Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Isn't Smodur supposed to be the pragmatic one?


Diovid.9506

Recommended Posts

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:One thing to note is that Smodur has always done things based on what he feels like he NEEDS to do to survive.

  • He accepted help from Blood and Ash because he couldn't fight the ghosts, flame legion, and Asclonians on his own
  • He accepted the treaty with humanity because the siege against Ebonhawke had gone nowhere in hundreds of years, and he needed those forces on the other fronts
  • He agreed to help fight Mordremoth because it was made clear no one nation could stand on its own

You know what Smodur doesn't need? Ryland, the Steel Warband, or the defectors. If he could Thanos snap them all to dust what would he really lose? Nothing. So far, nothing has given Smodur any reason to care about them, and after all the horrible stuff they pulled, Smodur's actions are tame by comparison. He attacked an enemy weapons research facility, and killed a prisoner of war... and the defectors mass murdered entire villages of people for literally no reason other then they could.

The only difference is players did 1 fun instance with the Steel Warband and never saw the Dominion slaughter civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"battledrone.8315" said:

and a REAL pragmatic would had used them as dog food...or target dummies..or slaves in a mine

I'm pretty sure you're the one with an extremely weak grasp on what 'pragmatic' means, or at least how 'pragmatism' generally plays out.

Pragmatism is often resented because of how cold an calculated it feels. Pragmatists, as others in the thread have mentioned, seek efficiency and effectiveness for a particular goal, at the expense of all other priorities. Personal loyalty? Nope. Doing the "morally right" thing? Nope. Mercy, just as a general principle? Nope. The only thing that matters is, "is this the best way to get the job done?"

You usually don't see pragmatists engaging in the first two behaviors you listed here, as such activity often creates more problems than it solves (definitely not what pragmatism is all about). Slavery could definitely be part of a pragmatist's package though, especially if it solves a critical labor shortage.

You could probably poke back at this and say, "well a 'REAL pragmatic' would be able to use the cruelty of using traitors as dog food or target dummies to send a message, keep people in line!" Too bad you're the one already accusing Smodur of being a cartoon villain, even when his actions are far more sanitary and commonplace than your suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@voltaicbore.8012 said:

@"battledrone.8315" said:

and a REAL pragmatic would had used them as dog food...or target dummies..or slaves in a mine

I'm pretty sure
you're
the one with an extremely weak grasp on what 'pragmatic' means, or at least how 'pragmatism' generally plays out.

Pragmatism is often resented because of how cold an calculated it feels. Pragmatists, as others in the thread have mentioned, seek efficiency and effectiveness for a particular goal, at the expense of all other priorities. Personal loyalty? Nope. Doing the "morally right" thing? Nope. Mercy, just as a general principle? Nope. The only thing that matters is, "is this the best way to get the job done?"

You usually don't see pragmatists engaging in the first two behaviors you listed here, as such activity often creates more problems than it solves (definitely not what pragmatism is all about). Slavery could definitely be part of a pragmatist's package though, especially if it solves a critical labor shortage.

You could probably poke back at this and say, "well a 'REAL pragmatic' would be able to use the cruelty of using traitors as dog food or target dummies to send a message, keep people in line!" Too bad you're the one already accusing Smodur of being a cartoon villain, even when his actions are far more sanitary and commonplace than your suggestions.

and many of the real dictators are not cartoonish at all then..okaypragmatic is what you typically see in experienced doctors, farmers and cops...they are there to do the job with the least fuzz and falloutthey wont leave a half done job, but they certainly wont go the extra mile for good service eitherit doesnt matter anyway, since it was a dumb move for ANY kind of leader to do it this way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing how much debate over his motivations this thread has stirred up has kind of made me go back and reconsider that maybe it's not just bad writing. There's been a lot of discussion over what's justified and what isn't with lots of different opinions, which to me says at least something is working rihgt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sylari.9814 said:Seeing how much debate over his motivations this thread has stirred up has kind of made me go back and reconsider that maybe it's not just bad writing. There's been a lot of discussion over what's justified and what isn't with lots of different opinions, which to me says at least something is working rihgt.

