2.2 & Megacorp Teasers

[metalosse]

"This society has developed into a hardy warrior culture. Martial prowess is valued above all else, and true glory can only be found on the field of battle."

Where do people see "honorable fight" in this description? "Martial prowess" is vague enough to include both honorable fight and rogue tactics, as long as they work.

 

[Mauer]

The Predator of the eponymous movie comes to mind, where it definitely comes from a warrior culture yet it's not above using stealth and much more advanced weaponry than humans to fight them (and only goes hand-to-hand at the end once Arnie puts up a fight).

 

[Rip Off Productions]

"This society has developed into a hardy warrior culture. Martial prowess is valued above all else, and true glory can only be found on the field of battle. "

Where do people see "honorable fight" in this description? "Martial prowess" is vague enough to include both honorable fight and rogue tactics, as long as they work.

maybe not, but the trope does exist, the Klingons from Star Trek are probably the single most famous example of a "warrior culture" in Sci-Fi.

and in second place, or me anyway, are the Mandalorians from Star Wars(or at least the old pre-Disney stuff, I don't know if there have been any changes sense the reset of non-film cannon that fallowed their purchase of the franchise), specifically the glimpse into their culture we see through Canderus Ordo in the 2 'Knights of The Old Republic' games:

Spoiler: video clips

and of course the Civic's discriptive quote does say "and true glory can only be found on the field of battle.", which is probably the specific line that planted the idea in the back of my mind that the should prefer landing ground forces over Apocilyptic bombardment, on top of the fact that the civic only buffs troops, and not ships.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Pardon me for interefering, but I think there's a problem with what people understand by "martial prowess", and how they consider "warrior culture" is related to "being successful".

Martial Prowess doesn't just mean being successful at combat. It means being famous for it. And how do you become famous for your martial prowess? By making people seeing themselves how good you are at it. Hence duels, and duel rules. Even if those rules are mere rituals that state which kind of weapon you can use, they are still important because they establish a framework so people can make comparisons between individuals/groups based on martial prowess.
In warrior cultures, the value of your opponents/enemies is worth a lot. If an enemy has a lot of value because it is perceived strong, then you will have more martial prowess - and even more if you beat them oppenly, on your own, seen by everyone.
This is where "honour" and "cheating" become a bit complex: cheating is only bad if it means you didn't really win on your own, and you're usurping someone else's martial prowess, or you didn't use your martial skills to win. What matters is what people see, and what they know. One famous example is the use of poison. If no one knows you used it, then it's fine. If they know, it can be perceived as a dishonourable tactics and still be valued because it allowed you to win, but obviously it's not as much a martial prowess. Honourable isn't defined as respect for your enemy, but as a way of fighting withing the rules that let everyone see that it's purely thanks to your martial skills that you won. For the same reason, everything that doesn't involve non-martial skills isn't considered cheating, and the line can be blurry.

So no, martial prowess doesn't really encompass "honourable fight" and "rogue tactics" equally. The result isn't really the only thing that matters - killing a dragon purely with brute force, dexterity and other "open", "fair" skills will always be valued more within a warrior culture, but it doesn't mean that "dishonourable" tactics will be frowned upon. It just means that it's less valued, because it's easier and less "martial". And this distinction can vary a lot depending on the tropes, the context etc. For example, taunting an enemy to enrage them will not be considered cheating in most cases. Poisoning your weapon will be considered cheating in some cases. And seducing the enemy so you can kill him in their sleep will only be considered a martial prowess in a very few cases. In all cases, the result will be the same: a weakness was exploited and a weapon was used to kill an enemy. But the information available to the people varied a lot - and this is what defines martial prowess. It's in the eyes of the witnesses, not in the "result".

And yes, this also mean that "Warrior Cultures" can have huge propaganda machines that tell you how succesful the army (and the elite) is. Which is exactly what real warrior cultures did/do, like the Assyrians, the ancient Egyptians etc.
In short, "Warrior culture" and "martial prowess" don't imply the same thing as "Warriors" and "being successful".

 

[SpectralShade]

since we are listing various examples of warrior cultures, I'd like to add the clans from battletech in that vein. To me they certainly are a warrior culture, even going so far as to ask enemy planets of their forces so they can land a force that is suitable instead of overwhelming so there might be a chance for a fight instead of just rolling over the enemy.

 

[Badesumofu]

You managed to miss the point.

If he says "This civic in Stellaris, Warrior Culture..." that should be enough. That on its own should be enough to make you start drawing connections to "Proud Warrior Race".

End of story.

No. You're getting that from something else that is not the words. There is nothing in the name, or even the description, that implies honour. You're bringing in your own preconceptions and then treating them as having been directly implied by the wording of the civic. It's fine for that to be your particular take on the civic, but that doesn't make it the only possible interpretation. The civic's description talks about glorious battle, but even that doesn't necessarily imply honourable combat.

Bottom line - there is nothing in the name or the description that excludes the possibility of finding glory in defeating an enemy dishonourbly.

 

[metalosse]

Pardon me for interefering, but I think there's a problem with what people understand by "martial prowess", and how they consider "warrior culture" is related to "being successful".

Martial Prowess doesn't just mean being successful at combat. It means being famous for it. And how do you become famous for your martial prowess? By making people seeing themselves how good you are at it. Hence duels, and duel rules. Even if those rules are mere rituals that state which kind of weapon you can use, they are still important because they establish a framework so people can make comparisons between individuals/groups based on martial prowess.
In warrior cultures, the value of your opponents/enemies is worth a lot. If an enemy has a lot of value because it is perceived strong, then you will have more martial prowess - and even more if you beat them oppenly, on your own, seen by everyone.
This is where "honour" and "cheating" become a bit complex: cheating is only bad if it means you didn't really win on your own, and you're usurping someone else's martial prowess, or you didn't use your martial skills to win. What matters is what people see, and what they know. One famous example is the use of poison. If no one knows you used it, then it's fine. If they know, it can be perceived as a dishonourable tactics and still be valued because it allowed you to win, but obviously it's not as much a martial prowess. Honourable isn't defined as respect for your enemy, but as a way of fighting withing the rules that let everyone see that it's purely thanks to your martial skills that you won. For the same reason, everything that doesn't involve non-martial skills isn't considered cheating, and the line can be blurry.

So no, martial prowess doesn't really encompass "honourable fight" and "rogue tactics" equally. The result isn't really the only thing that matters - killing a dragon purely with brute force, dexterity and other "open", "fair" skills will always be valued more within a warrior culture, but it doesn't mean that "dishonourable" tactics will be frowned upon. It just means that it's less valued, because it's easier and less "martial". And this distinction can vary a lot depending on the tropes, the context etc. For example, taunting an enemy to enrage them will not be considered cheating in most cases. Poisoning your weapon will be considered cheating in some cases. And seducing the enemy so you can kill him in their sleep will only be considered a martial prowess in a very few cases. In all cases, the result will be the same: a weakness was exploited and a weapon was used to kill an enemy. But the information available to the people varied a lot - and this is what defines martial prowess. It's in the eyes of the witnesses, not in the "result".

And yes, this also mean that "Warrior Cultures" can have huge propaganda machines that tell you how succesful the army (and the elite) is. Which is exactly what real warrior cultures did/do, like the Assyrians, the ancient Egyptians etc.
In short, "Warrior culture" and "martial prowess" don't imply the same thing as "Warriors" and "being successful".

You're confusing martial prowess and combat prowess.

 

[TheGrinningMan]

I'm of the "Fanatic Purifiers can work with Warrior Culture" faction. There's a difference between fighting honorably with one's kin, and hunting mere vermin. The former may help in the latter, and it may even be fun, during one's exterminations, to make a jolly hunt of it, competing with one's kin. But still, animals are animals, even if they are dangerous animals that must be annihilated. If dangerous vermin are best dealt with by burning them away, they will be burned.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

maybe not, but the trope does exist, the Klingons from Star Trek are probably the single most famous example of a "warrior culture" in Sci-Fi.

You mean the Klingons who use cloaking devices to ambush their foes? Those Klingons? Are they the Klingons you're talking about?

I think we can put them in the "win by any means at your disposal" category

Samurai would have no issue using their bows and their skill with them to wipe out an enemy without meeting their spears. Why wouldn't space samurai do the same with their battleships' cannons?

Even if you'd accept a challenge to single combat from an opposing champion, a fellow warrior, you'd still bombard the rest of the rabble from afar.

 

[Devanor]

I'm of the "Fanatic Purifiers can work with Warrior Culture" faction. There's a difference between fighting honorably with one's kin, and hunting mere vermin. The former may help in the latter, and it may even be fun, during one's exterminations, to make a jolly hunt of it, competing with one's kin. But still, animals are animals, even if they are dangerous animals that must be annihilated. If dangerous vermin are best dealt with by burning them away, they will be burned.

It can definitely work. Fanatic Purifiers want to exterminate all other sentient beings in the galaxy by whatever means necessary, and having a "warrior culture" can be one means to an end, that their preferred method of extemination is by conquest and manual purging in order to keep the planet intact (armageddon turns it into a tomb world and Colossus radiates or cracks it, and that's bad if it's a nice planet overall)

 

[CrowScape]

maybe not, but the trope does exist, the Klingons from Star Trek are probably the single most famous example of a "warrior culture" in Sci-Fi.

Klingons. As in the race with the invisible ships? As in the ones who framed a Star Fleet captain as an assassin? As in the people who kidnapped a blind guy to use his prosthetic device to bypass a starship's shielding?

These are the honorable warriors of which you speak?

 

[The Founder]

View attachment 455185

The Minbary are a society split into 3 distinct castes. You posted a image of the warrior caste.
Also they had no hesitation to use superior force. That is hardly honorable condcut.

And even if you consider the Hoborable Warriors: even in a Religious Society, there can be Honorable Warriors. Without that making the whole Society a Warrior Culture.

As in the ones who framed a Star Fleet captain as an assassin? As in the people who kidnapped a blind guy to use his prosthetic device to bypass a starship's shielding?

Lursa and Bethor are far from Honorable. Heck, that is why they are despised by so many characters.

Even in a Warrior Culture, there are those that comit dishonorable conduct:

I also need clarification what you mean with "As in the ones who framed a Star Fleet captain as an assassin?". Because I can not remember such a case.

 

[Mitchz95]

Lursa and Bethor are far from Honorable. Heck, that is why they are despised by so many characters.

Even in a Warrior Culture, there are those that comit dishonorable conduct:

In "The Way of the Warrior", Worf explicitly says that to the Klingons, "In war, there is nothing more honorable than victory." And in "Nor the Battle to the Strong" the Klingons attacking Ajilon Prime were also ready to slaughter patients in a hospital to give them an 'honorable death'.

I also need clarification what you mean with "As in the ones who framed a Star Fleet captain as an assassin?". Because I can not remember such a case.

The Undiscovered Country. The "honorable" Klingons wanted to fight the Federation to the death rather than accept a "dishonorable" peace treaty.

 

[CrowScape]

The Minbary are a society split into 3 distinct castes. You posted a image of the warrior caste.

Indeed I did.

Also they had no hesitation to use superior force. That is hardly honorable condcut.

You are confusing "honorable" for "fair."

Lursa and Bethor are far from Honorable. Heck, that is why they are despised by so many characters.

But not by Klingons. The Durass family is the most dishonorable collection of vipers you will find in the entire ST universe, but they frequently gain promenance in Klingon society.

I also need clarification what you mean with "As in the ones who framed a Star Fleet captain as an assassin?". Because I can not remember such a case.

Pitty. Undiscovered Country is one of the better ST movies. I'd put it after Wrath of Khan.

 

[PK_AZ]

There is nothing in the name 'Warrior Culture' that implies that the warriors must be honourable.

Well, I think it kinda imply. One of differences between Manly Warriors and drafted peasants is that former have Code of Honor, that make them better that dirty slaves. Now, what exactly this Code of Honor looks like, is totally different question...

You mean the Klingons who use cloaking devices to ambush their foes? Those Klingons? Are they the Klingons you're talking about?

I think we can put them in the "win by any means at your disposal" category

Whats wrong with ambushing enemies? I know there is that popcultural notion that 'honorable' means 'virgi... sorry, I mean 'always fighting more fair that the fairest man in the world', but I honestly cannot agree with that.
IMHO honor at warfare is first and foremost belief that "win by any means at your disposal" is unacceptable mindset. Now, there are many possible code of honor. Some warriors can obliterate whole divisions in ambush, and then murder enemies trying to surrender, but never allow slightiest harm to civilians. Others might kill every man, woman and child of enemy clan, but spare common soldiers. Etc etc. But in every case, there are things that honorable warrior won't do - because that would change him into disgusting creature, because that would make his ancestors spit at him in Valhalla.
As for ambushes - lets be honest, on modern battlefield its not even a trick, its necessity. And - today you ambush enemy, but tomorrow enemy may be ambushing you. Fair and square.

Samurai would have no issue using their bows and their skill with them to wipe out an enemy without meeting their spears. Why wouldn't space samurai do the same with their battleships' cannons?

Roleplay-wise, its good point. But mechanically-wise, warrior culture gives bonus to Army Damage and Army Upkeep. It seems reasonable that the logic behind is that Warrior Culture is more about killing your enemies with rifles, not warship guns.

 

[Slynx]

Roleplay-wise, its good point. But mechanically-wise, warrior culture gives bonus to Army Damage and Army Upkeep. It seems reasonable that the logic behind is that Warrior Culture is more about killing your enemies with rifles, not warship guns.

but the discussion started from mixing it with purifiers (and they do get bonuses for warship guns), isn't it?
after all there were a proposal to remove Armageddon from purifiers that also took warrior culture (as if they are not already nerfing themselves by not taking admiralty or other more useful civic)

 

[CrowScape]

Well, I think it kinda imply. One of differences between Manly Warriors and drafted peasants is that former have Code of Honor, that make them better that dirty slaves. Now, what exactly this Code of Honor looks like, is totally different question...

For purposes of this discussion, I think the code of honor in question must be one that prohibits genocide. If such a code of honor is not inherent in a Warrior Culture, then it's as good as saying that Warrior Cultures need not be "honorable," even if they do have strong prohibitions against cowardice and exalt dying in service to the Empire or whatever.

 

[Daedwartin]

IMHO honor at warfare is first and foremost belief that "win by any means at your disposal" is unacceptable mindset. .

"A weapon that kills without honor, without skill, but even so, it gives power and victory and Victory wipes away dishonor."

Hmmm....sounds like to me people are kinda forgetting something. Honor in warrior cultures is like treason in that a dishonorable act is most the time only dishonorable because you lost. Winning and making your lord look good were what most warrior cultures actually cared for.

I mean, The noble heroic knight of Fuedal Europe....who spent most the time they were at war just looting and pillaging the countryside so as to deprive the enemy of supplies. same thing with Samurai during the Sengoku Jidai. Expect in Japan there was a lot more of them who did so without the justification of being on campaign and just pillaged and looted anyways. Bushido was explicitly an invention by Samurai who were alive during the Edo Period where Samurai were basically just a caste of government bureaucrats playing warrior who were technically the military of Japan but basically did very little if any fighting.

 

[Duuk]

Hmmm....sounds like to me people are kinda forgetting something. Honor in warrior cultures is like treason in that a dishonorable act is most the time only dishonorable because you lost. Winning and making your lord look good were what most warrior cultures actually cared for.

I mean, The noble heroic knight of Fuedal Europe....who spent most the time they were at war just looting and pillaging the countryside so as to deprive the enemy of supplies. same thing with Samurai during the Sengoku Jidai. Expect in Japan there was a lot more of them who did so without the justification of being on campaign and just pillaged and looted anyways. Bushido was explicitly an invention by Samurai who were alive during the Edo Period where Samurai were basically just a caste of government bureaucrats playing warrior who were technically the military of Japan but basically did very little if any fighting.

One of my favorite scenes from the book/mini-series Shogun by James Clavell is when Toranaga asks the English pirate/pilot if the Dutch are really in rebellion against the Spanish, who are their lawful lord. When Blackthorn (the pilot) responds, "Yes, but there are mitigating circumstances..." Toranaga yells back, "There are no mitigating circumstances for rebelling against your lawful lord!" Blackthorn quickly replies, "Unless you win."

Toranaga starts laughing and says, "Yes, pilot. Unless you win. That is the ONE mitigating circumstance."

It's very Machiavellian in a way that only people that have truly read and understood Machiavelli can appreciate.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

Roleplay-wise, its good point. But mechanically-wise, warrior culture gives bonus to Army Damage and Army Upkeep. It seems reasonable that the logic behind is that Warrior Culture is more about killing your enemies with rifles, not warship guns.

So, there's really 2 discussions going on.

One is whether warrior culture should be bombarding enemies at all, or just going down there and fighting.

They do get a bonus to army damage and morale... Which, without giving any penalties to bombardment, already encourages them to bombard less and invade more.

That bonus doesn't necessarily stem from a view that personal combat is honorable or preferable. The fact they now have duelists as entertainers does show that they at least glorify it. But, their skill at ground combat would stem from that directly, from kids growing up with dreams of gladiatorial combat.

Like, if there were a war where carrying and throwing head-sized items past people trying to physically restrain you was beneficial, all the people who played football growing up would win it. But, if we could cut losses by 90% and still win in a timely manner by using cruise missiles, we would.

I think "glorify" is the best word for how it appears the Warrior Culture views warriors. But victory would still be the first concern. Another example, bullfighters. They are (or were) glorified. But when a trained bullfighter wants a steak, the bull gets a bolt to the skull.

(And yes, I'm aware that the bulls get eaten, but there's not a bullfight every time a bullfighter wants a steak )

For purposes of this discussion, I think the code of honor in question must be one that prohibits genocide. If such a code of honor is not inherent in a Warrior Culture, then it's as good as saying that Warrior Cultures need not be "honorable," even if they do have strong prohibitions against cowardice and exalt dying in service to the Empire or whatever.

The original discussion was about this, but the main point you're missing is: fanatical purifiers don't really consider genocide to be genocide. They're just exterminating things which have no right to live in the first place.

There's no honor or glory in fighting a cockroach, and no dishonor in spraying them with insecticide.