Remove ads

Marked for Death: A Rational Naruto Quest

Reader mode
Spector29 said:
That was roughly the point I was getting at.

I might be mixing up my fanon and canon, but my brain is telling me that the Third is historically the most lax of the Hokage when it comes to who marries who. That's not to negate your third point, mostly just to set a framework for the discussion. As far as the political consequences go, I think Jiraya of all people is best equipped to handle that, plus considering Leaf isn't allied with Mist in any significant way I don't think bringing in a few Mist defectors will spark the flames of conflict.


That's what I was wondering about. If we passed the Invasion entirely then it means one of two things;

Leaf doesn't currently have a huge portion of it's infrastructure destroyed, and thus can spend some idle processing time allowing Jiraya's theoretical clan formation,
and/or
Leaf is about to get invaded, because otherwise it will be going to war with Cloud soon. IIRC, the only reason canon Leaf didn't go to war with Cloud is because when they got invaded, Cloud became the strongest Hidden Village and calmed down enough to stop poking at Leaf.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No comment on anything else because IC you have no idea, but I just have to leap in here and ask how on earth anyone would know the Third's canon feelings on who marries whom? He dies while the viewpoint character is 12 and doesn't care, and not one marriage is so much as proposed in canon until long after he's dead.

Radvic said:
then again... does having a relationship get us XP? If so I might become the hardest polyshipper to ever poly a ship.

Edit:
"What's that? You spent years focusing on training only Taijutsu in an academy where that's all you did all day every day? Well... EVERY NINJA IN KONOHA IS IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH ME."
*enemy flees in terror*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Setting yourself meaningful challenges and then accomplishing them in an intelligent manner gets you XP. So yes. Yes, that would work.

Actually, it would be pretty effective. Somebody in a relationship with every ninja in Leaf would have access to a ridiculous number of secret ninjutsu and the like, plus they'd have to have the Diplomacy and Deception of a god.

eaglejarl said:
We typically aren't that subtle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except when we are. C'mon, @eaglejarl, quit ratcheting down the paranoia counter.
 
[X] Action Plan: Steal This Plan
[X] Ino Response Plan: Outsider's Perspective
[X] Action Subplan: Akane: Growing Strong
[X] Action Subplan: Library of Knowing Unknowns
[X] Training Hazou: Sneaky Earth
[X] Training Noburi: Sneaky Medic
[X] Training Keiko: Sneaky Wind
 
@OliWhail, I went with "It's Complicated" because I felt that just mentioning the ways that ninja can easily help civilians would be enough to subtly plant uplift seeds. As the relationship, or whatever you want to call this, progresses we can be a bit more direct about fighting the system.
 
OliWhail said:
...I thought he was just referencing the Youthsuit vote
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He was, but calling it "The Event" gave me an excuse to link the thing he might also be referencing.

Edit: Just to be be clear, the notion of calling the vague-horrible-badness-in-the-past-that-we-never-speak-of "The Event" became a thing with the set of sketches I linked. It doesn't hurt that the sketches are funny.
 
Last edited:
And here I was hoping that we'd get "suit" as a suffix for things we screwed up. Like, if we really mess up building a merchant empire, we might call it businesssuit.
 
Just FYI, I have a draft for the next plan that is equal or greater to this one in length. It involves the balance of power suddenly crumbling, resulting in you being caught in the middle of a new world war, and reads "Rock's fall. Everybody dies."
 
Before calm before the update, I'd like to talk about subplan syntax. In the spirit of being wrong in concrete ways so we have something to criticize/improve:

Action Subplan::[term(s)]: Name

For instance: "Action Subplan::Akane: Growing Strong" or "Action Subplan::Akane, Ino: Poly a Ship"

I feel this is an improvement over existing syntax because:
  1. It allows for one action subplan to address multiple issues
  2. It eases colon proliferation
 
Velorien said:
the balance of power suddenly crumbling, resulting in you being caught in the middle of a new world war, and reads "Rock's fall. Everybody dies."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gosh, I never knew that the political situation in Village Hidden in the Rock was so tenuous or that it was so integral to the balance of power. Thread, we must leave Konoha as soon as polite to stabilize it. Prepare yourselves: such a complex problem will inevitably require action plans with subplans several levels deep, the likes of which we've never seen before.
 
bayesclef said:
Gosh, I never knew that the political situation in Village Hidden in the Rock was so tenuous or that it was so integral to the balance of power. Thread, we must leave Konoha as soon as polite to stabilize it. Prepare yourselves: such a complex problem will inevitably require action plans with subplans several levels deep, the likes of which we've never seen before.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am almost tempted to endorse this just to see Team Uplift attempt to stabilise a situation.
 
Last edited:
bayesclef said:
Before calm before the update, I'd like to talk about subplan syntax. In the spirit of being wrong in concrete ways so we have something to criticize/improve:

Action Subplan::[term(s)]: Name

For instance: "Action Subplan::Akane: Growing Strong" or "Action Subplan::Akane, Ino: Poly a Ship"

I feel this is an improvement over existing syntax because:
  1. It allows for one action subplan to address multiple issues
  2. It eases colon proliferation
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I like that it allows for one plan to address multiple sub-issues. I think it would be more elegant to use something besides a double-colon, though; maybe a dash ("Action Subplan - Akane: X") or parenthesis ("Action Subplan (Akane): X").

Alternatively, there's "Akane Plan: X" which is less of a mouthful. A little less elegant to combine plans, but it could be like "Akane & Ino Plan: X"?
 
Langevin said:
I like that it allows for one plan to address multiple sub-issues. I think it would be more elegant to use something besides a double-colon, though; maybe a dash ("Action Subplan - Akane: X") or parenthesis ("Action Subplan (Akane): X").
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I like the parentheses:
  • Action Subplan (Akane): Growing Strong
  • Action Subplan (Akane, Ino): Poly a Ship
Langevin said:
maybe a dash ("Action Subplan - Akane: X")
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I once thought as you did. Then I found myself working with a pedant as a beta, and I shall now attempt to infect you as I was infected.

"-" is not a dash. It is a hyphen. "Dash" refers to the en dash ("–") or the em dash ("—"), thus named because they were the lengths of an "n" and "m", respectively.

-
–
—

(Right now, I'm picturing an em dash saying, in Treebeard's voice, "Hyphen? I am no hyphen! I... am an em dash.")

These marks all have different uses, although not everyone uses the same way, since ISO hasn't gotten around to standardizing the English language yet. I will direct the interested reader to Ezn's coverage for details.
 
Last edited:
bayesclef said:
I like the parentheses:
  • Action Subplan (Akane): Growing Strong
  • Action Subplan (Akane, Ino): Poly a Ship
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm. How to avoid issues where e.g. "Action Subplan (Akane)..." wins over "Action Subplan (Akane, Ino)..." which in turn wins over "Action Subplan (Ino)...", leading to contradictory input for the QMs?

Perhaps making subplans only deal with a single subject, and then have "Action Subplan (Akane): Poly a Ship" say to go follow "Action Subplan (Ino): Poly a Ship"?
 
OliWhail said:
Hmm. How to avoid issues where e.g. "Action Subplan (Akane)..." wins over "Action Subplan (Akane, Ino)..." which in turn wins over "Action Subplan (Ino)...", leading to contradictory input for the QMs?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In situations like this, I think it would make sense for subplans that cross over each other to be merged into a single category eg. "Action Subplan (Shipping)...".
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top