Book 3 - Page 183

Game OИ

Book 3 - Page 183
Comic - Book 3 - Page 183
Recent posts... (See full thread)
BanzaiJoe wrote:
As a parent, I can see that. The idea that our loved one or fan favorite might make dumb move is painful. Additionally painful is the idea that they have been corrupted. I think the nuanced difference between that and what I've read is the willingness to disbelieve where Parson is at and/or bail on him if he does go ahead with this bad plan.

What exactly is a "perfect" warlord? I don't mean that in a glib way. How exactly is Parson supposed to bring peace to a constant world of war? Parson cares, we care, and it hurts. It can get uncomfortable. Denying it or bailing are certainly understandable reactions, just not ones I think that will provide relief.

On your first paragraph, we are agreed. The bailing out thing I don't really get.

On the second part, my personal definition follows.
On matters directly related to being a warlord (tactics, strategy, etc), Parson is "perfect." In his duties as a warlord, he is unlikely to make very stupid decisions, unlikely to miss key details unless they are obscure, unlikely to ignore assets, advantages, and possibilities, unlikely to be fooled by lesser warlords' tactics, likely to think of plans others won't, likely to succeed against staggering odds, likely to be too smart for his own side at times, likely to do things others think is impossible, and likely to die during the course of his duties.

The "kill TV" plan seems to violate the "unlikely to make very stupid decisions" part of my definition. Being emotional and mentally messed up both come with being a soldier, especially a general. General != erfworld warlord, but it is close enough in this regard. An inability to operate under duress, or the inability to operate when your friends, allies, sons and daughters, and/or loved ones are at risk/wounded/hurting would, to me, make Parson not a perfect warlord.
Taejang wrote:
BanzaiJoe wrote:

What exactly is a "perfect" warlord? I don't mean that in a glib way. How exactly is Parson supposed to bring peace to a constant world of war? Parson cares, we care, and it hurts. It can get uncomfortable. Denying it or bailing are certainly understandable reactions, just not ones I think that will provide relief.


On the second part, my personal definition follows.
On matters directly related to being a warlord (tactics, strategy, etc), Parson is "perfect." In his duties as a warlord, he is unlikely to make very stupid decisions, unlikely to miss key details unless they are obscure, unlikely to ignore assets, advantages, and possibilities, unlikely to be fooled by lesser warlords' tactics, likely to think of plans others won't, likely to succeed against staggering odds, likely to be too smart for his own side at times, likely to do things others think is impossible, and likely to die during the course of his duties.

The "kill TV" plan seems to violate the "unlikely to make very stupid decisions" part of my definition. Being emotional and mentally messed up both come with being a soldier, especially a general. General != erfworld warlord, but it is close enough in this regard. An inability to operate under duress, or the inability to operate when your friends, allies, sons and daughters, and/or loved ones are at risk/wounded/hurting would, to me, make Parson not a perfect warlord.


How about this...Parson is NOT actually the perfect warlord. The Summon spell was cast by a novice Findamancer, at best (Since Stanley made Wanda cast it). Parson met all of the basic requirements, but he needed boosts from his Stupid Meals to makeup the differences (the bracer, ruthlessness sword, etc). He was never really "perfect", he was just made to approximate a perfect warlord the best that he can.

A "Perfect" warlord would make flawless decisions, grant massive bonuses to units under its' command, would be undefeatable in battle, or whatever. Parson is faking it, as best as is possible, given the talents and resources he has available. Something Parson does may not seem to fit with the "perfect" warlord thing, but does fit with a less-restrictive "good-enough warlord" thing.
Lawence of Awabia wrote:

A "Perfect" warlord would make flawless decisions, grant massive bonuses to units under its' command, would be undefeatable in battle, or whatever.

Depending on how you define perfect, maybe not undefeatable, but yeah, I otherwise agree. Parson was never a perfect warlord. The spell said as much that it was goofed. And ever since the volcano, half of his decisions have been completely irrational.
Squishalot wrote:
Lipkin wrote:
3. Jed very likely knows who Vanna is. Remember that Vanna cast Kingworld upon the tower that would soon become Jed. if Jed knew about Juggle elves, I daresay he'll know about someone that literally stood on top of him.

I couldn't find anything in the thread in the following pages but I haven't checked the rest so I apologise if this has been addressed already. Kingworld was cast upon the old tower of Spacerock. That tower came crashing down when it was destroyed in the Battle for Spacerock.


