What I told you, or tried to anyways, is that your self-evident distrust of Conrad is an axiomatic failure on your part that leads to invalid inferences.
Conrad was raised into his role, was and is employed by his brother for years meaning his chances to become the ruler are at its greatest right before Elis' marriage, he berates himself for not being there to help in the aftermath of getting imprisoned by Cass and now that Elis has an heir his chances have drastically diminished.
The fact that he hasn't tried already is the ultimate indictment, because his best chances were before Regis had an heir and before Elis had an heir. From here on out it's an incredibly uphill battle for him.
Any of these points would individually be a valid critique to any accusations of his own intent to seize the throne.
So please, give me one citation, anything at all that actually incriminates the man other than your feelings and perceptions.
And please stop misusing words like mathematical and logic. Engaging with the subject matter provides a more robust standing for arguments.
Wow!
I'm genuinely surprised.
I have a feeling you didn't just misunderstand me, you made a conscious effort to misunderstand me.
Well, let me repeat myself so you understand.
I'm not saying that Conrad is
necessarily a traitor and wants to overthrow the protagonist.
I'm saying that if Conrad finds evidence of Alaina's crimes, he'll be
in a position to overthrow the protagonist.
Is there a difference?
What's so hard to understand?
That's why I kill him with the goblet, cutting off that possibility.
I don't understand why you're indulging him at all. The situation is idiotic. Conrad says he's looking for evidence of Alaina's crimes, but apparently you're not bothered by the fact that the result of those crimes is the protagonist's power? That he will have information that is harmful to the protagonist?
So where is the single reason to allow him to continue doing what he's doing? Why?
You also say that "your self-evident distrust of Conrad is an axiomatic failure on your part that leads to invalid inferences."
But you yourself provide no evidence of his loyalty other than the vague "he was raised for the role."
You say "as his characterization currently stands".
And what, as you say, can you see into his head?
You were shown his decent side, and you believed it like a simpleton.
You accuse me so much of "self-evident distrust" Konrad, even though you don't notice that you self-evident trust him yourself.
So tell me now, how wise are you to make such a choice?
I crush Conrad's skull with the goblet.
In the worst-case scenario for the protagonist, I am losing a loyal subordinate..
In the best-case scenario for the protagonist, I prevent the coup.
The risks and benefits are not commensurate.
So how wise are you to leave him alive?
If my position regarding Conrad is still unclear, then nothing can be done.
I won't repeat myself a third time.
Because if so, succession would have put him on the throne regardless unless he's been disinherited by gramps, meaning Elis would be legitimate by proxy.
No. He's not legitimate. Because the protagonist's very rule is the result of Alaina's crimes, the result of an elven conspiracy.
Therefore, if Konrad finds evidence, the protagonist will be dethroned, because the people won't like the elven conspiracy.
The logical conclusion to draw from that is actually to execute Alaina so Conrad cannot gain proof through her negligence. Because a secret is only ever something approaching safe when there is only one person that knows about it: you.
Applause! You finally said something intelligent!
Exactly! This information should only be known to the protagonist(or at most to blood relatives). So the ideal would be to get rid of both.
But why, even in this scenario, are you only suggesting killing Alaina? Why aren't you suggesting killing Conrad? Are you gay?
Although I can act as Alaina's lawyer.
Alaina is the main beneficiary of the protagonist's rule.
No one has done more for the protagonist than Alaina.
The protagonist sits on the throne because of Alaina.
The protagonist exists because of Alaina.
Her abilities are impressive; she deceived an entire nation. She murdered a crowd of people. She manipulated liars, traitors, and murderers. And she succeeded.
I would prefer to preserve her and further utilize her extraordinary abilities as a CIA super-agent.
She is a duck that lays golden eggs. There is little danger from her, because the protagonist himself is her main project, into which she has invested an enormous amount of resources, effort, time and work.
