Martin Crim:
writes that I
>...after engaging in exactly the sort of speculation about the Kingdom
>of War which he decries as--I don't know, unnecessary?--anyway, he decries
>it:
>>In short: Use your (plural - not directed at anybody in particular)
>>bloody imagination and quit whining about it! Don't expect Greg or
>>Sandy to come around picking up your toys after you.
>Uh, Pete old thing, I thought that was exactly what we WERE doing.
Good Grief. I would have expected better attention from you, Martin. The 'speculations' were suggestions on how a 'Seven against the KoW' campaign should be run. I explained how the how the KoW would be seemingly senseless yet have a purpose which the PCs would uncover. This was in response to people's complaints about the lack of important details about which to develop the KoW.
>And you and Nicky and Sandy were trying to squash the whole line of
>inquiry (though thankfully Sandy has now unbent somewhat).
I am _not_ trying to quash the whole line of inquiry. I am merely trying to rebut certain efforts on developing the KoW along certain lines ('It needs a culture!' was one _apparent_ ) that I feel are _misplaced_. I would be just as vehement against those who say 'Aw shucks, the Lunar Empire is _too_ nice, it should be more like Mordor!'. I don't know about you, but Sandy and Nick appeared to me to have similar attitudes. If, frex, Mark Smylie wishes to develop the KoW with the model of the Beauty and Terror of the Ring and post several Cult Descriptions then I will applaud loudly from the sidelines.
>> And I hardly see how attaching PoMo labels onto the various aspects
>>of the GM's PoV improves his comprehension of the Kingdom of War.
>If you don't see it, then it obviously doesn't exist.
Well pardon me. I do recall a detailed discussion of Delueze's theories appearing within this august digest. Let us see, phrases like "the war machine is exterior to the State apparatus" come to mind. But on the other hand, I _might_ have been under the impression Delueze was a post-modernist. Was he a Hegelian Dialectician perhaps?
I held my peace then in the hope that this particular aspect of the debate would go away. But I just happened to say 'War Machine' in a _totally_different_ context leading somebody to leap up and correct me for a percieved misunderstanding. Hence the sermon.
>But you don't see me berating people for bringing up the subject or
>insisting that they shouldn't be explored because the PC's won't know
>anything about the subject.
I seem to have vague memories of a certain person posting from the address of argrath_at_aol.com patronizing Tim Torres in telling him to take the Martial Arts to the RQ-Rules List (with instructions on how to subscribe even) and speculating that his posting of the Good Times Virus was 'flamebait'. Did you tick Argrath_at_aol.com off for his rude behaviour saying you do not do likewise? Or does the Commandments of the Church of the Subgenius take precedence?
>I'm really baffled by the hostility to the KoW thread.
Vaguely repetitive whining might have something to do with it. I can't speak for you but I do find things like 'The starting point has to be .... , we don't have a very clear picture of that' to be _quite_ irritating. This is _not_ the way things should be done on this list. We make up details of the KoW, stealing examples from RW history and tailoring it up to fit in with the Big Picture ('The KoW is a cross between the Ottoman Army and the Beauty and Terror of the One Ring'). When I have sufficient details, _then_ I begin to wonder what happened in the past ('hmm. If the KoW has cannons then they must have contact with the Dwarves'). When I have made sufficient historical speculation, then I leap forward with my newfound knowlege and fill in the gaps ('If the KoW has contact with the Dwarves, then could they have a Great Big Huge Clanking Nothing-to-do-with-Delueze War Machine which tells them what to do?').
And now to some dicussion of more relevance to the digest.
>As for Peter's post-Hitler/post-Stalin scenario for LDoaH, those despots'
>demises don't analogize well to the KoW. The KoW doesn't have the luxury of
>a long struggle for succession. The rivals waiting in the wings know that
>supremacy must be swift or not at all, because the KoW would quickly consume
>itself in a civil war.
They know that ideally succession must be swift. That's not how things turn out in practice. The Islamic Succession was supposedly settled in a single night but bickering about it continued and led to a major rift within Islam. After Jesus died (or ascended what ever you may prefer), the leadership passed on to James the Brother of Jesus. But none of the current denominations AFAIK claim unbroken succession from James' Ministry. People fight over successions. It doesn't go away.
>There just isn't any supply base without constant
>expansion. The most likely response to a leadership vacuum would be mere
>uncoordination: Generalissimo A takes the western army and Generalissimo B
>takes the eastern. They no longer work together, they're implacably
>hostile, but they prefer victory over neighbors to the risks of facing
>each other. It is JUST possible that strategic defeats on all flanks
>might lead to the self-immolation of civil war.
The Generalissimos 'are implacably hostile' is the flaw in the picture you paint. During the Crusades, the Crusader States often fought with some muslim states against others despite the fact they were the Infidel. The Heartlands of the Kingdom of War may not have much in the way of food supply but it is the base for a lot of other things. Perhaps that is where the skilled craftsmen of the KoW forge their hellish blades? Perhaps the Elite Soldiers of the KoW are made so by exposure to the Spirit of War that resides there? It then _becomes_ a desired place to have. Bang goes any non-interference that might have otherwise occured.
Mark Smylie:
>To simply say that the KoW commits atrocities and that is all we need know
>of them strikes me as not enough -- Form without Substance -- for Atrocity
>goes hand in hand with War, and what gives Atrocity its special edge, its
>horror, is ultimately the Ideology in whose name it is perpetrated, the
>attempted rationalization of its justness: "My whole life has been
>studying the Talmud, and I have all the data."
And what Ideology were the horrors of the First World War perpetrated in? The Trenches, the Gas, the Wails of the Artillery Shells and the Machine Guns mowing you down as you attempt a Steeplechase of Barbed Wire in Perfect Formation? Could apparent senseless destruction be a sufficient horror? IMHO The PCs should scream '_Why_ are they doing _this_?', rage against the dying of the Light and not go gently into that dark night.
IMHO the sheer senselessness of it all is there for a reason: To make the PCs act. Being humans, they will refuse to believe that there is no reason behind the Kingdom of War. Their determination to make sense of it all is what leads them to eventual victory. All the others are shellshocked by the Horrible Horrors. It is for this reason, I believe a hidden motive lies behind the KoW and not Ideology made Manifest.
Joerg Baumgartner:
>I said that both Argrath and Lord Death were created by their main
>enemies/victims, and that from their (Lunar/Loskalm) POV they just
>promote disorder and destruction.
>Peter Metcalfe replied (or rather asked):
>> Um, Joerg? Argrath promotes disorder and destruction?
>Think Lunar/Pelorian for a while.
You didn't say anything about Lunar/Loskalm PoVs! It was presented as objective fact. Considering that you were the Last Sartarite on Earth, I was worried, nay, fearful that Vile Nick and Mad Divad had achieved a terrible coup.
>> Lord Death on a Horse was created by the Loskalmi?
>In the same sense that Argrath was created by the Lunars: they created
>the conditions which led to the emergence of this otherwise unmportant
>part of the world as the major enemy. It was Snodal after all who incited
>the Ban...
This does not follow. The Ban was unwittingly caused by Snodal's actions. And I do not think the KoW was created by the Ban anymore than the October Revolution created the Great Terror. Such Historical Determinism and Loss of Free Will is anathema to me.
>> Er? How do you get Chivalry is the cause of the Crusade? Me thought
>> it had something to do with Filthly Infidels in control of the Holy
>> Places.
>And the chivalrous obligation to purge such abominations.
Which can also be dealt with by mere religious obligations. The Muslims didn't have a chivalric spirit when they embarked on their great jihad to bring the Word of God to the Unbeliever.
Powered by hypermail