Oberon wrote:I've yet to hear any rationale why multiple PWL would not be a good thing, other than the presumption that they must fight each other. And Parson's personality is not that of a person spoiling for a fight. Right now, he fights when forced to fight, and I'm not seeing any disadvantage to having multiple PWLs on Erf who fight only when forced to. Instead, I'm seeing notes on how to possibly perpetuate a Side without conflict. And I fail to see how having many people pondering this same potential is a bad thing. A Renaissance isn't brought about by a single person, it takes a group, a culture, many people all contributing to the same advancement of thought.
Parson is subject to the whims of Stanley.
Well, he is and he isn't. On paper, he totally is, and the slap confirmed that for anyone who thought it might be otherwise. But in both Books events have been arranged to ensure that Parson is in full charge of the GK forces without Stanley's interference. In Book 1 Stanley flew off with his dwagons and KISS knights (is that redundant? Yes, it is.) to rebuild at FAQ. And here in Book 2 we have Maggie and the handy powder of suggestion. This is pretty much necessary, as Stanley has been shown to be a complete clod when it comes to strategy and tactics, and with him looking over Parson's shoulder and second guessing every little order even Parson couldn't pull out a win even if the odds were completely in the GK favor... Unless the authors decide to show Stanley have some (more, he has had some) character development and decide to trust Parson to plan and to lead, then we will see Stanley conveniently taken out of the picture at any time that Parson needs to show his skills. It just can't work out any other way, and I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. It just is.
Oberon wrote:I'll entertain anyone's theory, as long as it makes some sense. Please elaborate, how exactly would a Side "go wipe out" the MK?
Probably by sending in their own casters and/or convincing the ones already there to put an end to the business. Starting a civil war, essentially. Assuming that one hasn't already started if the cat is ever let out of the bag.
Ok. But in order to do that, the casters would have to agree, and we've already seem Sizemore strongly argue against similar acts against the MK. That's not to say that they wouldn't have to go in the end, but it would make it rather easy for them to object, get ordered to go anyway, and then turn to being free agents as soon as they were safely through the portal and immune to attack. Also, the greatest number of casters we've seen on a side is 5, the GK count at the start of TBfGK. 5 casters doesn't seem like much of an invading army, to me. As to convincing the MK casters to "put an end to the business", if the MK sells goods and services to the Sides of Erf, then they must have some need for the shmuckers they receive in exchange for those goods and services. And this need would be directly opposed to any sort of plan to have the MK casters "put an end to the business", assuming that you are speaking of the business of selling goods and services for shmuckers. So what's in it for anyone in the MK, to war against anyone else in the MK?
happyturtle wrote:War on the MK? Destroy the portals.
Which amounts to "go to war with all other Sides", since it seems that every Side has at least one portal. Not a winning strategy.
happyturtle wrote:Forbid your casters from going there.
Which means no training for your casters and no items or services for your Side. Which puts you at an immediate disadvantage to any Side not willing to also limit itself.
happyturtle wrote:Attack any barbarian caster that you see.
The only barbarian casters we have seen appear to live in the MK. So how are you going to see them, much less attack them? If they come out, they do so as the hirelings of Sides who want their goods or services, and so will enjoy the protection of that Side while they are providing those goods or services. Which brings you back to being at war with all Sides again. I'm not seeing much opportunity to attack barbarian casters.
happyturtle wrote:Find ways to discourage other sides from dealing with the MK - bribery or threats. Force MK to take sides, and then they aren't neutral and inviolable anymore. Yeah, war on MK could happen. Might even be part of what has to happen to break Erf enough to end war.
This last might work. You'd need to find some incentive which is convincing enough. Either /threats and military dominance, which is reduced if the Side you're trying to dominate can buy items and hire casters and you can't, or some other incentive such as bribes/tribute. But you'll be like the nation trying to impose sanctions against the other nation that has a lot of oil to sell. It's a real difficult thing to do alone, and even when you're the strongest nation in the world it often doesn't go your way.
GaryThunder wrote:*It is theoretically possible for two warlords to both be equally perfect through different means. Imagine two swords created by the best swordsmith in all creation, which he apprises as being exactly alike in quality and craftsmanship, but one's a claymore and one's a katana. But then that just raises a storm of questions, chief among them being "What defines a 'perfect' warlord anyway?" Hair-splitting like that doesn't make for particularly good storytelling.
Agreed. To add more fuel to the fire, Charlie is calling Parson the "more than perfect warlord." And if you can't have two perfect warlords at the same time, you also can't have any warlord who is "more" than perfect. Perfect has a meaning, after all.