Erfworld 114, Page 102 [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

pingcode20

2008-08-04, 07:08 AM

I suppose I was reading too much into the 'meta' interpretation and prediction rather than the characters. :smallsigh:

---

Still, I feel Parson has become something of a spanner thrown into the workings of Erfworld. For everyone else, troops are nothing more than troops - it was expected protocol that everyone had a strict hierarchy to listen to and not think too hard.

Now that Parson is a factor, and he isn't prepared to let go of his feelings, it's starting to draw what would be 'flavour text' into something real and affecting their responses.

I disagee that Parson is forcing Sizemore to become a killer. Parson, with his alien beliefs, and human organisational abilities, on the contrary, has simply forced Sizemore to face up directly with the consequences of his actions.

Not that it was intentional. In the HoMM-esque world of Erf, one could reasonably presume that the Overlords act in a similar capacity to 'Players', who act as Supreme Commander and all their Generals and Tacticians. So in the past, Stanley probably just had Sizemore create crap golems, then he would just 'hand command' them out to kill things.

But Parson is only human - he may be the ultimate tactician, but like all people, he can only oversee so much at once. So he is forced to establish a chain of command, using people who are familiar with various facets of the army as generals. So Sizemore, once just a unit-producer, has been made to take command of the underground army, with the accompanying responsibilities. He is now personally ordering the crap-golems to smash marbits, and I think that's what is eating at him, and he resents Parson because Parson hasn't the capacity to order around the golems himself.

Znek

2008-08-04, 07:18 AM

I cannot understand Sizemore. He is creating lots and lots of crappy golems, which were and are used to kill other units. Now he just stands next to them and sees what they are capable of and he doesn't like it?
He shouldn't have started creating units in the first place... In my opinion a very contradictory strip.

I think the "loyality"-mechanisms of Erfworld were not applied here. Parson still is only the Tool's Warlord and through loyality- (or other) reasons bound to win the battle for Stanley. So even if Parson orders Sizemore to kill, it was ultimatively Stanley's idea to utilize Parson.

SteveMB

2008-08-04, 07:19 AM

Sizemore has apparently never faced this dilemma before

He says "I've tasted it, Warlord." -- that could just refer to thinking about the situation hard enough to realize something of what the reality will be like, but the more straightforward interpretation is that he had had to croak enemies before (though not so many or in such an intense situation).

Edit: The most obvious interpretation is that it refers to the curb-stomping of the marbit scout stack -- Sizemore was on the scene giving the orders to his golems, which is perhaps close enough (for someone of his temperment) to killing with his own hands.

I cannot understand Sizemore. He is creating lots and lots of crappy golems, which were and are used to kill other units. Now he just stands next to them and sees what they are capable of and he doesn't like it?
He shouldn't have started creating units in the first place... In my opinion a very contradictory strip.

Contradictory? It's human nature to ignore something that can be put out of sight and out of mind, and then have a strong reaction to the same thing when you're squarely faced with it and can't rationalize it away.

PePe QuiCoSE

2008-08-04, 07:33 AM

also, i guess he had no trouble hating Stanley for making him units that later might croak other living things. The dilemma is that he likes Parson, but will have to hate him for making him doing something (in his eyes) worse than Stanley asked him to do.

Btw, have i lost a mechanic about casters and the Magic Kingdom or is Parson saying sending them after the city has fallen (but not Stanley)?

Znek

2008-08-04, 07:39 AM

[...]
Contradictory? It's human nature to ignore something that can be put out of sight and out of mind, and then have a strong reaction to the same thing when you're squarely faced with it and can't rationalize it away.
But is it erf nature? Popping pacifist units in a wargame-related world, which are aware of their pacifism might be explained with really low scores of 'loyality'. Still, Sizemore was smart enough to rationalise what will happen with the units he creates and should be thinking about pacifism much much earlier when trigger happy Stanley rose to power...

JordanGreywolf

2008-08-04, 07:40 AM

I'm fascinated, and hope to find out more. I sort of wish that something like this would have been available as a novel, so that I could flip to the next page and keep reading! ;) The art is great, of course, but it's the story and the implications of meddling around with this fantasy universe that hold my interest.

Anyway, I'm happy to see another installment, and look forward to the next one, whenever it comes out.

Geno9999

2008-08-04, 07:40 AM

now I'm confused...

(ahhhhhh...updaaates)

I find that this (http://www.thefump.com/fump.php?id=71) er, I mean this (http://www.thefump.com/fump.php?id=107) sums up Erfworld.

And Sizemore... maybe he help Stanley kill off the last king?:smallconfused:

SteveMB

2008-08-04, 07:41 AM

also, i guess he had no trouble hating Stanley for making him units that later might croak other living things. The dilemma is that he likes Parson, but will have to hate him for making him doing something (in his eyes) worse than Stanley asked him to do.

For that matter, his description of the old days indicates that his job under Saline IV was to dig tunnels and mine gems, which suited him fine and raised no qualms. From his perspective, the situation has just been getting worse and worse, whether or not they survive the coming battle.

Btw, have i lost a mechanic about casters and the Magic Kingdom or is Parson saying sending them after the city has fallen (but not Stanley)?

He said he planned to evac the casters "if it looks like we're about to get crushed" (emphasis added), meaning before the city falls.

But is it erf nature?

Judging from the way Sizemore is reacting to the situation, it would seem so.

Popping pacifist units in a wargame-related world, which are aware of their pacifism might be explained with really low scores of 'loyality'. Still, Sizemore was smart enough to rationalise what will happen with the units he creates and should be thinking about pacifism much much earlier when trigger happy Stanley rose to power...

When we first met him, it was fairly clear that Sizemore wasn't terribly happy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0013.html) with his lot in life, and making the best of a bad situation (he rationalizes away what he doesn't want to think about too hard). The fact that his rapport with Parson (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0035.html) was the best thing that's happened to him in some time just makes it all the harder that Parson is now sending him into battle.

It occurs to me that Wanda is spending an inordinate amount of time "booping around with her toys" as her own way of avoiding thinking about certain subjects....

Gamebird

2008-08-04, 07:56 AM

I find that this (http://www.thefump.com/fump.php?id=71) er, I mean this (http://www.thefump.com/fump.php?id=107) sums up Erfworld.

And Sizemore... maybe he help Stanley kill off the last king?:smallconfused:

Good song. Thanks for the link!

As for Sizemore, I don't see this is as contradictory or disloyal. Nor even necessarily pacifist. A pacifist wouldn't have made weapons (crap golems) that were going to be used in war. It's more a case of Sizemore not wanting to kill people personally and directly, with his own hands. I've run into lots of people in my life who are happy to wear leather and eat meat, but who stand opposed in a moral fashion to hunting, and even in some cases to slaughterhouses. This despite the obvious contradiction - if you want the meat, then something has to die. Yet even though they want the meat, they don't want anyone they know, much less themselves, to be involved in killing.

I would not say this particular sort of hypocriticalism is human nature, but it is human nature to be hypocritical.

fractal

2008-08-04, 08:05 AM

The next turn is transylvito though as they try to croak the tool. And we find out exactly what charlie has in mind.
Except that Vinnie is trying to croak Stanley on Stanley's own turn, not Transylvito's.

Ansom: "Firstly, should the flying mission succeed in croaking Stanley on his turn, ..."

So Stanley only dies if and when he walks into the trap.

ralphmerridew

2008-08-04, 08:10 AM

DigoDragon

2008-08-04, 08:12 AM

I would not say this particular sort of hypocriticalism is human nature, but it is human nature to be hypocritical.

I like that example, you deserve a cookie. :smallsmile:
Everyone is indeed under a lot of stress. They're about to fight for their lives and someone like Sizemore I can see as a very reluctant killer even when faced with this situation. Poor guy, I'd probably be just as upset in his position.

Imagine the difference between a gunsmith and a soldier.

Oh another good comparison! Cookie for you too!

Fighteer

2008-08-04, 08:23 AM

Sizemore has probably not faced a "kill or be killed" situation like this before. However, it is a uniquely human form of hypocrisy that a person can manufacture weapons of war or reap the benefits of same (e.g., safety and security) and yet be a committed pacifist.

Ironically, Stanley, by pretty much ignoring Sizemore, never forced him to confront his beliefs in this manner. Parson is taking a much more hands-on approach to GK's defense, and this is causing that conflict to come to the front.

Geno9999

2008-08-04, 08:25 AM

judging from the comic, Parson has a good plan, but like the wargames that I play (FE and Battle for Wesnorth), it can go down hill fast if there's a bad roll.
So we have a good idea on the battle plan (maybe) that we got out of the last comic's thread.

small pumpkin m

2008-08-04, 08:34 AM

Not that it was intentional. In the HoMM-esque world of Erf, one could reasonably presume that the Overlords act in a similar capacity to 'Players', who act as Supreme Commander and all their Generals and Tacticians. So in the past, Stanley probably just had Sizemore create crap golems, then he would just 'hand command' them out to kill things.

But Parson is only human - he may be the ultimate tactician, but like all people, he can only oversee so much at once. So he is forced to establish a chain of command, using people who are familiar with various facets of the army as generals. So Sizemore, once just a unit-producer, has been made to take command of the underground army, with the accompanying responsibilities. He is now personally ordering the crap-golems to smash marbits, and I think that's what is eating at him, and he resents Parson because Parson hasn't the capacity to order around the golems himself.
That's a wonderfully interesting and detailed theory, but there's a simpler answer. Parson is using Sizemore because he grants a warlord bonus to crap Golums (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html). Stanley never did this because he considers Sizemore to be the turd guy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0060.html).

edit. - btw, this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0097.html) is the strip where Sizemore seemingly "gets his taste". Seems an appropriate look back at this point.

hajo

2008-08-04, 09:27 AM

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."
I guess Sizemore killing a certain number of enemies will earn him the XP to gain a level, and that in turn will enable him to study more magic (as he has tried before, but without success).
How would that affect his feelings ?

Bendal

2008-08-04, 09:32 AM

ISTM that Parson is coming to realize what it is to be a warlord, and order people to do things they may not want to do and be hated for having to do them. This is no different from Captain Miller in Saving Private Ryan ordering his squad to attack the machine gun nest. His men didn't want to do that, but he ordered them to do it anyway and one died as a result.

It's why men in command try and stay detached from the men they have to order to kill and sometimes die; if you get to know them personally, it tears pieces off your soul when you give them those orders.

Parson is finding that out.

Zolem

2008-08-04, 09:37 AM

Imagine the difference between a gunsmith and a soldier.

I'm reminded of many saying that are similar to this: I make the weapons, I don't wield them. What you do with them is not my problem. A sword I make is just as likly to wind up in the hands of a killer as it is a savior. I don't judge myself based on thier actions. The same sword could have been used by either.

Fighteer

2008-08-04, 09:50 AM

I'm reminded of many saying that are similar to this: I make the weapons, I don't wield them. What you do with them is not my problem. A sword I make is just as likly to wind up in the hands of a killer as it is a savior. I don't judge myself based on thier actions. The same sword could have been used by either.
Then what happens when the maker of the weapons is forced to use them himself? Does he suddenly decide that he was wrong to have made them in the first place, or is killing perfectly okay as long as he's not the one doing it?

Then again, this may not be a case of hypocrisy on Sizemore's part after all. His position under Stanley was a menial one that offered him little or no opportunity to make choices, and considering that he came from FAQ, he almost certainly wouldn't have taken his present role had he had any real choice. By befriending him, Parson allowed him some freedom of expression, and as a direct result he's now being asked to kill with his own hands (more or less). It's no wonder that his morale is low.

Still, you'd think that his anger would be better directed toward Stanley, who put him in this position in the first place.

quiet1mi

2008-08-04, 09:50 AM

wow... what a great strip... I have nothing else to say.... just awsome...

Lamech

2008-08-04, 09:57 AM

I'm confused is that a female unipegatar. I don't remember any of those. Or is that some wierd hybrid; looks like it is whereing clothes of some sort.

Also slightly off topic, but isn't the coalition assuming the knights are with Stanley, they'll be in for a rude awakening when they arn't ready for dance fighting. And then they'll assume Stanley is at GK, with dwagons.

ShinyBrowncoat

2008-08-04, 10:00 AM

Lizard Lord

2008-08-04, 10:13 AM

Not a big fan of the Iron Man movie, I take it? :smallwink:

I thought the point of iron man is that the weapons went in the wrong hands. Tony Stark had truly believed that America was his only customer. He wanted to stop making weapons when he found out that the bad guys were using them.

Noemz

2008-08-04, 10:50 AM

It occurs to me that Wanda is spending an inordinate amount of time "booping around with her toys" as her own way of avoiding thinking about certain subjects....
If I had a choice between moping around a campfire or riding a zombie unipegataur, I know where I'd be. :smallwink: (Well, at least until the smell became a factor.)

Or, perhaps Wanda's confidence was so shattered (from failing to retain control over Jillian) that she is now obsessively checking her units so that she won't fail again.

She might also be avoiding talking to Parson.

pclips

2008-08-04, 10:50 AM

I thought the point of iron man is that the weapons went in the wrong hands. Tony Stark had truly believed that America was his only customer. He wanted to stop making weapons when he found out that the bad guys were using them.

You know, I haven't posted in a reactions thread in over a year, but I'd like to comment on that.

What you said here is really where "Iron Man" dropped the moral ball. When you're making a film and you ask the Pentagon to let you borrow their tanks and F-22s, it means you have to present them a script that they approve of.

Consequently, Tony Stark isn't allowed to wonder whether there's an element of moral culpability for the weapons he sells to DoD. He's only bent out of shape that somebody let these tools of "good" death-dealing fall into unrighteous hands.

Nobody in Iron Man who wears a uniform or draws a government salary is anything but a squeaky-clean all-American Good Guy. All of the villainy in the movie resides with malevolent swarthy foreign men with accents and impenetrable motives (and one duplicitous businessman who loses his boop and literally goes ballistic).

Don't get me wrong; I loved Iron Man. I saw it twice, talked about it for weeks, and started cutting my goatee into a Tony Stark. But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis, and to challenge the viewer with difficult questions. Jamie and I hope to do a little better on that score.

Caledonian

2008-08-04, 11:04 AM

I don't think Sizemore can be accused of hypocrisy for creating weapons of war. In Erfworld, everything is a weapon of war. Any action - even Hippymancy - has importance only in how it relates to killing. Other ways of living are considered semi-mythical.

Before, Sizemore produced the weapons. Now he's using them to kill. Those are very different things.

klangley

2008-08-04, 11:36 AM

We humans operate on the principle that moral culpability decreases with distance, perhaps even as the square of the distance. Whether it's factory-farmed meat, sweatshop-produced cheap stuff from WalMart, or torture done in our name at Guantanamo Bay, as long as there are a few steps between us and the victims, we're pretty much OK with it. Perhaps that distance is necessary for us to remain sane, but it does make it harder to break out of our comfort shell and demand/ create a different way of doing business.

Freederick

2008-08-04, 11:41 AM

To interrupt the ongoing ethics discussion with an aesthetic remark, I really like the fire and firelight effects in this strip, especially in panel 4 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0114.html). It has the right campfirey feel to it--you can feel the warmth and hear the crackling. It's real difficult to draw fire this well in an unmoving medium, and Jamie pulls it off very impressively. :smallcool:

Geno9999

2008-08-04, 12:29 PM

dude, how did they pull off that fire? Did they take a pic and Photoshop'd it?
On the issue of then unipegitaur (try saying THAT 3 times faster), I think it's clothing so that people don't see the decay in the flesh, or leather armor. Take your pick.

Vreejack

2008-08-04, 12:38 PM

Sizemore was somewhat astonished by what his creations did and can do when he finally saw it in person beneath the tunnels. "Good...good job guys." Had he ever "tasted" such an event before he would not have been so surprised. Note that it is only within the last day that he has become morose over the idea of killing; before he was simply nervous about being killed.

I also have to wonder what that "special mission" was that Stanley had brought him and the other casters on when Gobwin Knob first fell. Apparently it did not involve killing.

jami

2008-08-04, 12:44 PM

dude, how did they pull off that fire? Did they take a pic and Photoshop'd it?

Hand painting, baby! Hand painted! Well, with liquify. But no photos.

Fighteer

2008-08-04, 12:47 PM

Don't get me wrong; I loved Iron Man. I saw it twice, talked about it for weeks, and started cutting my goatee into a Tony Stark. But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis, and to challenge the viewer with difficult questions. Jamie and I hope to do a little better on that score.
I'm not sure if it's ironic or appropriate that in a comic about a gameworld-turned-real, the characters within the story would have their own moral viewpoints about creating weapons and killing people.

Ansom: Absolutely certain of his moral superiority and can therefore justify any action he chooses to take.
Stanley: Doesn't give a boop about morality; thinks that because he's got an Arkentool that he deserves to rule and therefore doesn't need to bother justifying himself.
Jillian: Isn't willing to take her own moral stand, so she takes refuge in being a barbarian and following Ansom's orders.
Wanda: Enjoys torture and killing for its own sake; so much so that she may be more of a true villain than Stanley. She's not blind to the concept of morality but either doesn't care or acts like she doesn't.
Sizemore: A pacifist at heart, he made weapons of war because he didn't see himself as having a choice; resents Parson for forcing him to make a choice.
Parson: Originally saw Erfworld as just a game, but keeps running into characters with "human" feelings and motivations. He's being forced to make choices that have moral consequences (or appear to) for perhaps the first time in his life.

What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators. Did Sizemore learn to be pacifistic, and Wanda cruel, through their experiences and "upbringing"; or did they simply pop that way with their personalities determined by the roll of a cosmic die? If the former, can Erfworld's inhabitants ever learn to get along? If the latter, is Parson right or wrong to develop friendships and loyalties with them?

Harr

2008-08-04, 12:54 PM

Hand painting, baby! Hand painted! Well, with liquify. But no photos.

Wow, really? That's impressive.. I was sure it was some kind of photo-overlay thingy. Nice. The cast-light and shadows are also pulled off very well throughout.

Gamebird

2008-08-04, 01:04 PM

Erfworld, everything is a weapon of war. Any action - even Hippymancy - has importance only in how it relates to killing. Other ways of living are considered semi-mythical.

And from Fighteer:
What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators.

Are we sure of this? The game opened with a situation that involved combat and Parson was summoned to resolve that situation. The strip has focussed on combat. But this doesn't prove that life in Erfworld is based on fighting. Or at least not that it's any more based on fighting than life on Earth. All life on Earth is based on struggle and competition to survive and out-populate all others. The meaning of life is to create more life and if you can't do that, then at least protect and nurture some life over others (making it more likely that the protected life will create more life, etc.)

Life on Earth isn't explicitly turn-based and doesn't involve units "popping", but I don't see how a turn-by-turn system must equate to a world based more heavily on warfare than our own. And in our own world, we have found lots of philosophies to explain (or attempt to explain) the mysteries of life. I don't see why people in Erf wouldn't do similar.

Jade_Tarem

2008-08-04, 01:09 PM

I'm not sure if it's ironic or appropriate that in a comic about a gameworld-turned-real, the characters within the story would have their own moral viewpoints about creating weapons and killing people.

What strikes me as a bit odd, however, is how a world that "pops" units and seems to exist in a perpetual state of turn-by-turn warfare evolves codes of ethics and morality in the first place other than those arbitrarily assigned to them by their creators. Did Sizemore learn to be pacifistic, and Wanda cruel, through their experiences and "upbringing"; or did they simply pop that way with their personalities determined by the roll of a cosmic die? If the former, can Erfworld's inhabitants ever learn to get along? If the latter, is Parson right or wrong to develop friendships and loyalties with them?

Man, Parson (or the readership) isn't even sure that he has free will, let alone whether he should be friends with the munchkins...

Fez

2008-08-04, 01:14 PM

Step by step we're seeing more complexity in the characters that are presented.

Not that they weren't complex to start, but we didn't have enough information to know when Wanda was being overconfident, or understand Jillian's conflicts. The characters are developing stronger voices and there are a lot of unanswered questions about each still. The nice thing is that there are hints and indicators for us to find.

Sizemore always seemed a low value caster. Even when he was sent to the magic space for lessons, he didn't really learn anything. He was never treated with much respect but that is in part because this does seem to be a wargame, and other than making crap golems when Stanley had spare upkeep to go to them, he didn't seem to have heavy duties and certainly didn't need to go into combat. He was as much a non-factor as a caster could be.

Parson valued him as a source of information about the world and started making him feel more valuable. Unfortunately, he's also found a way to make him valuable in the wargame context directly, not just by making tools that he never has to see used.

Its tough growing up, but just because he may hate what he has to do now, it doesn't mean he will really hate Parson in the future. Growing can be a traumatic event. I'm curious to see if Sizemore's magic powers/capabilities grow finally with this action. I have no idea how Erf units grow/get xp. In some wargames its through combat. We may see a Sizemore after this who is no longer so unconfident and incapable.

Regardless, a shout to Rob and Jami. :) Nice seeing you about and great work as always.

PS - Consider boot, where the trainers are often putting themselves in an antagonistic position in order to push the recruits. Sometimes you need someone to direct your anger and frustrations at in order to do what needs to be done. How often has the meme of the recruit hating his sergeant come out?

Fafnir13

2008-08-04, 01:20 PM

On the issue of then unipegitaur (try saying THAT 3 times faster), I think it's clothing so that people don't see the decay in the flesh, or leather armor. Take your pick.

It's a woman type unipegitaur, so they're just making sure things stay PG. I looked back to this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0106.html) and saw that she was present there too. Just a little harder to tell it was a she at the time.
And I was able to say it three times fast without trouble. :smallbiggrin:

ishnar

2008-08-04, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Zolem View Post
I'm reminded of many saying that are similar to this: I make the weapons, I don't wield them. What you do with them is not my problem. A sword I make is just as likly to wind up in the hands of a killer as it is a savior. I don't judge myself based on thier actions. The same sword could have been used by either.

Then what happens when the maker of the weapons is forced to use them himself? Does he suddenly decide that he was wrong to have made them in the first place, or is killing perfectly okay as long as he's not the one doing it?

Hating to do something does not imply a belief that the deed is morally wrong or have anything to do with hypocrisy as others have said. I could make the tools to clean a sewer all day, but if someone sent me into a sewer to clean up, I'd seriously dislike that person. Same with being a surgeon, working in a slaughterhouse, or preparing bodies for a funeral.

Some tasks are just repugnant as they are. "It is good that war is so horrible...."

Aquillion

2008-08-04, 01:51 PM

Wanda: Enjoys torture and killing for its own sake; so much so that she may be more of a true villain than Stanley. She's not blind to the concept of morality but either doesn't care or acts like she doesn't.Hey, hey. Hold on there.

She enjoys S&M relationships, sure, but beyond that we haven't seen any actual indication that Wanda simply enjoys torture for its own sake. Stanley thought so, but he's an idiot. Wanda enjoys torturing Jillian, yes, but that's different -- she thought Jillian enjoyed it (and we've had every indication that Jillian did, up until the point where Wanda forced her against Ansom. Remember, that's what she said went too far -- the rest was just part of their relationship.) And we've seen no indication at all that Wanda enjoys killing. She's willing to kill, yes, but so is everyone else who the topic has come up for in Erfworld except Sizemore. We haven't seen any indication that she just goes around killing or torturing at random.

Sizemore also knows that Parson doubts the reality of this world. I wonder how that influences his outlook on this?

fendrin

2008-08-04, 02:12 PM

3 cheers for Rob and Jamie for once again elevating Erfworld from mere entertainment to the lofty heights of Art.

This is in my opinion one of the best pages so far: character development, ethical ponderings, and beautiful images.

Well done.

BarGamer

2008-08-04, 02:33 PM

Poor Sizemore. He's an Role-player in a Turn-Based world... :smalltongue:

It occurs to me that Croakamancers like Wanda don't spend a lot of time thinking of what their zombies "want." Heck, this even applies to Jillian. Wanda simply could not imagine that Jillian would object to more control over her, but Parson can and does. Parson just got another lesson in "Your Units Are People, Too 101." And it burns.

@Jami & Rob: The hand-painted flames look beautiful! Loving the character development!

Tarnace

2008-08-04, 02:42 PM

Normally I only reply to this forum when I see an unsightly Klog or to praise it's regularity (or irregularity wheneven it happens) but today Im going out on a differnt limb of as to comment on the main story. To do so lets look at the phrase that seems to be of the most importance.

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

No wonder Parson wants to talk to Wanda - that would actually progress the main story and plot. Parson needs to discuss "important" things with Wanda ie. the next plan of attack/defend and in passing he tells Snoremore that he has an auxiliary plan to save Boremore and the rest of the casters whom he seems somewhat attached too.

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes. I'm not sure if Cantbeanylamermore is a "B" listed character or a "C" listed character but that only further proves my point. Why add this as it seems to be confusing to some of the readers and/or pointless to others like myself.

Why should I care if the person nobody likes at work throws a fit or tantrum? If I have a major deadline and someone gets upset because I'm making them DO THEIR JOB then they can commit suicide for all I care. If your not helping then your just in the way. So when I tell you armagedon is coming, and that I care about you enough that Im going to save your pathetic shriveled up keister while sacrificing myself only to be told that you disaprove of my actions - actions that you pretty much would have done anyways then you can just leave your sorry crapgolem ass in this doomed city and die for all I care.

Parson is fighting unbelieaveable odds - litterally 25-1 (I assuming losing the dwagons more than or equals the destroyed seige weapons). The last thing that should be going through his mind is a bit of highschool drama from the sidelines. Heck - Isn't Sizemores motto something like "when life gives you crap make crap golems?"

I smell a whole festering lot of Crap Golems oozing from this issue.

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

What does that even mean? In the very first issues before Parson is even in the story Crymore pays an exuberant tip to a hippymancer because he realizes that he most likly isn't returning. Is he actually mad because he might continue to exsist? Maybe the fact that he made golems wasn't that bad because even though his job sucked he realized his pathetic exsistence didn't actually have a lot of merit and that it would soon end. Yes im really going to say it - Sizemore persona indicates that he doesn't want to live. He has become detuned and detatched from life and now that people care about him and he is becoming important he trully "hates" Parson for it. Now he has to fight, he has to work and he has to do his job - a job of sensless killing and survival. When you look at it on that angle the story does "seem" much deeper but again - its wasted on a "B" or "C" listed guy making it moot.

So as usually I give props where do - A for effort, F for execution, but what do expect when your dealing with a crap golem makers feelings?

See you all next Klog

some guy

2008-08-04, 02:50 PM

As always, Erfworld continues to fascinate. I'm enjoying the art, the dialogue (too bad those text balloons are overlapping the art, but hey, it belongs to the medium).
Has anyone else noticed how Parson keeps his not-yet-finished sword by his side. He must be more worried then he seems. Well, it's understandable when in one day your boop will, most likely, be booped.
Also, in the last panel Bogroll seems surprised or flustered that Parson is heading to Wanda. How come?

factotum

2008-08-04, 03:04 PM

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes.

