Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8274862" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is, as I've tried to tell you, a bad take.  It's a very stupid position you're putting forward.  You're obviously only ever experienced mall cops and think this is what guards are -- it's almost laughable.  I mean, I've done work in security, have friends still doing work in security, and I work inside security every day I go to work.  I have friends that are modern guards, we call them policemen.  The idea that people will just tolerate lazy guards when their life is dependent on the guard doing their job (like, you know, during history where attacks were common, banditry not unexpected, and militaries needed to not get caught off guard) is stupid,  You keep whinging about this being a strawman, but it's not.  I'm saying that your idea requires stupid people, and no matter how much you think you have a pat explanation for this above, it still does.  It's not a strawman -- it's a requirement for your explanation to be true.  People MUST be stupid, moronically so, if they trust their lives and livelihoods to lazy guards.  The concept of the lazy guard is a much more modern thing -- it actually requires a peaceful and violence free society to be allowable, because then guards are just a small nod to safety and security.  And, even there, most guards aren't lazy because people do not hire and continue to employ people that are generally lazy.  You also obviously have never managed a payroll.  You don't pay people to be lazy.All in all, this entire argument is rooted in required stupidity.  You even make up silly reasons why people would tolerate it, as in you can't hire non-lazy people for guards.  I mean, why?  Guarding was a dangerous job, so it usually paid well.  It required skills, like the ability to effectively do violence.  That also tends to pay decently.  Guards were not a low wage position, so you're not just picking up the dregs.  Why you think this would be so is beyond me - again, I smell the taint of mall cop-itis.  And, as for the history of heists, I have no idea what you've imagined up for this.  Do you mean Hollywood?  Sure, that's a trope.  It's not historical, and it's certainly not something endemic to the lessers of pre-Industrial Revolution times.You're totally clueless about what guards did and that they were decently paid position.  The logic here is very strange, but only on your part.You're really bad at this, you should stop calling Strawman.  You're requiring people to be stupid to hire and maintain lazy guards -- this isn't a strawman, it's a requirement.  Second, I'm not dismissing your argument on this basis -- I've provided direct refutations of your points.  Third, it's you that keeps engaging strawmen, like your opening sentence of this very post where you assume my position that no lazy guards every existed -- a clear strawman and painfully untrue.  Of course some guards were lazy, but it was less common that in general and certainly not the the point you've made -- that you can assume guards are lazy if they're from pre-1700, then 1300-1600, and then only in Europe.Oh, goodness, you've quoted Wikipedia about an informal logical fallacy.  You must be in the right, then.Facts are in evidence, you just want homework done to your satisfaction.  A number of examples have already been provided, and you've dismissed them for ridiculous reasons.  Why should I invest in providing more when you'll just dismiss them as well.  You're clearly not aware of the source material yourself, but that hasn't stopped you from claiming that they don't work how people that have played/run them say they do.  And here's the rub -- you've taken some definition of catastrophe and are running with it such that an example must meet with absolute ruin for it to pass muster.  The fact that a single failed stealth check in the Fire Giant's Lair results in the alarm being sounded and the entire keep alerted isn't a catastrophe, I guess.  And, yes, that's what the module says -- if the party is spotted, the alarm is sounded as quickly as possible.Here's the quote from the Yakfolk village at the top:Well, I guess you're right, that's not too bad, yeah?Heh, strong words from the poster that's stated, but provided absolutely not evidence other than their strange conjecture, that guards are lazy prior to 1700 in Europe.</blockquote>

Verification