New CG Cinematic for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Shows Geralt “Killing Monsters”

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well, then you probably used a wrong word.

No I didn't use the wrong word. Benevolent can be used to mean inclined "to do good", "good" being used not in its philosophical meaning, but rather to indicate a desire to act kindly or in this case for the common good.
Like "good guy."

 

[CostinRaz]

From the Rashidun to the Abbasids, the empire lasted for about 700 years. The instability is due to internal tribal politics and dynastic clashes, not due to the conquests. Barring few examples, the natives rarely rebelled against them, certainly not en masse.

Take Augustus. He treated Egypt very magnanimously, with no massacres, looting or pillage (just that he accidentally broke off Alexander's mummified nose, but that's just a hilarious accident). As well as the rest of his conquests in general, more or less.

The Abbasid Caliphate only really was truly unified empire for around 200 years, then it fragmented. The Rasihdun barely survived for what less then 40 years?

Augustus could also be rather brutal when he choose to.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

If nothing is inherently evil, why do jump on every mention of rape? As I understand it, rape is always evil, bad thing to do, and probably one of the few human that can't have any justification.

Because it serves no purpose and as such is never justified. I don't need to use the word evil for me to reject something completely.

Conquest is very different. Sometimes it's necessary for a mess of reasons. Sometimes it's beneficial. The point is, it serves a purpose, and a purpose that can be in the long run beneficial for most people.

This is not the case with rape and as such can not be compared.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Abbasid Caliphate only really was truly unified empire for around 200 years, then it fragmented. The Rasihdun barely survived for what less then 40 years?

Again, tribal politics, has nothing to do with the native populations rejecting the conquest.

And the Rashidun empire didn't collapse. There was a change of leadership after a period of civil war (tribal politics, the natives didn't have anything to do with it) but the empire continued. Same with the Umayyads. The dynasty failed, but the empire remained.

Augustus could also be rather brutal when he choose to.

To political rivals, not to civilians.

 

[troska]

What? You should probably read it again. What I was saying that a conquest is never justified on moral grounds. It is always a bad thing to do, even if it may lead to good consequences, and be done with minimal damage.

Than how can you excuse soldiers killing helpless civilians and looting their stuff during the conquest just because someone told them to? You have two different rating of guilt, one for soldiers and other for everyone else and it's not fair for the second group...

 

[CostinRaz]

Again, tribal politics, has nothing to do with the native populations rejecting the conquest.

It's still a weakness regardless of how you cut it: Sure, you might have the peasants content but if the result is the same in the sense of division and weakness then it hardly matters.

To political rivals, not to civilians.

I bet those rebels he crushed would certainly be glad to know that.

 

[darcler]

In order to minimize looting and pillaging, Umar Ibn al Khattab outright banned his soldiers from even entering conquered cities, instead establishing new garrison cities so they stay away from civilians.

So am I to understand that he just arrived at the city and established a garrison? Like, without first commencing a single battle?

I will not claim that this prevented any atrocities from happening, but there was a *policy* designed specifically to avoid it. In light of this, any transgression of human rights becomes the primary responsibility of the soldier in question, not of the polity that did its best to prevent them.

Primary responsibility indeed falls onto the direct perpetrator of a crime. But the person who made the perpetrator arrive at the victim's homeland and did not protect the victim is also to blame as well. And it can be assumed that however 'benevolent' the ideas are, there will always be a fuckup, and that tragedies will happen, and that people will die who otherwise would still be living. Deciding on continuing with the invasion regardless makes the invader willing of bringing lethal danger to people. I don't see how it can be morally justified.

No I didn't use the wrong word. Benevolent can be used to mean inclined "to do good", "good" being used not in its philosophical meaning, but rather to indicate a desire to act kindly or in this case for the common good.
Like "good guy."

If one has the desire to act good, he wouldn't even consider launching an offensive.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's still a weakness regardless of how you cut it: Sure, you might have the peasants content but if the result is the same in the sense of division and weakness then it hardly matters.

I never claimed it was not a weakness, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Their means of conquest have nothing to do with the instability that occurred, which was fought only among Arabs, the conquerors themselves.

Had the conquered decided to rise up, the empires would have collapsed permanently right then and then.

I bet those rebels he crushed would certainly be glad to know that.

What rebels? Those at Philippi? Soldiers. Sextus Pompei? He didn't massacre the civilians. Marc Antony? Most of his army defected and he didn't do anything to Alexandria.

When the people were rioting against him due to the famines? He went there in person to try and calm them down, risking his life, and when he couldn't, he had to impose order. But he never caused a massacre in Rome.

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator:

The moderator instruction "Warnings and suspensions will follow any further attempts to make light of rape or make a pretense that rape is ever acceptable" has been disputed and ignored and will be enforced.

The problem is not whether rape was (or still is) a crime commonly perpetrated by armies in time of war. Everybody knows it is.

The problem is that there can be no allowance for claims made on this forum that it is possible for rape ever to be acceptable under any circumstance whatsoever, and there can be no allowance for denouncing other members for stating that this is so.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

So am I to understand that he just arrived at the city and established a garrison? Like, without first commencing a single battle?

Most cities surrendered without a fight. And no that's the point, he didn't establish a garrison in the cities for fear of abuse. He established new garrison cities, where soldiers would live (they became large cities when merchants started migrating there as it's a profitable market). One such city is Basrah.

If one has the desire to act good, he wouldn't even consider launching an offensive.

A simplistic world view. But again, that's really not what we are arguing about.
Sometimes there is no choice but to conquer.

