Am I just really thick, or is Gobwin Knob evil?

[mockingbyrd7]

Did I miss something? It sure seems like Gobwin Knob is an evil city - uses mostly Undead (uncroaked) soldiers, uses Croakamancy, uses torture... it just seems like a kind of an evil nation. Oh, and they're facing the Fluffy Teddy-Bear Legion. What do you think??

P.S. I find the comic pretty hard to follow for some reason... I don't know why. I follow stuff more complex than this, but something about the way the dialogue goes and the angles it's shot at often confuses me.

[Emanick1]

That is intriguing. I wonder how Parson will escape (which he obviously will) if you're right. Though it would be interesting to see Parson and Stanley and Wanda and all...fall...(sing that five times fast), I doubt that that would happen, with Parson anyway. The "good guy" siding with the "bad guy" the whole plotline through, however unwillingly, just never happens. I suppose that Stanley will escape and join the "good side," possibly along with Wanda, or with her help, once Gobwin Knob is the vastly superior force. Somehow. (Stanley will probably just swell the ranks of the Uncroaked with teddy bears. Somehow.)
What puzzles me is how that will happen if Stanley controls Parson. I suppose Wanda will have to undo that, which proves that she is not evil if Stanley is.
P.S. This confuses me too, though also like you I manage to follow things more complicated (some of them, anyway). Possibly because everyone has a staggering level of keen observance, like seeing the stuffed animal in comic #16.

[Maerad of Pellinor]

Yea, I think it probably is....

Which makes me wonder, will Parson plan the battle for Gobwin Knob to lose? Because he's obviously the equivalent of the DM in his game, and so he was planning the battle for him to lose and the PC's to win....So is Stanley stupid enough to let him make all of the decisions?

[Sisqui]

I thought Parson might have made the game for the PC's to help the evil side win against the overwhelming force of cutesies...... He might not want to be a slave to Stanley and therefore try to get the cutesies to win in spite of himself but I really see Parson originally setting up an anti-hero type of game for his players.

That is, of course, assuming that it actually is the game he was working on........

[Yendal]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.

Just because a certain side embraces a particular type of -mancer, doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'evil'.

[the_tick_rules]

well remember Parson kinda seems them all as tools. So if it's not real is it really evil?

[TinSoldier]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.Heh. Even though I don't usually go in for moral relativism I think you have a point.

But mainly your post reminded me of the movie Clerks where Randall was talking to Dante about all of the innocent contractors who may have died when the second Death Star was destroyed.

[Lord Zentei]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.

Just because a certain side embraces a particular type of -mancer, doesn't necessarily mean that they're 'evil'.

To an extent it can; particularly if they also use torture.

And when they are led by a megalomanic midget who is after Ultimate Power(TM).


Heh. Even though I don't usually go in for moral relativism I think you have a point.

But mainly your post reminded me of the movie Clerks where Randall was talking to Dante about all of the innocent contractors who may have died when the second Death Star was destroyed.

Well, they knew what they were building, and what it was for. Millitary indistries are a legitimate target in times of war, so "innocent" is stretching it a mite.

More relevant is what happened to Endor and its ecosystem after such a colossal battlestation exploded in low orbit. Suffice to say that the Ewoks would have to find a new home. :smallwink:

[slayerx]

This seems an a lot like the discussion over in this thread
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33521

You can't make immediate judgements based off of the appearances of a side... i mean, Ansom may have an army of plush, but he also is working with shady elves, and vampire-like guy who leads a legion of DOOMbats; not exactly looks like good guys. What this means is that we should not judge by appearances alone nore by our pre-existing perceptions. I mean, the only reason we call Goblins, undead and doombats evil is because of what we allways thought about them(their almost always on the evil side)... but for all we know, in this world they could be the goodguys, which would be quite the twist considering that would make the plush evil...

I think the best way to look at it at first is to think of the armies themselves as neutral, not good or evil... we then look at how each side conducts themselves(are they greedy, honorable, hateful, kind?) and THEN start making our conclusions. I mean, even when i put my pre-existing opinions about goblins and undead aside, Stanely to me comes off as more of a selfish, powerhungry, tyrant (thus his side being the bad side)


Well, they knew what they were building, and what it was for. Millitary indistries are a legitimate target in times of war, so "innocent" is stretching it a mite.
well, then you need to question whether they WANTED to help build the second death star, or if they were forced into the job... if they were forced, then they were pretty innocent

[Aquillion]

You also have to ask yourself whether Parson is going to take any of this seriously at all. I mean, as far as he's concerned, this is a game world, right? Even to the characters in that world themselves, things like death and warfare seem to seem partially comical, partially cute and game-like.

He's commanded the forces of evil before. As far as he's concerned, it just means you paint your units black-and-gold and get to laugh manically if you win.

[Erk]

As a previous poster said, I would think from Parson's demonstrated personality in Hamstard that he would intend for the players to help the forces of dark, cool zombehs and sadistic sexy sorceresses and potty humour and overweight trolly things to overthrow the unspeakable forces of... ugh. Candyland and fluffybunny. I have had at least one GM with that exact sense of humour before. He kinda looked like Parson too, but was nowhere near as good a GM. I digress.

Aside from the cosmetic we have no reason to assume Ansom is a kindhearted soul. His strategy is a very high-loss scenario, relying on throwing thousands of his allied soldiers to the death simply because he has enough troops to get away with it. He's basing it on their personalities, taking advantage of the eager elves' tendency to agree to anything ("woo!") and tossing away his most useless allies as cannon fodder. Now, these are not unusual strategies in a real military campaign, but neither is interrogation. War is nasty stuff, and both sides do atrocious work to win it. So far, we have no reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's... in fact, given that Stanley seems to be fighting a losing defensive battle while he focuses on non-war-related things, it seems to me Ansom is far more likely the aggressor. Time will tell.

