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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeriar" data-source="post: 427427" data-attributes="member: 4116">They may or may not - it is not an action in the face of danger, so it cannot apply to courage.  Their is no point here - the act of killing someone who cannot fight back is neither courage nor cowardice.If there was a legitamate choice involved - kill the child, or risk losing your life/future, then sure, that would be a matter of courage, but not the example given, not in most examples.And this has what to do with:This?  Most who did this type of thing did it for one of a few main reasons:1: They were in the way2: To provoke fighting3: As part of many other brutalities to subjegate the populace4: GenocideAre all of these acts act of cowardice?You are descended from people who did this, you realize, no matter who you are.After months of starvation, and drastically outmaneuvered, outgunned, outfed and outskilled.  What army has the US faced in the past 20 years that could deal with night-vision technologies?In the case of Iraq, only the Republican Guard had any respectable training, and they numbered only 30,000, compared to the 400,000 American troops stationed there.Iraq did not, and does not have a single tank or weapon capable of facing the M1.  Period. Iraq had no satellites, and very limited radar technology.Yeah, right.  Again, after being starved out, ("We had to eat grass!?!?!?!"), and facing the world's 3rd largest, and by most everyone's estimates the best-trained and best equipped, also backed by the joint forces of twenty-five other nations.This is laughable.  The Iraqi army had nothing to scratch the M1.Their best jet was the MiG-29, of which they had all of 18.  The US alone had over 500 planes in the entire theatre capable of handling the MiG-29.Iraqi had all of 250 jets, period.  This is before we decided to take out their air power first.Leadership, maybe.  But resolve?  Against an army that can see in the dark, and have near ideal communication over the battlefield?The Gulf War was not a war, it was a technology demonstration.Volunteer armies are pretty recent.  Coordination and feeding your troops is more important.Depends on how you look at it.  Macedonia would not have invaded -INDIA- if it weren't for Alexander the Great.  There is a reason he got that title, you know.There were no statues of Buddha before that.  Seriously, through him Greece has impacted the entire planet.What is 'real leadership'? Tell me why I would follow you, seriously.Doesn't that depend on each henchman's own goals and desires, and reasons for serving said villian?Do you have -NO- CE or NE bad guys in your campaign?Usually the ones following out of fear are actually being pushed - ashiguru in Japan, prisoners in Europe - whatever.  Those being driven by fear were going to die anyway.The actual army is considerably better fed, and an instrument of that fear, not a subject of it.Nor do you have any Nero's in your campaign, I imagine.  I know there are many stereotypes of the 'honorable villian' that can be used, but how can you run a game like that for long without it getting repetitive?Are there no necromancers in your game, either?In a word with magic, this gets easy fast, doesn't it?1: Because he is a construct2: Because he is a mindless undead3: Because he is a zealot4: Because he is otherwise controlled (Domination, etc)5: Because he is surrounded by any, or all, of the above6: Because he needs to feed and care for his family7: Because he actually is well fed, and gets his chance at any woman he comes across in his adventures.Magic alone doubles the reasons.8: Scapegoats are available.Not all of the mentioned options are necessarily 100% mindless.Despite being about as mindless as one can get, even diseases adapt.In D&D, a single 16th-level wizard is capable of smashing whole armies on his, or her, own.  Doesn't really need -much- of a devoted fighting force, for sure.No war in your games, then?He never said that, you are putting words in his mouth.No you don't.You already equated him with being stupid, or put words in his posts to appear so.</blockquote>

Verification