No worries, if we always replied point for point, we’d each end up with a lengthy research paper by the end of the week.
True, the Intendant in question could very well have ulterior motives and just be attempting to undermine House Cazarosta. I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was just Cata tossing it out there just for suspicion’s sake. Like most policemen, though the comparison is a bit wonky, I would try to at least give the benefit of the doubt. The report seemed to me more of a detective that can feel a major break in the case is just outside of his grasp, but it’s being killed/stymied by his bosses.
Again, fair that most characters wouldn’t want or have a friendly relationship with an MC that disagrees with them multiple times (You can agree with her on Cassius remaining behind for instance). The difference is that when an MC takes a very popular position and ignores advice from a source that, while very skilled in her own fields, knows very little of the science of war, Katarina takes it as a personal affront, though some part of her reactions may be a result of having numbers represent complex human relationships, but that’s more of a game limitation than anything else.
I’d compare it to getting medical advice from someone with a PHD in Mathematics when you yourself are an EMT. The PHD may be very intelligent, even more than yourself, but they likely lack a lot more applicable knowledge when it comes to the situation at hand. They give you advice that, while maybe not incorrect, does not actually solve the problem, and you treat it as such and act in a different manner. Now the bad relationship that occurs as a result, is the EMT at fault for ignoring bad or misguided advice, or is it the PHD for giving advice unprompted on a situation they are unfamiliar with? I don’t see why an expert in a given field should bend over to accommodate the feelings of an amateur that keeps disagreeing with them.
Essentially, yes. Let’s say someone says that there is never a situation you should harm someone else, no matter the circumstances. Fast forward to an attempted home invasion where said individual panics and subdues the intruder using force. They may continue to preach pacifist philosophies, but their character is still that of one who is OK with violence when circumstances may demand it. Yet, once you do it one time, it becomes easier to do it the next and so on and so on. If something is able to become rationalized as a successful thing in a person’s mind, such as assassination, the stakes to utilize it will inevitably lower over time. We killed Princess Anna because she and Khorobirit were a threat to Tierra. At what point does Tierra begin to jump to assassinations, murder, and other war crimes to defend itself and justifies it by saying all the victims were “threats to Tierra”?
It’s also the reason that I am very unforgiving towards a lot of NFL players that get into trouble with the law. A good amount of the time they were intoxicated and say, “That wasn’t really who I am”. Yes, it was. You may not always act according to your true character, but should you be inebriated, panicking, or acting on adrenaline, and attack someone, that’s who you really are as a person. I’d say the choice with Strellyk and Aleksandra are two such moments in GoI.
That would be a good comparison if the political opponent was more along the lines of “I think tariffs on Callindrian steel imports should be a bit lower to spark some economic growth”. The picture of politics that seem to await us in LoI is far from sedate. A wildly successful political opponent in LoI will not just be a momentary annoyance, they could completely alter the RTA for the foreseeable future and probably impact Tierran politics for at least a few generations. At what point does dealing with that political opponent morph from “Minimize his impact”, to “Remove him from the board entirely” with such stakes in play? If everything was hunky dory in Tierra I wouldn’t worry as much about extremely ruthless and amoral enemies, but it isn’t and I do.