Mundane Interference and the ArM5 Retcon

[Marko_Markoko]

@Andrew Gronosky

Anyway, I don't think you were actually suggesting I broke House Flambeau for some personal agenda. I just felt a need to stand up for Atlas Games, its authors, and my editor in case any readers drew the wrong conclusion from your remarks.

Of course. I want to totally qualify my statement. It is not about that at all. I mean to say you have a very clear vision of what the Order would be like, and though it conflicts with my own vision somewhat, this is not purposeful. I am just coming to an understanding of what your vision is. Notthat you are trying to impose this vision on anyone. You simply see things the way you do, and presumably you assume others saw something similar. This Code discussion has shocked you because you now realise that other people don't see things the same way as you do.
Though as an aside, I do not understand why there was a need to broaden the appeal of House Flambeau. In the past, it was the only house that appealed to me. If anything, it is House Tytalus that needed a broader appeal, and in ArM5 I find them to be much more interesting and intriguing than ever before.
So, forget the entire Flambeau thing. I was just musing to myself outloud. It was simply an "Ah-ha!" moment, putting together the vis I see you expressing in this code debate together with what I saw there. If anything, it has brought me to a greater level of understanding and appreciation of your work. And the parts of the revision that upset me are the removal of Delendar and Flambeaus Hispanic identity. I mean, he was the only Founder that could be qualified as an ethnic minority. That really irked me at the time, and I didn't know you well enough then to understand your good intentions.

[Andrew_Gronosky]

@Marko Markoko

You simply see things the way you do, and presumably you assume others saw something similar. This Code discussion has shocked you because you now realise that other people don't see things the same way as you do.

Yeah. It shocked me not that there are different opinions, but how strongly they're held and how darned far away they are from mine...

I think there are a range of opinions in the community though so it makes some sense for me to advocate for mine. Not to change anyone's mind, but to help those who haven't really made up their minds see a range of possibilities.

[DIREWOLF75]

@David Chart

They have decided that one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world does not constitute a military, and if North Korea tried to invade, you can be sure that they would decide that whatever actions the SDF took did not count as self defence.

Hmm? "did not count"??? I would assume(well more like i KNOW it is) that repelling an invasion is the very reason for having a "Self Defence Force"...

Also, article 9 is the reason why all military personnel are by design a special kind of "civil servants", essentially police with more expensive and fancy equipment.

Thus, even though they know that the SDF violates the constitution quite blatantly

Well, it doesnt violate it technically, "just" in reality.
Also they really DO go out of their way to avoid violations, like specifically removing the software for launching Tomahawk missiles from the fleet(the software is part of the orignal system and the physical launch ability cant be removed as its the same as for Harpoon and SMs), because that by their definition would turn it into an offensive force rather than defensive. So you might say its an honest kind of dishonesty.

Still though, defensively, Japan has the worlds 2nd most powerful navy, always a funny fact. :mrgreen:

There is a genuine stream of pacifism in Japan, and it's very strong.

Ill say! The plans for their new couple of "helicopter destroyers" created a total uproar.
(those "destroyers" are really baby carriers that would have no problem flying VTOL or STOVL aircraft rather than just the planned helicopters)

Incidentally, I find it amusing now when the US complains about Japan's failure to help out in military adventures. Shouldn't have put that clause in their constitution, then, should you?

Always find that rather amusing indeed!

[Andrew_Gronosky]

Getting back closer to the original topic...

@thrakhath

It seems to me both systems of judging whether or not 'mundane interference' have flaws.

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, they both have flaws, and ultimately the one that works for someone is the one whose flaws are more acceptable.

@thrakhath

You object to the case where magi can meddle, and kill so long as they are not caught and their actions were clever and careful enough not to bring any blowback onto other magi. But what you suggest in return is that magi can declare that mundanes are interfering with them and so they can do anything they like to defend their interests.

Sigh. Not exactly "anything they like." To be clear, my position is that magi can never do "anything they like" to mundanes -- everything has to be done in consideration of the potential consequences. Not only the immediate consequences, but the long-term consequences for mundane society and for the Order.

"Go ahead and defend yourself" is not equivalent to "massacre the besieging army to the last man." In fact I think there would be a huge amount of Peripheral Code rulings as to what are and are not appropriate self-defence measures with regard to being attacked by mundanes, but that is beside the point for now (such voluminous rulings do not exist in canon).

@thrakhath

That for me is a problem, many covenants are meant to be set up as castles or manors ruling over land holdings, such holdings would be sieged in any normal warfare between sides where an opposing army is entering the territory.

You're right, it would be normal for a castle to get attacked by any invading army. This is why I think the Code needs to allow for the case where it happens. It just wouldn't be reasonable to expect magi to endure a siege and not fight back.

However it might be reasonable to expect them to try to negotiate first, and to ask the Order for help before turning to mundane allies.

Which leads to a couple of interesting points IMO. What about a (hypothetical) Tribunal that decides that building fortifications is provocative to mundanes, and bans new covenants from building castles?

@thrakhath

Say the castle holding of Triamore covenant is besieged by the forces of Luxembourg invading Brabant, and in the canon saga Luxembourg cannot invade Brabant without first dealing with Triamore as they are in the way. They go blatant wiping out Luxembourgs armies, then the Count of Luxembourg becomes their sworn enemy and begins retaliating in other ways like setting the church on them, blockading travel north, sending raiders to attack their lands more subtly.

At this point I think the Order would March the magi of Triamore for provoking the Count. Yeah Triamore can claim they were just defending themselves, but "wiping out armies" goes way beyond self-defence IMO.