Smarnil le couard's page

My players asked me a good question, and that is, "if the conscious members of a team surrender, but their summoned creatures or golems are still alive, does a team have to beat the summoned creatures/golems while everyone else sits back and watches?" This assumes that the surrendering team does not have complete control over summoned creatures, but that's not a bad assumption. Flesh golems can beserk.

Also, what if someone on the opposing team surrenders because of mind control effects? I assume that counts.

Finally, I'm wondering what Talabir Welik is supposed to do when the ulgarstasta appears. As written, Raknian announces the apostle of Kyuss. If Welik is a stickler he should fight the ulgarstasta and/or Ranknian himself.

Excluding the case of flesh golems, a summoner has complete control over the actions of its summoned creatures.

By the rules of the Games as written, a summoner surrendering BUT not ordering his creatures to stand down would be the same as a warrior surrendering then making a attack. That means disqualification, if I am not mistaken.

Someone making the surrender gesture (kneeling with hands on head, from memory) under mental influence would count, the same as someone doing it of its own volition. He doesn't have a glowing sign on its head saying "Hey, I'm dominated!". It's fair game.

Almost everybody will be a little bit hostile toward Raknian, once he plays his cards. That's a good reason for him to escape at once and return later in EtGR (that and the fact that staying for the planned necrotic explosion is very unhealthy).

This might be a stupid question, but I'm a first time DM. Is the Thieve's Guild a legally recognized and sanctioned entity? The title Guild implies that.

Depends of the campaign world you are playing in.

In Greyhawk, the Thieves Guild has a very publicly known guild house (cf. the 1986 box, from the Ashes, etc.) and a seat in the Directing Oligarchy.

In other worlds, could be or could not : any criminal organization can call itself anyhthing it wants, doesn't mean a thing.

C'est une bonne idee. Quand on avait joue cette aventure, on avait retrouve les prisonniers dans les cavernes des hommes-lezards. Ils etaient en beaucoup plus piteux etats que dans ton aventure. Je sais pas si c'est mon MD qui est sadique, ou si c'est comme ca dans l'aventure. :)

Nan, il est normal. Le scénario prévoit que les otages suspectés d'être des mages se font briser les mains et la machoire par Shukak (le chef) dès leur arrivée au repaire, par mesure de précaution (plus simple qu'une surveillance 24h/24, en effet...).

Donc libérés avant leur destination = pas molestés.

NB: désolé pour le délai de la réponse, je viens de découvrir World of Tanks, et mon temps libre en a pris une grosse claque...

I don't want to get nailed in any kind of anti-DD crossfire, but I would like more discussion of happy hippie hedonism among the hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists, please.

I didn't know anything about the Semai before links above, but what little I read about them indicates that their society doesn't look anything like libertarianism, as imagined by either its proponents or its detractors. Nor one guy with a big stick.

Of course, exalted leader.

I'm not saying that discussing the neolithical way of life isn't interesting by itself (it is), just that linking it to a healthcare debate is irrelevant.

Someone (DD? Too lazy to check) implied that the USA as an hyperpower doesn't need single payer healthcare, as previous hyperpowers (the roman empire, victorian England) hadn't such a thing. Most spurious argument ever : I guess that by the same reasoning the USA don't need computers, MBTs and unmanned drones either. Progress also happen in social matters.

A band doesn't have anything as sophisticated as tribal elders.

Hey, DD. Here is some of your own medicine.

Can you cite us a band of hunters gatherers with roughly the same (+/- 10%) population and territory as the USA ?

If not, why do you think the way some cavemen lived and organized themselves is relevant in a debate about something as sophisticated as healthcare ?

EDIT: dismissing comparison with other first world countries on the sole basis is completely bogus, just a convenient way to dismiss data you don't like. If France, Germany, UK, etc. could build a complete healthcare system back in the forties, at a time when they were smoking ruins, financially strapped, how could the USA not manage to do the same thing at their economic height? The federal government is way MORE integrated and efficient than the European Union ; it's only the political willingness to enact a single payer system which is lacking.

EDIT2: @DD: I wasn't aware than our african migrants (the main source of immigration here, followed closely by asiatics) came from first world countries. The numbers I provided you (and which you can still look after on the EUROSTAT Internet site) excluded intra-UE flows. That also means Poland.

A polish guy working in France would be entitled to the french SS. Why not? He contributes to it, by a small slice taken from his salary (0,75 % for healthcare only, not including retirement, unemployment, etc.; other incomes get taxed too). If he is a tourist, he still get treatment, billed to Poland (thanks to UE integration). If he is a bum, he still gets emergency treatment for humanitarian reasons, billed on our taxes. We can take it.

As I, he could choose any hospital or MD he wants. He would carry a Vitale card, some sort of chip-encrypted credit card given by the SS carrying his whole health file, accessible only by medical personnel. Instant access to past exams, known antecedants, ongoing treatments, etc. Serves also as a billing card for medical needs : just hand it over and grab your prescriptions, keep your wallet in your pocket unless you are buying for-comfort drugs (cough syrups, nice honey pills, that sort of things).

I am quite healthy, an apendicectomy being my worst health problem so far, but knowing than I can go down with cancer tomorrow and not worrying about how I could gather enough money to survive it is worth every penny I ever paid.

GeraintElberion wrote:

As a Briton, I find these debates astounding.

Our system is highly effective in treating patients.
It is almost impossible to find anyone who is offended by the system or feels exploited or ripped-off.
It is incredibly convenient to access, which is very re-assuring in times of crisis.

There is very, very little similarity between Britain and the US. Our immigration rate is far higher. Our population and diversity is far higher.

These kinds of things promote corruption and failure for big government projects.

We've consistently failed when it comes to getting the federal government involved in anything resembling health care. Take Medicare, for example. It is inflexible in its pay structure, bogged down in paperwork, and irrational in its payments.

Oh please ! We've already been through this immigration issue on another thread, and I ALREADY brought you numbers showing that immigration fluxes and percentage of immigrant residents were actually aqual or even higher in the major UE countries (UK-France-Germany) that in the USA... How can you still stand on the same opinion on this topic?

And whatever, what's the relation between high immigration and healthcare ? How could immigrants promote corruption in the government, in which they play no part ?

thejeff wrote:

Also because of all sorts of interstate issues. Too many ways to game the system. If a state implements a British style free at point of service system, can out of state people take advantage of it? Can you retire to a state with a better health care system, preferably funded by income/payroll taxes so you don't have to pay into it? Can you not move to a different state to retire?
If you're going to require similar systems in states to avoid these problems, then it's going to require federal regulation anyway.

Almost every government our Federal leaders point to as examples of how a Federeal health care plan will work has the exact same characteristics you claim will prevent such a health care plan from working at the state level. You claim that a person may be able to retire to a state with a better health care system. Yet, the same thing could be said about somebody in one of the 'model' plans (forex. the French health care system) moving a couple of hundred miles to retire in, for example, Germany.

Nope, it's integrated. If I go into a german hospital, the french Sécurité Sociale is billed (unless I happen to work in Germany, in which I also have a german social security number; goes with nationality and place of work).

And why would I move to another country to get treatment ? What's the point ?

Well, if the shaman is interested in a peaceful solution (also involving the violent demise of chief Shukak), it makes more sense for him to seek the PCs rather than waiting for them to find him, literally two rooms from the guy he intends to betray (for the greater good ot the tribe).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out than an attack on the keep WILL result in armed retribution, after all. It's even more easier to figure out if the PCs routed the attackers in the first place.

Also, plan ahead for the eventuality of your PCs freeing Marzena before her lizardmen captors reach their lair. Putting the pinata-lazardman in this group made wonders to motivate my players to investigate further.

Of course, hostages contaminated with a slow worm is a must. Forget the son of Kyuss held in the tunnel, it's plain silly.

I stand by my deleted post, you all can look up the facts. Flagging my post does not erase reality in the real world guys.

Take care.

Oh, you are mistaken. I didn't flag anything, as I truly, completely missed your answer and have absolutely no idea of what it was.

Guess it was somehow sufficient to throw the Byersometer off the dial.

For my part, I just hold Israel to the same standards as anyone else, that is : upholding past agreements, and human rights for all, including palestinians.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Patrick Curtin wrote:

If I have to pay for past sins, I guess I shall have to go on the installment plan. Seeing as I refute the concept of sin as it is presented by the Abrahamic troika , I refuse to pay squat. Possibly I am working off a karmic burden. Who knows, all I know is I am sick of these little mouth bones hurting.

By "sin" I wasn't so much referring to transgressions against religious precepts as I was to a life spent consuming refined sugar. Dental sin, if you will.

(ORGANIZED) RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES!

Oh sorry, didn't mean to borrow your shtick =P

Merci pour vos condoléances, Smarnil.

I hope not to come to "condoléances"! They are meant for the grieving family, if you see what I mean. Let's say my "soutien" will suffice.

Petites modifications nécessaires : le scénario tel que rédigé indique qu'il est possible de secourir les otages avant que leurs ravisseurs ne rejoignent leur village en marchant de nuit, mais ne prévoit aucune des conséquences logiques d'un tel sauvetage...

Or, quel serait l'intérêt pour les aventuriers d'aller au village une fois Marzena libérée ?

POur piquer leur curiosité, la scène de l'homme-lézard piñata prévue dans le repaire a ainsi été déplacée dans les marais.

And how are all the dear comrades today, anyway?

And yes, that means you Comrade Le Couard, and you, Wanted for Crimes Against the Revolution Citizen HD, and even you, lurking Comrade Curtin? Wassup!

Well, doing fine, thanks. Played my Age of Worms campaign and finished Blackwall keep last friday. Coming to see the end of major pains in the ass at work, without exceding my 35 hours a week schedule.

Alain Krivine is doing well too, as far as I know.

My heartfelt supporting thoughts to statute-to-be-determined-comrade Curtin for his aching teeth. Ouch.

I guess I missed Aretas' angry retort. My bad. :)

As to "semi-comrade," I was shocked into realizing how far apart our politics are, you stooge of the plutocracy, and I apologize for the barely-hidden hostility. But, I think you will agree, Lenin and Trotsky would have said even nastier stuff.

Break with Social-Democracy! Workers to Power!

Vive le Galt!!

No prob', I have the same problem with our garden variety of trotskysts, here : they seem stuck in a "all or nothing", "either you are with us or against us" routine, and so, unwilling to make alliances to get some of their propositions moved forward.

We are too in a presidential election year, here : we have got TWO trotskysts candidates, who as usual refused to ally together, or with the other far-left candidate (who incidentally, is doing very, very well with polls at 15 %, and managed to draw 100.000 persons for a meeting on the Place de la Bastille in Paris two weeks ago : for comparison's sake, that's three times over the attendants at our beloved president's biggest meeting so far).

Purity of doctrine is an harsh mistress...

I am always in need of cybersex, semi-Comrade le Couard!

<scroll, scroll, scroll>

Hi. Quick word of appreciation, just to let you know you are still read.

I don't remember anything about Skeletons of Scarwall, except that I was favorably impressed after reading it, some years ago. So, I'm looking forward for your next posts.

I don't remember much either about the Shar-klah adventure, and so can't really put my finger on the changes you made, but I can testify that the way you played it, it flowed well.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?

The corporations that make money off of the oil are extra national, and its their interests, not those of the american people, that are driving our decision making process.

Got your point. But extra national doesn't mean foreign (as in, belonging to a foreign country). What you just said doesn't contradict my previous statement (sorry, can't help it : consider this kind of nitpicking as a professional disease).

FuelDrop wrote:

so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.

does this behavior classify America a rogue state, just one too big and powerful to take down? you know what, there are plenty of americans around here to speak for themselves. Given some of the other messageboards around here, i know that several of our regular posters will have something to say on the subject. let's keep this civil people and, let's face it, i'd love to be convinced i'm wrong on this one.

"Lets keep this civil"? LOL. Thats funny after saying all that. I would like to say lets make this conversation factual, not a fabrication of your fanstasy.

I and many Americans have had enough. We are sick and tired of our politicians selling us out to foreign interests. Its time to put America first. Against All!

Hi Aretas! How are you doin'?

I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?

As an afterthought, the only case I can think of where the USA cares about foreign interests is Israel. They have really gone the extra thousand miles to stand by them against... almost everybody else.

Okay, I'll bite, possible-Comrade Samnell:

What errors did that stooge of the plutocracy Zinn make?

And what exactly is the hierarchy between "possible-comrade" and "semi-comrade" ? Does the Galt revolution have ranks ? Do you grant brownie points, or goblin points ?

Spoilered for left-wing ranting

** spoiler omitted **

Vive le Galt!

That actually makes me happy to see. Other countries bearing more of the burden.

On the Libyan airstrikes, I would like to have been 0 involved. I think everyone was fed a line of crap on that one.

As far as them agreeing with Iraq or Panama or Grenada, who cares? Perhaps they didn't. They probably sent us a very stern letter saying we were naughty. Those may more be exceptions to the rule, but in the end, the UN will never risk action that will get them kicked out of the US, or have the US leave the UN.
How effectual is that?

On this topic, you’re on par with the stance practiced by republican US governments for at least thirty years, since Reagan and the “neocon revolution”. The democrats usually get into the motions of international cooperation, but in fact do little more.

Though; the way you describe it makes the US government sounds like a bully boy unable to change his ways until a bigger and meaner one beat him into pulp, which made me smile…

If your question is “will the UN bomb us into submission to make us comply with the rules we ourselves set back in 1942 on the USS Augusta’s deck, then in 1945 in San Francisco”, the answer is a clear no. Being kicked out of the US isn’t a serious threat for the UN either : a lot of countries would be glad and honoured to welcome them on their soil.

In psychology, the development of ethics is supposed to take place in two steps. In the first stage, the subject (a young child) only follows rules for fear of punishment. In the second one, as he matures, he comes to understand the intrinsic values of the rules (meant to prevent danger, to ease relationships, etc.), becomes its own warden and follows rules even when he is not in risk of getting caught. Some subjects are stuck all their lives in the first stage. We can only hope that the US government will grow wiser (or more exactly, will get back the level of wisdom and farsightedness Roosevelt had at the end of WW2) before the whole planet is a mess.

What you (and they) completely fail to understand (or remember : short term historical memory seems to be a common American ailment) is that the UN was meant as a pressure valve for international conflicts, an alternative way opened for peaceful resolution of conflicts before they degenerate into violence and war, as they did with fearsome regularity before its creation.

So, here is the root of the problem : the US government refuses to recognize the UN authority in international matters and don’t give a damn about international rules when they don’t suit US interests. So, when the US government is involved, there is no such safety valve, as it will do as it pleases regardless of UN sanction or condemnation, and/or prevent the UN action using its veto. What realistic options are left to some state or population having serious grievances against the US government in that situation ? None. They have to choose between rolling over nursing a grudge for the next ten generations, or blowing up some embassy or plane, taking pot shots at poor grunts, etc.

What I mean is that : at the end, this american stance (which we can call the 4B stance, for Big Bad Bully Boy : I really love the way you described it!) is counterproductive. As nobody likes bullies, such behaviour is sure to provoke unease and disgust among your allies, and waves of radiant hate among all others.

Have you travelled in the middle east ? I did visit Lebanon, Syria and Egypt with a diplomat friend of mine, who speak fluent arab. Do yo know the trick to get free drinks in any arab country ? Being european, not american. I spent a month there, back in 2000, and there wasn’t a day where some guy didn’t ask me my nationality. For a time, I considered wearing a tricolour t-shirt. As our president just had a clash with the israelians about the Palestinian territories, we were treated as rockstars.

