BLANDCorporatio wrote:Cool to know that a double dash through the MK is apparently a kosher thing in these forums.
Why shouldn't it be "a kosher thing"? Right now Parson is at the end of a tunnel, with several thinkamancers blocking that end and looking to escort him to their stronghold. His path of least resistance is down the tunnel right back to GK. That's a "double dash", is it not?
Not a planned one though. Parson wasn't expecting the GMtTA to prevent the passage.
Also, the double dash was not caused by the actions of GK uni... uhm, wait a sec, it kinda was. Dang, it's almost like they don't want Parson in Spacerock or something.
0beron the avatar thief wrote:[Nothing of import]
Die in a fire.
He's a fire elemental actually.
Oberon wrote:I'm in agreement with bpzinn.
They make a very good job of summarizing what the long term goals of GK are. And I'm not disputing those. What l I'm saying is that a short term goal (bringing Parson to Spacerock) is problematic, because of oversights on the part of GK's expeditionary force.
Swodaems wrote:(PPS. Somebody who uses a phrase that references a mass suicide by a cult criticising me for not suspending my disbelief and jumping on the bandwagon is absolutely hilarious. So who is the Jim Jones that you want me to follow? You or Rob?)
I do agree with kreszantas
that brevity is the soul of wit, but I did find several bits of your post genuinely funny (and intentionally so). Are you a witty undead?
kreszantas wrote:Well on points 1 and 2 of your post. My only comment in part 1 is that Ossomer is being set up to be the "test case" on your decrypted loyalty issue (many posters have the same reservations, that he will either turn or wimp out when the time comes). Have you had a behavioural statistics class?
I fail to see how this addresses Swodaems
' claim that Parson had no "intelligent" or "character-based" reason to push forward.
I agree with you that Parson has not been the same old Parson way since ending of Book 1. And that's the key here. Parson doesn't go to Spacerock to maximize Loyalty, or leadership bonus, or improve communication, or any gamer reason. That's the point.
Parson, the Gamer, has sent Bogroll to his death. Bogroll, a naive gentle giant with the mind of a child, the first creature from Erfworld to welcome Parson as a friend. Misty, another friend, also died in Parson's arms; while for less directly-gamer reasons, it adds to the guilt. Finally, Parson has become death, the destroyer of worlds when he cooked up the uncroaked volcano. All the while realizing that the little people that kill each other at his command are people, with all the baggage that people have.
So Parson ended up depressed for the Summer Updates, and mostly out of the loop. He's not a "critical thinker" (Swodaems
, you mean tactical thinker?) anymore because he is disgusted with what that has made him make others do. This wound is cut open again when he orders the harvesting of the Dwagons, because once more it is he that orders his units to put themselves at risk. Given this history, it is not entirely surprising that Parson decides it would be fair if he himself shared in the risk of battle.
There's no gamer reason in that calculation. Only an idea of justice, atonement, trial, experience with small e and x and no points.
And in my opinion, it is perfectly in character, that is, the character developed organically so far. A better question is, is the new Parson still a good warlord? My guess is NO, precisely because a good warlord understands that risking some often saves the many, and learns to sleep at night with that knowledge. However, Parson's development is not over. It may be that in the end he becomes something else than a Warlord, or a better Warlord because of this experience.
kreszantas wrote:The issue in fact with the "story" is that none of the readers know all the rules to the game. It is just like life, sometimes you don't learn that rule until it is too late to do anything about it. How many times have you heard "I can't believe this is happening" when it is going on all around them, what ever the IT is.
The issue in stories is more like how new rules are introduced. It's not ok for a Plot Point to hinge on some newly invented "rule"(*), or some "rule" that was conveniently forgotten by everyone in the story world. Where "rule" is akin to a law of physics, not an ambush party waiting in that room you thought safe because your informant (who's actually a mole) told you it was safe. And not a law that the King just made up to allow him to tax beards and scabs.
As always, there are exceptions or balancing acts.
*: unless the story is about the CERN collider opening a gateway to Azathoth.
The whole point of this is lost if you keep it a secret.