PDA

View Full Version : Stanley's intellegence (could spoil things)



EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 12:06 AM
Yeah i know what everyone is thinking? I will tell you right now this is not an "Elan is intelligent" "Belkar is good" "Miko is not insane" thread. This is an analyzes on Stanley's intelligence. And no, not from a D&D standpoint as this is not a D&D comic.
I would like to say right now, i have not visited the Erfworld forum at all. This is my first post here (hooray). So i don't know any details the others have figured out. I am an OOTS person with something to say.
I am not going to make a any comments about what i like/don't like about Erfworld until comic 51, where i think i have read enough to make a judgment. That being said, my favorite character is Stanley.

I don't know anything about the "good guys", i dislike Mr. one eye, i am still uninterested in wanda (I will wait until she gets more screen time) and i like Parson. Now i briefly looked though a few threads before posting and i found that their is a vast underestimate of Stanely int. Now i would like to speak up in defense.

He may be losing (really badly) but he did conquer them in the first place. That says something right their. Even with good generals and Wanda (plus many other minions he must have lost) he still was able to keep his army together and conquer a large amount of land. I don't know details about these 11 cities, but even if they are all city states that says something. He also, despite not having the hammer and being a midget, took control of Gobwin Knob. Now he was winning until he found the hammer. I don't think he is so much dumb as uncaring.

He does not care about victory very much from my understanding. If he did, why did he not keep up his winning streak? The only bungle that Wanda mentions is his searching for the A-hammer. That say something as well. He must care more about find gaining artifacts than winning the war. Now it makes sense to lure his rival into the city to take the pliers, if he values them more than his men. He also has the Dwagons at his command because he is attuned to his artifact. The Dwagon (as can be imagined) make a difference in battle. Now we don't know what the pliers do to one who is attuned to them, but they have not been attuned. Even without the attainments they are pretty powerful. Now if they have an effect like the hammer's dwagons, the lost of land and solders might be worth it if Stanley gains a large amount of powerful creatures like Dwagons.

Now when it comes to priories, this just make Stanley careless. I presume he has been spending the time when his army was losing trying to find out more about the Arkentools. If he does get the pliers and gets attuned to them he could not only crush the enemy forces and gain great power. Croak (or is it uncroak?) all of their bodies and hey. He has an army again and no oppersition. Now he is taken Parson in as an after thought.

I think that while Stanely may not be a great taticion, he is not dumb. Lets look at his dumb actions

1. Losing elven cities. Could be a gamble. Can't say without details.
2. Not caring about his army. Is he to busy.
3. Simply saying "Chose the most handsome" for warlord. I think that is more "i don't care" than dumb. Careless though.
4. Not giving Wanda enough money. Depends. If he did it because he was cheap then yes it was dumb. If he did it because he knows that he will need the money in the future, than no. Bear in mind, he does not really care about the army at current.
5. Smashing nuts. Maybe wants to test the powers of his hammer.
6. Not respecting Parson. Not hard.
7. Bad jokes. Yeah that i can't argue.
8. Is outnumber 15 to 1. Need details.

He has shown signs of being a bad tactician, but he did capture Zamussels without any help. I think he is more a violent sociopath who does not care about the lives of his men. Your thoughts?

from,
EE

factotum
2007-03-11, 06:26 AM
You're making an implicit assumption that Stanley had to conquer those 11 cities to start with, but that is nowhere stated (or even implied) in the comic to date. It is entirely possible he inherited control of them from some other, more capable, ruler, and has since lost them due to his own actions. I think it's made pretty clear that Wanda, at the very least, thinks Stanley is to blame for their losses--remember her saying that she wasn't going to promote another pretty boy from the ranks just so he could lose the final battle?

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 01:46 PM
You're making an implicit assumption that Stanley had to conquer those 11 cities to start with, but that is nowhere stated (or even implied) in the comic to date. It is entirely possible he inherited control of them from some other, more capable, ruler, and has since lost them due to his own actions. I think it's made pretty clear that Wanda, at the very least, thinks Stanley is to blame for their losses--remember her saying that she wasn't going to promote another pretty boy from the ranks just so he could lose the final battle?

Wanda said they have not won a battle sence he started searching for the Arkentools. Therefor he must have been fighting a war even before the started searching. And bear in mind, even though hey lost 11 cities and the capital is under seige, he is still in power. His people did not repel and he still has some power. Now he could be taken a gamble and/or just not care about the war. I am not saying his is not careless or that he is a big picture person. I just don't think this is a complete fool.
from,
EE

Maratanos
2007-03-11, 02:03 PM
His people do not rebel, not because he is competent (he isn't), but because he is a violent sociopath ruling with an iron fist of death.

Jacob_Gallagher
2007-03-11, 04:52 PM
Parson: 'I thought everyone in the world was coming to kill us.'
Stanley: 'That alone is a sign of greatness. When everyone is out to get you,you must be doing something right.'

Stanley has the intelligence of a brick wall. I'm surprised Parson didn't stand and tell him that Stanley needs him more than Parson needs Stanley- because Stanley knows he's screwed, so killing Parson really isn't an option, and thus Parson could do whatever the hell he likes and face little, if any, repercussion. He might be able to just stab him in his sleep.

mockingbyrd7
2007-03-11, 05:49 PM
I think I have a compromise, that allows him to be smart and stupid at the same time:

STANLEY THE TOOL
Lawful Evil (?)

Str: Unknown (he's short, probably fairly low)
Dex: Unknown (probably average+)
Con: Unknown (probably average)
Charisma: 14ish (seems fairly persuasive and has a lot of control)
Intelligence: 17+ (very smart and stuff, large vocabulary)
Wisdom: 6ish (has no head for tactics, rushes into things, often speaks his mind too early, very gung-ho, and rarely shows his gleaming intelligence).

At least that's my perception. Does that clear things up?

kpenguin
2007-03-11, 05:57 PM
I concur with Mockingbyrd. Stanley shows a great deal of knowledge and the philosophical musings of Erworld 32 tell me that he is fairly smart. He does, however, act childish and without common sense. That tells me that he is low in wisdom. He is, to me, like a very smart but immature child.

Tussy the Druid
2007-03-11, 06:31 PM
I think mockingbyrd and kpenguin summed up what i was thinking.

Ave
2007-03-11, 07:12 PM
17+ is a bit overrated. Just because he can talk better than Thog, it doesn't mean he got more than 12.
Heh, i bet Wanda is around 16, and Stanley is definitely not as bright.

EvilElitest
2007-03-11, 09:15 PM
Parson: 'I thought everyone in the world was coming to kill us.'
Stanley: 'That alone is a sign of greatness. When everyone is out to get you,you must be doing something right.'

That just means he is powerhungry, an egomanic, and mad. His goals are different from those of a logical person, but he is still quite smart. As mentioned before, low wisdome (i am going to agrue with that) but fair int.


I'm surprised Parson didn't stand and tell him that Stanley needs him more than Parson needs Stanley- because Stanley knows he's screwed, so killing Parson really isn't an option,
Not true. Stanley does not value parson. Parson has not done anything impressive as yet. Sure killing Parson would be a waste of money. And they would lose the battle, but apperently Stanley does not care.



and thus Parson could do whatever the hell he likes and face little, if any, repercussion. He might be able to just stab him in his sleep.
He can try, but he would most likely be killed. He also has to obey Stanley and killing him (if he can pull it off) would just leave him ether dead or stranded in a strange world.

from,
EE

factotum
2007-03-12, 04:46 AM
Wanda said they have not won a battle sence he started searching for the Arkentools. Therefor he must have been fighting a war even before the started searching.

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. Wanda's statement could easily be taken to mean "We haven't won a battle since you started this stupid war!"--there is nothing in it to imply battles were being fought BEFORE he started his search for the Arkentools.

Anyway, I agree with the analysis above--Stanley might well be quite intelligent, but he shows absolutely no grasp of common sense. (A failing of many quite intelligent people, I should add :smallsmile: ).

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 01:41 PM
It doesn't mean anything of the kind. Wanda's statement could easily be taken to mean "We haven't won a battle since you started this stupid war!"--there is nothing in it to imply battles were being fought BEFORE he started his search for the Arkentools.

We have not won a battle since you became searching for the Arkentools. That is basiclly Wanda said. If they had not won a battle in the entire war, then why not say something like "We have not won a battle since this war started." or "We have not won a battle in the entire war". Hell, the fact that he has an army left must mean he has some orginaztion skills.


Anyway, I agree with the analysis above--Stanley might well be quite intelligent, but he shows absolutely no grasp of common sense. (A failing of many quite intelligent people, I should add :smallsmile: ).[/QUOTE]

While i think he has some basic (and i use basic in the simplest form of the word) amount of common sense, i pretty much agree with this
from,
EE

Chikin'Soup
2007-03-12, 02:44 PM
Let's presume he was fighting before the quest for the tools.
Then he finds the Arkenhammer, isntantly he annouces his plan to "collect them all" tm.

If everyone is fighting each other, then some guy yells that he plans to gain ultimate power with comicily oversized tools, woulden't you wanna stop him?

This fits with Ansom saying "I realize that an alience this extensive is a hardship to all of our sides... It will be worth it, to end him."

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 02:47 PM
Makes sense
from,
EE

SteveMB
2007-03-12, 03:07 PM
If everyone is fighting each other, then some guy yells that he plans to gain ultimate power with comicily oversized tools, woulden't you wanna stop him?
If gathering all of the Arkentools would give unstoppable power (or if the Erfworlders believe this to be true whether it actually is or not), stopping Stanley would be a high priority even if he were a wise and reasonable ruler. (Of course, it's an even higher priority given Stanley as he actually is.)

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 08:30 PM
If gathering all of the Arkentools would give unstoppable power (or if the Erfworlders believe this to be true whether it actually is or not), stopping Stanley would be a high priority even if he were a wise and reasonable ruler. (Of course, it's an even higher priority given Stanley as he actually is.)

We have seen just some of the power from only 1 Arkentool. And that was able to rally this massive army. If Stanley gets two, then maybe he does not even need his own army.
from,
EE

Demented
2007-03-12, 08:37 PM
Five dwagons do not a massive army make.
However, they do a massive army unmake.

EvilElitest
2007-03-12, 09:25 PM
Five dwagons do not a massive army make.
However, they do a massive army unmake.

Words of wisdome there
from,
EE

Silverlocke980
2007-03-13, 12:15 PM
I'd have to agree with kpenguin and mockingbyrd7- Stanley's intelligence is sky-high. He's a philosophical debater who knows why he is doing the things he does and can explain it in high-flown terms.

What he doesn't have is the wisdom score given to lemmings who are about to jump off a cliff. Stanley needs Parson because Parson has enough common sense to keep Stanley from diving headfirst into a pool of acid just because an Arkentool is at the bottom.

Stanley's fairly smart. He's just a jerk who completely lacks any common sense or courtesy at all.

kpenguin
2007-03-13, 01:03 PM
Stanley's fairly smart. He's just a jerk who completely lacks any common sense or courtesy at all.

Does the courtesy part go into a low Charisma? He's fairly unilkeable. That he doesn't have a lot of allies/loyal troops compared to Ansom means something about his likeability.

Innis Cabal
2007-03-13, 03:22 PM
17+ is a bit overrated. Just because he can talk better than Thog, it doesn't mean he got more than 12.
Heh, i bet Wanda is around 16, and Stanley is definitely not as bright.

int is based off of an iq score. 10 being the standard for humans in D&D, thus 100 for a human's IQ, though this is not a hard and fast rule, it has been mentioned in several publications

factotum
2007-03-13, 03:45 PM
Does the courtesy part go into a low Charisma? He's fairly unilkeable. That he doesn't have a lot of allies/loyal troops compared to Ansom means something about his likeability.

This world is a wargame, not D&D. Leaders in wargames don't need high charisma scores--look at Parson himself! Also, the main reason Stanley is a bit short of troops is because he keeps losing battles and thus men, as far as we can see (Wanda's comment that they were down to less than 200 living men implied it was all the lost battles that had led to that situation).

EvilElitest
2007-03-13, 07:28 PM
Just read part 33. Ok i am now very doubtful about his int now. Tatics are unimportant? Anyways by D&D standards he is quite smart, but AWFUL wisdom and Chrisma.
from,
EE

KillerCardinal
2007-03-13, 08:54 PM
Just read part 33. Ok i am now very doubtful about his int now. Tatics are unimportant? Anyways by D&D standards he is quite smart, but AWFUL wisdom and Chrisma.
from,
EE

Actually, he didn't say unimportant. He said it didn't matter. Close to the same, admittedly, but not quite. I think he says they don't matter because he believes that he is destined to win, and something will make that happen. Not quite unintelligent, but a tad naive in my opinion.

At least thats my read on that.

nooblade
2007-03-13, 11:02 PM
This makes me think "wizards" even though Stanley probably isn't one. A (roleplayed) wizard (or a regular pc even) knows next to nothing about maintaining an army, but acts a lot like Stanley when they try. It isn't necessarily about the ability scores. The main characters are like the pcs, everything they don't care to go through gets taken care of to make the game flow.

That doesn't mean he's above or below average intelligence. He just "knows what he wants". Making Wanda cast the spell was most likely pure greed, which doesn't have much to do with intelligence.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-14, 10:46 AM
Stanley is certainly an interesting head case. I get the sense that he's quite used to having people doubt him. Whenever he speaks, he's always looking for validation from the person he's speaking too, and trying to make sure they listen to him. Obviously he has a Napolean complex to boot, but some of the choices he's made make me really wonder if he deserves to succeed at all.

For one, Stanley's treatment of Parson is deplorable: and I don't mean on a level with being mannerly and nice. Parson is a warlord he summoned from another world, and is now bound to follow commands while he's here. While Stanley was 'educating him' and giving Parson the background he needs to win Stanley's battles for him, he was nothing but insulting and demeaning the entire time (your names for things are stupid, your humor is terrible, you're too dumb to get my jokes, you can't see how great Stanley is, etc.) That's not how you treat people that you want to do their best job.

Sure Parson will do his job for Stanley (he has no choice), but wouldn't he be a much more motivated Warlord if he was treated with a little respect beyond a 'winning is your job' kiss off? I think if we understood Stanley's contempt for military tacticians we might see why his other warlords always fare so poorly. Parson is Stanley's last hope, and while Parson's life is on the line *now* just as much as Stanley's life is, normally it's good to give a carrot with a stick. There's no reason at all for Parson to want to help Stanley, aside from the spell compelling him to do so.

SteveMB
2007-03-14, 11:13 AM
Stanley is certainly an interesting head case. I get the sense that he's quite used to having people doubt him.
Used to people expressing their doubts to his face, not so much....

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-14, 11:53 AM
Used to people expressing their doubts to his face, not so much....

Maybe not recently, but he has the attitude of a person that has been picked on a lot in the past for whatever reason.

If he was confident that he wasn't evil, there's no reason to blow up at Parson's casual appraisel of his army's 'evilness.' It even came with a nod of approval for 'bad-guys' from Parson, after all. My guess is that Stanley took it as an insult because he's been insulted that way before. Basically, he's using anger to shield himself from appearing uncertain or because he can't bring himself to fully disagree.

I noticed that while he said that there is no "good" and "evil," there is "holy" and "unholy" (arguing semantics: this is the same thing, Stanley), then says he's destined for greatness, and he's going to win but he needs Parson to win so Parson can live (for now). So I'm guessing that the entire point of that fit of rage was to say to Parson "I want to kill you but I can't because I need you." Again, not exactly a motivating statement to a brand new warlord, but it does give a hint of why he goes through so many of them.

EvilElitest
2007-03-14, 01:54 PM
Stanley is certainly an interesting head case. I get the sense that he's quite used to having people doubt him. Whenever he speaks, he's always looking for validation from the person he's speaking too, and trying to make sure they listen to him. Obviously he has a Napolean complex to boot, but some of the choices he's made make me really wonder if he deserves to succeed at all.
He has an inferority complex. It makes somebody very senstive about a certain thing they feel inferoir about. I get the impression that Stanely's height is one thing he is senstive about. He does not like people to talk about it. His leadership skills are something else. He also apperently does not like people comparing him to his rival.


For one, Stanley's treatment of Parson is deplorable:
Not really if you considered Stanley as the villian. he has not hurt Parson in any way, only threaten him a few times and has allowed him to live. He has more been rude thant cruel.


Parson is a warlord he summoned from another world,
And Stanley is not sure if that is true. He is a "Giant Potato Man". How does this guy look like a warlord? I think that Stanley expects something more impressive, and Parson has not done anything like that. In fact, Parson has been pretty rude by Stanley's standard (meaning that he has stood up to him to an excent). Stanely does not understand Parson's humor and it comes off as strange.


and is now bound to follow commands while he's here. While Stanley was 'educating him' and giving Parson the background he needs to win Stanley's battles for him, he was nothing but insulting and demeaning the entire time
Stanely is a warlord who needs to assert control. Parson is a sarcastic loser who is great at battle plans and has nothing to lose


(your names for things are stupid,
Well consider this. People insult others for grammer all the time. Stanely is not the most open person, so i think he is just insulting other cultures. Rude but not cruel


your humor is terrible, you're too dumb to get my jokes, you can't see how great Stanley is, etc.)
Stanely suffer from an inferority complex. That is to be expected.


That's not how you treat people that you want to do their best job.
As stanely sees it, He dies, Parson dies.


Sure Parson will do his job for Stanley (he has no choice), but wouldn't he be a much more motivated Warlord if he was treated with a little respect beyond a 'winning is your job' kiss off?
Stanely does not want Parson to get any ideas off independence. He needs Parson to work for him, but as yet Parson has done nothing to impressive him.


I think if we understood Stanley's contempt for military tacticians we might see why his other warlords always fare so poorly.
I'll Agree.


Parson is Stanley's last hope, and while Parson's life is on the line *now* just as much as Stanley's life is, normally it's good to give a carrot with a stick.
There is, if Parson want to leave, he needs Stanley's help. As far as he knows. Parson is desperate, he has no choice.

[/QUOTE]
There's no reason at all for Parson to want to help Stanley, aside from the spell compelling him to do so.[/QUOTE]

Enjoyment. Parson lives for war and still seems to think that he is in a different reality.
from,
EE

Flakey
2007-03-14, 02:02 PM
Tatics are unimportant?


Actually, he didn't say unimportant. He said it didn't matter. Close to the same, admittedly, but not quite.

In many table top games, and a few computer ones (Civ), tatics indeed do not matter at all. They are all about strategy. I would not use this as defining Stanely's int until we know more about how the combat system works.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-14, 06:43 PM
Not really if you considered Stanley as the villian. he has not hurt Parson in any way, only threaten him a few times and has allowed him to live. He has more been rude thant cruel.

I quantified that in the part after the colon. I insist that if you need someone to do something for you, treating them like Stanley has Parson is terrible not just from a rudeness persepctive: It actually goes against your best interests. How likely is it now for Parson to have any loyalty to Stanley at all? In a short while Stanley is going to have to put his army in Parson's hands. Wouldn't just a smidge of loyalty be nice first?


And Stanley is not sure if that is true. He is a "Giant Potato Man". How does this guy look like a warlord? I think that Stanley expects something more impressive, and Parson has not done anything like that. In fact, Parson has been pretty rude by Stanley's standard (meaning that he has stood up to him to an excent). Stanely does not understand Parson's humor and it comes off as strange.

He better believe it. He has literally no other option at this point. If Parson fails to be a great Warlord, then Gobwin Knob will be in Ansom's hands in a few turns, and that's all there is to it. Why jeopardize your only hope of success to no benefit?


Stanely is a warlord who needs to assert control. Parson is a sarcastic loser who is great at battle plans and has nothing to lose.

All the more reason Stanley should want to make Parson care about wanting to win this battle. If Parson believes he has nothing to lose, he might just flub the battle plans in order to get himself out of Stanley's clutches. Ansom could potentially be a lot more reasonable, who knows?


Well consider this. People insult others for grammer all the time. Stanely is not the most open person, so i think he is just insulting other cultures. Rude but not cruel

I didn't mean he was being cruel. I mean he's being a jerk to the point that it's an actual detriment to his best interest and purposes. Not smart at all.


As stanely sees it, He dies, Parson dies.

Which again, is not the most motivating spin on things. Why isn't he presenting the other side of the coin to Parson: that a victory for Gobwin Knob is a victory for Parson?

EvilElitest
2007-03-14, 10:47 PM
I quantified that in the part after the colon. I insist that if you need someone to do something for you, treating them like Stanley has Parson is terrible not just from a rudeness persepctive: It actually goes against your best interests. How likely is it now for Parson to have any loyalty to Stanley at all? In a short while Stanley is going to have to put his army in Parson's hands. Wouldn't just a smidge of loyalty be nice first?

Parson is bound to Stanley. He is in effect a slave. However he is a midly willing one, remeber Stanley's statment about summons and unwilling servent. Stanely treats Parson badly because Parson is rude and does not respect him.



He better believe it. He has literally no other option at this point. If Parson fails to be a great Warlord, then Gobwin Knob will be in Ansom's hands in a few turns, and that's all there is to it. Why jeopardize your only hope of success to no benefit?
How does he jeopardize it. Parson dies if Stanely dies. He has not choice but serve him. Also the Dwagon thing is more a show of strengh, saying "i could use you, but i don't need you. I have the power of destiny and will win no matter what. Now are you with me or against me."




All the more reason Stanley should want to make Parson care about wanting to win this battle. If Parson believes he has nothing to lose, he might just flub the battle plans in order to get himself out of Stanley's clutches. Ansom could potentially be a lot more reasonable, who knows?
No parson can't. Stanley can kill him with a thought.

I
didn't mean he was being cruel. I mean he's being a jerk to the point that it's an actual detriment to his best interest and purposes. Not smart at all.
i am agreeing with you about the treatment being mean but not dumb. Stanley is asserting control. Parson is smart and Stanley knows it. If Parson get uppity, he might try to rebel. Stanely wants to show is is the boss.

[/QUOTE]
Which again, is not the most motivating spin on things. Why isn't he presenting the other side of the coin to Parson: that a victory for Gobwin Knob is a victory for Parson?[/QUOTE]

Well Parson gets to live enougther day, i think that is a plus.

Bilgore
2007-03-14, 11:44 PM
Parson dies if Stanely dies. He has not choice but serve him.
Parson may have no choice, but i have yet to see any indication he dies if Stanley dies.

So far, we've just been told that he will be disbanded if he acts against Stanley, or if Stanley desires to disband him. For all we know, a successful sneak attack could actually set Parson free.

Erk
2007-03-15, 06:12 AM
I have a simple answer to the question: yes, he is intelligent, because Comic 29 likens him to Vizzini from The Princess Bride. Vizzini was very intelligent. Too intelligent for his own good, in fact, because it led to his overconfidence and downfall... he was brilliant enough to know he was brilliant, and not quite smart enough to realise that it was still possible to outthink him. Like Stanley, Vizzini was a very poor leader, relying on basic bullying and taunting to keep his minions in line. There are a lot of parallels between them.

Of course, that doesn't mean Stanley is Vizzini, but I suspect there was more to that series of jokes than just a laugh. There always is, in Erfworld.

nothingclever
2007-03-15, 10:13 AM
Whether Stanley is smart or not doesn't seem to matter because he is at least shown to value knowledge and learn things. If he didn't at least try to learn he probably wouldn't have ever gotten into magic and spoken to the flower lady hippy or got his arkentool to work. At the very least he is interested in learning magic and has had some success so he's not totally stupid.

EvilElitest
2007-03-15, 01:33 PM
Parson may have no choice, but i have yet to see any indication he dies if Stanley dies.

So far, we've just been told that he will be disbanded if he acts against Stanley, or if Stanley desires to disband him. For all we know, a successful sneak attack could actually set Parson free.

1. If Parson betrays Stanley he is destroyed.
2. We don't know if the sneak attack would work. Is parson willing to take that risek.
from,
EE

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-15, 06:34 PM
1. If Parson betrays Stanley he is destroyed.

We don't know that. We know that Parson has to do as Stanley tells him, but if you've read a few books with magically induced compulsions for obedience you know how easily that sort of thing can backfire on the unwary.

Wanda said if Stanley refuses an order he is destroyed. That's different than betrayal.

EvilElitest
2007-03-15, 06:59 PM
We don't know that. We know that Parson has to do as Stanley tells him, but if you've read a few books with magically induced compulsions for obedience you know how easily that sort of thing can backfire on the unwary.

Wanda said if Stanley refuses an order he is destroyed. That's different than betrayal.

Ok, then all stanely has to do is say
"Do what ever i say."
Even so, as Parson does not know the details of the spell it is to much of a risk .
from,
EE

PirateMonk
2007-03-15, 07:10 PM
I noticed that while he said that there is no "good" and "evil," there is "holy" and "unholy" (arguing semantics: this is the same thing, Stanley)

Um... what? No, they really aren't. "Holy" means that it is sacred to some god or religion. "Good" can mean many things, but generally involves being nice- something not all gods encourage.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-15, 08:09 PM
Um... what? No, they really aren't. "Holy" means that it is sacred to some god or religion. "Good" can mean many things, but generally involves being nice- something not all gods encourage.

Yes, but Stanley was speaking about his own personal 'Religon o' Miko Stanley.' You know, the one where the Gods have chosen Miko Stanley and he can do no wrong, no matter what. The Twelve Gods Titans have spoken.

In the religon of Stanley, things he thinks are good for him are 'Holy' like the Arkenhammer, whereas things he doesn't like e.g. Roy Ansom are 'unholy' and bad.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-15, 08:19 PM
Ok, then all stanely has to do is say
"Do what ever i say."
Even so, as Parson does not know the details of the spell it is to much of a risk .
from,
EE

He doesn't have to. Parson already must obey his commands. What I mean is when you have someone compelled to do as you say, exactly as you say, sometimes innocent commands can be twisted.

For example, if Stanley isn't careful where he is standing when he commands Parson to "Sit!" Stanley could end up being sat on and squished to death, unable to speak the command to make Parson stand. There's innummerable ways for a spell such as the one Parson is under to backfire.

If you want more examples, there's an entire thread in the Silly Board Games forum devoted to twisting your wording of a Wish to backfire as horribly as possible. The principle is identical.

Erk
2007-03-15, 11:45 PM
Whether Stanley is smart or not doesn't seem to matter because he is at least shown to value knowledge and learn things. If he didn't at least try to learn he probably wouldn't have ever gotten into magic and spoken to the flower lady hippy or got his arkentool to work. At the very least he is interested in learning magic and has had some success so he's not totally stupid.

You are combining Stanley and Sizemore, two very different characters :p

Tokiko: cute, but I don't think Stanley and Miko are very similar at all. Miko is not in a leadership position, for one. For another, Stanley has been given every indication we know of that the gods actually do approve of his course of action, while Miko has received the opposite.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-16, 12:21 PM
Tokiko: cute, but I don't think Stanley and Miko are very similar at all. Miko is not in a leadership position, for one. For another, Stanley has been given every indication we know of that the gods actually do approve of his course of action, while Miko has received the opposite.

The Twelve Gods did make Miko a Paladin in the first place. The Titans have only shown their approval of Stanley in that they 'allowed' him to attune himself to the Arkenhammer. They don't seem to have a problem with him losing city after city, or warlord after warlord until his forces are almost gone. I think that's roughly equivalent, or at least enough for a cute comparison of two religous fanatics who consider themselves so important that the Gods just give them stuff.

EvilElitest
2007-03-17, 10:41 PM
Well it seems comic 34 have asserted my theory to some level, as we now know that Stanley must have achieved power in some manner rising from a commoner. That takes some intellect is you ask me, and so he must have conquered those 11cities plus the capital in some manner, before getting the Arkenhammer.
from,
EE

factotum
2007-03-18, 04:24 AM
Well it seems comic 34 have asserted my theory to some level, as we now know that Stanley must have achieved power in some manner rising from a commoner. That takes some intellect is you ask me, and so he must have conquered those 11cities plus the capital in some manner, before getting the Arkenhammer.


Doesn't follow at all. There could have been a king who ruled 11 cities--Stanley, a commoner, comes along and stages a revolution of some sort, then takes the throne. Doesn't require intelligence to pull off something like that--it just requires charisma, as we've seen many times in the real world.

Electric_Monkey
2007-03-18, 06:54 AM
Doesn't staging a revolution more or less imply defeating a professional army with a poorly trained and under-armed mob? If Stanley didn't have any tactical interest or ability, he'd have needed to be allied to someone who did - and then he'd have to prevent them from taking over. If Stanley's as inept as he appears in the comics, maybe Wanda orchestrated his rise to power.

factotum
2007-03-18, 08:55 AM
Doesn't staging a revolution more or less imply defeating a professional army with a poorly trained and under-armed mob?

It all depends. The Russian Revolution, for example, largely succeeded because the Tsar was so generally hated by the people that a significant portion of the army joined the revolution. The American Revolution succeeded in no small part because the French wanted to see the English get a black eye, so they provided help and a fair few troops--plus, of course, the distances involved were so great it was difficult for the English to reinforce their troops.

I doubt there's a situation in history where an unaided populace has brought down a ruler who has the armed forces on his side, but I'm happy to learn if someone knows of one!

EvilElitest
2007-03-18, 10:06 AM
It all depends. The Russian Revolution, for example, largely succeeded because the Tsar was so generally hated by the people that a significant portion of the army joined the revolution. The American Revolution succeeded in no small part because the French wanted to see the English get a black eye, so they provided help and a fair few troops--plus, of course, the distances involved were so great it was difficult for the English to reinforce their troops.

I doubt there's a situation in history where an unaided populace has brought down a ruler who has the armed forces on his side, but I'm happy to learn if someone knows of one!

Well i don't know details, but the French Revolution, the Algeria Revoltion, The Morroco Revolution, The Fall of the Austrai Hungarion empire were after WWI were the country surrendered, Yugslavia, Czechslavaica (don't know who to spell it, it is two countries now) Poland and Hungry broke off and became their own nations, but that might not count as the miltary was destroyed, the Irish Revolution (the one that won), the Indian Revolution (is it called that, not really a bloody one) and the Taiwan revolution (were it broke off from mainland china). I don't know the details.

Anywasy about Stanely's int bear in mind, if he is a commor infantry then he must be intellegent enough to get the common people on his side, and that may or may not include the monsters like twolls. The point remains though he must have gain a following. As for him just using social skill, we have already asablished his social skills are awful. He must have used Int of over throw this leader. Also bear in mind, even if he got the capital, the leaders of the other 11 cities stayed with him instead of breaking off. He also destroyed one of the tribes and attacked the elves, so he must have won battles before he got teh arken hammer. Wanda serves him for a reason. Now ether he is smart or a puppet, the second option does not seem to work because we have not seen his master, it is certainly not Wanda.
from,
EE

Erk
2007-03-19, 01:32 AM
Stanley's revolution may have no resemblance to a real life one anyway. Given how much power a Lord has, it may be that he got a surprise attack in on his boss, got the boss's powers, and then used those powers to keep an eye on his back from the general populace. He can kill with a thought, so once he gained Lord abilities he had no real need to worry about keeping an army.

However, it does seem likely that he was somehow better than whoever he deposed, or someone like Wanda would already have stabbed him in the back and taken the throne again. He doesn't watch that back too well from what we have seen.

SteveMB
2007-03-19, 09:26 AM
Stanley's revolution may have no resemblance to a real life one anyway. Given how much power a Lord has, it may be that he got a surprise attack in on his boss, got the boss's powers, and then used those powers to keep an eye on his back from the general populace. He can kill with a thought, so once he gained Lord abilities he had no real need to worry about keeping an army.
According to Ansom and Vinnie's description (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0034.html), Stanley was a common grunt before his rise to power. (Admittedly, in-character statements aren't necessarily correct or honest, but there's no reason for them to be otherwise in this case -- the fact of the situation should be fairly common knowledge, and I can't see any reason for them to agree on a lie, particularly in private).

Lizard Lord
2007-03-19, 01:39 PM
Parson: 'I thought everyone in the world was coming to kill us.'
Stanley: 'That alone is a sign of greatness. When everyone is out to get you,you must be doing something right.'

Stanley has the intelligence of a brick wall. I'm surprised Parson didn't stand and tell him that Stanley needs him more than Parson needs Stanley- because Stanley knows he's screwed, so killing Parson really isn't an option, and thus Parson could do whatever the hell he likes and face little, if any, repercussion. He might be able to just stab him in his sleep.

Except that quote you showed doesn't exactly show someone of a stable mind. If Parson pushes him to far (which I don't think would require alot of pushing) Stanley WILL kill Parson, ignoring the consequences.

Earendill
2007-03-19, 01:58 PM
Anywasy about Stanely's int bear in mind, if he is a commor infantry then he must be intellegent enough to get the common people on his side, and that may or may not include the monsters like twolls. The point remains though he must have gain a following. As for him just using social skill, we have already asablished his social skills are awful. He must have used Int of over throw this leader. Also bear in mind, even if he got the capital, the leaders of the other 11 cities stayed with him instead of breaking off. He also destroyed one of the tribes and attacked the elves, so he must have won battles before he got teh arken hammer. Wanda serves him for a reason. Now ether he is smart or a puppet, the second option does not seem to work because we have not seen his master, it is certainly not Wanda.
from,
EE

That is if you assume he gained power before being attuned to the Arkenhammer. The much more plausible version is : Stanley, a common grunt, stumbles upon the arkenhammer who decides to attune to him (the hammer has Taste in friends as Weakness for a reason). The former grunt tames a group of dragons then kills his king and proclaims himself as overlord. He does not need a lot of intelligence for that.

Stanley has Human ressources management and Strategy as main weaknesses. Its highly doubtful he managed to organise a full scale revolution to replace a king.

By the way....he has Critical Thinking as weakness too....how can you argue then that he is intelligent yet lacks critical thinking...beats me. The only real strenght Stanley has is Knowing what he Wants (meaning he's goal oriented and somehow stubborn).

I suspect that Wanda is bound to him by a similar spell as Parsons (see page 5 panel 5) - she cannot refuse an order.

EvilElitest
2007-03-19, 02:26 PM
That is if you assume he gained power before being attuned to the Arkenhammer. The much more plausible version is : Stanley, a common grunt, stumbles upon the arkenhammer who decides to attune to him (the hammer has Taste in friends as Weakness for a reason). The former grunt tames a group of dragons then kills his king and proclaims himself as overlord. He does not need a lot of intelligence for that.

Stanley has Human ressources management and Strategy as main weaknesses. Its highly doubtful he managed to organise a full scale revolution to replace a king.

By the way....he has Critical Thinking as weakness too....how can you argue then that he is intelligent yet lacks critical thinking...beats me. The only real strenght Stanley has is Knowing what he Wants (meaning he's goal oriented and somehow stubborn).

I suspect that Wanda is bound to him by a similar spell as Parsons (see page 5 panel 5) - she cannot refuse an order.


No he got power before he got the arken hammer.
Wanda says ever sense he got the arken hammer and started searching for the others (we don't know how well he is doing) he has not won a battle. But apperntly he destoryed a tribe and attacked and did damaged to the elves (i presume all of them, cause they did not say which). To attack them he must have gained power over both the capital and the 11 cities before attacking, hence before gaining power of the hammer. So he must have some int. to pull that off. Second, Wanda is not bound to a spell because she refused an order in comic five i think when Stanely tells her to promote the best looking guy as the new warlord. Stanely is not a good human resources manager or a good Stragey guy, but that does not mean he is dumb. Hell he could be good at both, but disliked them and chooses not to be. As for critcal thinking, he has a god complex. Who needs critical thinking. Three, somebody mentioned him as a lord having the power to kill with a thought. No he can kill Parson with a thought. He could not bind Wanda because
a. he does not know magic as far as we know.
b. Wanda is not summoned (she has a tribe).
from,
EE

SteveMB
2007-03-19, 02:58 PM
No he got power before he got the arken hammer. Wanda says ever sense he got the arken hammer and started searching for the others (we don't know how well he is doing) he has not won a battle.
Specifically, she said (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) he hasn't won a battle since he began questing for the other Arkentools. That implies that he had the Arkenhammer before he started losing battles, and may have had it before he came to power.

What we know is that Stanley, with his weak abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html) in "strategy, critical thinking, and human resource management" deposed/killed the old lord and took over. If he came to power before he obtained and attuned to the Arkenhammer, he must have managed to put together enough support to pull off a coup-d-etat despite those weaknesses. If he came to power after he obtained and attuned to the Arkenhammer, then he overthrew the old regime with the aid of immense power (and, initially, the element of surprise). The latter theory just makes more sense to me, unless "Occam's Razor" in Erfworld is merely the name of one of the tools in Wanda's interrogation kit.


But apperntly he destoryed a tribe and attacked and did damaged to the elves (i presume all of them, cause they did not say which). To attack them he must have gained power over both the capital and the 11 cities before attacking, hence before gaining power of the hammer. So he must have some int. to pull that off.
Or he inherited control of the 11 cities from the regime he deposed, and then frittered them away while pursuing his quest.


Second, Wanda is not bound to a spell because she refused an order in comic five i think when Stanely tells her to promote the best looking guy as the new warlord.
That remains to be seen. It's possible that Wanda is bound to Stanley, but with a loophole that gives wiggle room if following orders will clearly cause Stanley to be defeated/croaked -- the line (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) "I'm allowed [to refuse that order]. I'm convinced it will lead to your destruction." would seem to imply that. Note that she does follow Stanley's order to obtain the cheaper self-service version (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) of the summoning spell, even though she obviously considered it a bad idea -- that time, the situation was less clearcut because following the order might work, and so the loophole I'm postulating would not apply.

EvilElitest
2007-03-19, 06:32 PM
Specifically, she said (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) he hasn't won a battle since he began questing for the other Arkentools. That implies that he had the Arkenhammer before he started losing battles, and may have had it before he came to power.

Bear in mind, even with his dragons he has to somehow pervent his forces from deserting. Also even if he somehow took over with the hammer (getting it is a task unto itself) he still have to conquer. Just because the Capital is taken does not mean the other 11 cities willl just step down for him.


What we know is that Stanley, with his weak abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html) in "strategy, critical thinking, and human resource management" deposed/killed the old lord and took over. If he came to power before he obtained and attuned to the Arkenhammer, he must have managed to put together enough support to pull off a coup-d-etat despite those weaknesses. If he came to power after he obtained and attuned to the Arkenhammer, then he overthrew the old regime with the aid of immense power (and, initially, the element of surprise). The latter theory just makes more sense to me, unless "Occam's Razor" in Erfworld is merely the name of one of the tools in Wanda's interrogation kit.
Even if he had the Arken Tool, he needs some int. to pull it off. One guy, even with a hoard of dragons can't just make the capital and 11 cities surrender. He needs some sort of extra skills at his disposal, unless he is a puppet for a higher power we have not seen as yet. His weakeness are aprent but he could still be skilled in other areas, such as maliplation (unlikely) or politics (???). Hell he could even be a decent tatic in a small scale sort of way, if he can get himself to focus on his goal.


Or he inherited control of the 11 cities from the regime he deposed, and then frittered them away while pursuing his quest.

I would like to point out, that even if he took the capital in a coup, he needs a folllowing to get the other 11 cities or to keep his forces together.
[/QUOTE]
That remains to be seen. It's possible that Wanda is bound to Stanley, but with a loophole that gives wiggle room if following orders will clearly cause Stanley to be defeated/croaked -- the line (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0005.html) "I'm allowed [to refuse that order]. I'm convinced it will lead to your destruction." would seem to imply that. Note that she does follow Stanley's order to obtain the cheaper self-service version (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html) of the summoning spell, even though she obviously considered it a bad idea -- that time, the situation was less clearcut because following the order might work, and so the loophole I'm postulating would not apply.[/QUOTE]


I would like to point out, Wanda is a sadist. She seems just loaly to me, rather than enslaved. Bear in mind she has not been summoned. Also, I don't think even Stanely is dumb enough to allow her such a lenent loophole.
from,
EE

Lizard Lord
2007-03-19, 07:35 PM
Stanley has no problem focusing on his goals. The problem is he doesn't focus on the obstacles inbetween him and his goal.