Erfworld 144 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 131

The thing is, is that Charlie is the victor here, not Ansom and not Parson.

Parson is weaker than ever, the Coalition is broken, Ansom is defeated and 2 Artifacts along with 'The Perfect Warlord(tm)' are sitting in an almost defeated armies hands.

When Charlie said he was paid to make it a No-Lose situation, he didn't say for WHO. He could be reffering to himself as Parson is bound to give him 9 more equations so for 9 turns at LEAST he can know exactly what to bring to win. Stanely returning or not makes no difference.

Stanley returns, Charlie retreats, Coalition is broken, Charlie spends an equation "How many Archons do I need to defeat you" Parson is bound to tell the truth, next turn, those Archons appear, destroy Gobwin Knob and capture 2 Arkentools, a Mathmancy artifact, a Perfect Warlord(tm), and Parson may request the casters be spared to.

He also recieved huge sums of cash from Ansom when he signed the contract. Remember when he 'Gave them an Offer they couldn't accept' and then he amended that offer, something that would put the hurt on Ansom.

It is a No-Lose situation. For Charlie. He even KNOWS how Parson acts now so he wont fall for the same tricks Ansom did.

When someone is trying to kill, enslave or mutilate you (closest thing to tamper with brain) you have every right to kill them with anything that doesn't endanger bystanders. Deception, poison, flamethrowers, chemical gas. All valid. That is exactly what Ansom is trying (as far as Parson knows), all to hurt Stanley. Ansom is commiting genocide.

I suspect regeneration is something like heals one every unit of real time, or heals to full at the end/start of every turn. Possibly with some resistance to death or incapacitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoctorJest

The morale hit to Ansom's tumble may well turn things to GKs favor in a big way, not even counting the tactical advantage of aquiring an artifact and/or capturing or croaking their leader (thus eliminating his leadership + artifact bonuses).

---

Or the opposite. If they leave GK it will be a question of time for Parson to go after them, and after this battle they don't want that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teratorn

Or the opposite. If they leave GK it will be a question of time for Parson to go after them, and after this battle they don't want that.

---

One was quite willing to leave after the walls looked impossible, it's ANSOM Parson wants, the other leaders don't have Arkentools as far as we know, they only came together because Ansom was there to lead, without him they have nothing and WILL break apart.

Seeing your commander go DOWN and so easilly would make you want to retreat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Yeah, sure... I wasn't really meaning to get into the full morality of that

(Although it's a bit more complicated, since -- magical obligation aside -- it isn't at all clear why Parson shouldn't have negotiated a surrender that saved everyone in the city. It's not like we've seen any indication that Stanley's cause is really worth fighting or dying for, and the only thing he's done to give Parson an 'obligation' to him is pull him out of his universe and plop a magical enslaving spell on him. That wouldn't be much of an obligation in my book if I could get around it -- although, of course, we have no idea if Parson can. More seriously -- and more damningly -- Parson himself, reflecting on the issue, ultimately decides that his real reason is because he's a gamer and doesn't want to lose to a little munchkin.)

---

From what we know of the rules of Erf, Parson can't possibly make a surrender deal which saves everyone in the city. The only units we've seen survive the fall of their capitol city have been heirs (Jillian) and Casters. And possibly the troops with Jillian who she was able to support on her own purse until mercenary money started flowing in. The rank and file are disbanded, and although this can have varying meanings the implications in game terms is that they vanish due to a lack of support, similar to how a dead body vanishes the morning of the next turn or how Stanley threatened Parson with disbanding him with a thought.

So here is the situation Parson is in, and I believe that this is how he must perceive it:

1) If he surrenders he is going to live, turned over to Charlie along with his mathamancy artifact. But he'll have betrayed Stanley, and every member of GK who is not either the heir or a caster. He'll literally be responsible for the deaths of a few hundred people/gobwins/twolls/etc who will simply disband. This includes Bogroll, who Parson likes.
2) If he just walks away at some point he'll no longer be supported. This will likely cause his death. It might cause him to return home, but it's a huge risk to gamble with a Sicilian when death is on the line.
3) If he fights he might lose. In which case he knows that Charlie wants him alive. Pretty decent bet that he'll live, as long as his perceived value alive is greater than any convenience of croaking him.
4) If he fights and wins? Status quo, he's still working for Stanley the Tool, but he's supported and amongst the friends he's made. And he'll have made a name for himself, and even Stanley will have to give him some extra slack in any future matters of generalship. And, this is the very scenario he had spent five months developing, and he likes playing the bad guys.

I don't think any option but 4 is reasonable for our protagonist. This is the game he designed, he's playing the side he likes to play, and it's the fulfillment of his deepest real life fantasy: To enter into a fantasy realm where he can both escape his listless real world existence and do the thing he loves the most: Strategy, tactics, logistics, systems, worlds. It's his dream come true, you can't expect him to give up any chance to continue the dream, even if it involves a bit of treachery now and again. That's what gamers do, after all. Have you ever played Diplomacy? Or Civilization? :smallamused:

Lastly, you can't really put the magical obligation aside, as Wanda stated that if he did not obey Stanley it would kill (or was it disband?) him. Edit: I looked it up. She said "end your existence entirely". That's worse than being dead, perhaps. We don't know the strength of that obligation, and from his musing it appears as though Parson doesn't either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquillion

But the important part is, anything that could possibly justify killing that many people would also justify stabbing Ansom in the back during a parley. That much should be obvious. To suggest that violating a parley carries more moral weight than killing three thousand people is absurd.

---

I'm not sure I follow you. First off, your timing is backwards. The Jetstone troops were dead before the parley was called for. Parson never had a chance to violate a parley and save those lives, so the point is moot.

Second, I never suggested that violating a parley carries any moral weight. I simply said that self defense was not murder. And that Parson was a gamer, and to a gamer winning was everything and that even though the "reality" of the people around him may have tempered that position, his first instincts are still gamers instincts: Win at any cost.

Rob & Jamie,
If you follow these threads at all...

This comic was awesome. It's good to build towards something and it's fine if we saw this coming.

Parson has been put in such a "no-win" situation that, teasing his partial successes and brilliant plans which have all been foiled by Charlie so far has really built up the tension.

1 - Ansom has many times the forces he would have needed to take Gobwin Knob.

2 - Parson would have thwarted Ansom several times if not for Archon intervention.

3 - We've been teased and teased about the Arkenpliers.

I know you guys are working hard. I'm a fan, I'm going to buy your book. If we JUST had the book, we could read it much more quickly.

I know all that.

But remember, from our side, we've been waiting for this conclusion for AGES.

PLEASE do not have some god from above descent on ropes to save Ansom this time... please, please, I'm begging you, give us some satisfying resolution. There are PLENTY of seeds for the next book's conflict.

Charlie has a huge advantage in future wars.

Jillian would want to avenge Ansom from Wanda.

Parson would be proven but still having to work for TOOL.

(I don't see much conflict if Parson goes to work for Charlie... that's like Luke Skywalker going to work for Darth Vader and the Emperor... kind of "auto-win")


PLEASE give us the amazing, improbable, underdog victory.

It's already been teased that Parson has "secret allies in the Coalition" so, Charlie can seem like a traitor to Jetstone and the result can be a playing field which actually poses challenge to ALL involved.

Thanks for the great work guys. Please... no more teasing... I feel like I'm at the friggin' Jr. High Prom.

You would hope that the fall would kill Ansom, and if not, a half tonn twoll landing on him ought to settle things (although it might be a bit of an anticlimax to not see him die by the hand of Stanley or Parson).

So who will have the pliers next turn? Will it be Wanda + Pliers + Dance Fighting + Uncroaked army storming the leaderless coalition and slaughtering them? Will it be left to a standoff between Gobwin Knob and the Archons, broken by the arrival of the Tool?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Either you have a good reason for fighting or you don't. If you have a good enough reason to stab a man in the chest, then you have a good enough reason to stab him in the back, or during a parley, or with a poisoned blade, or whatever else the hell it takes. If you don't have a good enough reason to do anything like that, then murdering him honorably isn't going to make it any better.

---

Where this argument breaks down is when nation-states are involved. Assassination is a very different thing than a legal execution, and I'm not sure that stepping down to an individual level prevents hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opal Tide

Long time reader, first time poster

---

Welcome!

