1) Perfect Warlord conquers all of Erf. World peace through world conquest.
Pros - simple. All you need is a Warlord that is so amazing that he's effecively unbeatable.
how big is Erfworld? Is it really even possible to conquer all of it even with a Perfect Warlord?
Doesn't seem like a hippiemancer-like solution. I just can't imagine Janis deciding to fix war by trying to win it.
If that's the case, why was the Warlord that was summoned so reluctant to fight? Why isn't he bent on world conquest?
If that's the case, why aren't Janis, Marie, and the other 'mancers involved actively helping GK? If Parson's intended to lead GK to take over the world, why wouldn't sending schmuckers, mancers, and material aid their way help speed it up.
2) Perfect Warlord tries to conquer Erf, but runs into diminishing returns point - the larger his empire, the harder it is to defend all the borders. At some point, the empire gets so big that even the PW is in a stalemate - but he's so good, that the stalemate is at the point where it's him against the rest of Erf. If all the other sides don't ally together, they die - so the end result is a stalemate, with all sides except GK allied with each other, and GK unable to expand further, but good enough on defense so that they can't be conquered.
Pros - doesn't require the warlord to be literally unbeatable. Also, it is consistent with Parson's reluctance to fight. It's completely inconsistent with Wanda and Stanley's ambition, which could explain why Janis is so distrustful of Wanda.
Cons - very fine balancing act. Just a little bit better or worse and the whole plan falls apart. I don't think Janis and Marie could plan out the skills of their warlord that precisely.
3) Similar to the above - but Parson is intended to *lose*. The aim is to force all of Erf to ally against a common threat. They'll have to put in very harsh penalties for breaking alliance, probably after Parson takes advantage of a traitor somehow. ...and then when Parson is defeated, the end result is an Erfworld allied together, with extremely harsh penalties for breaking alliance, and with each side having no incentive to be the first to leave.
I actually like this idea. Would make for a nice sacrifice for Parson at the end of the story. Requires a Warlord so good that it takes all of Erf to bring him down - but doesn't require as tight of a stalemate balancing act.
Cons - Rob would have to find some way of showing that life post-parson really is peaceful, and that would make for a really boring story. A story has to end when it no longer has A Protagonist, and this one wouldn't.
4) New tactics. Parson's supposed to find defensive tactics that make offense so useless that all sides can turtle up and nobody can fight.
Cons - how on earth would Janis, a hippiemancer, know that Parson would find defensive rather than offensive strategies? Besides, at the moment, we had brilliant defense at TBfGK, and are now seeing offense at Spacerock.
5) Parson deliberately decides he wants peace, and fights with that aim. (If he does so, while the details of how exactly he would force peace on everyone are interesting, we can guess that he'd find a way.)
Pros - well, his personality fits. It would also explain what makes him a "hippiemancer warlord" rather than just a good warlord.
Cons - he's not calling the shots on that. He's fighting for Stanley's cause, and Wanda's cause since Wanda manipulates Stanley. He appears to be fully committed to making his Side WIN, not splitting off and fighting AGAINST Stanley.
alexanderdsoso wrote:Mutually assured destruction.
Thunder wrote:where does everyone get the idea that going to war is required to maintain ones side?
Wrath wrote:Magic! No, wait, they've already got magic.
Users browsing this forum: Lilwik, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest