those suppositions. It's probably even fun to propose that Roy has Gusion's tactical genius, and debate how that option changes the moral balance of things.
    1 & 2 - "not everyone necessarily agrees" I'm unable to prove a negative. And if I tried hard enough, I'd probably find someone who'd disagree just for the sake of it.

    3. Roy has as much or as little of Rich's tactical genius as Rich wants him to have, which inside of Rich's comic strip potentially exceeds anyone else's here.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Well, I got something out of this thread at least. I propose a unit for measuring the utilitarian output of an action. The Kish: the amount of utility of suddenly singing about how you represent the Lollipop Guild in the face of assault.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Kish View Post
    (Changing back from the analogy, for the sake of clarity: That "frost giant is angry" has thus far been bad for Roy, and there is no reason to think "frost giant is angrier" would suddenly become good for Roy--unless, e.g., Roy was able to persuade her she should be angry at Thrym or at her sexist elders rather than him, which would be antithetical to the "make me a sammich!" taunting proposed. "Even if the utility of that remark is uncertain" seems to hinge on "there is some reason to believe the remark would have positive utility, moreso than suddenly singing about how he represents the Lollipop Guild." That's a case that needs to be made, not just assumed.)
    I think you may be on to something here. Haley was able to deal with Golem-Crystal by convincing her to channel her anger against Bozzok. Might Roy be able to pull something similar?

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruslan View Post
    I think you may be on to something here. Haley was able to deal with Golem-Crystal by convincing her to channel her anger against Bozzok. Might Roy be able to pull something similar?
    :Pops in for just a second:

    That's sounds like .. what? A bluff check? And the stat supporting that is charisma plus feats?

    Mechanically speaking, that sounds like something Haley is built for but Roy isn't. Roy is built to hit things with swords. While he did use diplomacy in the OOTS prequel

    Spoiler
    Show

    Talking a group of orcs into peaceable behavior, rather than simply slaughtering them all


    That was before any actual combat had started. I read their attitude in those panels as starting at 'neutral'. Also, they were simply *there*, somewhere the humans didn't expect them to be; they weren't actively on a mission of any kind or seeking combat.

    By contrast, our Giantess is 1) Hostile and 2) is on an actual mission by her god to stop Roy and company.

    From which follows: This will be her first chance ever to do something for her clan and have all the credit go to her , and not the useless lump of flesh now lying on the deck. This gives her a powerful motivation to succeed in her mission, regardless of what Roy says.

    I would consider these aggravating circumstances. So I think a diplomacy check by Roy at this point is extremely unlikely. Haley might be able to pull it off; I don't think Roy can. His build isn't designed for diplomacy or persuasion.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Opportunities to do good are everywhere but the darkness is where the light needs to be".

    -- Eliezer Yudkowski, author of "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Golem-Crystal did not perceive that listening to Haley and killing Bozzok cost her anything. Nor would continuing to listen to Haley cost her anything. As long as Haley was nearby, Golem-Crystal believed she still had the option of employing violence against Haley if she felt like it, and there were always more gnomes to crush. Golem-Crystal was mistaken about many things, but she had no way of knowing about certain important errors.

    Roy cannot offer a new target for the Giantess. And even delaying has an implicit cost to the Giantess, unless the Mechane were to surrender or something similar. I agree with Pendell that being on a mission from her god and being the sole person who can fulfill the mission for the tribe puts her in a unique win-win situation that she is unlikely to give up.

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Snails View Post
    Golem-Crystal did not perceive that listening to Haley and killing Bozzok cost her anything. Nor would continuing to listen to Haley cost her anything. As long as Haley was nearby, Golem-Crystal believed she still had the option of employing violence against Haley if she felt like it, and there were always more gnomes to crush. Golem-Crystal was mistaken about many things, but she had no way of knowing about certain important errors.
    What Haley does defies the natural order. But even Haley is not going to be able to sweet talk the Giantess to anything other than a combat based resolution to her goals.

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ruck's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Is it not a Rick and Morty reference? Never seen either show.
    It's a Rick and Morty reference, in the art and dialogue style (I think this was actually made by someone on the R&M team), but the characters in this graphic are Rust and Marty from True Detective season 1.

    Rust Cohle + Rick Sanchez = Ruck Cohlchez. (I use this name a couple of other places on the Internet; I just dropped the last name when making a username here.)