Nice little touch I just noticed in panel 5: Ansom's hand is actually stopped short of grasping the sword scabbard due to the greater thickness/bulk of Bogroll's club -- this is what apparently breaks the veil from Ansom's point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrm2

(I don't see much conflict if Parson goes to work for Charlie... that's like Luke Skywalker going to work for Darth Vader and the Emperor... kind of "auto-win")

---

Actually, one of the most interesting storylines in the Star Wars franchise is when Darth Sidious revived and forced Luke to the dark side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillyJimBoBob

Second, I never suggested that violating a parley carries any moral weight. I simply said that self defense was not murder. And that Parson was a gamer, and to a gamer winning was everything and that even though the "reality" of the people around him may have tempered that position, his first instincts are still gamers instincts: Win at any cost.

---

What I mean is, that's the view I was replying to with my earlier post. I wasn't saying that Parson was necessarily monstrous for killing three-thousand people, only that I didn't really see the reasoning behind giving him a pass (for whatever reason) on that, then blaming him for attacking during a parley.

Obviously killing that many people is more serious than breaking a parley; anything that justifies (or eliminates Parson's moral culpability for) that much killing would justify stabbing Ansom in the back, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Occasional Sage

Where this argument breaks down is when nation-states are involved. Assassination is a very different thing than a legal execution, and I'm not sure that stepping down to an individual level prevents hypocrisy.

---

That's different. Legal execution carries different justifications and a whole different reasoning than assassinating someone, since the situation is so different.

Whatever we determine they are, though (self-defense, mental compulsion, whatever), Parson's justifications and reasons for killing those three-thousand people and (proverbially) stabbing Ansom in the back during parley are fundamentally the same.

Have we established how Erf world society works? We know there are nobles, soldiers and animals trained for war, but is there anything else? Money just seems to pop out of the aether (as does food and cleaning). There is mention of farms and mines by Jillian, but no mention of peasants or artisans. The closest thing we have seen to a non-military person is the marbit miner in the first strip. Everything else has been soldiers, casters or nobles.

If that is the case that the only sentient life in Erfworld directly deal with warfare and that by surrendering Parson would have doomed most of his units to disbanding (however that works), his moral obligation is to keeping his units alive since there are no civilians to defend. The only reason I can think of for surrendering in such a world was if then nobles on the losing side were preserved in some way. We have already seen how Ansom views the world, so it would not be much of a stretch to see nobles as more than willing to obliterate the existence of non-nobles to save their own skins.

Given the option between disbanding or going down with a fight, I would imagine most units would go down with a fight. However, do to the command and societal structure, that is not their choice to make. Parson being a special exception to the rule seems to me to preclude him from ever surrendering, so he isn't losing future bargaining power by Bogrolling Ansom. Given the choice of surviving now and holding this tactic out for a later time, survival should be the main driver (as previoudly mentioned).

Is Bogroll a warlord? I don't believe so. Is Maggie currently leading him or is he in a stack by himself in a zone by himself?

Would this then be a situation where the rules required that Bogroll auto-attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decius

This is a shining application of The Art of War: Let the enemy's complacency cause them to accept a simple ruse at fake value.

---

I quite agree. This is also how Parson manage to play Ansom and Charlie, both, in this single Bogroll Event. :smalltongue: Then, as RCC and GK have continued to whittle each other down, while Charlie makes money off both of them, he has become utterly confident of victory. This is also probably based on the manthimancy calculation he bought from Parson a while ago.

Several people have already pointed out that if Parson had communicated with Ansom directly, the latter may have suspected a trap. But what the communication coming through Charlie, and Ansom thinking is already won, he let his guard down. Again. It doesn't matter if Charlie stuck to the letter of his agreement. If Anson survives this, he is not going to be happy with Charlie. He may even tell Charlie to go home, weakening RCC further.

Brilliant, simply, brilliant.

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please remember that discussions or real world politics or religion are not permitted on this forum, even when they intersect with allowed topics like comics or gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Lampert

Not true. I said NOTHING about the comic. There are any number of people making GLOBAL statements that if it's worth killing someone it's worth killing them at a parley. Or that if you're defending your kingdom anything goes. Or that honor is just a way to put a gloss on killing.

And none of them are limiting it to this situation.

Thinking that killing during parleys is fine leads to EVERY little dispute over fishing rights in the middle of nowhere being completely impossible to settle short of genocide.

This is EVIL! Flat out wrong and evil. That attitude, if held by actual governments in the actual world, would have resulted in the destruction of all human life at many times in the 20th century.

Thankfully, REAL governments, of real people, are well aware that killing people on the battlefield has a different set of standards than killing people at other times, and that a truce is one of the "other times".

DougL

---

The point I was making is that Ansom has come to take Parson prisoner and erase every other being in GK from existence.
Essentially, Ansom is merely offering to make the genocide *painless* in exchange for fewer RCC casualties.
"Just lay down and accept the death of everyone you know, because we're winning and it doesn't look like you have any chance, kay?"

The only way for this battle to end WITHOUT that happening is for the RCC to fail.

Attacking during parley might lead to genocide against GK in the future, but not attacking will DEFINITELY lead to genocide immediately. The choice is obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanpg71

Is Bogroll a warlord? I don't believe so. Is Maggie currently leading him or is he in a stack by himself in a zone by himself?

Would this then be a situation where the rules required that Bogroll auto-attack?

---

He did attack. Apparently, brief incidental actions prior to an auto-attack are allowed.

Is the twoll a warlord? It's possible. It's also possible he was promoted specifically for this purpose and we just didn't see it.

I saw this coming. Just saying.

Of course Charlie wins anyway. That was the point of his last conversation. If he didn't win with this outcome, then perhaps he would have advised Ansom to be far more careful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveMB

He did attack. Apparently, brief incidental actions prior to an auto-attack are allowed.

---

Yup. I was just wondering if Bogroll attacked because the rules required him to - or if he attacked because Parson ordered him to.

It subtly affects the morality discussion above making the attack more of a defensive action like leaving a land mine and less of an offensive one.

Charlie is not a royal, and royals like to gang up on non royals. Charlie has make offer they can't accept, then extra charged a desperate Anson... weaker royals means less future threat from them.

Interesting, if not foreshadowed so much, but it's still a large plot advancement.
"Hamstaaaaaaahrr!"

You guys talking about lame-ass morals need to quit before you ruin it for for the rest of us. Seriously, stop it. Haven't any of you seen Spaceballs? Good is dumb. Is Parson the only one who gets that?

Not me, I play my Paladin the same way 'Banjou Haran' is done.

Put simply the party was once captured by an evil overlord who threatened to kill the whole party if the Pally did not submit. His counter offer was the Overlord let them go or he would kill the party himself and then kill the Overlord.

The DM said that would make him fall but the Thief (played by my cousin) pointed out the party had made the decision that rather than be captured they would prefer to be killed by the remainder of the party to unhinder them (The LE Necro also wanted to raise their corpses but the CG Fighter... well he didn't take to kindly to the suggestion)

The Necro then mentioned that the Pally had made the decision in his back story (the Necro is a prisoner and the Pally was his ward, making asure under orders to stop the Necro from going from LE to completely evil) and that after having made it, he had simply killed the enemies who had held his friend hostage, evicerated them, had a mage burn and electrocute their remains, then have his god purify the Ashes.

The Overlord was so terrified at that point he let the party go. Then he tried to shoot the Paladin in the back and got a face full of Fireball for it.

We all had a mixed party (various alignments and race and class, we found a way to make it work) Good times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Lampert

Not true. I said NOTHING about the comic. There are any number of people making GLOBAL statements that if it's worth killing someone it's worth killing them at a parley. Or that if you're defending your kingdom anything goes. Or that honor is just a way to put a gloss on killing.

And none of them are limiting it to this situation.

Thinking that killing during parleys is fine leads to EVERY little dispute over fishing rights in the middle of nowhere being completely impossible to settle short of genocide.
DougL

---

I assert that any little dispute that warrants killing people isn't a little dispute. There are things that are not worth fighting over that get fought over anyway. The point of peacetime politics is to not go to war over things that aren't worth going to war over.

As a student of military science and a veteran, I agree that war is an extension of the political process by other means. Every single action taken by a government rests on one of two points of authority: Consent of the governed, or the threat of force. It's when politicians abuse the 'threat of force' in international dealings that we end up with situations. {List of situations proactively self-scrubbed}

For further reading, I recommend Alfred Thayer Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power on History, as well as most of the works of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pendell

It means that there are certain things both sides understand are simply Not Done. There is no legitimate reason, for example, to murder prisoners. Or to blow up a coffee shop filled entirely with noncombatants.

---

I can think of at least one good reason for both of those: The prisoners have been convicted by a justice system of a capital crime; The coffee shop is being used to store war supplies such as weapons and ammunition.

So long as the weapons and ammo are the targets of the strike, and no steps are taken for the purpose of inflicting civilian casualties, collateral damage (unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action) will occur, and is not immoral per se.



