onlyme wrote:We were told they are willing to not only risk their life but actually willing to end it once the day is there. Because that it what it means to prefer that the whole plan (creating Jilian, mercenary work, find a new site, resettle unter princsess there) would
not have been chosen.
Where were we told that? A plan was described where they removed themselves from any possibility of danger and left everyone to die, then reappeared in another secluded location and continued life as normal. Nowhere do I see them agreeing to end their own lives.
That is not part of any discussion here. Faq (the city) will fall and Banhammer will fall. People will die. That is predicted, nothing can change that. Jilian plans means being sure that it will not be Haffaton that will cause the end and to get lots of funds. That will risk lives, not safe any in the long run.
Sure it is. Fate says the side will fall; but how that manifests is completely up in the air. You could lose just Banhammer and five men there wasn't room for on the gwiffons, or you could lose hundreds because you don't try to evacuate. Or you could take a gamble and potentially lose hardly anyone and be much safer. That gamble requires killing instead of just letting people die, and it could still end in disaster. But that is not the argument presented against it: the argument is simply "I will not take part in killing", without any conditions on what the cost-benefit situation is.
Think about it this way: Orwell is saying that the lives of all units are precious; because of this opinion, he refuses to end life. However, he is quite fine with abandoning the units on his side to death (Jillian thought of a better evac plan in 5 minutes than what was proposed; they didn't try). This would imply that their lives are not, in fact, precious but expendable. Hence, my accusation of hypocrisy.
Erfworlds units have some loyality stat and I think most of Faq's casters have quite a high one, living in a world trying to be perfect and moral and a King valuing them.
I do not see how any action of a ruler deciding something like "You will move to another city to make as much of our ideals survive as possible. The side is most likely to survive if we move only one fighting sqad elsewhere and move the casters through the MK. Many others units will die here together with me sacrifying myself" could reduce that loyality stat enough that someone of them could even thread to refuse.
This is supposedly a deep seated belief of his. Being ordered (or threatened with such an order) to violate a core tenet of his morals should lead to a loyalty check. And if I valued life as highly as he supposedly does, I would be more than a little angry over leaving so many people to die.
Given how long every other discussion in FAQ is, I'd rather guess it was a endless discussion back then. There was a decision, the plan was taken to action. What would "trying to fix the problem" be in your opinion? Asking the king to disband Jilian and stop the whole plan to be able to die with the kind once the inevitable day will come? And given that they already did that back in the discussion, should they bring that up every month anew?
Personally, I would use my mathamancer and predictamancer in tandem to attempt to corner the scroll market in the MK, or at the very least make sure I was producing my scrolls at maximum profit levels. That is assuming they have even gone so far as to start selling scrolls on the MK for upkeep. I would also use those two casters to attempt to direct Jillian to the most efficient Schmucker-deaths contracts. Knowing more about what the other casters could do, we could invent uses for them as well.
Whispri wrote:Won't being wrong here just encourage Fate fighting in the future?
You play the odds; far more often then not, she will be right in this type of situation by saying Haffaton is likely to destroy them (assuming she knows Wanda is responsible for their destruction).