Lamech wrote:If you want to get rid of the perfect warlord, you not only have to remove Parson you need to keep him from being replaced.
There's the problem. You're confusing what the Free Casters fear. They fear a Warlord that can enter the MK and force them to join a Side (or perhaps kill a Caster from an Opposing Side), not the Perfect Warlord concept. While they may wish to kill Parson (or merely ensure he stays out of the MK), they don't necessarily fear a replacement that may not be able to enter at all (especially when testing the theory risks one's life).
If the conspiracy can simply do so again the conspiracy itself needs to be stopped somehow. So just removing Parson is pointless.
Straw Man. I never said that they must want Parson dead. My options included capturing him and transferring him to Charlie, a known non-aggressive mercenary side with no Armies to lead, just Archons that Parson cannot travel with easily.
Or are you arguing that the conspiracy can't replace Parson?
I most certainly said the opposite.
Kreistor wrote:Straw Man. I can skin a cat by firing a cannon into it's maw, or I can convince it to claw it's own skin off by deluding it into thinking it's being eaten by isects from the outside in.
Yes, attacking Parson directly might achieve the goal. But using a Master Class Dirtamancer to close the tunnel contains him without violence, and Sizemore won't have the power to overcome a Master. So, no, you're incorrect in that your assumption is that you can predict how Charlie will act. Charlie has 23 classes to draw on, and many of those are undefined, and thus could fill any role Rob can conceive that will make Charlie appear cunning.
Lamech wrote:Not how that works. Charlie doesn't get to have any power to draw upon to make him look cunning.
I said Rob
makes Charlie appear Cunning. There is no being named "Charlie". He is, at best, an aspect of Rob's personality, since Rob Balder makes all decisions of the character. Charlie is, then, inherently limited by Rob's imagination, and any previous abilities or restrictions Rob has previously given him.
Authors define as little as possible. Rob talks about that in the Retconjuration message. Defining things restricts future possibilities, so you want to define as little as possible. That is why great swaths of Magic Schools have at best a general description of capacity. They have names, but no specifics on limitations. While it remains undefined, Rob can define it as the plot requires later. Any Dungeon Master (such as myself) quickly learns that.
Maybe you're used to Dungeon Masters that run modules, instead of creating their own worlds. In those cases, everything is defined for the GM, tehre is little invention, and since the writer and editors have already reviewed it for consistency, the DM can run it without much concern. The next module will have nothing to do with the current, so there's no reason to worry about defining things.
Second show that there actually is a master-class dirtamancer running around for Charlie to hire.
Another Straw Man. The Master Class Dirtamancer was only an example that indicated a broad array of solutions to the problem, beyond murdering Parson outright.
Lamech wrote:Charlie uses plans that fail. A lot.
See Parson's rant about plans and the Perfect Warlord in Book 1. Plans do
fail. That doesn't indicate Charlie doesn't fail, nor that he doesn't do his best to ensure success.
For example his plan to capture Parson and the bracer? Fail.
Fail because of a Dirtamancy trap that stunned every Ruler involved in the RCC. You're expecting Charlie to foresee a tactic that no other Ruler foresaw.
What about his plan to croak Wanda via Kingworld? Fail.
He expected Jillian to croak Wanda? Someone he knows she loves? Who he also knows loves Ansom. (That's all in the conversation after she leaves, before Charlie talks to Tremmenis.) Don't think so.
Fair point: he didn't cover the base where she ignores Wanda and captures or kills Ansom, which puts Parson in the CW job. Charlie's problem was that he had no one to work with in this case, since all Sides were ignoring him.
But the plan did not
How about his plan to croak Ansom. That's a fail.
No, Ansom is removed from the field and no longer influencing the battle. That plan did
succeed in having the desired effect, though not using the expected vector (Jillian instead of Sammy).
Lamech wrote:I also note he used a similarly unreliable person, Jillian, as a keystone of his Kingworld plot.
As previously mentioned, no one else would even talk to him, so he had no choice. But he did succeed in half of the plan: Ansom is out of the picture, and GK ground forces utterly annihilated, all at no cost to Jetstone. he is back in the good books with the Royal Sides, and back in the game, if not entirely trusted. Only half of the plan failed, and even that might have succeeded had Parson not been put in command. Remember that Parson recommended someone in Wanda's group, not himself. It was Maggie that forced his ascension.
Lamech wrote:So what you are saying is that Charlie would have used a plan that would work? So come up with a better plan.
Obviously, I don't have to. Plans fail, for even the best prepared arlords, as Parson clearly states. Charlie does not need to have a 100% success rate in order to be fastidious about achieving his goal of not losing.
Kreistor wrote:I do not deal in "possible." I deal in "plausible." To be plausible, there must be more than speculation: it must have case example from the strip itself. Quantum Mechanics tells us that there is a finite probability that a Pink Elephant will appear in my room, play God Save The Queen on a trombone, and then disappear, but I'm not going to move my coffee table because it would crush it should it happen.
Lamech wrote:... There are no case examples of kissing in the strip itself. Therefore kissing is implausible. Ditto for non-twolls with fabrication. Or peaceful trade between sides. (MK isn't a side.)
No peaceful trade? Review Slately attempting to get a loan from Don King. No kissing? Review Parson's discussion about sex with Maggie. Fabrication is mentioned a Special, not a unique ability of twolls.
But I understand what you're trying to say. You're trying to limit me to the specifics of a single sentence, by taking it out of context and trying to make it stand alone. Sorry, but I'm not a Bible you can quote and expect that I live solely by a single verse.
It comes down to this: it is impossible to disprove a negative. Inside the context of the comic, something that does not exist in Erfworld will never be mentioned inside the comic to not exist, because they don't know it could exist. Consequently, we can list a thousand things that might explain something that will never be disproven, because they don't exist as a concept in the minds of Erfworlders. By your expectation, Rob would have to spend months of comics listing everything that doesn't exist, but that would cover a small fraction of the nearly infinite possible, yet implausible, alternatives.
That means that if you continue trying to find alternatives that have no foundation in the comic, I'm just going to wave, "Seeya," because I simply have no time or interest in dealing with the infinite. I know you can find possibilities. Considering your previous limitations, I rather expect I can find a lot more than you. I reject all of them, no matter how reasonable you think they may be, untilt hey have a foundation in the comic.
Kreistor wrote:I have been saying that from the start, so I don't know why you think that's such a great leap of logic. A Dollamancer specializing in Battle Bears has few options of how to directly kill Parson, for instance.
Lamech wrote:And this does nothing to counter the point that any such agreement would need to be non-lethal due to the conspiracy. (And once again lethal includes anything that might as well be lethal to GK or the conspiracy.)
Who said it was supposed to? Perhaps such an agreement exists. Perhaps it doesn't. We should find out fairly soon, so there's absolutely no reason to waste ink on this detail. I'm not attacking that pet theory, because there's no evidence for or against it in the comic.
Lamech wrote: And finally even if they do want to ban Parson and they will use lethal force, I would argue that they any caster who heard about Parson's return would do so effectively. They will get the help of other casters, they will make sure they are screened by summoned/created units, they would block the portal, they would have weapons ready, ect.
[snipped Straw Man accusation]
Lamech wrote:First how in the hell is that a straw man. I'm am not claiming "Kreistor said the MK caster would do A,B, and C." I'm claiming that "If contacted and warned of Parson any MK caster who wanted him kept out of the MK would do X, Y, and Z." A straw man is I claim someone else's argument is "A" and then tear down "A".
A Straw Man is a case you present that you expect the opponent to limit his defense to. I am not going to defend your concept of how such an attack on Parson would occur. I could present half-a-dozen completely dissimilar, and still not touch the thousands of possibilities.
Lamech wrote:When we saw Parson explaining to the casters the first time he entered the MK they were most definitely NOT surprised.
You seriously need to re-read that page. It is blatantly obvious that we're seeing into an incident well after it has been going on for some time, since I'm pretty certain Casters in Portal Park don't stand around evenly spaced around every portal constantly, which strongly suggests that they have had time to gather 8 casters and array against him, a GMTTA (Spock), and Janis. Further, Parson answers a question that was asked by someone before the comic starts, "Look I don't know why i didn't disband, okay?" He wouldn't phrase it that way if no one hadn't asked, "Why didn't you disband, Warlord?" So we can't tell how startled they were, since we never see the moment Parson stepped into MK.