The war on terror is a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes, you will keep having your way in any straight conflict, as you have an huge army and nobody is willing to bomb you (what would be the point?). And yes, your army will have to keep growing larger and larger, as violence only fosters violence and you cut yourself out of the peaceful options offered by the UN. It’s truly sad.

PS : on Lybia, I have read stuff on american sites claiming that the threat was faked by the lybian opposition, and that there was no danger to civilians and so no need for a speedy intervention. BS : our friend Kadhafi went live on TV as his troops converged Benghazi to vow that the town would be harshly punished for its rebellious ways. Himself. How exactly the opposition would have faked that ?

Not to mention that a bad joke is worth dying for.

Freehold DM wrote:

Ninja'ed. But in short Kryzbyn, there's a history to the UN that you seem to be eager to discount, ignore, or claim american hands were entirely behind, which isn't true. As for the "They pay no rent!!!" claims, well, they don't. But I've visited the neighborhood dozens upon dozens of times, and money does flow from the UN into NY(at least) quite readily. I went to school with two diplomat's kids(not everyone sends their kids to the school on the grounds), and they had to pay to get on the bus just like everyone else. There's a lot of misinformation, rumor, and just plain silliness that people attribute to diplomat status, and by extension, the UN.

I'm not discounting anything.

How many UN resolutions that had to be enforeced with arms had no US military troops since the UN's creation?
Whats important is the overall effectiveness of the UN.
If anything, what I'm saying is the US is not the UN, but that seems to be how things go.
When we feel we need to take action (justified or not) it's usually only a matter of time until the security council acquiesces, and we go do it anyway. Why the middle man? Why are they needed?
The humanitarian missions of the UN, I guess, do some good, some times.
That's worthy to contribute to, when it works as intended.
But overall, really?

Quite the contrary : most UN resolutions are enforced by other armies, for two reasons. First, the growing defiance between the UN and the USA; second, US troops can't be deployed in the vast majority of peacekeeping missions (those with cool acronyms, such as MINUK, FINUL, etc.) because they aren't seen as neutral by one or both of the conflicting parties (in the best cases, when the USA aren't positively hated by the locals).

You can see here the current US contribution in military and civilian personnel to the UN efforts : 0, and 0. The largest contributors are India, Bengladesh and your friends the Pakistani.

The only resolutions in which the USA get involved are the ones that involve the use of offensive force, much less numerous (in the last twenty years, Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Lybia). In those instances, they usually bear an heavy load, in accordance with the huge size of their armed forces. Though, I do remember that the USA did refuse to send ground troops in Yugoslavia (the europeans did the grunt work) and withdrew quite quickly from the Lybia airstrikes (but did continue to provide us with support, by supplying bombs). It seems that the USA aren't so keen to participate in UN offensive missions when their interests aren't directly at stake...

[edit] And about your affirmation that the security council always ends up agreeing with you "when (the USA) feel the need to take action (justified or not)", please tell me when this agreement took place for the 2003 invasion of Iraq ? Or the Panama invasion? Or the Grenada invasion ?

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

Regarding the U.N.-- at this point, yes, I hold a very very low opinion of the U.N.-- because the General Assembly is overrun with the vast horde of small nations with no teeth, run by questionable governments, all of whom think they should get to have an equal voice no matter how little they contribute-- and the resolutions passed by the General Assembly have included a lot of crap; meanwhile, in the Security Council, where the real decisions get made-- sometimes it's the U.S. Veto, sometimes it's the Russians or the Chinese-- but, the U.N. is utterly useless most of the time when it counts, because in most critical situations, one of the five permanent members is going to drop a veto on it. And-- because the U.N. IS functionally impotent-- there ARE NO United Nations forces, there are only the forces that member nations are willing to provide.... and in too many cases, that means either the United States/Europe/NATO gets involved and actually gets the job done-- or nothing gets done. The United Nations is a great idea, but once again it's been very very poor in execution.

I have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. As soon as the attacks were made Australia offered its military to be deployed where ever it was needed.

I (and 99%) of Australians disagreed with Iraq but we went with the US as we are allies and that is what allies do.

I believe the biggest impediment to peace in the middle east is the occupied territories and the failure to create a Palestinian state - the rest of the world believes this and it is on the US and Israel that are stopping it from happening in the UN.

No problem with Afghanistan either. Note that it was approved by the UN, as was Lybia more recently. So much for the UN reputation as a never-acting bureaucracy in time of crisis.

They did oppose the Iraq war on the basis that there was no conclusive evidence of WMDs or of links with Al Qaeda. Guess what? They were proven right, at the end.

On the other hand, they completely failed to prevent the Rwanda slaughters, or to find a peaceful resolution to the yugoslavian conflicts (but nobody did better). They are currently trying to find a solution to the Syrian crisis despite the russian opposition, with few results so far.

They honestly can't be blamed for their failure to end the palestinian conflict, as their efforts for peace have met strong opposition from the USA for decades.

@Kryzbyn, about the rent argument: did you know that the UN headquarters would have been in Geneva (as the SDN HQ was) if the USA hadn't vehemently asked to put it in New York? The gratuity of the rent was part of the US bid. I suppose the idea was to get more control on the organization... Blame the Truman governement, but not the UN, for that.

Have you other bad things to say about the UN, other than "they ask us to pay a contribution based on our world GNP share"? It sounds, well, somewhat petty... Even if you paid for everything in the UN (5,15 billion dollars), that would be only a drop in the ocean of your federal budget (3.615,00 billion dollars).

I think that all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council can be considered "rogue states", since they have the power to pursue their goals without any fear of any kind of sanction - and they use that power. Frequently. I have a privilege of being a citizen of a country that was bombed by US. At the time, that was called an action of mercy, but we were a bit cynical about that and assumed that it had something to do with spinning away the Monika Levinski scandal.

So, right now most of the people hate US. At the same time, US movies are the most popular ones; most of the younger generation has at least a smattering of English; books by American authors are by far the most popular - even more than those by British or Canadian authors; American comics have a devoted following.

Most people here can perceive the difference between the actions of US government and ordinary American people. The most common opinion of US, perhaps, is that it is the nation of hypocrites with an addiction to bad food. Perhaps that opinion is not based in reality, but there it is.

Hmmm... Serbia?

Maybe it had too something to do with some not-very-nice policies of your government? The USA are a big country, but even they can't be wrong every time...

I'm gonna have to make apologies to all, but I have got to get caught up on my school work-- papers are coming due and I do not have time to engage in the debates here as much as they deserve. Gonna try to follow along, but I have to mainly take my leave of actively presenting arguments for a while.

Couple'a quick comments before I fade to watching:

Smarnil-- I agree with you, re-- we need to treat people captured in war (including insurgents) as POWs-- I'm a little surprised you didn't see that already, since I said I was appalled by the way my gov't has decided to handle the issue. I'm not sure there is a good answer to the insurgent dilemma, because you're right: if you're an insurgent, you're going to have to make use of the ability to blend in with the population, or you will be caught and destroyed much faster. On the other hand-- by doing so, they guarantee that the civilian population is at massively increased risk, because it becomes extremely difficult to determine who's an insurgent, and who's just a (stupid) civilian engaged in suspicious-looking but still innocent activity. Insofar as we have actually launched attacks on homes and buildings that really did just have innocent civilians (and no insurgents inside), it's because the mistake is easy to make when the insurgents and the general population all look the same.

No prob, real life happens.

Well, I did note we agreed on a lot of things. But as I wasn't really trying to convince you of anything, it wasn't a motive to give you a cold shoulder and cut out the discussion... I like debate for the sake of it : did I mention I'm a lawyer?

Just curious : what field are you studying?

You know the US military isn't in Iraq anymore, right? We have an embassy there now. Iraq continues to deal with criminal violence but you can't explain that by saying they just want the US out of their country.

I know it, but must admit I had completely forgotten about it while adding my last paragraph (the one about the snarkish bet). Sorry, and heartfelt thanks for correcting me.

