I don't get how some people are arguing that option 3 doesn't lead to inevitable violence. Its been established in text that they're planning to spring the trap on us. They gave no thought to diplomacy or cooperation. Their minds immediately went to attacking us. This is what their planning to do right now and while option 3 does have benefits, its still leading to an inevitable fight. Thats because its not addressing their true intentions. People keep saying otherwise but I really don't see it that way at all.
The point in my case is "I don't want them to feel like they're not in control until the last minute, because a spiteful bunch of spiders can do a lot to make the job pointless if you come at them head on"
If we put Xia Lin in charge, I'd be all for this. We didn't, we decided to be Ling Qi.
So why aren't we playing to her strengths?, instead just
seizing on this crazy idea that "The only option that doesn't provoke a fight is the one where we go full gunboat diplomacy and leverage our power!"
Why are we suddenly pivoting from Ling Qi's strengths into areas where she is--at best--ordinary because of imagined ideas of 'THIS IS THE MOST PEACEFUL OUTCOME!'
Are we claiming all of a sudden that only direct, naked force can avoid a battle?
Even if we do avoid the battle, does that make this trip
profitable for us? Do we or our company gain from scaring them into submission?
What happens when the spiders lose control of the situation, and what can that cost us?"
Because the thing about being trappers is
that you need bait, and that bait needs to be something valuable or your prey won't come close.
Straight up going "I am strong and I'll take what I want" means that you've put them in a position of weakness, which means
they are now trying to trick
you into going away without taking anything they actually care about. Which means
this entire trip was a waste of time unless we pivot to violence.
In which case,
what makes option two that much better than three?
The key rule to running a heist is to
ensure that your foe feels in control of the situation until you're ready to make your move. Because once they feel like they are
not in control, they start moving to secure valuables and divert you away from things they care about. "I can't beat you, but I can secure my treasures" and all that.
So yeah, that's why I want number three. Because it doesn't telegraph our intentions to come in and take things from them before we're actually in a position to secure anything. Option three? If it doesn't come to violence
everything still goes perfectly well, it doesn't commit to attacking preemptively at all. Option two begins with a threat display to 'Scare' them into behaving. But unless we plan to sit on them, that fear only lasts until we leave, so we can't secure any long term arrangements, because fear requires constant reinforcement to remain effective.
Or unless we plan to kill them, in which case
why is this better than option three, which seeks to turnaround an ambush?