PDA

View Full Version : Perfect Warlord implications



Dystopianman
2009-01-24, 06:09 AM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but if Parson is intended to be the "perfect warlord" does that mean that eventually, down the line, when he levels up he'll be good enough to figure a way to turn the tables on Stanley and set up his own side? Assuming he doesn't get snapped up by Charlie of course.

Tubercular Ox
2009-01-24, 01:13 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but if Parson is intended to be the "perfect warlord" does that mean that eventually, down the line, when he levels up he'll be good enough to figure a way to turn the tables on Stanley and set up his own side? Assuming he doesn't get snapped up by Charlie of course.

I would think the designers of the spell would consider loyalty an important attribute for the perfect warlord.

dr pepper
2009-01-24, 08:46 PM
A warlord by definition is a subordinate.

DevilDan
2009-01-24, 11:51 PM
I feel compelled to point out that we don't even know if he can level, given that he's "special."

quindraco
2009-01-24, 11:55 PM
Note that a perfect warlord is a perfect warlord, and the ramifications of that may not have been fully realised yet by Stanley and/or Parson.

For example, he's capturable, as is a current plot point in the comic. If he ends up captured by someone who then goes up against Stanley, we might end up watching him take down the Stanster.

WARNING! MOVIE SPOILERS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SPOILER TAG!
THE MOVIE IS EAGLE EYE!







Any number of plot points I've seen in books were awesome simply because something did what it said on the in and the people who requested it just weren't expecting that. For example, in the movie Eagle Eye, when we find out a computer was told to protect America from its enemies; it then determined that the President was an enemy to America's interests. I will love it if something like that applies to Parson - he's a perfect warlord, which implies something Stanley wasn't expecting, and it bites him in the butt. For example, maybe a perfect warlord must be able to attune to any arkentool you give him.

Lamech
2009-01-25, 12:23 PM
I've always wondered if perfect could mean perfect as predicted by predictamancy... anyway if thats the case I suspect that Parson will not pull anything over on Stanley... unless, Wanda made the spell perfect for her, or Jillian, or someone else. Regardless I don't think Parson will stab whomever he was summoned for in the back

P.S. These
thingamigigers work far better for hiding spoilers. They are done by typing [*spoiler] then whatever you want hidden, and finally [*/spoiler]; excepts to *'s
Spoilers are not inside the above

Doshi
2009-01-25, 12:39 PM
I think the biggest implication of Parson's being a "perfect warlord' is that would mean that the spell that summoned him worked, or at least, will be widely regarded as having worked. Which means that almost every other faction on Erf World will probably decide that they also need to buy the spell from the Magic Kingdom, and use it to acquire 'perfect warlords' of their own. This means that every existing warlord, including both Anson and Parson, can expect to have a lot more competition in future. If Anson survives this battle, he may be replaced as Chief Warlord by a foreign, magically imported warlord. If he refuses to accept such a demotion, he may be forced to become a barbarian mercenacy like Jillian.

DevilDan
2009-01-25, 12:42 PM
Note that a perfect warlord is a perfect warlord, and the ramifications of that may not have been fully realised yet by Stanley and/or Parson.

For example, he's capturable, as is a current plot point in the comic. If he ends up captured by someone who then goes up against Stanley, we might end up watching him take down the Stanster.

Everyone is "capturable," actually; only casters are valuable enough normally to convert, though. Parson wrote that he would probably be killed because of his goading of Ansom.


Turned and captured units have notoriously low Loyalty to their new side, unless you put a spell on them. Capturing is usually reserved for valuable casters.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html

Yellowchopstick
2009-01-25, 07:35 PM
Well, I'm glad there was that comic page 124 to explain "perfect warlord". It seems like even Wanda had forgotten what she herself said on page 6:

Stanley: "Still. Just one warlord. That's all we'd get."
Wanda: "The perfect warlord."
Stanley: "Undefeatable?"
Wanda: "I...don't think so. But, as good as they come."

Greg
2009-01-25, 07:56 PM
Stanley doesn't list "loyalty" as a requirement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html). He just wanted someone big.

SteveMB
2009-01-25, 08:28 PM
Well, I'm glad there was that comic page 124 to explain "perfect warlord". It seems like even Wanda had forgotten what she herself said on page 6:

Stanley: "Still. Just one warlord. That's all we'd get."
Wanda: "The perfect warlord."
Stanley: "Undefeatable?"
Wanda: "I...don't think so. But, as good as they come."

There are a couple of possible reasons for Wanda's comments. The most obvious one is diversion (note that she never does get around to answering Parson's question about why she never told him about her cache of canned spells, and Parson doesn't get back to the issue). Another possibility is that she's lashing out in frustration and despair.

Godskook
2009-01-26, 12:15 PM
Stanley doesn't list "loyalty" as a requirement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html). He just wanted someone big.

Actually, re-read it. He says:

"And I know the spell will bind him to serve me, but I don't want a morale case. Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned."

This can be divided as:

a: And I know the spell will bind him to serve me

b: but I don't want a morale case

c: Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned

According to (a), Stanley knows(at least believes) that the spell forces the warlord to perfect loyalty by default. (b) states that this isn't enough for him. In (c), at first we assume that he means 'wants to be in erfworld' or something similar. However, given the context and speech bubbles(one bubble per thought is Stanley's standard on that page), it implies that (c) is more directly connected to the concern expressed in (b), the possibility of an unwilling servant. Essentially, Stanley is asking for someone who will serve him more or less willingly.

Glome
2009-01-27, 03:29 AM
I think the biggest implication of Parson's being a "perfect warlord' is that would mean that the spell that summoned him worked, or at least, will be widely regarded as having worked. Which means that almost every other faction on Erf World will probably decide that they also need to buy the spell from the Magic Kingdom, and use it to acquire 'perfect warlords' of their own. This means that every existing warlord, including both Anson and Parson, can expect to have a lot more competition in future. If Anson survives this battle, he may be replaced as Chief Warlord by a foreign, magically imported warlord. If he refuses to accept such a demotion, he may be forced to become a barbarian mercenacy like Jillian.

Every faction isn't paying attention to what is going in Gobwin Knob, and of the factions that are, not all of them would be willing to throw down 500K schmuckers for a new warlord, perfect or not. Stanley himself only bought the spell because he had no alternatives that would have saved his treasury.

But I do think it is very well possible that one or two factions might try to buy the same spell if they learn that is where Parson came from, and if that happens I expect them to summon Parson's gaming buddies because of the specific wording they will use on the spell.

Lolindir
2009-01-27, 05:23 AM
But I do think it is very well possible that one or two factions might try to buy the same spell if they learn that is where Parson came from, and if that happens I expect them to summon Parson's gaming buddies because of the specific wording they will use on the spell.

Wild speculation based on your quote and my imagination:
That might not even be such a strange idea. What if his former buddies thought Parson was gone forever and published his game? They would be considered the "masters" of the game in the real world. If that would be true, they would be the first ones to be summoned in Erfworld.

But I still think the spell has one flaw: if someone else summon's the perfect warlord with the same requirements as Stanley... would Parson switch sides?

Khanderas
2009-01-27, 06:10 AM
Neither Hampster nor Wanda credits a "perfect warlord" as someone who always wins every battle, but rather one who wants to win and is willing and able to do tactics that would bring the greatest chance of victory.

Burning half the siege ? Luring leaders to en empty zone, but surrounded ? Goading the opposing leadership into rushing things and suffer for it ? Setting up unlikly alliances (a faction with little resources left and a handful of turns to be toasted, actually gaining stuff from the merc Charlie) ? Massive losses for the opposing team and a massive gain to (short lived) uncroaked ?

I say, given the circumstance, he is doing quite well. Obviously.

Yellowchopstick
2009-01-28, 12:18 AM
Actually, re-read it. He says:

"And I know the spell will bind him to serve me, but I don't want a morale case. Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned."

This can be divided as:

a: And I know the spell will bind him to serve me

b: but I don't want a morale case

c: Get me somebody who actually wants to be summoned

According to (a), Stanley knows(at least believes) that the spell forces the warlord to perfect loyalty by default. (b) states that this isn't enough for him. In (c), at first we assume that he means 'wants to be in erfworld' or something similar. However, given the context and speech bubbles(one bubble per thought is Stanley's standard on that page), it implies that (c) is more directly connected to the concern expressed in (b), the possibility of an unwilling servant. Essentially, Stanley is asking for someone who will serve him more or less willingly.

You know, for all of Wanda's protests while Stanley was yelling at her, she actually got most of the things Stanley wanted on page 17, in my opinion, all but the "powerful, dashing, handsome, heroic"-ness, which remains to be seen, and perhaps the shock and awe while commanding from the tops of walls. In the end, even if Parson isn't the most perfect warlord in all of existence, he's actually the perfect warlord for Stanley.

Surprise!
2009-01-31, 12:30 AM
In the end, even if Parson isn't the most perfect warlord in all of existence, he's actually the perfect warlord for Stanley.

QED


I throw my hat in his corner

Tyris
2009-02-01, 07:23 AM
A warlord by definition is a subordinate.Someone should really tell that to Zsinj.