The violence in Iraq runs along ethnic/religious differences in the population. The Iraqi government is dominated by shiites, who were the whipped underdogs of the previous regime. As the sunnites and chiites represent roughly an equal percentage of the population (with a small advantage for the latter) and hate each others' guts, unrest will probably last a while, with a serious risk of a civil war. Add to this Kurds who dreams to secede to create a new Kurdistan, which will in turn destabilize the turkish Kurdistan, and you have the recipe for a fine mess. Nobody can know how it will end.

As to dehumanizing the insurgents: dumb insurgents don't last very long. The smart ones change tactics so we have a harder time tracking them. The top-level guys didn't get there by being stupid. Nonetheless we have some fundamental disagreements with them and I don't mean foreign policy. IMO the worst of these are the suicide bomb facilitators. These are people who will take mentally disabled people, distraught teenagers, and even children and calculatingly manipulate them into blowing themselves up. That's Evil with a capital E.

I agree with that sentiment, but suicide bombing is a method used by djihadist terrorists, not nationalist insurgents. You had to face both in Iraq, but do not confuse them. They use different methods to reach very different goals.

I can't speak for other posters about the UN, but IMO I think we distrust the UN because we have hegemony and we therefore distrust anything that abridges our independence. I'm a little leery of a body where a voting bloc of third-world banana dictatorships that covet our prosperity could make decisions that are binding on us. You have to remember that it was scarcely 200 years ago that we decided we weren't taking orders from Europe anymore. Another part of this is that I'm a big right-to-bear-arms guy and the UN is continually passing anti-small-arms-proliferation stuff that, if enforced or adopted by the US, would adversely affect our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I think the UN does have a valuable role in conflict intervention between sovereign nations, but I don't think its mandate covers usurping that sovereignty in any form.

In the UN, the most important body (the one with the power to issue mandatory resolutions) is the Security Council. Its composition heavily favors first world powers. The assembly (where each country has one vote, so dominated by small countries) can only vote non mandatory resolutions, with symbolic value.

From the top of my mind, I'm not aware of UN policies with such direct impacts on the domestic policies of its members. As far as I know, the UN only care about international matters (caveat : interventions motivated by humanitarians emergencies). Do you have an exemple of such sovereignty usurpation?

About the OP : obviously, "rogue state" is a subjective term, relative to the "norm" that the "rogue" is supposed to violate.

Even more obviously, if the USA are seen as the source of that norm, they can't be rogue as they are the ones to put other states on some sort of "black list of rogue states".

If the norm is the United Nations, then the USA are objectively a rogue state since their non sanctioned invasion of Iraq. They can live with that.

On that topic, I'm under the impression that some posters here have a very low opinion of the UN. Could they explain why they hold that opinion ? I'm curious.

Mine is that the UN had been a major progress of WW2, as its creation provided another way to settle disputes short of armed conflict. It improved on the powerless SDN by allowing resolutions to be backed by armed force (originally, the UN were meant to have their own armed forces, mostly air power).

It surely had been crippled by the Cold War (getting used as a influence tool by one camp or the other), and since its end by the way the USA only considers its authority when convenient, but the idea of a worldwide supreme authority to promote a fair and peaceful resolution of conflicts is still useful.

For instance, withdrawing the decade-long US veto on upholding the UN resolutions on the Palestine conflict would deprieve terrorists of one of their main arguments for easy recruitment... And yes, shrink back Israel to its 1967 borders. Guess it wouldn't please the AIPAC!

I think I was reading it backwards. I went back and looked at the quote and Protocol I requires you to treat captured insurgents the same as uniformed combatants. I was misreading it that you were supposed to try them as civilian criminals, but that's the opposite of what it actually says.

Could be, legalese can be... well, circonvoluted. No big deal. Law is my main area of expertise (IAAL; had to google this one). On the other hand, my military experience is limited to my draft in 91-92, first in the heavy artillery (155mm howitzers), then in an infanterie de marine armored regiment. No combat experience to speak of, and frankly, glad of it.

Either way, the point I was trying to make is that since Protocol I dictates the legal status of non-uniformed combatants, it withholds the ability to determine that status. Non-state actors make that status difficult to determine on a case-by-case basis, let alone with some kind of blanket policy. I don't think that we, as a nation, are at a point where we're willing to abdicate our ability to be flexible in determining these things. Admittedly these are murky legal waters and smarter legal eagles than me are still working it out--so I must defer by saying IANAL.

I understood this part of your statement, but it seems to me than "keeping our options open to determine the status of insurgents on a case by case basis" is another way of saying "getting ourselves stuck in a legal quagmire".

Granting POW status to insurgents would be simpler. The current case by case policy just means that :
1) whatever CO is at hand will have to take a decision at his whim, or according to the political mood of the moment;
2) nobody sane will surrender to the US army, as he would have no idea if he will end up in a POW camp, be handed to local authorities (which obviously are either US stooges, or cowed into submission by the invasion), get shot as a spy, or disappear in a secret CIA prison to get tortured (it doesn't matter if those practices still exist or not; their reputation will now linger for decades).
3) all the while, you will get booed by the world crowd. Scary !

Obviously, if the US army doesn't know what to do about insurgents, the wisest course would be to abstain from invading and occupying foreign countries for ten years on dubous motives (thinking about Iraq here, not Afghanistan, who deserved it)...

Of course, the grunts are not responsible for that policy : they are just the one who enact it on the field, and have then to bear its ugly consequences.

Anyway, Protocol I or not, the insurgents will keep doing insurgent things. Iraqi and afghani insurgents will keep using guerilla tactics to strike at the world's most powerful army, as any other tactical choice would be doomed to failure, in exactly the same way that french resistants used guerilla tactics against the german army, who at the time had the same reputation for invincibility.

Frankly, taking arms against the US army takes so much balls that you or me would have to walk bow-legged. Dismissing insurgents as stupid, brain-washed scum not worthy of the same privileges as regular soldiers (that is POW status) can be seen as thoughtless arrogance from your governement.

Sometimes, I wonder if the problem could be that your government really can't bring itself to realize that even your opponents can be fellow humans worthy of respect, despite of the fact they don't agree with US policy. I don't know if it comes from dumb naivete ("how could they be so daft to refuse our wonderful gift of democracy? They must hate our liberties!"), cynical hypocrisy ("human rights are only for my friends : long live the Empire!"), intellectual laziness ("I... don't... care... about their... motives. Too complicated!") or another cause.

Please, do consider for a moment that the afghani mujahideen were celebrated by Ronald Reagan as freedom fighters, twenty five years ago. Same guys, same country, same situation : the only change is the troops targeted. How exactly did they morphed into brainless islamist gun-bait zombies ?

A little levity, to conclude : I'm willing to take bets about the time that the local governements put in place in Iraq or Afghanistan will take to crumble if your troops (and NATO's, in the case of the latter) were to finally depart. Could be hours, in Karzai's case : his Most Excellent Scumbagginess will probably rejoin your tax dollars in Switzerland even before the last GI takes off.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Signing or not signing this protocol won't change a thing : insurgents will still take the "right" to blend in the population, even if you don't agree, and you will still have to wait for an actual attack to get them red-handed. The only alternative would be to grab random civilians hoping some of them are actual insurgents (this tactic has already been tried in Europe by an occupying army back in the forties, and I can assure you that you can forget about winning hearts and minds afterwards).

On the contrary--you use intelligence and targeting to find the badguys before they strike, or at least before they strike again. The guy building IEDs in his basement is a combatant. The choice is between having treaty obligations to treat him as a civilian criminal or being able to make that determination ourselves as a sovereign nation based on our own priorities and conditions on the ground. By the time we left Iraq, we did in fact deal with enemy insurgents as criminals. During earlier phases of the war (before the Iraqi law enforcement and court systems were reconstituted, for instance) that would not have been feasible. In a counterinsurgency, you cannot deal with insurgents as criminals unless the rule of law is established.

