On the shoulders of giants: a new multiple choices LP!

[Kz3r0]

B. Send an open expedition headed by hunters, in case whoever is there is hostile.

 

[Monty]

I don't really see the point in sending our firekeepers, their scout already saw our fire and if their tribe is not familiar with it he will undoubtedly have spread the word about what he saw. Why not keep it mysterious for now, we can always make use of it later if it is to our advantage. To me it's a choice between A and B. A would make a better impression in terms of future relations and trade, B is safer if there is a hostile reception or ambush. If I were living in a tribe which had never met outsiders before I think I'd favour the conservative option. We haven't been aggressive before but we have just upgraded our weapons.

B

 

[Esquilax]

Going in with the Hunters is a bad idea. We're going into an uncharted territory where we don't know the rival tribe's tech level, the terrain and surrounding areas, population, or their skill-at-arms, yet our guys are going to be out in the open and visible to everyone - it's not tactically sound. Basically, we don't know what they've got, but they're going to know exactly what we've got. It doesn't make any sense to start flexing our muscles when they haven't even done anything. Threatening people is stupid - either strike at them or don't.

Alright I understand not wanting to risk conflict, but why send the keepers? If we merely want to trade with them we don't need to impress them. Besides, the one we saw ran from the fire, they could see our keepers walking into their settlement as an act of hostility and attack anyway. In the eventuality of them being hostile I don't want to send defenseless scouts or keepers, better safe than sorry. If it would cause conflict then so be it. Sure, we aren't a warrior people, at least not yet, but we might have superior numbers and weapons. We also know the mountain, and could fight them there to increase our chances should they strike. We have nothing to lose by sending our hunters.

We don't know their area, we don't know what to expect, and an initial impression of threat/hostility could drastically hurt our relationship with this other tribe and cause the situation to escalate. Considering that we're rather shit at warfare at the moment given that we haven't honed those skills yet, going into unknown turf with a bunch of green hunters could be disastrous if they think we're aggressive. Oh, and we don't know the mountain, because we opted to domesticate sheep instead of determining the nature of the shadow creature in the mountain forest, so it's still a mystery. We're just as vulnerable to whatever lies at the mountain as any outsider is.

At the very least, sending a scout would be prudent so that we know the lay of the land.

And what's stopping them from capturing our keepers and forcing them to share their secrets?

The potential for a mutually beneficial relationship through trade and the threat of retribution. A keeper serves as an excellent envoy because presenting our fire shows the other tribe who we are and allows us to break through the language barrier. A bunch of angry men with spears as our diplomatic envoys could send the entirely wrong impression about us.

Also, it just doesn't make sense to send the hunters. One of their scouts wanders through our land and is spooked by one of our tribe without any interaction or violence occurring between them... so in response we send a delegation of armed men? Huh? Where does any of this make sense?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm flip-flopping to A.

 

[Omicron]

A, If we really want to attack this other tribe can send the hunters later, when we've got a better understanding of their knowledge.

 

[Cassidy]

A

 

[Vernydar]

This is a very hard choice, for the simple reason that we know nothing of this other tribe.
Every single choice has its pros and cons.

If we send the scouts, we can see who are these people, how many of them there are, where they live. Basically, good knowledge in case we have to go to war, and also if we want to barter and cooperate. And also, it's not an hostile move. But, we lose the initiative, because they may start doing something while we send scouts. Note here that I am supposing our scouts are actually good enough to come back even if confronted with a hostile reception. If not, then we may end up losing the scouts too.And information, see below.

If we send the hunters, we might be able to survive and/or to fight back better in case they are and extremely aggressive people, maybe already mounting an expedition against us. But it's a clearly hostile move. To put it simply, they may see this as a declaration of "war". What could have been a pacific, profiting experience may become a conflict that, even if won, will make us lose a lot of men.

If we send the firekeepers, we may awe them and/or make them cower before us. They may consider us as gods, they may fear us and decide to pay us "tribute". Or they may simply consider us powerful, and decide they want a peaceful relationship with us. On the other hand, it would be a peaceful expedition. If they decide to turn hostile, we may lose all of them. Worst yet, they could be captured, made to talk, and reveal our secrets about fire, spears, and taming animals. While potentially very good if they decide to submit to us and/or to our power, I feel this is far too risky.

That said, I think A is the best possible course of action. We simply have no way of knowing anything about these people right now.
Suppose there's a thousand of them. Or maybe, many "allied" tribes. Sending the hunters could mean these tribes see us as a menace, and attack us. What good would a few hunters do?
Suppose the scout was awed and scared by the fire, but then we send the firekeepers and some less emotional tribesman has them captured and questioned. We lose our competitive advantage to them.

Sure, these are worst case scenarios, but completely lacking knowledge, I think the most sane thing to do is to send scouts, with the precise order to return if confronted by hostiles.

A

 

[Jick Magger]

We should also factor in the chance that, maybe, the other tribe already has fire, or are at least familiar with it. We're also making the broad assumption that they see fire in the same way that we do. Suppose that we send a fire-keeper down there, and he's met with a simple "Yeah, been there, done that", or at worst, he's skinned alive for bringing the "Great destroyer of the land and killer of our people!". C basically only works under a giant pile of 'if's and 'maybe's. And B's far too hostile an action and could easily be misinterpreted.

Gonna go with A, it may cause us to lose the initiative, but we'll at the very least be able to assess what we're up against.

 

[Monty]

I don't understand why sending a bunch of 'men with spears' is the virtual declaration of war that others have interpreted it as. It's not like we're sending in an armoured division. Wouldn't any traveling party at this point basically consist of a bunch of 'men with spears'? Surely we're not planning on sending an unarmed group out to face predators and unknown dangers. If another tribe visited us (a proper visit not the individual who ran away) I would expect them to consist of... well... a bunch of men with spears. How they acted would determine whether they were hostile or not. We would be quite wary of each other initially but if no attack came then trust would gradually be built up.

As I understand it we're not ordering an attack, we're simply sending a group who can live off the land, protect themselves from predators and have a chance of surviving hostile situations. If we're ordering our hunters to rape and pillage then I would also vote A. But from the text it seems we're sending a party to gain information but defend themselves if attacked so I'm happy to stick with B.

 

[Jack]

Aye, I don't see B being a declaration of war either. If they are so sensitive the scouts could be even more damaging to our relation, they surveying them could lead them to think that we plan something and trigger a conflict that way. Sending our hunters will establish dialogue (hopefully) and won't risk our keepers. If the other tribe is hostile they will have the biggest chance of surviving and if the other tribe is weak and inferior we could bully them into giving us their knowledge of riding logs on the water.

 

[oscar]

B, it's not a deceleration of war but prudence. Walk softly and carry a big stick. B has the most flexibility. If they're weaker than us, we can intimidate and bully them. If comparative or stronger, what I doubt with our new shiny weapons, then they'll recognise our strength. As for C, we should probably keep fire as our ace in the hole. Could be very useful in a raid or for its morale effects.

No option here is bad or wrong really, just different emphasises.

 

[Tigranes]

There might be dangers of war and conflict, but that can also bring us riches and make us masters of the immediate region. I don't think sending some hunters means war, either, but we shouldn't be so afraid of conflict - and they're human like we are; peace can follow war, war can follow peace. I think it makes most sense to send hunters for now and act with caution, and try and have the upper hand in first contact - then we can see whether we will fight to the death or not.

B

 

[Zero Credibility]

Though choice. Many of posters already pointed out some of the things that worry me as well.

Jick Magger makes a very good point against C for instance - we don't know that scout was running from fire at all. Personally I have a very hard time believing that a tribe that knows how to build boats doesn't know about fire. The Keeper of Fire is just talking out of his ass.

I'm tempted to go B to ensure our expedition survival, but there is just not enough information to commit a large force at this point. Where is the other tribe? How many are they? What weapons and defences do they have? Are they even hostile? I'm worried that some hot-headed hunter is not going to resist temptation to do something stupid with their new weapons, and until we have the necessary information we can't afford that risk. Yes, that scout ran away, but that in now way means they have hostile intentions - maybe he was just scared of our scouts running at him. The attitude of chief hunter is just the kind of thing I'm worried about - yes, he may be right, but he doesn't know that.

A is my choice at this point as the least bad. This is just the kind of work the scouts should be doing - gathering information. Of course they will carry some weapons to defend themselves against animals and (if it comes to that) against the other tribe, but the scout group is smaller and is less likely to be perceived as a threat. And if the other tribe doesn't have stone weapons the scouts should be able to fight off the initial attack with our superior weapons and retreat home. If they have comparable weapons, then even sending a full hunter party is likely to get most of them killed if it comes to fighting. As I said - we need information before committing our defenders away from the tribe.

The payoff if we can establish peaceful relations is huge - we already know they have boats. They probably also know about fishing, nets and ropes. What other technologies they could trade with us? Of course, while we are waiting for our scouts, we should increase our patrols by the river so that we have earlier warning of anyone approaching next time. And even if our scouts fail to return, that will still tell us something - that we should prepare for war.

A

 

[Lindblum]

I'm voting A.

I assume that log is a raft, so sending scouts should be enough.
Have the hunters start fashioning more spears for the safety.
Shamans should start prayers for safety for our village.

 

[Jick Magger]

Zero credibility and Esquuilax brings up another good point; we shouldn't be risking our hunters by sending them in the dark. As I've said time and time again, the hunters are the tribe's defenders as well as our bread-winners, and we shouldn't risk our only offensive force by essentially sending them in blind. Suppose they outnumber us by the hundreds and are aggressive? Then we'd lose many of our able warriors and be set even further back. Suppose they're just as equally or even further advanced technologically and are unimpressed by our weapons? Suppose they are non-aggressive, but interpret us bringing weapons as a hostile action? We simply don't have the numbers to be reckless, and need to send scouts in to assess exactly what we're up against. I'd assume they wouldn't be as sloppy as the other tribe's scout and act as stealthily as possible, of course we'd arm them to an extent, and if they're killed, well it'd suck but it's better them then our fighters. Then they get back, tell us exactly what's up with the enemy tribe (for all we know, they could be filthy water spirit worshippers!) and then we can contemplate sending our diplomats with an armed escort or gearing up for a fight. Or they don't get back, we assume the worse, and retreat into the mountains for defence.

 

[oscar]

Stop bitching out. We "tech-rushed" flint/stone/obsidian weaponry, I don't think we're going to be behind a people who are terrified of fire.

 

[Stygian Lurker]

I'm voting B.

 

[Internet]

A, we need more data.

 

[Curufinwe]

Alright. Scouting option it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a fierce debate, the voice of prudence (and age) prevailed. Not knowing anything about the fleeing man and his affiliation, a small, stealthy and lightly armed scouting expedition was mounted.

Days passed with no events, then finally a runner from the scouting party approached the camp. The council immediately convened to listen to his tale.

'We walked for three days, - the scout began - following the river towards the distant hills, spotting nothing of interest. Then, just past a small elevation, we found them. We immediately ducked into the tall grass, and observed a group of about fifty people that appeared to experience a great turmoil.'
He continued: 'They are living in what clearly appears to be a temporary camp. We crawled nearer and we could observe what had all the looks of an evacuation. Several of the men appeared wounded or crippled, but everyone was loading items and food on those logs they apparently use to negotiate the river's waters. A few of those were making their way to the far bank, unloading their cargo and crossing back to be loaded again.'
He wrapped up his report: 'We are almost certain those people are fleeing from us and heading to the western grasslands.'

At this point, ideas were bounced back and forth:

A. One of the keepers of fire said: 'Those people are men like us, and clearly going through a period of hardship. We should head there and offer to share our prosperity, to befriend them'
B. The hunters, still smarting from the continued refusal to use their new weapons, clamored: 'They are going through a period of hardship, yes. Should we wait for them to grow strong again and become a threat? I say we attack them while they're weak and force them to share their secrets and work for us!'
C. Some of the tamers said: 'We should neither help them nor attack them. We should just let them go, keep wider scouting rings and mind our own business. There are still many undiscovered possibilities in this area, why should we care about what happens far downriver?'

 

[Zero Credibility]

Voting A.

Let's help them and earn their gratitude - I'm sure they can teach us how to better use the river. Maybe they can even join our tribe - more people, new genes, new ideas. And with our expanded food sources we can easily feed them as well, so if they are willing why not?

B is a jerkass move. We outnumber them several times and have better weapons while they are hurting and fleeing - they are not a threat to us and probably never will be. The hunters are getting restless though. If they are still willing maybe it's time for that bear hunting expedition - either they get some action and trophies or they get mauled. Or probably both. Either way they'll calm down for a while. Now that there appears to be no immediate threat we can afford it.

C is a do-nothing choice, and I hate those.

 

[Jack]

B - Now is not the time nor place for an humanitarian effort. It could very well give us nothing in return and right now we need every edge we can get. To ensure the continued prosperity of our tribe I say we attack them.

 

[Tigranes]

Clearly, if we choose right here, we inaugurate long ages of slavery and oppression.

Choose rightly.

B

 

[Esquilax]

A. One of the keepers of fire said: 'Those people are men like us, and clearly going through a period of hardship. We should head there and offer to share our prosperity, to befriend them'
B. The hunters, still smarting from the continued refusal to use their new weapons, clamored: 'They are going through a period of hardship, yes. Should we wait for them to grow strong again and become a threat? I say we attack them while they're weak and force them to share their secrets and work for us!'
C. Some of the tamers said: 'We should neither help them nor attack them. We should just let them go, keep wider scouting rings and mind our own business. There are still many undiscovered possibilities in this area, why should we care about what happens far downriver?'

We have enough food to feed both ourselves and fifty additional people quite easily because of our skill at animal domestication. I believe that we can take on these newcomers, make use of their skills (i.e. fishing, boats) and hopefully integrate them into our tribe peacefully. We don't have to go to war with these people - deft diplomacy now will work better in the long-term than subjugating a bunch of helpless, starving people who might rebel down the road. If we play this right, we can "conquer" this tribe without any loss of life.

However, the hunters are growing discontent and that's a big concern. We have a bunch of strong, well-armed individuals whose skills are being squandered and who aren't being listened to. I'm worried that if things progress like this, our wise council might be attacked and overthrown by them. We're going to need to placate them soon.

A

 

[Stygian Lurker]

Voting A

Maybe we can learn something from them.

 

[Monty]

An interesting fork in the road for the tribe. The others have technology we don't have so letting them just leave doesn't appeal, ruling out C.

The choice between A and B defines how our tribe develops from here - diplomacy and trade or conquest and subjugation. A would potentially gain us their technology, an alliance and may even expand our numbers. But they could also become a rival in future once they are back on their feet and have learned our ways with fire and animals. B keeps our hunters happy and allows us access to their technology and resources, without having to give anything in return. But it risks a rebellion further down the line and sets us on a militaristic path which doesn't quite match some of our earlier choices.

Will have to consider this further, tending towards A but still undecided.

 

[oscar]

B. The hunters are spoiling for a fight and this is the perfect opportunity. It's also more certain a way to gain their knowledge than A, which could end up "hey thanks for the food guys see ya!".