Guns of Infinity

gender-locked-male
multi-part
low-fantasy

#43964

I personally do tend to favor the cynical/merciful route. Maybe that’s why I’m so attached to Lefebvre.


#43965

Thus we return to “whatever lets you tell yourself you’re not a complete monster”. I have no doubt he completely believes that sentiment, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it.

I don’t get that sense. In his words:

“I am a King’s Officer, $!{rank}. My first duty is to my men, to see them clothed, to see them fed, and to see that they might take up a sentry post at sunset without the fear that they shall be dead by midnight.”

I’d say I think he thinks his actions are - as Cataphrak might put it - necessary but not just, but I think he sees it as doing his duty to his men more strongly (and thus positively) than that.

From an entirely pragmatic perspective, going behind Hunter’s back isn’t good for the army, though. And the rationalizing is the problem to me - all sorts of dark roads start with "this acceptable because"s.

Bragg’s subordinates in the Army of Tennessee talked long and loud of how he was bad for the army, but that didn’t mean their uncooperative behavior was doing the Army of Tennessee any good.

Picking this for an example of bad behavior independently of idealism.

A shot across the bow can be both, is that not so?

I think as far as calling it a warning goes, I was thinking of in terms of Caz wanting you to know that he’d prefer you alive and not an obstacle to simply removing you - if, that is, you’re willing to cooperate.

It’s certainly only friendly in the context that Caz would only do it if you’re worth his time, which may be more the Doylist point - Caz does notice you sucking up to him and will act (slightly) differently if you do than if you don’t.

As far as comparisons to Lefebvre go, the one final thing I’d say is this:

If I wanted someone who would sacrifice himself and seventy-nine men for the sake of “a rag on a pole”, I wouldn’t ask Lefebvre.

I think he’s a bit closer to the “desert with my men” option than “hold until the end of the world”. Something about how Tierra needs live soldiers rather than martyrs no doubt.


#43966

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43965, topic:2656, full:true”]
I don’t get that sense. In his words:

“I am a King’s Officer, $!{rank}. My first duty is to my men, to see them clothed, to see them fed, and to see that they might take up a sentry post at sunset without the fear that they shall be dead by midnight.”

I’d say I think he thinks his actions are - as Cataphrak might put it - necessary but not just, but I think he sees it as doing his duty to his men more strongly (and thus positively) than that.[/quote]

You left out the part where he repeatedly mentions he takes no joy in it and feels some part of him being ripped away every time his men return from a mission.

[quote=“Elfwine, post:43965, topic:2656, full:true”]
Thus we return to “whatever lets you tell yourself you’re not a complete monster”. I have no doubt he completely believes that sentiment, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it.[/quote]

Well, then it just comes down to a matter of opinion, and whether or not you think he is justified.

It’s only bad in the sense that it violates the chain of command. From a purely pragmatic perspective, this one breach of protocol (which later becomes protocol) is outweighed by safer roads, higher morale, and more soldiers freed up from caravan duty.

Or maybe he did it because he knows you’re the one with the power in this situation. He can’t stop you from putting your name forward, and you will always be chosen before him no matter what. His only chance is to try and reason with you.

I think it depends on the context. Let’s say he was in our position at Blogia. I’m sure he would take his men and leave if Elson ordered him to do the Death Ride. But if he was at the Castle, I think he would probably hold position (maybe give his men the option to retreat if they want? I don’t know), because it is mentioned several times that if nobody holds the castle then even more men will die when the Antari flank the rest of the army. His ultimate goal is to protect Tierran lives.


#43967

Then why all the skulduggery of his death squads were being partically insisted upon by Wulfram?


#43968

I don’t enjoy seeing half of my troop die in the name of a principle, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to take back saying Wittelbrook is a despicable coward who doesn’t deserve to be called a soldier of His Majesty’s army for being unwilling to die at Castle Blogia.

So Lefebvre comes off to me as someone doing something he thinks is unpleasant but justified, instead of merely unpleasant and necessary.

Pretty much. If we’re talking qualities described by the author - Cazarosta and Lefebvre are both tough, intelligent, determined and respected by their men. I’m pretty sure those qualities can be put to good use.

A purely pragmatic perspective does not consider whether or not Hunter can expect his orders to be obeyed to be merely a matter of fancy manners.

If Cazarosta was a completely unconcerned sociopath, he could just smile nicely and wish you the best of luck and say nothing.

It’s impressive how bad he is at faking that he is that good a liar (if beyond the scope of this discussion).

That’s precisely it. I think Lefebvre would be willing to die if he felt it would do “some material good”.