IMO the reason for the US declining such treaties is not because we don't agree in principle, but because we feel it's important to keep our options open, to maintain flexibility in dealing with unforeseen contingencies. This is particularly important because our current enemies are non-state actors who by definition cannot be held to international legal standards of conduct.

I don't see your point. Of course, if you get good intel leading you to a guy building IEDs in his basement, he will be treated as an insurgent with or without Protocol I.

I never said that Protocol I would legally compel the US army to wait to get shot at before doing something about the insurgency. Of course not ! It's just that most of the time, it will happen this way, as good intel is rare (especially among an hostile population).

My point is, even if the USA keep abstaining from signing this Protocol, insurgents won't oblige them by wearing nice uniforms and forming nicely rows on the field of battle. Facts don't go away just because you don't want to acknowledge them; neither do insurgents.

Further, Protocol I isn't incompatible with the criminal angle, provided you have a local friendly government, as in Iraq : first, get the insurgents, treat them as regular POWs in accordance with the Protocol; second, hand them to the local court to be judged as
common criminals. All options are still open. IMHO, the only thing you can't do is treating him as a criminal before your own courts, as you have no juridiction in the country you just invaded.

Finally, do you really think that the perspective of harsh treatment (that is, not getting a regular POW treatment) would deter people wlling to risks their lives to fight you ? I don't think that it takes less courage to become an insurgent than to become a regular soldier.

Also, if I was an insurgent, I would be more prone to surrender if I was sure to get a fair treatment... And more prone to fight to the bitter end if not.

First things first : of course, the guy building IEDs is a combatant. Would be with or without Protocol II.

@Andrew Turner : on the contrary, this thread manage to stay quite civil, despite the explosive (no pun intended) topic.

This part is the reason why the U.S.A. will probably never accept the 1977 protocol 1. The problem is, that this says, in so many words, that's okay to toss aside your weapons and blend right back into the civilian population as soon as your attack is over. It also says it's okay to remain completely blended in with and concealed by the civilian population at all times, except when actively preparing and launching an attack on opposing forces.

Bluntly speaking-- accepting this as law, and abiding by it-- is suicide for ANY military that has to engage a terrorist or insurgent force. The only way you can fight an insurgency at all, while abiding by this rule and the other Laws of War, is to stand around waiting for the insurgents to attack you, while day by day your forces get sniped and blown up by IEDs and generally get nickel and dimed to death. It's a golden gift to insurgencies, but it's also the countries of the world who want insurgencies to succeed basically saying "we want it to be impoossible for organized to ever succeed again".

While I agree with you that we should uphold human rights to the maximum extent possible at all times, no matter what is going on in the conflict at hand-- this rule virtually guarantees that many more civilians will die-- because it becomes almost impossible to tell the difference between civilians and active combatants. And, there definitely comes that point where, as careful as we want to be about not causing unnecessary civilian casualties, mistakes are going to be made-- because you cannot reasonably ask soldiers to always hold fire until some of their own have been killed by insurgents masquerading as civilians right up until they started shooting, before they're allowed to open fire. IMO, upholding human rights, and the 1977 Protocol 1, are NOT compatible with each other because of the unfortunate side effects of the quoted section.

What you've said about insurgencies and provisionally granting POW status even to insurgents does make good sense. I'm appalled at the agencies in my own government that have denied POW rights to the combatants we've captured in the field.

Others do, and the sky didn't fall down.

Do note that I'm not arguing that the US army shouldn't retaliate or take measures against insurgents. And I can't blame soldiers who did kill civilians by honest mistake because they truly felt threatened in such a stressful environment.

Civilians taking arms and blending back into the crowd is as old as war. What were Minutemen, if not citizens taking their rifles when needed, to go back to their houses when not? How to blame people who do exactly what our forefathers did ?

Even if you don't recognize that "taking arms and blending back into the crowd" isn't part of the rules of war, what are you (the USA) going to do about it ? Just grab all the insurgents you can and get them before a firing squad ? Why not just treating them as any other POW ?

Signing or not signing this protocol won't change a thing : insurgents will still take the "right" to blend in the population, even if you don't agree, and you will still have to wait for an actual attack to get them red-handed. The only alternative would be to grab random civilians hoping some of them are actual insurgents (this tactic has already been tried in Europe by an occupying army back in the forties, and I can assure you that you can forget about winning hearts and minds afterwards).

What I mean, is that this protocol recognizes an existing fact of war. Not signing it won't change reality.

Regarding Fallujah, 2004-- I was in Iraq in 2004 (although I was in Tikrit), but from my view on staff I did have a pretty good 'view' of that operation... to the best of my knowledge, NO depleted uranium munitions were used in Fallujah in the April-May 2004 offensive there-- there was no reason for it either, because the insurgents in Fallujah didn't have any tanks. DU Munitions aren't that good for bunker busting. Also, to the best of my knowledge (and certainly the official record), all WP munitions employed in Fallujah were used for smoke, not for incendiary effect. I also do not believe the reports that excessive force was used by U.S. Forces in Fallujah... Besides my own view from division staff, some of the tactical teams from my unit were down in Fallujah supporting the Marines throughout the whole battle-- the insurgent forces in Fallujah in 2004 were numerous, fanatical, dug in quite well, and were surprisingly well supplied. That was a very hard fight against a very determined and prepared enemy, in an urban environment-- it's not the sort of thing that's possible to do, without a whole lot of collateral damage-- which there was.

I can assure you, in spite of the fact that a lot of American troops were very very upset over the murders of American contractors at the end of March 2004(whose bodies were hung from the bridge in Fallujah, in public view and disrespected in ways the locals would not accept, if we did that to bodies of insurgents after killing them)-- our forces still acted with remarkable restraint in conducting that campaign considering how much resistance they faced on the streets of Fallujah.

I can't dispute your hands on experience, but the fact is that the rates of stillbirths and other deformities are off the dial in Fallujah and other iraqi cities where major battles took place (Bassorah, etc.). If not in 2004, DU has probably been used in Fallujah to explain this.

You and your buddies were right to be upset at the slaughter of BW operatives in 2004. I surely was! Though, not answering to barbarism with more and ever worse barbarism is the right thing to do. I wouldn't expect such blind mob violence from the US army.

The citation that WP was used in Fallujah in 2004 to "root out insurgents" comes from Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, on the BBC. WP isn't prohibited for illumination or smoke-producing purposes; it's only banned by the Geneva Convention when used as an incendiary in civilian areas. The trick is, even a smoke round can be used as an incendiary, as WP is WP whatever the sticker on the round says. So, according to the Pentagon own spokesman, it seems that such weapons were used outside of their allowed purposes (it was first denied by the Pentagon in 2004, then the denial was withdrawn in 2005 as the evidence accumulated). It's not the worst war crime of the century, but as democracies we should strive to uphold our own principles (including our own laws and treaties).

Smarnil le couard wrote:

On the other hand, I'm not sure that protecting civilians was a concern in the planning of the Fallujah assault in 2004. Using WP and DU on a crowded town demonstrates that either the brass didn't give a damn about civilian casualties, which is bad, or intended to make an example by using excessive/impressive force, which is even worse.

I'm a US field artilleryman, so I'm qualified to speak with first-hand accuracy about these munitions. This should not be misconstrued as some kind of official statement of policy.

We have submunition ordnance (Improved Conventional Munitions, or ICM), but we refrain from using them. One reason is that the dud rate is high enough that our infantrymen wouldn't want to be walking around on an ICM target area due to the presence of unexploded ordnance. AFAIK, however, we do have them in the arsenal for use in case of high-intensity conflict against a similarly-armed enemy. Very few things are as effective at disabling armored vehicles. Personally, if my choices were "use ICM" or "be destroyed by tanks" I would use the ICM if I had it. Many of our enemies that have, or may have, ICM capabilities are not signatories to those treaties either. We have, but never employ, victim-operated land...

Thanks for the expertise, it's appreciated.