[random11]

I hate D&D typed alignment.
What I hope, is for static alignment issues to be totaly ignored in this comic.

[Setra]

Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.

That about sums my thoughts up

[Sisqui]

Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.

No offense, but I think that is the most naive thing I have ever read.......

[Maurog]

I like how you support the quote by a seemingly opposed statement. Sly!

[Chummer]

You can ask yourself what defines good and evil any nuber of times as you want but its darn hard to explain But i dont find Prins Ansom or jillian on the side of good She is too war hungry and he is too self centered much like the common villan he thinks him self better then others and even unbeateble...
its parsons game allright and who says all them Cute things are good anyway
most of them so anoying we all have thought about a teletubby in a petrole fire ! .....who wouldent want to slay the caere baeres to be rid of yet a themesong ?

[Sewer_Bandito]

I'm sure even in today's world, a majority of the world's nations use to find out what they want to know, if bribery and blackmail don't work out for them first. Does that make all of those nations evil? It depends on your point of view.

And just because they use undead doesn't make them evil either, I mean, what else are you supposed to fight with when everyone else is ?

[Hephaestus]

Jillian mercilessly slaughtered a Twoll and some uncroaked, and she's on the good side. I don't think either side is good or evil, just two groups at war with one another.

[Sisqui]

I like how you support the quote by a seemingly opposed statement. Sly!
I have no doubt there are many different perspectives on issues but to say
there are no good sides or bad sides is just plain ridiculous.

[Radar]

Well... it doesn't matter, weather Gobwin knob is an evil city or not. Hadn't you ever played on the evil side in a RPG or a strategic game? I assume, that most of us did, because it wasn't real. It was just a game - nothing more to it. And for Parson it is just a weird dream about a game.
What is more importent, it is a strategical problem, he was investigating for a few months. I think, he will lead the batlle to win it just to prove himself as a strategist and to see weather his ideas about unballanced warfare were correct.

Besides: uncroaking is just like recycling applied to your troops :smallwink:
And why trolls have to be evil, just because they are smelly? Bogroll seems to be a realy kind humanoid. :smallsmile:

[Firestar27]

Parson will not intentionally make Stanley lose because he is "evil". You can't base that on the fact that "Parson was going to try to lose so that the PCs could win" in his RL game. You can't do that because he wasn't DMing. He wasn't playing an RPG in his RL game. He was playing a wargame like Warhammer.

[Om]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception.
In the real world. Parson can no longer be counted as an inhabitant of this.

[Sisqui]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception.

Ye gods, please tell me that was a joke. Maybe not a funny one, but still a joke........
Try saying "Evil can sometimes be just a matter of perception."

[mikeejimbo]

Ye gods, please tell me that was a joke. Maybe not a funny one, but still a joke........
Try saying "Evil can sometimes be just a matter of perception."

Sadly, I have to agree with the statement that "Evil is a matter of perception." In the real world, 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrarily-defined human concepts.

[Lemur]

It's fairly clear that Stanley is a major bad guy. He attacks various people in order to gain the tools of the titans, in what appears in all respects to be a desire for personal power. I doubt that he has some other, more noble purpose for it that conveniently hasn't been mentioned yet.

Furthermore, the opposing forces, appear more like stereotypical heroes. Of course, in a comic like this, that doesn't mean a much, but it is clear that Stanley has alienated most of Erfworld with his actions, seeing as they've formed an alliance of multiple otherwise separate peoples who feel that the world will be better off without Stanley.

I think that this is supposed to be one of the twists in the comic- Parson, who isn't your typical "hero from modern day Earth teleported to another world in order to save it" has been brought in to help the antagonists instead of the good guys. Most likely, this is meant to be ironically appropriate, since if Erfworld was the battle Parson was going to play with his friends, he probably would have been playing the bad guys defending the city (the role of the game master is usually to play the bad guys the heroes have to defeat, after all) while his four friends played the forces of good trying to invade the capital.

[Sisqui]

Sadly, I have to agree with the statement that "Evil is a matter of perception." In the real world, 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrarily-defined human concepts.

Even if you had an infinite number of shades of gray that still would not negate the fact that there is still a black and a white.

However broad the spectrum of things debatably good/evil is, there are some things which are absolutely in one camp or the other. I would post some examples but I think I might get scrubbed if I did. :smallmad:

As for them being human concepts, well, of course they are. Good and evil are both based on intent. Since humans are the only animals capable of a thought process complex enough to conceive of good and evil, they would belong exclusively to us. That does not negate their existence!

[mikeejimbo]

Since humans are the only animals capable of a thought process complex enough to conceive of good and evil, they would belong exclusively to us. That does not negate their existence!

Oh, no, of course not. They exist, but they only exist because we're here to perceive them, aye?

[Om]

The whole moral/philosophical argument regarding good and evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12325) is better dealt with elsewhere.

[Sisqui]

Oh, no, of course not. They exist, but they only exist because we're here to perceive them, aye?

Deleted by me

Om is right, this is not the place for a good/evil discussion or a debate on existentialism. :smallfrown: Too bad...

[Erk]

It's not the end of the world, sisqui, just head out and continue in an appropriate section of the forum. Moral relativism is a pretty debunked philosophy, but in Erfworld we really have no concrete reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's, and therefore no reason to argue that "stanley's side is good because they think they are doing the right thing, while ansoms is good for the same reason". It's all in the air right now, we hardly know anything about either side.

There is no evidence that uncroaking troops is immoral, yet... simply because necromancy is considered evil in standard fantasy is not enough. The only actual bad thing we have therefore seen from Stanley is that he is impetuous and self-centered, but we have also seen that Ansom is bellicose and self-centered. The only argument anyone really has for the Cute and Plush being good, then, is that they are Cute and Plush. That is a superficial and rather silly argument.

[Sisqui]

It's not the end of the world, sisqui, just head out and continue in an appropriate section of the forum. Moral relativism is a pretty debunked philosophy, but in Erfworld we really have no concrete reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's, and therefore no reason to argue that "stanley's side is good because they think they are doing the right thing, while ansoms is good for the same reason". It's all in the air right now, we hardly know anything about either side.

Actually, I posted (can't remember which thread) that Parson might have written out a scenario in which his players were to save the "evil" side from the cutesies...... but thanks for the thought!:smallsmile:

Edit- Silly me. That was this thread!

[Enlong]

Yes, Gobwin Knob and definately Stanley the Plaid are the badguys of the game.

[Joxer]

Have any of you DM'd before? Do you know how frustrating it is to have specific players try to thwart your best laid plans over and over? So Parson is in charge of the evil city, that's what DM's are in charge of 99% of the time. Maybe for once the DM gets to take it to the goodie goodies.

/rant
hates the 'wizard' players that have the damn monster manual memorized...
Him: "Its a Bodak, don't look at it"
Me: "...your character doesn't know that without a knowledge check...roll"
Him: "i'm a powergamer and don't have knowledge skills"
Me: "looks like you'll need to be making that fortitude save then"
/end rant

[Erk]

Have any of you DM'd before? Do you know how frustrating it is to have specific players try to thwart your best laid plans over and over? So Parson is in charge of the evil city, that's what DM's are in charge of 99% of the time. Maybe for once the DM gets to take it to the goodie goodies.

/rant
hates the 'wizard' players that have the damn monster manual memorized...
Him: "Its a Bodak, don't look at it"
Me: "...your character doesn't know that without a knowledge check...roll"
Him: "i'm a powergamer and don't have knowledge skills"
Me: "looks like you'll need to be making that fortitude save then"
/end rant
For the first, your players clearly have more critical thinking skills than mine, or your plots are more straightforward. I usually need a mary-sue just to keep my players from killing themselves. Wanting to thwart them is not the problem, wanting to keep them from thwarting themselves is. (cringes at a team of four level 2 characters peeing on a sleeping owlbear)

For the second, just don't use the default MM skills and powers. Twist them around slightly to mess with your players. If you get the hang of it and do it as a standard fare system, they will stop assuming they know the monsters you throw at them just because they look like ones from the manual.

Anyway, it seems totally out of character for Parson to describe Stanley's forces as "unspeakable". It seems far more likely that the Cute and Plush would be unspeakable forces. Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?

[slayerx]

Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?
How about when the DM is so good he has already figured out how defeat such a force? Players start out thinking it's gonna be easy, then a few strong strategic defensive moves later and players start finding themselves on the run, desperatly needing to recover.

[Tokiko Mima]

Stanley's side encourages the use of torture, uses croakamancy and legions of croaked troops that likely aren't getting paid, and enslaves dwagons to fight for them. Stanley's side is clearly evil, but Ansom's side could very well be either good or evil. The only sign we have is that it appears Ansom's followers are fighting with him willingly, so he seems good so far.

[Scudboy]

I can't believe some of the responses here. I appreciate the desire not to rush to judgment, but "tortures for fun" pretty much codes as "evil" where I come from.

Interestingly, there don't seem to be any civilians on Erfworld, which makes part of the moral dilemma Parson is going to find himself in a bit less interesting.

[Strengfellow]

Well who cares if Tool Stanley et al are evil.
Look at it like this, would it not be a refreshing change for evil to prevail?
It would certainly be a damn sight more interesting than the standard sword and sorcery fare, filled as it is with innumerate write by number pastiches and sadly lacking in many fresh voices.

More power to the respective elbows of Rob Balder and Jamie Noguchi.

This rant was produced with the assistance of nicotine withdrawal symptoms.

[pendell]

Some thoughts:

1) It SEEMS likely that Stanley & Co. are Evil with a capital E, based on their use of Gobwins, Dwagons, and unCroaked.

2) That said -- things are not always what they seem. It may be that the situation is reversed. Or it may be that Stanley & Co. are evil but still less evil than whoever Handsome is who runs the show for the good guys. IIRC, Sauron in the Silmarrillion was able to put on a fair guise and appear to be a 'good guy' up until the events of Akallabeth.

It is by no means unknown in fiction, or in myth.

So we shouldn't judge by first appearances.

3) What's-her-name has hobbies of torture and interrogation.
While true, this does not mean the OTHER side doesn't use these methods. Up until the 20th century, torture was a standard part of interrogation in pretty much every army in existence.

4) Even if these guys are Evil, that doesn't mean Parson won't support them, for two reasons:

4A) He thinks this is a dream. So to him fighting for the bad guys in a dream has no more reality than any other dream; do what you like, there are no consequences and it may be useful in his real-life game.

4B) Even if he knows it's real -- and that's something we, the audience, don't necessarily know -- where is it written that Parson is a *good* character? He might gladly support Evil. For some people, Evil is a small price to pay if it carries with it significance and importance. "Better reign in hell than serve in Heaven", as Milton says.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Querzis]

I'm sure Stanley is evil. After all he started a war just to get another artifact. There is also his «Quest for ultimate power», those quest are never good. But that doesnt mean all his soldiers and Wanda are evil. After all, if Parson needs to follow Stanley orders or he die then maybe its the same thing for everyone else in Stanley army. But if Wanda really like to torture people then yes, she is also evil but we dont know if thats true.

By the way, its true that many countries used torture before or are still using it. Sometimes its not evil but most of the time it is, especially if they actually enjoy torturing people.

[SteveMB]

But if Wanda really like to torture people then yes, she is also evil but we dont know if thats true.

We do know that Stanley assumes it to be true, and is down with it, which makes it pretty clear that he's an evil little tool.

[Demented]

Maybe trapped and tormented souls have been infused into the fluff of those cloth golems.
You never know.

Though, closing one's eyes and assuming what one believes to be true usually works nine out of ten times in fantasy.

[Erk]

Gobwin Knob is clearly not good, I don't think anyone has really claimed it is. I don't know if torturing a military prisoner in a medieval society can really be called evil though. It is just too darned commonplace. I'm not arguing moral relativity here, but that morals change over time. In war and in older times, torture was simply not seen as evil or wrong. Now, that doesn't mean Stanley is a paragon of virtue, but that alone is not really enough reason to call him and the gobwins the darkest of the dark.

[fractal]

That's a good point. Stanley's team is definitely painted as the "evil" side, while Ansom appears to be "good". That said, neither of them really seems very nice.

Furthermore, while the female characters are more sympathetic, one enjoys raising the dead and torture, while the other... well, we know she's violent at least. I guess if that's all we have to condemn her for, Jillian has behaved pretty reasonably for a miniature.

I haven't seen anything in Parson's nature to indicate that he would mind the challenge of directing the outnumbered "evil" side to victory.

[Corolinth]

Moral relativism is a pretty debunked philosophyThis explains the vast gulf of differences between the religions of the world.

[InfernalistGame]

Well, they knew what they were building, and what it was for. Millitary indistries are a legitimate target in times of war, so "innocent" is stretching it a mite.

More relevant is what happened to Endor and its ecosystem after such a colossal battlestation exploded in low orbit. Suffice to say that the Ewoks would have to find a new home. :smallwink:

Actually, according to the propoganda given out by the Empire, and supposedly to the crews involved in non-critical systems... the "Death Star" project was a mobile terraforming device, able to alter critical environmental factors such as atmospheric temperature... the Alliance hijacked it, overloaded it and blew up Alderaan.

Spin control. Gotta love it.

[InfernalistGame]

For the first, your players clearly have more critical thinking skills than mine, or your plots are more straightforward. I usually need a mary-sue just to keep my players from killing themselves. Wanting to thwart them is not the problem, wanting to keep them from thwarting themselves is. (cringes at a team of four level 2 characters peeing on a sleeping owlbear)

For the second, just don't use the default MM skills and powers. Twist them around slightly to mess with your players. If you get the hang of it and do it as a standard fare system, they will stop assuming they know the monsters you throw at them just because they look like ones from the manual.

Anyway, it seems totally out of character for Parson to describe Stanley's forces as "unspeakable". It seems far more likely that the Cute and Plush would be unspeakable forces. Besides, how interesting is a campaign of 24:1 odds in the players' favour for a team of experienced gamers?

If they decide to piss on an owlbear, let it eat them. Do that long enough, and they usually clean up. I have a simple rule "Dice eat fools. Try to keep your head in the moment, and there may be mercy at bad luck. Screw around, and you chew your botches and villain crits."

[ichthus]

I don't see where necromancy (croakamancy) is so wrong. It's good use of your current resources. Sure, a Zombie doesn't have the speed or accuracy of a living soldier, but if your living soldier dies, does that mean you can't still use them as a resource?

Reduce. Reuse. Reanimate.

This post sponsored by: Necromancers for a Better Tomorrow.

[Sisqui]

Gobwin Knob is clearly not good, I don't think anyone has really claimed it is. I don't know if torturing a military prisoner in a medieval society can really be called evil though. It is just too darned commonplace. I'm not arguing moral relativity here, but that morals change over time. In war and in older times, torture was simply not seen as evil or wrong. Now, that doesn't mean Stanley is a paragon of virtue, but that alone is not really enough reason to call him and the gobwins the darkest of the dark.

I don't think torture during warfare is necessarily evil even in modern times, provided the torture is for the purpose of obtaining information that will keep your troops/civilians alive. It may be horrific, but wars are not won by the faint of heart and you have to do what is necessary to protect the lives you are entrusted with. However, torturing someone just for kicks, that is evil. If Wanda is a torturer because she has to be, I can understand it even if I don't like it. If she tortures people for fun, I am going to have to start seriously disliking her.......:smallfrown:

[FelixZ]

So is Stanley stupid enough to let him make all of the decisions?

What do you think? :smallsigh:

[Jorkens]

If Wanda is a torturer because she has to be, I can understand it even if I don't like it. If she tortures people for fun, I am going to have to start seriously disliking her.......:smallfrown:
Or at least believing that she's evil - as the OotS forums show, being unneccesarily cruel and sadistic is no obstacle to getting love from da fans...

[Sisqui]

Or at least believing that she's evil - as the OotS forums show, being unneccesarily cruel and sadistic is no obstacle to getting love from da fans...

QFT!:smallbiggrin:

[Rocheforte]

Stanley's side encourages the use of torture, uses croakamancy and legions of croaked troops that likely aren't getting paid, and enslaves dwagons to fight for them. Stanley's side is clearly evil, but Ansom's side could very well be either good or evil. The only sign we have is that it appears Ansom's followers are fighting with him willingly, so he seems good so far.

OK, the other points are pretty standard fantasy-genre "define the bad guys" criteria, but are you seriously saying that beyond merely having uncroaked troops, Stanley's forces are evil because those zombies aren't drawing paychecks?

We'll see how Ansom treats his prisoners, if he ever gets any.

[Calemyr]

Well, the imagery has certainly put Gobwin Knob on the dark side of things, using unCroaked, dwagons, spiders, and the like. Ansom, on the other hand, has vampires and bats in his alliance - rarely considered the sign of great virtue. Then again... vamps do fit the profile of Ansom's Alliance: right there are all the things a cynical man like Parson would likely despise: lame internet memes, handsome male leads, goth-poser-vampires, and everything that is so sugary sweet and innocent that it rots teeth at a thousand paces.

Now, whether Stanley himself is evil, well... he encourages croakamancy, torture, and conquests for ultimate power, but what really cinches it for me is how he communicates over that book. "need u 2 uncroak him"? *Shudder*

As for Parson himself, I don't think he'd really care which side is which. All that really matters is that he's got a very challenging ordeal ahead of him and his own life is part of the stakes. Once he gets going, this might be the most fun he's ever had.

[FelixZ]

Look at it this way: Hitler had thousands upon thousands of loyal followers that willingly killed themselves for him. However, did that make him good?

On the same side, thousands of nobles went riding to thier deaths during the crusades. Did that make the pope evil?

[Erk]

I don't think we have any reason yet to know that croakamancy is evil. Just because necromancy is portrayed as evil in a lot of fiction doesn't mean it is, and we don't even know for sure if croakamancy is the same thing yet.

[Rainspattered]

I missed the step in your logical explanatio nwhere undead=evil.
Unless you're just using racism in a fantasy context to judge an entire species with a certain morality, of course.

[Sisqui]

I don't think we have any reason yet to know that croakamancy is evil. Just because necromancy is portrayed as evil in a lot of fiction doesn't mean it is, and we don't even know for sure if croakamancy is the same thing yet.

True. Necromancy is usually portrayed as evil when it is believed that 1)The soul is still attached to the body and cannot move on to the afterlife or
2)There is some type of societal taboo on disturbing the remains of the dead.
As there is no indication that either is true in Erfworld, it is entirely possible that croakamancy isn't evil.

[Lord Zentei]

Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just two sides holding different views.Must... resist... temptation... to invoke... Godwin...


EDIT: Heh, actually it would not be an invokation of Godwin, since the infamous psycho with the silly little mustache never held this view. :smallwink:

But, seriously, extreme moral relativism of this kind is bad mojo. Differences of opinion are one thing, but not all philosophical positions are equally valid.

[Tokiko Mima]

OK, the other points are pretty standard fantasy-genre "define the bad guys" criteria, but are you seriously saying that beyond merely having uncroaked troops, Stanley's forces are evil because those zombies aren't drawing paychecks?

It was a bit of a point of humor, and to contrast having a willing fighting force, versus a force that has no choice but to fight for you (i.e. you don't have to pay them.) But yes, I think it says something when you have troops that you can make die (re-croak?) for you, but you don't have to reward or compensate them in any way.

You'll also notice that I did give two other reasons. I could give more, but I consider those sufficient.

[dragongirl13]

Gobwin Knob being Evil was my first impulse, with Uncroaked meaning Undead, but it might just be Neutral. Everyone knows that all Undead in the Monster Manual are Evil. Wanda might just be Evil.

[Sisqui]

But, seriously, extreme moral relativism of this kind is bad mojo. Differences of opinion are one thing, but not all philosophical positions are equally valid.

QFT again! Now you must endure endless posts on the relativity of the word valid :smallwink:

[factotum]

If having Uncroaked makes Gobwin Knob evil, then what about the fact that Prince Ansom apparently has a vampire commanding a flight of doombats as part of his forces?

Not to mention those cloth golems--teddy bears are evil, EVIL I TELL YOU!!!! :smallmad:

[agentx42]

Yes, it's an evil city. Stanley the Tool is an evil little jerkwad and Wanda is just plain eeeeeeeeeeevill. And since Parson is unwittingly helping the Bad Guys, they're bound to win (unless he's the worst tactician of all time, or he figures out what's going on and double crosses them.)

On the other hand, the other guys sure do seem pretty eeeeeeeeeeeevil as well.

Regardless of the outcome, Parson is dead meat.

[fangthane]

Well, the imagery has certainly put Gobwin Knob on the dark side of things, using unCroaked, dwagons, spiders, and the like. Ansom, on the other hand, has vampires and bats in his alliance - rarely considered the sign of great virtue. Then again... vamps do fit the profile of Ansom's Alliance: right there are all the things a cynical man like Parson would likely despise: lame internet memes, handsome male leads, goth-poser-vampires, and everything that is so sugary sweet and innocent that it rots teeth at a thousand paces.

This is the hope that keeps me periodically checking out Erfworld when OotS updates aren't up yet. I devoutly hope that Parson's raison d'etre is to eradicate all the soft-lens cheese in Erfworld.

[SteveMB]

Well, the imagery has certainly put Gobwin Knob on the dark side of things, using unCroaked, dwagons, spiders, and the like. Ansom, on the other hand, has vampires and bats in his alliance - rarely considered the sign of great virtue. Then again... vamps do fit the profile of Ansom's Alliance: right there are all the things a cynical man like Parson would likely despise: lame internet memes, handsome male leads, goth-poser-vampires, and everything that is so sugary sweet and innocent that it rots teeth at a thousand paces.
Interesting, though some of the cliches might end up as twisted as a white leather domme outfit....

[Cobra_Ikari]

I can't believe some of the responses here. I appreciate the desire not to rush to judgment, but "tortures for fun" pretty much codes as "evil" where I come from.

Interestingly, there don't seem to be any civilians on Erfworld, which makes part of the moral dilemma Parson is going to find himself in a bit less interesting.

Yeah, no. Torture was used by many different people worldwide, both those generally considered "good" and those generally considered "evil". Torturing a scout seems like a reasonable thing to do, and having a sadist as your torturer doesn't imply evil very much. After all, you'd expect a torturer would almost have to enjoy their work, or they wouldn't be able to do it for very long.

[Luvlein]

Lots of reasonable things are evil. Torturing a scout is one of them.

Yes, Gobwin Knob is evil. So what?

[Felius]

Just a comment about necromancy:
Remember that many of the things we give as reasons for the necros being evil are things that basically all of our doctors do while on college (they are violating the cadaver of persons for the sake of knowing how it works)

One of the major points that necromancy is considered Evil with capital E is that it is disgusting. Actually, most of our "evil" is defined based on that. For example, I would dare to say that most persons would consider creating a vampire less evil then creating a zombie. Or that killing puppies is a lot more evil (sorry I forgot how to word that correctly today) then poisoning thousands and thousands of roach eggs.

[Querzis]

Just a comment about necromancy:
Remember that many of the things we give as reasons for the necros being evil are things that basically all of our doctors do while on college (they are violating the cadaver of persons for the sake of knowing how it works)

One of the major points that necromancy is considered Evil with capital E is that it is disgusting. Actually, most of our "evil" is defined based on that. For example, I would dare to say that most persons would consider creating a vampire less evil then creating a zombie. Or that killing puppies is a lot more evil (sorry I forgot how to word that correctly today) then poisoning thousands and thousands of roach eggs.

Nah, its considered evil mainly because the corpses are holy in most of the religions. Atheist wont believe necromancy is evil because corpse dont have any value or feelings. But go explain what necromancy to a bishop and he is gonna say say its really evil.

I'm atheist so I got nothing against it but I respect the belief of other people as well as all the good people in the world so if someone want to be buried in a graveyard, a good guy is gonna respect that. Taking their dead corpses to fight living people is evil. But if some people wants to be turned into zombies or dont care about their corpses after their death then you can do it and it wont be evil.

But Stanley is evil for lots of other reasons so I really dont know why everyone only talk about necromancy. I really dont know why people say Ansom group are evil either. Maybe they are but as far as we know Stanley started the war and nobody in Ansom Alliance did anything evil yet...

[Scientivore]

I see it as a case of the awesomely anti-heroic versus the sickeningly sweet. Remember the Barney mod for Doom? It's kinda like that, except with croakamancy and dwagons instead of chainsaws and BFG's.

I'm not rooting for spidews, gobwins and uncroaked to win, per se. I'm rooting for orlies, plushies and tchotchkes to lose.

I mean, really. Some on these boards have (repeatedly) expressed displeasure at the use of cute message board memes in the comic. Of course it's repulsive. That's how you can tell they're the antagonists! :smalltongue:

[ichthus]

nope, still not evil.:smallsmile:

[TinSoldier]

nope, still not evil.:smallsmile:At least don't say it within earshot of Stanley.

[ichthus]

At least don't say it within earshot of Stanley.

Hey, I'm the one that argued that Croakamancy is just a good use of resources. ;)

[Bilgore]

Hey, I'm the one that argued that Croakamancy is just a good use of resources. ;)
Well, if you imagine the souls are trapped in the bodies, then not reanimating them would definitely be evil.


Or Ebil, in Erfworld terms.

[Dervag]

The "good guy" siding with the "bad guy" the whole plotline through, however unwillingly, just never happens.Parson isn't necessarily the good guy; he's the sympathetic guy. We like him and understand him because he's from our world and (as gamers) many of us know people like him.

That doesn't make him the good guy by itself, though.


'Evil' is really just a matter of perception.I would argue that point, but I would agree that, specifically, the Gobwin Knobbers don't consider themselves to be evil.


and tossing away his most useless allies as cannon fodder.His most useless allies are the Superfluous Elves and he's not using them at all...


in fact, given that Stanley seems to be fighting a losing defensive battle while he focuses on non-war-related things, it seems to me Ansom is far more likely the aggressor. Time will tell.It could just be that he's got a monomaniacal obsession with the Arkentools and other non-war tasks, to the point where he's deluding himself about the ability of his army to fend off the attack of his enemies. The most obvious analogy will cause people to yell Godwin, though, so I won't go into more detail.

[TRat]

So far, we have no reason to think Ansom's side is any better than Stanley's... in fact, given that Stanley seems to be fighting a losing defensive battle while he focuses on non-war-related things, it seems to me Ansom is far more likely the aggressor. Time will tell.

Exactly. In this battle, Stanley is the defender against an invading army. We don't know how this war started but at least as far as we know, Ansom is the aggressor (and therefore may be considered to be the 'bad' guy).
I think it will be very interesting when we do find out how this whole thing started and I anticipate it will be 1) surprising and 2) very funny.

[Erk]

Well, I suspect we will be getting some background information very shortly ;) but it's not a big surprise Stanley doesn't consider himself the bad guy.

[archon_huskie]

Has it actually been stated in the comic so far that Stanley is evil? Or that his Army is evil? I am not looking for things that are implications.

Has it been said the other guys are the good guys?

[Erk]

well, to be fair, yes Archon, it has been explicitly stated. On page 31. Whether or not the statement had any truth to it remains to be seen.

[archon_huskie]

Where?

I'm looking for something as concrete as Stanley saying I am evil. 31 does not have that. It has Stanley reacting angrily to being called "the bad guys."

[Luvlein]

It has actually been explicitly stated by Parson, Erf 31, panel 2.

As Erk has already stated, that in itself is no proof for it being correct, though.

[SteveMB]

Where?

I'm looking for something as concrete as Stanley saying I am evil. 31 does not have that. It has Stanley reacting angrily to being called "the bad guys."

Er, I think he's referring to the fact that Parson "explicitly stated" that Stanley's side is "the bad guys". Thus, yes, it has been explicitly stated -- but it might be untrue because the character who said it doesn't know all that many of the facts. (Of course, if it had been said by a native Erfworld character who knew what all was going on, it might be untrue because the character's viewpoint is biased.)

[archon_huskie]

by explicitly stated, I mean confirmation. I think you all have confirmed that It has not. Thank you.


I am going to predict that Stanely is about to explain things to Parson forcing us to reconsider the ideas of Good and Evil and leaving other board posters crying saying that Stanley's supposed to be the bad guy.

[Luvlein]

With his 'call me the good guy or be roasted' attitude, I see that totally not coming true.

[archon_huskie]

Then you're on!

The winner will get this silly gold star!

*

[Luvlein]

Fair enough.

[archon_huskie]

Well I am not big on arguements based on speculation. A little betting on the golden shift 8 helps to keep things in perspective.


My first thought that Prince Ansom might not be the good guy was when he made the offer of sharing a tent with Commander Jillian and was rejected. Think of Disney movies. the Villian usually has a thing for the heroine.

Then think of his name. Prince Ansom. Or is it Prince Hansom? could that be a sign of vanity? Basically I am getting a Beauty and the Beast vibe here.

[Silverlocke980]

I'd say comic 31 blows the idea of evil out the window...

Can't wait to see what comic 32 does to this thread! It'll be great fun to talk about!

[Erk]

I'd say comic 31 blows the idea of evil out the window...

what? Why? If you told Stalin he was "the bad guy" would you expect him to smile and laugh and say "Haha, yeah, you got me, I'm evil! Woo, good one."

Plenty of real bad guys don't generally like to think of themselves as bad guys. And particularly if they acknowledge on some level that they are, their reaction to having it pointed out would be much like Stanley's. I don't think either side is a "good guy" or "bad guy". Just because they fight in turns and live in a fantasy world doesn't mean their morals are black and white.

[Panda So Angry]

Another mark against Prince Ansom is his comment to Jillian:

At least take a flight of orlies with you. They'll only slow you by eight move. They're expendable. You're not.

http://i14.tinypic.com/42n22qh.jpg

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0008.html

[Maratanos]

And it's just become painfully obvious, too...

Gobwin Knob is evil.

[agentx42]

It's painfully obvious now that this is an evil place. That the Tool is certainl an evil little turd and Wanda is... well, not nice, regardless how many people wish it were otherwise. . Not that the other side is much better, but we've mostly seen only Stanley's team and come on, who's kidding whom? This little H. Ross Perot-like tyrant needs a good and proper Time Out.

[Lizard Lord]

That is intriguing. I wonder how Parson will escape (which he obviously will) if you're right. Though it would be interesting to see Parson and Stanley and Wanda and all...fall...(sing that five times fast), I doubt that that would happen, with Parson anyway. The "good guy" siding with the "bad guy" the whole plotline through, however unwillingly, just never happens. I suppose that Stanley will escape and join the "good side," possibly along with Wanda, or with her help, once Gobwin Knob is the vastly superior force. Somehow. (Stanley will probably just swell the ranks of the Uncroaked with teddy bears. Somehow.)
What puzzles me is how that will happen if Stanley controls Parson. I suppose Wanda will have to undo that, which proves that she is not evil if Stanley is.
P.S. This confuses me too, though also like you I manage to follow things more complicated (some of them, anyway). Possibly because everyone has a staggering level of keen observance, like seeing the stuffed animal in comic #16.

Or maybe the bad guys win? What makes you think Parson is a good guy? (If anything he is neutral) He even said he enjoys siding with the bad guys.

[Lizard Lord]

'Evil' is really just a matter of perception. Is the Rebel Alliance evil? Well WE don't think so, because we root for them. But what about what the Empire thinks? To them, the Alliance is the evil side, and they're the ones who are fighting for what is right and good.



No, the Empire doesn't give a crap for good or evil. They care for power, and pretty much nothing else. (There are a few exceptions.) The emperor even said "Unliited Power" as he was zapping Mace. Not to mention that he wanted Luke to give in to his anger to join the dark side.

Wait, you were talking about Star Wars right?

[agentx42]

Wait, you were talking about Star Wars right?

I believe it was "Terms of Endearment" he was referencing. But they're really, really close.

[Eladrinstar]

Or maybe the bad guys win? What makes you think Parson is a good guy? (If anything he is neutral) He even said he enjoys siding with the bad guys.

In games. There is nothing wrong with choosing the evil side. I do it in Warcraft all the time.

[archon_huskie]

With his 'call me the good guy or be roasted' attitude, I see that totally not coming true.

Well we have been given an explanation asking us to reconsider Good and Evil by replacing them with Holy and Unholy. But the Tool does a rather bad job at it. However if this means that the Tool is on the side of Holy . . .


Oh and there are posters saying that Stan is supposed to be the bad guys .. . essentially. All the same I am going to wait before I aware myself the star. There's still a chance Stanny-boi might also have Delusions of Grandure

[EdgarVerona]

Aye, when it comes to Hamster's alignment, I don't think it plays into the picture. He's pretty well convinced that this is a delusion of his own imagining, and just a game: and when it's just a game, a person's often not likely to worry about moral consequences... and understandably so, because if it truly is a game then there are no moral consequences.

[Lizard Lord]

Please keep in mind that many "bad guys" beleive that there is no such thing as good and evil. Also keep in mind that Stanley was ready to KILL Parson just because he didn't like what he said.

[SteveMB]

Please keep in mind that many "bad guys" beleive that there is no such thing as good and evil. Also keep in mind that Stanley was ready to KILL Parson just because he didn't like what he said.
I recall one of the bits from a MAD Magazine "History Of The World" -- "Tsar Ivan IV had 10,000 peasants executed for calling him 'The Terrible'".

[archon_huskie]

Please keep in mind that many "bad guys" beleive that there is no such thing as good and evil. Also keep in mind that Stanley was ready to KILL Parson just because he didn't like what he said.

I do not read it that way. Stanley say what he could do. I might say I COULD take a knife and kill kittens with it. But I have not taken a knife and killed kittens with it. Stanley's actions give a better insight to his psyche than his show-boating.

[Lizard Lord]

Oh did I also forget to mention that he sees nothing wrong with his minnions taking pleasure in torturing people? In fact, he encourages it.

[archon_huskie]

Yes you did forget to mention it.

Stanley knows about the pair's Sado-Masochistic relationship and encourages it because he doesn't want to interfere with true love. He is a holy man after all.

[Lizard Lord]

Ok now I get the feeling that you are just joking with me.

But in case weren't joking here:


I do not read it that way. Stanley say what he could do. I might say I COULD take a knife and kill kittens with it. But I have not taken a knife and killed kittens with it. Stanley's actions give a better insight to his psyche than his show-boating.

I highly doubt Stanley would have said that to Parson if the thought did not honestly cross his mind. What makes you think the only reason he did not destroy Parson was because he did not want the resources spent on him to be a total waste.

[archon_huskie]

because his financial saavy has not impressed me.

However I am willing to award you the silly gold star if it is shown that Stanley's regicide was that of a benevolent and well loved leader.

[Erk]

Aah, complexity.

Well, it remains to be seen who Stanley deposed, but I think it is clear now that Gobwin Knob is probably not entirely evil, and the other side is certainly not "good". Ansom is not altruistic, he is a firm believer in the class system. Meanwhile i get the impression that dictator and regicide or not, Stanley probably has a bit more respect for the common joe, hidden underneath his fanatic and coarse exterior. I want to get to know him more and find out if he is hiding more than we've seen so far.

[Lizard Lord]

Yea I kind of figured that Stanley’s enemies are not completely good before hand for two reasons.

1. EVERY NATION is allied against Stanley. I find it hard to believe that Gobwin Knob is the only "evil" nation in Erfworld.

2. As far I can tell the stereotypically "evil" creatures are allied with Stanley. That is, all except Vinnie the Vampire. (Although to be honest I am starting to realize that Vinnie isn’t that bad of a guy.)

And now it seems that Ansom is one of those stuck up nobles that can't stand the idea of a commoner becoming a leader.

However, it seems to me that Stanley attacked most of these people out of the blue, and that fact cannot be ignored.

[Erk]

Lizard: they would hardly go on and on about the provokation for Stanley's attack, if there was one. For example, if Ansom attacked Stanley's border, drew out a squad, and lost his own attack force, rather than talking about how Stanley retaliated to aggression from Ansom, he would go on about how Stanley attacked him for no reason. That is the case for almost any faction... likely there is an almost endless chain of slowly escalating "insult-counterinsult" leading up to "injury-counterinjury" and then finally "attack-counterattack". We are only hearing one point of view, and this POV is not going to include any legitimate cause Stanley might have had to strike.

That said, knowing Stanley, I wouldn't be surprised if he did attack a few of those guys out of the blue, but I think it is a bit premature to call it a fact yet ;)

I think Stanley is a jerk, and not a great leader, and a bit dangerous but not actually aggressive towards his neighbours. I think most of the Alliance genuinely believe he needs to come down, but I think that is because Ansom has stirred them into a frenzy over his own ulterior motive, which is probably related to the Arkenhammer... although it might also have to do with Jillian. I think the nobility thing is more of a front to hide his real objectives.

[Lizard Lord]

We already know why Stanley would attack every other nation. He is trying to wield ultimate power. They don't need to provoke someone who is out to rule the world.

Also Vinnie seems to be more open minded about the whole thing. I beleive that if his nation attacked Stanley first it would have been mentioned why he attacked and we know Vinnie doesn't care how Stanley came to power. I am certain that Stanley attacked Vinnie's people first.

[archon_huskie]

Yes you did forget to mention it.

Stanley knows about the pair's Sado-Masochistic relationship and encourages it because he doesn't want to interfere with true love. He is a holy man after all.

See strip 36 shows that they are in love!

[Yahzi]

not all philosophical positions are equally valid.
Oh thank goodness somebody else said it, so I don't have to. :smallsmile:

Anyway, back on topic, I haven't seen anyone mention page 34, where Vinne Doombats acknowledges that Stanley is evil, and has been systematically wiping out whole clans. Ansom says, "You've seen what Stanley has done."

In other words, Stanley has already established a history of unprovoked warfare and genocide. The question isn't whether Stanley is a bad guy. The question is whether Ansom is any better. We know Stanley is evil; but are there any actual good guys in Erfworld?

Edit: I see the thread did eventually cover all this. Carry on.