PDA

View Full Version : Wanda has nerve



pendell
2009-01-12, 01:02 PM
... giving Parson grief over his failures when she is in large part responsible for them.

1) Attempt to trap Ansom by offering Jillian as bait. This was her plan. It failed. Parson wound up with the blame.

2) Dragon party platter. This occurred because Jillian was free (Wanda's doing) and broke the spell she was under (which Wanda had assumed could not be broken).

Another debatable thing: She fired off GK's air defenses in an attempt to get Jillian. All well and good ... but wouldn't those air defenses have been very, very useful when Ansom was in their air space? He wouldn't have lived to accept Charlie's offer.

Given that Wanda's track record is no better than Parson's and is in fact a good deal worse, she's got no business giving him lip.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SteveMB
2009-01-12, 02:13 PM
... giving Parson grief over his failures when she is in large part responsible for them.

Deflecting blame from herself (consciously or otherwise) is quite possibly her motivation.

headhoncho
2009-01-12, 03:01 PM
Deflecting blame from herself (consciously or otherwise) is quite possibly her motivation.

One thing that's been emerging for me is that with the exception of Parson (the intended "protagonist" as the anagram indicates, which is to be expected for a webcomic whose readers are predominantly gamers), I'm starting to either dislike or become quite apathetic toward most of the other characters.

Closest thing to like aside from Parson is maybe Vinnie, but this whole suddenly-appearing Caesar Borgata and his batswarm nonsense really took the shine off of the Transylvitians for me.

Jillian? Can't stand her. Wanda? Used to love her, now I'm kind of, eh. Ansom? Can't stand him. Stanley? Can't stand him. Sizemore? Eh. Charlie? Mild dislike.

Oh, and Bogroll's OK. But he's hasn't really been a significant character up to this point.

Maggie and Jack are OK, I guess. But again, aside from their usefulness as casters, we haven't seen as much development of them as characters as the rest.

In light of that, for me personally, the constant "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" from Ansom gets even more old. Parson's defeats seem contrived to me, and I do want the guy to win. And I'm sure I'll get my wish by the end, but even if I were to view this as a completed work rather than a work-in-progress, I would venture a guess and say that I'd still find this to be like one of those movies that went on for a bit too long.

talkamancer
2009-01-12, 03:32 PM
One thing that's been emerging for me is that with the exception of Parson (the intended "protagonist" as the anagram indicates, .

I looked on tinternet and found Hamstard the web comic, written by a Parson Gotti. Updates from 2006 and 2007 including an abandoned forum suggests that the character is either based on or named after someone in our world.

I think the protagonist anagram is a lucky coincidence.

No doubt this has been debated earlier but I've not seen reference to it yet.

headhoncho
2009-01-12, 03:43 PM
I looked on tinternet and found Hamstard the web comic, written by a Parson Gotti. Updates from 2006 and 2007 including an abandoned forum suggests that the character is either based on or named after someone in our world.
I think the protagonist anagram is a lucky coincidence.
No doubt this has been debated earlier but I've not seen reference to it yet.

It's a webcomic specifically set up on background for Erfworld.

Lemarc
2009-01-12, 04:12 PM
I looked on tinternet and found Hamstard the web comic, written by a Parson Gotti. Updates from 2006 and 2007 including an abandoned forum suggests that the character is either based on or named after someone in our world.

I think the protagonist anagram is a lucky coincidence.

No doubt this has been debated earlier but I've not seen reference to it yet.

I'm pretty certain the Hamstard site is fake.

talkamancer
2009-01-12, 04:34 PM
It's a webcomic specifically set up on background for Erfworld.

Is that in a FAQ or discussed elsewhere. 2006 is the first comic which seems a long time to be setting up for a fantasy comic. Or have I been reading this a long time now ?

Doomduckie
2009-01-12, 04:48 PM
The dates are probably faked.

And for the curious and for talkamancer, I'd like to present something that occured to me in this thread which actually made me want to post:

Parson Gotti = Protagonist, and indeed any other anagram in erfworld is almost assuredly intentional due to simple mathematical facts of probability.

WARNING- MATHS

The probability of flipping a coin once in the desired direction is 50%. twice is 25%. thrice is 12.5%. et cetera.

Now, it gets worse though. Imagine a theoretical d21 with all 21 letters of the italian alphabet (why Italian? Well, 1, Gotti is an italian name. Two, 21 makes this less painful than 26. Slightly. It ups the odds a little, as 'protagonist' contains no letters absent in italian but present in english). You roll this die 12 times, and can arrange the letters in any order. If the letters you roll make Protagonist/Parson Gotti, you win.

The chance of rolling PARSOONGTTI or any equivalent combo is about 1 in ten thousand trillion or so. Give or take. Astoundingly impossible, I can assure you, even if I'm too tired to do math on this envelope. It's comparable to winning a jackpot in a national lottery twice. In a row. (technically it does not matter to probability whether you've won or not before the prior time, as it's always just as probable (see numerous gambling fallacies), but "in a row" makes it sound better)

But, aha, you say. S, T, A, etc. are common letters while Z, Q, etc. are not. That should drive it up a little. It actually does, down to about 1 in 20 trillion. I think.

MATH OVER

On the downside for this first post, I'm 99% sure I've booped up some maths somewhere.

On the bright side of this first post, I'm 99% sure I'm not off by more than a factor of a million or billion, so regardless Parson Gotti <-> Protagonist is an absurdly rare coincidence if it is one. One can only hope fortune didn't waste its luck on such a silly thing ^^.

Thus, any time you see an anagram in Erfworld of more than a few letters, it probably has a reason being there. Unless it's just frivolous like E. Elves = Sleeve. Obviously the eager elves are secretly sleeves of some kind.

talkamancer
2009-01-12, 04:56 PM
The dates are probably faked..


In fact I did a forum search after writing that post (obviously doing it after the post is wrong) and discovered the Hamstard site is there deliberatly to set up some back story.


It's comparable to winning a jackpot in a national lottery twice. In a row.

Does this mean I won't win again ?

Having seen the post from Rob admitting the fake site I admit the protagonist thing is almost definatly an anagram, BUT I won't be led to believe that Saline IV means that Parson is in a coma and this is all a dream.

Lamech
2009-01-12, 04:58 PM
Saline IV is probably a joke...

headhoncho
2009-01-12, 05:07 PM
indeed any other anagram in erfworld is almost assuredly intentional due to simple mathematical facts of probability.


Aside from Parson Gotti, are there other significant anagrams?

Doomduckie
2009-01-12, 05:18 PM
Aside from Parson Gotti, are there other significant anagrams?

No clue. I personally can't think of one, but I'm sure we'll see a few others sooner or later. And one of the problems of anagrams is that you completely miss them until they hit you in the face- Parson Gotti didn't occur to me until I realised Parson wasn't a real first name (It's a last name, and it seemed as a Norman English one out of place to match with an italian last name anyhow before I realised that*) and thus tried to figure out what the joke was (I still haven't gotten Jillians' name, embarssingly.)

Incidentally Saline IV isn't an anagram- only rearranged letters are anagrams. That's just a pun. A pretty silly one because to work you have to assume people in Erfworld say "Eye Eye Eye" for "the Third" and "Eye Vee" for "the Fourth".* Then again, Erfworld is as Erfworld does.

*Things like this bug you when you're a linguist, like why it's Spidew and Gobwin and Dwagon but not Mawbit. ^^;;

talkamancer
2009-01-12, 05:23 PM
Aside from Parson Gotti, are there other significant anagrams?


Lord Stanley the Plaid

I plan he try dead trolls

Fjolnir
2009-01-12, 05:27 PM
not really, I think puns are more common, our best example of a caster is called "wanda firebaugh"; the swarthy barbarian fighter is "jillian zamussels"; the dashing prince is "prince ansom"; "duke nozzel" is the belligerent dissenter to their coalition's plans; when they're caught in the dragon donut, the commander of the elves is named "Tarfu (Things Are Really F-booped Up)". that or quasi realworld analogs, "charlie's archons", "maggie" (looks like margaret thatcher), "saline IV", "Faq and bannhammer", "janis the hippiemancer"

there are more but I think you get it, though I'm sure there's more anagrams but that's good just as quick examples

teratorn
2009-01-12, 05:38 PM
Parson Gotti = Protagonist, and indeed any other anagram in erfworld is almost assuredly intentional due to simple mathematical facts of probability.

WARNING- MATHS


Wrong, I can show you that it was inevitable.

You're taking a bad approach. It's true that with your d21 you'd have 21^10 ~ 10^13 (1 followed by 13 zeros) possibilities, but no sane person would find names that way. For all practical purposes that method would only produce "meaningless" names.

What you have to do is to consider all the possible arrangements of first names (Anglo-American) and surnames (Italian). We're talking of only a few thousand at most, so your chance of getting Parson Gotti is around one in a million. And we all know that if there's a chance of about one in a million, then that thing is bound to happen.

Edit: it seems Parson is also a family name. But the spirit of the thing is the same.

Doomduckie
2009-01-12, 05:51 PM
Well, true, a randomly picked name would be like SSSRSCQS or something. I suppose that was a flaw in the analysis I didn't imagine. Good catch- looks like I should only do maths when awake.

That said, the chances of randomly picking an anglo-norman last name (as a first name, something that shouldn't happen) and an italian last name that happen to spell PROTAGONIST is almost completely impossible.

Unfortunately, I have no record of every european first and last name on hand to prove it, but I would wager a pretty penny it's extraordinarily unlikely that any of them spell Protagonist as well or better (edit). After all, the kludge solution of Parson Gotti (the equivalent of, say, Johnson Carpenter or something as a name) was requried to make it work at least semi-convincingly, to the point where somehow it fooled me into thinking Parson was a real, albeit rare first name until I looked up the etymology and found it was last name only.

So, sadly, I can't think of a mathematical way to prove that it was an intentional anagram, and merely have to go back to old Ockham. Which, nobody is seriously arguing it's not, but it's disappointing to have some kind of neat fact/proof/maths and then roll a natural... well, that was more like some kind of extended roll where you keep rolling a 1 over and over again and thus keep rolling since I was only off by a factor of a billion- although I admitted in my disclaimer that I could potentially be off by that :P

EDIT: Whoops, I'm wrong. Bolded edit in. That said, Gontar' Poist is a sillier name ^^ (Russian and Irish of some kind).

Premier
2009-01-12, 06:10 PM
*Things like this bug you when you're a linguist, like why it's Spidew and Gobwin and Dwagon but not Mawbit. ^^;;

Well... 'w' is considerably higher up on the sonority scale than either 'd' or 'b'. So given the specific examples, we see two words where a low sonority consonant is followed by a high sonority one, and an incorrect word where it's the reverse. There you have, a rule. ('Spidew' has 'w' as word-final, so let's ignore it.)

Of course, 'gobwin' and '*mawbit' have the joint right along the syllable division (assuming syllabization follows the rules of English), which raises the question of whether certain combinations would result in assimilation, but I guess we just don't have a large enough corpus to see that in action. But still, low -> high sonority sounds like a good place to start. :smallbiggrin:

dr pepper
2009-01-12, 06:16 PM
Well, we could go over to languagelog.com and ask the experts there to work it out.

zillion ninjas
2009-01-12, 06:31 PM
After all, the kludge solution of Parson Gotti (the equivalent of, say, Johnson Carpenter or something as a name) was requried to make it work at least semi-convincingly, to the point where somehow it fooled me into thinking Parson was a real, albeit rare first name until I looked up the etymology and found it was last name only.

If it helps, there's precedent for family names making the transition to given names. One good example is "Gordon (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/gordon.htm)" (scroll down for the origin bit), which went from placename to surname to given name over time. A possibly more recent example would be "Hunter (http://www.behindthename.com/name/hunter)" (occupation to surname to given name).

"Parson (http://surnames.behindthename.com/php/search.php?type=n&terms=parsons&submit=Go)" is obviously another surname that started as an occupation. And it does make a fairly convincing given name, although I doubt that Erfworld has enough media power to make it popular...

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-13, 12:30 AM
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Parson

SOMEONE thinks it can be a first name.

DevilDan
2009-01-13, 12:19 PM
*Things like this bug you when you're a linguist, like why it's Spidew and Gobwin and Dwagon but not Mawbit. ^^;;

It's a "level of abstraction" mechanism, regulated by comprehensibility. After all, constructions that are likely to lead to confusion aren't as linguistically long-lived.

Miklus
2009-01-13, 01:11 PM
(I still haven't gotten Jillians' name, embarssingly.)

Jillian Zamussels = "Zillions-of-Muscles". Because she can swing a sword larger than herself, apparently.

Wanda Firebaugh = "Wand-of-fireball"

Stanley is a make of quality tools. So is Wanda!

Bogroll, Webinar ect. is just internet buzzwords.

The Minx
2009-01-13, 05:06 PM
Jillian Zamussels = "Zillions-of-Muscles". Because she can swing a sword larger than herself, apparently.

Wanda Firebaugh = "Wand-of-fireball"

Stanley is a make of quality tools. So is Wanda!

Bogroll, Webinar ect. is just internet buzzwords.

Bogroll = toilet paper.

And Stanley is also like Paul Stanley of KISS, which fits the war paint he uses.

teratorn
2009-01-13, 05:36 PM
Stanley is a make of quality tools. So is Wanda!


From the chinese internets:

« Wanda is specialized in the making of finest pliers, and quality can be trusted completely. »

«Wanda pliers will have professional performance and long term durability.»

headhoncho
2009-01-13, 06:16 PM
From the chinese internets:
« Wanda is specialized in the making of finest pliers, and quality can be trusted completely. »
«Wanda pliers will have professional performance and long term durability.»

Love it! Thanks for posting that.

SteveMB
2009-01-13, 07:41 PM
Thinking about it a bit more, I can think of two motivations for Wanda to accuse Parson of failing to live up to Perfect Warlord standards, even though she knows better than to think that a Perfect Warlord is ipso facto unbeatable (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html):

1. Changing The Subject: Note that Wanda avoided answering the question, and diverted Parson's attention away from it.

2. Lashing Out: With the situation apparently on the brink of total loss, and it being made abundantly clear that she, at least, has no hope whatsoboopingever of being captured rather than croaked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0135.html), she may have given in completely to despair. This would lead her to argue herself out of any thought that the so-called "Perfect Warlord" might be able to turn the situation around, and to bitterly denounce the "Perfect Warlord" for having presented a false (in her opinion) hope to the contrary.

Getting back to the question, why was Wanda able to withhold such critical information? Is it simply a matter of Duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) (including the requirement not to withhold information) being owed specifically to the ruler (Stanley) and not generally to superiors in one's chain of command? Or is the fall of Gobwin Knob actually necessary before Stanley can start his new side (thus giving Wanda a Duty to subvert Parson's defense, unless and until she learns that Stanley's plan is no longer operative)?

I don't buy Wanda's claim that a hopeless situation creates a loophole that allows disobedience to orders -- if it was, Sizemore could have bugged out to the Magic Kingdom (avoiding the painful necessity of croaking enemies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0114.html)) as soon as he decided they were probably doomed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0080.html).

Godskook
2009-01-13, 08:27 PM
Getting back to the question, why was Wanda able to withhold such critical information? Is it simply a matter of Duty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html) (including the requirement not to withhold information) being owed specifically to the ruler (Stanley) and not generally to superiors in one's chain of command? Or is the fall of Gobwin Knob actually necessary before Stanley can start his new side (thus giving Wanda a Duty to subvert Parson's defense, unless and until she learns that Stanley's plan is no longer operative)?

I don't buy Wanda's claim that a hopeless situation creates a loophole that allows disobedience to orders -- if it was, Sizemore could have bugged out to the Magic Kingdom (avoiding the painful necessity of croaking enemies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0114.html)) as soon as he decided they were probably doomed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0080.html).

Easiest answer is that Duty is reliant on the commander's own initiative. That means it is also reliant on the commander's beliefs and opinions. So its not a loophole, its how Duty works.

Also, remember that Wanda has piss-poor people skills. Thats why her field of study is related to the croaked and her only close relationship has her being sadistic. Hell, from the time Parson showed up, she's been treating him in almost equivalent manner to the uncroaked warlords. Minimum communication. Hell, she hasn't volunteered information to him since they let Jillian go, way back on page 30 or 40 something.

slayerx
2009-01-13, 11:40 PM
Another debatable thing: She fired off GK's air defenses in an attempt to get Jillian. All well and good ... but wouldn't those air defenses have been very, very useful when Ansom was in their air space? He wouldn't have lived to accept Charlie's offer.


That took place the day before this turn... She had a full night to recharge her magic... why she did not use it on Ansom, is unknown and may have been up to Parson; like she already used most of her magic raising the uncroaked units, or Parson wanted to be ready latter.

Kish
2009-01-14, 12:14 AM
One thing that's been emerging for me is that with the exception of Parson (the intended "protagonist" as the anagram indicates, which is to be expected for a webcomic whose readers are predominantly gamers), I'm starting to either dislike or become quite apathetic toward most of the other characters.
Amusing. My reactions are essentially the opposite of yours: I loathe Parson, and Charlie's the only one who approaches him in inspiring my revulsion.

headhoncho
2009-01-14, 01:05 AM
Amusing. My reactions are essentially the opposite of yours: I loathe Parson, and Charlie's the only one who approaches him in inspiring my revulsion.

Interesting! Putting aside the others for a moment, why do you loathe Parson?

Kreistor
2009-01-14, 01:37 AM
http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Parson

SOMEONE thinks it can be a first name.

There was a fad in my part of Canada for a while (early 20th century) where babies would be named after their mother's maiden name, with of course the father's as surname. So you could have a Thompson Smith, for instance. It's long gone now.

dr pepper
2009-01-14, 01:52 AM
MacKensie Philips
Hunter S Thompson
Washington Irving
Jackson Pollack
Freeman Dyson
Fox Muldar


Those are just off the top of my head.

quindraco
2009-01-14, 02:19 AM
It's a "level of abstraction" mechanism, regulated by comprehensibility. After all, constructions that are likely to lead to confusion aren't as linguistically long-lived.

I had to wait for Parson to explain it to me to get that spidews were spiders, since "spidew" sounds like "spy do", really dissimilar from spider. By comparison, Mawbit is incredibly easy to parse.

I think it's just that anything taken from another world has the r swapped - spiders, dragons, what have you - and anything new to Erfworld (marbits, transylvitonians) keeps its r.

Don't bring up eager elves, though, cos they ruin that theory.....

Jural
2009-01-14, 02:36 AM
Marbits need to be marbits- they were part of the summoning spell!

Never underestimate the power of plot.

As to the original topic... look, Wanda seems to have some hidden agenda, and she is likely trying to hoard those spells to use towards that end. Her statement is trying to cover up what most of us would consider to be an oversight. That's my idea.

As for the math of names... I think it's safe to say it's quite unlikely to be coincidence, and likely to be intentional.

teratorn
2009-01-14, 05:46 AM
That took place the day before this turn... She had a full night to recharge her magic... why she did not use it on Ansom, is unknown and may have been up to Parson; l

That was not «her» magic. Bogroll's words seem to imply that any caster could do it. Those were things embedded in the walls. But I think those defenses hit things in the airspace near the tower and inner walls, not the outer walls.

Whispri
2009-01-14, 06:11 AM
And if it was her magic, well those Uncroaked didn't animate themselves.

Kish
2009-01-14, 08:49 AM
Interesting! Putting aside the others for a moment, why do you loathe Parson?
Because he's still treating the situation he's in as if it's a game. People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys, he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld, he could have negotiated surrender terms instead of taunting Ansom into a frenzy...and why doesn't he? Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes. One of his supposed "friends" here tells him "I hate you for making me kill all these people," and he glibly compares himself to Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy! I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.

DevilDan
2009-01-14, 11:55 AM
Because he's still treating the situation he's in as if it's a game. People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys, he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld, he could have negotiated surrender terms instead of taunting Ansom into a frenzy...and why doesn't he? Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes. One of his supposed "friends" here tells him "I hate you for making me kill all these people," and he glibly compares himself to Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy! I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.

He has given some thought since the earlier altercation with Stanley to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and perhaps found that, as on Earth, there may be no such thing ("too fine a distinction?").

He isn't trying to wipe anyone out; his goal, as he just stated, is to prevent the capture of the garrison. He isn't trying to appoint Stanley emperor, at least not yet. I do think that he should have tried to initiate negotiations with Ansom once Stanley flew the coop, if only to seek to delay the RCC and perhaps sow dissension (whoops, does that degree of deviousness make me evil too?). I think that "duty" or "loyalty" or whatever else the spell did to his head are playing a part in it all, or it could just be the "unreality" of the situation that is affording the ability to even deal with the situation. After all, half the time he still thinks that this is the result of some coma or stroke; I don't know that many of us would not simply go crazy if they were in his shoes and hamstard shirt. The spell picked a person who would somehow be able to do the job.

He cared enough about Sizemore, Wanda, and Maggie to plan to send them to safety to the magic kingdom; he also did not seem unaffected by Misty's death.

I think what would have been despicable would have been taking Charlie's offer and saving his own rotund hide.

teratorn
2009-01-14, 12:08 PM
he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys,

No, the «good guys» are trying to wipe out his side.

Eraniverse
2009-01-14, 12:14 PM
Because he's still treating the situation he's in as if it's a game. People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys, he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld, he could have negotiated surrender terms instead of taunting Ansom into a frenzy...and why doesn't he? Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes. One of his supposed "friends" here tells him "I hate you for making me kill all these people," and he glibly compares himself to Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy! I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.

He has a gun to his head (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0032.html). Since he was summoned Stanley can end his existence at will. He can't switch sides and can't surrender. This isn't even taking into account the possible mind altering effects of loyalty and duty.

The gamer attitude is a defense mechanism. He's trapped and retreating to what's familiar. Surely you can recognize him being set up for an "it's not a game" moment similar to Misty that will shock him out of it and lead to painful character growth?

Sure you can argue that Parson should have morally objected to killing people initially and gotten zapped out of existence, but it would make for a brutally short story don't you think?

HandofShadows
2009-01-14, 04:34 PM
No, the «good guys» are trying to wipe out his side.

And they may not be the good guys anyway. "Color coded for your convience" may be misleading. Look at the reason Ansom is attacking: Because Stanley is not a Royal. He is basically a type of bigot, and he might be a lot worse than if I read Wanda's "hints" correctly. Not that I think Stanley is a great guy by any means. Like in many wargames of this type, there may not be any real "good guys" sides, everyone is a shade of gray. But I think there may be some good people (and bad people) on both sides. Parson is a guy trying to surive and keep his people alive, it's what a warfighter in the field does in any war. As for Wanda, she has been damaged for some time now (Homeland wiped out) and recently had a knife shoved into what was left of her heart and well as being badly injured. She is not right (or quite right in the head), but there are reasons for the way she acts.

DevilDan
2009-01-14, 04:52 PM
And they may not be the good guys anyway. "Color coded for your convience" may be misleading. Look at the reason Ansom is attacking: Because Stanley is not a Royal.

I feel compelled to point out that I don't see any reason to completely discount Ansom's assertion, unchallenged by Vinny, that Stanley did indeed make unwarranted or unexpected attacks on Jetstone forces and did wipe out the Milquetoast clan.

Yes, Ansom could be lying, but I see no reason to impugn his veracity in this instance. Yes, he is likely motivated by his belief in the superiority of the nobility--a view that is not wholly unreasonable given some of the apparent superior physical abilities or advantages of nobles and royals--as well as his unproven belief in Stanley's involvement in Saline IV's death, but I doubt that the entirety of the RCC shares his ideological motivations to a commensurate degree. Witness the reactions to Ansom's indelicate outburst after being goaded by Parson via thinkagram. I'm sure that some of the RCC are motivated by self-preservation, much as Parson is to at least some degree.

daggaz
2009-01-14, 05:29 PM
I looked on tinternet and found Hamstard the web comic, written by a Parson Gotti. Updates from 2006 and 2007 including an abandoned forum suggests that the character is either based on or named after someone in our world.

I think the protagonist anagram is a lucky coincidence.

No doubt this has been debated earlier but I've not seen reference to it yet.

Man...heheheheh...really? It never dawned on you that the Parson Gotti who writes that comic is just an alias, and that the whole Hamstard comic is a clever way to attempt to virally advertise Erfworld?

Cause the Hamstard hamster says as much in this strip.
http://www.hamstard.com/?strip_id=20
"Am I famous yet? What the boop is taking so long?
I'm starting to wonder if this comic was a bad idea.
Seriously. How are you supposed to viral market a comic that's for people with no friends?"

daggaz
2009-01-14, 05:35 PM
I had to wait for Parson to explain it to me to get that spidews were spiders, since "spidew" sounds like "spy do", really dissimilar from spider. By comparison, Mawbit is incredibly easy to parse.

I think it's just that anything taken from another world has the r swapped - spiders, dragons, what have you - and anything new to Erfworld (marbits, transylvitonians) keeps its r.

Don't bring up eager elves, though, cos they ruin that theory.....

Dont worry about the eager elves. Its only nouns that get booped, not the adjectives. And yeah, marbits are part of the original spell, so yay.

tribble
2009-01-14, 08:37 PM
Because he's still treating the situation he's in as if it's a game. People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys, he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld, he could have negotiated surrender terms instead of taunting Ansom into a frenzy...and why doesn't he? Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes.
he doesnt have the authority to surrender for one, and Ansom is unlikely to listen to reason. Ansom has nothing but contempt, hatred, and other bad emotions for stanley, with a massive dose of bigotry thrown in. it's unlikely that ansom would even accept a surrender, and if that was the case, then continuing to try to make peace to the eleventh hour would show weakness. and in his position parson absolutely cannot afford to show weakness. also, the "treating the situation like a game" is massively untrue, treating the situation like a game would be focusing on attrition of enemy forces first last and only. The inhabitants of erfworld treat their existance like a video game!parson is doing what the real world officer is supposed to be doing: accomplish his mission (the preservation of Gobwin Knob) with the least amount of his own soldiers dying. is George Washington a horrible horrible person for not just running away or surrenduring instead of fighting a guerilla war to preserve the lives of british citizens?

One of his supposed "friends" here tells him "I hate you for making me kill all these people," and he glibly compares himself to Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy! I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.


you do realize that the dorothy comparison is valid, right? they both wanted to go to another place to get away from their lives, they both got their wish, they both found a world where everything is brighter and lighter and softer...except not really.

Tarvok
2009-01-15, 12:40 AM
he doesnt have the authority to surrender for one

Actually, if Parson is as well read on the subject of strategy as he seems, he'd know better. From Sun Tzu chapter 10, "If the Tao of Warfare indicates certain victory, even though the ruler has instructed that combat should be avoided, if you must engage in battle it is permissible. If if Tao of Warfare indicates you will not be victorious, even though the ruler instructs you to engage in battle, not fighting is permissible."

It is within the authority of a general to surrender his position if he thinks that is the best way to go (and indeed, there are gains to be had sparing the enemy a pointlessly bloody battle). Indeed, so far as Stanley knew, they were going to be ground down by the end of the next turn or two, anyway... and I doubt he expected Parson to continue giving his all to the conflict.

But then... this isn't the real world, and authority is probably considerably more tangible in Erfworld than here. Parson can negotiate all he wants, but he probably can't actually change the flags, or hand over the units, or, probably, even set them to "non-hostile." Probably the best he can do is defend badly... which would betray the people under his command.

Personally, I like Parson. I'm getting the same charge out of the strategic puzzle he seems to be. And even if he were going to try surrender, he's got to bloody Ansom's nose before he can do that. If he'd offered terms the moment Stanley left, what would Ansom's motivation to accept be? He's going to pwn him the next turn anyway, so unless the surrender is total and unconditional... and credible, why accept? Parson has to show that Ansom has something to lose by continuing the conflict to its bloody conclusion... that this blood will be two-sided.

DevilDan
2009-01-15, 01:06 AM
It's hard to say no to your rule if he can kill you with a word.

In any case, I think that if Parson thought that it was over, if he didn't have some plan, or if his calculations showed that their chances of prevailing were negligible, he'd make good on his offer of evacuating the casters.

WarriorTribble
2009-01-15, 01:48 AM
Mildly surprised no one mentioned since Wanda summoned Parson herself, any flaws he has simply highlights her inability to summon that really perfect (with a side of clairvoyant) warlord. Course then it's all Stanley's fault again....

DevilDan
2009-01-15, 01:56 AM
Mildly surprised no one mentioned since Wanda summoned Parson herself, any flaws he has simply highlights her inability to summon that really perfect (with a side of clairvoyant) warlord. Course then it's all Stanley's fault again....

Several times over...

Olibarro
2009-01-15, 10:32 AM
Because he's still treating the situation he's in as if it's a game. People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys, he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld, he could have negotiated surrender terms instead of taunting Ansom into a frenzy...and why doesn't he? Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes. One of his supposed "friends" here tells him "I hate you for making me kill all these people," and he glibly compares himself to Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. Dorothy! I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.
I have bad news for you, then: you're reading the wrong comic. Parson is the good guy. Parson is who we are supposed to root for, and he will win in the end. Part of the point of this whole comic is that in spite of the outer trappings of "good guys/bad guys" it's not easy to say who is morally superior. Just because we have the goblins and dragons and zombies doesn't automatically make us the bad guys--or bad people for that matter. Another big part of this comic is examining a world in which ALL the rules are different--a world based on turn-based warfare where our old assumptions about morality and right and wrong are all turned on their ear.

Your complaints all seem to revolve around the assumption that the rules of our world should all apply to Erf, thus seemingly missing part of the whole premise here.

SteveMB
2009-01-15, 11:04 AM
Parson is the good guy. Parson is who we are supposed to root for, and he will win in the end. Part of the point of this whole comic is that in spite of the outer trappings of "good guys/bad guys" it's not easy to say who is morally superior.

Er... you seem to be making mutually exclusive assertions.

SteveD
2009-01-15, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure he did.

The morality of Erfworld is rather vague, but I agree its moving away from the simple good guy/bad guy scenario. Part of that is the character development of Stanley/Ansom (Stanley isn't as bad as we thought and Ansom isn't as good), but with that we've also had a lot of question marks raised over exactly how Stanley came to power, and whether he's responsible for all the crimes he's accused of (ie, Faq).

But Parson is clearly the 'hero' character we're supposed to identify with/root for.

SteveMB
2009-01-15, 01:18 PM
But Parson is clearly the 'hero' character we're supposed to identify with/root for.

He's clearly the character we're likely to identify with, yes. However, the assertions that we're supposed to consider him to be "the good guy" and "root for" him should be taken with a few grains of salt. This is indeed a story where "it's not easy to say who is morally superior", and Kish raised some valid observations as to why that applies to Parson.

Olibarro
2009-01-15, 03:31 PM
My wording was poor, but my point stands.

Thanks to SteveD for saying what I meant.

HandofShadows
2009-01-15, 03:55 PM
I feel compelled to point out that I don't see any reason to completely discount Ansom's assertion, unchallenged by Vinny, that Stanley did indeed make unwarranted or unexpected attacks on Jetstone forces and did wipe out the Milquetoast clan.

Take a closer look though. Vinny was like "hey, you just lost a few field troops and all of a sudden your "stop everything to wipe him out. Forgive me but that don't make no sense". IN other words Ansom's response is very much out of proportion fro what Stanely did. Ansom is after Stanley for one reason, and it's not because Stanley caused the loss of the few troops.

Doomduckie
2009-01-15, 04:00 PM
In Stanley's defense, making unprovoked attacks isn't exactly uncommon or unusual in erfworld- the entire world, save Faq, is always in some kind of low or high level warfare or civil warfare: it is a wargame, after all.

One of Parson's klogs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html) might hold the answer for why that is: Any non-allied troops who become adjacent to another faction's troops automatically attack unless they have a leader. (Does this mean Transylvitan troops, not technically being part of the RCC, would attack unless there were a leader present?- perhaps that's why we never see bats outside of a leader. Charlie's Archons not auto-attacking Ansom is the only unusual thing, but the Archons might have more free will than other units, being intelligent and caster-like.)

So basically, if you don't have every single infantry chaperoned by a leader- and the depiction of Ansom's troops has shown that leaders can't be everywhere at once, it's quite possible to accidentally attack someone nearby. So making unprovoked attacks in Erfworld isn't exactly unsurprising considering how militarised the universe is- I would be more shocked if war were rare in Erfworld.

Stanley could have attacked Ansom by accident, which would make sense for just killing a few patrols rather than invading. I'm not saying he did, but he could have done it by accident and been drawn into a war:

We don't know exactly how declarations of war work in Erfworld, but it's entirely possible that you could be drawn into a war by some trigger-happy troops who cause a border incident (real life, almost every war) accidentally or intentionally. Further, if you don't guard your borders, you are opening yourself up for conquest.

Actually, Ansom's "There's no such thing" reaction when Jillian mentions her kingdom as being peaceful and warless confirms it. Especially when she does say "Well, we did have mercenaries" to form a caveat. Erfworld inhabitants don't see war as something unusual- in fact, they see lack of war as unusual and exotic, so it stands to reason that starts of wars must not be too usual either.

As an additional note: Parson also notes that royalty are splitting apart- this implies that royalty are constantly gaining territory with which to split apart, otherwise you run into the Sicilian Problem (that is, dividing land over generations rapidly grows impossible without conquests, the problem encountered by the Normans in Southern Italy- it was actually this problem that started it anyhow- Tancred de Hauteville had a dozen sons and owned only 3 towns, so his sons all went off to fight and ended up conquering a large swath of Italy, eventually becoming Kings of Sicily).

Warfare and wiped out branches among royals is almost certain, since royals are constantly splitting apart and the world must therefore be growing in size, individual nations shrinking, or certain nations being wiped out.

What happens to neutrals and what Ansom is going to do to Stanley suggests it is the latter. So it's not like even wholesale slaughter must be foreign to the Erfworlders- heck, only casters and warlords have a chance of surviving a conquest due to the fact that they're useful for switching sides. All the infantry and so forth of a side by nature must be massacred since they don't switch sides.

This isn't to say Stanley's not a jerk, but Ansom is definitely not telling the whole truth when he notes what Stanley's done- mostly because the mechanics and universe of Erfworld hint that everyone is doing that all the time by necessity or by accident or on purpose.

pendell
2009-01-15, 04:41 PM
I have a working hypothesis that Stanley = incompetent Napoleon while Ansom et al = French Royalists.

Napoleon was a ********. Ambitious, vain, of common background, not even French, a minor officer until he happened to be commanding a battery of artillery when the French mob came down his street. He gave them a 'whiff of grapeshot', starting a long and illustrious military career capped by becoming Emperor of the French (a title he invented for himself) and conquering most of Europe ... before losing and winding up on St. Helena.

Very much like Stanley, except that Stanley is incompetent while Napoleon was a brilliant military and political leader.

His enemies -- the royalists -- held a grudge against the revolutionaries against Napoleon. They had been run out of their own country. The madmen in charge had massacred noble blood, and they were themselves not noble, having no right to rule. They dressed in white. They went to church. They were absolutely confident of their own righteousness. Ask them about Napoleon, and they would tell you not only about crimes past but about current aggressive wars. And they would be absolutely truthful.

What they wouldn't tell you -- because they were blind to it themselves -- was just how it was that Napoleon et al wound up running France in the first place. They could not tell you -- because they literally couldn't think it -- about centuries of privilege and oppression finally drowning in well-deserved bloody revolt. They would not tell you -- for they would not believe it -- that sometimes when the French revolutionaries invaded another country it really was because some of them believed in liberty, egality, fraternity. Or that the rest of crowned war was at war with them because the despots of Europe could not stomach a land not ruled by crowned tyrants.

And when they came back into power -- as they did when the rest of Europe defeated Napoleon and installed Louis XVIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVIII_of_France) in his place -- they were not at all nice to the conquered. It was said of them that they 'learned nothing and forgot nothing'. The result was the so-called White Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_White_Terror)

I urge you to think about the color choice. Why white? Because the royalists really did believe they were the good guys -- the best of the best, those destined to rule. And thus much evil was done by people wearing white, convinced of their own righteousness and blind to any possible alternate interpretation.

It's happened more than once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror) . Note the presence of so-called 'bands of Jesus', much like the Revolutionary Guards of the Cultural Revolution.

What color does Ansom wear?

White is many things. It is the color of the 'good guys' in fantasy. But in real life it is also the color of Monarchy. And if there's one thing The RCC is, it is royalist to the core.

Lots of evil has been committed by men who took white as their symbolic color.

So I'm not going to assume this is a re-telling of WWII, with Stanley as Der Fuhrer, until I see the Erfworld equivalent of Buchenwald or Auschwitz. If Stanley is committing genocide against entire classes of innocent people, then he *is* evil and his side deserves to lose .

But it's also possible that this is a war of royalists (who are pretty and 'white') against democratic revolutionaries (who are ugly, grubby, dress badly, and are accused of frightful crimes).

And it's certain there are good men and women (Vinnie, our dirtamancer) on both sides. As well as insufferable cretins (Ansom, Stanley).

Of course, it *is* possible that Stanley *is* the villain of the piece. Then again, maybe not. And if he is the villain, that doesn't mean Ansom et al are the heroes. They might just be 'good antagonists' a la Miko Miyazaki. Which means that they, as well as Stanley, need to be defeated in order for the 'best' ending to occur.

After all, the really rational approach to the 18th century war of Napoleon vs. French Royalists was: It's a shame they can't both lose.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Godskook
2009-01-16, 04:40 AM
People are dying by the thousands, he's trying to wipe out the side he considers the good guys,

Parson makes that assumption in his first hour on Erf, based on stereotypes and superficial characteristics; things like decor, uncroaked, dwagons, and gobwins. I for one, don't believe that he still thinks on those terms, and I challenge you to find a later point where Parson unequivically states who the good/bad guys are.


he despises the person he's trying to make the ruler of Erfworld,

a)Parson doesn't strike me as judgemental enough to 'despise' anyone.
b)heh. 'survive' is quite a bit less than 'make leader into world leader'.


he could have negotiated surrender terms

He could've? Are you really sure he has that authority?


Because he doesn't like to lose. Because the idea of losing without a fight is worse to him than the idea of Ansom killing him, and those are the only considerations he recognizes.

That's only true if you ignore the spell-compulsions and the effects of duty/loyalty.


I hate people who argue that all killing is morally identical when they're just arguing that point on the Internet, much less trying, in an extremely brutal fashion, to win a war they don't even believe in for it.

Then wouldn't you hate Sizemore, not Parson?

HandofShadows
2009-01-16, 09:30 AM
I have a working hypothesis that Stanley = incompetent Napoleon while Ansom et al = French Royalists.

SNIP

Brian P.

Very interesting read and I think, accurate. You could add in that other nations ruled by royalty had been attacking France after the Revolution, but before Napoleon rose to power.

And a small note there about something that caught my eye. Stnley was supposed to have wiped out the Milquetoast Clan. But Wanda in one of the very early pages had stated that ever since Stanley had started his quist for all the Arkentools, Qk had not won a battle. How you loose every battle, but wipe out an enemy Clan? An error on the writers part? Or maybe incomplete info? Maybe someone framed Stanley for something he didn't do? sm

SteveMB
2009-01-16, 09:38 AM
And a small note there about something that caught my eye. Stnley was supposed to have wiped out the Milquetoast Clan. But Wanda in one of the very early pages had stated that ever since Stanley had started his quist for all the Arkentools, Qk had not won a battle. How you loose every battle, but wipe out an enemy Clan?

If there was already an active coaltion against Stanley at the time, he could have been fighting against forces that included the Milquetoasts and somebody else, and lost the battle after annihilating part but not all of the enemy. At the time, Stanley presumably had more forces available to him, and his enemies may have had less.

HandofShadows
2009-01-16, 09:44 AM
If there was already an active coaltion against Stanley at the time, he could have been fighting against forces that included the Milquetoasts and somebody else, and lost the battle after annihilating part but not all of the enemy. At the time, Stanley presumably had more forces available to him, and his enemies may have had less.

Still does not quite track though. Even if Stanley managed to wipe out the forces in the field, they should still have a city intact and still be "alive" since not everyone would be in the field.

pendell
2009-01-16, 09:46 AM
Or it could be that we're getting incomplete information. Double standards may be in play.

Sort of like saying 'how can you support the allies in WWII? They destroyed Dresden, which wasn't a military target! They waged terror war on civilians!" -- which we did, that's what it means to 'target morale' and 'de-house civilians'.

The problem is -- that isn't the only atrocity in that particular war.

If all you think about is Dresden, while ignoring the course of the war up to that point which made Dresden possible -- including the destruction of Guernica (Spanish Civil War, but same people), Rotterdam, and Coventry -- you get a very lopsided view of what happened, and who the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are.

So I'm perfectly willing to believe that Stanley destroyed tribes, cities, and kingdoms. So did Alexander and Napoleon and Lysander. Up until the advent of precision weapons, the destruction of all these things was an expected part of war.

The question is -- *why* did he do these acts? Was he totally unprovoked, waging war without mercy on innocents? Was what he did an atrocity far exceeding the 'laws of war' -- such as they are -- in Erfworld? Or was he merely doing back to them what all sides in Erfworld do to losers?

Don't mistake me -- I'm not arguing that Stanley is the *good* guy. I'm just establishing what I believe is 'reasonable doubt' that he's the villain of the piece. I need more to believe Stanley & Co are the bad guys than the statements of his enemies (which aren't expected to be objective), the grim appearance of his troops (the 'angels' in the other side aren't exactly pinnacles of righteousness) or the fact that he's personally a rat (many managers and politicians are, on all sides of all wars).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Whispri
2009-01-16, 10:45 AM
I feel compelled to point out that I don't see any reason to completely discount Ansom's assertion, unchallenged by Vinny, that Stanley did indeed make unwarranted or unexpected attacks on Jetstone forces and did wipe out the Milquetoast clan.

Yes, Ansom could be lying, but I see no reason to impugn his veracity in this instance. Yes, he is likely motivated by his belief in the superiority of the nobility--a view that is not wholly unreasonable given some of the apparent superior physical abilities or advantages of nobles and royals--as well as his unproven belief in Stanley's involvement in Saline IV's death, but I doubt that the entirety of the RCC shares his ideological motivations to a commensurate degree. Witness the reactions to Ansom's indelicate outburst after being goaded by Parson via thinkagram. I'm sure that some of the RCC are motivated by self-preservation, much as Parson is to at least some degree.
Ansom didn't claim anything of the sort, in fact Vinny dismissed the idea that croaking a few field units, most likely as the result of accidental walkovers, could be regarded as cause for war. And that's all that Stanley had done to Ansom's side. Now Ansom did claim that Stanley was a great evil, but why take his word for it? We simply don't know what really happened to kick start this war, Stanley may be bad news, but that doesn't mean he happened to people without a reason. Ansom aside, the RCC may have perfect justification for having gone after Stanley, but if so that just hasn't been shown.

The army outside Gobwin Knob was prepared to sack the City after Stanley was dead and his side destroyed. Why regard them as anything but brigands? What have they done to demonstrate any noble intentions? And as for the reactions of the Warlords, I'll note that none of those people are the Rulers of their sides.


Still does not quite track though. Even if Stanley managed to wipe out the forces in the field, they should still have a city intact and still be "alive" since not everyone would be in the field.

Not if the King/Queen died and had no surviving heirs, everything turns neutral or disbands after that. Which could easily happen with a spot of carelessness or a Warrior-Sovereign who lead from the front. And Stanley has been described as a 'kinda' Regicide.

HandofShadows
2009-01-16, 10:52 AM
And Stanley has been described as a 'kinda' Regicide.

Is that like 'kinda' pregnant? :smallbiggrin:

Whispri
2009-01-16, 10:59 AM
Is that like 'kinda' pregnant? :smallbiggrin:
Could be, uncertainty works in mysterious ways. :smallconfused:

Well it's probably to do with vague suspicion over Saline IV's death, but if he's ever crushed a side, his troops pretty much have to have killed Royalty on his behalf, it's just a matter of how it happened. But that's not the same as having personally stuck the knife in you know? Particularly if it was the result of an opponents blunder

DevilDan
2009-01-16, 12:10 PM
Ansom didn't claim anything of the sort, in fact Vinny dismissed the idea that croaking a few field units, most likely as the result of accidental walkovers, could be regarded as cause for war. And that's all that Stanley had done to Ansom's side. Now Ansom did claim that Stanley was a great evil, but why take his word for it? We simply don't know what really happened to kick start this war, Stanley may be bad news, but that doesn't mean he happened to people without a reason. Ansom aside, the RCC may have perfect justification for having gone after Stanley, but if so that just hasn't been shown.[QUOTE=Whispri;5650450]

As I said, many members of the RCC may be in this simply because they think Stanley is dangerous. He does seem unafraid of attacking others in the cause of his religious crusade, I think. Of course there is propaganda in war; my point is that I think it's very likely that there was at least some truth to Ansom's claims that Stanley has been a bad boy.

[QUOTE=Whispri;5650450]The army outside Gobwin Knob was prepared to sack the City after Stanley was dead and his side destroyed. Why regard them as anything but brigands?

If they win, they'll write the history books. They'll be heroes, "liberators," and not brigands. Any questions?

Tarvok
2009-01-16, 12:32 PM
Is that like 'kinda' pregnant? :smallbiggrin:

Schrodinger's Box?

Whispri
2009-01-16, 12:47 PM
As I said, many members of the RCC may be in this simply because they think Stanley is dangerous. He does seem unafraid of attacking others in the cause of his religious crusade, I think. Of course there is propaganda in war; my point is that I think it's very likely that there was at least some truth to Ansom's claims that Stanley has been a bad boy.

If they win, they'll write the history books. They'll be heroes, "liberators," and not brigands. Any questions?
Religious Crusade? What on Erf are you talking about? If it's something to do with the Arkentools, then you do realise that two of the sides that own such Artifacts came after him without provocation? Why should Stanley be considered more dangerous then a side that attacked him with no real reason? Why should there be anything in Ansom's claims?

Yes: What's your point?

SteveMB
2009-01-16, 01:04 PM
Religious Crusade? What on Erf are you talking about? If it's something to do with the Arkentools, then you do realise that two of the sides that own such Artifacts came after him without provocation? Why should Stanley be considered more dangerous then a side that attacked him with no real reason? Why should there be anything in Ansom's claims?

Stanley himself describes the quest to obtain the Arkentools as a religious crusade -- in his view, he is carrying out the will of the Titans (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0033.html).

As for Ansom's motivation, I've already posted my thoughts on it (executive summary: he wants to convince himself that Stanley is wrong by beating the crap out of him and thereby demonstrating that the Titans are not on his side). Charlie's motivation is simpler still: he's a mercenary out for his own gain (though we can't rule out some deeper hidden game).

ralphmerridew
2009-01-16, 03:01 PM
And a small note there about something that caught my eye. Stnley was supposed to have wiped out the Milquetoast Clan. But Wanda in one of the very early pages had stated that ever since Stanley had started his quist for all the Arkentools, Qk had not won a battle. How you loose every battle, but wipe out an enemy Clan? An error on the writers part? Or maybe incomplete info? Maybe someone framed Stanley for something he didn't do? sm

Perhaps Stanley wiped out the Milquetoast clan before he changed his main goal to the Arkentools?

Whispri
2009-01-16, 07:01 PM
Stanley himself describes the quest to obtain the Arkentools as a religious crusade -- in his view, he is carrying out the will of the Titans (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0033.html).

As for Ansom's motivation, I've already posted my thoughts on it (executive summary: he wants to convince himself that Stanley is wrong by beating the crap out of him and thereby demonstrating that the Titans are not on his side). Charlie's motivation is simpler still: he's a mercenary out for his own gain (though we can't rule out some deeper hidden game).
By defending himself when attacked. There is a difference between taking the war gear of warriors who are attacking you and actively seeking trouble.

They're the aggressors either way, if Stanley was attacking others known to possess Arkentools Vinny's 'What did Stanley ever do to you' question wouldn't have been raised.

DevilDan
2009-01-16, 09:36 PM
By defending himself when attacked. There is a difference between taking the war gear of warriors who are attacking you and actively seeking trouble.

They're the aggressors either way, if Stanley was attacking others known to possess Arkentools Vinny's 'What did Stanley ever do to you' question wouldn't have been raised.

A lot hinges on when Stanley found out that Ansom had the 'pliers, something we do not know. There's no doubt in my mind that Stanley would croak anyone in the way of his fulfillment of the plan that he thought that the Titans had for him.

Whispri
2009-01-17, 05:44 AM
A lot hinges on when Stanley found out that Ansom had the 'pliers, something we do not know. There's no doubt in my mind that Stanley would croak anyone in the way of his fulfillment of the plan that he thought that the Titans had for him.

That is irrelevant. Stanley did not attack Ansom, holder of the Arkenpliers or Charlie the holder of the Arkendish. He did not start this war, and nor did he bring the attacks of Jetstone and Charlescomm upon himself. Your personal belief that Stanley might have started a war in some circumstances does not justify the actions of the RCC horde.

DevilDan
2009-01-17, 02:59 PM
That is irrelevant. Stanley did not attack Ansom, holder of the Arkenpliers or Charlie the holder of the Arkendish. He did not start this war, and nor did he bring the attacks of Jetstone and Charlescomm upon himself. Your personal belief that Stanley might have started a war in some circumstances does not justify the actions of the RCC horde.

Probably everyone on Erf spends his or her time coming up with spurious reasons to attack each other, just humans have done throughout history and continue to do. I don't think that either side is innocent or justified, necessarily. But I can see why the RCC could consider Stanley a real threat.

I don't think that Stanley started the war. I see no reason not to believe that he attacked someone, possibly with little provocation. I think that the RCC may have reason to believe that Stanley, particularly because of his mastery over the dwagons, the cities under his control, his fanatical beliefs, his psychological shortcomings, and his alleged aggressive behavior.

Sure, Stanley might have been spared if he were a royal. But he gave the RCC members both good and bad reasons to worry.

#94
2009-01-17, 05:11 PM
Here's another thought.

Erf is predicated on the rules of a wargame, apparently as solidly as our physics.

When i get togather with my friends to play <name of miniture based, futuristic wargame removed> i don't really concern myself with the justification of why i'm cutting down my opponent's troops. just that at the end of the game they don't have any left.

when you play risk, do you choose to attack a player because he has a philosophical difference or because he is close, weak and easy to kill?

Gez
2009-01-17, 07:30 PM
I have a working hypothesis that Stanley = incompetent Napoleon while Ansom et al = French Royalists.

Napoleon was a ********. Ambitious, vain, of common background, not even French,

Actually, Corsica was an integral part of France by the time Napoleon was born, and in French law that has always been sufficient to be considered French. (Well, not always, but long enough. France is a "jus soli" nation since 1515. Corsica was sold by Genoa to France in 1764. Napoleon was born in 1769, five years after.)


Very interesting read and I think, accurate. You could add in that other nations ruled by royalty had been attacking France after the Revolution, but before Napoleon rose to power.
Their attacks helped him rise to power, in fact. He got fame and prestige by repelling the enemies, notably taking back Toulon from the English.


And a small note there about something that caught my eye. Stnley was supposed to have wiped out the Milquetoast Clan. But Wanda in one of the very early pages had stated that ever since Stanley had started his quist for all the Arkentools, Qk had not won a battle. How you loose every battle, but wipe out an enemy Clan? An error on the writers part? Or maybe incomplete info? Maybe someone framed Stanley for something he didn't do?
It's also possible Stanley wiped out that clan when he was the Chief Warlord of Saline IV, before he was at the liberty to start his quest for the other three Arkentools.


Is that like 'kinda' pregnant? :smallbiggrin:

What is a "pregnant"? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0047.html)

DevilDan
2009-01-18, 01:42 AM
Erf is predicated on the rules of a wargame, apparently as solidly as our physics.

The idea that Erf is built for war and that everything within it revolves around war, along with the apparent possibility that there may be no such thing as a "noncombatant," was brought up when discussing the morality of the actions of some characters.

dr pepper
2009-01-18, 02:13 AM
Here's another thought.

Erf is predicated on the rules of a wargame, apparently as solidly as our physics.

When i get togather with my friends to play <name of miniture based, futuristic wargame removed> i don't really concern myself with the justification of why i'm cutting down my opponent's troops. just that at the end of the game they don't have any left.

when you play risk, do you choose to attack a player because he has a philosophical difference or because he is close, weak and easy to kill?

Actually, when i used to play Risk, we'd make up little stories, like "attacking Greenland with 3, that's what you get for hoarding ice!"

pendell
2009-01-19, 11:26 AM
Actually, Corsica was an integral part of France by the time Napoleon was born, and in French law that has always been sufficient to be considered French. (Well, not always, but long enough. France is a "jus soli" nation since 1515. Corsica was sold by Genoa to France in 1764. Napoleon was born in 1769, five years after.)


I stand corrected. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Zeful
2009-01-19, 02:14 PM
when you play risk, do you choose to attack a player because he has a philosophical difference or because he is close, weak and easy to kill?

First two bubbles. (http://www.egscomics.com/Filler/d/20030427.html)

Rumex
2009-01-19, 07:19 PM
Honestly, for all the negative character traits I've seen, I've seen plenty of positive ones, too. From everybody. Who you hate and who you like in Erfworld has more to do with your own personality or preferences than whether or not they're genuinely bad people (with the possible exception of Stanley).

Ansom is loyal, daring, and willing to risk himself instead of sacrificing minions. It's easy to hate the bigoted pretty boy, but he has his good points, too. (He's in love with his pretty ideals...)

Erfworld isn't like a morality play, where everything is laid out as simply and obviously as possible. It's more of a geek tragedy, where most of the characters are doomed, and their flaws as much as their virtues are what makes the story interesting rather than statistical.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-19, 11:43 PM
geek tragedy,

If that was intentional, 10 points. Otherwise, 2 for lucking into the typo.

Rumex
2009-01-20, 08:31 PM
If that was intentional, 10 points. Otherwise, 2 for lucking into the typo.

Only my hairdresser knows for sure. :) But I would never forget to capitalize a proper noun like Greek.