Oberon wrote:You must have missed my prior post, where I provided three solid pieces of evidence supporting Parson not being a caster
Your points were not solid in the least.
Well,sure they were. You can choose not to believe them, but denying that they are solid even if not conclusive evidence is just choosing to believe what you want to believe and disregarding the rest.
Lamech wrote:Your first point was the stupid meal called all of GK's casters, casters, and since Parson was not called a caster he is not a caster. But one could use the same logic to claim that Parson is not a heavy since the stupid meal called out heavies as heavies. But Parson IS a heavy. So that point is invalid.
Where is the evidence that Parson is a heavy? He is huge, sure. But he isn't listed as being a heavy. A dwagon could not fly with him mounted, but the heavy special may not be the only reason this could be so. I'm not going to say that he isn't a heavy, because just looking at him at twice the size of "human" Erfworld folk gives a strong impression. I'm just saying that lack of a listed heavy special if he is indeed a heavy isn't evidence for an unlisted caster special meaning that he is also a caster. He also doesn't have the "flying" special, and he can't fly, after all. (Yet, at least...)
Lamech wrote:Your second second point, Parson does not cast spells is also invalid. Casting spells clearly requires some sort of knowledge. Sizemore was taking a class on it.
See, now. Here you're just making crap up. First of all, there's nothing that "clearly" or otherwise supports that a caster must study in their core magic category. Nothing at all. Wanda popped as a croakamancer and was popped knowing how to be a croakamancer without having to go to school first. This is how Erfworld works, fer crying out loud... No childhood, no having to be taught by a parent, no schoolwork. You're popped knowing how to do and be what you were popped as. So if Parson is a hippymancer he is the sole exception to this rule.
Sizemore was being taught hippimancy, agreed. But in the following comic we have Sizemore stating that despite his interest and pursuit, he sucks at anything outside his core magic, while Wanda says that she is just the opposite: She isn't interested in magic outside her core at all, but is still good at many of them. Now, you could claim that Wanda not caring at all about them doesn't mean that she hasn't studied them, but this seems a huge stretch. It does not fit her stated disinterest or her personality. Go ahead, try to make Wanda do something she has no interest in doing! You'll rapidly find that she becomes all spooky and hot and OBEY ME!
And yeah, Parson has had to learn all kinds of things. One of those things was not
how to be a warlord. He had to learn the rules, and he had to learn all of the things that would come with any other magical transportation into a strange land: He had to learn the personal political implications of the ruler and his top advisers, he had to learn who the real political players were outside his own new host country, who they were, what their motivations were, and how he could attempt to play them. And he had to learn to walk stairs and be responsible for sending people to their deaths and how to work the actual presence of real magic into his strategy and tactics.
But he didn't have to learn how to give a unit an order, or even how to give effective orders. The same should hold true if he is somehow a caster, as there is a precedent already in place for unit type skills being importable from Stupid world.
Lamech wrote:Your third point is that there are no warlord/casters. So Parson can't be a warlord caster. But there are no non-caster/portal-users. Then using your same logic I could claim, Parson can not be a non-caster/portal-user. And since he is a portal user he must be a caster. Which once again means your logic is invalid.
I acknowledged the puzzle. I admit the ambiguity. You seem to be the only one here who is insisting that your decision that Parson must be a caster should be accepted despite all the solid evidence against it. I find it unconvincing that Parson is a caster. I may be proven wrong.
fractal wrote:I don't think Parson is a caster. No, nothing in the events of the story indicate that he is not (although nothing really says that he is, either). However, Parson is supposed to be a human, from Earth. Humans from Earth can't cast spells. In my opinion, it is much better for the story if Parson solves his problems using his normal human capabilities: brilliant strategy and a clumsy, overweight body. Those are also reasonable warlord attributes. If he's just going to win out using magic, then why not summon the "Perfect Caster" from some other world?
I might not be terribly interested in a narrative about the perfect warlord who also "just happens" to be a powerful caster. That sort of writing is Eragon level... I'd accept some kind of involvement in spell casting, along the lines of the spell he ordered the tri-mancer link to cast at the end of TBfGK. If Parson attunes to a 'tool, I'd accept his inclusion in a casting link as a tool wielder, but not as a caster unit. I find the Chekhov's gun of 4 known 'tools and a quad-mancer link being impossible to be strong signamancy, if also being strong (tin foil)hatamancy.
Jinren wrote:(yeah I know [Janis] only called [Parson] a Hippiemancer on-screen after he went through, but wasn't she also involved in making the original summon spell? She would have had other opportunities to name him a Hippiemancer before that point).
She wasn't involved in the making of it, if we can believe either of the two different lists of magician types involved. Those were: Findamancy/Predictamancy later described as Findamancy/Lookamancy.