You know, Kragar, as I remember, done TOLE Vlad why he was a Jhereg, not a Dragon, and it didn't involve a single instance of the word "perhaps". At 04:14 AM 12/21/2005, Davdi Silverrock wrote: >On 12/19/05, K Kuhn <kknolte at ecity.net> wrote: > > Davdi Silverrock wrote: > > > > > > > I am inclined to doubt that there are such examples. If someone is a > > > full member of the House, then their genes should indicate that, and > > > they ought not be expelled - if their behavior violates civil norms, > > > then there ought to be civil punishments. It's hard to imagine > > > behavior that violates House norms, yet not civil norms. Which is why > > > Kragar being a crossbreed (or something else that doesn't fit into > > > House genetic norms) is far more likely than him "merely" giving > > > commands that no-one listened to (which isn't even incompetence, per > > > se). > > > > IIRC, when Vlad was killed in Yendi, he ended up giving a temporarily > > fatal lesson to one of his henchmen when he came back to the office, > > apparently because Kragar had let standards slip so badly while Vlad was > > dead but getting better that said henchman made a really obviously > > stupid mistake. That kind of "poor order giving", ie, a command ability > > to ruin his subordinate's knowledge of what the heck they're doing in > > only a few days is not good, from a military perspective, although > > possibly not from a civil one. > > > > Ie, it doesn't matter that Kragar is apparently a very good at making > > his boss look good (even to the point of disobeying in order to save > > said boss's ass - see the restaurant scene where Vlad would have been > > assassinated if Kragar hadn't disobeyed), since in a military situation, > > if the boss gets killed in battle the next guy in rank has to take over, > > with rather bad results if he can't do the job. Civil situations it > > doesn't matter quite so much. So maybe Kragar is full Dragon, but so > > dangerous to a primarily military house like the Dragons (given that > > he's good enough at getting things done to be promoted, but absolutely > > horrible at being in charge), that he'd get kicked out? > >I understand the point you're making, but I still see problems with >it. Consider: promotions are gradual. Putting Kragar in charge of a >military group large enough to make a difference in a battle, while at >the same time being aware of his... peculiar unnoticibility, means >that whoever was in charge of field assignments was the one who made >the mistake, not Kragar himself. Also, consider this: Before a group >goes into battle, they train and practice maneuvers. Again, ample >opportunity to note that Kragar's group is Not Doing Well because his >subordinates aren't paying attention to him. > > > This assumes that the thing about Dragons wanting recognition for their > > ability (by being promoted to leading as many as they prove worthy of), > > is a strong trait, so that keeping a Dragon around to be useful, but > > carefully unpromoted to keep him out of the chain of command, leads to a > > very unhappy Dragon and a really nasty revenge on the ones who got > > promoted over him without being better at the job. > >Again, we've seen Dragons who were not in fact ambitious for higher >command, so I see problems with that. > > > Alternatively, if Kragar's possible ability to ruin an army's > > professionalism while in command led to a particularly humiliating and > > multiply-fatal-to-favorite-scions-of-important-families defeat, internal > > politics could lead to getting kicked out too. > > > >Well... > >Actually, I did just now think of another scenario. Let's say that >Kragar was at a rank that he was comfortable with, as an aide to some >real officer, which put him in the chain of command, but no real >prospects for advancement, nor really wanting any. And perhaps this >officer *used* Kragar (and his extreme sneakitude) in ways that >Dragons would frown upon - that is, in sabotaging *fellow* officers, >perhaps by intercepting intelligence and presenting it as being his >(or her, Dragaerans being equal-opportunity) own, or messing with them >in other petty ways to gya's own advancement, all-in-all being conduct >unbecoming to an officer. And perhaps this officer gets gyaself >killed in battle, so Kragar's problems with being in command are >brought to the fore as he has to handle things himself. Hmm. We >might even posit that the officer was discovered, and the sabotage >*was* considered as being over the line of treason, and the officer >was executed. > >So, ordinarily, just being "not-listenable" wouldn't have gotten >Kragar kicked out, but combine that with his role in the sabotage >being discovered... Perhaps Kragar was only spared death since he was >obeying orders, but "should have known" that he should not have obeyed >such orders. > >Perhaps there actually is some sort of clause or basis for ejection >from the House for conduct unbecoming to a Dragon. > >Hmm. Maybe. Although that doesn't explain the sneakitude itself. >Unless... Unless perhaps the officer posited was responsible for that >as well - perhaps a sorcerer or psychic specializing in creating >stealth illusions? And that explains Kragar's friendship with Daymar; >no one was able to figure out how to undo the "stealth mode" besides >the original officer, and Kragar became more and more desperate to >find someone or something that would undo it (and obviously, failing, >even with Daymar)? > >Shrug. Perhaps I ought to add that to Speculation:Kragar as well... -- Regards, Pete pgranzeau at cox.net