Military responses (Was Re: movement bug)

Keith Hearn (khearn@pyramid.com)
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:24:26 -0700

On Apr 15, 8:41pm, Phillip Lenhardt wrote:
> Subject: Re: movement bug
<responding to Ben Van Cauwenberghe>
>
> Of course your message does not address a more interesting issue therein
> revealed. Khamath's force was small and obviously on a limited mission
> (ghazi does not include the occupying of lands). Sir Codric's force is
> manifestly not small and completely out of scale as a response to
> Khamath's ghazi. I (and others I am sure) would love to know why you think
> Sir Codric's wholesale invasion a reasonable response to Khamath's limited
> raids. I would call it an excuse if it wasn't for the fact that Sir Codric
> has kept his usually uncivil tongue in his head lately.
>
> Aliestar Tanstagi

If someone attacks me, the rules he places upon himself do not apply
to my response. If some fellow walks up to me in a bar and starts
swinging at me and states that he is following the "Marquis de
Queensberry" rules, I'll have no qualms with kicking him in the
nuts. If he starts hostilities, it's his problem if he chooses to
limit himself. Now, if I agree to follow the same rules, then I am
honor bound to do so. But *he* doesn't get to set *my* rules of
engagement.

Just my opinion.

Andrew Grey
The Grey Company

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links