Legally speaking, WP is a curious beast : it's authrorized by the CWCC (a convention that the USA did sign) as an illumination or smoke agent, but banned in urban zones as an incendiary one. According to US military sources, it was widely used in Fallujah to "flush out insurgents", and civilians did get burnt.

It's the same line of reasoning that led to the ban on cluster weapons, biological weapons, and (maybe one day) DU : non discriminating effects.

It's generally bad form to ask a nation guard against the spread of communism, then throw them under the bus when they're caught doing so.

Yep. Except that communism ceased to exist as a credible worldwide bogeyman something like twenty years ago... We are not talking of Cold War dirty tricks here, but of a current trend in US foreign policies. NO snark intended.

The 1977 Protocol 1 treaty added to the Geneva Conventions basically says it's okay for insurgent groups, active combatants, to not wear distinguishing uniforms that set them apart from the civilian population, and also sets out the idea that it's okay for them to live among and blend into the civilian population except when they're actually carrying and using their weapons. No, there's no f***ing way we should sign or honor that treaty-- it's basically meant to excuse insurgents from obeying the laws of war that all organized armies are expected and required to follow, it puts the civilian population at greatly increased risk, virtually guarantees that a lot of civilians are going to be mistaken for combatants and will be shot and killed as a result... and it was put together and thrust on the U.N. by a lot of smaller nations that wanted to find ways to inconvenience the major powers in conducting war.

Regarding depeleted uranium-- most countries love this treaty 'banning' depleted uranium, because they can't make it and put it to work anyway. I don't think we should give it up, to satisfy the nations who are scared of it-- because there isn't anything else that is quite as effective for making armor-piercing munitions and better tank armor. If you're going to fight a war at all, fighting it half-a**ed, instead of going out there to win, is actually going to cause more damage in the long run, than being quick, violent and destructive, and getting it over with. Sorry, but this one is the crying of nations who don't have our toys, trying to keep us from using the capabilities we have available.

Cluster munitions and land mines-- we have applied our technology to making sure that we do not use munitions that are going to litter the battlefield for generations afterwards. We're doing our best to making sure that our stuff self-destructs with a fairly short shelf-life, so that we're not endangering local populations through leaving unexploded ordinance there for years and years after the fighting has ended. However, it again comes back to the point that there really isn't anything else that can do the same job that cluster munitions do. Yes, there's a lot of countries that would like the United States to sign that treaty and honor it-- the real reason is NOT the humanitarian bulls**t that people would like to sell you on-- it's that most of these nations can't manufacture and use the sorts of weapons the U.S. manufactures and deploys in battle, and therefore would like to tie our hands so that they don't have to worry about having weaponry used against them that they can't make and use anyway.

No offense taken, my comment was a premptive strike, sort of. Your tone wasn't aggressive, but the topic is... well, volatile.

Warning, wall of text ahead!

I agree that it "says it's okay for insurgent groups, active combatants, to not wear distinguishing uniforms". So ? You know, that's the whole point of an insurgency : the french resistance didn't use uniforms either. Nor the various insurgencies you did back up, including your present afhgani nemeseses when they had the good taste of killing soviet soldiers, not US ones. The afghani/iraqi did fight you because they saw you as invaders on their soil ; maybe they are mistaken or misled, but that's not the point : their purpose has to be respected as you would probably do the same thing if you were in the same situation. Human rights shouldn't be limited to those who do agree with you (or me). Granting them POW status wouldn't change a thing for the USA, except preventing such PR disasters as Guantanamo.

I agree too that only nuclear powers can build DU weapons. That means that France, Germany, UK, Japan, Italy, etc. among a lot of others could too : we are literally sitting on a big pile of the stuff, as DU is a waste product of uranium enrichment process. The problem about such weapons isn't their scary efficiency, but the radioactive mess they leave behind. Are you aware of the telltale spike in stillbirths in Fallujah?

Also, most countries would like to see the USA joining the ban on submunitions ordnance, not because they can't make them and are jealous, but because those weapons are too indiscriminate in their effects. Among your allies, France, UK, Germany, Spain could and did manufacture them, before choosing not to. The US Army is so much more powerful that any other army that it could do without them and still beat the crap out of anybody.

I readily agree that most (99%+) of the time, the US army does take great care to avoid endangering civilians, as all armies from western democracies do. First, because there is no rational need to do so, second, because it would be awfully counterproductive while trying to "win hearts and minds" in a long occupation.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that protecting civilians was a concern in the planning of the Fallujah assault in 2004. Using WP and DU on a crowded town demonstrates that either the brass didn't give a damn about civilian casualties, which is bad, or intended to make an example by using excessive/impressive force, which is even worse.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Nonetheless, the report is fairly relevatory, making two important points: first, that all sides on the ground committed war crimes with no mention at all of a potential genocide conducted by the Qaddafi force; second, that there remains a distinct lack of clarity regarding potential NATO war crimes.

Not enough can be made of these two points. They stongly infer that the rush to a NATO "humanitarian intervention" might have been made of exaggerated evidence, and that NATO's own military intervention might have been less "humanitarian" in its effects.

One could find better sources though-- the U.N. Human Rights Council is (and has been for a long time) an overly politicized and utterly worthless sham group, useful for fielding the complaints of various nations that don't actually have the power or reach to do anything anyway. While I do not trust their biased results, still-- many of the NGO's (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are better sources for this sort of info than the U.N.'s HRC.

Regarding NATO War Crimes? Don't think there were any in the air war over Libya (on the part of the military personnel actually conducting the operations, anyway-- the decision to send them in the first place might be another matter). War is a very very messy business and people get killed. Very often, in fact in almost every conflict in human history, some of them have been 'civilians' and non-combatants. Libya's no different in that respect. There are plenty of people out there I'm sure, who'd like to limit "legal" warfare purely to rifles and remove the possibility of ever using artillery or airstrikes again-- some of whom are simply utterly blinded idealists, and some of whom are cynical scumbags trying to make the 'playing field' easier for terrorists and insurgents-- but the continued whining that it must be a war-crime every time a bomb goes...

+1. Sorry comrade goblin, but an airstrike could qualify as a war crime only if it was purposefully targeting a purely civilian target. War kills, including innocents. It's why it shouldn't be waged for spurious motives in the first place.

In this case, Qaddagi's forces were on the verge of taking Benghazi and had announced their intent of slaughtering "rebel scums" and their families (that is, lybian civilians involved in the uprising, their cousins, their fathers and their dogs). Time was of the essence.

You are thoroughly wrong. The United States is a party to most of the treaties establishing the 'Laws of War' as a formal body of international law. The only portions we are not presently a party to, are the 1977 Protocol 1 addition to the Geneva Conventions and the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. You are correct, however, that thumbing our nose at the ICC is having a lot of diplomatic costs. On the other hand-- considering the political influence that has been applied to the ICC, I'm not so sure I trust that body to do its work impartially either-- so it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation as well. Also-- most of the customs and treaties establishing the Laws of War actually predate the existence of the United Nations (not established until 1945, following the end of World War 2)-- the Geneva Conventions were negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations but the earlier treaties and agreements (such as the Hague Conventions) are at least as important to determining the overall body of International Law covering wars and conflicts.

Hi. My point isn't to launch into an heated debate about what constitutes a rogue state, so let's keep our tempers. On the other hand, I knew posting on this thread was a bad idea...

By "rules of war", I was specifically thinking about the treaties banning modern toys such as DU rounds and submunition bombs. They do not predate the UN, obviously. I wasn't suggesting that the US army was ignoring ALL rules, with a policy of raping women and eating babies.

The diplomatic cost of not endorsing "common rules" that most of the neighborhood, including all of your allies, do accept isn't to be underestimated. Imagine you were living in a town with only one rule, a widely accepted speed limit of 40 mph : how would you consider the one guy speeding along the streets, honking all the way and occasionnally running over pedestrians ?

