D1: Ashin's Commission (El Jefe judging)

[Patlin]

Patlin: Based on the Ironwolf sblocks which placed Ironwolf away from the disputed action, Patlin counted two soldiers and assumed that the party had killed the third.

The word "assumed" makes my skin crawl.

"This one's just dazed, he'll be all right. Did we get the third one?"

He did ask, although he was in a hurry and wasn't too specific... whether the third enemy had been killed or captured wasn't a priority at the time.

BTW -- I don't care what the resolution is, as long as it causes us to stop arguing and get back to the adventure. Ironwolf as the nearly anonymous force writng wrongs and freeing the people of Duvik works for me, but Ironwolf the notorious resistance fighter, bane of imperialistic Fallon works just as well. What was that someone said about an xp fountain?

 

[El Jefe]

Patlin, I was going by this:

ooc: Most of what happened was in spoiler blocks I didn't (and wasn't supposed to) read. I've only seen two prisoners... I had thought you guys must have killed the third guard.

Anyway, by my count we have 2 votes for "we got all three" (one quite firm the other a little weaker) and 2 votes for "either is fine with me" (although one leans a bit toward "we got all three"). Almayce, B4cchus, want to weigh in on this?

And RA, if I wanted to get rid of you, I certainly wouldn't have gone through all the trials of the last couple of days.

 

[El Jefe]

Patlin, as an aside, I just read through post 761 and about 6-7 posts following. I couldn't help but be impressed by how many different ways it was possible to interpret that exchange.

Of course, if you took that as evidence that the party collected all three, I should point out that was something Zaeryl couldn't have seen. I suppose Ironwolf could have believed that the party got all three, only to be surprised later, as in: "Zaeryl, you told me in the woods that the party captured all three soldiers. What gives?"

The ambiguity in the word "we" (referring to the dual nature of Zaeryl, or the collective nature of the party?) was also quite exquisite.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Patlin, as an aside, I just read through post 761 and about 6-7 posts following. I couldn't help but be impressed by how many different ways it was possible to interpret that exchange.

Of course, if you took that as evidence that the party collected all three, I should point out that was something Zaeryl couldn't have seen. I suppose Ironwolf could have believed that the party got all three, only to be surprised later, as in: "Zaeryl, you told me in the woods that the party captured all three soldiers. What gives?"

The ambiguity in the word "we" (referring to the dual nature of Zaeryl, or the collective nature of the party?) was also quite exquisite.

Definitely ambiguous--as I said, I was convinced that Zaeryl had indeed seen them grab the guy before he left This is an example of Zaeryl acting like an idiot if they actually didn't

 

[El Jefe]

Definitely ambiguous--as I said, I was convinced that Zaeryl had indeed seen them grab the guy before he left This is an example of Zaeryl acting like an idiot if they actually didn't

??? How, if it's so ambiguous? The first time I read that, I thought Zaeryl was referring to his sucessful chase of Private Squatter...until then, the party hadn't "gotten" all three (meaning that at least one soldier was able to navigate back to his unit under his own power). Why does that make him an idiot? It only makes him an idiot if you specifically interpret those words to mean, "the party has all three of the soldiers in custody now". And even that's not specifically true. If Michael, Eternity, and Almayce had decided to abandon Private Stander after Zaeryl ran off chasing Private Squatter, Zaeryl would have no way to know that, and I certainly don't think it would be an outrageous assumption on Zaeryl's part to assume they were going to bundle Stander up and carry him off.

I can understand how I misread that leaving no trace was very important to Zaeryl, and I can understand how he would think that the party had captured all three. I just don't get how this makes him look stupid, or foolish, or tactically incompetant.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Because he keeps saying it over and over again, and it is wrong. Let's never mind going back into that, though.

 

[Xael]

Almayce, B4cchus, want to weigh in on this?

I was pretty confused towards the end of combat (I wasn't even sure if we had one or two soldiers. ), but Almayce doesn't really care how many soldiers we got. All three would be the best option from his point of view of course, and it seems like the easiest way to solve this whole thing.

 

[El Jefe]

Ok, that's three for "we got all three" and two "either way is fine with me". Unless B4cchus weighs in with a strong, "we only have two and I'm uncomfortable with three", I think that's a consensus.

My only other question before we resume, is which character picked up Private Stander? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Michael, Hulgyr, or Ironwolf...

 

[Patlin]

Patlin, as an aside, I just read through post 761 and about 6-7 posts following. I couldn't help but be impressed by how many different ways it was possible to interpret that exchange.

Of course, if you took that as evidence that the party collected all three, I should point out that was something Zaeryl couldn't have seen. I suppose Ironwolf could have believed that the party got all three, only to be surprised later, as in: "Zaeryl, you told me in the woods that the party captured all three soldiers. What gives?"

The ambiguity in the word "we" (referring to the dual nature of Zaeryl, or the collective nature of the party?) was also quite exquisite.

Let me be very clear here: Ironwolf was in a hurry, so he wasn't asking too many questions. That lead to the conversation being a bit vague... which is entirely proper. I have no complaint with however all of this is decided.

Given who it was that answered his question, I did take it that there were no enemies who were both free and breathing, but that's a personality judgment.

By explaining what I thought, I am not attempting to influence the outcome in any way, nor to continue the argument. Just calling it like I see it.

 

[El Jefe]

By explaining what I thought, I am not attempting to influence the outcome in any way, nor to continue the argument. Just calling it like I see it.

And I didn't think that you were. Really, I think this has all been hashed out quite thoroughly, and as soon as we figure out who has Stander I'm ready to continue.