But [quote=“Cataphrak, post:5547, topic:2656”]
Any material factor you could cling to as a reason to stay is gone. All that remains are duty, loyalty, and honour.
[/quote]

I don’t trust Lefebvre’s sense of honour, I don’t know about his sense of loyalty, and I believe that his sense of duty would be telling him that his men will die if they stay here.

Cazarosta?

“The will of the Saints”? Whatever lets you avoid having to admit you care about anything or anyone, Caius.

Both are brave men, that’s been proven, but they are men of subtly different qualities when it comes to war.

Antar is very unfortunate to have faced both. And I think the fact we’re having the discussion on the details has gotten to the point it’s personal preference on my end to favor the deathborn.


#43969

Because that approval came after the fact.

Something something “better to beg forgiveness than ask permission”.


#43970

That’s a pretty thin rational for disobeying your CO and then roping a bunch of your soldiers into committing various heinous acts that both they and you know are violations of standing orders and regulations. If this was a such a big deal to Wulfram et al why weren’t anti partisan operations a directive? They were apparently launching “brown star clusters” over this after all…

Better yet it didn’t even work in Sabers until they committed more men to guarding the convoys.


#43971

“It took time for my methods to produce results.”

Anyways, to Elfwine - I’ve enjoyed this debate, but regrettably I do not have time to continue it.


#43972

Your timeline’s a bit off here.
Lefebvre was only sending out death squads on the down-low when Tierran presence in the forest was mostly made up of relatively small outposts, ones which were more or less below Wulfram’s notice (remember: he wasn’t particularly detail-oriented). Grenadier Square really only takes notice when Lefebvre hands them a fait-accompli, which also influences the way they do things after Blogia, once Havenport’s Division is under threat of being starved out.

Of course, I’ve left it deliberately ambiguous whether Lefebvre’s methods actually worked, or if the partisans simply moved elsewhere. Same thing with Cazarosta: while he might wipe out Strellyk’s band, it’s doubtful he solves the entire partisan problem himself.


#43973

Really? I thought the implication was that they did work. I guess I need to pay closer attention.


#43974

In your opinion what’s the difference between unpleasant but justified and unpleasant and necessary.


#43975

So what happens in the interim if the player reports him? Based on his possible conversation with the player in Guns his methods are eventually approved of. Does this come after the Battle of Blogia? That could be potentially 4 years after he is initially reported, yes?


#43976

So before I go, I would just like to clarify one thing:

If I was in Lefebvre’s position, I would not have done the same thing. At least, not in my current mindset - who knows how my personality and attitute would change after a few years at war, and being responsible for the lives of so many people?

I defend him partly because I understand why he did it, and also because he is an interesting character.


#43977

@Bennn
It’s a fine line.

To me personally, what it boils down to is whether or not it was the right thing to do as well as necessary (to stop looters, for example), or if it being necessary doesn’t mean it was right.

http://www.ncmarkers.com/Markers.aspx?MarkerId=J-3

" After the war, a story developed which had it that Cornwallis ordered his own artillery to fire into the melee, despite being warned he would kill some of his own men. Recent research has proven this story completely apocryphal. The artillery did fire into the group, but only after American cavalry had entered the fray and threatened the British guns."

If Cornwalls had ordered his own artillery to fire into the melee without the American cavalry being involved like that, there are times it would be “unpleasant but necessary” (I’m not familiar enough with the battle to know if it would have been one).

By contrast, shooting looters at the sack of Kharangia? Better deaths than they deserve one could argue, but that doesn’t mean I think killing people is pleasant.


#43978

He gets official sanction from Wulfram’s Grenadier Square, not Havenport’s, so it’s definitely before Blogia.


#43979

But Havenport doesn’t revoke it, do they?


#43980

So Lefebrve gets found out somehow no matter what the MC does, and then Hunter gets overruled for trying to sanction him with GS, is that right?

Then the results they see as a result of his sanctioned anti partisan operations leads Havenport’s to resort to “Lefebrveian” tactics more widely and explicitly after Blogia.


#43981

So if i’m understanding correctly the distinction is a moral one. An unpleasant decision might be necessary to win a battle but not right because the ends do not justify the means. If you don’t mind be asking on which side of the line would you place Khorobirit firing on his own men at Blogia.


#43982

Yeah, pretty much.

If either:
Unpleasant but necessary.

Shooting Wittlebrook for desertion would be “justified” (assuming alternate methods fail, as in the case it may happen), as one of the more grim examples of this in action.

YMMV, but as far as my opinion goes, that’s which side of the line it falls on.


#43983

Alright thanks for taking the time to explain.