Nope and nope. First off, nice segue from "convention" to "law." A convention is an agreement, a law is something completely different. If you must change the meaning of the phrase under discussion in order to try to make your point, you've already lost. Secondly, Sizemore specified exactly what the convention was, and it wasn't "no hostile troops can be sent via portals." So there you're just making stuff up and calling it reinforcement for your position.BLANDCorporatio wrote:It's not a law, so Parson's not breaking anythingOberon 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.
Sizemore first says that "you don't attack through portals." He constantly corrects his use of the word "can't" to "don't", because Parson called him out on the difference between the two words. Chastised, Sizemore then used more precise language to define the convention:
Sizemore wrote:You don't send a caster from the Magic Kingdom to enter a city you don't control!
Plenty enough to work with here.
Parson isn't a "caster from the Magic Kingdom";
Parson isn't "sending a caster from the Magic Kingdom" to do anything, he is going himself;
Even if Sizemore and Maggie came with him, Parson is still not sending casters from the MK to attack through a portal, as neither Sizemore nor Maggie are "from the MK."
Here is the full force of the convention, as far as can be determined from the text so far: There is some form of agreement that a Side not hire a caster from the MK and then send it to attack another Side through that Side's portal. That's it. Nothing is said and no agreement exists about "hostile troops." Why would the participants in the convention even conceive to express this, when it is known to them all that no hostile troops can enter the MK and live?
Hell, Parson isn't even violating the convention, unless it has a scope well above that which has been described.
You are welcome to hold that opinion. I choose to hold the opinion that Parson's moral justification for ignoring a convention which does not even apply to him is the saving of the GK expeditionary force at Jetstone. I further believe that were Parson to not act as he must to rescue them, that lack of action would be both morally unjustifiable and, as Parson himself described it "a fail."BLANDCorporatio 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.