Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,429
How is it short-sighted? If they fail to succeed the current king, then their target moves from the crown prince to the new king. That's obviously not going to happen if the new king has them killed in retaliation for all the abuse. Thinking about what comes after the coronation is literally the opposite of short-sighted.I’m saying that saying «Abusing him is a great way to die when he becomes king» is a short-sighted thing to say, because why would they worry about that?
That's a big if. It depends entirely on the current king not intervening. While he might not take action against his own son, the concubine and bastard children are another matter entirely.If they succeed, which they obviously plan to, there’s nothing to fear.
The only time you'd openly move against the crown prince is when the benefits outweigh the risks. So far I'm still waiting to see what those supposed benefits may be. "Why should I worry about failure" is not a benefit, it's recklessness.
What could possibly be worse than the newly crowned king locking you up for all those years of abuse? And wouldn't staying on his good side be the most effective protection against whatever that is?If they fail, then they have worse things to be worried about.
Yes, and "Treading upon the legal heir to the kingdom is a great way to end up tortured to death the moment he takes the throne." That line you disagreed with pretty much exemplifies how stupid they are. The fact that "they're trying to usurp the throne" does not make them any less stupid for employing a strategy that is incredibly risky, offers no clear benefits, and greatly limits their future options in case of failure.Besides, how often do you see villains who aren’t the main characters be cautious and smart about things? It was almost a given that they’d be dumb as bricks the moment they showed up.