MickJay
2009-02-01, 08:45 AM
Depends on what definition of warlord we're using, if Erf one, then that would be true. Even so, Hamster is "special", and we don't know what are the implications of that. Then there's the whole question of loyalty - my guess is that if the loyalty is low enough, the warlord may stop being a subordinate and grab the power/change sides/become "barbarian" (neutral).

And yes, as a warlord, Parson is not objectively "perfect", he's perfect when it comes to fulfilling Stanley's requirements.

TheTurnipKing
2009-02-07, 09:50 AM
Except the spell was cast by Wanda, who was rather under duress while it was being cast. Meaning that it's possible that the spell went awry in some way that's yet to be revealed, despite it's apparent success.

I mean, assuming that expensive support plan was there for something besides providing extra revenue for the seller of the spell, as The Tool believed.

Akatosh
2009-02-07, 12:49 PM
About the gaming buddies thing: The dude with glasses does wear a Comedian skullcap... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0016.html) (visible in the first panel; also here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/nDzYHfTRGETPg70soKn.jpg), middle of the second row)

That's either a strange coincidence or incredibly subtle foreshadowing. After all, the Comedian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Watchmen#The_Comedian) was "the greatest killing machine of all times"...

Cracklord
2009-02-08, 07:31 PM
Given that so far Ansom has been able one-up pretty much everyone of Parson's scheme's, this remains to be seen.

Wizzardman
2009-02-11, 12:52 AM
Given that so far Ansom has been able one-up pretty much everyone of Parson's scheme's, this remains to be seen.

Except that Ansom has only barely been able to scrape by each and every time, and has lost numerous resources because of it. Considering by how much his alliance outnumbered the soldiers in Gobwin Knob at the beginning of this comic, if Ansom was a warlord of equal or better quality than Parson, he should have won the Knob several strips ago, with hardly half the losses he's already suffered.

Eldrys
2009-02-15, 04:53 AM
@^devil Dan: Parson can level up. In klog #7 he lists the troops in Gobwinod. The last one at the bottom of the page says "1 Cheif Warlord, Level 2, Special.

memnarch
2009-02-15, 04:53 PM
@^devil Dan: Parson can level up. In klog #7 he lists the troops in Gobwinod. The last one at the bottom of the page says "1 Cheif Warlord, Level 2, Special.

Could be that's the way he came into Erf.

Kreistor
2009-02-16, 12:45 PM
Could be that's the way he came into Erf.

If he couldn't level, he wouldn't have a level. He'd just be "special". He has a level and is special.

DevilDan
2009-03-04, 02:06 AM
If he couldn't level, he wouldn't have a level. He'd just be "special". He has a level and is special.

That's not an unreasonable assumption.

And Eldar Ditto, what I said is that we don't know that he can level, not that I believe that he can't.

Surprise!
2009-03-04, 05:25 AM
Wild speculation based on your quote and my imagination:
That might not even be such a strange idea. What if his former buddies thought Parson was gone forever and published his game? They would be considered the "masters" of the game in the real world. If that would be true, they would be the first ones to be summoned in Erfworld.

But I still think the spell has one flaw: if someone else summon's the perfect warlord with the same requirements as Stanley... would Parson switch sides?


Obviously it would pop his evil twin with a goatee.

Also, we do not know what the casters crafting the spell meant by perfect. It could be a nice blanket marketing term (seeing as how the spell tailors to the summoners demands it would be the perfect warlord FOR the summoner)

Mayhaps there was an astrix on the Perfect on that spell that Wanda didn't bother mentioning

Also the server is too slow for me to link the klog, but Parson's level is listed as 2

Sieggy
2009-03-04, 03:13 PM
About the gaming buddies thing: The dude with glasses does wear a Comedian skullcap... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0016.html) (visible in the first panel; also here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/nDzYHfTRGETPg70soKn.jpg), middle of the second row)

That's either a strange coincidence or incredibly subtle foreshadowing. After all, the Comedian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Watchmen#The_Comedian) was "the greatest killing machine of all times"...

And did you also notice that on the same page[url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0016.html], the game that Parson designed and has laid out on the hex board is exactly the same as Gobwin Knob, right down to the road leading up to the summit?

Though I think it would a coincidence of spectacularly awesome proportions if his gaming buddy got pulled into Erfworld as well . . . Unless Parson were to bring him over somehow.

quindraco
2009-03-06, 02:49 PM
Though I think it would a coincidence of spectacularly awesome proportions if his gaming buddy got pulled into Erfworld as well . . . Unless Parson were to bring him over somehow.

This would certainly fit the cliche of the story Parson is in, in which a person from our world with some niche skill is transported into an alternate world in which the skill is of critical importance. See e.g. Her Majesty's Wizard, in which an English major's ability to quote epic poetry off the top of his head makes him ludicrously overpowered; later in the series SPOILER WARNING he pulls in his friend the Philosophy major, who is overpowered for other reasons. END SPOILER

I would especially like to see this cliche parodied Erf style; for example, by pulling in a gaming buddy and having him be utterly useless.

Kreistor
2009-03-07, 04:55 PM
That's not an unreasonable assumption.

And Eldar Ditto, what I said is that we don't know that he can level, not that I believe that he can't.

You really don't understand the diference between an assumption and a conclusion. I have concluded that he can level because he has a "level". I have assumed that the author would not give us false indicators. Assumptions are used to draw conclusions where limited information is available: you base conclusions on assumptions. Those conclusions are not assumptions.

quindraco
2009-03-07, 05:07 PM
You really don't understand the diference between an assumption and a conclusion. I have concluded that he can level because he has a "level". I have assumed that the author would not give us false indicators. Assumptions are used to draw conclusions where limited information is available: you base conclusions on assumptions. Those conclusions are not assumptions.

No.

You're assuming A, asserting A -> B, and declaring that B is your "conclusion"; however, in that situation, B is just as much an assumption as A is. B is still an assumption; it's just not the base assumption you're working from.

Kreistor
2009-03-07, 08:04 PM
No.

You're assuming A, asserting A -> B, and declaring that B is your "conclusion"; however, in that situation, B is just as much an assumption as A is. B is still an assumption; it's just not the base assumption you're working from.

No, the assumption is not that "level" is important, but that the author does not choose words to confuse us on the rules. For instance, if Parson could not level, the box would have read something like: "1 Chief Warlord: Leadership 2, Special" (Klog 7, BTW) instead, under the assumption that I actually make. This would have indicated that Parson had no level and just a leadership stat (we already knew he had a leadership stat from an earlier Klog, but no assumption had been made at that time that Parson had a level to cause him to have a leadership stat of 2: Parson is assumed to have some differences, so he could have had a leadership but no level, disproven later by the boxtop). We know the other warlords could level, due to Stanley's ranting. The assumption is that the author is not trying to confuse us, which two definitions of "level" in the same place would require. So long as the author maintains consistency, all rules concerning an attribute that apply to other warlords apply to Parson. In other words, if the author is consistent, if warlords have a "level" stat and can gain levels, and Parson is a warlord with a "level" stat, then Parson can gain levels. The only way for Parson to have a "level" stat and not be able to level is if the author wants to confuse us by intentionally obfuscating. That's why my assumption is that he is not trying to confuse us, not that "level" has a particular meaning.

This assumption of mine actually underpins a lot of my thoughts in other threads, which is why I insist this is the assumption. It's how I came to the conclusion all Archons are casters (which has ever mounting evidence to justify). If the author chooses to be inconsistent and obfuscate the rules, all my stacks of cards come tumbling down.

galdon
2009-03-07, 10:42 PM
er, parson has two major problems with staging a coup against stanley.

1: Stanley could tell parson to stop breathing, and parson would ><
2: mental links have appeared twice, in both times it being severed caused major backlash, it being severed by a death could be even worse.

Tensu
2009-03-09, 11:26 AM
assumption: noun. a thing that is accepted as true or certain to happen without proof.


conclusion: noun. a judgement or decision reached by reasoning


reason (verb): think, understand, and form judgements by process of logic:

and things really get interesting in the following example sentence:


humans do not reason entirely from facts

thus, it is clearly possible to reach a conclusion using an assumption, but that is not the only way to reach a conclusion, though I don't think Kreistor was implying that that was the case. so because Kreistor both used reasoning in his judgement and has some sort of proof (although the validity of said proof could be debatable) Kreistor has made a conclusion and not an assumption. well, he has made an assumption, but that assumption is "if it has a level lower than max level and it has never been implied that leveling up is impossible for the aforementioned it, it probably has the ability to level up" which is a reasonable enough assumption to make judgement B qualify as a conclusion in my opinion.

BillyJimBoBob
2009-03-09, 08:04 PM
I would think the designers of the spell would consider loyalty an important attribute for the perfect warlord.

Stanley doesn't list "loyalty" as a requirement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0017.html). He just wanted someone big.

Stanley didn't need to ask for loyalty, and the designers of the spell did indeed consider loyalty to be important. So important that the spell will end Parson's very existence if he does not obey Stanley.