Keep in mind, there is a significant difference between the Tower and the Stuff that built the building that is shaped like a tower. Yes, the building fell. But, the Tower space remained.

It goes back to what Sizemore was trying to explain to Parson when Parson wanted to turn the Tower into a golem. The Tower isn't just a collection of Stuff in the shape of a tall building. It's the core of the city (or at least part of it.) And, Jed is that Tower...the same Tower that has always been the core of the city, whether that city was Level 5, Level 1, or just a potential capital site. Regardless of who own it or how it's shaped, that Tower has always been the same Tower. It wasn't rebuilt after the Battle for Spacerock; it was restored.
Lawence of Awabia wrote:
A "Perfect" warlord would make flawless decisions, grant massive bonuses to units under its' command, would be undefeatable in battle, or whatever. Parson is faking it, as best as is possible, given the talents and resources he has available. Something Parson does may not seem to fit with the "perfect" warlord thing, but does fit with a less-restrictive "good-enough warlord" thing.


I cannot disagree strongly enough. Like Parson explained in Book 1: Perfect strategy/tactics does not mean unfailing or undefeatable strategy/tactics.
Lawence of Awabia wrote:
Taejang wrote:
BanzaiJoe wrote:

What exactly is a "perfect" warlord? I don't mean that in a glib way. How exactly is Parson supposed to bring peace to a constant world of war? Parson cares, we care, and it hurts. It can get uncomfortable. Denying it or bailing are certainly understandable reactions, just not ones I think that will provide relief.


On the second part, my personal definition follows.
On matters directly related to being a warlord (tactics, strategy, etc), Parson is "perfect." In his duties as a warlord, he is unlikely to make very stupid decisions, unlikely to miss key details unless they are obscure, unlikely to ignore assets, advantages, and possibilities, unlikely to be fooled by lesser warlords' tactics, likely to think of plans others won't, likely to succeed against staggering odds, likely to be too smart for his own side at times, likely to do things others think is impossible, and likely to die during the course of his duties.

The "kill TV" plan seems to violate the "unlikely to make very stupid decisions" part of my definition. Being emotional and mentally messed up both come with being a soldier, especially a general. General != erfworld warlord, but it is close enough in this regard. An inability to operate under duress, or the inability to operate when your friends, allies, sons and daughters, and/or loved ones are at risk/wounded/hurting would, to me, make Parson not a perfect warlord.


How about this...Parson is NOT actually the perfect warlord. The Summon spell was cast by a novice Findamancer, at best (Since Stanley made Wanda cast it). Parson met all of the basic requirements, but he needed boosts from his Stupid Meals to makeup the differences (the bracer, ruthlessness sword, etc). He was never really "perfect", he was just made to approximate a perfect warlord the best that he can.

A "Perfect" warlord would make flawless decisions, grant massive bonuses to units under its' command, would be undefeatable in battle, or whatever. Parson is faking it, as best as is possible, given the talents and resources he has available. Something Parson does may not seem to fit with the "perfect" warlord thing, but does fit with a less-restrictive "good-enough warlord" thing.


So you're going with kind of a "Klaatu Barada Necktie..." line of thinking. I like the whole idea of "gets done what really needs to get done".

I was also thinking of another possibility. What if he was perfect i.e. he pulled out the win at GK. Since then he has been affected by his relationships and interactions with Erf. This still fits with the "good enough" warlord too.
How about the original spell was NOT "Summon perfect warlord".

It was marketed as that, but was actually "Summon instrument of Fate and the GM's."

... "Instrument of 'Fate and the GM's' " ... sounds like a rockband's instrument.
Yes well, Parson did explain that "perfect strategy" doesn't exist and that it's a naive expectation anyway. Do we really need a discussion about hyperbole? Nobody really expects infallibility but people do expect extraordinary things from Parson. And the feats attributed to him in the rumor mill do sound ridiculous in passing. (Blows up mountains, walks through portals and conquered Spacerock off turn.)
I get it! Why Maggie didn't simply lie. It's not enough that Parson not destroy Transylvito. He has to CHOOSE to not do it.
FrankHarr wrote:
I get it! Why Maggie didn't simply lie. It's not enough that Parson not destroy Transylvito. He has to CHOOSE to not do it.

Well, okay. Sure. But also, the first few lines of the newest comic also say that if she had lied it would have been evidence the golem wasn't really her.