View Full Version : Reasons for taking parson alive?

2009-02-09, 12:14 AM
What reasons do you think that Ansom has for insisting on taking "lord hamster" alive rather than croaking him?

Granted, its not a completely pointless idea; taking a chief warlord who might have information about your true target (stanley) is always useful; however, it just doesn't seem worth the payoff; afterall, they already had forces skirmish with stanley, and now have had confirmation of his intended target-- faq.

It would seem like Ansom has some ulterior motive currently; whether that be wishing to make absolutely SURE that it was someone else and not stanley outsmarting him or whatnot, there just seems like his statement about croaking "lord hamster" being grounds for forfeiting one's spoils means more than it seems.

2009-02-09, 12:21 AM
Everyone assumes that taking Parson alive was one of the conditions to which Ansom agreed in his amended contract with Charlie.

Alexei P
2009-02-09, 01:31 AM
When I first read the strip, I assumed it was the classic "killing him is a pleasure I reserve for myself" kinda thing.

Though an obligation to Charlie is perhaps more likely.

2009-02-09, 04:29 AM
Its part of the deal with Charlie. Charlie interfered for several reasons. Partly for the cash, or whatever the new non-Parson, non-mathemancy artefact terms of the deal are. Partly because this way he guarantees that he gets Parson and his toy, whereas before, if Parson came up with a plan to hold Charlie off for a turn, he might not get him, and not knowing the full details of the defense etc Parson still had a 40% chance of falling before Charlie even got his chance to attack alone anyway. And partly so this way the coalition is losing troops in the assault and not him, especially important against a commander who has proven to have lots of tricks up his sleeve and who might therefor be able to cause grevious casualties to the attackers. And this way it weakens both sides, and forces Parson to reveal more (all?) of his tricks, while still keeping the option of attacking alone later open.

2009-02-10, 03:42 AM
What did anyone find this "unexpected?" I hate to say so, but I pretty much called it months ago
Captured units are, presumably, considered among the "spoils of war" and Ansom has already announced that once Jillian, Vinny et al complete their mission they are to "return to GK to divide the spoils. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0103.html)" All Charlie has to do is claim the future services and equipment of GK's casters and Chief Warlord as part of his spoils when he takes Don King's contract. The need for loyalty spells not withstanding, it would be a very mercenary thing to do, and none of the coalition really know how valuable those services could be in Parson's case so they're not likely to object. For Charlie it's a win-win - he gets what he wants, and gets paid to take it.

He ended up not taking the Don's contract in favor of going directly for GK himself, perhaps because such a condition was beyond what the Don could agree to without Ansom's say-so, and one he guessed Ansom would consider "outragous" until his back was firmly against the wall. But still the only thing that surprises me is that Parson didn't foresee it. Presumably then the reason that "if anyone croaks him, they forfeit their spoils" is because in that case, Ansom will need them all to pay off Charlie instead.