HFQ Official Snippet #7

Agree that putting a promoted Hektor on a KH isn't a good idea, but if the idea is to get an Inner Circle person on board, IMO there's a possible way to do so.

Duke Hektor could be "put on board" as a civilian observer and have the ear of Admiral Sharpfield.

There could be problems with this idea but would be more workable than Lt. Commander Hektor being placed on board.

Note, I'd be very surprised if David Weber does put Hektor on board.

Randomiser wrote:

Annachie wrote:Dropping Hektor onto one of the KH's, probably the first one, complete with a promotion, would probably be a good thing. Though it might be a bit rough on Irys and the incipent baby.

Given that admirals choose their own flag lieutenants and Sharpfield already has one, and that Hector is way too young and inexperienced for any command, absent the kind of nepotism Cayleb does not go in for, it's really hard to see how he can do significant good in that rôle.

Randomiser wrote:Re Thirsk's family
Yes, the logic of the situation is that either they all stay in place or he and they both defect to the CoGA's enemies. Nothing else makes sense. The family of a loyal son of mother church has nothing to fear from the Inquisition, so anyone who removes his family from their care is clearly a traitor. 'The bad boys kidnapped my family and it was nothing to do with me'? Good luck trying to persuade Clyntahn of that!

Actually there is one other scenario that might occur, Thirsk dies in action, or sails off expecting to do so and that activates his 'get out of jail free' plan for his family. At that point he is consigning himself to the punishment if he survives the action in order to ensure their safety.

I'm thinking this is the way the Thirsk family saga will go. My scenario has Thirsk taking the fleet out triggers the rescue. He takes the fleet into battle against the Guillym Manthyr. When he sees the futility of trying to beat the ICN he surrenders the fleet to avoid further slaughter.

"The good news was that they’d been galleons, propelled by the masts and sails he understood, not whatever deviltry (emphasis added) the river ironclads used."

Thirsk does not yet know about steam engines which means that the Church is withholding that info. The only people who could use that information effectively are still in the dark. If and when Thirsk does learn he will be even more aware of how out classed his Navy and Dohlar is.

FriarBob, Allistair and AncientMariner,

I would like to point out that the morality behind the actions Thirsk responded to appears very nebulous. The CoGA in the form of the Inquisition acted to punish people according to Church law. The morality of that law hasn't been questioned. The Writ gave the Inquisition the power to do as they did. The moral standard of Safehold supported the actions of the Inquisition in regard to the POWs.

Acting against the Inquisition in good conscience requires that Thirsk first conclude that the Inquisition acted immorally. After concluding that, Thirsk must act to oppose the Inquisition within the moral guidelines he understands. If he must toss out the moral standard of Safehold to reach this conclusion, how can he use that same standard to guide his actions? If he tosses out just some of the Writ, which parts does he accept? Who is he to pick some portions of Divine Revelation to accept and reject others? Thirsk isn't like Nynian who has read first hand accounts of just how fallible the Archangels are.

I agree that Thirsk didn't act. I disagree that Thirsk had a moral paradigm that allowed him discern easily between his conflicting loyalties.

PeterZ wrote:FriarBob, Allistair and AncientMariner,

I would like to point out that the morality behind the actions Thirsk responded to appears very nebulous. The CoGA in the form of the Inquisition acted to punish people according to Church law. The morality of that law hasn't been questioned. The Writ gave the Inquisition the power to do as they did. The moral standard of Safehold supported the actions of the Inquisition in regard to the POWs.

Acting against the Inquisition in good conscience requires that Thirsk first conclude that the Inquisition acted immorally. After concluding that, Thirsk must act to oppose the Inquisition within the moral guidelines he understands. If he must toss out the moral standard of Safehold to reach this conclusion, how can he use that same standard to guide his actions? If he tosses out just some of the Writ, which parts does he accept? Who is he to pick some portions of Divine Revelation to accept and reject others? Thirsk isn't like Nynian who has read first hand accounts of just how fallible the Archangels are.

I agree that Thirsk didn't act. I disagree that Thirsk had a moral paradigm that allowed him discern easily between his conflicting loyalties.

Thank you Peter. That nailed it. I would only add that there was no effective way at all for Thirsk to act that would actually have changed things for the better which is also something that has to be considered as part of the moral equation.

Don

PeterZ wrote:I agree that Thirsk didn't act. I disagree that Thirsk had a moral paradigm that allowed him discern easily between his conflicting loyalties.

Excellent point PeterZ. And if I may tie this into something I said earlier, I think that is why Thirsk has been locked into inaction by frustration and anger. He knows the treatment of the prisoners was wrong, but can't frame that properly in his mind. Cognitive dissonance I believe is the term that best describes this.

n7axw wrote:

PeterZ wrote:FriarBob, Allistair and AncientMariner,

I would like to point out that the morality behind the actions Thirsk responded to appears very nebulous. The CoGA in the form of the Inquisition acted to punish people according to Church law. The morality of that law hasn't been questioned. The Writ gave the Inquisition the power to do as they did. The moral standard of Safehold supported the actions of the Inquisition in regard to the POWs.

Acting against the Inquisition in good conscience requires that Thirsk first conclude that the Inquisition acted immorally. After concluding that, Thirsk must act to oppose the Inquisition within the moral guidelines he understands. If he must toss out the moral standard of Safehold to reach this conclusion, how can he use that same standard to guide his actions? If he tosses out just some of the Writ, which parts does he accept? Who is he to pick some portions of Divine Revelation to accept and reject others? Thirsk isn't like Nynian who has read first hand accounts of just how fallible the Archangels are.

I agree that Thirsk didn't act. I disagree that Thirsk had a moral paradigm that allowed him discern easily between his conflicting loyalties.

Thank you Peter. That nailed it. I would only add that there was no effective way at all for Thirsk to act that would actually have changed things for the better which is also something that has to be considered as part of the moral equation.

Don

Your point, Don, assumes that choosing inaction and not opposing evil does no harm to the soul. I believe it does. By his inaction, Thirsk indirectly condones evil. That harmed his soul. In opposing evil, even unsuccessfully, he would prevent harming his soul. If he began his opposition after his POWs were taken from him, that might argue that he is acting now. Acting now does nothing to absolve his inaction in the prior event.

In Thirsk's defense, I would claim that the loss of his POWs presented him with that which allowed him to resolve his conflicting moral issues. That resolution now allows him to act.

While I hear you, this argument really didn't fly well at Nuremburg. Thirsk is a willing participant in evil. He will need to face those consequences and I remember textev of Sharpfield, at least, pointing this out in LAMA. Ah here it is in November Year of God 896 Chapter 4:


"I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thirsk's idea, but there's a price for something like that, whether it's your idea or not, and I'm not the only officer in Their Majesties' Navy who wants a little payback. A lot of payback, actually.

n7axw wrote:

PeterZ wrote:FriarBob, Allistair and AncientMariner,

I would like to point out that the morality behind the actions Thirsk responded to appears very nebulous. The CoGA in the form of the Inquisition acted to punish people according to Church law. The morality of that law hasn't been questioned. The Writ gave the Inquisition the power to do as they did. The moral standard of Safehold supported the actions of the Inquisition in regard to the POWs.

Acting against the Inquisition in good conscience requires that Thirsk first conclude that the Inquisition acted immorally. After concluding that, Thirsk must act to oppose the Inquisition within the moral guidelines he understands. If he must toss out the moral standard of Safehold to reach this conclusion, how can he use that same standard to guide his actions? If he tosses out just some of the Writ, which parts does he accept? Who is he to pick some portions of Divine Revelation to accept and reject others? Thirsk isn't like Nynian who has read first hand accounts of just how fallible the Archangels are.

I agree that Thirsk didn't act. I disagree that Thirsk had a moral paradigm that allowed him discern easily between his conflicting loyalties.

Thank you Peter. That nailed it. I would only add that there was no effective way at all for Thirsk to act that would actually have changed things for the better which is also something that has to be considered as part of the moral equation.

Don

Thirsk did act!

Actions that can have NO effect are empty gestures. Getting yourself and your family killed because it feels so good to make an empty gesture is immoral.
But Thirsk did act. He told Sir Gwylym Manthyr in advance what was going to happen. And he arranged for final farewell letters to be sent home. Had he been found out, it could have cost him and his family their lives.

His frustration is that he could not do more.

Not that he did not dare to do more, not that he was not willing to do more, but that he was powerless to do more. Both in open and clandestine actions he has gone to the limit of his possibilities. He has risked the lives of his family to soften the fate of his POW’s.

There was no way he could have done more.

jgnfld wrote:While I hear you, this argument really didn't fly well at Nuremburg. Thirsk is a willing participant in evil. He will need to face those consequences and I remember textev of Sharpfield, at least, pointing this out in LAMA. Ah here it is in November Year of God 896 Chapter 4:


"I'm pretty sure it wasn't Thirsk's idea, but there's a price for something like that, whether it's your idea or not, and I'm not the only officer in Their Majesties' Navy who wants a little payback. A lot of payback, actually.

Sharpfield was not e member of the inner circle. He did not know what had happened in detail.

He knows Thirsk did have the responsibility for the POW’s. He does not know how Thirsk has (tried to) live up to his obligations.

This kind of unfounded opinions can win you elections, but get you nowhere in court.