Diplomat's Debate

[BSF]

Round 4

Ceru and Toflaks (or whatever his name is )

Subject: Is it better to strike a potential enemy first, before they can muster their forces to attack you?

(I would encourage you to review your PC's alignment before posting.)

Post your arguments - Mike, I need a copy of your character sheet before you can proceed.

 

[injuredwyvern]

Is it better to strike a potential enemy first, before they can muster their forces to attack you?

This question proves a bit difficult because there are undoubtedly conditional variables to any given situation. In general terms though it seems to me that the phrasing of the question itself provides an answer. Using the word "potential" indicates that the opposing party may not already be an enemy. Attacking preemptively will create a definite enemy. As long as there is a chance for peace, I believe that all must strive to make it so. In such a situation, there are many other possibilities likely to be available, such as fortifing your own defenses (if you truly fear attack), or arranging for diplomatic discussions with your antagonist.
On a more personal note, I feel that I would be more willing to withstand an attack and be certain that I understand who is my enemy and why they feel the need to attack me. I have been in a situation in the past that required me to make such a decision. More specifically, I was forced to choose whether to place myself in a relatively defenseless position, or attack those who may or may not be my enemies. I chose to put myself in a defenseless position and be certain I understood the situation. Alas, I was not alone in my experience, and several of those I traveled with chose the other option - attack first. Knowing what I know now, I am completely confident that I had made the right decision at the time, but the situation played out differently and hence I stand before you now. This experience, as well as countless other experiences are what have led me to believe the position I have just defended. It is NOT better to attack a potential enemy first.

 

[BSF]

Interesting tie in Ceru.

I still don't have Mike's new character sheet. I'll wait until tonight and then see if anybody moved on to the next round of discussions.

 

[Kultar]

Round 4

Ceru and Toflaks (or whatever his name is )

Subject: Is it better to strike a potential enemy first, before they can muster their forces to attack you?

(I would encourage you to review your PC's alignment before posting.)

Post your arguments - Mike, I need a copy of your character sheet before you can proceed.

While the other contestants state their arguments the "odd character" has a pained expression on his face but by the time it is his turn to speak his face has taken on the look of stern resolve.

To attack a potential enemy without certainy of them being so is a two sided affair. While I could say that everyone in this crowd is a potential enemy and slaughter you all, and to some that would be justified, it would not, in my mind, be an action for the greater good of the many. Yet if you were all enraged trolls perhaps it would be seen differently by the same person who said that the previous was vile and evil yet it is good and just in the second. Each situation must be looked at carefully and only then can it be determined if the participants are really the enemy and should be attacked first.
While talking to a potential enemy or ally is well advised the situation does not always permit for such a preferd course of action. If someone bounds into your camp in the middle of the night with weapons drawn how many of you would stop and ask if he be friend or foe. Several of you would probably attack and aks questions later. Others would allow the man the oppertunity to explain while he bounded through your camp. Yet in either case weapons would be drawn and defence would be paramount until his standing could be determined. Would the same hold true for a snarling wolf? Yet if that wolf was just angry and had no intention of attacking would you know that. Would you risk your life that it would not attack. That it would just wander by and never pose a threat. Would you just roll over and go back to sleep without the question of its jaws clamping down on your throat. But at the same time would it be justified if you charged the wolf and slaughtered it. It is a fine line that the individual must walk time and again for each situation that arises. No two cases are the same and past experiences easy alter the outcome. If bandets are previlent in the area and the individual has been attacked before then one is more likely to assume that a stranger will attack...yet if a place is peaceful and well known then perhaps the stranger will not. While it is befitting and proper for a person or group to announce themselves before approaching a camp it is not always done and so judgement must be left to the individual in the hope that they make the best decision possible.