Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26907577-20191002153041/@comment-26907577-20191030211919

Hmm... you're not wrong. So let's conquer the #1 challenge, barring a deductive flaw somewhere. In order to conceive of such a plan, we must assume the wizards are rational and farsighted. Therefore, to attack the theory we can place ourselves in their shoes and try to justify a different plan.
 * Why exactly was such a convoluted plan seemingly the best for the wizards?

So what we have so far is based on the assumption that the wizards believed humans and monsters could one day rejoin their societies, and that this would be a favorable outcome.

So, according to Occam's Razor, (if you have more tools to consider options, that would be great,) what is the easiest way to maximize the likelihood of this favorable outcome?

Here's what I've thought of (and potential reasons for them to fail. If we assume the wizards are rational, then the real assumptions—which we must minimize—are that these reasons are true, for the most part): Why it wouldn't work: The initial goal of the humans instigating the war was to prevent monsters absorbing human SOULs and thus threatening humanity. This goal has not been reached, and unless very harsh restrictions *cough* Barrier *cough* are placed on monster society to separate them from humans, the goal will not be reached without monster extinction. It's a reasonable goal, and so hard to challenge. Why it wouldn't work: Maybe you can't cast Barriers that way? Oh, and more importantly: They don't know exactly how long they'll need to wait. By placing themselves into the equation—through reincarnation instead of immortality—they can monitor it and allow the monsters to destroy the Barrier only when humans are ready to accept them.
 * Option: Simply negotiating.
 * Option: Casting a Barrier designed to fall eventually, such that the rejoining can be automatic and not need this finicky reincarnation BS.