SWTOR has a similar mission in the gunner story, the player is forced to chose between killing civilians , and disobeying a direct order from the generalwhile it may be more realistic, it is also a form of entertainment, that very few people enjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@draxynnic.3719 said:Almorra and Malice were (among) the first to decide that a truce with humans was the better option and helped to persuade Smodur, but Smodur is the one who did the actual negotiating, directly or through delegates, since the region formerly known as Ascalon is Iron Legion territory. And he's made a fair few territorial concessions in the process.Ive never gotten this impression. Everything stated about how the treaty came to bee puts it in Almorra and Malice's hands. All Smodur is ever stated to have done is make a few token appeasement efforts, like freeing the human prisoners in the Black Citadel, and singing the paper.

Pretty sure Smodur hasn't been alive, let alone Imperator, long enough to have been the one to have made that decision. The Blood-Ash-Iron alliance goes back pretty much to the Plains of Golghein.I wasn't talking about the general Alliance between the three.

You talked about 'accepting help from Blood and Ash because he couldn't fight ghosts, Flame Legion and Ascalonians on hos own'. That's an arrangement that's existed since before Smodur was even alive, let alone Imperator. He only 'accepted help' in the sense that he continued the policy of his predecessors.

As for the rest... give yourself a refresher of how the charr hierarchy actually works.

Almorra had no formal position in the charr hierarchy at all - as respected as she came to be for forming the Vigil, formally she was a gladium who left the hierarchy to pursue her own objective. At best, she was given leave to do so because her objective was considered to be compatible with the interests of the Imperators. At worst, she was technically a rogue agent, but the Imperators looked the other way because she was useful and respected. Either way, she has literally no power to negotiate on behalf of the charr.

Malice has formal power, but not in the vicinity of Ebonhawke. That's Iron Legion territory. Each of the High Legions, with the possible exception of the dispossessed Flame Legion, is its own nation with its own territory. Ash, Iron, and Flame are allies, but each is an independent nation. Malice was in support of making peace with humans, but it's not her territory involved. It's Iron Legion's territory, it's Iron Legion that makes any concession that comes as part of the truce... which made it entirely Smodur's call.

Malice and Almorra helped to arrange the meeting, but ultimately it's Smodur and his ambassadors who's been making the calls.

And if you go looking around the Fields of Ruin and talk to the NPCs - there have been territorial concessions made. Basically everything outside the walls was Iron Legion territory before the truce. However long it might have taken for the treaty to be finalised, within a year of the truce there were Ebonhawke civilians settling as far north as the Blazeridge Steppes transition (and a military outpost north of the transition), many in abandoned Iron Legion war camps, and the charr outposts that remain are mostly either Sentinels guarding the Brand or part of the perimeter around the camps. None of these Ebonhawke civilians seem particularly concerned that they'll be kicked out short of a resumption of hostilities, so they're not going out to squat - these are territorial concessions that were ceded in the first year of hostilities. Meanwhile, we also have the beginnings of military cooperation arrangements between charr forces in the area and the Ebon Vanguard.

Put simply, Malice doesn't have the jurisdiction to make these arrangements. It's not her turf. Just where her territory is hasn't been revealed (although there is some indication it's east of the Blazeridge somewhere), but the most she can do to control matters in Ascalon (outside of covert activity) is to threaten to withdraw support. Apart from the insurgents, Brand, and the attacks by harpies and ogres from the Blazeridge Mountains, everything happening from the walls of Ebonhawke to the Twin Sisters Crossing is happening because Smodur agreed to it.

Almorra and Malice were among the first to buy into the idea of forming a truce with humans, but neither had any power to negotiate it. That was entirely on Smodur and his delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"draxynnic.3719" said:You talked about 'accepting help from Blood and Ash because he couldn't fight ghosts, Flame Legion and Ascalonians on hos own'. That's an arrangement that's existed since before Smodur was even alive, let alone Imperator. He only 'accepted help' in the sense that he continued the policy of his predecessors.There is no agreement ever stated to exist on such matters before that point, and several NPCs mention that Ash and Blood are in Ascalon due to Smodur himself. And the Plains of Golghein is only where the final battle of the Charr Rebellion took place. There is literally no stated lore about some agreement being made between the three Legion about dealing with the Ascalonians, ghosts, or Flame Legion remnants, or ANYTHING for that matter, at said battle. Hell, the Charr didn't even agree to not be ruled over by the Flame Legion there, they had already decided that before the battle at the Plains of Golghein(hence the rebellion that led to that battle). You seem to be confusing, and conflating, multiple, unrelated, events into one.

As for the rest... give yourself a refresher of how the charr hierarchy actually works.

  1. Almost everything you said below this point really does nothing to prove anything beyond you believing in an ultra rigid, and wholly unrealistic, view of how any government works.
  2. The land offer was part of the " token appeasement efforts" mentioned earlier
  3. You also don't really seem to understand how to determine credit for ideas. Smodur may have been the one who agreed to all these things, just likes hes the one who signed the paper, but that doesn't make him the originator of said ideas. All Almorra and Malice would have had to do is, metaphorically speaking, pass the note to Smodur saying "look man, this is how you make this work", and all he has to do is follow it. that doesn't mean he did anything himself, beyond following directions given to him by someone else.

They even suggest this in No Quarter itself. Smodur tries to go on about how HE is the one who made peace with the humans, but its Malice who brushes him off talking about how much he just LOVES to tell that story, with an obvious implication that she knows hes BSing constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been stated in multiple sources that the agreement between Ash, Blood, and Iron to support each other goes pretty much to the charr rebellion, and that was essentially a renegotiation of previous arrangements in the light of the overthrow of the Flame Legion. The legions have been cooperating against the common enemy of Ascalonians alive and dead back to before Guild Wars 1. (There's an article around, in fact, which states that the legions might have gone back to fighting amongst themselves if not for the common enemy of the Ascalonian ghosts of the Foefire.)

Not my fault if you're ignorant about charr history, but when it comes to having the support of Blood and Ash forces in his territory, Smodur is just maintaining a policy set by some distant predecessor.

As for the truce... now you're drawing a pretty long bow if you think Smodur was just taking advice from Malice and Almorra. He's not taking advice from Malice (if anything, he's almost working at cross purposes) in Drizzlewood Coast, so if you think he just let Malice dictate the terms of an agreement that involved ceding Iron Legion territory to a (former) enemy, there's still a discrepancy in characterisation there... if anything, a bigger one.

As it happens, charr hierarchy is pretty clear-cut. Iron Legion territory is Iron Legion territory. Blood and Ash have forces there as part of an alliance, but they are there at Iron Legion's invitation and request, and while there, they're expected to follow the policies of the Iron Imperator (which is why, for instance, it was Smodur's troops and not Bangar's who brought Rytlock in during season 3 - Rytlock might be Blood Legion but formally he's seconded to Iron). For all intents and purposes, the charr legions are independent nations who have a military alliance to support one another. Now, there are means of influence outside of the formal hierarchy, but while both Malice and Almorra can give advice, they can't dictate terms.

I don't think this discussion is worth trawling through all the disparate sources when you're clearly not bothering to do your research, but it's been pretty clear when the treaty negotiations were mentioned through the storyline that Smodur was where the buck stopped on the charr side of the negotiations.

Malice's "you like to tell that story" line isn't a "you're claiming credit for something I did" it's a "so what, how is that relevant now".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CAA.9653 said:Ehh, killing enemy solders, death penalty for treason, executing prisoners - sadly that is all too common in any war. But in then end, Bangar and Smolder will die, Rytlock or Crecia will become the new Imperator of the Blood Legion while the other returns to Tribute duties, Ryland will join the PC guild and become the new chosen one (e.g. Brahan) for their species/race. Personally, I like the dark turn the story is taking - more interesting than the kid stuff from the main story and early LS seasons.

I would shot Ryland dead rather than take him with me. He seems to be a really shitty individual. He murdered Almorra Soulkeeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kulvar.1239 said:I would shot Ryland dead rather than take him with me. He seems to be a really kitten individual. He murdered Almorra Soulkeeper.Uhh, it was Bangar who killed Almorra. Ryland argued AGAINST killing her.

@"draxynnic.3719" said:As for the truce... now you're drawing a pretty long bow if you think Smodur was just taking advice from Malice and Almorra. He's not taking advice from Malice (if anything, he's almost working at cross purposes) in Drizzlewood Coast, so if you think he just let Malice dictate the terms of an agreement that involved ceding Iron Legion territory to a (former) enemy, there's still a discrepancy in characterisation there... if anything, a bigger one.Not at all. As has been mentioned before. Smodur has always done what he believed he needed to do to survive, and to get the position of Khan-Ur. At this point, the only thing that really stood in his way from that, Bangar, is now a traitor to the Charr, and an enemy to everyone. To him, hes got it in the bag.

  • He asked for help from Blood and Ash to deal with all the problems in Ascalon because he just couldn't do it himself, and there was no way he was going to survive without said help.
  • He accepted to peace treaty with humanity in order to get forces off of that front, and onto the others, because those were more pressing, and having humanity as an ally bolsters his forces against the other threats in Ascalon, and secures his position more.
  • His willingness to accept Aurene in "Bound by Blood" was almost certainly because he sees the use of being on good terms with an Elder Dragon, and not because he actually cares about her as an individual.

And in Drizzlewood he kills the traitors because, not only have they proven themselves untrustworthy, but he also doesn't need them to win. Likewise, he has every reason to kill Cinder because the Steel Warband are a powerful symbol among the Charr, and a potential threat to his position as Khan-Ur should they not agree to it. He, again, also doesn't need the help of the Dominion's traitor forces to succeed, so he has no reason to let them live.

His character is wholly consistent. He makes allies with those he sees as necessary for survival, and doesn't with those he has no need for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@Kulvar.1239 said:I would shot Ryland dead rather than take him with me. He seems to be a really kitten individual. He murdered Almorra Soulkeeper.Uhh, it was Bangar who killed Almorra. Ryland argued AGAINST killing her.

I checked the cinematic again, you're right. I forgot the last part. But I would still not trust Ryland and hand it over to the justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@Kulvar.1239 said:I would shot Ryland dead rather than take him with me. He seems to be a really kitten individual. He murdered Almorra Soulkeeper.Uhh, it was Bangar who killed Almorra. Ryland argued AGAINST killing her.

@"draxynnic.3719" said:As for the truce... now
you're
drawing a pretty long bow if you think Smodur was just taking advice from Malice and Almorra. He's not taking advice from Malice (if anything, he's almost working at cross purposes) in Drizzlewood Coast, so if you think he just let Malice dictate the terms of an agreement that involved ceding Iron Legion territory to a (former) enemy, there's still a discrepancy in characterisation there... if anything, a bigger one.Not at all. As has been mentioned before. Smodur has always done what he believed he needed to do to survive, and to get the position of Khan-Ur. At this point, the only thing that really stood in his way from that, Bangar, is now a traitor to the Charr, and an enemy to everyone. To him, hes got it in the bag.
  • He asked for help from Blood and Ash to deal with all the problems in Ascalon because he just couldn't do it himself, and there was no way he was going to survive without said help.
  • He accepted to peace treaty with humanity in order to get forces off of that front, and onto the others, because those were more pressing, and having humanity as an ally bolsters his forces against the other threats in Ascalon, and secures his position more.
  • His willingness to accept Aurene in "Bound by Blood" was almost certainly because he sees the use of being on good terms with an Elder Dragon, and not because he actually cares about her as an individual.

And in Drizzlewood he kills the traitors because, not only have they proven themselves untrustworthy, but he also doesn't need them to win. Likewise, he has every reason to kill Cinder because the Steel Warband are a powerful symbol among the Charr, and a potential threat to his position as Khan-Ur should they not agree to it. He, again, also doesn't need the help of the Dominion's traitor forces to succeed, so he has no reason to let them live.

