SteveMB wrote:The question is getting Wanda to honor the offer. They could keep going back and forth: offer, honor, offer, honor....
*no I'm not
Ditto wrote:Weirdomancy affects unit attributes like flight, not foolamancy.
The going speculation was you can't cross zones until you touch the ground, so 'falling' into the ground zone and stopping before you touch the ground doesn't make sense. Once your foot is off the ground, you're in airspace. Reference the text update where Caesar took a city that was spelled up with Shockmancy. He said he would have been fried had he not fought the whole battle on foot and avoided using his flight.
What happens to riders of units on top of falling mounts, since they are not falling themselves technically (and don't have the flight special), is the open question we're all waiting and watching to learn about.
effataigus wrote:Also, people have said that they now understand why Jack didn't turn. What is that reason? He didn't want to be Jillian's third place lover? That would apply to the battle in the Narrows back in book 1, true, but it still seems like Jillian's third place would be better than nothing (which is what he had with GK back then). Perhaps now he admires Parson so much as to want to be with him, but, as has been said, that didn't apply back then.
I'm not convinced. To me these sound like porous rationalizations... which in turn sound like Jillian when she was under the influence of Wanda's scroll. I think Jack, for all of his ability to see through things, might be underestimating how strong of a hold the turnamancy GK (presumably) subjected him to has on him.
MarbitChow wrote:Why do you believe that ruining the neutrality of the Magic Kingdom isn't part of Janis' plan?
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.
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.
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.
build6 wrote:maybe part of the problem with "no Peace on Erf" is the Magic Kingdom
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
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
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.
BLANDCorporatio wrote: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?
BLANDCorporatio wrote:morally dubious.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:Second, law is convention, and vice-versa in many cases. Conventions are also not entirely arbitrary, they serve some purpose. In this case, that convention gives the MK its neutrality. By choosing to flaunt a convention of neutrality, Parson is doing a morally dubious act. What he is doing now is tantamount to breeching a treaty and more significantly, jeopardizing the neutrality (even existence?) of the Magic Kingdom.
effataigus wrote:To me, this is a very interesting moral dilemma. How much can be justified in the defense of loved ones? Does decryption negate responsibility for loss of life to any extent? Do units count as "people?" Parson suggested that they did for his purposes at one point in book one.
effataigus wrote:BLANDCorporatio wrote:morally dubious.
Well, that's not very bombastic.
effataigus wrote:EDIT ... though there is an interesting distinction that I just now picked up on. Parson has, to date, done all kinds of things that would be considered war-crimes on Earth, but are perfectly acceptable things to do in Erfworld. This is the first time he's violated the morals of Erfworld that I can think of.
Oh, I'm assuming Parley hijinx are totally Kosher because Charlie anticipated it, Bea also did it, and Jillian also did it (arguably twice).
... oh, and he swore.
Raza wrote:Not all conventions are useful. In fact, conventions on average score rather poorly in this regard.
He's also not breeching any treaties that he (or Stanley, afawk) signed or otherwise agreed to.
This convention may or may not also be local law, but that affects neither its usefulness nor Parsons agreement. It'd still be a unilateral declaration of questionable purpose.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:The convention he is breaking is what allows the MK, as a whole, to exist as a neutral zone for casters. It's useful, and presumably required of anyone who has a portal in their capital.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:Even if there's no piece of paper anywhere to explicitly say what Sizemore just said this update ("you can't send casters to a capital you don't control"), or even if there is such a piece of paper but it's not signed by Stanley/Parson, what Lord Hamster does is showing callous disregard for the MK's (a neutral faction's) right to its own governance.
EDITted for spelling.
BLANDCorporatio wrote:DoctorJest wrote:"Wolves are like dogs, but dogs are like dogs, so therefore: kittens".
DoctorJest, if I weren't referentially married to my sig I'd use that instead.
Well, the Maginot Line was also in a completely stupid place. I mean, what was the French government thinking? "The Germans broke through Belgium last time, so let's go build a fortification along the other border."atalex wrote:Not to compare Parson to Hitler, but when the Germans stormed through Belgium (which was technically neutral but had previously been allied with France) to get into France, everyone cried dirty pool then, but the alternative was for the Germans to needlessly crash against the Maginot Line just to respect the neutrality of the path of least resistance. In war, it is not necessarily immoral to decline to fight on the enemies terms.
atalex wrote:In short, if sending a single warlord through the MK to JS is immoral, how should we describe the Volcano Trap, in which Parson totally exterminated his own side as well as that of the enemy just to achieve a victory condition.
Blandco wrote: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.
Blandco wrote:A country is well whithin its rights to, for example, deny its airspace or waterways to military craft..
Blandco wrote: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?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests