Yuusha Densetsu no Uragawa de Ore wa Eiyuu Densetsu o Tsukurimasu: Oudou Goroshi no Eiyuutan~ - Vol. 3 Ch. 13

[AnotherDuck]

It's always dumb, pretty much no matter the perk offered.

No. Just because some people don't share your values doesn't make them dumb.

 

[Greed343]

Just caught up on this, only to look up raws, and see that the artist changes from chapter 21 forward. It's quite the downgrade too, which is rather unfortunate. I'm use to seeing this happen in American comics, but rarely ever seen it in manga...

 

[feha]

No. Just because some people don't share your values doesn't make them dumb.

I would argue that survival is a fairly universal value.

 

[AnotherDuck]

I would argue that survival is a fairly universal value.

Then the only people who become adventurers (with any combat capacity) would be the ones who absolutely can't earn money in any other way, since that's dangerous work, so that argument doesn't work. And here we're talking about people who're already so far into it that chances of survival don't significantly change with those obligations.

And that's not taking into account that some people will sacrifice anything for fame or power. Even, you know, survival.

 

[feha]

Then the only people who become adventurers (with any combat capacity) would be the ones who absolutely can't earn money in any other way, since that's dangerous work, so that argument doesn't work. And here we're talking about people who're already so far into it that chances of survival don't significantly change with those obligations.

Even if they have no other work than dangerous adventuring stuff, the point about D/C ranks are that at that point they already earn enough for a pretty good living (in most settings. And any others simply have the B ranks be weaker and more numerous akin to what others call C, so only the letter changes). So retaining the ability to pick&choose your quests to things you can survive doing (and avoiding any obligatory suicide-missions) is at that point very much worthwhile, and your finances doesn't force you to rank up further.

And that's not taking into account that some people will sacrifice anything for fame or power. Even, you know, survival.

Yes some people are dumb. I never said otherwise. It's not that they don't share my values (survival), it's that they value ie. fame above it.
If they just didn't share my values of wanting to survive and wanted the opposite, then that's fine. They would merely be operating on another value-frame (like some want "a good death" that gives them "fame after death/remembrance" - as opposed to getting "fame"). The stupid thing is to sacrifice one high priority you have that is a prerequisite for another [priority], for said other [priority]. It's like when you want to be the best swordsman, so you make a deal for the Skill in exchange for all your limbs and your lower jaw.

 

[AnotherDuck]

It's like when you want to be the best swordsman, so you make a deal for the Skill in exchange for all your limbs and your lower jaw.

This is a dumb example, and doesn't fit anything at all related to this discussion. If that's the level you want to be at...

 

[feha]

This is a dumb example, and doesn't fit anything at all related to this discussion. If that's the level you want to be at...

It's not very dumb as an analogy though? If you are not alive, there is no way for you to receive the fame you want. The pre-requisite is missing. That's the point 'my' analogy (fairly sure it's a fable, though I had to add the lower jaw to it because of zoro) was meant to showcase: that putting the cart before the horse is putting the cart before the horse.
Like I mentioned before that, after death all you can receive is remembrance (As in, the concept of your prior existence gets fame. Not you).

 

[AnotherDuck]

It's not very dumb as an analogy though?

Yes, it's dumb, because with the same argument adventurers wouldn't exist at all outside safe chores kids can do. They could die, so they'd never take that job. You'd also never have people taking jobs as guards or join the military unless they're forced (by others or circumstances). Because they could die. All according to your argument.

What you fail to realise is that getting a higher rank and rarely being forced to do those missions for the state is that those missions aren't necessarily more dangerous than what you'd take to get to that rank in the first place. If anything, you have more support with those forced missions, rather than being on your own and having to evaluate the danger yourself.

But somehow, you treat normal adventurers as perfectly safe and those with that kind of contract as practically dead and could never benefit from that contract. That's dumb.

 

[feha]

Yes, it's dumb, because with the same argument adventurers wouldn't exist at all outside safe chores kids can do. They could die, so they'd never take that job. You'd also never have people taking jobs as guards or join the military unless they're forced (by others or circumstances). Because they could die. All according to your argument.

Fair argument, though I would argue that these are different because:

• many adventurers do not have much of a choice, as it is either die from starvation 100%, or die from occupation 30%. I already covered why there's a difference in becoming an adventurer, vs becoming a high-ranked adventurer. But yes, safe chores should definitely be preferred quests in any setting that does not allow for powering up from somewhat safe quests (ie. levelling against known quantities).
• People generally take guard/military jobs for 2 reasons (besides the "I need to get a job to not starve to death or avoid execution, and this is my only option besides becoming an adventurer"):
  • The post is generally safe, with plenty of authority to abuse. For guards this is rather common (it's a job inside town-walls; can throw anyone low-class in jail no questions asked), and in many settings it's safer than a non-combat job where you are a high-priority target for bandits/thieves (or at all), as classes, skills and stats means any non-combat class is 100% dead if caught in a conflict.
  • Different value-frame. I already mentioned ppl who just looks for a "beautiful" way to suicide prior, but more common for conscripts and guards are possible people who have close ones they care about and want to keep safe (in that frame the cart and the horse switches places - the pre-requisite for their life to be worth it is the life of their loved ones, but their loved ones can have a good life after they lost theirs). Particularly conscripts, since refusing usually means execution of both them and their family, or similar.

What you fail to realise is that getting a higher rank and rarely being forced to do those missions for the state is that those missions aren't necessarily more dangerous than what you'd take to get to that rank in the first place. If anything, you have more support with those forced missions, rather than being on your own and having to evaluate the danger yourself.

If you hold trust for the organization, then this might be a reasonable argument. But generally the purpose of those high-ranked obligatory emergency quests is that there's no parties capable of handling the problem safely enough to accept it normally. So the guild uses contractual obligations to throw bodies at the problem hoping to delay enough to evacuate everyone else, or if lucky possibly even remove the issue as it's worn down.
Another similarly reasonable argument is if you are in a setting where statistics show roaming sss-ranked stampedes to be extremely rare and you are unlikely to ever have one occur in your lifetime, particularly not close enough to be called in to deal with it (but almost all settings have it happen often enough that there is a good chance you will be called to deal with a neighbouring one at least a couple times over your career).

But somehow, you treat normal adventurers as perfectly safe and those with that kind of contract as practically dead and could never benefit from that contract. That's dumb.

Aside from the initial death-toll among rookies, once adventurers reach the intermediate ranks they are generally quite safe, provided they stay within what they know they can handle (and expand this range by cooperating with others such as getting to follow along on quests with unfamiliar targets, learning from those that know they can handle those). It comes pretty much as a direct effect of why villages and caravans aren't constantly wiped out (there's some margin of safety and a measure of regional stability).
It's all about risk-management, and avoiding any extra risk once you have secured a living.

 

[AnotherDuck]

• many adventurers do not have much of a choice, as it is either die from starvation 100%, or die from occupation 30%.

Many, but not all. And that depends on the specific setting. Those numbers are also made up on the spot.

• I already covered why there's a difference in becoming an adventurer, vs becoming a high-ranked adventurer. But yes, safe chores should definitely be preferred quests in any setting that does not allow for powering up from somewhat safe quests (ie. levelling against known quantities).

The problem here is that those safe chores are often looked down on by adventurers. If they truly were looking out for their safety, those quests would be far more popular.

• People generally take guard/military jobs for 2 reasons (besides the "I need to get a job to not starve to death or avoid execution, and this is my only option besides becoming an adventurer"):
  • The post is generally safe, with plenty of authority to abuse. For guards this is rather common (it's a job inside town-walls; can throw anyone low-class in jail no questions asked), and in many settings it's safer than a non-combat job where you are a high-priority target for bandits/thieves (or at all), as classes, skills and stats means any non-combat class is 100% dead if caught in a conflict.
  • Different value-frame. I already mentioned ppl who just looks for a "beautiful" way to suicide prior, but more common for conscripts and guards are possible people who have close ones they care about and want to keep safe

While I somewhat agree with the argument (those are common reasons to join), I disagree with the premise. There are many more reasons for people to join. Fame and fortune are two prominent ones. Maybe not on the higher end, but people do join the military to become famous, and it's often paid well enough. Though those are more common motivations to become an adventurer, being a more individualistic occupation.

The argument that being a guard is safer than high-priority targets is a bit like saying that the wealthiest people are more likely to have a lot of money. Specifically talking about "high-priority targets" means you're only talking about those with the highest risk, not the vast majority of occupations where you're not a high priority target. Compared to those, guards are more likely to end up in physical conflict.

If you hold trust for the organization, then this might be a reasonable argument. But generally the purpose of those high-ranked obligatory emergency quests is that there's no parties capable of handling the problem safely enough to accept it normally.

I find that quite often the adventurers are like a militia in those cases. People highly skilled in combat deployed for the protection of the population. And those high-ranked adventurers are usually more skilled than the vast majority of the military personnel who're also forced to join.

But what also fits your description is high ranked quests, which adventurers often take voluntarily. Those are often even more dangerous.

So the guild uses contractual obligations to throw bodies at the problem hoping to delay enough to evacuate everyone else, or if lucky possibly even remove the issue as it's worn down.

That doesn't make sense. High-ranked adventurers are valuable and comparatively rare. You can't just throw those as bodies on a problem.

It's all about risk-management, and avoiding any extra risk once you have secured a living.

The problem there is that there are still many low- and mid-ranked adventurers who look up to those high-ranked adventurers, and aspire to get there. It is an elite position, so you wouldn't expect a lot of people to be able to reach there, but the ones who can often do, and they're not all dumb. These are the ones I mentioned above looking for fame and fortune, and as real life proves, those are reasons people will risk their lives for. Just look at how many dead bodies litter Mt. Everest, let alone how many people go on dangerous journeys even if it's only for their own sake.

Your initial argument was that it was always a dumb idea, and it doesn't take more than a single case where it isn't to counter that.

 

[feha]

Many, but not all. And that depends on the specific setting. Those numbers are also made up on the spot.

Yes, not all. The exceptions depends a bit on setting, but you always have ones such as "insane person looking to perfect their craft", and even "stupid kid who has been fooled by propaganda, entering the job expecting some adventurous storylike dream-life". Tried to come up with 3, specifically at least 1 sane example, but actually found myself unable to think of any we haven't mentioned prior already
And yes, I felt inordinately proud of those numbers I made up Felt like they painted the point rather well.

The problem here is that those safe chores are often looked down on by adventurers. If they truly were looking out for their safety, those quests would be far more popular.

Depends on the exact setting. Like I mentioned regarding the guards, after a certain point of System-assisted strength low-level conflicts are entirely safe, and trading chores for slightly higher-paying bunny, slime, and goblin subjugations does make sense.
Outside of those however, I find most adventurers do respect and prefer chore-quests (assuming - of course - we speak of the chores that can pay for a living. Some settings have lacking rewards such that noone takes them since it costs more being alive for a day, than the workday provides), unless they are some idiot-archetype introduced just to serve as a foil for some mc, for story-telling reasons. But I think you would agree that such characters can be ignored, or per definition fall under the umbrella of "stupid" (since it's literally part of their archetype).

While I somewhat agree with the argument (those are common reasons to join), I disagree with the premise. There are many more reasons for people to join. Fame and fortune are two prominent ones. Maybe not on the higher end, but people do join the military to become famous, and it's often paid well enough. Though those are more common motivations to become an adventurer, being a more individualistic occupation.

The argument that being a guard is safer than high-priority targets is a bit like saying that the wealthiest people are more likely to have a lot of money. Specifically talking about "high-priority targets" means you're only talking about those with the highest risk, not the vast majority of occupations where you're not a high priority target. Compared to those, guards are more likely to end up in physical conflict.

I do remember explicitly adding a parenthesis that it held true for low-priority ones as well. The point with that one was that in many settings a combat-classer has a high chance of surviving any conflict (particularly a guard that gets training), while a non-combat one is entirely at the mercy of the assailant. And thus the guards statistically having fewer causalities than other professions.

I find that quite often the adventurers are like a militia in those cases. People highly skilled in combat deployed for the protection of the population. And those high-ranked adventurers are usually more skilled than the vast majority of the military personnel who're also forced to join.

Yes, and my point is exactly that those high-ranked adventurers could have entirely avoided being fielded at all. Simply by avoiding decreasing a letter (or increasing in the case of "S") in their employment contract.

But what also fits your description is high ranked quests, which adventurers often take voluntarily. Those are often even more dangerous.

From an objective standpoint perhaps, but relative to the one taking it, it is (ideally, if the adventurer is any competent) a quest they know they can handle perfectly safely (or they wouldn't take it).

That doesn't make sense. High-ranked adventurers are valuable and comparatively rare. You can't just throw those as bodies on a problem.

No matter how valuable or rare a resource is, if you don't expend it on exactly the kind of thing you need it for, then you have wasted the resource. I can see the value in not wasting a "10 individuals in entire country" type of resource, for a single town. But most of those forced to take the quest are very much worth spending, if it saves a single town (or at least the people of said town).

The problem there is that there are still many low- and mid-ranked adventurers who look up to those high-ranked adventurers, and aspire to get there. It is an elite position, so you wouldn't expect a lot of people to be able to reach there, but the ones who can often do, and they're not all dumb. These are the ones I mentioned above looking for fame and fortune, and as real life proves, those are reasons people will risk their lives for. Just look at how many dead bodies litter Mt. Everest, let alone how many people go on dangerous journeys even if it's only for their own sake.

While many might look up to them, any sensible ones tend to realize that the rank is just a letter (and maybe small privileges), and they can still aspire to get there without also advancing in rank.
I am not exactly well-read on the psychology of Everest climbers, but naively I would argue that some of them (those of them that only do it for fame and riches) seems to be doing something pretty dumb yeah. I can see it make sense for people that do it as a form of convoluted suicide, and even ones that do it because that is how they live their life ("the process is the goal of the journey"; while you need your life to live it, if you don't live it then you life was just a form of death; Though I would probably still argue that the smart thing to do is to look for anything else that allows you to live without also risking your life ), and other such things. But not for people whose entire motive is something they would need to survive to appreciate, but would still have lived happily even if they never got.

Your initial argument was that it was always a dumb idea, and it doesn't take more than a single case where it isn't to counter that.

True, my initial claim was too broad-sweeping. I think I have made it clear that I did agree on that point already. And what I am arguing now is rather that "it's dumb to unnecessarily risk your life for no other benefit than luxuries or some title/affirmation/recognition, particularly when you can achieve both (except the title. Though other titles are possible) to a certain extent without said risk".
Might also add that exceptions always exist, of course. And aside from prior mentioned value-frames, there's also stuff like "someone who is nearing their end enough that what little is remaining only has value in how it's used up" (although arguably that's part of the aforementioned "journey above the destination" thing). Which I think is fairly common in everest climbers? (very uncertain)

 

[AnotherDuck]

And what I am arguing now is rather that "it's dumb to unnecessarily risk your life for no other benefit than luxuries or some title/affirmation/recognition, particularly when you can achieve both (except the title. Though other titles are possible) to a certain extent without said risk".

That I absolutely agree with. But just because I think it's dumb doesn't mean it's dumb for someone who values those things. I also think it's dumb to spend 10-12 hours/day on a job (unless you love said job) for the sake of getting rich. One reason I quit working as a programmer. Sure, money's good, but I want some free time to spend it on.

But anyway, at this point I have to say agree to disagree on the rest. It's getting a bit much for theories about generic fantasy settings. Thanks for the discussion.

Might also add that exceptions always exist, of course.

One of my favourite expressions is, "Never use absolutes."

 

[feha]

That I absolutely agree with. But just because I think it's dumb doesn't mean it's dumb for someone who values those things. I also think it's dumb to spend 10-12 hours/day on a job (unless you love said job) for the sake of getting rich. One reason I quit working as a programmer. Sure, money's good, but I want some free time to spend it on.

But anyway, at this point I have to say agree to disagree on the rest. It's getting a bit much for theories about generic fantasy settings. Thanks for the discussion.


One of my favourite expressions is, "Never use absolutes."

I enjoyed the debate always like those kinds of pointless arguments where objectively speaking noone can truly be right. Particularly how we got to discuss a fictional thing as if it was real (it's just like those "can superhero X beat superhero Y" debates ).

 

[SalvySaroj]

"but yukina-sama how are you so knowledgeable about goblin ecology?"
i read goblin slayer

But then where the saggs part then😅, i didn't watch it but it gotta have that right