His character is wholly consistent. He makes allies with those he sees as necessary for survival, and doesn't with those he has no need for.

  • He didn't have to ask for help for the problems in Ascalon because it was already the policy of the allied legions to assist each other (which, as far as we currently know, means assisting each other in Ascalon because that's where the main conflict was, but we do see evidence of Branded and ghosts as far north as Grothmar, and there may be threats in Ash territory we don't know about that the charr collaborate against).
  • Sure, he agreed to the peace treaty for pragmatic reasons, but he was the one calling the shots. Malice and Almorra may have supported the idea, but ultimately it was Smodur that was sitting across the table, Smodur making the concessions, and Smodur that made it happen in the end. He'd have a pretty poor case to be Khan-Ur if he was letting outside powers (and, yes, Malice technically counts as an outside power in Ascalon, let alone Almorra of the Vigil) dictate to him the terms of a treaty that involved his own domain.

The inconsistency is that in the past, he's been a proponent of turning enemies into allies in order to strengthen his position and weaken his remaining enemies. At the parley, there was a potential opportunity to do exactly that... and Smodur destroyed it.

His past portrayal made him really appear smarter than that, but here he's been carrying the proverbial idiot ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's acting pretty pragmatic.

He's not buying into the abject nonsense that redeeming a single traitor who just happens to be someone's kid will fix everything. He's manipulating the "commander" into doing things they wouldn't do of their own accord and getting results. He's playing to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Manasa Devi.7958" said:I think he's acting pretty pragmatic.

He's not buying into the abject nonsense that redeeming a single traitor who just happens to be someone's kid will fix everything. He's manipulating the "commander" into doing things they wouldn't do of their own accord and getting results. He's playing to win.

And in doing so, he's alienating every ally he has. That's not playing to win. That's setting himself up to lose.

Malice says it in the episode: "No one here will ever bow to you". He's ticked off the Imperator of one legion and likely future Imperators of two more, along with at least one influential non-charr person of importance. His short-sightedness has torpedoed any chance he had of becoming Khan-Ur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@draxynnic.3719 said:

@"Manasa Devi.7958" said:I think he's acting pretty pragmatic.

He's not buying into the abject nonsense that redeeming a single traitor who just happens to be someone's kid will fix everything. He's manipulating the "commander" into doing things they wouldn't do of their own accord and getting results. He's playing to win.

And in doing so, he's alienating every ally he has. That's not playing to win. That's setting himself up to lose.

Malice says it in the episode: "No one here will ever bow to you". He's ticked off the Imperator of one legion and likely future Imperators of two more, along with at least one influential non-charr person of importance. His short-sightedness has torpedoed any chance he had of becoming Khan-Ur.Yes, you're right, everyone is going home now and stop fighting Jormag and Bangar. Oh, wait a minute, they won't!

Maybe he doesn't care if some whiny kittens don't want to be his friends after the war has been won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have missed someone else saying this, but a pragmatic would absolutely kill the traitors. Jormag is a clever and manipulative brainwasher. It would be fairly simple for to take anywhere from ten to a hundred Charr and have them return, then just blow up a city. Although on a personal note, I hope we get to see it. Sabotage could have been an interesting thing in HoT. Hope we get it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:I think he's acting pretty pragmatic.

He's not buying into the abject nonsense that redeeming a single traitor who just happens to be someone's kid will fix everything. He's manipulating the "commander" into doing things they wouldn't do of their own accord and getting results. He's playing to win.

And in doing so, he's alienating every ally he has. That's not playing to win. That's setting himself up to lose.

Malice says it in the episode: "No one here will ever bow to you". He's ticked off the Imperator of one legion and likely future Imperators of two more, along with at least one influential non-charr person of importance. His short-sightedness has torpedoed any chance he had of becoming Khan-Ur.Yes, you're right, everyone is going home now and stop fighting Jormag and Bangar. Oh, wait a minute, they won't!

