How would you feel about Tarquin's plan if it wasn't Tarquin?

[Phantom Thief]

So it's kind of hard to back up Vector Legion knowing that Malack was going to enact mass slaughterings and the whole continent is run by a shadow organization that self identifies as "evil", but what if it wasn't? What if this plan had been created by a Lawful Neutral centered team who says:

"I know everyone wants freedom and all, but having hundreds of tiny kingdoms constantly at war with one another is causing unnecessary death. We should unite the continent under one overarching banner so people stop focusing on territorial disputes and start trying to fix the social ills of this place."

Would this be a plan you, as a Good aligned hero, would fight? I can see the argument that it takes away peoples freedom necessarily and manipulates people into thinking they have agency in their lives, but in the long run, if society could be better under a conspiracy empire than not, would that outweigh the evilness of it?

[Kish]

The question isn't actually answerable, because it ignores a lot about Tarquin's plan. The brutal oppressiveness of the Vector Legion's regime is not an optional extra.

[Gift Jeraff]

If it doesn't use evil methods to keep the people in line and have the conspirers' benefits as its #1 goal then it's not Tarquin's plan.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I dislike any plan that involves taking away personal freedoms to reach some long term goal that is supposedly better than how things work now. Also, a large part of Tarquin's plan involves backstabbing and tricking various nations constantly, and constantly creating violent upheavals of the previous empire every couple of years. The plan isn't simply to consolidate under one banner (in fact, Tarquin thinks that this would end poorly for him), and ignoring the other elements gets us a radically different plan.

[Bulldog Psion]

That's not really Tarquin's plan. Many people, unfortunately, listen to Tarquin's babble rather than looking at the nuts and bolts of the plan as they are actually spelled out. Tarquin gibbers about stability, but his actual plan is to keep "recycling" the kingdoms and empires endlessly to keep any of them from getting strong enough to not need him, basically. So he hasn't put a stop to conflict -- it's ongoing and he and his buddies are causing it.

[Reddish Mage]

I just note that the plan is almost exactly the plan used to control the world in 1984.

[Nilehus]

However you look at it, it's a three-man con that kills however many thousands of soldiers and civilians a year. I don't buy Tarquin's claim that it saves lives.

So yeah, pretty much 1984. We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[Peelee]

However you look at it, it's a three-man con that kills however many thousands of soldiers and civilians a year. I don't buy Tarquin's claim that it saves lives.

So yeah, pretty much 1984. We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eurasia.

I like what you did there.

[Reddish Mage]

However you look at it, it's a three-man con that kills however many thousands of soldiers and civilians a year. I don't buy Tarquin's claim that it saves lives.

So yeah, pretty much 1984. We're at war with Eastasia, we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Instead of almost exactly, I should have said "striking resemblance to." Its a three-card monte of constantly mixing up the three greatest powers of the continent, that are attacking each other mainly to keep people too busy to rebel against them. Other than that, and a tendency to brutally crush anyone that goes against them, nothing like 1984 at all.

All Hail Big Brother Dragon! Down with Emmanuel Goldstein Ian Starshine!

[Nilehus]

No, I was agreeing with you. :smalltongue: The only reason Tarquin didn't have telescreens hidden behind the paintings was that they lacked the technology, not a sense of goodwill.

Agh, now I want to read 1984 again. Too bad my copy is 1200 miles away.

[ManicOppressive]

The absolute core of Tarquin's plan--to form three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies in order to unite a hellhole that sees its citizens massacre each other in complete anarchy--is not an evil one. People might disagree with it, but as far as alignment goes I think that action would just be a strongly Lawful one--I don't think it has ANY place on the Good-Evil axis. Agree with it or don't, it has an intention that is at worst neutral (unite a continent, stop never-ending wars) and does not inherently contain any means that are particularly evil.

It's just that literally everything else Tarquin did was evil. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the core of Tarquin's plan as he stated it was pretty obviously NOT the core of his own plan. The core of his OWN plan was either to put himself in a position to do as he wished or to be the villain of an amazing story.

Just to hopefully squelch some forum troll response to my post, I am not, in ANY way, in any SENSE, saying that Tarquin's plan as executed or Tarquin himself are anything but monstrously evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

The absolute core of Tarquin's plan--to form three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies in order to unite a hellhole that sees its citizens massacre each other in complete anarchy--is not an evil one. People might disagree with it, but as far as alignment goes I think that action would just be a strongly Lawful one--I don't think it has ANY place on the Good-Evil axis. Agree with it or don't, it has an intention that is at worst neutral (unite a continent, stop never-ending wars) and does not inherently contain any means that are particularly evil.

It's just that literally everything else Tarquin did was evil. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the core of Tarquin's plan as he stated it was pretty obviously NOT the core of his own plan. The core of his OWN plan was either to put himself in a position to do as he wished or to be the villain of an amazing story.

Just to hopefully squelch some forum troll response to my post, I am not, in ANY way, in any SENSE, saying that Tarquin's plan as executed or Tarquin himself are anything but monstrously evil.

I agree with this. I think the problem is that when you reduce his plan to just a core, and say that his plan is to unite the non-Elven parts of the Western Continent, it no longer really resembles Tarquin's plan, and has moved past "Tarquin's plan but not executed by Tarquin" to "plan that bares a resemblance to Tarquin's". So, while the core of the plan doesn't really belong anywhere on the morality scale, once you look at those things that you mentioned in your second paragraph, it is pretty distinctly evil.

[Reddish Mage]

I agree with this. I think the problem is that when you reduce his plan to just a core, and say that his plan is to unite the non-Elven parts of the Western Continent, it no longer really resembles Tarquin's plan, and has moved past "Tarquin's plan but not executed by Tarquin" to "plan that bares a resemblance to Tarquin's". So, while the core of the plan doesn't really belong anywhere on the morality scale, once you look at those things that you mentioned in your second paragraph, it is pretty distinctly evil.

I think its debatable that the "core" of the plan does not include Tarquin's use of puppet rulers to regularly take the fall and to throw off "heroes" and the plan is ostensibly undertaken so that the Vector Legion (where did this language come from?) can retire filthy rich without ever seeing the inside of another dungeon.

Also as previously discussed, the plan isn't a plan at all to unite the Western Continent. It is a plan to reform the Western Continent into three constantly warring states.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think its debatable that the "core" of the plan does not include Tarquin's use of puppet rulers to regularly take the fall and to throw off "heroes" and the plan is ostensibly undertaken so that the Vector Legion (where did this language come from?) can retire filthy rich without ever seeing the inside of another dungeon.

Also as previously discussed, the plan isn't a plan at all to unite the Western Continent. It is a plan to reform the Western Continent into three constantly warring states.

I believe I have linked to this before, but here (https://mobile.twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435651746556149760) is where Vector Legion comes from.

And I think that once again I have phrased myself poorly. Core isn't the best term, but perhaps "large element" would be better? As for not uniting the Western Continent, that's one of things that I meant when I said no longer resembles Tarquin's plan. Not only is the plan being reduced to one element, but that one element is being altered. I apologize for being unclear.

[Darth Paul]

OK, let me see...

The main issue with Tarquin's plan is that it involves killing people left and right, not only the disposable figurehead rulers, but the people who die in wars, prisons, tortures, gladiator arenas, taco night (wait, wrong book), etcetera. So, suppose we had a similar, yet non-violent plan?

What if it was a plan to secretly and non-violently set up three regimes which would unify many, many tiny warring countries, then pretend they were eternally at war with one another, for the purpose of putting an end to the actual warfare and misery that has been consuming the continent up until now? What if they were forever preparing for the next big offensive, without actually attacking anybody? The rulers would consult with each other and perfectly coordinate so that, no matter where each army maneuvered, there would always be just too much opposition at that point for an attack to go ahead, yet not enough to tempt a counterattack. An eternal stalemate. A no-score win for both sides.

Well, yeah, that has some points to recommend it, even though it is completely based on deception and a lack of freedom for those living under the regimes, and depends on continuing to dupe the citizens lest anyone discover the Truth about their government, so it falls very close to Evil if not actually there. And it seems as if it would become actively Evil eventually, once the next step of shutting up and probably "disappearing" those who got too close to the truth were taken.

So even a plan that were similar to Tarquin's, but without the violence, still falls pretty squarely into the Evil end of the spectrum when it gets to the execution phase, what with the need for lying to the populace and probably making people vanish.

Sure, ending war is a good intention. Now remind me what that road was paved with again?

[evileeyore]

I'm with the others saying "If you get rid of all the Evil in Tarquin's plan it stops being Tarquin's plan".

Sure, unite the disparate tribes and regions using the power of sparkles, puppies, and cupcakes and it's a perfectly swell plan.

Won't work, but it's sure swell.

[factotum]

I'm sure this has come up before...I recall a thread about it a few months ago. Anyway, I think the general conclusion then, as it appears to be now, is that you can't turn Tarquin's plan into something that a Good or Neutral person would do without changing it beyond recognition. Yes, a Neutral person might well see some benefit in a plan that killed a few thousand people in order to save many more lives, but in order to justify that there'd need to be a definite end point--a point at which the killing stops and they say, "Right, this plan worked".

To be honest, Tarquin and Co. could stop the fighting right now if they chose; they control the three major powers on the Western Continent, so I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond their wit to merge those three empires into a single entity that controls so much territory that no-one else can get a look in. The whole "forming a kingdom then getting attacked by another new kingdom" is only a problem when your kingdom isn't so much bigger than everyone else's that you can crush them like ants if they try anything!

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I'm sure this has come up before...I recall a thread about it a few months ago. Anyway, I think the general conclusion then, as it appears to be now, is that you can't turn Tarquin's plan into something that a Good or Neutral person would do without changing it beyond recognition. Yes, a Neutral person might well see some benefit in a plan that killed a few thousand people in order to save many more lives, but in order to justify that there'd need to be a definite end point--a point at which the killing stops and they say, "Right, this plan worked".

To be honest, Tarquin and Co. could stop the fighting right now if they chose; they control the three major powers on the Western Continent, so I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond their wit to merge those three empires into a single entity that controls so much territory that no-one else can get a look in. The whole "forming a kingdom then getting attacked by another new kingdom" is only a problem when your kingdom isn't so much bigger than everyone else's that you can crush them like ants if they try anything!

I think they can still feel justifiably worried about the Elves, who appear to control their large region of the continent. And if the Elves were to ally with other countries that, while much smaller, would attack the three empires if they saw things in their advantage...

[Reddish Mage]

So just to be clear the Tarquin's plan is explained here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html), and the plan cannot but be interpreted as one involving three empires actually in a state of constant warfare with each other while they gradually gobble up (by hook or by crook) the rest of the continent.



So it's kind of hard to back up Vector Legion...but what if it wasn't? What if this plan had been created by a Lawful Neutral centered team who says:

"I know everyone wants freedom and all, but having hundreds of tiny kingdoms constantly at war with one another is causing unnecessary death. We should unite the continent under one overarching banner so people stop focusing on territorial disputes and start trying to fix the social ills of this place."

Would this be a plan you, as a Good aligned hero, would fight?

This plan, which is ill-defined but EXACTLY the opposite of Tarquin's. Tarquin chides Elan in page 2 panel 6 as not listening when Elan suggests placing the continent in a real overarching banner. There is no single "banner," no empire nor a coalition or any semblance of the states being unified in any way except by a secret plan that keeps an apparently warring, fractious continent "under the thumbs" of a secret cabal.

The OP's argument against his own "Lawful Neutral" plan is:


I can see the argument that it takes away peoples freedom necessarily and manipulates people into thinking they have agency in their lives, but in the long run, if society could be better under a conspiracy empire than not, would that outweigh the evilness of it?

This question doesn't even make sense, either it is an "overarching banner" that gives people a sense a unity, or its the (continual orchestrated war) plan that takes away people's freedom and manipulates people into thinking they have agency over their lives while they dance on the strings of a secret cabal.

A secret power with a secret agenda is not necessarily read by the comic as evil, look at Shojo, he basically manipulated the nobility in Azure city into thinking they were the power of Azure city, while he played them off against one another. The Paladins were also a secret power, and very few people actually knew the Sapphire Guard existed, and even the nobility didn't know their agenda and that the city only existed for the purpose of protecting a gate.

So, I guess what I'm saying, is that the "Lawful neutral" agenda the OP created sounds more like Azure City than the Western Continent.

[veti]

I agree with this. I think the problem is that when you reduce his plan to just a core, and say that his plan is to unite the non-Elven parts of the Western Continent, it no longer really resembles Tarquin's plan, and has moved past "Tarquin's plan but not executed by Tarquin" to "plan that bares a resemblance to Tarquin's". So, while the core of the plan doesn't really belong anywhere on the morality scale, once you look at those things that you mentioned in your second paragraph, it is pretty distinctly evil.

I think it would be possible to use some of the elements of Tarquin's plan to make a new plan that would pass as LN. Possibly even LG. It would look a lot like the Cold War: multiple power blocs threaten, but never directly fight, each other. They engage by means of a series of proxy wars, coups d'etat and propaganda exercises sited in countries not formally aligned with any of the groups.

The tricky part would be in keeping these "minor wars" from being too destructive, without anyone noticing what's going on. I would arrange a non-stop exchange of "surprise attacks". Empire A's army overruns Kingdom 1 with overwhelming force - the kingdom's army either retreats to its citadels, or to Empire B which promises it support. Empire A instals a puppet ruler in Kingdom 1, then retires before the counterattack arrives. Some of Empire B's forces remain in the kingdom to help defend it in future, and Empire B has gained a new satellite. For the time being, at least.

Of course the figureheads installed by A, and their cronies, would be in trouble once A goes away. They could flee to A (where they'd be set up in a comfortable retirement somewhere), or they could surrender gracefully and be exiled internally, or they could be left to their fate, which might be a good way of culling people who are too ambitious for our liking.

Not sure how long you could keep this up without anyone noticing, but with the right kinds of propaganda it should work for a while. The tricky part would be preventing the population from growing too fast, without wars to keep it in check.

[Miriel]

I think it would be possible to use some of the elements of Tarquin's plan to make a new plan that would pass as LN. Possibly even LG. It would look a lot like the Cold War: multiple power blocs threaten, but never directly fight, each other. They engage by means of a series of proxy wars, coups d'etat and propaganda exercises sited in countries not formally aligned with any of the groups.
Hum, this may come too close to real politics, but your description of the Cold War forgets its internal effects and that which happened in similar situations -- how the climate of fear fostered repression of political opponents, etc. "War" rhetoric creates very bad conditions for any kind of Good-aligned government.

Faking that "there's a war going on!" in order to have no wars may seem nice at first, but wars, even unimportant or fake wars, create a bad political climate. Everything tends to be subordinated to Victory, especially morals, and expendiency takes over lawful government or sound decision-making. War tends to other the ennemy, which has been known to create or reinforce racism and xenophobia. Sure, the leading circle would know that nothing is going on, and, presumably, Good leaders would decide not to use this for their own profit, but what about the population in general?

[evileeyore]

Possibly even LG. It would look a lot like the Cold War...
The Cold War was not Lawful Good.

[Nilehus]

Oh no. Real world politics! Abandon thread!

(Honestly though, this is an interesting thread. I don't want it locked because it got into real world events.)

That being said, there really isn't a way to make Tarquin's plan non-Evil beyond stripping it down to 'Unite the countries to stop war." At which point it has nearly no resemblance to his original plan.

[evileeyore]

That being said, there really isn't a way to make Tarquin's plan non-Evil beyond stripping it down to 'Unite the countries to stop war." At which point it has nearly no resemblance to his original plan.
Basically.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think it would be possible to use some of the elements of Tarquin's plan to make a new plan that would pass as LN. Possibly even LG.

I don't know if such a plan could be considered Good, since it involves large-scale deception of numerous people over an indefinite period of time. However, like I said before, it has moved past being "Tarquin's plan, but run by LN people", too "plan that bares a resemblance to Tarquin's". I probably wouldn't like any plan that fits into the latter category, regardless of what alignment it is.

[malloyd]

That being said, there really isn't a way to make Tarquin's plan non-Evil beyond stripping it down to 'Unite the countries to stop war." At which point it has nearly no resemblance to his original plan.

Unite the local statelets into a few empires, using wars and secret deals with each other, and conceal the process a little by occasionally changing sides and backing a revolution against our previous emperors doesn't seem Evil. Even notionally Good states seem to be allowed to have internal politics that once in a while get bad enough to turn into a civil war and to go to war with each other on occasion. Even starting a war explicitly to gain territory can pass for Good if you are going to govern it better than it's current rulers.

The combination is probably a little too cynically manipulative to qualify as Good, and Good doesn't go in for the ends justify the means either. But when the ends *are* arguably Good, and the means aren't any more Evil than the norms of politics, it seems like the scheme could be Neutral.

[factotum]

But when the ends *are* arguably Good, and the means aren't any more Evil than the norms of politics, it seems like the scheme could be Neutral.

As I said upthread, though, to make that OK for someone Neutral to attempt it there would have to be a definite stopping point where they wrap it up and say, "OK, that's finished now." Tarquin & Co's plan does not have such an end point, other than their own deaths; they'll keep the pointless wars going for as long they can in order to hold on to power.

[Darth Paul]

As I said upthread, though, to make that OK for someone Neutral to attempt it there would have to be a definite stopping point where they wrap it up and say, "OK, that's finished now." Tarquin & Co's plan does not have such an end point, other than their own deaths; they'll keep the pointless wars going for as long they can in order to hold on to power.

It's also sort of a tenet of Good alignment that the ends never justify the means, so no Good person could try such a plan no matter what the eventual outcome is meant to be. The mass lying, etcetera rules it out. Neutral could do such a deceptive plan if, as pointed out, the goal was an eventual stability and peace, as long as they did not actually kill people along the way (in which case they would accomplish a Good goal by Neutral means).

The fact that the Vector Legion's only goal was and remains power and wealth for themselves, at the expense of basically everyone else on the continent, along with the fact that they are actively killing, ordering deaths, and setting up regimes where death is the penalty for all crimes, from arson and murder to jaywalking, makes their plan irredeemably Evil, both the goal and the execution. No bones about it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Looking at it again, I feel a little of a disconnect between the first post and the thread title. The thread title seems to be asking how we feel about a plan very similar to Tarquin's, but not run by the Vector Legion, whereas the first post asks about a largely different plan.

Also, I feel that regardless of what alignment this new plan falls under, I still wouldn't be feeling very positive about it.

[Heksefatter]

It is a weird question. It would be an almost completely different plan, if it wasn't for the mass murder, the constant betrayals, the endless warfare and the oppression.

The closest thing I can give to an answer is that it would depend on the good-aligned heroes in question, the story and how the empire actually turned out.

Some heroes would grudingly accept a lawful neutral empire based on deception, lies and propaganda as an unpleasant, but still preferable alternative. Other heroes, especially anti-heroes of some sorts, would believe it is a fine idea and others would oppose it uncompromisingly.

So there really isn't an answer.

[Anarion]

I would feel that it needed a new name.

[137beth]

The similarities between Tarquin's plan and 1984 have been noted before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?176430-1984-reference).

[Knaight]

Tarquin's plan is being somewhat misrepresented here. It's not to have three states under the control of one group who all have wars to create the illusion of disunity. It's nowhere near that stable, and is substantially more sinister. There are three states at any given time, yes. However, the plan also includes periodically introducing a brand new hotshot warlord to violently overthrow one of the existing states. That is integral to the plan, and makes it substantially worse than it would otherwise be.


I dislike any plan that involves taking away personal freedoms to reach some long term goal that is supposedly better than how things work now. Also, a large part of Tarquin's plan involves backstabbing and tricking various nations constantly, and constantly creating violent upheavals of the previous empire every couple of years. The plan isn't simply to consolidate under one banner (in fact, Tarquin thinks that this would end poorly for him), and ignoring the other elements gets us a radically different plan.

What freedoms? The freedoms to live under a constantly changing set of warlords who are constantly in the taking control phase, and thus more despotic than some sort of large state would be? No personal freedom is being taken away, the only thing changing is who's in control - and, if the plan as described (not Tarquin's plan) works, a drastic reduction of chances of getting killed in one of the takeovers, which outright increases freedom. It's hard to be free if you're dead.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

What freedoms? The freedoms to live under a constantly changing set of warlords who are constantly in the taking control phase, and thus more despotic than some sort of large state would be? No personal freedom is being taken away, the only thing changing is who's in control - and, if the plan as described (not Tarquin's plan) works, a drastic reduction of chances of getting killed in one of the takeovers, which outright increases freedom. It's hard to be free if you're dead.

The OP's description of the new plan involved taking away freedom now for good in the long run. Personally, any plan that involves living under a regime involves taking away freedom to me.

[Amphiox]

The absolute core of Tarquin's plan--to form three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies in order to unite a hellhole that sees its citizens massacre each other in complete anarchy--is not an evil one...

The way I see it, the statement "to form three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies in order to unite..." is not a plan.

It's a statement of intent. An announcement of an ideal.

It's like saying that the core of the Schlieffen Plan was "to split our army into two and crush France like a overripe grape between them", or that the core of the plan of attack for Pearl Harbor was "sink their battleships!".

At the most generous it isn't the "core" of a plan. It's the "crust". The thing on the surface that everyone sees.

A "plan" requires more that just a statement of WHAT one wants to do (and why), but also at least a few details on the "how".

It isn't a "plan" until one includes a description on just HOW "forming three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies" actually accomplishes the goal of "uniting a hellhole that sees its citizens massacre each other in complete anarchy".

And those details are the "core" - the inner seed around which all else grows.

And it is those details that matter. In this case those details are all evil. Remove those details and change them to make it neutral, and it isn't the same core of a plan anymore.

[Amphiox]

I dislike any plan that involves taking away personal freedoms to reach some long term goal that is supposedly better than how things work now.

"A plan that involves taking away personal freedoms to reach some long term goal that is supposedly better than how things work now" describes all, any, and indeed all possible, forms of government.

In fact it describes any, all, and indeed all possible, arrangements for living in cooperating groups.

And thus describes the unchanged, basic ground state of all human existence, dating back to long before humans were even humans....

[Miriel]

The way I see it, the statement "to form three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies in order to unite..." is not a plan.

It's a statement of intent. An announcement of an ideal.

It's like saying that the core of the Schlieffen Plan was "to split our army into two and crush France like a overripe grape between them", or that the core of the plan of attack for Pearl Harbor was "sink their battleships!".

At the most generous it isn't the "core" of a plan. It's the "crust". The thing on the surface that everyone sees.

A "plan" requires more that just a statement of WHAT one wants to do (and why), but also at least a few details on the "how".

It isn't a "plan" until one includes a description on just HOW "forming three large empires that give the appearance of being enemies" actually accomplishes the goal of "uniting a hellhole that sees its citizens massacre each other in complete anarchy".

And those details are the "core" - the inner seed around which all else grows.

And it is those details that matter. In this case those details are all evil. Remove those details and change them to make it neutral, and it isn't the same core of a plan anymore.
Hum, it depends on the level of strategy you're operating on. After all, you can have a grand, Schlieffen plan-like idea and ask junior people to work on train timetables or whatever to make it work in practice. You don't start with railway timetables and then see whether you can actually win a war against France.

The process is probably more something like this:
1) Set your main objective. => unite/control the Western Continent
2) Try to set up a scheme to achieve 1; if no scheme can achieve 1, redefine 1. => use the six team members to control different, warring Empires and slowly grow each of them until all the Western Continent is controled.
3) Set up the logistic details to achieve 2; if logistics make 2 unachievable, redefine 2. => terrorize
4) Add similiar seps as needed.

Of course, you can see 1, 2 and 3 as different things. Maybe Tarquin's plan is not to unite the Western Continent, but just to be a proper villain; his scheme to achieve this is to terrorize as many people as possible; and how he can achieve this is by attempting to control the Western Continent, by using his six team members etc. Or, from Malack's point of view, 1 is to create a soul farm for Nergal, by (2) uniting the Continent under him (3) by using the Legion.

By the way, the plan as first described can pose ethical/alignment issues at every level, but the objective of uniting/controling the continent with the six team members, etc., can be done without the abhorrent terror Tarquin uses, and it would still be unique enough to be Tarquin's plan. If you think terror is fundamental to this account of Tarquin's plan, either you think that the Schlieffen plan would not be the Schlieffen plan if the (random hypothetical train) Mons-Nieuport line had become unoperable or something like that -- which would be unique, given that the name Schlieffen plan is used to describe several completely different operational ideas, of which the one you described is only one(*) --, or you should explain how Tarquin's main motivation is terror in itself.

(*) Schlieffen's original plan, as I gather, was based on waiting for a French offensive, beating it, and then winning the war with encirclement(s). This was amended to the super agressive offensive used in 1914. In effect, what we call the "Schlieffen plan" is not even about doing anything specific in France, not even the Cannes-like encirclement operation, it's just about defeating France first and then defeating the Russians.

[veti]

Hum, it depends on the level of strategy you're operating on. After all, you can have a grand, Schlieffen plan-like idea and ask junior people to work on train timetables or whatever to make it work in practice. You don't start with railway timetables and then see whether you can actually win a war against France.

I don't know if you're aware, but the English historian A J P Taylor argued for a long time (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm) that that's precisely what the Germans did do...


By the way, the plan as first described can pose ethical/alignment issues at every level, but the objective of uniting/controling the continent with the six team members, etc., can be done without the abhorrent terror Tarquin uses, and it would still be unique enough to be Tarquin's plan.

I'm not so sure of that. I highly doubt that Tarquin was the first person to have the idea of uniting the continent - seems any one of several dozen warlords may have been trying to do that, any time this past century or so. But not getting anywhere, for the same reason as Tarquin got defeated first time.

I'm not sure when it becomes recognisably "Tarquin's plan". I'd say, at a minimum, it needs two or more power blocs secretly colluding - I think that's where his innovation comes in.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

"A plan that involves taking away personal freedoms to reach some long term goal that is supposedly better than how things work now" describes all, any, and indeed all possible, forms of government.

In fact it describes any, all, and indeed all possible, arrangements for living in cooperating groups.

And thus describes the unchanged, basic ground state of all human existence, dating back to long before humans were even humans....

Hmm, that's a good point. It would probably be better to say "excessive curbing of freedoms", but it becomes hard to define what is "excessive". I guess I would say that "Any plan which involves lying to its population and putting them under a brutal regime in order to reach a greater goal is one I do. It support". I do believe that total freedom would be impossible, so thank you for pointing out this flaw in my statement.

[Miriel]

I don't know if you're aware, but the English historian A J P Taylor argued for a long time (http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm) that that's precisely what the Germans did do...

That just says the Germans planned one and only one war (a war against France and Russia), and that they always planned to attack France first,and that they planned mobilization, etc., accordingly, which is ture. However, the actual operations they planned once the war started varied, and they modified the planned use of their railways and other resources accordingly. They did not engage in a large pincer offensivee because of railways, as they could have made a counter-attack as well with the same mobilization plan.


I'm not so sure of that. I highly doubt that Tarquin was the first person to have the idea of uniting the continent - seems any one of several dozen warlords may have been trying to do that, any time this past century or so. But not getting anywhere, for the same reason as Tarquin got defeated first time.

I'm not sure when it becomes recognisably "Tarquin's plan". I'd say, at a minimum, it needs two or more power blocs secretly colluding - I think that's where his innovation comes in.
That's what I said. I said Tarquin's plan was to "use the six team members to control different, warring Empires and slowly grow each of them until all the Western Continent is controled" (I put an "etc." in the quoted bit for laziness), and that this plan is unique enough to be recognized as Tarquin's.