In this case, Bogroll is attacking a military target (there are no civilians in the world) and Parson is burning through his resources at an alarming rate: He may have just lost the ability to ever parley again. Permanently.

The only reason this might be immoral is that he is wasting the lives of his men. Parson has already decided that he is willing to spend almost every life in GK if there is a chance that they could turn the invasion. (Possibly not including the casters or his own, since he mentioned an escape path to the magic kingdom)

Given that, the only loss would be in a future engagement, where Parson's inability to be taken seriously might result in warfare where terms could have been arranged. More likely, any future request to parley will involve more stringent terms to prevent a repeat. (You come here, alone, unarmed, to talk to my second and a stack of heavies.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fangthane

3. I don't think Parson is a motie.

---

Hmm. The Slacker subspecies. Color: mustard fur, salmon belly, tiny black eyes. In this subspecies, it is the legs that are vestigial, being reduced to a single joint, and a wide flat foot capable of gripping the edge of a board. The ankles can fold forward while the hipls fold back, allowing the pear shaped, flat bottomed torso to sit directly on the feet, no chair needed. The skilled arms have wide spreading prehensile fingers with hard pointed tips for operating controllers and keyboards The strong arm is extra long with long prehensile sucker tipped fingers that can reach across a living room to grab snacks. The fourth arm has a soft palm and a strong grip and is just long enough to reach down and handle the breeding urge. This subspecies only thrives during the crest of a cycle. They are efficient at converting marginal foodstuffs into rich layers of fat, which is then available to nurish the members of other subspecies when the collapse comes.

Quote:

---

4. Insofar as Parson's action in the false surrender is unconscionable, the sword is his excuse, in that the deception may well be an action he wouldn't have considered (or may not have implemented) without the Ruthlessness it provides.

---

Heh. Supposedly some samurai would insist they were really pacifists committed to buddhist principles-- it was their swords that did the killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teratorn

Or the opposite. If they leave GK it will be a question of time for Parson to go after them, and after this battle they don't want that.

---

um... what?

I am glad that we are seeing more of Parson's ruthlessness.

As for this morality stuff: Parson is a gamer and right now he's a unit in a game. Sure, we're allowed to apply real-world morals to a game if we want to, but should we? Especially in a game that deals almost exclusively with warfare?

I guess since no one's said it yet: "Pride goeth before a fall." Followed, in this case, by a spectacular splat.

Honor? What's this honor stuff? Oh, yeah, it's that with which the victor needs none of or can manufacture ex post facto.

Morals? Is that what people have been arguing about? Maybe I need to go away for longer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onmi

One was quite willing to leave after the walls looked impossible, it's ANSOM Parson wants, the other leaders don't have Arkentools as far as we know, they only came together because Ansom was there to lead, without him they have nothing and WILL break apart.

Seeing your commander go DOWN and so easilly would make you want to retreat

---

They've already wanted to quit more than once. "I'm calling my capital. The Sofa King is Sofa-King finished here!"

One said outright that they don't even trust Ansom anymore , and the conversation previously between the two leaders who got crap-golemed suggested outright that it was Ansom alone that made the coalition stick together and their faith in him is already fading fast.

The RCC is already demoralized, they've incurred much heavier losses than they anticipated, they're getting fed up with Ansom, and we've seen them squabble amongst themselves before. If Ansom goes down and Parson gets the pliers, it will definitely be enough to send at least a good chunk of the RCC packing up saying "we didn't sign up for this".

This was Parson's plan: reduce the enemy's multipliers (by capturing Ansom and his Artifact as well as crapping the leaders), and make them unable or unwilling to take the garrison.

If Ansom goes down, it will NOT bode well for the RCC. That seems pretty well beyond question to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graymayre

Do we have proof that bogroll can even be killed? With regeneration, depending on how it is rolled, he could potentially be immune to death by damage.

---

In the old "Master of Magic" game, units with Regen could be killed by mere violence, but unless the army (stack) they were deployed with was completely defeated in combat, they would heal back fully from 0 HP at end of each combat. This made taking Hydra-infested Chaos nodes only barely less painful than taking out Sorcery nodes with multiple Sky Drakes.

The high cost of Troll troops made them almost worthwhile, but I preferred Draconian Air Ship navy and Doom Drake cavalry, and strongly preferred Dark Elf Nightmare fantastic cavalry (because Dark Elves were most useful overall).