Erfworld 135 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 122 [Archive] - Page 2

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-05, 02:30 PM

Quite frankly, if Ansom weren't nearly as good at getting lucky as he was, the battle for Gobwin Knob would have been over 20 strips ago.To be fair, the only luck Ansom has had is Jillian throwing off Wanda's spell just in time to join in on the fight which Parson hoped would see Ansom either captured (Parson's idea, in the time before he gained ruthlessness) or croaked (Stanley's idea) and the Arcenpliers won. Other than that, Ansom wasn't lucky in the tunnels, or in the fight between Transylvito and Stanley, or in the loss of 40% of his siege, or in the way his side reacted to the uncroaked Jetstone troops appearing on the walls forcing him into an early attack (to which I have to say I still do not understand why waiting for the rest of the siege was not the best move), or in being forced into an unfavorable bargain with Charlie due to being on the edge of death. Ansom hasn't really been lucky as much as Parson has gotten unlucky a few times.

Aaaannnnnd back to the status quo. Ansom's constant cheating of fate to continue his ineffectual villain routine is getting rather tiresome.Meh, I'm on Parson's side in this conflict, but Ansom didn't cheat fate as much as he had a contingency plan. That's not luck, it's good generalship.

I like that the rock golem is saying Gabba Gabba Hey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabba_Gabba_Hey). :smalltongue:It is, after all, a punk rock golem. :smallcool:

Well yeah, Ansom is the "Dashing Hero" (or rather a subversion of one, turned into the antagonist by telling the story from Parson's point of view) and if we learn anything from television and the movies it's that our plucky hero will defeat the schemes of the evil mastermind through dumb luck/the power of the plot, and viewers will cheer. The exact same thing is happening here, just from a different perspective, and yet many readers are unhappy at it. It's an interesting case study in judging people's reactions based on who is cast as the protagonist.Except that the authors have been very careful not to cast either side as the good guys or the bad guys. Parson assumed he was on the bad guys side because of the traditionally evil unit types GK has: Dwagons, Gobwins, etc. Stanley became very upset at that assumption, which is quite unlike the typical bad guy reaction. Xykon and Redcloak, for example, embrace their "bad guy" status. The authors have hidden who started the war, who (if anyone) caused the Gobwin uprising that got Saline IV killed, and who sacked FAQ. All may be revealed in time, but right now all we have as any indication of who is the good or the bad side are the actions and reactions of the characters. Wanda does typically evil things (torture, raising undead), sometimes for inscrutable reasons. When Ansom tells Wanda she has turned his men into abominations and calls her a demoness, he makes her sound like a bad 'guy'. But this is not Earth, it's Erf. Things may not be as they seem. Bogroll seems to be 'good' in his thoughts and deeds, while Ansom has a vampire flavored ally.

According to leading theory, the RCC started the whole war of aggression because Stanley is, simply, not a royal. They've already hit all of Stanley's other cities. The fact that Ansom is going to take GK no matter what shouldn't surprise you.If this is indeed the leading theory, it's purely speculative and not is based on any hints from the authors.

What still has me disappointed is the way Charlie is set up as the decider. He arrived with enough Archons to take GK in one turn. Others have pointed out that a lot has changed since then, and they are right. But Charlie is no Ansom. He doesn't have allies about to flake out on him precipitating rash actions. Charlie, as an information broker, can be assumed to know that his Archons are fairly untouchable by the GK forces, while Charlie can easily afford the luxury of waiting until the uncroaked Jetstone forces crumble away. Charlie is in a position to give victory to Parson, to Ansom, or to himself. And that makes for a poor story.

Walpurgisborn

2009-01-05, 02:47 PM

If this is indeed the leading theory, it's purely speculative and not is based on any hints from the authors.

Ansom frothing at the mouth, the Vinnie-Ansom conversation about Stanley being a regicide, and Sizemore's statements about the Nobles tendency to gang-up on non-Noble rulers.

fendrin

2009-01-05, 02:58 PM

Huh... the battle bears are quite well defended. The units on the siege towers are what I'm talking about. Their precious tower would defend golems from arrow fire, ground units would have a narrow walk way and it would take time to climb and I doubt hurling big rocks at the towers would end well. Unless your talking about Ansom, and somehow I don't think those golems will be quite as defenseless as the undead...

The golems would be worn down and it wouldn't make a huge differance, but it would help. Hmm... maybe the golems could take the supports of the towers. That would keep them close to the wall.

Oh yeah, doing so might damage the walls. That would end really badly.

Oh, I thought that you meant the golems would emerge at ground level. I see now you meant that they would attack the top of the towers. That would work better, if we assume that stronger units can't climb the towers to get at the golems.

What still has me disappointed is the way Charlie is set up as the decider. He arrived with enough Archons to take GK in one turn. Others have pointed out that a lot has changed since then, and they are right. But Charlie is no Ansom. He doesn't have allies about to flake out on him precipitating rash actions. Charlie, as an information broker, can be assumed to know that his Archons are fairly untouchable by the GK forces, while Charlie can easily afford the luxury of waiting until the uncroaked Jetstone forces crumble away. Charlie is in a position to give victory to Parson, to Ansom, or to himself. And that makes for a poor story.

Ah, but Charlie does not necessarily know about Stanley's return, which is almost guaranteed to take placeon GK's next turn, which because of Charlie's greed will be before he can capture GK.

I have no doubt that Stanley alone would be able to take out a number of archons, plus there are a few other full-strength dwagons with him, and perhaps most importantly, Jack.

That wouldn't be enough to save GK on it's own, now that Charlie is working with Ansom, but is Parson sallies forth to lead the uncroaked, I don't think the RCC will not have much luck breaching the walls.

DevilDan

2009-01-05, 02:58 PM

What still has me disappointed is the way Charlie is set up as the decider. He arrived with enough Archons to take GK in one turn. Others have pointed out that a lot has changed since then, and they are right. But Charlie is no Ansom. He doesn't have allies about to flake out on him precipitating rash actions. Charlie, as an information broker, can be assumed to know that his Archons are fairly untouchable by the GK forces, while Charlie can easily afford the luxury of waiting until the uncroaked Jetstone forces crumble away. Charlie is in a position to give victory to Parson, to Ansom, or to himself. And that makes for a poor story.

I guess we've yet to see if Charlie can indeed deliver a victory to Ansom...

Just sayin'.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-05, 04:01 PM

Ah, but no one doubts that Stanley has a loyalty score. We know he has one (though I suppose it is irrelevant now that he is his own overlord). What would be the point of having one if it couldn't be tested. Not knowing the number is not the same as not knowing whether or not he has a score.He may have a Loyalty score, but is it relevant? Stanley was the Chief Warlord for Saline. Duty "Affects Commanders only. Has higher affect on Warlords, highest on Chief Warlord. Requires us to use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler."

If Stanley is revealed to be the cause of Saline's death due to conspiracy with the Gobwins, when he simply can not conspire against the Ruler, then the authors will have failed miserably to maintain any facade of internal consistency.

I wouldn't be surprised if he [Stanley] was being magically influenced now. In fact, I would be surprised if Wanda hadn't at least tried to magically influence him (she's used her body to influence him, I can't imagine her not starting with magic). Given that Wanda is a very powerful 'caster and Stanley is, well, not bright (I think he and Jillian are having a stupid contest... I'm not sure who's losing), does it seem likely that Wanda would have failed in her casting?Similarly to my above comment, Wanda is also bound by the rule of Duty. She is less bound than a Chief Warlord, but she is a Commander type unit and the odds of her secretly casting spells to manipulate Stanley are not very great, based on the amount of the rule set which has been revealed. I would also guess, while admitting that this is speculation, that a Ruler knows which units are theirs to command. A unit is either loyal, or it is not. Jillian urged Wanda to "turn", which supports a switch-like mechanic. You're loyal up until the point you turn, at which time you're either a mercenary or perhaps you join another Ruler's side. Being a double agent while still in the camp of the Ruler seems like a huge violation of the mechanics as we have seen them to date.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-05, 04:14 PM

Ansom frothing at the mouth, the Vinnie-Ansom conversation about Stanley being a regicide, and Sizemore's statements about the Nobles tendency to gang-up on non-Noble rulers.I missed any part of your reply with a point, sorry. You listed a bunch of things but you didn't explain what if any relevance you felt those things conveyed.

Are you saying that Stanley is a bad guy because two of his enemies called him a bad name such as a "regicide"? People often call others bad names to make themselves feel better about hating them, but that doesn't make the person being called a bad name bad. It also doesn't necessarily make the name callers bad, although in general terms thinking poorly of someone without evidence of their alleged poor behavior is not a virtue. But we have no evidence that either Ansom or Vinnie were present at the fall of Saline IV.

Or are you saying that Ansom is a bad guy because he's got such a gump lodged about the divine right to rule being conferred by a royal title? Again, being all passionate about your title doesn't make you a bad person.

Or are you saying that all Nobles are all evil, since they conspire against any non-Noble who manages through hard work and personal effectiveness to rise to become a Ruler? That would be the most "bad" thing of the three, but people trying to defend an institution, especially one with a basis in religion, tend to react very strongly to any challenge to that institution.

SteveMB

2009-01-05, 04:18 PM

He may have a Loyalty score, but is it relevant? Stanley was the Chief Warlord for Saline. Duty "Affects Commanders only. Has higher affect on Warlords, highest on Chief Warlord. Requires us to use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler."

If Stanley is revealed to be the cause of Saline's death due to conspiracy with the Gobwins, when he simply can not conspire against the Ruler, then the authors will have failed miserably to maintain any facade of internal consistency.

If Duty is absolutely binding, then it's nonsense to say that it has a "higher" or "highest" effect on certain units. The only way those comparative measures make any sense is if there's some likelihood that a Duty-bound unit might fail to act in accordance with Duty (with that likelihood being less, but still nonzero, for units that are "more" affected by Duty than others).

Also, as other people have pointed out, if Duty were absolutely binding, then Ansom's condemnation of Stanley as having advanced by regicide would be preposterous. It would be like accusing someone in the real world of having supernatural powers and using them to put curses on people or rob banks by impalpably walking through the vault walls. Yes, Ansom is not entirely objective or rational on the subject, but if his notions were flat-out impossible then surely Vinny, at least, would call him on it.

fendrin

2009-01-05, 04:19 PM

He may have a Loyalty score, but is it relevant? Stanley was the Chief Warlord for Saline. Duty "Affects Commanders only. Has higher affect on Warlords, highest on Chief Warlord. Requires us to use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler."

If Stanley is revealed to be the cause of Saline's death due to conspiracy with the Gobwins, when he simply can not conspire against the Ruler, then the authors will have failed miserably to maintain any facade of internal consistency.

If Duty was absolute, then Ansom's accusation of Stanley would be dismissed as impossible. If Duty was absolute then Stanley would not have accused Parson, Sizemore, and Wanda of betraying him. If Duty was absolute, there would be no need for a Loyalty stat.

Ansom's accusations are not dismissed, Stanley did accuse his three commanders, and there is a Loyalty stat.

Therefore Duty is not absolute, QED.

Similarly to my above comment, Wanda is also bound by the rule of Duty. She is less bound than a Chief Warlord, but she is a Commander type unit and the odds of her secretly casting spells to manipulate Stanley are not very great, based on the amount of the rule set which has been revealed. I would also guess, while admitting that this is speculation, that a Ruler knows which units are theirs to command. A unit is either loyal, or it is not. Jillian urged Wanda to "turn", which supports a switch-like mechanic. You're loyal up until the point you turn, at which time you're either a mercenary or perhaps you join another Ruler's side. Being a double agent while still in the camp of the Ruler seems like a huge violation of the mechanics as we have seen them to date.
1) See above.
2) Wanda's spells on Stanley may predate her joining GK.

dr pepper

2009-01-05, 04:33 PM

I think it would really improve the accuracy of our speculstions if we knew just who it was sent that thinkagram to Jillian.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-05, 05:16 PM

If Duty is absolutely binding, then it's nonsense to say that it has a "higher" or "highest" effect on certain units. The only way those comparative measures make any sense is if there's some likelihood that a Duty-bound unit might fail to act in accordance with Duty (with that likelihood being less, but still nonzero, for units that are "more" affected by Duty than others).

Also, as other people have pointed out, if Duty were absolutely binding, then Ansom's condemnation of Stanley as having advanced by regicide would be preposterous. It would be like accusing someone in the real world of having supernatural powers and using them to put curses on people or rob banks by impalpably walking through the vault walls. Yes, Ansom is not entirely objective or rational on the subject, but if his notions were flat-out impossible then surely Vinny, at least, would call him on it.If Duty is not absolutely binding on anyone at all, then why would things be stated in completely black and white terms: Requires us to use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler.
Requires. Can't withhold. Can't conspire.

We are being fed these rules by Parson, so it's possible he has misrepresented them, but that would set up another inconsistency:
Parson is ignorant of many rules. But once he learns of a rule, it becomes quickly and expertly integrated into his strategic thinking. As a case in point, Parson was able to quickly deduce the "hit and run" tactic that made the turn seem like an overwhelming victory to Ansom and his leadership cadre. Until Vinnie expressed doubts based simply upon the strength of the attacking Dwagons, it never occurred to Ansom or any of his other leaders that this sort of tactic was not only possible, but could be used to great effect. And Ansom and his cadre are veterans of at least the capturing/sacking of Stanley's other 10 cities, and theoretically a good number of other skirmishes or wars as well. For Parson to be wrong about Duty would be so uncharacteristic as to be astonishing. Rather, Parson, as Chief Warlord, is "Require[d] to use his own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler." Other leaders are similarly compelled, but not as absolutely.

This conclusion, and this alone, has no logical inconsistencies with the other information provided and prior characterization of Parson's ability to accurately grasp the rules.

2) Wanda's spells on Stanley may predate her joining GK.Once Wanda was Stanley's unit, you know, so much under his control that he can end her existence with a thought if he sees her before leaving GK to follow his quest, so much so that Stanley decides whether or not GK pays her upkeep, both Loyalty and Duty would forbid any such skullduggery. It is preposterous to assume that Wanda is puppeteering Stanley with anything other than her required obligation to use her initiative in his service.

fendrin

2009-01-05, 06:11 PM

If Duty is not absolutely binding on anyone at all, then why would things be stated in completely black and white terms: Requires us to use our own initiative in the service of the Ruler. Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler.
Requires. Can't withhold. Can't conspire.
Perhaps it's black and white when it works. When it doesn't work (i.e. when a loyalty check is failed) it may as well not exist at all.

But hey, what happens when the best thing a warlord can do for their ruler is to withhold information?

Imagine this: Warlord Bob knows that his king, Dudley the Dullwitted, will take any chance he has to capture the arkenbucket. Bob discovers that Roger, the wielder of the 'bucket will be traveling through the region. Bob also knows that if he tells Dudley this, Dudley will attack, despite his vastly inferior army. If Dudley attacks, he will be killed. Thus the best thing Bob can do to serve Dudley is to withhold the info. What does Duty compel Bob to do?
Not so black and white, is it?

This conclusion, and this alone, has no logical inconsistencies <snip> Whoa there, that is a seriously flawed statement. I am a trained logician, and I think through my points before I post them (not that I am claiming to always be right or anything). You have yet to reconcile my counterarguments with your idea. Maybe you would like to back up these brashly bold words? Don't ignore my counterarguments, resolve them. Point out the logical inconsistencies in them. You don't win a debate by posting 'I'm right and you're wrong'. All you'll do is get people to ignore you.

Once Wanda was Stanley's unit, you know, so much under his control that he can end her existence with a thought if he sees her before leaving GK to follow his quest, so much so that Stanley decides whether or not GK pays her upkeep, both Loyalty and Duty would forbid any such skullduggery. It is preposterous to assume that Wanda is puppeteering Stanley with anything other than her required obligation to use her initiative in his service.
I have some preposterous thoughts, I admit, but that isn't one of them. Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute. For that matter, prove that Duty and Loyalty necessarily (and to be clear, I'm using 'necessarily' in the context of modal logic) exist in Erfworld, and that they aren't simply theories that Erflings created to explain free will in the context of their world, in which things like 'move' and 'hits' are observable and verifiable attributes. I'll give you a hint: it can't be done. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I am a reasonable person and will admit when I am wrong.

Aquillion

2009-01-05, 06:29 PM

BillyJimBoBob, you're also ignoring the fact that Stanley, who actually lives in Erfworld, accuses Parson and Wanda of treason. This is as obvious a statement as we're ever going to get that it is possible for both chief warlords and high-ranking casters to commit treason, and that there is no mechanical 'ping' to the overlord indicating it.

Parson's klog is very brief (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html), but it clearly lists Loyalty as a way for units to double-deal. The fact that we've seen chief warlords suspected and accused of treason on multiple occasions proves that this is being described as a 'backdoor' in the entire Natural Thinkamancy system; it is specifically noted, for instance, that captured casters (who count as commanders and have been shown to be subject to Duty) have a low loyalty. This would not be a problem if, as you are claiming, the "Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler" line was not contingent on a loyalty check.

But Wanda's low loyalty as a captured caster was noted specifically in the comic; her Duty has also been specifically shown. So, therefore, this leads to the vital question:

What do you think Loyalty does? Keep in mind, it allows both defection and double-dealing -- what do you think happens when a Commander fails a loyalty check?

You are claiming that Wanda is incapable of withholding information or conspiring against Stanley. (Note that this means that she can't withhold, for instance, her relationship with Jillian from him; you are implicitly claiming that he knows about it. This also means that when she knew Parson was acting on her own, she was somehow not withholding that information from Stanley.)

In fact, the low loyalty of captured and turned units in general (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) is specifically spelled out as a reason why it's unlikely Parson would be captured instead of killed. So why is this important, if you really think that he would be absolutely, without-exception bound to serve his new leader? What do you think the comic is saying when it keeps harping on the importance of your Loyalty score?

"Can't withhold information, can't conspire against the Ruler" is merely a description of the requirements that Duty places on the ruler, in the same way "Units are compelled to obey orders" does not mean they are absolutely compelled -- in other words, Parson is describing the behavior that Natural Thinkamancy attempts to force on people. Nowhere does it say that they are absolutely bound to that standard; it merely says that acting against it would be a violation of Duty.

NobodySpecial

2009-01-05, 06:30 PM

Once Wanda was Stanley's unit, you know, so much under his control that he can end her existence with a thought if he sees her before leaving GK to follow his quest, so much so that Stanley decides whether or not GK pays her upkeep, both Loyalty and Duty would forbid any such skullduggery. It is preposterous to assume that Wanda is puppeteering Stanley with anything other than her required obligation to use her initiative in his service.

I'd also add she herself has been assuming they're all dead anyways since the very first strips. Why bother controlling a ruler that you think is going to lose? I don't think it's impossible that she might try, but she's not a real Thinkamancer and obviously isn't that good at controlling anyone.

EDIT: I'd also add to the Duty/Loyalty question that Parson, who of all people would have a reason for leaving Stanley's service to commit to Charlie, outright refuses to turn and instead keeps fighting a battle that he considers booped. Is that the effect of the summoning spell or Duty/Loyalty? Wanda says the spell, but she's been known to be deceitful and withhold information, right?

I think the lack of exposition on Duty and Loyalty have muddied the waters, and I hope the writer has a good reason for things turning out the way they have.

Whispri

2009-01-05, 06:59 PM

But it wasn't his turn.

...the paradox of free-willed people...

I don't think Jillian is the only person that Wanda has tortured. And even if she is, she only "liked" it because she was being magically compelled. Or maybe she liked it in the first place and it was just a convenient way to magically compel her (which is actually worse).

Beyond that, it's pretty clear that her sadistic tendencies extend beyond the bedroom (or dungeon, which in her case is a literal term). Physical violence, while objectionable, is sort of inevitable in war, and in wargaming, and in fantasy literature, but the kind of sick, twisted, emotional and psychological violence that she clearly enjoys inflicting is a whole other ballgame. And then there's the zombie stuff, which you have to admit is pretty bad. People might invoke the "neccesity of war" defense for her, but that strikes me as a double standard, overlooking morally objectionable acts by certain characters on the grounds of pragmatism but holding others (Ansom) to near-Papal expectations.

I find Wanda a fascinating character, but surely not a sympathetic one, and so far I'm very incredulous to most of the non-villainous interpretations of her actions. Erfworld may not be black-and-white, but some characters are less grey than others.

Respectfully, so many things are wrong with that sentence:

1. Saline didn't choose an heir, he was overthrown. I got the impression that it was at least implied that Stanley was behind that coup. I've no real evidence of that, but it was noted how strange it was for the gobwins to turn on the king, and it's hard to overlook the fact that Stanley benefited the most from a very suspicious string of events. Of course, that's a bit more clever than is usual for him, but even Ansom acknowledged the "occasional clever move" from Stanley (linking the casters, for example).

2. That possibility aside, what about Stanley's megalomania, his aggressive wars on all his neighbors, his obession with the Arkentools, etc? Might THAT have something to do with why Ansom and the coalition are interested in overthrowing him, because he's a murderous tyrant with delusions of grandeur?

3. Given how frequently Ansom puts his own life in danger to protect his troops (it's been established as one of his primary character traits), even to the degree of being somewhat stupid about it at times, it's really not fair to criticize him for "Sending men to die." He's doing what a military leader has to do, and on top of it he endangers himself to a disproportipnate degree.

Again, I was under the impression that preventing the sacking and massacring of HIS cities and the cities of his allies was what he was really going for there. Further, I haven't seen any evidence that he's planning on putting the women and children to the sword once the walls are down. Not saying it's not possible, just saying there's nothing to indicate it. He seems more interested in stopping Gobwin Knob's aggression.

It seems like Parson is the mastermind who cannot succeed, as his plans have all been clever but none have ever worked (not completely, anyway). ...his original plot to ambush and capture Ansom failed because Ansom turned out not to be as predictable as he thought...

Similarly, his second attempt to nail Ansom failed because he put too much faith in Wanda's magic...

In the present situation, Parson had a chance to ally with Charlie but passed it up... ...Really, Paron's actions back on page 105 were pretty dumb...

...why people object more to Stanley belittling his subordinants than to the fact that he's a tyrant, and why people sympathize with Wanda as the jilted lover and long-suffering voice of reason despite the fact that she's pretty clearly off her rocker (Wanda fans who are objecting right now might sit back and ponder how comfortable they would be with the prospect of her living next door).
First minor point: Why would whose turn it is matter? Vinnie and co weren't worried about being weak and slow off turn.

Second, well I call it 'minor' point :Only those in charge of sides have free will. That would be Stanley, Jillian, Charlie and the Don King of characters shown.

First off yer Wanda thoughts: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0104.html) is Jillian answering Wanda's question of why, 'torture' did not come up. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0095.html) is Bogroll talking about his dream job. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0028.html) is Wanda giving it to him. How is that the act of a sadist, hmm? As far as mind control goes check here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) for a description of the Natural Thinkamancy Wanda is affected by all the time. When people are magically bound to use their initiative on their Lord's behalf it's rather hard to blame them for actions they make. As for "sick, twisted, emotional and psychological violence" there is nothing whatsoever in the text to support that. As for your idea that Wanda has interrogated people other than Jillian, they called her 'Prisoner' and there's nothing in the text indicating that Wanda's interest in her hobby emerged prior to Jillian's first capture. And again, she can't refuse orders.

@Yer 1: Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html) Sizemore tells of Stanley being selected as Saline's heir. That's the only reason his side survived his death. And as described here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) Commanders, especially Warlords, and most especially Chief Warlords, are bound by Natural Thinkamancy that prevents them from conspiring against the Ruler. Hint: Saline was Stanley's Ruler. He is thus at the bottom of the list of suspects.

@Yer 2: What Wars? What Wars did he start? If he did start any Wars may he not have had good cause to do it? When even a man's sworn enemies don't think you has cause for war... I'll note of the deeds Vinnie mentioned that included his cause for war, that he never actually mentioned how or why those actions took place. We actually know less about them then we know about the Faq Question.

@Yer 3: He started a war, without casus belli (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0034.html). He forced his army to fight and die against an enemy they had no quarrel with. And more importantly he sent thousands of men into the tunnels and had them end turn there, over the objections of both the Warlord he sent to lead them and the more competent coalition leaders.

And as for the idea that Ansom is defending his own Cities, I point you once again to his conversation with Vinnie. All he lost were a few field units, and those poor buggers are forced to attack on contact when leaderless.

Re: Parson and success:

There are close to three thousand uncroaked infantry on the walls right now. The result of a major victory for Parson. Ansom stayed with the column because Vinnie persuaded him to do so.

The Spell failed because the Archons pushed at Jillian until she broke. If they'd stuck to their contract...

He was never offered a chance to ally with Charlie, just to defect. And he convinced him to end turn without taking the City, what's foolish about that?

Oh and: Stanley's no more a Tyrant than any other Ruler on Erf. As for Wanda, why on Erf wouldn't I want to live next door to her?

Hatu

2009-01-05, 07:06 PM

'What have you done to it?' (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0133.html)
Wanda clearly did something to neutralize the offensive capabilities of the 'pliers.

If that's what he meant, wouldn't he have said "What have you done to them?" Like pants, pliers are usually referred to in the plural. Ansom does so on page 22.

Jillian and Vinny did not have any reason to tell Charlie anything if he contacted them (he did just screw them over).

Until this new alliance that bothers you so much was formed, no one had the ability to request a thinkagram, either. So Charlie does not make it possible. We also have seen no evidence of Vinny et al having a hat (and why would they, they are Jetstone property after all, and they believed they could communicate through Charlie).

It's quite likely that Charlie would be willing to provide thinkogram services to anyone he is not currently fighting for the right price: he's pretty mercenary. I think this is very unlikely to have happened given Jillian's distrust of Charlie on page 81, but it is possible.

What I actually had in mind is that we've already seen Charlie eavesdrop on Parson. If Jillian or Vinny did have the means to communicate that information to someone, Charlie may have been able to listen in as well.

At any rate, I'm not saying I think Charlie does know Stanley is inbound, just that he might. In fact, it's not certain that Stanley will return to GK on the next turn anyway. It depends on how far he had to travel before turning around on his last turn.

-H

grumbleboom

2009-01-05, 07:25 PM

What's with all the conjecture recently? I understand getting frustrated with the storyline or whatever, but there has been an inundation of unsupported unspoilered opinion in these threads lately.

To answer one gripe fest I read, and of course this is my opinion, but would fit the situation...

Ansom jumped off the wall onto the carpet, thus allowing him to remount without having the archons push the carpet through the zone barriers.

So to follow my standard show up and then leave tactics... Because really, reading all the posts in this thread just annoyed me.

Wanda gets healed by Sizemore, Ansom heads back up to the wall to keep the uncroaked from harassing the siege, Sizemore mends the cracks in the main wall until the turn ends. Last panel of the next comic is of dwagons returning and a gobwin blowing a horn. (edited my spoiler)

See how I did that? That's how you put unsupported fluff in posts.

Aquillion

2009-01-05, 09:45 PM

What's with all the conjecture recently? I understand getting frustrated with the storyline or whatever, but there has been an inundation of unsupported unspoilered opinion in these threads lately.The only reason people spoil out speculation in the OOTS forum is because Rich specifically asks for it -- he doesn't want people to think that it influences him (and, perhaps, he's worried that it might actually influence him.)

Rob and Jamie have Erfworld very meticulously plotted out in advance, though, so as I recall they've specifically stated that they don't mind... at least, they haven't asked us to spoiler out speculation here.

CassMori

2009-01-05, 10:18 PM

DevilDan

2009-01-05, 10:23 PM

all this talk about Stanley/Saline IV has caused me to wonder: why did Stanley not turn barbarian when Saline died, as Jillian did when King Banhammer died/Faq fell? Would it have been because GK was not actually conquered or destroyed, only the King was killed?

For all we know he did but still retook GK. Or perhaps he was still in control of other GK cities.

I'm still troubled by how little information we really have about the fall of (presumably) all of Faq's three cities.

fendrin

2009-01-05, 11:13 PM

If that's what he meant, wouldn't he have said "What have you done to them?" Like pants, pliers are usually referred to in the plural. Ansom does so on page 22.
Perhaps it should be plural. It could be a 'blooper'. I don't read the 'blooper' thread so I'm not sure if it's been discussed there or not. However, if the 'it' is not the 'pliers, what would you conjecture he is referring to? We don't see Wanda interacting with anything else there.

It's quite likely that Charlie would be willing to provide thinkogram services to anyone he is not currently fighting for the right price: he's pretty mercenary. I think this is very unlikely to have happened given Jillian's distrust of Charlie on page 81, but it is possible.Quite a reasonable assumption, but not really practical. If someone has the capability of contacting Charlie to hire his Thinkagram services, they could have just sent their message directly to their recipient. In other words, if Jillian and Vinny could contact Charlie to send a message to Ansom, they could just contact Ansom directly.

What I actually had in mind is that we've already seen Charlie eavesdrop on Parson. If Jillian or Vinny did have the means to communicate that information to someone, Charlie may have been able to listen in as well. Ah, but as far as we can tell, neither Jillian nor Vinny (nor anyone else with them) have any way of contacting Ansom in any way. No communication = no 'eavesdropping'.

At any rate, I'm not saying I think Charlie does know Stanley is inbound, just that he might.He might know. He also might have another thousand archons and dancing bear just in range to pounce on GK unexpectedly. However, we have no evidence of either of these things, and the possibility of them is not really enough to make well founded speculations.

In fact, it's not certain that Stanley will return to GK on the next turn anyway. It depends on how far he had to travel before turning around on his last turn. My belief that Stanley is returning has more to do with plot/storytelling reasons than any knowledge of the specific distances involved. The fact that it is mathematically possible for him to return does not bolster my claim, but it does keep it a possibility.

The biggest reason I think he will return next turn is that Charlie's actions have ceded the initiative to GK, and nothing would make the grumbling masses happier than seeing Charlie's plans for capturing Parson screwed up by his own actions. It just seems like a good way to write the story to me. I suspect we'll see Parson on the walls first, though.

DevilDan

2009-01-05, 11:19 PM

If that's what he meant, wouldn't he have said "What have you done to them?" Like pants, pliers are usually referred to in the plural. Ansom does so on page 22.

I can think of four possibilities:

It's a blooper.
Ansom was saying "what have you done to my arkentool/weapon."
Ansom made a grammatical mistake.
Wanda's "spell" (if that is what it was) affected the carpet, and that is what Ansom was talking about.

Surprise!

2009-01-05, 11:49 PM

I am unaware if this point has been made between now and page six (just too much repetition) but I am going to make it anyway.

To address the speed of plot, Wanda failing to make it to the ground before Ansom can hit the ground. Wanda does not have to expend move to move through the zones, and (IMO) therefore would always get there first in comparison to a unit that had to expend move.

And then to Ansom commanding the Archons (with no move) to fetch his carpet, I am confused by this one.

The only answer I come to is the archon's using their thinkagram power to summon it.

Just my two cents to throw on the Dragon's Hoard we have going on here.

Suicide Junkie

2009-01-06, 12:03 AM

And then to Ansom commanding the Archons (with no move) to fetch his carpet, I am confused by this one.

The only answer I come to is the archon's using their thinkagram power to summon it.I imagine that the carpet was still idling along in the airspace zone, riderless after Ansom got knocked off. It can fly, but has no will of its own so it just sits there going "putt putt putt".
Since he's not a flyer anymore, he needs somebody to hand it down to him. Then he's back in business.

teratorn

2009-01-06, 02:27 AM

And then to Ansom commanding the Archons (with no move) to fetch his carpet, I am confused by this one.

You're confusing being able to move with "move," a stat which indicates the number of times you are able to cross hex borders. I suggest we use travel to indicate in-hex or in-zone movement to avoid confusion. The archons just needed to put the carpet at an height Ansom could jump on to it.

All units can travel inside their hex (or zone), and there should be a factor (speed) which indicates the distance you can travel per "round." There is nothing in this strip indicating that Ansom dived faster than Wanda, after all the golems and Sizemore also had to travel to Wanda's position. I propose in a previous post a timetable using rounds of action.

Another thing people seem to be confusing in other threads is that in regular hexes airspace and ground are not separated, just inside cities.

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 02:31 AM

Another thing people seem to be confusing in other threads is that in regular hexes airspace and ground are not separated, just inside cities.

That seems to be true.

Aquillion

2009-01-06, 03:19 AM

all this talk about Stanley/Saline IV has caused me to wonder: why did Stanley not turn barbarian when Saline died, as Jillian did when King Banhammer died/Faq fell? Would it have been because GK was not actually conquered or destroyed, only the King was killed?I was under the impression that he did, then easily retook Gobwin Knob the next turn. It's hard to say, though, since we don't really know any of the rules related to that, or what Gobwin Knob's 'empire' was like at that time (did they have other cities or not? Does Stanley get to retain control of them when the capital is taken? Etc.)

teratorn

2009-01-06, 03:30 AM

By the way, shouldn't the golems be brown? There are nine of them. Not sure if it's a blooper or if Sizemore can make a few golems each turn.

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 03:32 AM

By the way, shouldn't the golems be brown? There are nine of them. Not sure if it's a blooper or if Sizemore can make a few golems each turn.

Maybe they all leveled.

Altima

2009-01-06, 04:43 AM

As for Wanda, why on Erf wouldn't I want to live next door to her?

Noise pollution.

all this talk about Stanley/Saline IV has caused me to wonder: why did Stanley not turn barbarian when Saline died, as Jillian did when King Banhammer died/Faq fell? Would it have been because GK was not actually conquered or destroyed, only the King was killed?

There are several possibilities. One is that Jillian wasn't the heir designate. Second is that warlord-led neutral stacks are called barbarians (and Jillian hasn't told anyone--except Ansom--that she's a ruler, which is why she may be known as a barbarian). The difference between a warlord-led neutral stack and a 'ruler' led stack could be so marginal that most people call them either one.

The most likely culprit, though, is that GK still had cities left for Stanley to command after he ascended to Overlord. From what I understand, all three cities of Faq were left in ruins, leaving Jillian with no one to command and no treasury in which to rebuild.

As for Charlie and the Thinkagrams, it seems unlikely that Jillian would be able to contact the RCC using them. For once, every contact with Charlie has either been through one of his Archons, through Parson's 'hacked' eyebook, or through another Thinkamancer. The GK Thinkamancer has let us know that Thinkamancy isn't limitless and she could (and was) strained by multiple communications. Lastly, Charlie didn't have any (apparent) archons near the choke point battle, and it's possible that he doesn't know the outcome (after all, he may have called in all archons in the area around GK for his show of force) and can't tell Ansom about it. It's likely Charlie can't do anything else since his or her turn has ended.

Lombard

2009-01-06, 05:48 AM

Sigh, I should have known by now that nothing significantly bad is really going to happen to Ansom. I won't be fooled again though!

Simanos

2009-01-06, 09:09 AM

I can think of four possibilities:

It's a blooper.
Ansom was saying "what have you done to my arkentool/weapon."
Ansom made a grammatical mistake.
Wanda's "spell" (if that is what it was) affected the carpet, and that is what Ansom was talking about.

4 is very improbable. The panel even has a weapon fast movement (strike) effect so either the Staff or the Arkentool moves and collides with something and stops magically not following through. If 4 is even in the realm of possibility then I propose:
5. Ansom is talking about his (small according to Parson's song) penis.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0113.html
No, wait! Ansom doesn't have testies. Vinny has a small penis. Well there goes my theory. Though maybe Wanda made Ansom's penis similar to his testes :p

Aquillion

2009-01-06, 09:29 AM

Sigh, I should have known by now that nothing significantly bad is really going to happen to Ansom. I won't be fooled again though!He's been humiliated in front of his allies repeatedly, and he's going to have to live for the rest of his life with the knowledge that a good and reliable man who served under him (plus severel thousand more unnamed ones) are dead because of him.

(That might also explain why he's so hostile to Wanda about uncroaking his men -- he knows perfectly well that it's because of his pride that they're dead. With a better commander from another faction, they might have lived -- in fact, they almost certainly would have, given how close the tunnel fight was. Likewise, if he'd charged into the city at the first opportunity like his allies advised instead of trying to do it through the tunnel using only Jetstone men, he could've won easily. He blames himself, quite rightly, for the deaths of Webinar and his men, and tries to shift that blame onto Wanda as a result.)

fendrin

2009-01-06, 09:45 AM

There are several possibilities. One is that Jillian wasn't the heir designate. Second is that warlord-led neutral stacks are called barbarians (and Jillian hasn't told anyone--except Ansom--that she's a ruler, which is why she may be known as a barbarian). The difference between a warlord-led neutral stack and a 'ruler' led stack could be so marginal that most people call them either one.

The most likely culprit, though, is that GK still had cities left for Stanley to command after he ascended to Overlord. From what I understand, all three cities of Faq were left in ruins, leaving Jillian with no one to command and no treasury in which to rebuild.

Well, we know that Stanley and Sizemore didn't disband when Saline fell because Stanley was Heir Designate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html).

Therefore, by extension, Ansom (and everyone else) must know that Jillian either was an heir (but not necessarily a royal one) or is in service to one that they simply have not ever heard about. Given her tight-lipped attitude about her past (like her tribe affiliation), they may have assumed that her overlord is in hiding and she was protecting him/her. Kind of like what Stanley was theoretically doing when he left GK.

teratorn

2009-01-06, 10:44 AM

Therefore, by extension, Ansom (and everyone else) must know that Jillian either was an heir (but not necessarily a royal one) or is in service to one that they simply have not ever heard about.

Or that she was a warlord with enough schmuckers to keep going turn after turn. Maybe the difference is that being a ruler or the heir designate grants you the magic capability to run cities if you ever find one available. Royals probably have that by default.

SteveMB

2009-01-06, 10:46 AM

Well, we know that Stanley and Sizemore didn't disband when Saline fell because Stanley was Heir Designate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0087.html).

Therefore, by extension, Ansom (and everyone else) must know that Jillian either was an heir (but not necessarily a royal one) or is in service to one that they simply have not ever heard about. Given her tight-lipped attitude about her past (like her tribe affiliation), they may have assumed that her overlord is in hiding and she was protecting him/her. Kind of like what Stanley was theoretically doing when he left GK.

That's not clear, actually -- it depends on whether all barbarian units are former members of capital sides who survived in this manner, or whether there is some other source of barbarian units.

Or that she was a warlord with enough schmuckers to keep going turn after turn. Maybe the difference is that being a ruler or the heir designate grants you the magic capability to run cities if you ever find one available. Royals probably have that by default.

That wouldn't do it -- if the overlord of a side is croaked without an heir, field units disband (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) (with no indication that it makes any difference whether or not some of them are warlords). So, each barbarian unit either has a ruler or heir from a former capital side, is a ruler or heir from a former capital side, or else there's some other source of barbarian units (perhaps tribes of "barbarians" exist as non-capital sides like gobwins or marbits, and survivors from a side that lost its cities also become barbarians).

teratorn

2009-01-06, 11:00 AM

That wouldn't do it -- if the overlord of a side is croaked without an heir, field units disband (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) (with no indication that it makes any difference whether or not some of them are warlords).

You're reading too much in that sentence. You don't know if that happens if the field units have some schmuckers with them.

In fact that poses the question: if Stanley was out in the field how did he pay for the upkeep at the beginning of his next turn? Did he carry a purse like Jillian ? (and as such did he plan for it?)

Could he still tap into his side's treasury, despite losing the capital? Or did a new treasury develop from the other cities still on his side?

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 11:33 AM

You're reading too much in that sentence. You don't know if that happens if the field units have some schmuckers with them.

In fact that poses the question: if Stanley was out in the field how did he pay for the upkeep at the beginning of his next turn? Did he carry a purse like Jillian ? (and as such did he plan for it?)

Could he still tap into his side's treasury, despite losing the capital? Or did a new treasury develop from the other cities still on his side?

Stanley could have had money with him; it shouldn't surprise us that the heir and chief warlord of a presumably not-impoverished kingdom would have some money with him.

Jillian earns money as a mercenary, and she had a purse; obviously losing Faq did not lead to the immediate dissolution of her troops, so she had enough resources to maintain them. Or, since we don't know the rules of upkeep, they could be different for barbarians.

We also don't know what exactly happens to units whose upkeep isn't being paid; some assume that they just vanish. I think that it's at least possible that they lose their strength over time, as we would when not eating for a few days.

SteveMB

2009-01-06, 12:05 PM

Stanley could have had money with him; it shouldn't surprise us that the heir and chief warlord of a presumably not-impoverished kingdom would have some money with him.

Jillian earns money as a mercenary, and she had a purse; obviously losing Faq did not lead to the immediate dissolution of her troops, so she had enough resources to maintain them. Or, since we don't know the rules of upkeep, they could be different for barbarians.

My best guess is that he could carry some funds with him, but only a limited amount (hence the point Wanda made way back at the beginning of the story about not being able to take the treasury with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) if he fled GK).

Rhuna_Coppermane

2009-01-06, 12:18 PM

For all we know he did but still retook GK. Or perhaps he was still in control of other GK cities.

I'm still troubled by how little information we really have about the fall of (presumably) all of Faq's three cities.

It's early in the story yet. Knowing everything in the beginning wouldn't be any fun.

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 12:20 PM

It's early in the story yet. Knowing everything in the beginning wouldn't be any fun.

My point is that I expect more surprises from that corner, not that I'm annoyed by it. Clever surprises are one of the selling points of Erfworld.

fendrin

2009-01-06, 12:29 PM

Or that she was a warlord with enough schmuckers to keep going turn after turn. Maybe the difference is that being a ruler or the heir designate grants you the magic capability to run cities if you ever find one available. Royals probably have that by default.

That's not clear, actually -- it depends on whether all Barbarian units are former members of capital sides who survived in this manner, or whether there is some other source of Barbarian units.

Both of you are possibly correct, but so far as I can tell we don't have any indication that either possibility is an actuality, and some evidence against.

Re: A warlord with schmuckers can survive after a ruler falls
Stanley couldn't take the treasury with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html). If the overlord can't take the treasury, surely a mere warlord cannot either. Also note that Wanda does not say 'you can't take all the money', just 'you can't take the money', implying (though I admit, not proving) that money cannot be physically moved from one locale to another (but rather, it seems to have a nebulous non-physical existence, as in many games).

Re: 'natural' barbarians:
units are produced by cities, and take time to do so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html)
Neutral cities freeze in time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html)
Therefore neutral cities cannot pop units.

On the other hand, 'barbarians' could be a city-less side (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0088.html), like the gobwins. However, we have not seen any indication that there are 'human' city-less sides. Further, Jillian refers to herself as becoming a barbarian when Faq fell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html).

Conclusion: Assuming we have not been mislead(intentionally or otherwise) and 'barbarian' does not have two separate meanings, it is necessarily true that Jillian's side had an overlord survive.

We know that this is true (if we accept Jillian's story), but the question is whether or not Ansom (or Vinny, etc.) would know/assume that Jillian is or is serving an overlord.

EDIT: whoa, ninja'd many times over. My points remain relevant, though.

teratorn

2009-01-06, 12:37 PM

I'm very curious to see if Charlie will ask Parson for another calculation for the upcoming battle rounds. Vinny's (and Jillian's) reactions to charlescom forces ought to be interesting also.

Also note that Wanda does not say 'you can't take all the money', just 'you can't take the money', implying (though I admit, not proving) that money cannot be physically moved from one locale to another (but rather, it seems to have a nebulous non-physical existence, as in many games).

Sizemore seems to carry money with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0011.html). Jillian carries a purse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html). (ok, I admit we don't see the money).

Walpurgisborn

2009-01-06, 12:42 PM

I missed any part of your reply with a point, sorry. You listed a bunch of things but you didn't explain what if any relevance you felt those things conveyed.

Mea culpa, I was responding to the "no hints" statement. In point of fact, there are hints, although I do agree with you that deciding it was Ansom in Faq with the lead pipe would be pure speculation.

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 12:43 PM

Re: A warlord with schmuckers can survive after a ruler falls
Stanley couldn't take the treasury with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html). If the overlord can't take the treasury, surely a mere warlord cannot either. Also note that Wanda does not say 'you can't take all the money', just 'you can't take the money', implying (though I admit, not proving) that money cannot be physically moved from one locale to another (but rather, it seems to have a nebulous non-physical existence, as in many games).

Actually, I understood Wanda's comments as meaning that he couldn't take all of it. not that he couldn't take any of it. If Jillian is a mercenary without a city, she must be able to receive payment in some portable form

Re: 'natural' barbarians:
units are produced by cities, and take time to do so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html)
Neutral cities freeze in time (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html)
Therefore neutral cities cannot pop units.

I think that that's probably true. But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible for neutral or frozen cities to pop units, just that those units can't do anything either.

On the other hand, 'barbarians' could be a city-less side (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0088.html), like the gobwins. However, we have not seen any indication that there are 'human' city-less sides. Further, Jillian refers to herself as becoming a barbarian when Faq fell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html).

I would think that a human without a side is by definition a barbarian. The fact that Jillian was not assumed to have been an "heir" suggests that there are other barbarians running around along with witches, elf brands, and marbits.

Lamech

2009-01-06, 01:37 PM

I would like to argue that speculating on the economy (as in shmucker-gathering and spending), and how units are popped is fairly pointless right now.

Sure units are popped by cities but... casters make units, and sides that lack cities. And those "cityless sides" erm... well not always cityless, so do we even know they are super differant? We really don't know how shmuckers can all be gained, how they can be spent or anything really. So far we have only really seen the combat part of erfworld. Nothing with city management or unit production.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-06, 02:16 PM

Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute. For that matter, prove that Duty and Loyalty necessarily (and to be clear, I'm using 'necessarily' in the context of modal logic) exist in Erfworld, and that they aren't simply theories that Erflings created to explain free will in the context of their world, in which things like 'move' and 'hits' are observable and verifiable attributes. I'll give you a hint: it can't be done. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I am a reasonable person and will admit when I am wrong.
Ok, I'll bite. I can't prove anything at all to a person who is willing to run off into speculation about revealed rules of the Erfworld being simply fantasies made up by the inhabitants. The authors have given the readers insufficient information for the proof you desire, and even if the authors came out and said in the context of the strip "These things exist, it is a certainty" (which they have done via the context of the discussion between Parson and Maggy) you would still be able to equivocate based on your theory that the Erfians are all deluded by a mere belief system not founded in reality. With your desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God (is in, the authors state in some non-strip context that this is their intent and thus it is so) or refusal to accept any other theory than your own, you'll be able to cling to your beliefs as long as you like without any worry that even clear and evident events in the comic could possible conflict with that theory. Congratulations.

However, I can come to some logically drawn conclusions based on those clear and evident events, if I refrain from the wild-eyed and unfounded hypothesis you appear to prefer.

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.
Since we don't know all of the rules, we can't say with certainty why both stats need to exist even with the limitation on Duty that it only applies to Commanders. It would be easy enough to say that Loyalty applies further restrictions and obligations upon Commander rank units, those compelling the use of their initiative and the forbidding of withholding information or conspiring. I suspect that the authors are not game designers, and chose a poor set of mechanics.

As to your proposition that Duty and Loyalty do not exist, but are fabrications of Erfworld inhabitants, this is not likely at all. These stats are grouped with the ability of a scouting unit to send back intel (and possibly other abilities) and with Obedience in the class of Natural Thinkamancy.

While it's possible that the inhabitants might have come to lump clearly demonstrable abilities together (scouting units do send intel, disobediant units do sometimes disband) with non-demonstrable abilities (no one can see a Loyalty score, and while it is not stated Duty may also be hidden) they are not intuitive things to group into the same set. Something makes the Erfers group these dissimilar things together, and the most logical conclusion is that Thinkamancers are aware of these things as a result of their specialty.

Lamech

2009-01-06, 03:25 PM

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.

No. Commanders have loyalty... captured warlords have low-loyalty (Klog 12). More importantly it DOES matter. If it didn't matter low-loyalty wouldn't be an issue, for Parson. And Wanda not being under loyalty spells wouldn't matter. (Page 95). So, no that doesn't explain loyalty's existance and importance for commanders.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-06, 04:00 PM

No. Commanders have loyalty... captured warlords have low-loyalty (Klog 12).Thanks for clearing that up. So Commanders having both Loyalty and Duty is indeed confirmed.

So, no that doesn't explain loyalty's existance and importance for commanders.I did indeed explain it: Non-Commanders do not have Duty. So, they have Loyalty. For Commanders, Duty is a layer over or in addition to Loyalty, with some specific demands on Commanders.

I also offered up the hypothesis that Loyalty alone would serve, at least as far as we know about it, and that the authors are simply not experienced game designers.

Parson is also a bit of a special case, as the summoning spell also compels him to serve. We don't know if this is because he has no innate Loyalty and/or Duty, not being from Erf and others not being able to see his stats. Or it is possible that since the Natural Thinkamancy Loyalty can be broken that a reinforcement was built into the spell to cover just such a contingent sumonee as Parson. It is a rather potent spell, after all.

fendrin

2009-01-06, 04:23 PM

Ok, I'll bite. I can't prove anything at all to a person who is willing to run off into speculation about revealed rules of the Erfworld being simply fantasies made up by the inhabitants. The authors have given the readers insufficient information for the proof you desire, and even if the authors came out and said in the context of the strip "These things exist, it is a certainty" (which they have done via the context of the discussion between Parson and Maggy) you would still be able to equivocate based on your theory that the Erfians are all deluded by a mere belief system not founded in reality. With your desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God (is in, the authors state in some non-strip context that this is their intent and thus it is so) or refusal to accept any other theory than your own, you'll be able to cling to your beliefs as long as you like without any worry that even clear and evident events in the comic could possible conflict with that theory. Congratulations.
It would not be difficult for Rob & Jamie to prove Loyalty and/or Duty exist in the context of the comic. For Loyalty, there is no reason that the loyalty stat could not be listed in the stat block (along with hits, move, etc. as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0120.html)), but with question marks or something similar in the place of a value. Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it. For instance, If Duty compelled Wanda to croak Jillian, but we see her fighting it, trying to resist doing her Duty.

I don't think they should though, even though they could. The ambiguity about free will is a running thread in the comic, and I like it. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to your assertion that Duty is absolute.

So no, I do not "desire to have either absolutism from the Word of God ... or refusal to accept any other theory than your own" as you put it. So far, however, all we have are subjective reports of these things. I think that is intentional on Rob and Jamie's part. I applaud them for it.

However, I can come to some logically drawn conclusions based on those clear and evident events, if I refrain from the wild-eyed and unfounded hypothesis you appear to prefer.
Ad hominem attacks are about as effective as the 'I'm right you're wrong' approach. I would also like to point out that while I posited that it is possible that Loyalty and Duty do not exist, I did not state I think that is the case (I believe Duty does exist, but is non-absolute; I am on the fence about the existence of Loyalty)

* Explain the purpose of the Loyalty stat if Duty is absolute.
This is an easy one, drawn from the klog in question. Duty only effects Commanders. So Loyalty is by definition required for all non-Commander units. We don't know if Commanders have Loyalty, as this is implied but not confirmed.
Since we don't know all of the rules, we can't say with certainty why both stats need to exist even with the limitation on Duty that it only applies to Commanders. It would be easy enough to say that Loyalty applies further restrictions and obligations upon Commander rank units, those compelling the use of their initiative and the forbidding of withholding information or conspiring. I suspect that the authors are not game designers, and chose a poor set of mechanics. As lamech pointed out, warlords DO have Loyalty (or at least as much so as any unit). If Duty was absolute, why wouldn't warlords be captured instead of croaked? Yet, they are not. Further evidence that Duty is not absolute.

As to your proposition that Duty and Loyalty do not exist, but are fabrications of Erfworld inhabitants, this is not likely at all. These stats are grouped with the ability of a scouting unit to send back intel (and possibly other abilities) and with Obedience in the class of Natural Thinkamancy.

While it's possible that the inhabitants might have come to lump clearly demonstrable abilities together (scouting units do send intel, disobediant units do sometimes disband) with non-demonstrable abilities (no one can see a Loyalty score, and while it is not stated Duty may also be hidden) they are not intuitive things to group into the same set. Something makes the Erfers group these dissimilar things together, and the most logical conclusion is that Thinkamancers are aware of these things as a result of their specialty.This is very much similar to the debate in the philosophy of language about kinds and natural kinds. Interesting stuff (to me, anyway), though hard to wrap your head around.

There is one very obvious reason to group these things together, and it is implied by the title: Natural Thinkamancy. So these things are all thinkamancies (or believed to be thinkamancies) which are not unnatural in origin. That means no one cast a spell or anything like that.

So let's look at Loyalty. If it exists it is clearly thinkamancy as opposed to any of the other magic types (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html). Further, if it exists, it does so without being the product of a spell, so it must be natural. Hence, Natural Thinkamancy. The same applies to Duty. I find it VERY intuitive.

Parson is also a bit of a special case, as the summoning spell also compels him to serve. We don't know if this is because he has no innate Loyalty and/or Duty, not being from Erf and others not being able to see his stats. Or it is possible that since the Natural Thinkamancy Loyalty can be broken that a reinforcement was built into the spell to cover just such a contingent sumonee as Parson. It is a rather potent spell, after all.
If Duty is absolute there is no reason to reinforce Parson's Loyalty, as Duty is (according to your conception of it) 'above and beyond' Loyalty. As Chief Warlord Parson would be subject to Duty. And thus, in your own words:

He may have a Loyalty score, but is it relevant?

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-06, 04:55 PM

It would not be difficult for Rob & Jamie to prove Loyalty and/or Duty exist in the context of the comic. For Loyalty, there is no reason that the loyalty stat could not be listed in the stat block (along with hits, move, etc. as seen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0120.html)), but with question marks or something similar in the place of a value. Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it. For instance, If Duty compelled Wanda to croak Jillian, but we see her fighting it, trying to resist doing her Duty.
Both have been demonstrated. Loyalty is a hidden stat, as your link clearly shows. Showing it with <???> after both citing that it was a hidden stat it in the clog and demonstrating it via a comic panel would be a very poor way of proving Loyalty exited. Wanda was compelled/allowed by her Duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) to disobey an order and refused to promote a pretty boy from the ranks to the position of Chief Warlord. She had to or was able to do what was best for Stanley even in violation of his orders. She either wanted or was compelled to seek his continued best interests.

If Duty is absolute there is no reason to reinforce Parson's Loyalty, as Duty is (according to your conception of it) 'above and beyond' Loyalty. As Chief Warlord Parson would be subject to Duty.Except that Parson is, as I noted, a special case. Don't ignore the entire argument just to pick apart a few sentences, please.

I've suggested before that the authors hadn't given the design enough thought, and might be poor game designers (if excellent artists!). I may have been too hasty in that assessment. If Loyalty and Duty are not separate, then a low Loyalty would also mean a low Duty. That would be intolerable to a conquering Ruler, and all captured Casters and other Commander rank units would be croaked. Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not.

SteveMB

2009-01-06, 05:36 PM

Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not.

That fits the descriptions we've been given, and implies that Loyalty determines the likelihood that a unit can violate Duty.

(Of course, this assumes that Loyalty and Duty actually exist. It's entirely possible that Erfworlders, noting that visible stats govern certain aspects of their lives, invented invisible ones to explain other aspects. If so, Loyalty and Duty might have no more real existence in Erfworld than epicycles and phlogiston do in the real world.)

(EDIT: I can't help but wonder if Parson's comparison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html) of the grid of magic types to "that crap about the four basic elements that people believed for centuries just because Aristotle said it" is a hint in that direction....)

Aquillion

2009-01-06, 05:55 PM

Sizemore seems to carry money with him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0011.html). Jillian carries a purse (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html). (ok, I admit we don't see the money).Since Sizemore talks about 'Rands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_rand)' and not shmuckers, some people have speculated that that's a separate currency for units. Another possibility, of course, is that it's a small fractional unit or something, and units get a tiny percentage of their faction's upkeep for their own use, with the remainder going to the nebulous treasury.

In any case, the fact that Jillian is alive, has units of her own, was able to pay for a Thinkagram, and is capable of working as a mercenary clearly she can hold money to some extent, even without a city.

DevilDan

2009-01-06, 05:57 PM

Since Sizemore talks about 'Rands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_rand)' and not shmuckers, some people have speculated that that's a separate currency for units. Another possibility, of course, is that it's a small fractional unit or something, and units get a tiny percentage of their faction's upkeep for their own use, with the remainder going to the nebulous treasury.

To be fair, those could be funds provided specifically from the treasury with permission from Stanley, who, after all, encourages his followers to indulge in their hobbies.

Starwaster

2009-01-06, 06:53 PM

I wouldn't exactly call this a Win for Ansom, considering what he had to sign over to Charlie for help. I have a feeling it's everything short of his soul and/or pants.

Hmmm, must be a thread about the new contract around here already... I'm betting that Parson and his Mathamancy artifact are in there. How carefully did Ansom read that contract?

I wonder if there's mention of the Arkenpliers in it:smallwink:

Lamech

2009-01-06, 06:55 PM

(Of course, this assumes that Loyalty and Duty actually exist. It's entirely possible that Erfworlders, noting that visible stats govern certain aspects of their lives, invented invisible ones to explain other aspects. If so, Loyalty and Duty might have no more real existence in Erfworld than epicycles and phlogiston do in the real world.)
I suspect that since commanders have it and others don't, duty exists in someway. Maybe not exactly what erfworlders think it is, maybe all commanders have an in-born sense of duty* to there overlord, that includes being forthright, and not conspiring.

*As in the conventional English sense of the word, not the conventional Erfworld sense of the word.

SteveMB

2009-01-06, 09:40 PM

I suspect that since commanders have it and others don't, duty exists in someway. Maybe not exactly what erfworlders think it is, maybe all commanders have an in-born sense of duty* to there overlord, that includes being forthright, and not conspiring.

*As in the conventional English sense of the word, not the conventional Erfworld sense of the word.

Well, of course some of them have "duty" and "loyalty" in the real-world sense of those terms. The question is whether the mechanics described by Parson (after they were described to him by Maggie) actually exist, or whether they're how Erflings see those personality traits through the prism of the known mechanics of their world.

fendrin

2009-01-06, 10:39 PM

Both have been demonstrated.
Please link to a demonstration of either in which it is clear that they are being demonstrated. As I said before, it cannot be done. Neither are demonstrated (though there are events that we can analyze in the context of Loyalty and Duty, there is nothing that suggests they exist any more or less than free will).

Loyalty is a hidden stat, as your link clearly shows. Showing it with <???> after both citing that it was a hidden stat it in the clog and demonstrating it via a comic panel would be a very poor way of proving Loyalty exited. Actually, it would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist. The klog is vague on how exactly it is 'unknowable'. It could mean 'unknowable' in that no one can prove it exists or it could be 'unknowable' in that one cannot know it's value. The latter allows for proof of the existence of the stat, the former precludes that possibility.

Wanda was compelled/allowed by her Duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) to disobey an order and refused to promote a pretty boy from the ranks to the position of Chief Warlord. She had to or was able to do what was best for Stanley even in violation of his orders. She either wanted or was compelled to seek his continued best interests. This is a great example of a case that can be analyzed in terms of Loyalty and Duty, but does not demonstrate that they exist. We readers understood what was happening in that page before it was suggested that Wanda has no free will.

Except that Parson is, as I noted, a special case. Don't ignore the entire argument just to pick apart a few sentences, please. Your statement was that he is special case in that he is also bound by the spell. I was pointing out that that would be pointless If duty was absolute. I didn't ignore anything. If Duty was absolute, then the creators of the spell would not have had any reason to suspect that the subject of the spell might violate their Duty. They would, in fact, have no concept of violating Duty. Therefore by reinforcing Loyalty, it is revealed that the creators of the spell do have a concept of violating Duty, which means they must understand that it is a possibility, which means that it has to have been a possibility before they created the spell, which means it has to be possible for native Erfling warlords.

I've suggested before that the authors hadn't given the design enough thought, and might be poor game designers (if excellent artists!). I may have been too hasty in that assessment. I try to look for explanations other than 'the authors screwed up'. I figure that if I have to assume the authors made a fundamental mistake in order to make my speculations work, then my speculations are probably wrong.

If Loyalty and Duty are not separate, then a low Loyalty would also mean a low Duty. That would be intolerable to a conquering Ruler, and all captured Casters and other Commander rank units would be croaked. Perhaps Duty is a fixed set of restrictions on Commander type units, while Loyalty is a numeric value which can be impacted by several factors such as capture, Thinkamancy, and the chance of betrayal when offered the opportunity. Loyalty is described as being a "stat", Duty is not. They are separate. There is no reason to think that they are not separate. As described in that klog, Duty influences (not controls) the behavior of Commander/Warlord/Chief Warlord. Loyalty is a stat that, if low, can (amongst other things) allow commanders and so forth to ignore Duty.

One could (and in fact I have) consider Loyalty to have an inverse relationship with free will; Low loyalty means more freedom, high loyalty means less freedom.

What does that mean? It means that Duty is not absolute and thus Stanley could have arranged for the Gobwins to kill Saline IV (that's what this has all been about, in case you don't remember...).

Decius

2009-01-07, 02:11 AM

Duty could be easily shown by a character being forced to do something they don't want to do, all the while expressing their dismay over doing it.

It's been done.

Shut up! Shut up until you're ordered to speak! You don't know anything! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0032.html)

That was Stanley to Parson, not me to you. No offense is intended, that's just the best example I could find of duty.

dr pepper

2009-01-07, 02:29 AM

I think the best example is when Sizemore says "...i think i have to hate you." He's going to do as ordered, but only because of Duty.

SeraphRainy

2009-01-07, 02:44 AM

ahahahahaha yeeeeees

For everyone who wanted wanda to grabthe piers and win the day I have to say an extra haha. Because it is so much BOOPING cooler for us to have a massive battle scene led by Parson. And oddly enough I realy don't care to discus symantics about the comic right now because Im stoked. LULZ

For those who are about to pwnzor we solute you.:smalltongue:

Did I mention itll be cool to see parson get his gameface on to wade through the munchkins of death.:smallfurious:

fendrin

2009-01-07, 09:22 AM

Shut up! Shut up until you're ordered to speak! You don't know anything!

That was Stanley to Parson, not me to you. No offense is intended, that's just the best example I could find of duty.

That would be Obedience, not Duty.

I think the best example is when Sizemore says "...i think i have to hate you." He's going to do as ordered, but only because of Duty.

That is perhaps the best example, but it still does not prove the existence of Duty. The events on that page are perfectly feasible without Duty existing. Perhaps I was too hasty in declaring that Duty could be proven. Even if Sizemore said 'I will do my Duty, but I hate you for it', he would be referring to his own belief in Duty, which is not a proof of it's existence.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-07, 08:06 PM

Actually, it [showing a unit with Loyalty listed with ??] would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist.No, it would be a horrible way to go about it, because they have already shown unit stats and no Loyalty was listed. Consistency counts when you're trying to tell a story.

Your statement was that he is special case in that he is also bound by the spell. I was pointing out that that would be pointless If duty was absolute. I didn't ignore anything. If Duty was absolute, then the creators of the spell would not have had any reason to suspect that the subject of the spell might violate their Duty. They would, in fact, have no concept of violating Duty. Therefore by reinforcing Loyalty, it is revealed that the creators of the spell do have a concept of violating Duty, which means they must understand that it is a possibility, which means that it has to have been a possibility before they created the spell, which means it has to be possible for native Erfling warlords.No, fendrin, you're doing it again. My statement was that Stanley can not see Parson's stats, and therefore he is a huge mystery. If he doesn't show his stats, he might not have them (I'm aware that his Leadership can be observed indirectly, but that does not invalidate the point). If he doesn't have them, he might not have a Loyalty or a Duty, either. And so the summoning spell, since it can summon even such a radically different type of being imposes its own Loyalty commitment upon the person summoned.

They [Loyalty and Duty] are separate. There is no reason to think that they are not separate. As described in that klog, Duty influences (not controls) the behavior of Commander/Warlord/Chief Warlord. Loyalty is a stat that, if low, can (amongst other things) allow commanders and so forth to ignore Duty.You're a funny kind of person, you know that? On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please.

What does that mean? It means that Duty is not absolute and thus Stanley could have arranged for the Gobwins to kill Saline IV (that's what this has all been about, in case you don't remember...).When you say Duty, are you referring to the fiction imagined by the Erfians, or to the rule of Duty? Just trying to figure out which personality I'm talking to here...

Stanley was Saline's Chief Warlord. It's been stated categorically in the comic that Duty prevents conspiring against the Ruler. Unless shown by the authors how this restriction could be overcome (and overcome without conspiring) or how Parson got it wrong (something he has never done previously, it in fact his best strength to grasp rules quickly and thoroughly and to understand all the implications of those rules), Stanley had best not be revealed to have been responsible for Saline's death. You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line. So your speculation is wonderful, but it is not supported by anything rational within the story.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-07, 08:16 PM

Hmmm, must be a thread about the new contract around here already... I'm betting that Parson and his Mathamancy artifact are in there. How carefully did Ansom read that contract?

I wonder if there's mention of the Arkenpliers in it:smallwink:He had read the contract previously, but decided not to accept the terms. He only needed to see the amendments. His reaction on seeing them was "Outrageous!", but he choose to accept anyway. We don't know how carefully he was able to read the amendments, but the implication was that he read them, was outraged, but decided that they were more acceptable than death or capture and GK getting the Arcenpliers.

SteveMB

2009-01-07, 08:48 PM

Actually, it [showing a unit with Loyalty listed with ??] would be a very good way of showing that it existed. It would, in fact be enough to without doubt say it does exist.
No, it would be a horrible way to go about it, because they have already shown unit stats and no Loyalty was listed. Consistency counts when you're trying to tell a story.

I think the idea was that if the authors wanted to show that Loyalty was like the known stats of Move, Hits, etc, it would have been done that way from the beginning. The implication is that the authors didn't want that.

No, fendrin, you're doing it again. My statement was that Stanley can not see Parson's stats, and therefore he is a huge mystery. If he doesn't show his stats, he might not have them (I'm aware that his Leadership can be observed indirectly, but that does not invalidate the point). If he doesn't have them, he might not have a Loyalty or a Duty, either. And so the summoning spell, since it can summon even such a radically different type of being imposes its own Loyalty commitment upon the person summoned.

Except that the spell, magical compulsions and all, was crafted before anybody had any notion that it might summon a warlord without visible stats.

(Well, maybe a wizard Predictamancer did that part....)

You're a funny kind of person, you know that? On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please.

"Loyalty" and "Duty" certainly exist as concepts understood by Erflings, whether or not they actually exist as attributes of their world. To reuse an earlier analogy, I can tell that "epicycles" and "phlogiston" are two different things, even though neither is actually a real thing at all.

Stanley was Saline's Chief Warlord. It's been stated categorically in the comic that Duty prevents conspiring against the Ruler.

It was stated categorically by Parson that that's what Maggie had explained to him. That doesn't prove that she's correct. (The simplest assumption is to provisionally assume that she is, and that the Klog is describing another feature of Erfworld. However, I have a hunch that the assumption may turn out to be faulty, and that the issue of what free will Erflings and Parson do and do not have will be revisited.)

Unless shown by the authors how this restriction could be overcome (and overcome without conspiring) or how Parson got it wrong (something he has never done previously, it in fact his best strength to grasp rules quickly and thoroughly and to understand all the implications of those rules), Stanley had best not be revealed to have been responsible for Saline's death

There's no suggestion that Parson might have gotten wrong what Maggie explained. There's just the question of whether Maggie's explanation corresponds with reality.

You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line.

Yes, we have. We saw that they've organized (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html) the known types of magic into categories -- and, perhaps significantly, we've seen Parson express skepticism as to whether their beliefs about how their world works are really accurate.

DevilDan

2009-01-07, 10:38 PM

This has probably been mentioned before, but if Loyalty where a visible number, then an Overlord would immediately be able to tell if one of his commanders was starting to entertain disloyal thoughts.

fendrin

2009-01-08, 12:09 AM

... Uh, what SteveMB said. I have a few things to say beyond what he already said (thanks for saving me the effort, Steve!), but not much.

You're a funny kind of person, you know that? Yes, yes I do. I take that as a compliment, though I have a feeling it was intended as an ad hominem.

On the one hand you're suggesting that Loyalty and Duty can't be proven to exist, and on the other you insist that they are separate things. If they are separate things, they exist. If they do not exist, they are the same thing. Pick one, please. You have this a little backwards. If they exist as expressed to us in the Klog they are separate. If they do not exist at all, they are still separate concepts (SteveMB used the comparison of phlogiston and epicycles, I was thinking of phlogiston and ether... all different things, all not existing).

When you say Duty, are you referring to the fiction imagined by the Erfians, or to the rule of Duty? Just trying to figure out which personality I'm talking to here... Both. Like my personalities, they are in fact the same thing. If it helps, you can add "(if it actually exists)" after the word 'Duty'. For more on the concept of objects that may or may not exist, I recommend Alexius Meinong's theory of objects, though I myself an not a Meinongian.

You can speculate all you like about the possibility of Loyalty and Duty being fictitious constructs of the Erfworlders overactive imaginations attempting to put things they can not see into the same context as things they can see, but we've been shown no other such exercise of the imagination within the story line. So your speculation is wonderful, but it is not supported by anything rational within the story.I figure that Erf has it's own version of science (empirical studies of magic, or some such). Otherwise where would all the info on magic come from (Sizemore clearly didn;t have it all form the moment of popping)? Science attempts to figure out how things work, but occasionally 'figures out' something that is false. For instance, ether.

This has probably been mentioned before, but if Loyalty where a visible number, then an Overlord would immediately be able to tell if one of his commanders was starting to entertain disloyal thoughts.
That is indeed a good explanation for why the value of the stat should be hidden, but the value could have been hidden without hiding the existence of the stat.

BillyJimBoBob

2009-01-09, 11:49 AM

I think the idea was that if the authors wanted to show that Loyalty was like the known stats of Move, Hits, etc, it would have been done that way from the beginning. The implication is that the authors didn't want that.I think you're right, but I don't see your point beyond that.

Except that the spell, magical compulsions and all, was crafted before anybody had any notion that it might summon a warlord without visible stats.

(Well, maybe a wizard Predictamancer did that part....)When you craft a spell which can summon someone "from anywhere in all existence" the implication is that you know something about all of existence, and that includes the fact that some beings in other parts of existence don't have visible stats.

Yes, we have. We saw that they've organized (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0040.html) the known types of magic into categories -- and, perhaps significantly, we've seen Parson express skepticism as to whether their beliefs about how their world works are really accurate.The organization of magic is based upon observable effects: "In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast." This categorizing has zero to do with elevating mundane concepts like loyalty and duty to the same degree as Attack and Move, other observable effects. There has been no indication of any kind that Erfians would imagine things to apply to units which did not either apply or exist.

If it helps, you can add "(if it actually exists)" after the word 'Duty'.I won't be doing that, and it would not help. Duty exists, as presented to the readers by the authors. To entertain theories to the contrary without any evidence at all has little merit.