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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1153633" data-attributes="member: 3146">Actually, I think it's a poor example--not because the idea of pre-emption was not a reason for the decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan but because the reasons (and stated justifications--Howard Dean is a very very poor source for the administration's explanations of why they supported the war; if you actually take the time to read the speeches themselves, you'll find a complex and multifaceted explanation of the war's necessity) were much more complex than Arravis implies.Implied future threat was one portion of the puzzle. ("If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations will come too late.") Other parts included breaking the terms of a truce, opposition to other goals thought to be worthy (the Israeli/Palestinian "peace" process for instance), the ability to win victory, the relatively low cost of victory (compared to North Korea, for instance, where, even without nuclear weapons, the North Korean army could level Seoul--a large city and the capitol of a significant US ally--with conventional weapons in any conflict), human rights violations (the cornerstone of Tony Blair's presentations), AND the possibility of a liberated democratized Iraq being a springboard for change, democratization, and hopefully liberation throughout the middle east.In an attempt to step back a bit from the political waters we appear to be wading into, I'd like to suggest that, leaving aside the question of whether or not any or all of those calculations were correct, they do form a reasonable approximation of the kind of factors a paladin should look for when deciding to engage in battle:In no particular order:1. Threat--imminent threats are one thing but paladins ought to respond to developing threats as well. The hunter doesn't wait until he's within reach of the bear's claws to fire his gun after all.2. Existing law/obligation. Paladins ought to respond to defeated enemies breaking the terms of their truce.3. Opposition to other worthy goals. Paladins ought to consider how to respond to those who would sabotage the good work they are doing elsewhere.4. The cost of victory. If more good will be destroyed by conflict than is likely to result from it, Paladins should be careful before entering into conflict. And if the costs of the conflict are very high, the net benefit may need to be significant in order to justify conflict. Paladins should rarely espouse causes that are truly hopeless.5. Especially evil foes. (Human rights don't translate directly into D&D but I think this is the essence of the argument). Paladins should oppose those who through strength and intimidation impose tyranny and terror upon innocents.6. A part of a greater plan or hope. This can help to justify the cost of conflict. A paladin might well wage war on a humanoid tribe that is actually less menacing than some others (although still menacing enough to justify war on absolute terms) if victory over them would leave him in a better strategic position than victory over the others. Or if he judges them more likely to reform after conquest and provide an example which might make others reform/convert.In the particular case of the Sunless citadel paladin, I only see a dubious case for 1 (threat) and 5 (evil foes). The kobolds aren't a threat yet. Whether they are likely to materialize into one is an open question. The kobolds are certianly evil but it's not clear (to me) whether they're the Scrooge kind of evil which can be tolerated and even, to a certain extent, made useful, or the Sauron/BBEG kind of evil which it is foolish to attempt to domesticate. The only things that indicate their evil are their callousness towards the dragon they have captured and the fact that most of them detect as evil. I think that the particular paladins plans are very very questionable on items 4 and 6. It's not at all clear to me that the paladin actually has the ability to defeat all of the kobolds and their dragon. Nor is it clear that any party or force he could raise could do so at little cost to themselves. It seems likely that many people would die in order to counter a threat that might never materialize. In fact, given the likelihood of the paladin's failure, it seems to present the possibility of making things a lot worse as kobolds who were attacked by the humans would become an immediate threat if the humans weren't victorious. And the paladin doesn't seem to place it in any larger context. Defeating the kobolds isn't a stepping stone to training kobolds who could convert other kobold tribes. It's not a possibility to create a just koboldish society that could be an example to other kobold societies or even a society of kobolds that no longer looks to evil dragons as their example of what they want to be (and surely that is a large part of why kobolds are evil to begin with). The paladin's vision is limited to defeating a single threat that could someday materialize. If you ask me, that doesn't seem sufficient to justify the risks the paladin is taking.</blockquote>

Verification