Becoming the Supreme Judge in Another World

From the perspective of tactical gaming and environmental risks, the protagonist's series of actions after exploring the mine contained obvious logical errors, making his behavior "extremely unreasonable." First of all, in terms of risk control, the protagonist voluntarily abandoned the "safe zone" town, and the risk of leaving the town alone was much higher than that of another trial. Being inside a town usually means order, witnesses, and rule protection, even if it is superficial protection, it is much safer than the lawless environment outside the town. After the mine exploration, the protagonist should be in a state of exhaustion or in need of repair. At this time, he will go into the wild alone. If he is ambushed, he will not have any external aid. In addition, when forced to fight in the wild, the protagonist must use all his strength. However, due to the checks and balances of "ombudsmen" or other forces in the town, the enemy does not dare to force the protagonist's cards in a big way. Leaving the town means taking the initiative to create a stage for the enemy to unscrupulously reveal the protagonist's trump card. Secondly, at the strategic game level, the protagonist gives up the "backhand advantage". The advantageous strategy is to stand still and wait for action. The enemy's current assumption is that the protagonist will seek asylum. If the protagonist stays in the town, the enemy must break the rules, create chaos, or infiltrate in order to achieve their goals. Such actions are inevitably accompanied by high costs and risks of exposure. As the passive party, the best strategy for the protagonist is to use "fortifications" (town rules, presence of inspectors) to consume the enemy's patience and resources. The protagonist's voluntary departure from the town is equivalent to saving the enemy the most difficult step of how to trick the turtle out of its shell. This is tactically an act of "benefiting the enemy". Finally, at the supervisory level, the protagonist ignores the "inspector" variable. The propensity to leave town should be even lower under the watchful eye of the Overseer. The Ombudsman is both a "monitor" and a "rules defender." If the protagonist suddenly leaves town alone under his supervision, it will not only arouse the Ombudsman's suspicion, but also lose the Ombudsman's protective umbrella as a "third-party deterrent." The reasonable way to use it is to take advantage of the existence of the inspector and deliberately move within the inspector's field of vision to let the enemy use the weapon as a deterrent. Additionally, there's an extreme mismatch between the protagonist's motivations and the payoff. Leaving the town must have a "force majeure" or "the benefits far outweigh the risk of life" reason, otherwise it cannot explain its unreasonable decision. Analysis: The book does not clearly explain the reason why the protagonist must leave, such as an imminent threat to his life or the opportunity to obtain key intelligence. The benefits of taking risks just for "probing and baiting" are far from enough to make up for the risk of death that may come with leaving town. Conclusion: The logical flaw in the protagonist's move lies in: * Ignores the more favorable living environment in cities and towns compared to the wild. * Give up the advantage of defense and adopt an offensive posture. * Ignores the possible deterrent effect of powerful third parties such as ombudsmen. The unreasonableness of this plot is that the protagonist, with unclear information, a huge disparity in power between the enemy and ourselves, and his own safety guaranteed, voluntarily gave up all advantages and chose to enter an environment of high risk, low return, and lack of foreign aid. This is not only tactically suicidal, but also difficult to justify logically. It is more like a forced plot push.