forums.rs

Forums

SPOILERS - ZAROS' PLAN

Quick find code: 341-342-251-65853133

of 14
Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Zulkir said :
Cthris said :
Did it actually specify only the person who fails the contract would die? Or did they just say "if you don't fulfill the contract you die"

Only the person who fails would die. It would make Zero sense to make a pact and deliberately fail in order to kill your enemy and yourself.
So does it actually say only lol. Unless it's specifically says only then it's ambiguous. It does make sense as a preventive measure. Like I said in my example, if only the person who fails to cuff I'll the contract dies then one could prevent the other from fulfilling their side of the bargain, bringing about their death. The best way to defend against this would be to cause both to die if the contract is unfulfilled. That way both parties would be far more invested in the contract. It also makes a lot of sense in contingent pacts. Lure someone into a pact, fulfill your side of the pact and wait till they enter into a new pact with someone else. Then threaten both parties with commanding your slave to fail to fulfill the second pact. Now you got two people under you control.

21-Nov-2016 21:51:39 - Last edited on 21-Nov-2016 21:53:32 by Cthris

Deux Faces

Deux Faces

Posts: 48 Bronze Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
My thoughts immediately went somewhere else. Just because so much emphasis was placed on the pact being called into effect when Zaros uses the term Legatus Maximus, it seemed to me like his "one thing" would be request Zamora to bind himself in unwavering servitude as his Legatus Maximus once more.

I figured he would word it in a way so that it was only "one request", but provided an eternity of servitude.

21-Nov-2016 21:56:47

Deltaslug

Deltaslug

Posts: 32,671 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
This is all assuming there isn't some loophole in the contract that prevents Zaros from making such an explicit request.
While the contract makes an insanely high price for failure, you would think there are subclauses that make a Uriah Gambit (or whatever term applies) unlikely.

Zaros said he had a plan to save the Mahjarrat and Zamorak and himself from Mah's actions for power drain. Having Zamorak take part in it would help their predicament.

It could be legally argued that in order for Zaros to keep his part of the bargain, he can't explicitly call for Zam to let Zaros kill him.
Zaros' plan at the time required Zamorak's participation.
If Zamorak were to die by Zaros' hand, it would imply that Zaros' part of the plan to save them all also failed.
Thus Zaros' part of the contract would also be void.
So either both of them die, or Zaros dies first for technically failing to live up to his original part of the contract.

21-Nov-2016 22:01:04

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Deltaslug said :
This is all assuming there isn't some loophole in the contract that prevents Zaros from making such an explicit request.
While the contract makes an insanely high price for failure, you would think there are subclauses that make a Uriah Gambit (or whatever term applies) unlikely.

Zaros said he had a plan to save the Mahjarrat and Zamorak and himself from Mah's actions for power drain. Having Zamorak take part in it would help their predicament.

It could be legally argued that in order for Zaros to keep his part of the bargain, he can't explicitly call for Zam to let Zaros kill him.
Zaros' plan at the time required Zamorak's participation.
If Zamorak were to die by Zaros' hand, it would imply that Zaros' part of the plan to save them all also failed.
Thus Zaros' part of the contract would also be void.
So either both of them die, or Zaros dies first for technically failing to live up to his original part of the contract.

Good thoughts but did the pact bind Zaros to save them or just prevent them from needing rituals and loosing energy.

21-Nov-2016 22:04:46

Deltaslug

Deltaslug

Posts: 32,671 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
The contract could even be that it has to be within the power of the other signatory to do.

It's not like Zaros could ask Zamorak to bring him the universe or a world or a star into the palm of his hand to fullfill his contract.
Zaros could phrase it that he meant it literally, not figuratively (so he can't do something like give Zaros a telescope).
Or dictating that Zamorak make Zaros an Elder God. What's Zamorak going to do, verbally annoint Zaros an "elder god", much the same way we call a kebbit a kebbit, or even naming a pet? Zamorak likely lacks the power, let along the knowledge, to elevate Zaros to that tier.

So by picking an impossible task, or at least functionally something that neither of them know is possible (let along probable) the contract might be voided.


Now situations like "Fight Armadyl/Saradomin to the death" would be possible.
Zamorak could conceivably fight either, and even win. And phrased in such a way that it didn't matter if Zam or Arma/Sara, or even both fighters died, it would uphold Zam's end of the deal.

21-Nov-2016 22:16:18

Deltaslug

Deltaslug

Posts: 32,671 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Zamorak and Zaros were in the middle of arguing and fighting each other, and time was of the essence.
Zaros offering a contract that both parties knew COULD kill Zaros if he failed to do what he said he would do, was about the only thing Zaros could do to get some level of "trust" between the parties.

Zaros' part of the pact was answered in the quest: to solve the current crisis of the energy drain that would have killed them all.
Zemo had plan B, which was the original plan: Sacrifice Kharshai.
Zaros upheld his part of the contract.

21-Nov-2016 22:19:56

Zulkir

Zulkir

Posts: 7,343 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Just relooked at the dialogue, it is confirmed that you either need to make good on your word in the pact or it will kill whoever goes against it.

Zaros has made good on his terms, so he is free from its drawbacks, and for now, owns Zamorak.
Zarosian Lorehound

Master Questcape Owner

Inconsistent Completionist

21-Nov-2016 22:26:33

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Zulkir said :
Just relooked at the dialogue, it is confirmed that you either need to make good on your word in the pact or it will kill whoever goes against it.

Zaros has made good on his terms, so he is free from its drawbacks, and for now, owns Zamorak.

Okay thanks for confirmation. However, this still doesn't put Zaros in the clear. What constitutes as going against the contract? Presumably engaging in an action or omission that causes the contract to fail. But does causing someone else to fail to complete the contract constitute as going against the contract? Does one even have to willingly know that one's actions are going against the contract to even go against the contract.

Scenarios can be devised where A can trick B into preventing A from fulfilling the contract in a manner that makes it that the contract is fulfilled by the elimination of B thus causing B to go against the contract and thereby causing Bs death while keeping A alive.

Alternatively, if one has to knowingly go against the contract in order to invoke the punishment external forces could cause an "amnesiac incident" thus causing contract contrary actions to be done in ignorance and thus the contract is null.

21-Nov-2016 22:42:45 - Last edited on 21-Nov-2016 22:43:20 by Cthris

Zulkir

Zulkir

Posts: 7,343 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
Zulkir said :
Just relooked at the dialogue, it is confirmed that you either need to make good on your word in the pact or it will kill whoever goes against it.

Zaros has made good on his terms, so he is free from its drawbacks, and for now, owns Zamorak.

Okay thanks for confirmation. However, this still doesn't put Zaros in the clear.

He is in the clear, he did exactly as he said he would on Freneskae. All children of Mah were empowered and no longer require rituals to sustain their own lives. That was his end and he showed them all how to achieve it, and we saw Seren scream at its success.

That is literally his end of the bargain held up.
Zarosian Lorehound

Master Questcape Owner

Inconsistent Completionist

21-Nov-2016 22:48:34

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Yeah but you said whomever goes against the contract is killed. Fulfilling the contract is not uniquvical to not going against the contract

Like I said, you can cause the contract to fail thus going against the contract but still fufill your side of the bargain. Devils in the details mate.

21-Nov-2016 22:53:38 - Last edited on 21-Nov-2016 22:56:04 by Cthris

Quick find code: 341-342-251-65853133 Back to Top