Maybe he doesn't care if some whiny kittens don't want to be his friends after the war has been won.

not only am i staying home, i am actually rooting for the dragons now. if you want peace in tyria, they are the ONLY viable choice.taking the story in this direction was a big mistake, i think they got inspired too much from GoT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smodur did nothing wrong. People feel he did because the way the story presents the other NPCs nonsensical opinions. I find it quite sad how many people fall for this obvious emotional manipulation. So Smodur has us blow up a few charr? I fail to see how this is a problem. Out in the open world, we slaughter them by the thousands, and that's okay? I guess we shouldn't have firebombed them but instead knocked on the door and chopped 'em to bits using good old elbow grease when they answer. His troops should applaud him for taking down an enemy threat without risk to their own life and limb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Finalfreefall.8247 said:I may have missed someone else saying this, but a pragmatic would absolutely kill the traitors. Jormag is a clever and manipulative brainwasher. It would be fairly simple for to take anywhere from ten to a hundred Charr and have them return, then just blow up a city. Although on a personal note, I hope we get to see it. Sabotage could have been an interesting thing in HoT. Hope we get it here.

yes, it was the smart thing to do. NOT smart was doing it in front of new allies. either he feels confident enough to not care about reactions, or he simply just forgot about it. neither are good leader qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:I think he's acting pretty pragmatic.

He's not buying into the abject nonsense that redeeming a single traitor who just happens to be someone's kid will fix everything. He's manipulating the "commander" into doing things they wouldn't do of their own accord and getting results. He's playing to win.

And in doing so, he's alienating every ally he has. That's not playing to win. That's setting himself up to lose.

Malice says it in the episode: "No one here will ever bow to you". He's ticked off the Imperator of one legion and likely future Imperators of two more, along with at least one influential non-charr person of importance. His short-sightedness has torpedoed any chance he had of becoming Khan-Ur.Yes, you're right, everyone is going home now and stop fighting Jormag and Bangar. Oh, wait a minute, they won't!

Maybe he doesn't care if some whiny kittens don't want to be his friends after the war has been won.

They'll keep fighting, but unless he plans to assassinate everyone in that room, he'll never become Khan-Ur. Bangar may or may not be defeated in the end, but Smodur has already lost, and what did he gain by murdering a prisoner in the middle of a negotiation? Nothing significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@battledrone.8315 said:

yes, it was the smart thing to do. NOT smart was doing it in front of new allies. either he feels confident enough to not care about reactions, or he simply just forgot about it. neither are good leader qualities.

He's a Charr. They're prickly, standoffish, and publicly exult a 250-year old genocide campaign. This is entirely in line with how they worked in the past, and should be expected behavior as far as his allies are concerned. It's like running into an Asura crisis and expecting it to be solved with spiders instead of a random science project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"draxynnic.3719" said:They'll keep fighting, but unless he plans to assassinate everyone in that room, he'll never become Khan-Ur. Bangar may or may not be defeated in the end, but Smodur has already lost, and what did he gain by murdering a prisoner in the middle of a negotiation? Nothing significant.He gained a lot actually.

Specifically, he brings the Steel Warband one step closer to being totally destroyed. Its mentioned more then one that the Steel Warband has the eyes of a lot of Charr, and serves as an inspiration to them, with Crecia mentioning how "Steel could turn the tide. Our people flock to you—they're your responsibility. You're their future."

If there is any one group that could really rally the Charr against Smodur's attempt to become Khan-Ur, and take it away from him, its them. Bangar has gone rogue, Malice doesn't want the job, and Efram wouldn't get it simply due to being Flame Legion, besides maybe Crecia, the Steel Warband is the next biggest threat to his attempt at the the Khan-Ur title at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@battledrone.8315 said:

@Kulvar.1239 said:Being pragmatic doesn't mean you're doing the best thing, just what you think is best.

no, pragmatic is usually the way of least resistance, or a status quo solution"best" for who? you? your country/ state/fraction? giving your life in defense of your country is bad for you , but good for the rest of the population

Pragmatism is seeking effectiveness. Smodur thinks it's effective to kill them, he orders it.

yep...4 dead losers over a steady alliance. he could even just had done it LATER, and in SECRET. this isnt leadership, its a clown showyou want to follow him, go for it. i doubt many will join youand a REAL pragmatic would had used them as dog food...or target dummies..or slaves in a mine

no, a REAL pragmatic would have made sure that EVERYONE saw th executions, so their deaths would have the maximum effect.

