Yay here, lots of replies to attend to. There's some common threads between them though, so rather than respond individually I'll group short snips from more posters and respind to what I view as the general idea. Still will be long.
Anyway, let's first dismiss with the playful
MarbitChow wrote:Why do you believe that ruining the neutrality of the Magic Kingdom isn't part of Janis' plan?
Beacuse Sizemore seems shocked, shocked I say, at what Parson is up to.
atalex wrote:If Janis truly didn't anticipate that the safety and peace of the Magic Kingdom might be one of the things to get broken, she's a lot more naive than I thought. If she has the nerve to complain about it, she's a hypocrite to boot.
So what? Janis' duplicity does not make Parson's actions now any more moral.
Anyway, back to serious. Bold statements from now on in this post are what I'm arguing AGAINST
.It's not a law, so Parson's not breaking anything
Oberon wrote:Remember, convention? Following or not following a convention does not make a person evil, unless you're playing bridge.
Kyrt wrote:Hes gaming the system, pushing the rules as far as they can. This appears to be a game world which follows game rules. What he's doing is akin to playing by the rulebooks literal word.
There's two things here: A) is portal usage law or not, and B) does it matter?
For the first, look at what Sizemore says. It sounds as if he's not making this rule up as he goes along. There must be some agreement between everyone who has a portal to the MK that no hostile troops can be sent via portals.
Even if there isn't an explicit treaty anywhere, it's an abuse. The fact that something is not illegal does not make said action morally justifiable.
Also, morality is not about obeying the laws of physics ("rulebooks literal word"). It's not, actually, about obeying rules either- but many rules have a moral purpose behind them, and breaking them goes against that purpose, and is immoral. In this case, Parson is abusing and endagering an entity (the MK as a whole) which is not in conflict with him. Whatever the dealings of a few individual casters, the MK itself is not at war with GK. Yet.The Magic Kingdom has no right to impose usage conventions on portals
Parson wrote:They don't recognize my right to enter the Magic Kingdom. Why should I play by their rules?
Kyrt wrote:he, as a caster, apparently has the right and ability to enter the MK and that is a right the MK itself is unwilling to recognise.
A country is well whithin its rights to, for example, deny its airspace or waterways to military craft.
Or anyone/anything it can be expected to keep out. There are such things as personae non-gratae.The Magic Kingdom is evil
build6 wrote:maybe part of the problem with "no Peace on Erf" is the Magic Kingdom
Stealing from thieves is still stealing.
And whatever shady dealings members of the MK might have, the MK itself is not engaged in war against GK. GK casters can move there freely (as long as they play by the house rules should go without saying), and in fact did so recently.Parson's gotta do what Parson's gotta do
cheeseaholic wrote:Parson is required by Duty to win the battle.
Oberon wrote:Are you really calling the survival of the GK expeditionary force a convenience?
effataigus wrote:Is he just trying to win? I thought he was doing this in part to save his buddies Wanda and Jack. Right now I'd say he has two moral get-out-of-jail free cards... 1. Magical compulsion and 2. Defense of loved ones
This argument only has traction in Erfworld because of Duty owning that free-will/moral agency thing that here on Earth is taken for granted. Even so, I think there's a problem with it.
There's a persistent confusion between the survival of GK's expeditionary force, and the immediate defeat of Jetstone. While one can help the other, they are not the same thing. This is not, or was not until recently, a do or die situation like the volcano. Parson does not react in the same compelled way as he did back then.
This is the false dichotomy: destroy Jetstone, OR lose the expeditionary group (Wanda, Jack etc). This is what I say (and no dichotomy, or any poly-chotomy in sight): use the MK portals for attack is morally dubious.Ossomer is way undervalued
atalex wrote:I was rather disappointed with the first sentence of this update, i..e Jack's rather snide dismissal of Ossomer as "the bigger, more boring warlord." As someone who sees hidden depths in Ossomer waiting to be plumbed, it disappoints me that the most observant character in the comic doesn't
I know, right? That's a bold statement I'm not arguing against.The portals are assumed safe because of their behaviour
Oberon wrote:There are plenty of other ways for the portals to be "trusted", including automagically annihilating non-caters who use them. Which Parson is well aware of, except for that defense apparently not working on him.
Kyrt wrote:AFAIR, and I may be wrong, the Portals are considered safe for a reason. If you aren't a caster, you can' t survive transit.
See Sizemore's line in this update, the one about "thou shall not send casters into cities you don't control". It's pretty explicit in considering that the danger of a caster attack exists, and prohibiting it.
Phew, vewwy vewwy long that one. I think that tomorrow at about the same time I'll have reason to post yet again on this topic. But that future post will be more of a "concluding statement" from my side, if you will. No more eyesore quotewall.
Until then, a closing remark.
Parson is supposed to be the rule breaker. It is also the case that when seeking great change, the hero must make some sacrifices, maybe even including their moral purity (whatever they had). You cannot be all-good, all the time, not when too much is at stake.
Let's not be surprised that some of Parson's actions might, on analysis, raise a few eyebrows with respect to their moral value. Wasn't Parson a player who preffered "evil" sides, anyway?
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.