Bu I am making no moral justifications, I am really not interested in such ideas. When I say something is unjustified, I mean it cannot be justified on rational grounds.

 

[username_2093396]

Bu I am making no moral justifications, I am really not interested in such ideas. When I say something is unjustified, I mean it cannot be justified on rational grounds.

I think Nilfgaard's reasoning was that they should destroy the villages they came across to prevent getting attacked from behind after they passed through, and then due to their reputation preceding them people in the cities were desperate and fought back. They did manage to keep Cintra, but they lost most of their other gains so I would assume you're right and the strategy wasn't good for the long term, which raises the question of why they seem to be doing the exact same thing again in the ending of TW2? Didn't they learn from their previous failure?

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think Nilfgaard's reasoning was that they should destroy the villages they came across to prevent getting attacked from behind after they passed through, and then due to their reputation preceding them people in the cities were desperate and fought back.

Like I said, there are merits to such a strategy. But like you said, I believe it's misguided and avoidable.

In Nilafgaard's defense, or at least Emhyr's, the atrocities committed in Vergen were due to the idiot noble in charge and were not from high command.

Still Emhyr takes responsibility for putting such an idiot in a critical position.

 

[enitaplap.18]

@vivaxardas
WTF? Seriously.
Peasants have no means to transport wounded to safe space nor they have the safe space. No medical knowledge, no food etc.
No they should not kill them, they should leave wounded for the dogs and wolves. Finishing them is too gracious.
Invaders must die. Every. Fucking. One. Of. Them.
This is third war because of them. DIE!

If you care for soldiers call for choppers. Wait there aren any.
Don't confuse army resources with peasants.

 

[darcler]

Sometimes there is no choice but to conquer.

Bu I am making no moral justifications, I am really not interested in such ideas. When I say something is unjustified, I mean it cannot be justified on rational grounds.

And that is why I wanted to clear the meaning of 'justified' and 'just' in my earlier post. Because the distinction between 'justified rationally' and 'justified morally' is fundamental. Once we mix those two terms we'll only get arguments stemming out of confusion.

Regarding your post above, "Sometimes there is no choice but to conquer" implies arbitrary interpretation of the situation, thus making justifications of any kind arbitrary as well.

I still think that 'benevolent conquest' is a poor choice of words, but English is not my mother tongue and I will concede to native speakers.

 

[Senteria]

18 pages later... still talk about who the monsters really are. Geralt, the girl or the cruel soldiers. I guess CDPR must be proud.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Regarding your post above, "Sometimes there is no choice but to conquer" implies arbitrary interpretation of the situation, thus making justifications of any kind arbitrary as well.

Well not so much arbitrary as an evaluation of the situation and the geo-strategic factors at play. I have studied a number of conflicts in depth, where avoiding aggressive action would have been severely detrimental if not downright suicidal, because of all the factors at play.

I mean sure, we always have a choice, but suicidal or self-detrimental choices I don't take into consideration as viable alternatives.

I still think that 'benevolent conquest' is a poor choice of words, but English is not my mother tongue and I will concede to native speakers.

well it's not my mother tongue either, although I'd say it is my first tongue, aka the one I am the most fluent in.

But yes if I have used the word incorrectly, I would stand corrected.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

18 pages later... still talk about who the monsters really are. Geralt, the girl or the cruel soldiers. I guess CDPR must be proud.

It's delightfully tiring.

Esp when I clash with Costin, it's genuinely fun we've been doing it for years (though more often then not we agree).

 

[darcler]

Well not so much arbitrary as an evaluation of the situation and the geo-strategic factors at play. I have studied a number of conflicts in depth, where avoiding aggressive action would have been severely detrimental if not downright suicidal, because of all the factors at play.

I mean sure, we always have a choice, but suicidal or self-detrimental choices I don't take into consideration as viable alternatives.

Obviously many factors come into play when dealing with politics. That said, it will be a common peasant who will ultimately pay the price of the decision. It's that simple, even though the decision-making process that has led to starting an invasion was long and complex. So yeah, you can call my reasoning simplistic, but the outcome for the individual human being is what I consider as the most important.

I am also well aware that there are situations where there simply are no good decisions. But even that does not release the decision-maker from his ultimate responsibility for the outcome of his decision.

But yes if I have used the word incorrectly, I would stand corrected.

It's just that it souds like it's some kind of grace. "I'm conquering you all. No need to thank me."

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am also well aware that there are situations where there simply are no good decisions. But even that does not release the decision-maker from his ultimate responsibility for the outcome of his decision.

Yes decision makers should always take responsibility for their decisions, and the consequences both beneficial and detrimental.

And yes, innocent individuals do suffer from the decisions of those "above." It's tragic, but that does not make the decisions of those "above" wrong. They have to deal with a perspective that is very different and responsibilities that are much bigger.

It does not mean that the suffering of the "little guy" is irrelevant, it's something to grieve at (trust me, I know. People who are close to me died very recently in a conflict). But I do not see it as the sole or primary factor when it comes to judging political decisions.

It's just that it souds like it's some kind of grace. "I'm conquering you all. No need to thank me." />

I certainly didn't mean it in that light. It's more "I'll scratch your back and give you awesome stuff if you submit to my rule."

Which is really the most pragmatic way to conquer someone if you have to.

 

[EmperorZorn]

18 pages later... still talk about who the monsters really are. Geralt, the girl or the cruel soldiers. I guess CDPR must be proud.

Yeah, let's spice things up a bit:

Isn't Geralt the one who murders wounded soldiers and loots their bodies ?
Maybe he empathized with the woman.