A clown show would be secret executions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

@"draxynnic.3719" said:They'll keep fighting, but unless he plans to assassinate everyone in that room, he'll never become Khan-Ur. Bangar may or may not be defeated in the end, but Smodur has already lost, and what did he gain by murdering a prisoner in the middle of a negotiation? Nothing significant.He gained a lot actually.

Specifically, he brings the Steel Warband one step closer to being totally destroyed. Its mentioned more then one that the Steel Warband has the eyes of a lot of Charr, and serves as an inspiration to them, with Crecia mentioning how "Steel could turn the tide. Our people flock to you—they're your responsibility. You're their future."

If there is any one group that could really rally the Charr against Smodur's attempt to become Khan-Ur, and take it away from him, its them. Bangar has gone rogue, Malice doesn't want the job, and Efram wouldn't get it simply due to being Flame Legion, besides maybe Crecia, the Steel Warband is the next biggest threat to his attempt at the the Khan-Ur title at this time.

Malice doesn't want the job, and Efram won't get it due to being Flame Legion... but there's no need for there to be a Khan-Ur. There hasn't been one for centuries. If the de facto leaders of the other legions refuse to ever accept Smodur as Khan-Ur, he'll never become Khan-Ur.

Short of replacing the leadership of all three legions, that's it. He's lost. One moment of impulsiveness, and the Khan-Urship will be forever outside of his reach. That's not pragmatism. That's stupidity.

As for bringing the Steel Warband closer to being completely destroyed...

Wars aren't won by killing the enemy. Wars are won by persuading the enemy to stop fighting. Yes, killing is a pretty effective way to stop someone from fighting... but it's not the only way, and it's not always the most efficient way.

There was a chance to get Ryland to stop fighting... and maybe even start fighting for the other side (getting a well-respected commander of Bangar to switch sides would be a much more potent psychological coup than killing him could ever be). About the only thing keeping Ryland with Bangar previously was Ryland's belief in Bangar's legitimacy and the chain of command. Now, though, it's personal. Ryland has one of the most powerful motivators in existence - revenge for the murder of a loved one while said loved one was a helpless prisoner. There is a point to be made that Ryland should not have been allowed to walk out with Cinder... but there's refusing to let go of a bargaining chip, and then there's setting the bargaining chip on fire. Smodur did the latter. That's not pragmatism. That's stupidity.

There was an opportunity, however slim it might have been, to get all the influence of the Steel Warband for him... while also keeping his allies on side. Now, he's pretty much ensured that Ryland will never switch sides, and that none of the current leaders of the other legions will support him to become Khan-Ur.

He might still be on the winning side in the end, but as far as his ambitions are concerned? He's lost everything. He'll continue to be Imperator of the Iron Legion until he dies, but he will never be the Khan-Ur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

@Kulvar.1239 said:Being pragmatic doesn't mean you're doing the best thing, just what you think is best.

no, pragmatic is usually the way of least resistance, or a status quo solution"best" for who? you? your country/ state/fraction? giving your life in defense of your country is bad for you , but good for the rest of the population

Pragmatism is seeking effectiveness. Smodur thinks it's effective to kill them, he orders it.

yep...4 dead losers over a steady alliance. he could even just had done it LATER, and in SECRET. this isnt leadership, its a clown showyou want to follow him, go for it. i doubt many will join youand a REAL pragmatic would had used them as dog food...or target dummies..or slaves in a mine

no, a REAL pragmatic would have made sure that EVERYONE saw th executions, so their deaths would have the maximum effect.

A clown show would be secret executions.

read the definition. setting up a big show like that would take extra time and resources. not pragmatic at all.doing it in secret would have the desired effect (dead prisoners) WITHOUT much extra work and with much less riskTHAT would be pragmatic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...