You may not care for Sizemore, but it's pretty clear Parson does--Sizemore was the one who taught him most of what he knows about magic in Erfworld, for a start; he's responsible for a good deal of Parson's success (such as it is).

DargBoard

2008-08-04, 03:44 PM

I also have to wonder what that "special mission" was that Stanley had brought him and the other casters on when Gobwin Knob first fell. Apparently it did not involve killing.

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

SteveMB

2008-08-04, 03:54 PM

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

For general reference, enclose spoiler text in tags that look like this:

spoilertext.

(It's more of an issue on the Order of the Stick forum, where Rich prefers to avoid reading speculations about what is going to happen. My recollection is that Rob and Jamie don't share that preference -- however, some people who post in both places find it easier to err on the side of caution and just use spoiler tags all the time.)

Vreejack

2008-08-04, 04:24 PM

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

This is brilliant. Not only does it provide a future surprise but it upsets the carefully presented notion that Stanley was trying merely to save the valuable casters from dying in his coup. I always doubted the coup, merely because Sizemore, who is intelligent enough to notice such things, failed to mention it to Parson. I don't know if he was digging a tunnel to Faq (he doesn't need one with dwagons and I doub't they'd fit anyway) but he was digging a tunnel or something some place and I'll bet it comes up again.

Fighteer

2008-08-04, 04:41 PM

Life on Earth isn't explicitly turn-based and doesn't involve units "popping", but I don't see how a turn-by-turn system must equate to a world based more heavily on warfare than our own. And in our own world, we have found lots of philosophies to explain (or attempt to explain) the mysteries of life. I don't see why people in Erf wouldn't do similar.
My question is how such thoughts and concerns would arise in the first place. Units don't go through a "childhood", nor do they apparently go to "school", as they pop with their basic skills and abilities already present. (I am excluding for the sake of argument the ability of some units to learn skills outside their basic profession/class.) Where did Sizemore "learn" to be a pacifist? Where did Jillian have the experiences that resulted in her being so willful? How did Wanda come to enjoy dressing in exotic outfits and performing kinky torture?

It almost seems like the process of "popping" units causes them to generate a set of personality attributes almost as complex, if not more so, than their combat stats. Then, the question becomes: how mutable are these attributes? How much can they change over time? In fact, how is it even possible to be/think/act like a "real person" without any actual memory or experiences before the moment you pop into being, fully grown and ready for battle? Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

In thinking about these things, I can't help but be reminded of another story that postulates similar questions about soi-disant "people" in an artificial, but extremely realistic world: Tad Williams' Otherland.

Geno9999

2008-08-04, 05:31 PM

Thoughts on that, Bogroll is a Twoll and, as stated here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0036.html), He's kind hearted, which is not a common trait for twolls.
My idea is, like pokemon, Units have a nature that is randomized. however, some natures are more common in certain unit than other natures (ever heard of a kind hearted croakamancer?)
This preset nature MIGHT change if certain actions are done (like say, punching someone with out reason when you're normally a nice guy.)

Jeivar

2008-08-04, 06:38 PM

Hmm. Good update. I can't help but wonder what, if any, the significance of Wanda playing so much with her new uncroaked is. Is she trying to get the hang of riding a unipegataur (or whatever they're called again), for the upcoming battle or for fleeing, or is she just unwinding for a bit? Maybe now that Jillian's slipped her leash, Wanda feels the need to bend SOMETHING to her will as an ego-boost, even if it's just another uncroaked.

And I continue to be surprised and impressed by how deep and dramatic the characterizations are in a webcomic with a premise that is at it's core very silly and uncomplicated. Kudos to the creators for creating something so wonderfully off-beat and unpredictable. :)

Titanium Dragon

2008-08-04, 06:43 PM

I really enjoyed this comic. I don't really have much to comment on about it; I just enjoyed the character development. I think Sizemore is an interesting character.

I also think people may be thinking about this too deeply in terms of game mechanics; after all, Parson himself has mentioned that some of this stuff sounds like pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. We can't take everything the erfs say at face value; they know more about their world than anyone else, but that doesn't mean their knowledge is perfect either. Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

Occasional Sage

2008-08-04, 06:49 PM

Then again, this may not be a case of hypocrisy on Sizemore's part after all. His position under Stanley was a menial one that offered him little or no opportunity to make choices, and considering that he came from FAQ, he almost certainly wouldn't have taken his present role had he had any real choice. By befriending him, Parson allowed him some freedom of expression, and as a direct result he's now being asked to kill with his own hands (more or less). It's no wonder that his morale is low.

Actually, according to the cast page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html), Sizemore is part of the Plaid Tribe, like Stanley. He's original to GK.

I also think people may be thinking about this too deeply in terms of game mechanics; after all, Parson himself has mentioned that some of this stuff sounds like pre-scientific mumbo-jumbo. We can't take everything the erfs say at face value; they know more about their world than anyone else, but that doesn't mean their knowledge is perfect either. Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

Presumably if loyalty can be affected by Thinkamancy, there are spells which specifically do so. Ergo, the rules of Erfworld tell the leaders and casters through the spell description that loyalty can be numerically expressed, making it more of a "hard" concept then it is for us.

That said, I don't see a reason that hating Parson would necessarily decrease Sizemore's loyalty. I can easily picture situations (not limited ot life-and-death) where I personally would follow somebody I hate; if they are talented and will lead us jointly to success, my opinions don't really matter.

I have some thoughts on that. A bit of a noob on posting though, don't know what the spoiler tags are.

Perhaps Sizemore's job on the special mission was to tunnel a new entrance to Faq. Thus, Stanley actually can get to Faq without running into an ambush at the chokepoint.

Brilliant. Assuming that the dwagons could pass, that'd explain why FAQ didn't succeed in even slowing them down at their choke point.

EDIT: that's assuming that the dwagon stack wasn't able to simply choose to not engage the defenders due to the composition of the stacks.

Zukhramm

2008-08-04, 07:04 PM

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.

Occasional Sage

2008-08-04, 07:13 PM

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.

If you're referring to Sizemore in Panel 10, he didn't mean those to be questions. They're statements, and the phrasing forces Parson to think about what he's being accused of.

Edit: looking at panel 12, that looks to be Bogroll sitting to the right of Sizemore, and he has over his head the marks that in many comics denote a sudden and surprising thought. Sizemore's declaration of hatred would most likely get an angry response from him, like when Sizemore suggested that Parson is crazy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0082.html); what has this conversation triggered for him?

SteveMB

2008-08-04, 07:54 PM

Loyalty is an unknown and unknowable statistic that can be altered by thinkamancy. Does that necessarily mean that it is even a real statistic at all any more than our loyalty to leaders are?

Perhaps not. Erfworlders know that unit stats exist and govern various important aspects of their lives, so they're predisposed to explain things in such terms. The "loyalty stat" may have no more real existence than the crystalline spheres and epicycles of ancient astronomy.

Actually, according to the cast page (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erfcast.html), Sizemore is part of the Plaid Tribe, like Stanley. He's original to GK.

And he specifically said that he was popped under Saline IV, who ruled the place prior to Stanley.

The Old Hack

2008-08-04, 08:31 PM

The above comment seemed posted as a feeble attempt to create dramatic tension but it failed because it was based on a character that no one even cares about or really likes.
*blinks* I don't care about or like Sizemore? That's strange, here I thought he was one of my favourite characters. Ah well, good thing I have you around here to set me straight!

Occasional Sage

2008-08-04, 08:35 PM

*blinks* I don't care about or like Sizemore? That's strange, here I thought he was one of my favourite characters. Ah well, good thing I have you around here to set me straight!

No, you don't. Neither do I. In fact now that it's explained to me I realize that I was horribly wrong to think he was even interesting, much less one of the more nuanced characters.

Do you feel as silly as I do now?

fendrin

2008-08-04, 08:46 PM

It almost seems like the process of "popping" units causes them to generate a set of personality attributes almost as complex, if not more so, than their combat stats. Then, the question becomes: how mutable are these attributes? How much can they change over time? In fact, how is it even possible to be/think/act like a "real person" without any actual memory or experiences before the moment you pop into being, fully grown and ready for battle? Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

The way I think about it is that when a unit is popped they have a fully formed personality, as if they had lived through a complete set of formative experiences. If you think about it, it is as if all units are popped as perfect amnesiacs. They have a fully formed personality, but no memory of events that shaped that personality. I prefer to think of the characters as human analogues, and thus can change their personality as much as any human can. It makes it easier for me to identify with the characters.

glenstorm74

2008-08-04, 09:58 PM

You know...Wanda has a reputation of doing the unexpected as she seems to follow a personal agenda. It would make perfect sense that Wanda is playing with her toys and not speaking with Parson because she has no intention of following through with his plan. The real question for me is: "What will she do?"

Wild speculation
We know that the arkenpliers have some affinity for the undead. Many have also proposed that Wanda has the most potential for becoming the comic's main villan. What if Wanda were to aquire the pliers and start a whole new side? An undead side. :xykon:

Zolem

2008-08-04, 10:39 PM

Wild speculation
We know that the arkenpliers have some affinity for the undead... :xykon:

The affinity of destroying them realy easily. An Undead BANE weapon does not provide somebody with an Undead army.

BAck to the comic. A lot of people are calling Seizmore hypocritical or a wimp. Those who do so, take a gun, point it at somebody three feet away, and kill them after waiting a day to think about it......well, what are you waiting for? It's hard isn't it, to end a life.

Real life example: I enjoy playing more pasifiscal charecters, which got me berated by my fellow RPers, who slaughter and gave grusome descriptions and such, and slaughter people, places, animals, and magnificant beasts with glee. Then I took them hunting one weekend. They couldn't bring themselves to shoot a thing. I killed three deer. They said it was horrible that I could kill animals like that. I said "What do you think you're charecters do? Where do you think hamburgers come from? Grow up. If you go hunting, you kill things." To summerise, it's easy to sayyou're a hardened killer, it'sa hell of a lot harder to pull the trigger. I can actually kill (animals, not peopple) and I still prefer to play a less violent roll. Why? Even though I am willing to kill, I don't do so needlessly. Wolves are exting in our area, so the deer population needs to be controled. I usualy just sell the animal, and it gets made into jerky and jerkins. I personaly don't eat the jerky, but a lot of people do. Anyone who acuses me of being hypocritical abotu how I roleplay and how I hunt misses the point. I understand the value of life. I just also know that things die. I just don't want things to die needlessly.

The Old Hack

2008-08-04, 11:08 PM

The affinity of destroying them realy easily. An Undead BANE weapon does not provide somebody with an Undead army.
In their unattuned state, yes. If the Arkenpliers were to attune to Wanda -- either due to the will of the Titans or even their own preference, given that they are sentient -- they may well have additional powers not yet shown.

BAck to the comic. A lot of people are calling Seizmore hypocritical or a wimp. Those who do so, take a gun, point it at somebody three feet away, and kill them after waiting a day to think about it......well, what are you waiting for? It's hard isn't it, to end a life.

It is possible to be hypocritical without being aware of it, and then be horrified once one realises it. I do not consider Sizemore to be any less of a person even granted that he has existed in a state of denial so far and only now become aware of it. Even were it the case, it would still mean that he had now accepted the facts of his existence and become aware of the consequences of his duties -- something many others would have dealt with merely through finding a different form of denial with which to shield themselves.

But when it comes right down to it, he states that he has now tasted what it is like to croak others. Once it is up close and that personal, there are few illusions left to anyone, and he is honest enough to tell his own Warlord that he hates the feeling of it. And in spite of this, he is still intending to go do his duty the next Turn. This is not a coward, this is a soldier doing his duty in spite of being horrified by it.

Real life example: I enjoy playing more pasifiscal charecters, which got me berated by my fellow RPers, who slaughter and gave grusome descriptions and such, and slaughter people, places, animals, and magnificant beasts with glee.

It is a question of maturity and comprehension, I think. Fortunately I know roleplayers who put a bit more thought into their behavior than that. *sigh*

Then I took them hunting one weekend. They couldn't bring themselves to shoot a thing. I killed three deer. They said it was horrible that I could kill animals like that. I said "What do you think you're charecters do? Where do you think hamburgers come from? Grow up. If you go hunting, you kill things." To summerise, it's easy to sayyou're a hardened killer, it'sa hell of a lot harder to pull the trigger.

A great deal of training in boot camp goes into ensuring that the soldier will pull the trigger when he has to, and more importantly (from the officers' point of view, at least) when he is told to. Many people do not care for the idea of killing and need to be carefully managed to be eased into the role of soldier. Sizemore has had little in the way of either training or experience and nonetheless still carried out Parson's orders when on the spot.

I can actually kill (animals, not peopple) and I still prefer to play a less violent roll. Why? Even though I am willing to kill, I don't do so needlessly. Wolves are exting in our area, so the deer population needs to be controled. I usualy just sell the animal, and it gets made into jerky and jerkins. I personaly don't eat the jerky, but a lot of people do. Anyone who acuses me of being hypocritical abotu how I roleplay and how I hunt misses the point. I understand the value of life. I just also know that things die. I just don't want things to die needlessly.

I am in complete agreement with this. But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him. That makes Sizemore's dilemma even more painful -- he has only two options left to him, he can either do as he is told and become what he abhors, or he can fail in his duty. 'Ours not to make reply, ours but to do and die, into the valley of Death rode the six hundred...'

Thoughtbot360

2008-08-04, 11:24 PM

I guess Sizemore killing a certain number of enemies will earn him the XP to gain a level, and that in turn will enable him to study more magic (as he has tried before, but without success).
How would that affect his feelings ?

Actually, the Level system is a pretty horrible artifice if you live in a world where people really do "level up" through endless killing. There are two types of high-level people in such a world:

1) Otherwise decent people who have lost their sanity do to PTS and heavy consciences. Type 2s might be on a mission to save the world from evil, but the need for constant fighting so that you stand a chance against said evil will invariably force you to fight constantly. (The only thing that stops them is cowardice or running out of victims that are challenging enough to give XP.)
2) People who like to kill in the first place. A psychopath who likes the thrill and challenge of killing successively greater foes could become the strongest person ever. They'd still go insane, but they wouldn't really notice.

Its a world where those with levels take what they want from those without levels. Just look at the abusive interactions on PVP servers of certain MMOs.

Zolem

2008-08-04, 11:25 PM

But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him.

The ones who fight the war are not the ones who start it. The ones who benefit most never see battle. Those who lose the most are those that couldn't fight back. Luckily, civilians seem to be non-existant in this world, so that's one less horror of war to deal with.

"It is good that war is so horrible...."

The worse it is, the fewer want it. I enjoy Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics. I hate Advanced Wars and Chess. The first two reward you for guarding every unit as much as posible. The last two treats them as throw aways. I don't like having units die, even if it is good strategy. I know that sunds wimpy, but I don't want to sacrifice soemthing, even if it's not real (as far as I know), just to further my own goals. It's way to selfish for me.

The Old Hack

2008-08-04, 11:46 PM

The worse it is, the fewer want it. I enjoy Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics. I hate Advanced Wars and Chess. The first two reward you for guarding every unit as much as posible. The last two treats them as throw aways.

Not necessarily. A certain French chess master from a couple centuries ago, for example, loathed the act of trading pieces, even pawns, and stated that it was the mark of simple minds that desired to reduce the problem in complexity to a level they could handle. He developed strategies based entirely on refusing trades of pieces, on protecting his pawns as they advanced, and finally choking the enemy behind an advanced forward line of pawns carefully guarded by officers. I no longer play chess very often, but I have tried this form of playing myself with a good deal of success.

I don't like having units die, even if it is good strategy. I know that sunds wimpy, but I don't want to sacrifice soemthing, even if it's not real (as far as I know), just to further my own goals. It's way to selfish for me.

In perfect honesty... this was at least half the reason I tried to emulate that stubborn Frenchman. :smallsmile:

BarGamer

2008-08-05, 12:07 AM

I think the two occurences of "Have you." should be ended with a question mark instead.

Actually, it's "Can you." And even then, only if the person asking the question doesn't already know the answer. Sizemore isn't asking, he's ACCUSING. Sizemore, being a pacifist, doesn't want to lead his golems into battle. But Parson is ordering him to. It is a violation of his values. That's why Sizemore hates Parson, not because he's a emo suicidal baby.

What Parson should have said, is "As long as you're alive to hate me, that's what matters" or even "I don't care if you hate me, as long as you follow orders."

PS: It kinda confuses me from a purely psychological sense as to HOW someone like Sizemore's personality developed, considering dead units just vanish at the end of the turn, and new units pop, fully formed outta nowhere. Maybe it's randomly generated, or something. I mean, not everyone from FAQ are wierdos, right? :-p

Edit: Ninja'd several times. XDDD Also, thinking scary/useful thoughts about the Thinkamancy Klog. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html)

Edit Again: Also, since Sizemore's killed, he doesn't have inner peace of the heart (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0011.html) anymore either. TEH HAAAATE! It burns! XDDD

dr pepper

2008-08-05, 12:20 AM

Is it possible that Erfworld is evolving? Maybe it was a pure wargame but it is becoming an frp world.

Hinotori

2008-08-05, 12:49 AM

I'm surprised that no one has considered Parson's moral culpability here.

I completely understand Sizemore and empathize with him. As far as Sizemore knows, Parson has a choice. Sizemore doesn't and hasn't. Parson could surrender, but his only reason not to is that he "just want[s] to play this out," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) which, to me, is a very poor reason, ethically speaking, to do what he's doing. While it's possible that Parson could be under the influences of Loyalty, he certainly doesn't seem to be struggling against it, at least not as much as Sizemore.

What Parson is doing is wrong. Even if he couldn't guarantee a peaceful outcome, he hasn't put any effort at all into bringing one about. Sizemore knows this, and I believe that is why he resents Parson so much.

I like Parson as a character, but if I were in Sizemore's shoes, I think I might hate him too.

KeiranHalcyon

2008-08-05, 01:11 AM

PD: it seems that there was a turn that Parson didn't get anything in his Stupid Meal, didn't get a Stupid Meal or it was simply not shown.

My my count, nothing was missed. Parson's been around for the beginning of 4 turns, and has 4 items: 3-d glasses that show unit stats, interface bracer for his calculator watch, sword hilt, and sword ricasso.

tomaO2

2008-08-05, 01:44 AM

Sizemore: But you can't release me from that, can you.

Parson: No...

WAIT! OF course I can. You see, I got something called a Thinkmancer that does all sorts of mojo with people's heads. An amnesia charm will be a piece of cake or should be.

Sizemore: And if she can't?

Parson: Well then I'll just have to hire Charlie, the most powerful Thinkmancer in Erfworld and he'll do it. Don't worry Sizemore, I promise you that I'll help you to forget the horrible, horrible things you are about to to.

Sizemore: Then my problems are solved

Narrator: And there was much rejoicing. Mission accomplished everyone. :smallsmile:

PS. This is all Stanly's fault. Not Parson's. If Parson had not been around Sizemore would have still had to fight when the enemy came to the city but the concern about not surrendering is a valid one. I think something important like this should be put to a vote for every soldier in the city. It's their lives after all.

I also think that Parson could try negotiating with the underground force. If he can prove they hare hoplessly outnumbered they could surrender without a fight? Just a thought.

Eco-Mono

2008-08-05, 03:51 AM

Wow.

Wow.

Aquillion

2008-08-05, 04:10 AM

But when it comes right down to it, he states that he has now tasted what it is like to croak others. Once it is up close and that personal, there are few illusions left to anyone, and he is honest enough to tell his own Warlord that he hates the feeling of it. And in spite of this, he is still intending to go do his duty the next Turn. This is not a coward, this is a soldier doing his duty in spite of being horrified by it.

A great deal of training in boot camp goes into ensuring that the soldier will pull the trigger when he has to, and more importantly (from the officers' point of view, at least) when he is told to. Many people do not care for the idea of killing and need to be carefully managed to be eased into the role of soldier. Sizemore has had little in the way of either training or experience and nonetheless still carried out Parson's orders when on the spot.

I am in complete agreement with this. But it is an unfortunate fact of warfare that this decision is only rarely in the hands of the soldier and instead belongs to the officers above him. That makes Sizemore's dilemma even more painful -- he has only two options left to him, he can either do as he is told and become what he abhors, or he can fail in his duty. 'Ours not to make reply, ours but to do and die, into the valley of Death rode the six hundred...'To be perfectly fair, I don't think Sizemore does have a choice. Natural Thinkamancy, remember? Parson is still Stanley's chief warlord, and Sizemore doesn't have any choice but to obey.

He could beg Parson to relent, perhaps, but I'm not sure disobeying orders is actually possible for him unless he fails a loyalty check or whatever.

Hinotori

2008-08-05, 05:17 AM

PS. This is all Stanly's fault. Not Parson's. If Parson had not been around Sizemore would have still had to fight when the enemy came to the city but the concern about not surrendering is a valid one. I think something important like this should be put to a vote for every soldier in the city. It's their lives after all.

To me, that's analogous to saying that if someone coerces you into doing something wrong, it's ok for you to go ahead and do it after they stop coercing you. As far as Parson is concerned, Stanley is a non-issue right now. Nothing is preventing him from seeking a diplomatic solution (except the power of plot); therefore, Parson IS responsible. He may not be as eb0l as Stanley, but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the lives that might be needlessly lost in the upcoming battle. Parson is clearly aware that he's on the side of the "bad guys." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html) The only reason he continues to fight is to satisfy his own curiosity and ego.

OnDroid

2008-08-05, 06:30 AM

To me, that's analogous to saying that if someone coerces you into doing something wrong, it's ok for you to go ahead and do it after they stop coercing you. As far as Parson is concerned, Stanley is a non-issue right now. Nothing is preventing him from seeking a diplomatic solution (except the power of plot); therefore, Parson IS responsible. He may not be as eb0l as Stanley, but that doesn't absolve him of responsibility for the lives that might be needlessly lost in the upcoming battle. Parson is clearly aware that he's on the side of the "bad guys." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html) The only reason he continues to fight is to satisfy his own curiosity and ego.

Sadly there is no clue to say that turning/surrendering is either city option or unit only option. And I somewhat doubt that ANY unit ( chief warlord included ) could technically surrender the last and capitol city ( meaning reverting whole side ( rest of it ) to neutral/barbarian ) without approval of the Overlord/King.

Yes, he CAN commit all troops on outer walls and let the tunnel group take over the city-garrison without any fight ( if he is not under infulence of the Natural Thinkamancy ) but would he live to see such "peaceful ending"? ( not beeing disbanded )

Does that mean that Ansom is a good guy? He sent stacks of woodsy elves to certain death just to weaken dragons like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0063.html) to finish with fresh Gumps for next assult (Ok, he sent all he got after this plan failed ... but why he didn't begin with such move in the first place? ) ? And with his Titanic ego mandate to lead both man and beast? Is he morally more fit than those of lesser stationmorally more fit than those of lesser station (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0101.html) as he claims? I don't think so.

Sizemore is forced to make sort of Sophie's choice : Lead the counter-attack in tunnels to help with his bonuses to the Golems kill off a whole force. Or let everyone in the city die in battle with 25:1 ratio. ( almost all units would fight to death for their side ... wouldn't be accepted to turn due to low Loyality - except for the valuable casters ). Parson is only the one who voiced that dilema. Lose-lose situation for our poor pacifist Dirtamancer. :smallfrown:

Hinotori

2008-08-05, 06:58 AM

Sadly there is no clue to say that turning/surrendering is either city option or unit only option. And I somewhat doubt that ANY unit ( chief warlord included ) could technically surrender the last and capitol city ( meaning reverting whole side ( rest of it ) to neutral/barbarian ) without approval of the Overlord/King.

As indicated in the first Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.

Does that mean that Ansom is a good guy? He sent stacks of woodsy elves to certain death just to weaken dragons like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0063.html) to finish with fresh Gumps for next assult (Ok, he sent all he got after this plan failed ... but why he didn't begin with such move in the first place? ) ?

This is a really bad example. Ansom is a commander; he naturally needs to make decisions that leads to men getting killed. In this case, he made a feint to test the dwagons' strength, which is a legitimate scouting tactic. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Ansom sacrificed those troops for any reason other than a tactical one, and the fact that he personally led the troops the next turn even when his units were gladly willing to shoulder the danger alone shows that he's willing to put his own "keister" on the line. Note also that he rejected Vinny's first option of escape for the sole reason of not wanting to abandon his troops (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html). Love him or hate him, Ansom clearly cares about his men.

All this is completely moot, however, because I don't see how you could possibly see Ansom as worse than Stanley. I'll certainly grant that Ansom has an enormous ego, but Stanley has slaughtered innocent people, has shown next to no concern for anyone but himself, and has his own ego that matches and exceeds Ansom's by a longshot. Even if you don't see Ansom as "good," Ansom is clearly the lesser of two evils, and Parson has already recognized this.

OnDroid

2008-08-05, 07:48 AM

As indicated in the first Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.

As I said : There is no hint what rules would cover the surrender option. Only time ( and creators ) could tell.

But surrendering probably means that all GK army would get disbanded ( as for low loyality troops will only rise upkeep and are not as good to use in combat for danger of self-disbanding or refusing the order ) except for casters maybe. So the rest don't die, but simply cease to exist. That would only tranfer the responsibility to Ansom. What would be YOUR pick?

The question is : Is Erfworld only turn-based real world with strange "physics" or is it true turn-based war strategy made real?

All evidence speaks for the later ... and in universe created for war, pacifists unfortunately have a very HARD and/or short lives. ( I DONT say that war is good but if the universe imposes some law(s) upon you, you can resist as much we can resist gravity ... man can fly, but what comes up must come down )

SteveMB

2008-08-05, 07:55 AM

As indicated in the first Klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) that I linked here, Parson considered surrender as an option and dismissed it, meaning that it was an alternative. Even if it turned out not to be an option, Parson clearly has no intention of even making an attempt at a peaceful solution.
I think he burned that bridge, if it was ever there to begin with, during his friendly little chat with Ansom.

Note also that he rejected Vinny's first option of escape for the sole reason of not wanting to abandon his troops (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0068.html). Love him or hate him, Ansom clearly cares about his men.

Well, that and the fact that retreating now would cripple the entire mission ("We can't lose the siege, Vinny!"). That said, Ansom clearly does have a strong sense of noblesse oblige as well as a sense of prerogatives.

Gamebird

2008-08-05, 08:21 AM

Couple unrelated points:

Characters advance in level by winning battles, but not by losing them or withdrawing. Stanley pointed this out when he found out about Parson having the uncroaked warlords on dwagons withdrawing after destroying siege.

Being able to consider an option and then dismissing it doesn't mean it was a valid option. I could consider flapping my arms in order to fly, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to do it.

If natural Thinkamancy makes people unable to rebel, then why did Stanley believe that Wanda had been disloyal (she answered, "I'm allowed" and explained - if it was impossible for her to betray, then he wouldn't have suspected disloyalty). The suspicion of betrayal means that betrayal is possible. Not sure what "natural Thinkamancy" does. Maybe it just changes the odds of you following orders - a tendency, but not a guarentee.

only1doug

2008-08-05, 09:11 AM

you must obey his wills and desires forever (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0019.html) the summoning spell compels you to obey his orders (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0023.html)

the odds don't matter, strategy doesn't matter,those are details, thats your Job (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0033.html) Stanley tells Parson that his desire is to win the battle.

so Parson may consider other options but the summoning magic effectively forces him to disregard any that wouldn't satisfy stanleys STATED desires.

Doug

Friendly Fiend

2008-08-05, 09:22 AM

Is Parson right or wrong for wanting to treat the inhabitants of Erfworld as real people?

In thinking about these things, I can't help but be reminded of another story that postulates similar questions about soi-disant "people" in an artificial, but extremely realistic world: Tad Williams' Otherland.

Best reference ever, have a self aware virus cookie.

Anyway, as I think some other poster mentioned already, it's important to recognize the change to the system that Parsons presence is making on Erfworld. While Sizemore might be the most glaring difference currently shown, he's certainly not the only one. Psychological warfare, independent thought, change within the caste system; all concepts that are perhaps not entirely . . healthy for Erf.

Any independently functioning system eventually creates the pattern for its existence. Like the pump of a heartbeat, this rhythm creates a homogeneous environment that supports life, and a slight murmur can spin that careful pattern into chaos and eventual (more than likely quick) ruin. Parsons complete "otherness" (for lack of a better term) could be enough of a murmur to spin Erfworld right off it's axis. Now of course I don't mean an apocalypse in the traditional sense (then again, maybe), but do "units" (not people, units) consider the morality of their actions when acting with in the rules of their popped place in the hierarchy?

On the surface it's easy to see Sizemore's crisis as a directly moral one, it's what just about any person (even really decent people) would feel. But is it possible that what we're seeing is merely a manifestation of him acting outside his popped identity?

Before you answer that think about what kind of an identity so called "perfect amnesiacs" (good term there, whoever said it first) even have? Is it possible that Gobwin Knob could have popped a "more humane" Sizemore that would have recognized the inherent hypocrisy of his hands off participation in the war? Of course not, Sizemore is not a person, -it- is a unit, incapable of making those decisions while the system is still homogeneous. Lastly, do concepts like pacifisim have a place on Erf? The difference between real Earth and any created world is mostly teleological. Real Earth doesn't exist for any reason as far as I know, but games clearly and obviously have a teleological purpose. And Erfworld, is a wargame.

But back to what I was originally saying, Parson's mere presence is booping around with the system, introducing uncountable new patterns and behaviors.

Call me morbid if you want but I'd like to take the most extreme (perhaps ridiculous possibility) and throw it out here. What do you think the suicide rate was before Parson set foot in Gobwin Knob? Assuming Erf still exists after Parson leaves, what do you think it will be after?

And to kind of return back to the beginning with a reference of my own; all of this reminds me of the film Dark City.

SteveMB

2008-08-05, 09:31 AM

On the surface it's easy to see Sizemore's crisis as a directly moral one, it's what just about any person (even really decent people) would feel. But is it possible that what we're seeing is merely a manifestation of him acting outside his popped identity?

Before you answer that think about what kind of an identity so called "perfect amnesiacs" (good term there, whoever said it first) even have? Is it possible that Gobwin Knob could have popped a "more humane" Sizemore that would have recognized the inherent hypocrisy of his hands off participation in the war? Of course not, Sizemore is not a person, -it- is a unit, incapable of making those decisions while the system is still homogeneous. Lastly, do concepts like pacifisim have a place on Erf? The difference between real Earth and any created world is mostly teleological. Real Earth doesn't exist for any reason as far as I know, but games clearly and obviously have a teleological purpose. And Erfworld, is a wargame.

But back to what I was originally saying, Parson's mere presence is booping around with the system, introducing uncountable new patterns and behaviors.

OTOH, the "bubble kingdom" of Faq (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0091.html) existed earlier, keeping out of wars (except to hire out mercs when necessary to replenish the treasury). On the gripping hand, this situation is portrayed as unusual -- Jillian herself called it "weird" and Ansom finds it hard to believe that it's even possible.

Moechi_Vill

2008-08-05, 09:41 AM

"Then I think... I think I have to hate you."

Ouch, do I see rebellion stirring? It seems one nemesis isn't even gone and another is being foreshadowed!

This does seem to explain, however, why for the most part subordinates didn't use to get much free will, I guess.

No, it's just the best page so far.

Earendill

2008-08-05, 09:49 AM

In D&D, the whole challenge is to try to convert real life actions into numbers. He fells from a cliff and gets hurt - lets convert this into numbers through the falling formula. He talks with a barmaid and tries to charm her - enter the Charisma stat and maybe some others...

Somehow Erfworlders are confronted with the same dillema - they experience real, human emotions and moral dillemas that they try to convert into the rigid number system of a wargame - mostly they fail. Experiencing stuff that cannot be converted into the coherent, secure system that you know can be stressful.

Most of the Erfworlders drama come from real personalities being forced into molds that are inadequate.

Jillian and her desire for revenge, mixed feelings towards Wanda and Ansom, probably her culpabilities is forced into a Barbarian warchief mold....

Sizemore with his existential and moral questionnings is forced into a summoner magician mold ...

Wanda with all her issues if forced into a necromancer...

Even Bogroll ...

It's like the whole popping part is not really working as it should- you got your job all prepared for you but noone is concerced if your personality is actually adequate for the job you popped into

But who cares anyway - you are ultimately just a miniature figure in a wargame.

Moechi_Vill

2008-08-05, 10:13 AM

Exactly. There is no good and evil in a game, only holy and unholy - the creators and their purpose.

But this is not a game to the inhabitants. Life is not considered to be a game, it can only be a game to outsiders, players, creators and eccentric rulers.

Nice one on the wargame molds picture.

Earendill

2008-08-05, 10:29 AM

I suddenly realised that Parsons, the Earthling summoned to Erfworld is probably a better fit to Erfworld then most of the real Erfworlders, who would probably do better in our world...

The Old Hack

2008-08-05, 10:41 AM

I'm surprised that no one has considered Parson's moral culpability here.
It's a fair cop. :smallamused:

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. He is much like the putative roleplayers Zolem provided as an example; the units aren't real people and may be allowed to die as needed. Any involved loss he sees purely in terms of military capability.

But is this so strange? Parson has never had combat close up before. Even in the first two battles in which he so to speak got bloodied, his units lacked any personality -- uncroaked Warlords that for all intents and purposes had little more personality than units on a tabletop, and dwagons he only saw as a kind of flying killing machine. (Stanley does not agree with that, obviously. He has some sort of emotional attachment to them, however twisted. I wonder precisely what it is?)

Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person. The awareness of death first forces itself on him when Misty dies. His immediate reaction is to a degree selfish, he starts worries about his own hide, but he retains feelings for Misty, among other things refusing to even contemplate the idea of her becoming uncroaked once he understands what it would mean.

And now the war is being brought still closer to home for him. It is all too common for war to break up friendships and destroy loves even when these are supposedly on the 'same side.' He now has to face the commander's moral dilemma of accepting the consequences of what his actions and decisions cost his subordinates -- or forcing them away through denial.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.

I completely understand Sizemore and empathize with him. As far as Sizemore knows, Parson has a choice. Sizemore doesn't and hasn't. Parson could surrender, but his only reason not to is that he "just want[s] to play this out," (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) which, to me, is a very poor reason, ethically speaking, to do what he's doing. While it's possible that Parson could be under the influences of Loyalty, he certainly doesn't seem to be struggling against it, at least not as much as Sizemore.

Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded. Setting that aside, I do not think that Sizemore is struggling as much as he is accepting his duty but being very troubled by it. Not that I think that this reduces his character in any way or form. He may not be a great and glorious hero, but for all that, I still consider him a hero.

What Parson is doing is wrong.

Or at least very terrible, from Sizemore's point of view.

Even if he couldn't guarantee a peaceful outcome, he hasn't put any effort at all into bringing one about. Sizemore knows this, and I believe that is why he resents Parson so much.

I like Parson as a character, but if I were in Sizemore's shoes, I think I might hate him too.

Sadly, Parson as a person was not very used to seeing negotiation as anything but a different form of weapon when he initially arrived in Erfworld. And to be honest? At that point in my own life, I would have acted just like him. My own attitude was that as long as there was any chance at all, you kept fighting, damn the torpedoes and the Devil take the hindmost. And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

But as before, the story is in part about Parson's journey and of how heroes deal with the consequences of their actions. Parson may be morally culpable but the true test is how he deals with it.

EDIT:

It's like the whole popping part is not really working as it should- you got your job all prepared for you but noone is concerced if your personality is actually adequate for the job you popped into

But who cares anyway - you are ultimately just a miniature figure in a wargame.

Much like being a soldier in real life, yes.

Moechi_Vill

2008-08-05, 10:53 AM

The ones who fight the war are not the ones who start it. The ones who benefit most never see battle. Those who lose the most are those that couldn't fight back. Luckily, civilians seem to be non-existant in this world, so that's one less horror of war to deal with.

In modern wars, this is often true, but I still find your statements cynical, or at least overly simple... a blanket statement that falls over many crooked edges, tables, chairs and even the dust on the floor.

A certain amount of conflict in any imperfect world is unavoidable, even if the mould of people, society, technology, reality, motives, chain of command, beneficiaries and those devestated changes.

To put it blankly, yes people use each other, often selfishly; but generalizing about the decision-making generals and leaders, the soldiers, civilians, profiteers and losers is bound to cramp out colours, facts, information, experiences, motives, reality, etc.

War is of course, horrible in many ways, always in at least one.

Moechi_Vill

2008-08-05, 11:04 AM

It's a fair cop. :smallamused:

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. He is much like the putative roleplayers Zolem provided as an example; the units aren't real people and may be allowed to die as needed. Any involved loss he sees purely in terms of military capability.

But is this so strange? Parson has never had combat close up before. Even in the first two battles in which he so to speak got bloodied, his units lacked any personality -- uncroaked Warlords that for all intents and purposes had little more personality than units on a tabletop, and dwagons he only saw as a kind of flying killing machine. (Stanley does not agree with that, obviously. He has some sort of emotional attachment to them, however twisted. I wonder precisely what it is?)

Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person. The awareness of death first forces itself on him when Misty dies. His immediate reaction is to a degree selfish, he starts worries about his own hide, but he retains feelings for Misty, among other things refusing to even contemplate the idea of her becoming uncroaked once he understands what it would mean.

And now the war is being brought still closer to home for him. It is all too common for war to break up friendships and destroy loves even when these are supposedly on the 'same side.' He now has to face the commander's moral dilemma of accepting the consequences of what his actions and decisions cost his subordinates -- or forcing them away through denial.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.

Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded. Setting that aside, I do not think that Sizemore is struggling as much as he is accepting his duty but being very troubled by it. Not that I think that this reduces his character in any way or form. He may not be a great and glorious hero, but for all that, I still consider him a hero.

Or at least very terrible, from Sizemore's point of view.

Sadly, Parson as a person was not very used to seeing negotiation as anything but a different form of weapon when he initially arrived in Erfworld. And to be honest? At that point in my own life, I would have acted just like him. My own attitude was that as long as there was any chance at all, you kept fighting, damn the torpedoes and the Devil take the hindmost. And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

But as before, the story is in part about Parson's journey and of how heroes deal with the consequences of their actions. Parson may be morally culpable but the true test is how he deals with it.

EDIT:

Much like being a soldier in real life, yes.

Actually, most western armies have comprehensive programs to weed out those psychologically and morally/criminally (the moral issues and a higher likelihood of disobeying orders) unfit for their station. Pacifists usually get waivers and are sometimes punished, let go or reassigned to a term of social service.

Gamebird

2008-08-05, 11:31 AM

Anyway, as I think some other poster mentioned already, it's important to recognize the change to the system that Parsons presence is making on Erfworld. While Sizemore might be the most glaring difference currently shown, he's certainly not the only one. Psychological warfare, independent thought, change within the caste system; all concepts that are perhaps not entirely . . healthy for Erf.

Concepts that were already in play in Erf, without Parson. We saw that in the early strips.

The difference between real Earth and any created world is mostly teleological. Real Earth doesn't exist for any reason as far as I know, but games clearly and obviously have a teleological purpose. And Erfworld, is a wargame.

I still haven't seen any proof of this. In fact, one of the first strips (might have been the first, I'm too lazy to check) showed the balance of power in the world being upset by the unintentional and accidental dropping of a gemstone into someone's territory. Perhaps without that gemstone, the world would never have spawned the waves of warfare that it did which have culminated in the current Battle for Gobwin Knob. So I am left thinking that the Titans intended the world to be in balance and NOT a wargame, NOT fighting each other. Or maybe they intended all fights to end in stalemate. I don't know, but the dropping of that gem is what we're told causes the imbalance of power which then causes one side to have an advantage over the others.

Occasional Sage

2008-08-05, 11:45 AM

And Erfworld, is a wargame.

I still haven't seen any proof of this.

...Not a wargame? Turns (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0007.html), hex maps (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0062.html), unit stats (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html)... how is this ANYTHING BUT a wargame?

ETA: oh and Friendly Fire, you get points for using the word "teleological".

In fact, one of the first strips (might have been the first, I'm too lazy to check) showed the balance of power in the world being upset by the unintentional and accidental dropping of a gemstone into someone's territory. Perhaps without that gemstone, the world would never have spawned the waves of warfare that it did which have culminated in the current Battle for Gobwin Knob. So I am left thinking that the Titans intended the world to be in balance and NOT a wargame, NOT fighting each other. Or maybe they intended all fights to end in stalemate. I don't know, but the dropping of that gem is what we're told causes the imbalance of power which then causes one side to have an advantage over the others.

Well, the gem simply tipped the balance of one recent fight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html). Its effect was long, LONG after the war against Stanley started, which is after Stanley fought for Saline, which is after.... My point being that no, war is the norm and intent, not an accident stemming from the loss of a gem from Elvis's cape. That was, as the first panel states, a "little thing".

Hinotori

2008-08-05, 12:00 PM

It's a fair cop. :smallamused:

Thanks for the well thought out response. You make some good points.

Parson's moral culpability stems from ignorance and unawareness. All his life, he has seen war as a game -- he has never even once seen or tried to imagine his units as real people. [...] Part of Erfworld's story, as I have stated before, involves Parson's journey and growth as a person.

How he chooses to deal with this is Parson's next great test.

While I acknowledge the growth Parson has been undergoing, I believe he has already had quite a few wake up calls, enough to be expected to take better responsibility for his actions. While his first few combat encounters were indeed either indirect or easily rationalized, I feel the most significant moment in this respect was not the death of Misty (with which he had little to no responsibility for), but the death and uncroaking of Jaclyn. At that point, he was exposed to the grisly consequences of combat, yet his later response to Charlie was one of complete disregard.

Hmmm. As I understood it, the involved compulsion is that you obey or you get disbanded.

I'm not entirely sure that that's the case, or Parson would not even question if he was under the effects of Loyalty. In this klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html), Parson even goes as far as to question whether or not non-Rulers have free will. Remember, for example, when Stanley ordered him to laugh at his jokes or not to speak, orders which Parson was not able to disobey.

And please note that I am not defending Parson's stance by saying this -- I am merely saying that I would have made the same mistakes, and possibly worse ones, too.

Believe me, I read you. I still like Parson as a character. Hell, in real life, he could be someone I'd be friends with. But it bothers me that people are criticizing Sizemore for perceived hypocrisy when the person who really holds the cards here is Parson. Parson's getting a pass because we can identify with him the easiest, but he shouldn't. Not by a longshot.

But as before, the story is in part about Parson's journey and of how heroes deal with the consequences of their actions. Parson may be morally culpable but the true test is how he deals with it.

In my eyes, when the battle starts and people die, Parson will have already failed this test. But I am always open to the possibility of redemption.

I think he burned that bridge, if it was ever there to begin with, during his friendly little chat with Ansom.

This is a good point; however, I disagree for a couple reasons.

Knowing what we know about Ansom, I think it's actually quite possible that Ansom would consider surrender terms. Ego aside, he doesn't seem the type to be needlessly bloodthirsty, and despite their squabble, his major beef is with Stanley, not Parson. If approached respectfully (something I acknowledge Parson would have trouble with), I believe he could definitely be persuaded towards a more peaceful solution.

Of course, this information isn't available to Parson. We know this because we've been watching Ansom, but for all Parson knows, Ansom will put them all to the sword just for the hell of it.

Nevertheless, it's important to note that Parson was still considering surrender as a viable option. If he believed there was a possibility of it working, then I feel he should be held responsible for not pursuing it.

Gamebird

2008-08-05, 12:18 PM

...Not a wargame? Turns (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0007.html), hex maps (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0062.html), unit stats (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0044.html)... how is this ANYTHING BUT a wargame?

I agree it has a lot of trappings of a war game. It's like the Creator God of the Erfworld was a gamer geek like Parson and made a world that fit to gaming standards. However, I haven't figured out if Erfworld is really a game or if it is a world that uses gaming terms. When I say that I don't think it's a wargame, I'm saying I don't see the Erf world as a game of skill or chance being played by one or more players.

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

Well, the gem simply tipped the balance of one recent fight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html). Its effect was long, LONG after the war against Stanley started, which is after Stanley fought for Saline, which is after.... My point being that no, war is the norm and intent, not an accident stemming from the loss of a gem from Elvis's cape. That was, as the first panel states, a "little thing".

Our own history can be told as a series of wars and conflicts. Turn on the news any night and other than weather and the occasional human interest piece, it's a series of violent events and their outcomes. I haven't seen that Erfworld's history is more or less violent than our own.

Zeku

2008-08-05, 12:21 PM

Related to Parson's moral culpability.

People who have the greatest moral flexibility in a time of war are the ones who believe in eternal life. Ie, when you kill the enemy, you're just putting their piece on the side of the board, they'll be back for the next game. In this way, the game war is very similar to a "holy war."

What's scary are the people who kill in wartime, and believe that the enemy ISN'T going to live forever, or that the enemy is going to burn in some eternal torment. Those guys are wacky, murderers in a more legitimate sense.

Our own history can be told as a series of wars and conflicts. Turn on the news any night and other than weather and the occasional human interest piece, it's a series of violent events and their outcomes. I haven't seen that Erfworld's history is more or less violent than our own.

Think about what you're saying. You even mentioned the news. What do we spend 99.99% of our time doing? Things that aren't war. War, conflict, hate, stupidity, strong opinions, these are just the things that make the most interesting stories. And, conflicts are basically never resolved by the actual war itself. Discussions take place before and after the fighting, and the tone of these discussions create the new truth we live by.

The best example of this is the Romans vs the British. 7 years of basically pointless fighting between two ultra-zealous armies, and yet the tone of the future is set by Caratacus, the British king taken to Rome and not executed. His family intermarries with the Romans, the Brits join the Romans by treaty, eventually Constantine shows up, and now suddenly we have TWO major christian churches, instead of just the British one. (Ive heavily simplified this story for brevity)

Nargrakhan

2008-08-05, 12:30 PM

Heh... well since we're putting Parson's morality up for a War Tribunal discussion... :smallwink:

He is already aware (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0031.html) he's working for the bad guys. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0032.html)

The Tool ain't for "freedom, justice, and equality" after all.

Shades of Gray? Maybe... but when the WHOLE world is after ya, maybe you ain't as gray as everyone else. :smalltongue:

SteveMB

2008-08-05, 12:34 PM

Knowing what we know about Ansom, I think it's actually quite possible that Ansom would consider surrender terms. Ego aside, he doesn't seem the type to be needlessly bloodthirsty, and despite their squabble, his major beef is with Stanley, not Parson. If approached respectfully (something I acknowledge Parson would have trouble with), I believe he could definitely be persuaded towards a more peaceful solution.

If Parson had merely insulted Ansom personally, I could see him being willing to swallow his pride in order to avoid casualties.

However, Parson's barbs were directed at Ansom's basic worldview and motivation for going to war in the first place: he dismissed royalty as "obsolete" and declared that Stanley's attunement to the Arkenhammer showed him to be Ansom's "superior" in the eyes of the Titans. Ansom thinks that putting an end to those notions is worth fighting for -- if he didn't, he wouldn't be here.

OnDroid

2008-08-05, 01:01 PM

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

Who plays the computer game when you set all players to AI?

As for the War tribunal ( I repeat as was said before ) :
Parson was ordered to win "no matter what" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0033.html). And as we've seen he can't refuse an order. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0019.html) Even if he would want to. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0023.html) So is he really keeping his free will or have just an illusion of free will?

I fear we will see more sad and tragic lessons for Parson. He should have been more Careful what he wished for. But right now there is no peace in this WARgame.

ShinyBrowncoat

2008-08-05, 01:06 PM

On the gripping hand

SteveMB FTW! :smallcool:

Occasional Sage

2008-08-05, 01:15 PM

I agree it has a lot of trappings of a war game. It's like the Creator God of the Erfworld was a gamer geek like Parson and made a world that fit to gaming standards. However, I haven't figured out if Erfworld is really a game or if it is a world that uses gaming terms. When I say that I don't think it's a wargame, I'm saying I don't see the Erf world as a game of skill or chance being played by one or more players.

If it is a game, who's playing? And wouldn't that strip the characters of all meaningful elements of free will?

From the perspective we have of Erfworld, I don't believe it matters. The story that we are reading will be the same, whether the characters are making their own choices or their conversations and thoughts are representative of the decision-making processes of the people rolling the dice. In other words, what we see is our reality; if we can't see it, who cares?

Now, if we were reading a web comic about the players around the table (supposing they exist)... well, I have trouble imagining that I would care enough to read more than a strip or two. But if I did, that perspective would create a very different story for us.

Gamebird

2008-08-05, 01:21 PM

Think about what you're saying. You even mentioned the news. What do we spend 99.99% of our time doing? Things that aren't war. War, conflict, hate, stupidity, strong opinions, these are just the things that make the most interesting stories. And, conflicts are basically never resolved by the actual war itself. Discussions take place before and after the fighting, and the tone of these discussions create the new truth we live by.

Perhaps 99.99% of the time in Erfworld is spent doing things that aren't war. Heck, most of the strips in the comic aren't battle scenes, they're character development, plot or exposition. If Erfworld was really a wargame, then I don't think it would have as many non-wargame elements to it. It's more like a world that has been set up like a game world. It's what my game world does in my head while I'm not relating it to the players: events play out, just like the computer when you set all the players to AI. (good analogy, I like it!)

An excellent argument could be made that it's a role-playing game, but that's not the argument that's been made.

Gamebird

2008-08-05, 01:23 PM

From the perspective we have of Erfworld, I don't believe it matters. The story that we are reading will be the same, whether the characters are making their own choices or their conversations and thoughts are representative of the decision-making processes of the people rolling the dice. In other words, what we see is our reality; if we can't see it, who cares?

Now, if we were reading a web comic about the players around the table (supposing they exist)... well, I have trouble imagining that I would care enough to read more than a strip or two. But if I did, that perspective would create a very different story for us.

True, and I agree.

Your first point brings to mind my feelings on the free will debate in a real world religion. Due to forum rules I'll leave that as is.

fendrin

2008-08-05, 02:16 PM

Wow, so much to talk about... such great conversation... I'll just have to hit the highlights. Warning! Wordy! Spoilered to avoid 'wall of text' phenomenon.

About Perfect Amnesiacs and units as people vs. wargame miniatures:
If you consider units to be non-people, then personality is just an excess bit in the 'popping' process, like flash on a miniature. However, we know that commanders at least have free will (at minimum partial free will) and sentience. Bogroll, Mung and the other minions and non-commanders demonstrate a certain level of personality, however, that indicates that even non-commanders are sentient. Bogroll acted on his own to bake a pie for Parson. olely controlled by Loyalty, he would not have done so, as of course Parson's nutritional and caloric needs would be met at upkeep. Thus Bogroll made that pie for no other reason than that he wanted to. Thus non-commanders must have desires, and finally, they must be sentient. A basic unit has no need for sentience, indeed, it can often be a detriment in a soldier (sentience can lead to such undesireable situations as cowardice or disloyalty). I conclude that personality/sentience is not merely an 'accident' of the popping process, but instead an intrinsic part of Erfworld.

About Erf as a wargame vs. a world that resembles a wargame:
There are many elements of Erf that have no bearing whatsoever on a wargame: The existance of food outside of upkeep (e.g. the feast Ansom offered to Jillian, the pie bogroll baked for Parson), the distinction between male and female (what gender is a chess pawn?), intimate relationships (certainly not needed for procreation), differences in biological factors unrelated to unit abilities (skin tone, eye color, hair color, etc.), et cetera ad nauseam. If Erf was 'just' a wargame, all of these things would be as irrelevant as the personality and sentience of a lowly twoll minion.

About Parson's culpability by not surrendering:
In the last klog Parson pointed out that under normal circumstances, capturing is reserved for only "valuable casters". From Parson's perspective, Ansom is, if nothing else, an embodiment of the status quo of Erfworld. Thus he would have to negotiate for better terms (to include him, and others, such as Sizemore, who Stanley at least considered to be 'low value').

Parson also knows that he is not in a good position to negotiate. Why would Ansom take on the risk of an insurrection from within his own forces when he can take the city with minimal losses? It doesn't make sense. Parson is a skilled strategist and tactician, but not a diplomat.

Furthermore, just an attempt to negotiate could destroy his plan. If Ansom decides that Parson is in a weaker than expected position, he might opt for a straightforward frontal assault instead of splitting his forces.

So what to choose? a slim hope of diplomacy that could lead to him and his friends being croaked, or not negotiating so that he might save them?

The Old Hack

2008-08-05, 02:55 PM

Thanks for the well thought out response. You make some good points.

Thank you. I try. :smallsmile:

While I acknowledge the growth Parson has been undergoing, I believe he has already had quite a few wake up calls, enough to be expected to take better responsibility for his actions. While his first few combat encounters were indeed either indirect or easily rationalized, I feel the most significant moment in this respect was not the death of Misty (with which he had little to no responsibility for), but the death and uncroaking of Jaclyn. At that point, he was exposed to the grisly consequences of combat, yet his later response to Charlie was one of complete disregard.

Hm. Possibly, but I personally read those responses as the semi-terrified kind of bravado I myself would likely use upon speaking to a major player the moment after learning that he had compromised my supposedly secure communications. I feel that a better example of this is how he reacted when Jillian attacked the vulnerable A-dwagon stack. He knew Jillian was an intelligent being, yet not only did he not object in the slightest to the notion of mind control at the time, he also ordered Jillian croaked over Wanda's pleas. (True, he appealed to Stanley for his judgment. But he did not change his own.)

I'm not entirely sure that that's the case, or Parson would not even question if he was under the effects of Loyalty. In this klog (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0094.html), Parson even goes as far as to question whether or not non-Rulers have free will. Remember, for example, when Stanley ordered him to laugh at his jokes or not to speak, orders which Parson was not able to disobey.

Errr, I might have come across too unclear originally. I meant to say that units do have some leeway in interpreting their orders, but that if they stretch the leeway too far, they risk being disbanded. I myself saw this as meaning that a unit might be able to contemplate disobedience or betrayal without immediate consequences, such occurring only at such time when it tried to make either real. Also, there is the fact that a unit may disobey its orders if it believes it to be in its ruler's best interests to do so.

All of this means that 'free will' in Erfworld is an extremely complicated subject (much like in the real world, come to think of it.) Someone with no will of her own would not even be able to think in terms of disobedience or betrayal. To me this seems to indicate that units at least have will enough to think about their own existences, desires and ambitions even to the point of exceeding the roles their rulers have set for them. If nothing else, the very existence of the term 'betrayal' in Erfworld supports that idea.

Believe me, I read you. I still like Parson as a character. Hell, in real life, he could be someone I'd be friends with. But it bothers me that people are criticizing Sizemore for perceived hypocrisy when the person who really holds the cards here is Parson. Parson's getting a pass because we can identify with him the easiest, but he shouldn't. Not by a longshot.

I can't really argue with that. As I said, it's a fair cop. :smallsmile:

In my eyes, when the battle starts and people die, Parson will have already failed this test. But I am always open to the possibility of redemption.

To my mind, flawed heroes working to rise above past mistakes are more interesting anyway. :smallamused:

Nevertheless, it's important to note that Parson was still considering surrender as a viable option. If he believed there was a possibility of it working, then I feel he should be held responsible for not pursuing it.

I largely agree. As Parson himself states, "I think I just want to play this out. If I gave up, I'd always wonder. For some reason, that's a worse idea than getting impaled by a munchkin."

That might be his Duty talking, of course. But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

OnDroid

2008-08-05, 03:53 PM

An excellent argument could be made that it's a role-playing game, but that's not the argument that's been made.

Because of the fact that it IS a turn-based wargame. If the only books worth keeping are battle histories (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html) , what other kind of world could it be? Even with "something like HIGH SCORES". :smalleek:

So in world where only thing that really matters is WAR, could we find and maintain peace? This F(requently)a(sked)q(uestion) of peace did not last. (pun kind of intended )

Poor Erfworlders were given personalities, but not free will ( common units simply "must" obey ... not completly free will for warlords. )

Glome

2008-08-05, 05:29 PM

The Old Hack

2008-08-05, 05:48 PM

Actually, most western armies have comprehensive programs to weed out those psychologically and morally/criminally (the moral issues and a higher likelihood of disobeying orders) unfit for their station. Pacifists usually get waivers and are sometimes punished, let go or reassigned to a term of social service.
That depends greatly on the army and the situation. I would state that even being on guard against the problem does not eliminate it. And in wartime such precautions are all too likely to slacken once the need for new troops becomes strong enough.

More, many of these filters are of such a nature that they cannot do anything about the problem until it has plainly shown itself. I once served in a unit that had an officer who was unfit for command, though thankfully not under his direct authority. It took several incidents before he was finally stripped of command, the last and most severe being seventeen soldiers ending up in the infirmary for weeks due to his incompetence and egomania.

HOLEkevin

2008-08-05, 09:04 PM

Hey, I don't remember who Sizemore is any more, but that was a great page! Totally dramatic and heartfelt! Good job!

Occasional Sage

2008-08-05, 10:35 PM

I largely agree. As Parson himself states, "I think I just want to play this out. If I gave up, I'd always wonder. For some reason, that's a worse idea than getting impaled by a munchkin."

That might be his Duty talking, of course. But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

I... don't think it's mandated. I think Parson actually wants to do something with his life. This is his only real chance to accomplish something, and he wants to know that he isn't the total failure society has tried to label him as.

Hinotori

2008-08-05, 11:03 PM

I should point that if Parson surrenders, that it would end the existence of everyone who wasn't a caster in Gobwin Knob, and possible Parson himself if he made that one of the conditions. Only casters are normally captured because of loyalty issues. And I just don't see how Ansom would agree to such an unreasonable demand that he pays for the upkeep of every living person in Gobwin Knob, not when he feels he that he already has Parson beat.

As far as I know, nowhere in the strip has it mentioned that everyone gets disbanded if one surrenders. The only thing close to what you're talking about is the fact that field units get disbanded if Stanley is croaked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) - which Parson can do nothing about. Even then, the city stays intact, and the units become "neutral." Ansom does not have to pay for their upkeep. Casters are the only units that are captured AFTER a victory. If Surrender terms were negotiated, this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I understand the tactical ramifications of showing your hand by surrendering. Believe me, I'm not usually the type to advocate giving up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2588928#post2588928). That being said, the most important thing to point out as far as responsibility goes is that Parson isn't doing this for anyone other than himself. That point is explicitly clear in the klog. He's doing this to satisfy his curiosity and ego, nothing more. He does care about his friends, but that's secondary. With regard to intent, he's guilty.

As for practicality, I still feel diplomacy, if not surrender, was an avenue that was never explored. The whole conflict has the pungent aroma of needlessness.

On a final note, lest anyone think otherwise, nothing I've said so far is an attack on the comic. I'm calling Parson out, but I also think he's acting completely in accordance with his character. A moral dilemma isn't interesting if your characters never fail.

But if we disallow any form of free will, we also disallow responsibility for anyone save Stanley and Ansom themselves. For some reason, that strikes me as a tremendously repugnant idea.

True that.

OnDroid

2008-08-06, 12:35 AM

As far as I know, nowhere in the strip has it mentioned that everyone gets disbanded if one surrenders. The only thing close to what you're talking about is the fact that field units get disbanded if Stanley is croaked (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) - which Parson can do nothing about. Even then, the city stays intact, and the units become "neutral." Ansom does not have to pay for their upkeep. Casters are the only units that are captured AFTER a victory. If Surrender terms were negotiated, this wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I understand the tactical ramifications of showing your hand by surrendering. Believe me, I'm not usually the type to advocate giving up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2588928#post2588928). That being said, the most important thing to point out as far as responsibility goes is that Parson isn't doing this for anyone other than himself. That point is explicitly clear in the klog. He's doing this to satisfy his curiosity and ego, nothing more. He does care about his friends, but that's secondary. With regard to intent, he's guilty.

As for practicality, I still feel diplomacy, if not surrender, was an avenue that was never explored. The whole conflict has the pungent aroma of needlessness.

Have you noticed, that the RC alliance came to CAPTURE (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0113.html) the town ( even if it turns to neutral ) ... they already have plan to divide the SPOILS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0103.html).

The surrender would mean either reverting to neutral ( and wait for capture ) or outright capturing of the city. So what probably happends to units in neutral city after capture? They are either killed in the assault or disbanded ( unless captured ... and capturing is reserved for casters as said many times ). Even if the city was left as neutral remember that is not as nice as it sounds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html). And someone would come to capture it sooner or later.

Are there some kinds of conflict POINTLESS in WARgame universe? Yes, ALL of them probably. Applying rules from our world to completly different univese is not always possible. Who can be blaming Parson for not changing the whole Erfworld? I understand Sizemore's intentions to change it. He started to study Hippiemancy in search of peace and he had hope that warlord Parson from another universe might change things around. Both Sizemore and Parson got hit with the laws of "the game" ... Parson only doesn't realise it yet. But who can blame him? He was transported to a completly ALIEN reality and it's his 4th day around ... and he learned his lesson about death on his third day. That's a bit tough approach in learning. All he know about Erfworld comes from his knowledge of wargames and his life is at risk. He was forced to become a commander and all he knows about command comes from games. There sure were a LOT of commanders given responsibility like this ... but only time can tell if Parson will learn or utterly fail to understand his "units".

Hinotori

2008-08-06, 01:44 AM

Have you noticed, that the RC alliance came to CAPTURE (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0113.html) the town ( even if it turns to neutral ) ... they already have plan to divide the SPOILS (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0103.html).

Err. Yes. Of course they intend to capture and divide the spoils of the city since it's still hostile. Why wouldn't they? You're assuming they'd do likewise if Parson offered a diplomatic solution, which he hasn't.

I'm not saying they wouldn't, but Parson never even bothered to try, and his reasons for not trying are not motivated by anything other than self-interest.

OnDroid

2008-08-06, 02:52 AM

Err. Yes. Of course they intend to capture and divide the spoils of the city since it's still hostile. Why wouldn't they? You're assuming they'd do likewise if Parson offered a diplomatic solution, which he hasn't.

I'm not saying they wouldn't, but Parson never even bothered to try, and his reasons for not trying are not motivated by anything other than self-interest.

They will seize the initiative even AFTER the city turns neutral. That is the difference.

Unfortunately almost ALL other characters ( except for Sizemore and maybe Vinny ) are motivated by self-interest.

I simply imply that what Parson does are common mistakes that almost anyone would do given the circumstances.

Occasional Sage

2008-08-06, 09:03 AM

Hinotori, your stance seems to be that Parson has a chance to negotiate with or surrender to Ansom without being croaked or the city being captured. This would be because the coalition exists for the destruction of Stanley, who is no longer around, which makes GK irrelevant to the army. Is that a fair summation?

I'd point out that this war has likely been going on a long while; the army has been moving together and the siege units have low move (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0021.html). Not only have lots of units from lots of factions been committed to this (which is expensive for each side), but the drain on units has likely required more military buildup back home, which compounds the expense. Add in incidentals like the purchase of new spells and the whole coalition becomes a huge drain on the resources of at least seven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0096.html) treasuries.

Those sides will want to recoup their losses. Remember that the GK treasury is down to roughly 30% of where it was a few turns ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html); there just isn't likely to be enough left for the coalition to be bought off with cash. Gobwin Knob is the toughest defensive position in the known world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0023.html), and somebody in the coalition will be wanting it as the price of their participation. Pragmatically speaking, Parson just doesn't seem to have the fungible resources to get out of this diplomatically.

SteveMB

2008-08-06, 09:21 AM

I'd point out that this war has likely been going on a long while; the army has been moving together and the siege units have low move (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0021.html). Not only have lots of units from lots of factions been committed to this (which is expensive for each side), but the drain on units has likely required more military buildup back home, which compounds the expense. Add in incidentals like the purchase of new spells and the whole coalition becomes a huge drain on the resources of at least seven (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0096.html) treasuries.

Those sides will want to recoup their losses. Remember that the GK treasury is down to roughly 30% of where it was a few turns ago (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0006.html); there just isn't likely to be enough left for the coalition to be bought off with cash. Gobwin Knob is the toughest defensive position in the known world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0023.html), and somebody in the coalition will be wanting it as the price of their participation. Pragmatically speaking, Parson just doesn't seem to have the fungible resources to get out of this diplomatically.

Good points. Between that and the fact that Parson directly hit Ansom's sore spots with his Thinkagram, I don't think there's any realistic way to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

That said, Hinotori's underlying point seems to be that Parson doesn't want to try to negotiate a surrender, and his stated reason (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) is purely egotistical desire to play this out rather than give up when he might have been able to win. I agree that that's a pretty poor reason to keep fighting, and the best justification I can come up with is that he's already stipulated the more compelling reason (that negotiating a surrender is pretty much hopeless anyway) and doesn't consider it worth dwelling on. It could simply be a bit of rationalizing bravado to avoid facing his own fears.

Occasional Sage

2008-08-06, 10:51 AM

Ego, bravado, and the inability to deal with personal problems? Those don't exist in any gamers I've ever met...

[/unwarranted sarcasm]

Albatross

2008-08-06, 12:44 PM

As for practicality, I still feel diplomacy, if not surrender, was an avenue that was never explored. The whole conflict has the pungent aroma of needlessness.
Do we even know this is possible? As was previously stated, Neutral units (what happens if the leader of a faction is eliminated) are usually butchered wholesale except for useful casters, who may or may not be taken on depending on their usefulness due to their bottomed-out Loyalty rating. Even if it is possible to give another Player (and I prefer to use this term since it is more fitting to a world that is a wargame) one's units, there's no guarantee they would have any other effect other than being at the bottom of the loyalty scale.

We don't even know if surrendering and negotiations are possible in the current situation or within the game world's mechanics. Furthermore, who is he going to surrender to, Ansom? The one who he has driven to bouts of blind rage on more than one occaision while tricking him into doing something foolish at every opportunity? That is, unfortunately, the only person he knows as a leader short of Charles, and that situation would be iffy at best since Charles is supposed to be a dependable mercenary.

---

I would state that even being on guard against the problem does not eliminate it.
No, but show me a problem of this nature (ie: crime) that has been completely and totally eliminated using any sort of policy. What matters is not whether or not such thing will happen (because they will) but the frequency and tendency of such.... as wel as the military's response to such. Most Western ones harshly punish those in their midst who have criminal inclinations or perform clearly wrong acts, exactly as they should.

---

Ego, bravado, and the inability to deal with personal problems? Those don't exist in any gamers I've ever met...
Ego, bravado, and the inability to deal with personal problems? Those don't exist in any sapient beings I've ever met. /sarc off

---

And, now, to defend one of my favorite movies...

Tony Stark isn't allowed to wonder whether there's an element of moral culpability for the weapons he sells to DoD.
Sure he is. It just occurs offscreen and is explained fairly early. "Dad did it." He clearly likes and emulates his father in several ways and carries on the family tradition. It's generally assumed he's worked over any such moral culpability at earlier points in his life, else he wouldn't be there.

All of the villainy in the movie resides with malevolent swarthy foreign men with accents and impenetrable motives (and one duplicitous businessman who loses his boop and literally goes ballistic).
Right. Except that one 'duplicitous businessman' you listed happens to be the primary villain and antogonist of the movie. The BBEG, as it were. Furthermore, the inclusion of the 'malevolent swarthy foreign men' fits in both with current events as well as remaining true to the source material. Observe the symbol on their vehicles and crates, that of ten interlocking circles forming a larger circle. That's the insignia of the Ten Rings, the organization created by the Mandarin, Iron Man's chief nemesis. This is further supported when you see the 'lead' malevolent foreign man twirling that oversized ring on his finger... it's one of the Mandargin's ten rings of power, most likely the one that allows him to see through a willing servant's eyes (if it had been, say, the one that fires ice rays or disintegration beams, it likely would have seen direct use). Their motives aren't impenetrable--they are doing the Mandarin's will, and the intrusion of Stark Industries and its representative's betrayal of the Ten Rings. This sets up future conflict between Iron Man and Mandarin... the Mandarin knows Stark Industries betrayed his minions, and will blame it on Tony. No doubt, in the intervening time between the current Iron Man movies and the sequel, the Mandarin will be preparing for conflict against an unsuspecting Stark. Just as the eventual appearance of War Machine was hinted at with little subtlety, so is the groundwork set down for the next movie.

[quote=Pclips]But it definitely squandered an opportunity to give Tony a valid moral crisis[/quote
I fail to see this. He had numerous moral crises in the movie about whether or not to share the technology he had developed. Even when it came out that the 'bad guys' (Ten Rings) were getting ahold of his weapons, he didn't arrange for some special way to give it to the DoD alone... he cut weapons production entirely, across the board, rather than put anyone at risk... while he risked putting one of the biggest companies in the (fictional) world into bankruptcy. He had to rethink everything. Furthermore, this is true to the source material as well, as Stark Industries was producing technologies for SHIELD and ceased for a similar reason (although, of course, in the movie SHIELD was still in un-acryonym'd form).

Fortunately, in your case, you don't have any 'source material' to have to remain true to, since you are, in fact, the source.

The Old Hack

2008-08-06, 02:55 PM

No, but show me a problem of this nature (ie: crime) that has been completely and totally eliminated using any sort of policy. What matters is not whether or not such thing will happen (because they will) but the frequency and tendency of such.... as wel as the military's response to such. Most Western ones harshly punish those in their midst who have criminal inclinations or perform clearly wrong acts, exactly as they should.

Err, the original issue was whether it would be realistic to claim that soldiers in the real world experience that they are placed in a role they are expected to fill whether they want to or not, regardless whether they are fit for it, and no-one caring if they are not. I still feel that this may be said to be the case. Of course someone may be extremely unfit for a position and in that case certainly should be removed from it, and the best armies do have fairly good safeguards against such situations. Even so, in all too many cases the mismatch may not be that obvious, in which case the response is all too often to use a hammer to make the square peg fit in a round hole.

Kindle

2008-08-06, 03:55 PM

Not sure we can fault Sizemore for being a hypocrite. Under Erfworld rules, you either obey orders or risk death via disbandment. At best, it seems like we could "fault" Sizemore for not having the conviction to die for his principles - but unless you've been in a similar situation it's hard to throw the first stone, ya know?

Speculation:

I'm wondering though, if being forced into a combat role is lowering Sizemore's loyalty rating... lowering it enough so that when the time comes to initiate Parson's plan, Sizemore simply chooses to defect rather than kill Jetstone's tunnel invaders. Such an act might force Parson to realize the situation is now 100% completely unwinnable and force him to try and surender to Jetstone, thereby preventing casualties on both sides. Looks like win-win for Sizemore there - IF Ansom is still even willing to consider a surrender at this point.

SteveMB

2008-08-06, 04:03 PM

Do we even know this is possible? As was previously stated, Neutral units (what happens if the leader of a faction is eliminated) are usually butchered wholesale except for useful casters, who may or may not be taken on depending on their usefulness due to their bottomed-out Loyalty rating.

Specifically, Parson notes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) that "turned and captured units have a notoriously low loyalty to their new side, unless you put a spell on them".

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html)) is not under a loyalty spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0105.html) even more interesting. I'd been interpreting Jillian's refusal to believe that as a rationalization that makes Wanda not really responsible for her actions, but it may also be a perfectly rational assumption that an ruler who bothered to capture valuable enemy units would take such precautions.

Kindle

2008-08-06, 04:13 PM

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit) is not under a loyalty spell even more interesting.

More speculation:
Seems to me that Wanda betrayed Faq to Stanley. Not sure how or why, but it fits. It would take someone on the inside to know how to get to Faq, and when their defense force was out on a mission and unable to defend. Plus, the fact that Wanda stayed with Stanley with no loyalty spell indicates that she joined his side willingly, and not on a "join-us-or-die" sort of basis.

Zolem

2008-08-06, 06:22 PM

Because of the fact that it IS a turn-based wargame. If the only books worth keeping are battle histories (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html) , what other kind of world could it be? Even with "something like HIGH SCORES". :smalleek:

Parson was looking up the history of warfare, not all of history or other lore. There may be a lot of rules for combat, but look at D&D, half the players handbook is about combat, yet it involves a lot more than that. Combat rules by necesity will be extensive and detailed. That doesn't mean that nothing else exists.

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html)) is not under a loyalty spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0105.html) even more interesting.

In the profiles, it notes that she is the last of the Croatan Tribe. If she was from Faq, she'd be from the same tribe as the other survivors (the other barbarians). As such, I think she might have been a capture by Faq (there is no mention of her poping there) and she betrayed it to Stanly in revenge.

brob

2008-08-06, 07:23 PM

I fail to see this. He had numerous moral crises in the movie about whether or not to share the technology he had developed. Even when it came out that the 'bad guys' (Ten Rings) were getting ahold of his weapons, he didn't arrange for some special way to give it to the DoD alone... he cut weapons production entirely

Not to suck up to the proprietor too much (except... "omigod!omigod!omigod! erfworld is great!" ok, done), but I think you're making Rob's point. On screen at least, Tony stops producing weapons because he sees them used by "bad people". I agree with your reading that his character might have gone through some kind of moral development off screen, (perhaps the shock of seeing his weapons used on "good guys" makes him think about the reality of war)... but it takes a bit of generous viewing. I think Rob's right that the filmmakers probably selected between having that really important character movement on screen, or having the fancy planes and tanks on screen.

SteveMB

2008-08-06, 08:11 PM

Parson was looking up the history of warfare, not all of history or other lore. There may be a lot of rules for combat, but look at D&D, half the players handbook is about combat, yet it involves a lot more than that. Combat rules by necesity will be extensive and detailed. That doesn't mean that nothing else exists.
Parson said (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0048.html) "These books are mostly battle histories." That sounds like he was describing the library generally, not the specific books he was reading (though it's possible that he was referring particularly to the books Wanda pointed out to him). If so, and there isn't much if anything in the way of cultural writing in Erfworld, it sounds rather dark (especially to creative people, such as the authors... :smalleek:).

Eugenitor

2008-08-06, 08:44 PM

But as before, the story is in part about Parson's journey and of how heroes deal with the consequences of their actions. Parson may be morally culpable but the true test is how he deals with it.

What if he gets a big taste and finds that he, in fact, does like it?

The seeds are there. Parson likes playing the bad guys. Stanley demanded a warlord who kills for fun. Suppose, for a moment, that instead of learning to treat Erfworld units like real people, he learns to treat the ostensibly real people around him like wargame units? (He'll never show this, of course- unlike Stanley, he'll do what he must in order to retain loyalty and inspire confidence. Which is kinda what he's trying to do now.)

Additionally, Erfworld has a leveling-up system. What if Parson becomes level 5, or maybe level 7, by the time all is said and done? In most wargames (Warcraft 3 springs to mind), human attributes are raised, significantly, by the slaughter of other beings. What if Parson goes in looking like, well, Parson, and comes out of it with even MORE intelligence and a physique resembling Arnold Schwarzenegger?

And, furthermore, what if he finds himself needing to PERSONALLY lead a specific attack, runs a Marbit or two through with that shiny new sword of his, and finds that he really doesn't care? What if a Peep tries to NYAAAARM him and he grabs its jaws and tears it open something like this (http://www.lfgcomic.com/page/153)?

I'm LOLing that the arguments on this board USED to be "omg Parson can become GOD!" (through trickery, exploits, etc) What if he actually DOES, through sheer tactical prowess, mercilessness, and force of will?

ishnar

2008-08-06, 10:41 PM

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

Zolem

2008-08-06, 11:22 PM

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

True, a warmonger in a peace nation would hate it. But it still doesn't explain the tribe thing.

Jeivar

2008-08-07, 06:55 AM

Wanda didn't need to betray FAQ. She could have been mistreated and seen Stanley as some kind of savior.

Just pointing out that that line of speculation has more than one answer.

I guess it's POSSIBLE, but from what we've seen of Wanda's personality so far I'm pretty sure she ultimately serves no one but herself. I think her overall plan was/is to acquire the arkenhammer and set up her own side with Jillian as a figurehead. I just don't think someone of her devious intelligence could ever hold any real respect or appreciation for an idiotic cretin like Stanley. Just my five cent.

Friendly Fiend

2008-08-07, 09:06 AM

Concepts that were already in play in Erf, without Parson. We saw that in the early strips.

In non-conflict situations, yes. As in many fantasy war games, strategy however focused on using each piece to its best advantage according to its predetermined strengths and weaknesses. Parsons movement of Misty, Sizemore, and even Bogroll has changed their characters, and perhaps Erfworld itself significantly.

I still haven't seen any proof of this. In fact, one of the first strips (might have been the first, I'm too lazy to check) showed the balance of power in the world being upset by the unintentional and accidental dropping of a gemstone into someone's territory. Perhaps without that gemstone, the world would never have spawned the waves of warfare that it did which have culminated in the current Battle for Gobwin Knob. So I am left thinking that the Titans intended the world to be in balance and NOT a wargame, NOT fighting each other. Or maybe they intended all fights to end in stalemate. I don't know, but the dropping of that gem is what we're told causes the imbalance of power which then causes one side to have an advantage over the others.

Link: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0001.html

You may be taking that thought a little far, while the gemstone could be interpreted as a kind of accidental Tree of Knowledge, it seems to me that the incident speaks more about the small ways that Erfworld is changed that lead to huge consequences. Probably having something to do with the way all roads indirectly lead back to Parson, and the way minute changes in a (possibly imaginary, though I give the authors more credit then expecting them to end on a Saint Elmo's Fire kinda note) world lead to very big changes in Parsons character.

Second, the text states that because of the gem the marbits could afford an extra squad of axemen, either way they're still popping axemen. Rather, it shows this gigantic gem, this artifact of the creators, was used specifically and explicitly for war.

How many national treasures have real world nations sacrificed for war?

dr pepper

2008-08-08, 01:35 AM

The last of the great coalition wars among the hellanic powers gave rise to a great scandal. The rulers of the district of Phokis, which was the guardian of Delphi, were supposedly found to have sold some of the treasures if the temple to pay for their army. Since the treasures were gifts to Apollo by grateful supplicants, and the site itself was considered part of the heritage of all Greece, it was completely out of bounds to do that, even if your fellow greeks were trying to kill you. This was Phillip's opening. He was able to mute the reaction to bringing his army south by claiming he was only there to punish the phokians for their sacrilege.

pclips

2008-08-08, 08:29 AM

Hey before this thread passes into antiquity, I just wanted to thank everybody for making it one of the most intelligent and interesting discussions we've ever had here.

And I wanted to say that Albatross raised some pretty valid points where my critique of Iron Man is concerned. I suppose that not being as familiar with the original comics as I should have been (I had to ask my comics reading friends why there were Hungarian speakers in the bunch), I didn't consider the burden of staying true to the source.

I still think the movie fell prey to the white/black hats school of moral lessons, but now I can blame the comic books for that. :smallwink:

Aquillion

2008-08-08, 01:04 PM

Specifically, Parson notes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0110.html) that "turned and captured units have a notoriously low loyalty to their new side, unless you put a spell on them".

That makes the question of why Wanda (originally a Faq unit (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0092.html)) is not under a loyalty spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0105.html) even more interesting. I'd been interpreting Jillian's refusal to believe that as a rationalization that makes Wanda not really responsible for her actions, but it may also be a perfectly rational assumption that an ruler who bothered to capture valuable enemy units would take such precautions.
I noticed something else on that page I didn't bring up before:

Jillian says "That's crap. She'd never follow that monster out of her own free will."

Free will?

I don't know whether that's sheltered innocence on Jillian's part (it simply hasn't occurred to her that normally, nobody except royalty and faction leaders actually has free will in her world) or something else (maybe she assumes or realizes Wanda would potentially have more free will as a captured caster.)

Either way, though, it's telling.