RWBY Thread III: Time To Say Goodbye

Reader mode
Stop: So gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
  • Staff Post
    • so gotta few things that need to be said real quick.
    We get a lot of reports from this thread. A lot of it is just a series of people yelling at each other over arguments that have been rehashed hundreds of times since the end of the recent Volume. And I get that the last Volume - and RWBY in general, really - has some controversial moments that people will want to discuss, argue about, debate, etc.

    That's fine. We're not going to stop people from doing that, because that's literally what the point of the thread is. However, there's just a point where it gets to be a bit too much, and arguments about whether or not Ironwood was morally justified in his actions in the recent Volume, or if RWBY and her team were in the right for withholding information from Ironwood out of distrust, or whatever flavor of argument of the day descend into insulting other posters, expressing a demeaning attitude towards other's opinions, and just being overall unpleasant. That tends to happen a lot in this thread. We want it to stop happening in this thread.

    So! As of now the thread is in a higher state of moderation. What that means is that any future infractions will result in a weeklong boot from the thread, and repeated offenders will likely be permanently removed. So please, everyone endeavor to actually respect the other's arguments, and even if you strongly disagree with them please stay civil and mindful when it comes to responding to others.

    In addition, users should refrain from talking about off-site users in the thread. Bear in mind that this does not mean that you cannot continue to post tumblr posts, for example, that add onto the discussion in the thread, with the caveat that it's related to RWBY of course. But any objections to offsite users in the thread should be handled via PM, or they'll be treated as thread violations and infracted as such.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • MonochromeXClown said:
    Doesn't that lead to Huntsmen tending to side with the more rich members of Society.

    I mean we know trained Huntsmen can be poor enough to live in slums with their families. If that dead huntress that Qrow tried to recruit for an attack on the Branwen tribe is anything to go by.

    So if that's a possible future for huntsmen than finding a wealthy patron is kinda of the ideal. With the regions not being able to afford them not being worth it for a decent amount of huntsmen
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    We did see a farm losing their Huntsman protection due to them not being able to afford the fees. So there's some elements of that. Granted there's going to be Huntsmen who care more about what's right than lining their pockets (see the Happy Huntresses) in the same way that there's gonna be scientists who prefer tedious research for good that pays ok and scientists who prefer big paying jobs at more amoral pharmaceuticals.
     
    erttheking said:
    We did see a farm losing their Huntsman protection due to them not being able to afford the fees. So there's some elements of that. Granted there's going to be Huntsmen who care more about what's right than lining their pockets (see the Happy Huntresses) in the same way that there's gonna be scientists who prefer tedious research for good that pays ok and scientists who prefer big paying jobs at more amoral pharmaceuticals.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The scientist probably isn't going to be maintaining his own equipment out of pocket in addition to not starving.
     
    Honestly the argument on the anti Hunter side at this point basically boils down to the fact some people will not be good people (which also applies to the military only it can and usually is vastly more systemic there) so therefore its bad, and then ignoring any counter arguments about the military.

    Speaking of: American has an expensive military, not a competent one, sorry if blunt, but as someone from what is functionally a client state dragged into all of the US's wars, I have to agree.

    View: https://short-wooloo.tumblr.com/post/672907677649764352/
     
    excalibur2008 said:
    You assume they care about the money just to line their pockets and not things like needing to have working weapons to do the job or being able to buy food. Never mind if they need medical treatment if a job goes sideways.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah the Atlesian military having tons of money behind it really helped (Checks notes)... The Atlesian military and functionally no one else, like say, the people they were meant to protect. And frankly it didn't even help the Atlesian military much.

    Also the fact a poor Hunter 'can' exist is once again the fallacious argument I mentioned here just re-packaged, IE: "A problem 'can' exist, therefore the system is inherently bad and also this problem magically does not apply to the military"
    Zam said:
    Honestly the argument on the anti Hunter side at this point basically boils down to the fact some people will not be good people (which also applies to the military only it can and usually is vastly more systemic there) so therefore its bad, and then ignoring any counter arguments about the military.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
    Jcogginsa said:
    comparing Huntsmen to Mercenaries just strikes me as disengenuous. Huntsman are monster hunters, not soldiers for hire
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    We saw throughout all the Kingdoms that there are bounty boards and while some of them are Search and Destroy (i.e. killing Grimm), others are as minor as escorting kids to school or just have nothing to do with Grimm such as Search and Rescue or Bounty.

    So, yes, Huntsmen are mercenaries.
     
    Stop: Why do we have to keep coming back to this thread?
  • Staff Post
    • why do we have to keep coming back to this thread?
    Accusing a company of believing that all militaries and their soldiers are fascists and thugs is, among other things, fairly hateful and entirely disruptive to the main topic of the thread.

    There's no real reason for this. Yes, you can calmly discuss the interpretations of the military based on their portrayals in Rooster Teeth's media, but going on a crusade to try and push the opinion is very much not the way that things should be discussed. With that in mind, the user has been permanently booted from the thread.

    As for everyone else...please stay on your best behavior. You are all here to discuss a series, not to start shouting matches with each other and accuse others of misogyny, or accuse a company of hating militaries, or any of the recent events that have come out of this thread.

    So...yeah. Please just keep the rules of the site in mind when you discuss RWBY related topics.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Zam said:
    Indeed, as noted previously, RT don't seem to have an inherent problem with low level soldiers stuck on the frontlines thanks to their bosses.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    They don't. And they shouldn't. Which is a Credit to RT.

    Military institutions as organizational structures are all about getting people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do.

    Obviously there are moral limits to this, some crimes are so heinous that 'just following orders' should offer no moral protection, but even then, targeting the rank and file is usually just an excuse to avoid charging the actual ring leaders.

    Edit : Also, cart before the horse, strong militaries do not create strong states, strong states can support strong militaries. A robust civil apparatus is one of the surest ways to cultivate a competent military.

    A society where the vast majority of people aren't too desperate and have at least some buy in from population is going to have radically less need to 'coup proof' their military and their military leaders are going to be under immense pressure to consider the whole of that nation, and not just the elites, in defense plans.

    It's notable that the entire time, Ironwood was trying to figure out how to abandon most of the population and abscond with the military. And this entire mindset is a natural part of the Atlesian elite's thinking, since the surface was always just a pile of resources and cheap labor to them,
     
    Last edited:
    Jcogginsa said:
    comparing Huntsmen to Mercenaries just strikes me as disengenuous. Huntsman are monster hunters, not soldiers for hire
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Soldiers for hire is exactly what they are. To the point where one of the four nations relied on them in lieu of a conventional military, and criminals speak offhandedly about hiring more unscrupulous ones as muscle as a matter of course.
     
    Last edited:
    Zam said:
    Honestly the argument on the anti Hunter side at this point basically boils down to the fact some people will not be good people (which also applies to the military only it can and usually is vastly more systemic there) so Hotherefore its bad, and then ignoring any counter arguments about the military.

    Speaking of: American has an expensive military, not a competent one, sorry if blunt, but as someone from what is functionally a client state dragged into all of the US's wars, I have to agree.

    View: https://short-wooloo.tumblr.com/post/672907677649764352/
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Hell look at Tommy Franks. He was the US General in charge of Afghanistan and he was laughably incompetent and mediocre.

    www.wired.com

    Your Favorite Army General Actually Sucks

    The U.S. Army only seems impressive. Sure, it's got plenty of competent and heroic enlisted soldiers and low-ranking officers. But its top officers are, on the whole, crappy, according to Tom Ricks' new and scathing history The Generals, a book that's sure to spark teeth-gnashing within the Army.
    www.wired.com www.wired.com

    It's not just him though. The entire upper ranks of the US army are rather weak when you look at it.

    www.theatlantic.com

    General Failure

    Looking back on the troubled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many observers are content to lay blame on the Bush administration. But inept leadership by American generals was also responsible for the failure of those wars. A culture of mediocrity has taken hold within the Army’s leadership rank—if...
    www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
     
    Last edited:
    Leila Hann said:
    Soldiers for hire is exactly what they are. To the point where one of the four nations relied on them practically exclusively in lieu of a conventional military, and criminals speak offhandedly about hiring more unscrupulous ones as muscle as a matter of course.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    No, they aren't. The average Huntsman does not perform the duties of a soldier. They are not part of an army.

    They're DnD Adventurers. They get hired to hunt monsters and do odd jobs. Calling them Mercenaries is just a disengenuous attempt to assign moral failings from the real world onto a group that does not actually have a real world analogue.
     
    Jcogginsa said:
    No, they aren't. The average Huntsman does not perform the duties of a soldier. They are not part of an army.

    They're DnD Adventurers. They get hired to hunt monsters and do odd jobs. Calling them Mercenaries is just a disengenuous attempt to assign moral failings from the real world onto a group that does not actually have a real world analogue.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    "DnD adventurers" are just Mercenaries with fantasy spray-paint, dude.

    And Hunters are for-hire Violence-doers that institutionally follow the money over any ideal or cause; certainly over hunting the monsters that threaten all sentient life on their world.

    They're mercenaries.
     
    Humble H Dweller said:
    "DnD adventurers" are just Mercenaries with fantasy spray-paint, dude.

    And Hunters are for-hire Violence-doers that institutionally follow the money over any ideal or cause; certainly over hunting the monsters that threaten all sentient life on their world.

    They're mercenaries.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    No, they're not.

    Mercenaries are people you hire to fight wars for you.

    Huntsman are people you hire to clear out monsters, to escort people through dangerous areas, to perform search and rescue, etc.
     
    From a historical standpoint, there are some questionable "facts" about states that depend on mercenaries for protection going around, and more importantly the comparison itself doesn't quite work since the way Huntsmen work is fundamentally different from the examples they're giving.

    Most of the problems people are citing with a reliance on mercenaries is basically all talking about the "free companies" of Europe, who flourished from the 12th to the 14th centuries (and longer in Italy; most historians would say up to about 1650). But those were forces of hundreds or thousands, made up mostly of former soldiers who organized themselves along military lines with a clear hierarchy and chain of command that allowed for that level of organization. The free companies were prone to banditry and extortion because there are only so many ways to pay and feed an army of thousands, and only so many legitimate paying jobs (i.e. ongoing wars) for an army of thousands.

    But Huntsmen, obviously, aren't that. They most often work alone or in small groups of two to four people, and thus have a great deal more flexibility in the kind of jobs they can be hired for that don't require an ongoing war. We've seen Huntsmen working security for trains and banks, as protectors of villages and small towns, and they go on missions of search and rescue, exterminating Grimm, etc. Further, their "chain of command" is practically nonexistent; a team of four has an assigned leader while in school and there's no actual demand that you even stick to the same team once you graduate, much less that you subordinate yourself to the assigned team leader.

    Plus, Huntsmen who turn to criminal acts and get found out have their license revoked and other Huntsmen can take jobs to bring them in. That's a level of oversight and self-regulation that I promise you never existed among mercenaries of Europe or the Italian peninsula.
     
    erttheking said:
    We did see a farm losing their Huntsman protection due to them not being able to afford the fees. So there's some elements of that. Granted there's going to be Huntsmen who care more about what's right than lining their pockets (see the Happy Huntresses) in the same way that there's gonna be scientists who prefer tedious research for good that pays ok and scientists who prefer big paying jobs at more amoral pharmaceuticals.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That's not even what happened at Brunswick. The Huntsman was still there at the time when the Apathy attack. It's blink and you miss it but his skeleton can be seen in the sewers during the Apathy chase scene, likely he was down there because he realized what was happening and tried to clear out the Apathy but failed.

    The problem at Brunswick wasn't that the Huntsman up and left when the money dried up, the problem was that the farm wasn't sustainable. Bartleby had a crazy scheme to cut down on cust by getting rid of his Huntsman protection but from the sound of things even if his Apathy trick had worked and the farm could work without Huntsmen protection the place would still likely have been abanonded eventually anyway for the same reason a ton of small scale farms and business close shop in the real world.


    Bartleby didn't have to save the farm at all costs, he could have just thrown in the towel and moved back into Argus. Accepting a lesser amount of independence as the price to pay for a more secure (both in terms of finances and monster encounters) life. In that way Huntsmen serve as a pretty good canary in the coal mine. If you don't have the money to pay them and aren't one yourself (or have friends/family that are) then you probably shouldn't be settling down in the middle of the wilderness so that the big governent can't tell you what to do.


    And the thing is, if you got rid of the Huntsmen and replaced them with military or police or robotic gun turrets or something instead the issue of cost would still remain. If the farm isn't making money then the government would likely just tell Bartleby to close shop because they don't want to waste money on keeping soldiers stationed on his money sink farm. Same with police or formal milita forces. Robotic drones or gun turrets require expensive maintaince and would spend much more money on ammunition compared to the usual "one shot, one kill" that Huntsmen can manage even when using small arms.


    LordYam said:
    Still do it for money
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    As I pointed out before, so do Firefighters. Which Huntsmen honestly have more in common with than mercenaries. Being a real world mercenary recquires a willingness to kill other human beings as a matter of course. Being a Huntsman much like being a Firefighter requires a willingness to throw yourself into dangerous situations to protect other people from what is essentially a force of nature that can strike anywhere at any time without warning.


    Huntsmen don't have to fight other people unless they want to, and because of Aura they can expect to shoot people in the face with a shotgun at point blank range with zero expectation that it will cause lethal damage. So even the ones who do fight other people don't require a willingness or desire to kill as part of their job description, very much unlike real world mercenaries.



    erttheking said:
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main reasons you see mercenaries IRL being assholes is them looking out for themselves. Mercenaries are people with jobs looking for a paycheck. When wars are over, armies aren't needed, and militaries are often downsized for peacetimes. Mercenaries tend to be more expensive than your average soldier on a daily salary basis (the main advantage being you didn't have to spend all the time and resources training them yourself) so they tend to be the first cut. As such, it wasn't uncommon for them to go bandit to keep the cash flow coming. The core problem being thus. A mercenary's services aren't always in demand.

    With Remnant, however, Huntsmen will always have their service in demand. Grimm are neverending and they're always clawing at the walls of civilization. Huntsmen will always have job opportunities, and if they're not paid it's more down do to the fact that their employer can't afford it, rather than they're cutting costs (see Brunswick Farms). In that case, sacking their former employer is getting blood from a rock, no money to get. It's easier to just go for work elsewhere. You probably don't even need to go far, in fact from what we've seen there's a big demand for Huntsmen in inter-city transportation. It seems to be standard to have one or two on a train/airship.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    And fucking this. Real world mercenaries need conflict between people to cash in their paycheck. A Huntsman that needs money can always find paying work if they need it.


    There's always some settlement, some train, some boat, some airship, some travelers, some city that needs protection from the Grimm.


    Unlike real world mercenaries that are basically expected to be amoral bastards and often hired specifically because they'll be amoral bastards to the people their client doesn't like a Huntsman or Huntress is lauded as heroes much in the same way a firefighter or people working in various forms of disaster rescue. The personal motivating factor for a lot of Huntsmen is a desire to help people, their culture and teaching encourages them to help people, and if all that doesn't work and they go bad their licences get revoked and they lose their position and prestige. Going criminal is often a downgrade for them, it's the thing the for fuckups that can't get decent jobs anymore because everyone knows they're the worst.


    Sure the system isn't perfect. But from the ground up the system is designed in a way that just isn't comparable to how mercenaries work in the real world.
     
    Last edited:
    The idea that RT is rabidly anti-militaristic can be retorted with a simple example: Gen:LOCK. In it, Colonel Raquel Marin is depicted as a competent officer who also tries her best to save as many people as possible and keep her humanity in her methods.
    In fact, her actions when the Union launched her surprise attack on NYC in the first episode is everything that Ironwood should had done: she organized her troops to protect the evacuation of as many civilians as possible, ordering the retreat when they evacuated as many people as possible while still saying to her soldiers that they can keep their position longer if they think they can hold it to evacuate more people, all that while the Union's murder nano-bots were literally eating alive entire buildings worth of people and their troops punching through their lines of defense, because as soldiers, that's their duty, they signed for this shit. (the situation would be more muddy if those were conscripts, but nothing in the series indicates that they aren't professional soldiers).
    And even four years later when half the USA were under the Union's control and the Vanguard's line stretched thin, she still sent troops everytime a group of refugees tried to cross the frontline, even if it put those troops at the risk of falling into a trap (which is exactly what happens in the first episode), but once again, that's the military's duty to save and protect the people.

    What Ironwood did would be in the same context to start an evacuation when the murder swarm appeared, and when the actual Union troops landed, to order the stop of the evacuation and a total and immediate retreat of all military forces (except for the people of the elite who own the companies and labs that could help in the R&D for the war effort), leaving the people of NYC to be eaten alive by nanodrones or gunned down by Union troops.



    As for the Huntsmen vs mercenaries debate... well they are a kind of mercenaries, in that they bill the extermination of Grimm and do all kind of missions which sometimes have nothing to do with Grimm extermination. They're not mercenaries in the sense of being a private organized army with their hierarchy and ranks, all under a (private) banner (like today's PMC, the Renaissance's Condottieri or the Middle-Ages' Free Companies), Huntsmen are more a combination of monster hunters and bounty hunters, since they operate alone or in very small informal groups.
    Of course, that system is not perfect, as it means that the only way to stop an unscrupulous or outright villainous Huntsman is to take them down with either other Huntsmen or a lot of cops or soldiers, and the level of protection granted to the people are either dependent on how much they can afford their services, or if the Huntsman decides to work for free (or a bargain).
    But the other alternative is to have the Huntsmen formed, paid and led directly by their respective nation which will dispatch them everywhere they're needed in the country, in which case there's the risk that said nations don't take them as protectors of humanity (all of humanity, and the Faunus ofc), but as a super-soldier program that could be used to service only the country's interests and/or bash the skull of dissidents or used as an army to attack other countries. (this super-soldier program being basically what Atlas' Special Operative Units are) Which would be disastrous as the country could risk to neglect the Grimm menace that doesn't care about borders or politics as they hoard the Huntsmen for themselves. (especially since the Grimm are actually controlled by an extremely old and intelligent person hellbent on world domination)

    An alternative that could make the Huntsmen available everywhere while being independent from their respective nations and without being limited to what the people can pay them would be to have a supranational organization which takes care of their formation and pay, and dispatch them wherever they are needed, like the United Nation but with magical super adventurers. But here the problem is that no country would let an independent supranational organization have such an army of super-soldiers, which is probably why it wasn't put in place after the Great War.
     
    I definitely think there is a gap between the ideal of a Huntsman (free agents that serve their conscience and help fight back against the literally faceless forces of darkness, with money being a necessary recompense for constantly risking your life) and the reality, that there's Huntsmen out there that probably do disreputable or dirty work against their fellow men instead of Grimm, presumably because it's more rewarding and of less risk to one's own life.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top