Feyrauth wrote:Also, regarding the most powerful combat unit in Erfworld... Stanley is pretty awesome when he gets going. But most of it comes from his artifact. So if Jillian, or Cesar, or Ansom were to attune to an artifact... for that matter, if Ansom *had* attuned to the Arkenpliers, would he still count as an awesome combat unit?
I will posit the theory that no Jetstone unit who wasn't described as being a disaffected malcontent could have ever attuned to the 'pliers. Attunement has a meaning, after all. It describes a harmonious relationship. I sincerely doubt that Ansom or Ossomer or Tram or any other Jetstone unit we've been introduced to could have ever attuned to (formed a harmonious relationship with) an artifact which allowed them to create beings they view as being abominations, usurpers of the form and knowledge of their fallen friends, comrades, and relatives. Whereas Wanda's reaction when asked what the first decryption was replied "Something wonderful!" (or close enough, not looking it up) That is attunement!
oslecamo2_temp wrote:So Marie isn't any more evil than Parson "parleys are just another word for backstabbing, and I will rather have my troops kill themselves than ever admit surrender, twice so far actualy" Gotti, or Charlie "You didn't pay for magic protection, so I'll just sit here and watch you die", or Wanda "I'll reveal the location of my kingdom to the guy with the dwagon fleet and then murder my own liege when things go bad", or even Maggie "I will gladly direct the mental backslash to my allies to save my pale skin".
I have only one observation to make. I believe that you are judging Parson way too harshly. He and his side were outnumbered 25:1 by a coalition of other sides which had ganged up for the specific purpose of taking down an upstart non-royal who had gotten a little too big for their comfort level. They were not coming to offer terms, not as we understand them. They were coming to destroy the GK side. Even the hokey "Parson is allowed to surrender to Ansom" scene was just a bit of pomp and pageantry to give the royals a nice warm fuzzy before they did what they would have done: Killed every GK unit who wasn't worth turning, which typically means all of them save the casters.
Parson never, not once, allowed units to die rather than have them surrender to the enemy. The enemy doesn't take prisoners, doesn't have gulags or prisoner of war camps or even concentration camps. And I'd rather have a leader who let me die on my feet trying to survive or even just ensuring that some of my countrymen survived than one who allowed a meaningless surrender just to make the slaughter easier.
Housellama wrote:Wanda and Charlie fall into the category with Marie, definitely. But in the examples you chose, Parson and Maggie were acting in defense of their own survival, pure and simple. The drive for survival is the most basic motive for all life. What drives Marie is much less basic, and therefore not in the same category.
They weren't. Hamster has had multiple chances to surrender by now (Charlie was even willing to just drag him out of all that mess and be his advisor in a fortress city filled with hot chicks), but Parson always chooses victory by any means or die trying.
Just so I understand your position, you're saying that a Chief Warlord, the supreme military commander of a side, should desert in the face of the enemy and allow himself to be captured by a mercenary in the employ of that enemy, and that if he does not then he must therefore be a bloody minded bastard with the low morals to subscribe to the foolish and naive position of "Give me victory or give me death!" Is that an accurate summation of your philosophy?
oslecamo2_temp wrote:Hamster and Maggie also both aprove of Wanda butchering prisioners left, right and center and then turning them into fanatic dolls into a steamroll machine slaughtering everything on their path. They're her acomplices now and never raise a finger to even try to reign her back a bit. It was Stanley who had to give the order to spare Jack!
So, now you're just making shit up. First off, please provide a single reference which supports your claim that Parson (or Maggie, since you lumped her in there) approves or endorses the killing and decrypting of POWs. Second, Parson talked Stanley into making that decision you're crediting him with (and I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve credit for making the right decision, just that I'd have preferred that he said something like "I'd rather not see Jack, that guy who saved my bacon at the pass to FAQ, killed and decrypted just to save a healing scroll", instead of saying "I'm not sure I want Wanda to have a decrypted caster.") Parson also expressed disgust that Wanda even asked
if she could croak and decrypt Jack, which you managed to fail to mention.