Book 2 – Page 91

[Oberon]

Parson didn't betray a technologically inferior people that civilized nations would not acknowledge as anything approaching a nation in the "western" sense.

Oh, you say? So, the advantage the 'pliers and the 'hammer provide to GK isn't to be considered anything other than another sword or stabber or Twoll? You wouldn't put owning two arkentools in the same category as having gunpowder weapons and not? Or having horses/mounted units and not?

It's this sort of equivocation which tells me that I'd never provide an example you'd be happy with. You'll always find some reason why the example fails, because one side had a population 10 people shy of the other, so it must just be a big bully taking advantage of some weak and easily exploited neighbor. Well, guess what? In most of the cases where repeated betrayals are successful, it is primarily because the weaker side has little option other than to treat, while the strong side can use that leverage to further their conquests.

Alright, going to sea again for a bit, I'll try to look back on this thread to see if I get an interesting reply or just more snobbery and name calling.

Hypocrite. Calling me a weasel and a snob while also accusing me of calling you names. What name did I call you, pray tell?

[teratorn]

I must side with Oberon on this, history is full of guys killed or captured during parleys, I'm surprised to see people argue otherwise. The most famous is probably Crassus, but there are examples going all the way to Ancient Egypt (Djehuty's taking of Joppa). By the way, killing or capturing envoys from the mongols wasn't a one time thing looked in horror by everyone, Song Chinese and Mamluks did it. Mongols also killed their share of envoys (sack of Baghdad for example) and were prone not to respect negotiations (enemies surrendered to them on the promise of having their lives spared but were then happily slaughtered).

But Earth is Earth and Erf is Erf, and I'm more interested in what plans Charlie might have. If Charlie has an army nearby, a stranded Parson is in big trouble, particularly if Charlie goes first in the morning.

[effataigus]

Thing is... And note that Jack had at least one former Jetstone Warlord at hand to contradict him, yet silence ensued. Bottom line, Gobwin Knob would have been fools to speak to Jetsone, let alone trust a word they said.

Whoops, yes, when I said Maggie's assessment I was miss-remembering... it was Jack's assessment. Thanks for the link! However, I still think Jack's assessment is wrong, and I don't share your assumption that a former Jetstone warlord could hear that conversation. Consider that the carnies and the predictas are strategizing against one another closer to one another than the various people on those dwagons.

As for the 2nd link... Parson's assessement is just as wrong, but what I can't figure out is why he came to that conclusion. With Jack I assumed it was incomplete knowledge, but here it could be that or Parson not grasping the difference between Faq and Jetstone. "We just proved we can't parley with Jetstone." Is he referring to Wanda's failed parley with Faq? Is he referring to Faq's non-acceptance of Ansom's request to parley for a second time? As of when he said that, the only parleys with Jetstone ended normally after one side insulted the other or ended in treachery by Gobwin Knob. I'm forced to assume Parson hasn't heard much about Tram.

However, I can't fault Parson and Jack too much. It's easy for me to argue from the privileged standpoint of knowing they are both wrong from the get go. For all they know, JS might have some Kingworld 2 up their sleeves. However, if they knew of Tram's track record, then it seems like they should have been a little less afraid of being insulted and a little more intrigued by a possible parley.

If Japan told the US that those planes were just there to drop some para-ambassadors on the other hand...

20th century imperial Japan is not a great example of getting away with something.

I'm arguing that that example is two flavors of irrelevant... not Erfworld, and not an example of a time in which someone attacked during parley. As such, I don't feel it matters which side of the squabbling it was intended to, or actually does, support. The end to my if then statement would be "then there would be only one reason why this example is meaningless."

Lamech, I don't know what you tried to say there.

[Infidel]

If the bad response was of the calibre you mention, Japan would never have had any allies after that and their entire economy would have been in ruins, since no one would have bought any of their electronics. 40 years later, the US was one of Japan's biggest importers. Alliance can be reformed after the so-called sanctity of parley has been violated. A side isn't completely ostracized simply because it has broken parley, whether once or several times.

Sigh, I thought this discussion was about people and the consequences the people involved face for the decisions they make, not a whole new government 40 years down the line. The Japan now has little in common with the Japan then. The people were not citizens as a base example, they were subjects. Any way, the point is that the people involved did pay for their actions. In no way was it implied that such a betrayal becomes some kind of original sin that sticks with all later generations and never goes away.

Betrayal may be expected after this, but Parson can use even that to his advantage. On the next parley, he can walk directly through the middle of an entire army, unattended, and not get so much as a scratch, because the enemy is expecting him to have some sort of trick up his sleeve. He's already used a duplicate veil, and has already done a significant amount of damage to an opponent after his turn was forcefully ended. Treachery is afoot, and whatever that fat potato thing is waddling down the parade field is just the distraction.

I disagree. In war, if an enemy unit is suspected to be hiding behind a bush, one destroys the bush with artillery. Expecting betrayal doesn't lead to giving the enemy more space. If anything, if one expects betrayal, the enemy is never allowed to parley at all. Maybe the potato thing is a distraction, but it is already in sights, not good reason to to kill it.

Also, with the Japan reference, the US was totally justified after that attack for any amount of overkill, excessive brutality, excessive violence, or completely uncalled for activity against Japan because of that. That pretty much gives Jetstone free reign to call in Charlie to use every ounce of overkill at his disposal to take down GK and anything associated with them. The rest of the royals will back them up, no matter how deplorable the war acts of Jetstone are.

I'm not seeing how this conflicts with my point.

[Infidel]

Parson didn't betray a technologically inferior people that civilized nations would not acknowledge as anything approaching a nation in the "western" sense.

Oh, you say? So, the advantage the 'pliers and the 'hammer provide to GK isn't to be considered anything other than another sword or stabber or Twoll? You wouldn't put owning two arkentools in the same category as having gunpowder weapons and not? Or having horses/mounted units and not?

That is a valid point. Although, the technological advantage here is not so great that the outcome is assured. I had neglected to consider them for what they are.

It's this sort of equivocation which tells me that I'd never provide an example you'd be happy with. You'll always find some reason why the example fails, because one side had a population 10 people shy of the other, so it must just be a big bully taking advantage of some weak and easily exploited neighbor.

Straw man arguments do not support your point.

Well, guess what? In most of the cases where repeated betrayals are successful, it is primarily because the weaker side has little option other than to treat, while the strong side can use that leverage to further their conquests.

Alright, now Parson was the weaker almost totally vulnerable side both times he parleyed and betrayed. So how is this relevant?

Alright, going to sea again for a bit, I'll try to look back on this thread to see if I get an interesting reply or just more snobbery and name calling.

Hypocrite. Calling me a weasel and a snob while also accusing me of calling you names. What name did I call you, pray tell?[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to the argument not the person. So it is not name calling. The straw man reference above doesn't mean I'm calling you a scarecrow either. And saying I don't read or want to live in my own cozy world, there are words for that, even if you equivocated around them.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But straw man arguments don't count as counter points.

[bladestorm]

If the bad response was of the calibre you mention, Japan would never have had any allies after that and their entire economy would have been in ruins, since no one would have bought any of their electronics. 40 years later, the US was one of Japan's biggest importers. Alliance can be reformed after the so-called sanctity of parley has been violated. A side isn't completely ostracized simply because it has broken parley, whether once or several times.

Sigh, I thought this discussion was about people and the consequences the people involved face for the decisions they make, not a whole new government 40 years down the line. The Japan now has little in common with the Japan then. The people were not citizens as a base example, they were subjects. Any way, the point is that the people involved did pay for their actions. In no way was it implied that such a betrayal becomes some kind of original sin that sticks with all later generations and never goes away.

Betrayal may be expected after this, but Parson can use even that to his advantage. On the next parley, he can walk directly through the middle of an entire army, unattended, and not get so much as a scratch, because the enemy is expecting him to have some sort of trick up his sleeve. He's already used a duplicate veil, and has already done a significant amount of damage to an opponent after his turn was forcefully ended. Treachery is afoot, and whatever that fat potato thing is waddling down the parade field is just the distraction.

I disagree. In war, if an enemy unit is suspected to be hiding behind a bush, one destroys the bush with artillery. Expecting betrayal doesn't lead to giving the enemy more space. If anything, if one expects betrayal, the enemy is never allowed to parley at all. Maybe the potato thing is a distraction, but it is already in sights, not good reason to to kill it.

Also, with the Japan reference, the US was totally justified after that attack for any amount of overkill, excessive brutality, excessive violence, or completely uncalled for activity against Japan because of that. That pretty much gives Jetstone free reign to call in Charlie to use every ounce of overkill at his disposal to take down GK and anything associated with them. The rest of the royals will back them up, no matter how deplorable the war acts of Jetstone are.

I'm not seeing how this conflicts with my point.

Probably because I wasn't trying to conflict with whatever point you thought you were making (and apparently are still trying to hammer away at). I was thinking ahead at the atrocities Jetstone could get away with, especially with an unofficiated alliance with Charlescomm, that could be dubbed as a righteous act when it was around the same amount of excessive violence that GK used. Different sides spin things to their own needs. GK murders 10000 people defending itself and it is dubbed as a heinous act of cheating. Jetstone does the same thing, but it's okay, because they killed a great evil plus 9999 of its vile minions. We might get to see what a full stack of lead Archon can do when it's their turn and they aren't being hired out to another side.

[Infidel]

I must side with Oberon on this, history is full of guys killed or captured during parleys, I'm surprised to see people argue otherwise.

No one is arguing that it does not. The argument is that one does not repeatedly betray successfully; not that betrayals have not happened repeatedly. If someone commits treachery during parlay, then at some point enemies stop accepting parlay.

The most famous is probably Crassus, ...

History is subject to interpretation here, as it is arguable that the sudden motion by the junior officer during a moment of high tension spurred the Partians into action, therefore the Partians might have been only defending themselves. So this would be an example that supports my argument. Still, history was written by the victors and treachery could have been involved. Obviously the Romans believed there was. However, this is not a counter example unless Orodes II's forces continued betraying during parleys. Otherwise it is an isolated incident.

Qutuz had the Mongol emissary killed, and successfully beat back their severely drawn down force after Hulagu left with the bulk of his army, but Qutuz was assassinated for unrelated reasons. Therefore, Qutuz didn't get the chance to betray someone else.

Anyway, I've got some research to do. Reading the life of Orodes II should be interesting.