As someone who's studied The Art Of War intensively, and to whom "defeat means friendship" (as long as the opposition does feel thoroughly defeated) is a matter of course, I find that incentivizing unforgiveness and wanton destruction (I mean, seriously, they even had to kill the cattle? How is that in any way practical or rational?) is not only aesthetically dissonant, but wasteful and silly as hell. Going out of one's way to ensure some don't get a proper ritual, or otherwise kicking the defeated while they are down, also strikes me as disgusting, wasteful, and, frankly, cartoonishly over the top.
They should make a piece of fiction with a villain whose actions mirror those of YHWH perfectly. Have him blow a fortress to pieces and then demand that everything that breathes within be slaughtered. Have him kill some of his followers for disobeying some arbitrary rule, then have him kill many more just because they complained about it.
With his mind.
That's not an omnibenevolent deity, that's a fucking Dungeon Keeper.
See how many people notice the references. See how many identify this overlord as a vile villain before being informed he's patterned after The God.
As someone who's studied The Art Of War intensively, and to whom "defeat means friendship" (as long as the opposition does feel thoroughly defeated) is a matter of course,
Do you remember the other parts too? The parts that don't feel so warm and fuzzy? Or other effective military strategies? Defeat rather seldom means friendship when it comes to pre-established enemies, whether in The Art of War or outside of it. The generals discussed in The Art of War commanded their soldiers to kill other soldiers (and their leaders) and conquer strategic r...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.