Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 592782" data-attributes="member: 891">An email by a fellow gamer brought me back to thinking on this:Yes, that's the core of the question right there.Why do ethics only begin when the battle stops, when you have your Hollywood moment?It doesn't seem to fit for me for societies that exist in a framework of total warfare rather than limited warfare.Total Warfare examples: Urban gangs, Vikings, US-Indian Wars, Columbus in Caribbean, Settlement of New Zealand / New Guinea, Biblical Warfare, Pre-Roman and Post-Roman European Tribal warfare (thus pre medieval kingdoms), Bosnia, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in many cases, WWI and WWII.Limited Warfare is more what you had in the age of the musket and the medieval era. When armies lined up on a battlefield and fought under specific rules of engagement while leaving civilians alone. After WWII. the US has tried to maintain a policy of limited warfare as well: Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq...In Total Warfare you seek to completely destroy or eliminate your opponant. In limited you seek to curb their current objectives while doing the least overhall harm to either side.I see the fantasy struggle of good / evil, and of elf + human + etc vs. Orc + goblin + etc as total warfare. That's certainly how it seems to play out in all the literature, modules, and source material.</blockquote>