Thorn: If you anticipate having questions about how to run the team, can’t hurt to ask those too, just in case. How to hire, who to promote to second . . .
Juniper: Obviously that would be Violet.
Thorn: Yeah, that’s an easy one.
Juniper: Frankly, I was surprised you didn’t pick her to replace Moss in the first place.
Thorn: You’re both smart, competent strategists, and the team would’ve been well-served either way.
Juniper: Also, we’re discouraged from top-loading a team with all people of the same heartsword type.
Thorn: That was a factor, yes.
Comment Header
8 Comments
Now I’m curious, why is that a factor?
I imagine for the same reason Magical Girl teams tend to avoid having all water-wielding people- that being versatility. If you have everyone on the team (or everyone at the top of the team, anyway) using the same weapon/powers/etc, all it takes is someone who either has the power or skills needed to counter that weapon/power/etc and you’ve taken out either the whole team or everyone capable of making a major decision on the team.
Remember heartsword type is connected to personality. Basically, heartswords are a measurable way of telling if two people are likely to differ in opinion often. Having someone of the same heartsword type as your second in command isn’t as bad as having a yes man there but it could still lead to an overly narrow focus on one part of a problem or one solution to determent of others
For.mages I get it, but in a team like this every member should be more than capable of filling the role of another when something happens. Are the roles of knights that specialized that loading the top ranks causes that much imbalance?
My first thought? Has more to do with the personality behind the weapons. Each different weapon represents certain factors/elements of strengths and personality traits, and this is consistently so. (Remember Juniper’s reaction upon encountering a heartaxe?) Having well rounded/balanced team leadership, therefore, could be reflected in having such diversity. Right? So that the leader’s weakness/blind spots could be checked by the team Second, and vise versa? I’m not a military strategist, or familiar with other AU’s (still learning the terminology, actually.) So I’m a little sheepish putting this out there, but…. yeah.
😉
Never fear, this is exactly what I was coming here to say!
Ah, less about skills and capabilities, more about avoiding groupthink and yes-men. Clever Ceannis, very clever.
**glows**
😀
Comment Footer