To put this bluntly, you're getting into very slippery territory if you want to argue that just being moral support of an action totally alleviates you of the moral consequences of said action.
That is completely different topic ...
We were not talking here about any moral consequences ... just about action itself.
I mean if i see you that you broke a window by a ball and dont tell on you ... im your acomplice, and i share guilt (if they find out) no doubt about that.
But i still didnt broke it.
More clearly put, if someone is being a bully towards someone else and you go pat the bully on the back and say "well done, I totally agree with what you did", you're clearly not better than the bully, are you?
I gues it depends on situation ...
I know you wish to put me into bad light ... but it would not go so easly ...
To use your own example against you:
I could aswell claim that Maximuuus was bullying Larian for leting Aradin use bad line ... someone else stood for Larian and told him to stop ... and i shoved my support for the person who was against bullying ... how is that bad thing? :P
See? Its all matter of perspective.
But if you wish clear answer for your twisted example ...
Then no ... supporting bullying is no better than bullying itself ... aswell as not acting against it while we withness it, not helping bullyed person after that act, or god helps encouraging bullyed person to
not report that to people who have actualy power to stop that.
So yeah, cute effort with the lame "I wasn't me"
What exactly is lame on claiming that you didnt do something you didnt do?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. O_o
I'm not going to cut this into bits, because that's just aggravating to look at.
I am ... bcs funny enough, i have the same feeling for huge wall of text that is refering to something that is half monitor far from it.
I mean this text in particular isnt "so huge" ... but anyway.
Apparently no order is given to the archer or the archer willfully disobeys a direct order.
That would be true ... asuming Aradin is one ultimate leader of them all ...
When we later talked to that Archer woman she litteraly said that someone died and then say "as if i didnt teach him better" ...
SO what if ... and yes we are in purely speculative teritory here
... Aradin and that Archer lady wich name i dont even remember are actualy equal in chain of comand? :P Aradin give order to his last subordinate, and ignored her bcs he knew she would be ignoring him aswell.
Ordering to "Form up" means they fight in formation but use their own judgment to find their place in the formation.
So basicaly stand wherever you wish ... i dont see much reason for such order. O_o
Ordering to "form lines", notice the plural, means forming up according to type. It's been done since the Romans so yes, warriors with any kind of training, even mercs for rent, would certainly understand the concept intuitively and implicitly.
That is good argument and i like it!
Except it could be used without single change for "Form a line" aswell.
Execution, do the three mercs then following the tactics ordered by the commander? They do not. They're not holding a tight formation in the corner where the archer is shielded and the walls protect their flanks. They are not making the numerical advantage of the enemy count for as little as possible. They are not making themselves hard to flank and gang up on.
They are not suppose to hold tight formation ... the meele guys are suppose to "form a line" to hold meele goblins in their effort to get close to Archer ... and that is exactly happening. O_o
Where did you get tight formation?
Lastly, two people cannot possibly manage to not form a line. They could be running in zig-zag and they'd still be forming a line.
Exactly ...
Point being, it's just not a good order. And despite all the creative back-bending of you and others, there's still no way to interpret it as a good order.
That is the funny part, there is no argue here.
Most of us agree that it was not good order ... we argue that it make sence that Aradin gave this order.
I believe i have seen some points even in your posts (not sure tho) things about hectic situation, poor leader qualities, etc. etc.
Its all part of bigger picture.
If your argument for him talking nonsense is that he's just talking in code then any discussion at any time becomes irrelevant because anything is just code. At that point you've essentially accepted any disconnect at any time between what is said by characters and what they do, because it's just code. It extremely obviously makes zero sense to even have that communication happen in the first place in a medium like a game if the communication isn't coherent or "in a code" that is never given to the player. This is so silly that it pretty much has to be bait.
That was a joke.
I try to mark them more clearly.
By the by, modern militaries don't fight in formations like this.
True ... but for some reaason they still train them.
(I mean line formation, tight formation, spread formation, etc.)
