The Killing trailer is a feat, no doubt about it. Technically brilliant, short of immaculate - apart from the pouch catching which looks off, as tough pulled out of a farce.KnightofPhoenix said:
It's the script I frown upon.
It's the script I frown upon.
They are not, but you can still get a rough idea of what is going on. And like I said, if Nilfgaard is using this strategy to terrorize, they will let you know, because that's the point.darcler said:There is that, the refugees will, however, flock to more densely populated areas, preferably fortified cities. So there is a rather substantial chance that, were I living in a small village on the sidelines of any civilization, I would not meet refugees at all. That, and the people forced out of their homes into uncertain wandering have no reason to be objective and impassionate reporters, now do they?
There are ways to minimize such destabilization and hardship, we have historical examples of invaders attracting the locals so much that they provide them with assistance. Or at the very least, accept the invaders and continue on with their lives.But we're talking about wanting to live under a ruler that just now is sending armies that will wreak havoc - because there is no other way. Sending army will always create chaos and political and economical void that will destabilize the invaded society. This means hardship for the society's members, whatever self-restraint and grand treatises the conquering power might offer.
This however is a hypothetical that I do not see applying in this case, simply because of Nilfgaardian practices and that there is too much bad blood between the empire and the north.
One of which is imposing harsh punishments against looters in order to stabilize a recently conquered region.There are ways to minimize such destabilization and hardship
Sure, provided you don't cause so much misery that you force people into looting to survive.CostinMoroianu said:One of which is imposing harsh punishments against looters in order to stabilize a recently conquered region.
There's always misery when an army swarms over a region. Fields get burned, water supply runs out, trade routes get blocked. It's unavoidable regardless of whether or not you have a professional, disciplined army.
In Medieval Times the best army which was able to avoid placing too much strain on the local population were the Mongols. Might sound rather ridiculous but Ghenkis Khan did make a well trained, professional disciplined force. When he burned a city to the ground he did to have 10 other cities surrender without a fight and he did not allow his troops to engage in orgies of looting, murder and rape even when he executed entire city populations.
There will always be those who resort to looting and banditry, such people however must be exterminated. There is no room for mercy here when dealing with such people.
In Medieval Times the best army which was able to avoid placing too much strain on the local population were the Mongols. Might sound rather ridiculous but Ghenkis Khan did make a well trained, professional disciplined force. When he burned a city to the ground he did to have 10 other cities surrender without a fight and he did not allow his troops to engage in orgies of looting, murder and rape even when he executed entire city populations.
There will always be those who resort to looting and banditry, such people however must be exterminated. There is no room for mercy here when dealing with such people.
Awesome! I wake up - and two good guys are championing our cause! While I was explicitly prohibited by the mod to discuss the trailer, I can only say that I am completely with Agent Blue and Costin Moroianu on this one. Ran out of up-votes for today though.
BTW, that weapon to end suffering, and a coup de gras had nothing to do with peasants cutting throats of the wounded (while they could be saved with medical help) and looting bodies. It was a noble way to stop suffering of a mortally wounded opponent or a friend.
BTW, that weapon to end suffering, and a coup de gras had nothing to do with peasants cutting throats of the wounded (while they could be saved with medical help) and looting bodies. It was a noble way to stop suffering of a mortally wounded opponent or a friend.
It can be minimized to very large degrees. Even completely avoided, there are historical examples.CostinMoroianu said:There's always misery when an army swarms over a region. Fields get burned, water supply runs out, trade routes get blocked. It's unavoidable regardless of whether or not you have a professional, disciplined army.
From what I gathered, she looted Nilfgaardian soldiers.There will always be those who resort to looting and banditry, such people however must be exterminated.
Perfectly justified.
I can also accept the necessity of removing them as far as the invaders are concerned.
Provided they don't' do so with sadism and realize they are at least as much responsible for this as the looters and bandits. So I'd scoff at any sort of moral indignation coming from their part.
Such as what exactly, in the medieval/ancient eras that is.It can be minimized to very large degrees. Even completely avoided, there are historical examples.
To me it matters little whether or not they stone her to death, beat her to death with hammers or simply hang her. It's irrelevant in the larger picture which is to eliminate looters, bandits and restore order as quickly as possible. That's assuming of course Nilfgaard cares for such things.I can also accept the necessity of removing them as far as the invaders are concerned.
Provided they don't' do so with sadism and realize they are at least as much responsible for this as the looters and bandits. So I'd scoff at any sort of moral indignation coming from their part.
If they don't care about that...then I have to question Emhyr's leadership.
Moral indignation is one thing, anger is another and yes soldiers will get angry when someone murders their wounded mates and then eats them and rightly so.
The early Islamic conquests.CostinMoroianu said:Such as what exactly, in the medieval/ancient eras that is.
Umar Ibn al Khattab even forbade soldiers from entering conquered cities, and created new garrison cities for that explicit purpose. A similar strategy was employed in the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.
It is thus no surprise that the locals not only accepted this new rule, but even assisted them.
And now it's my turn to be disgusted.To me it matters little whether or not they stone her to death, beat her to death with hammers or simply hang her.
I am not questioning their anger. I am rejecting their needles cruelty and sadism. Offenses that revolt me far more than any looting or killing of invading soldiers.Moral indignation is one thing, anger is another and yes soldiers will get angry when someone murders their wounded mates and then eats them and rightly so.
The Nordlings however utterly despise the Nilfgaardians. So it wouldn't work.It is thus no surprise that the locals not only accepted this new rule, but even assisted them.
I feel little to no remorse for those who would engage in murder for the purpose of eating their victims and looting their bodies.And now it's my turn to be disgusted.
EDIT: This is especially true if someone does this only for their own survival. I would consider such a person less then a wild rabid dog.
Stoning was an accepted method of execution during those times.
Killing those soliders only lets a looter lose and prolongs the period of chaos, which will mean even more hardship on the local population.I am not questioning their anger. I am rejecting their needles cruelty and sadism. Offenses that revolt me far more than any looting or killing of invading soldiers.
Gee, I wonder whyCostinMoroianu said:The Nordlings however utterly despise the Nilfgaardians. So it wouldn't work.
Barbaric and idiotic times, yes.Stoning was an accepted method of execution during those times.
They hated them even before Nilfgaard invaded if I remember the novels correctly. Thanks in no small part to the propaganda perpetuated by their leaders.Gee, I wonder why />/>
The exact time the game is set in, not the modern era. If you want to look at it from a modern perspective go ahead I won't, and yes even in those times murder of wounded combatants, or of prisoners of war in general along with cannibalism was not regarded as anything but heinous.Barbaric and idiotic times, yes.
Though I'd strongly dispute the modern era has somehow less cruel methods of execution. I mean seriously we were executing people with electric chairs not too long ago.
And way to go for the empire to prove them right.CostinMoroianu said:They hated them even before Nilfgaard invaded if I remember the novels correctly. Thanks in no small part to the propaganda perpetuated by their leaders.
Emhyr could make an effort if he really cared to. I don't think he does.
There are merits of course to terror tactics. So long as he isn't surprised that some people won't just roll over and allow him to destroy their lives.
And I am not in the game, I am in the modern era. I am asked about my outlook on the situation and I provided it.The exact time the game is set in, not the modern era.
Mind you, even if I was there, I would have considered her actions justified and would have probably done something similar were I in the same position.
Actually electric chairs are not that painful. And in any case, it's not torture. It's rather quick. Same with gas. Probably less painful than hanging unless you're "lucky" and have your neck broken instantly.Though I'd strongly dispute the modern era has somehow less cruel methods of execution. I mean seriously we were executing people with electric chairs not too long ago.
We still do, and in certain cases I find it actually a fitting punishment.CostinMoroianu said:Though I'd strongly dispute the modern era has somehow less cruel methods of execution. I mean seriously we were executing people with electric chairs not too long ago.
Under the martial law, with all extra-regulations and curfews, punishment is immediate and harsh. No time for any peace-time niceties. Looters are shot on sight, as this should be. In a very unstable situation it is a necessity, otherwise the situation will get out of control and more people will die. Quick hangings were the means to preserve stability, not done for kicks. Letting caught looters and murderers go is simply an inconceivable notion.
If the soldiers wanted to torture her first, well, I can understand them. As I can understand Roche who was kind of sorry he couldn't torture Iorveth. He claimed it was what Iorveth deserved. The soldiers have the same mind-set as our best buddy, it seems.
I know we're playing tug-of-war with our beliefs, but for me the premise of survival is the very thing that makes such acts justified.CostinMoroianu said:I feel little to no remorse for those who would engage in murder for the purpose of eating their victims and looting their bodies.
EDIT: This is especially true if someone does this only for their own survival. I would consider such a person less then a wild rabid dog.
Survival at all cost is not something I care to justify. It makes us no better then the animals we claim to be above.I know we're playing tug-of-war with our beliefs, but for me the premise of survival is the very thing that makes such acts justified.
But we are no better than animals. We are animals, after all...CostinMoroianu said:Survival at all cost is not something I care to justify. It makes us no better then the animals we claim to be above.
I can understand and even accept the pragmatism behind it.vivaxardas said:Under the martial law, with all extra-regulations and curfews, punishment is immediate and harsh. No time for any peace-time niceties. Looters are shot on sight, as this should be.
But if one is going to be morally righteous and indignant about it, when part of an invading army and an empire that doesn't seem to give a damn about the suffering of conquered peoples, then don't expect anything but to be scoffed at and ridiculed.
But victory at all costs is somehow better.CostinMoroianu said:Survival at all cost is not something I care to justify. It makes us no better then the animals we claim to be above.
Let's not use "we" here, all right? I am better than the animal, because I strive to have a moral code, and understanding where my duties lie. To say that all of us, under certain circumstances, will be reduced to hunting humans, murders, and cannibalism, a sort of what the hunters do in The Last of Us is pretty damn insulting. I would prefer to starve to death, or to kill myself if I can't tolerate hunger, than to cut throats of the wounded, does not matter, foes or mates, and eat their flesh. This is life not worth living for anyone who want to keep a status of a human being.darcler said:But we are no better than animals. We are animals, after all...