By Dorn's standards, I think we 21st-century people would actually be quite dishonorable |

[diadems]

In the novel Praetorian of Dorn, Dorn and Alpharius engage in an argument over the topic of honor in hostilities, in particular the topic of assassination, such as the assassination of an enemy World-Prince, and the topic of dying in open battle is also raised.

 

And looking at how we 21st-century people wage wars against each other IRL, I guess that we can certainly say that none of us gives a damn about whether any commander is killed in open pitched battle or assassinated in his bunker, we really don't, and that would make us quite dishonorable in Dorn's eyes lol

Edited January 4 by diadems

[MARK0SIAN]

To be fair, we don’t really have the kind of pitched battles/warfare where generals are leading from the front, sword in hand as armies clash together. We haven’t had that kind of warfare for well over a century at this point. If two sides were at war today, I honestly wouldn’t consider a bomb dropped on a generals bunker as assassination, just death in war.

 

I would say for a uniformed soldier to be killed by another using a legal weapon in an openly declared war can’t really be classed as assassination. Dorn can only really talk like this because they take part in a a type of warfare where even the highest ranked officers still fight up close and personal and so their enemy has the opportunity to kill them in that kind of ‘honourable’ fashion.

[diadems]

38 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

To be fair, we don’t really have the kind of pitched battles/warfare where generals are leading from the front, sword in hand as armies clash together. We haven’t had that kind of warfare for well over a century at this point. If two sides were at war today, I honestly wouldn’t consider a bomb dropped on a generals bunker as assassination, just death in war.

 

but maybe its not about what we class as assassinations, but about how we view assassinations.

so like, we consider a bunker kill to be an assassination, but to us, this assassination is, like you said, just a kill in war, and so we think that there shouldn't really be anything dishonorable about it.

 

its kinda interesting, warhammer lore about a future tens of thousands of years from now has us questioning our very own familiar real-life/21st-century culture haha

Edited January 4 by diadems

[calgar101]

Different lenses to be looked at. Dropping a bunker buster and wiping out the enemy nations leaders and stopping a war, potentially saving countless lives... Dorn may view that as assassination and dishonest but I'd say it's very pragmatic. 

Can't read too much into these things as 40k is writen with minimal military accuracy in most cases.

Applying 21st century ideals to 40k, space fantasy won't be a success. 

 

Dorn is one of the best Primarchs though haha.

[diadems]

8 hours ago, calgar101 said:

Can't read too much into these things as 40k is writen with minimal military accuracy in most cases.

Applying 21st century ideals to 40k, space fantasy won't be a success.

 

hehe now there's Total War 40k which will enable us to try out the strategic overview of a war in the far future

[diadems]

9 hours ago, calgar101 said:

Different lenses to be looked at. Dropping a bunker buster and wiping out the enemy nations leaders and stopping a war, potentially saving countless lives... Dorn may view that as assassination and dishonest but I'd say it's very pragmatic.

 

also i guess that 21st-century folks don't even see it as being dishonest, i think our ancestors seldom did as well, like, we just consider these to be just more deaths in war

 

and while people in the grim darkness of the far future may see things differently, i suppose its not that our 21st-century ideas have lost their validity

Edited January 5 by diadems

[calgar101]

27 minutes ago, diadems said:

 

hehe now there's Total War 40k which will enable us to try out the strategic overview of a war in the far future

I can't wait for that game but even that isn't a true reflection of warfare really. 

In a lot of ways how war is portrayed in 30k/40k is a little too silly but there are thematic reasons for it. 

[diadems]

1 hour ago, calgar101 said:

I can't wait for that game but even that isn't a true reflection of warfare really. 

In a lot of ways how war is portrayed in 30k/40k is a little too silly but there are thematic reasons for it. 

 

yeah, maybe Creative Assembly will have something like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" mode that they introduced for Total War: Three Kingdoms

 

by the way do you know any 40k games which provide strategic overviews of wars?

Edited January 5 by diadems

[Xin Ceithan]

I think That‘s an easy thing to say when you are a 10 foot tall posthuman supersoldier walking around in powered armor…but I may be biased 

 

Also, I‘ll pay real money if they include voice acting for any Marine Character to yell 

„Stop exploding, you cowards!!“

at basically anyone else during shooting in TW 40K 

 

 

[Mazer Rackham]

'Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask the ghosts if honour matters. The silence is your answer.'

- Commander Javik.

 

'Drive my tank closer! I want to put my boot up his arse!'

- Commissar Holt.

 

Being serious a moment, Dorn embodies the sense of what you might call 'fair-play' and 'gentlemanly warfare' which spurs and derides underhanded, if pragmatic tactics. At one point, the British Army had a general feeling about this itself - snipers, for example, were generally seen as murderers as opposed to just soldiers who killed, due to the nature of their trade. I think this feeling persists. There was a lot of resistance to special groups because they weren't really trusted or understood.

 

[Tinfoil] Some may say with good reason. [Tinfoil/]

 

It's a naivety in Dorn, perhaps that he thinks battles can be won honourably, and well, but it is a testament to his quality that he would even try.

 

'It doesn't matter - we won!'

'No! How we win matters!'

-Admiral Graff and Andrew 'Ender' Wiggin, Ender's Game.

 

In a sense, it matters because winning well is important. It makes the troops feel good, like it was worth something, and it doesn't brutalise the people over whom you now have victory. It shows that an outstanding argument has been resolved by a decisive action, and the winner may be magnanimous, and the loser can retire with honour satisfied.

 

Perhaps Dorn' naivety is what elevates him morally, and provides that compass to guide from.

 

Then again, a dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords at  dawn  Dorn.

 

Unless Grandpa Rogal is angry. Then he doesn't give a , sonny - it's paddlin' time!

 

Edited January 5 by Mazer Rackham

[Xin Ceithan]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

…snip….

 

[Tinfoil] Some may say with good reason. [Tinfoil/]

 

It's a naivety in Dorn, perhaps that he thinks battles can be won honourably, and well, but it is a testament to his quality that he would even try.

 

'It doesn't matter - we won!'

'No! How we win matters!'

-Admiral Graff and Andrew 'Ender' Wiggin, Ender's Game.

 

In a sense, it matters because winning well is important.
 

-snip- 

 

 

All joking aside, I am in total agreement here.  In the end, the end can not/ should not and can never justify the means. 

[diadems]

5 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Dorn embodies the sense of what you might call 'fair-play' and 'gentlemanly warfare' which spurs and derides underhanded, if pragmatic tactics.

 

interesting, well speaking of the comparisons to 21st-century or real-life culture, i think a key point is the idea that assassinations carried out under a state of war are actually not unfair nor underhanded, even though they might still have unsavory undertones

 

like the idea that, if two countries are already in a state of war, why can't the soldier of one country be sniped by a soldier of the opposing country and this not be anything particularly wrong, i think that this idea has broad currency

 

and a clear example might be the tactic of doing feints with/of troop maneuvers, i think that few people would consider that tactic underhanded and dishonorable 

Edited January 5 by diadems

[Mazer Rackham]

5 minutes ago, diadems said:

interesting, well speaking of the comparisons to 21st-century culture, i think a key point is the idea that assassinations carried out under a state of war are actually not unfair nor underhanded, even though they might still have unsavory undertones

 

All's fair in love and war, true - war does indeed necessitate a different set of morals, but....

 

5 minutes ago, diadems said:

like the idea that, if two countries are already in a state of war, why can't the soldier of one country be sniped by a soldier of the opposing country

 

Oh, they can. Absolutely.

 

Unfortunately, then someone else will snipe them, because snipers attract counter-snipers, and if there are none handy, the best anti-sniper weapon is 105mm howitzer. The reason snipers are seen as murderers is because the target cannot defend himself. It's like hitting a man minding his own business with a sucker punch. When you realise that, you get Dorn's character.

 

The essential problem with assassinations is very simple - a person can of course cross that line to destabilise his adversary, but it should also cross his mind that an enemy of at least equal footing can do it too, so fair play is much safer for everyone. Once you take the gloves off, you can't put them on again. You'll never stop every attempt - so it's better not to encourage them in the first place.

 

All's fair in love and war, after all.

 

For Dorn this was a literal problem, as the Emperor's bodyguard, any attempt on the Emperor is a death sentence for him - in the first instance, if the attempt succeeds (which it did) Dorn's reputation and confidence would be in tatters (which it became). If the attempt had failed - it would have meant Dorn put himself in harm's way and took the bullet. Disliking assassination as a strategy is a practical one, sometimes!

 

Dorn very likely looked down on despoiler squads - there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

 

This is, of course just me spit-balling and enjoying the smell of my own gunpowder - folks are free to entertain whichever position they please. 

[diadems]

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Oh, they can. Absolutely.

 

Unfortunately, then someone else will snipe them, because snipers attract counter-snipers, and if there are none handy, the best anti-sniper weapon is 105mm howitzer. The reason snipers are seen as murderers is because the target cannot defend himself. It's like hitting a man minding his own business with a sucker punch. When you realise that, you get Dorn's character.

 

The essential problem with assassinations is very simple - a person can of course cross that line to destabilise his adversary, but it should also cross his mind that an enemy of at least equal footing can do it too, so fair play is much safer for everyone.

 

haha hmm, so i didn't mean it in that way lol, i mean the idea that sniping can be justified in a moral way or in some way. so, you said a man minding his own business, but the idea is that the two countries are already in an active ongoing state of war so no soldier can just be minding his own business, every soldier is considered to be in an active ongoing state of war

which is why even when they sleep they need guards to keep watch

 

and so this description tries to establish a difference between wartime sniping and something like perfidy, which is a real-life war crime

 

and you mentioned fair play again, though sorry i'm thinking that i already mentioned the idea that its not unfair, hmm

and as such, there wouldn't really be such a line

Edited January 5 by diadems

[Xin Ceithan]

27 minutes ago, diadems said:

-snip- 

and as such, there wouldn't really be a line

I think that,  especially considering the topic, the point is not whether or even if there is a line. The point is considering that there should be a line in the first place, I guess? 

[diadems]

1 hour ago, Xin Ceithan said:

I think that,  especially considering the topic, the point is not whether or even if there is a line. The point is considering that there should be a line in the first place, I guess? 

 

hmm, so well i'm not sure if Mazer Rackham's point is that our 21st-century way of thinking is wrong

 

and just to add my personal 2 cents, if my country and and an enemy country are at war with each other, and there's no agreement or common understanding between our two 21st-century countries that sniping be banned, from the standpoint of honor, i don't see why commanders of my country shouldn't deploy snipers

 

and for clarity, this is the case when there is a current ongoing active state of war between our two countries

Edited January 5 by diadems

[Xin Ceithan]

I thought we were discussing if Dorn would view 21st Century people as “ dishonorable” ?

Not about being “wrong”… 

But I’d  say, yes, he’d consider us pretty barbaric. All this is leading to the Long Night in 4OK, no?
It’s about what one should aspire to be, I think, not what things are like …It’s not that Dorn would not be able to do things that way - it’s about choosing not to go there?

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

I think Dorn would consider our species far worse than dishonourable. We're basically Nostromo with sunlight. 

[Mazer Rackham]

57 minutes ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I think Dorn would consider our species far worse than dishonourable. We're basically Nostromo with sunlight. 

 

Good sir, please speak for yourself.

 

Not everyone has the proclivity to live in Milton Keynes.

[diadems]

4 hours ago, Xin Ceithan said:

I thought we were discussing if Dorn would view 21st Century people as “ dishonorable” ?

Not about being “wrong”… 

But I’d  say, yes, he’d consider us pretty barbaric. All this is leading to the Long Night in 4OK, no?
It’s about what one should aspire to be, I think, not what things are like …It’s not that Dorn would not be able to do things that way - it’s about choosing not to go there?

 

well the OP is just pointing out that Dorn would consider our views on warfare assassination to be dishonorable

[diadems]

3 hours ago, The Praetorian of Inwit said:

I think Dorn would consider our species far worse than dishonourable. We're basically Nostromo with sunlight. 

 

haha perhaps

but maybe our views on warfare assassination don't merit that lol

[Hfran Morkai]

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu.

 

 

[Xin Ceithan]

I came here for a quick joke and let myself get dragged into a discussion of ethics

 

3 hours ago, Hfran Morkai said:

"All warfare is based on deception." - Sun Tzu.

 

 

 

Sure thing

 

But if  you want to quote the man and his book in this discussion, doesn’t this seem more appropriate considering  the context at hand:

“Humanity and justice are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility, on the other hand, are military rather than civic virtues.”

 

[Hfran Morkai]

1 hour ago, Xin Ceithan said:

I came here for a quick joke and let myself get dragged into a discussion of ethics

 

 

Sure thing

 

But if  you want to quote the man and his book in this discussion, doesn’t this seem more appropriate considering  the context at hand:

“Humanity and justice are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility, on the other hand, are military rather than civic virtues.”

 

 

I don't recall that passage.

 

It's clearly been too long since I've read it. I know what my next book is.

 

Edited January 6 by Hfran Morkai

[Xin Ceithan]

56 minutes ago, Hfran Morkai said:

 

I don't recall that passage.

 

It's clearly been too long since I've read it. I know what my next book is.

 

In which case I apologize for coming across like a smarty power armour pants thing

 

It’s certainly a book that had a formative influence on me and I make it point to re-read it every few years. And I  still had to look up the exact wording, if that’s any help