IMHO, the USA has so much political, economical and military that it COULD play the white knight and abide by most, if not all rules on this matter, UN-born or not, and still get its way.

Reckless use of excessive force seems to be a very wasteful use of US vast assets, as well a a surefire way to ensure that they will have more and more enemies to fight in the future.

That said, there is very few countries on this earth who can claim having a clean nose (Norway perhaps?). But the US truly distinguished itself those last few years by the way it blatantly ignored those rules and treaties (speeding away AND honking if you get my meaning). I suppose that part of it came from an understandable overreaction to 9/11, but now that Al Qaeda is a shadow of itself, maybe it should be time to get back to a peacetime footing (that is, full bore habeas corpus, and no more targeted assassinations abroad).

Great entry. The ceremony description is very good, particularly the opposition between the old bloody suloise ritual and the watered down modern version.

The conclusion is very funny : this old coot Worrin taking advantage of Tristan's silent wake made me smile like a loony.

What is "International Law"?

This one is easy...

What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.

The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.

At least a rogue state need allies to flank ennemies.

I would be more worried about a barbarian state.

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

A highly regarded expert wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

Bloody hell.

Yes, that's right. Energy companies can make the Environmental Protection Agency do what they want.

Regulatory capture (particularly the "studies" about fracking) makes my blood boil. That is not government by and for the people.

The worst part? Try to stop it, and you are against business and free market.

I wish more people were aware and educated about regulatory capture. It is one of the singular reasons why the bureaucracy isn't working--because the corporations have co-opted it.

However, I feel the answer isn't to dismantle the bureaucracy but rather to erect a strict ruleset in which people who participate and fund regulatory capture are hunted for sport.

Sounds too harsh : for due process' sake, they should be given a butter knife to defend themselves.

Tale from a Den of Evil (tm) escapee

Did I already mention that a GS team engineered for the greek the clever financial system that enabled them to cook the books for years, that the girl that headed it got promoted as VP for Europe afterwards, and that said bank is strongly suspected of placing bets against Greece through "black pools", to gorge itself when said house of cards came crashing down, triggering a worldwide crisis?

Where are drones when you need them ? (just kidding; WP is better)

Hi ! I see you haven't lost your touch...

I did particularly love your description of the spell research process. Very close to real life mathematicians !

The way Tristan is losing touch with casual communication (when to smile, why, etc;) is very well done too.

And the fact that despite her best efforts, she couldn't hide from Lavinia that she is quite NOT the normal gril she tried to impersonate...

And... (you got the idea)

Hope you enjoyed writing it, because it was quite a treat to read.

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Nice hommage !

Sorry to hear about your lack of steam. An unfinished story is such a sad thing... I got a six month lapse myself before getting to write again, so I guess there is still hope.

Did you find another game as good as Savage Tide ? As I recall, last time you talked of it, you joined a PBM who later tanked. Better luck since ?

I'm thinking that I might not be able to finish CoBI, but who knows, I might do a bit more writing for this campaign. There truly are some amazing characters and I really loved writing for Tristan and company.

I did find another campaign that I'm enjoying very much though. Pygon runs Serpent's Skull that started up soon after the AoWs campaign I was playing in folded. I've even done a bit of writing for that as well.

Also I should apologize for not getting back to people immediately as of late. I haven't been checking in with this site as much as I should I think.

You're welcome, eh.

I'm still lurking here, both to read Moonbeam's journal, and to write my own. It's not like you had an obligation to monitor your threads !

Thanks ! Yes I have a few one.

Beat you! Got 800+.

Some intentions...

I intend to make a npc (maybe a bard or the jester class from dragon or dungeon, I don't remember...).
One of my idea is to introduce "Demon Boy" Geyhawk for HoHR, I read the thread of his player and I loved it... I already know which funny face and funny voice I can't take to play him... The concept is too great to be forgotten.
I'm also considering to merge Ellival with the doppleganger boss from HoHR. Maybe Ellival was killed by Bozal's "men" to get a foot in Diamond Lake area.

But this means:
1- I have to check if the greyhawk group is independant from Lashonna. I mean is Bozal taking orders from her ? I don't know, I haven't read every words, every lines.
2- I have to check the timeline...

Maybe it's too much, but, I need to see again Ellival in the campaign, so I'm looking for solutions.

How is your campaign ? That's a long time since i've read something from you !

My campaign is doing fine : they are in the middle of the swamp, poised to attack the lizardmen lair after getting some directions from the shaman (and instructions to minimize collateral damage, aside from the chief and his chief goon). For the time, he forgot to tell them about the chief's dragon ally. Must be old age.

I had a great time roleplaying the negociations between the barbarous shaman and my PCs. I gave them a handcarved staff with coded directions to the chief's room (did it myself with an hand saw), and can't wait to see next session if they will remember how they are supposed to read it.
I intend to use to chronometer to make them choose their way in real time (left, middle or right? Tic tac tic tac...)

I have two sessions to write down to update my journal.

As written, the doppleganger/illithid group is mercenary, with no links to Lashonna, hired by Raknian to avenge the death of his friend Theldrick. Duh.

I prefer to make them into a long standing infiltration cell, part of the Kyuss conspiration, in charge of putting Raknian in place as Arena director in the first place, and of protecting him from any investigation from the Greyhawk government thereafter (including investigations about the untimely disappearance of Lahaka).

I am myself looking for a good opportunity for a comeback of "Ellival". Maybe my PCs will hear about a mysterious elf visiting Raknian, while investigating him. I will definitely make him one of the avolakia priests in the Rift.

Hi everyone.

I've finished my first PC's background

The stats have to be done but so far we have his history.

I will made a booklet for each player. I've finished the monk's. Sorry it's written in french.

For the non french, I will resume the BG.

Antoine will play a monk with the feat which allow him to have psionic capacity. He intends to get the Fist of Zuoken prestige class.

Born in Leukish, his parents sold him because they were scared about some weird manifestions of his psionic powers. He was sold to a strange bakluni guy who will be his master (sifu). He went with Izenfen's group in 574 to inhabit the Twilight Monastery and left it live adventures.

Eventually they went to greyhawk Free City before going to bakluni lands. The monk's master had to take with him his long time lover, Lahaka. But she was with someone else... Neverthelesse she agreed to go with them. But Loris Raknan learned that his girl had an affair with some other guy. He send Zyrwog to slay the monk's master before the PC's eyes (like dexter's mother murder). That's why he will kill her, when he will learned she's in love with Auric. IMC Lahaka was a little bit "coeur d'artichaud", easy to fall in love...

Finally the master's bidy and the PC (10 yeras old) were send to the Twilight Monastery. 7 years to clean, and make some annoying works.

Before the campaign starts he has been told he could go in town with some monks, to sell some kalamanthis herbs...

Here the link to read the booklet (it's in french and it's in low def, sorry about that).

Go to Monk's guide to AOW campaign

Sounds yummy (both the introduction and the monk's backgroud). Looks like I'm not the only one to collect LG adventures.

Are you planning to whip up a campaign journal ?

I'm slowly making my way through reading all of the adventures. I'm almost finished Encounter at Blackwall Keep. I totally respect Sean K Reynolds, but damn that adventure would have to be one of his least impressive efforts.

The plot hook isn't great to begin with. Then Allustan buggers off as soon as they arrive at the battle. He really couldn't stay for a couple of extra minutes to help take out the Lizardmen? Because realistically that is all the time it would have taken.

Never mind the fact that he is taking off is to get reinforcements and if the PC's complain he supposedly tells them that they can handle the situation by themselves. If the PC's can handle the situation by themselves then why does he need to get the Diamond Lake garrison to help out?

Then we have the siege with the Lizardmen. Sean goes to great lengths to point out how attacking the Lizardmen head on is just asking for a TPK. Yet multiple posters on the boards have mentioned that the whole siege is one of the biggest cakewalks they have pitted their players against. I'm guessing no playtesting at all was done on that.