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Default Re: 1068: Tactical options

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusion View Post
    Or perhaps you're projecting. Either way, let's both try to avoid the ad hominems?
    I wasn't the only one who read that tone in your prior posts, but perhaps everyone but you is projecting?

    I don't understand why you're attacking me so much not understanding your assumption and then agree it is legitimate point, but let's just move on since arguing the point is more interesting than arguing about assumptions.
    I'm not attacking you on this issue or in the quoted part. I am attempting to explain why I disagreed with your position when you were... well let's call it spending a lot of time explaining to me in very simple language why you felt that--when I emphasized that my view only applied to doing things to the attacker--I was not actually conveying any other information. Since you have maintained that nothing about your style of language should reasonably be taken as judging, insulting, or otherwise offensive, I figured you wouldn't be offended if I followed your lead. I'm a blunt speaker by nature, so it takes me a bit of conscious effort to try not to unintentionally offend relative strangers online. From your previous posts, I took you to also be someone who is also blunt but not easily offended by bluntness in others, but from this response I was clearly mistaken. I apologize for the unintentionally hurt feelings.

    The only intentional attacks were the jabs at your self-proclaimed intellectual superiority. I figured you were either half-joking, in which case you would take my remarks in the same spirit, or you were being completely serious, in which case you would take my jabs more seriously.


    I haven't the faintest idea how you're using the term "begging the question" in this context. What conclusion did I assume as part of my premise?
    ... that I would apparently be okay with raping and killing an innocent person to save my own life. Was this not clear even in my follow up?

    But yes, I think everyone understands you feel that way.
    Just so you know, in context of the rest of the post, this comes off as a bit sarcastic, but I'll just assume it was unintentional and say thank you for speaking on behalf of everyone and letting me know, but with the exception of you, I didn't have any particular reason to think that anybody misunderstood my position.

    Also, I think you and I have different definitions of "adequately." When I say "adequately," I mean that people have articulated reasons in a way that convinces me that they've at least considered their position and have arrived at it in good faith. In other words, that they don't simply believe something unreasonably because they never examined their own beliefs, that they're not somehow moral degenerates, or merely "disagreeing for its own sake." It doesn't necessarily mean that I found their arguments sufficient to convince me to rethink my position.

    The reality of the situation (That Giant is writing a comic strip that will be read by x number of people, etc.) is more complex than in Roy's situation "in-strip", because the harm equation is more difficult to figure out. But the discussion of the morality for "in strip" has largely focused on the harm to the giant (the attacker) and not to those around them (the crew) who might also be offended... which is why I brought up the entire subject about innocent people...

    1 & 2 - "not everyone necessarily agrees" I'm unable to prove a negative. And if I tried hard enough, I'd probably find someone who'd disagree just for the sake of it.
    I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make here. I'm not asking you to prove anything. If you read some of the posts from guys who disagree with you, you'll see that they're not "disagreeing just for the sake of it."

    3. Roy has as much or as little of Rich's tactical genius as Rich wants him to have, which inside of Rich's comic strip potentially exceeds anyone else's here.
    That's not strictly true. If the Giant wants to be a considered a decent writer, he'll try to keep Roy's characterization consistent--or at the very least, changing at a reasonable rate given circumstances. You're right--in terms of pure tactical ability and the ability to apply it under time constraint, you can plausibly argue that Roy exceeds anyone here. However, that's not what's being compared. We are comparing Roy's ability to see all the options and come up with a plan under time constraint to our collective ability to brainstorm ideas, check reference materials, exchange criticism, incorporate each others' ideas, and even forget about the problem for a while in order to get a fresh perspective, all over the course of days.

    I think you're underestimating the importance of the time constraint. It's understandable--talking as a free action is a joke that the Giant has frequently and unsubtly poked fun of in the comic, and in real life, any time you can spend talking is time you can spend thinking and strategizing. I would argue, however, that despite the massive suspension of disbelief this requires, the Giant has gone out of his way to avoid giving his characters unlimited time in combat to think or plan, or even for that matter to substantially change their emotional state. Roy as tactical genius with unlimited time, for example, would probably have spent his monologue time calming himself down in order to see his options as clearly as possible, rather than feeding into his own anger at Xykon. He would have taken note of a few obvious, relevant circumstances--such as Xykon's undead dragon being the only reason Roy's flying. In light of Roy's previously demonstrated intelligence, it's an out of character and stupid mistake if you assume that thinking is a free action, but a much more understandable one if you assume that all the time he spent trading jabs with Xykon couldn't have been spent instead analyzing his circumstances.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •