The Master of Mystics had spent the entirety of this debate listening to his fellows argue among themselves. There seemed to be two or three options, but no points as to why one was better than another, only verbose rhetoric designed to trick others into believing some point had been made.
These squabbles tire me and many words are without merit or meaning. There is no good conclusion to be drawn for likening our warriors to bandits when we all know that's not what they are or will do. Nor would we send an armed party into an unknown land against an enemy of unknown strength. It doesn't take the Master of War to see that we have a disadvantage in size, a disadvantage in knowledge of the terrain, and a disadvantage in favor of the local gods. A show of strength? Decisive action? Cowards hidden in the woods? Is this what we are? Is this what we choose to be? No wonder the gods of this land already dislike us so.
I would take none of these actions. Ha, I would rather walk there alone than send a show of force. I've seen first hand one of their god's, spoken to him directly. These people are not savages. The best course of action is to send three people. Armed or not, it doesn't matter. One the members should be determined by the Master of War. One by the master of Mystics. And one by the Master of Polity. If our three chosen emissaries cannot together discover the truth behind this, then no group of soldiers ever will.