Then we move on to the keep itself. I hope Paizo learned their lesson with the map. Poster map = good. Not replicating the ground level of the keep in the magazine = bad and confusing. Not numbering the rooms on the poster map = just adding to the confusion.

Once you get past that there is the whole issue with the Spawn of Kyuss boarded up in the basement. Surely the soldiers must have thought they were re-enacting a horror movie. Hmmm, our friend is turning into some strange undead creature. I know, instead of killing this undead beast, let's board them up in the basement of the keep. We totally won't regret that decision at a later point!

Then we move on to the Lizardmen lair. Oh look, one of the Lizardmen has worms growing inside of him. If we cure him then the Lizardmen will be our friends and stop attacking. Except it requires us to make a heal check on someone that is likely to...

Yep. Usual advice is :

1) do not involve Allustan. Let him send them to Marzena, or use a completely different hook. I did made her into a specialist about fringe cults, the same way that Allustan himself is an archeology buff. IMC he directed them to her for investigation of the Ebon Triad lead.

2) as the scenario says, it's very possible that the PC's intercept the prisoner-dragging lizardmen before they get back to their lair (as my PCs did). Prepare for that, as the scenario assume they don't. To give them an incentive to investigate further after freeing the hostages and bonging the kidnappers, I moved the worm-infested lizardman scene there ("oh my, those worms are suspiciously akin to the one we recovered earlier, aren't they? Something untoward must be happening in the marsh"). If don't investigate further, no matter : whip up some scenes with Lizardmen of Kyuss shambling out of the marsh some days later. The campaign will continue anyway.

3) DO NOT use the Son of Kyuss as written. IMC, the lizarmen healed some of the prisoners with potions before dragging them into the swamp(slow worm included, courtesy of Ilthane), as their ordrers were to bring them alive and in one piece. I did mention it to the PCs during the prisoners' debriefing. They might have a Night of the Walking Dead surprise at their return...

4) move the head shaman out of the lair, make him contact the PCs outside to propose them a deal : snuffing the new chief, against lasting peace with the lizardmen. He knows that retaliation will come : no way he will sit on his hands in the next to last room of the lair to borker a deal to save his tribe (who tries to negotiate a treacherous deal with assaillants who already killed half the tribe, just next to the chief you try to get killed?). A good occasion for roleplay, BTW, sorely lacking in the scenario as written.

5) make up a village in middle of a lake bordering the mangrove lair. The later is only an heavily guarded hideout for the eggs. Where are the females and the youngs ?

I must forget some... If you read french, try our campaign journal for full explanations.

Smarnil,

I was also deeply distressed you'd equate "casual killing of foreign civilians" to AN (singular) "deliberate killing of an US citizen without due process."

At the risk of sounding morose, it's not clear to me how any human life matters any more nor less than any other human life.

It's the human condition, I suspect.

A man that owned other humans as chattel wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm def morose now.

-- Andy

No need for distress, as I was answering Kelsey. She was talking about one US death, not about several foreign ones. Doesn't mean that I, or she, give more weight to the former.

You and I can see it like that, but legally that isn't how it's defined in the US. I'm not saying the US should act like this, I'm saying that, at the moment, it does, and that US law supports it. Like it or not, waterboarding is not torture, because the DOJ says it isn't. It's stupid and ineffective, and it would be torture in France, but in America it isn't torture, because that's what our law says. Your laws don't apply here.

Thanks a lot for the patient explanation, but as a lawyer I am already familiar with the juridiction issue. :)

I will just remind you that I'm talking here about UN sanctioned international law here, not french law. Yes, the USA don't accept it, but as they are alone in this (even most african dictatorships are part of the ICC, nowadays)...

The casual killing of foreign civilians and the deliberate killing of an US citizen without due process aren't so different : both are (avoidable) murders.

What you say boils down to "right is might" and "law applies to all, except to us". It's true, but basing your (the US!) policies on such dogmas is sadly wasteful. The USA could choose to apply their vast power in wiser ways and achieve the same results : in flaunting it by reckless military actions, they just damage their reputation, lose diplomatic power, make more and more enemies each year, wreck their own economy, etc., ad nauseam.

Naked imperialism has its price in terms of goodwill, as nobody likes bullies. A little more restreint would do wonders. Probably in tens of years, as the current damage is extensive.

I mean, you can't BOTH kill iraqis civilians by the thousands without bothering to count them AND be surprised by the hate radiating from the middle east. They hate your freedom? You bet ! Maybe they just hate the way you trample theirs...

It's only because the Al Queda guys are the nutcases they are than they didn't achieve their political goals in the Middle East after the various Iraq war PR disasters (Bagram, Fallujah, Blackwater slaughters, and more generally, the various unpunished killings of civilians covered by the blanket unaccounatability of US troops).

And in Afghanistan, we (USA, UK, France, and a lot of others) arrived in 2001 as liberators, the common afghani being no fonder than you or me of the Taliban zealots rule. It looks like we did a so good job of it that the Talibans will be welcomed back as liberators as soon as we pull back. Crashing too much weddings parties with impunity can do that to popular support.

Not your first warning Smarnil: I will start eating "freedom fries" again.

Take a cabernet with them. Goes down smoothly.

Seriously, I wish you well guys. I just don't believe that the USA need to play rough to be a credible threat to its ennemies. Not with the largest army in the world, by several orders of magnitude.

Lack of restreint in war just fosters hate, which seems counterproductive.

Rule by terror can indeed be a strategic choice. But I can't recall any historical exemple of this policy which ended well in the long run.

It does sound like something that has no real worth as a military strategy. If anything, bombing civilians will just increase their resolve.

That just sounds pointless and strategically worthless.

Indeed. But it has nevertheless made again and again, either :

1) as a deliberate attempt to cow/shock the population into surrender (usually with the opposite effect). Dresden is a perfect example of this; more recently, Fallujah in 2004 could be too.

2) because it was too much of a bother to avoid hitting some town to get at some elusive targets. Fallujah at least qualifies for that, even if it wasn't deliberately punitive (yes, you don't use WP in town if you even remotely care about civilian lives).

Your reasoning is that such acts aren't war crimes, because US law do not define them as such. Sure ! But you just miss the point, as the world doesn't end at the US border.

Just because you (the USA) call a horse a duck, torture an "enhanced interrogation", or a POW an "ennemy combatant" doesn't mean the rest of the world do the same. Granted, the USA stayed outside most of international treaties about rules of war (with good reason) : so, they can't be held acccountable before international courts. But that doesn't mean that in the eyes of the rest of the world, some of the US army actions can't be seen as (unpunished) war crimes, committted by an "outlaw" state (in the literal sense, that is : a state refusing the laws commonly accepted by most of the international community).

Do you see my point ? The price of legal irresponsability in matters of war is a steep loss of diplomatic power, which can get in the way of the peaceful resolution of problems.

@Andrew Tuttle : thanks for the tip. In french, we have got two "you", a singular and a plural.

So, to clarify my point, please assume than by "you" I mean a plural, to designate the US government, and not a singular. I don't think that any poster here personnally perpetrated war crimes (hope so...).

@Kryzbyn : I see your point. Such a policy CAN have a strategic value in terms of deterrence. It's somewhat akin to the MAD doctrine of the Cold War era. Let's call it the "Evil Empire Stance" (EES) for the sake of this discussion ("let's teach those rebels a lesson : zap the nearest planet !").

But on the other hand, the EES has a heavy cost, as your reputation for reckless, wild eyed violence becomes widely known not only to your ennemies (useful as a deterrent), but also to your allies (mostly irrelevant) and to other neutral countries (very bad in terms of diplomatic weight) whose population becomes more and more hostile to US interests.

I think that the EES cost outweighs the benefit, especially when used against terrorists who don't give a damn about such violent reprisals. On the contrary, they give them a perfect recruiting tool. Have you noticed than after ten years of War on Terror, the number of terrorist attacks grows steadily, according to your DOD annual report?